HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2023 0118 CCSA REG ITEM 09BCITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of January 18, 2023
ACTION APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE THE
PRESENTATION AND PROVIDED
CONFIRMATION THAT THE DRAFT LAND
USE AND HOUSING ELEMENTS ADDRESS
THE COMMUNITY'S FUTURE NEEDS.
BY A. Hurtado.
B.Consider Presentation on the 2050 General Plan Land Use and Housing
Elements. Staff Recommendation: Receive presentation and provide
confirmation that Draft Land Use and Housing Elements address the
community’s future needs. (Staff: Doug Spondello, Deputy Community
Development Director)
Item: 9.B.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Doug Spondello, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director
DATE: 01/18/2023 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Presentation on the 2050 General Plan Land Use and
Housing Elements
OVERVIEW
On January 15, 2020, the City Council initiated a comprehensive update to the City’s
General Plan and an associated Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The
General Plan establishes a community vision of the City through the year 2050 and
identifies the specific goals, policies, and programs that are necessary to achieve the
vision. 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 have included significant and
meaningful input from the community.
2050 General Plan Vision Statement
The General Plan is guided by a Vision Statement, which describes the community’s
intention for Moorpark in 2050. All recommendations, goals, policies, and programs in
the General Plan are designed to align with the values outlined by the Vision Statement.
On February 3, 2021, the City Council confirmed the following Vision Statement which
was developed through significant community outreach and input from the General Plan
Advisory Committee and Planning Commission.
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.
Item: 9.B.
18
Honorable City Council
01/18/2023 Regular Meeting
Page 2
The Land Use Element
The Land Use Element (Attachment 1) identifies the permitted uses of land for housing,
business, industry, open space, and recreation within the City and outlines the density
and intensity of these uses. While the Land Use Plan outlines the general type and nature
of development at a high-level the Zoning Code, which implements the Land Use Plan,
will provide specific standards for building height, setbacks, parking, and other
requirements.
The Land Use Plan was developed following significant community outreach. This began
with identification of “opportunity sites” or locations in the community which may
experience change between today and 2050. From there, the General Plan Advisory
Committee (GPAC) and community submitted images of development types that they
would like to see in Moorpark. These recommendations were confirmed by the GPAC
and resulted in land use recommendations for the opportunity sites. The GPAC and
community identified the preferred land use designations for properties within Moorpark
over several meetings, workshops and online activities. The resulting Preferred Land
Use Plan was then confirmed by the GPAC, Planning Commission, and City Council.
Through this process, the Land Use Plan supports and reflects the vision statement and
values of the community.
The Land Use Element describes the goals, policies, and programs necessary to guide
the City’s development towards the Vision Statement. The General Plan also
summarizes the public outreach that led to these recommendations. The existing Land
Use Element has been problematic, as nearly every major development project
undertaken within the past 20+ years has required approval of an amendment to change
the land use. This suggests that the existing Land Use Element is not aligned with the
community’s desires nor economics associated with the development market.
The Land Use Element also includes a Land Use Plan (Attachment 1, Figure LU-3), which
identifies specific properties and land use designations throughout the community. The
Land Use Plan was confirmed by the City Council on February 2, 2022, and includes new
land use designations designed to provide opportunities for mixed-use development in
large commercial centers, additional opportunities for housing, and more flexible industrial
uses, and compatibility between developments. The Land Use Plan includes a table
identifying the current and proposed land use designations.
The Housing Element
The Housing Element (Attachment 2) of the General Plan identifies the City’s housing
conditions and needs, establishes the goals, objectives, and policies that are the
foundation of the City’s housing strategy, and provides an array of programs designed to
create sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods across the City. Since 1969, California
has required that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of
everyone in the community through adoption of a Housing Element. Legislation placing
new requirements on the Housing Element has increased significantly over the past 25
years. Unlike the other elements of the General Plan, which plan to 2050, the Housing
Element must be updated on an eight-year schedule and approved by the California
19
Honorable City Council
01/18/2023 Regular Meeting
Page 3
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). A key component of the
Housing Element has been working to find a balance between the legislative
requirements imposed by the State and the desires expressed by our community.
A major component of the Housing Element is the allocation of housing units through a
process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). RHNA allocations
are provided in eight-year cycles by HCD and in coordination with the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). With each update to the Housing Element, the City
is required to identify sites that are suitable for housing development in order to fully meet
the City’s RHNA obligation. While the City is required to adopt land use policies that
provide opportunities to build the housing units identified by RHNA, the city is not
responsible for ensuring the construction of these units. Instead, this is a function of the
free market and private development interests.
The City of Moorpark’s RHNA requirements for the 2021-2029 Housing Element cycle is
1,289 units with the affordability levels outlined in Table 1.
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.
AMI = Ventura County Area Median Income (currently $98,800)
The Housing Element identifies Moorpark’s capacity to meet its RHNA obligation through
the advancement of housing projects that are already entitled and pending development.
Moorpark has a long history of supporting housing development. The City has over 2,200
housing units which have been approved but not yet started construction.
In addition to demonstrating the City’s capacity for housing, the Housing Element provides
goals and policy commitments related to housing and neighborhood quality, housing
assistance, housing opportunities, housing constraints, and fair housing.
The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission on January 13, 2022 and City Council on January 19, 2022, where direction
was provided to submit the document to HCD to begin their formal review. HCD has
reviewed the Draft Housing Element and City staff and consultant have revised the
element accordingly. HCD letters were issued on May 9, 2022 and September 2, 2022.
Each draft and response provided by HCD has been shared with project stakeholders by
email and published online for public review at: https://www.moorparkca.gov/1055/2021-
-2029-City-of-Moorpark-Draft-Housin
20
Honorable City Council
01/18/2023 Regular Meeting
Page 4
All of the changes requested by HCD were made to achieve compliance with state law.
As a result, HCD provided a letter on November 29, 2022 indicating that the revised Draft
Housing Element meets the statutory requirements and that the Housing Element will
comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when
adopted, submitted to and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code
Section 65585, subdivision (g).
Following recommendation by the Planning Comission, the City Council will hold a public
hearing to consider adoption of the Housing Element. If adopted, the document will then
be submitted to HCD for final certification.
The Economic Development Element
Early in the General Plan update, the community identified a desire for an Economic
Development Element to establish specific goals and policies that position Moorpark to
provide enhanced opportunities for the creation of high-paying jobs, business attraction,
attention, and expansion, and a wider variety of commercial opportunities for residents.
The Economic Development Element (Attachment 3) establishes five main goals intended
to guide decision-making and ensure the continued growth and vitality of the local
economy. These goals include establishing a self-sustaining local economy, developing
a long-term economic development program, supporting thriving retail, office, and
industrial businesses, building a financially resilient local government, and supporting a
thriving Downtown.
These goals derive from feedback received from the community during the outreach
process of the General Plan Update. Feedback included requests for amenities, including
more restaurants and outdoor dining, entertainment (kids’ museum, movie theaters),
shopping experiences, and a variety of other retail options. Feedback also included the
desire for more community events and festivals, collaboration spaces for entrepreneurs
and remote workers, and independent and unique businesses (non-chain).
The Economic Development Element plays an essential role in increasing the City’s
economic competitiveness and creating a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable economy. A
key goal of the Economic Development Element is to develop a long-term Economic
Development Program that sustains long-term economic growth and attracts private
investment. One way of accomplishing this is through a strategic action plan that will
clearly state the city’s vision for economic development and establish strategies and
action plans that will identify target sectors, partnerships, and marketing, and
communications.
While the Economic Development Element is being provided now, the intent of this
meeting is to primarily receive feedback on the Land Use and Housing Elements given
the significance of those items. As a result, the Economic Development Element will be
included in a future preview presentation tentatively planned for April 5, 2023.
21
Honorable City Council
01/18/2023 Regular Meeting
Page 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation and provide confirmation that Draft Land Use and Housing
Elements address the community’s future needs.
Attachment 1: 2050 General Plan – Draft Land Use Element
Attachment 2: 2050 General Plan – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element
Attachment 3: 2050 General Plan – Draft Economic Development Element
22
Land Use
2
ATTACHMENT 1
23
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Legislative Foundation
The most fundamental decisions in planning
begin with land use: what to put where. Land
use planning envisions the future of a city and
interacts with all other elements of planning. At
its best, the land use element reflects
Moorpark’s vision; promotes thoughtful,
equitable, and accessible distribution of
different land uses, including residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, and open
space; and aligns well with other general plan
elements. The land use element is also used as a
tool to improve public health, reduce
infrastructure costs, enhance local economies,
and address long-term environmental issues
such as climate change and water resources.
Government Code § 65302 requires each city to
adopt a land use element that designates the
proposed general distribution and general
location and extent of the uses of the land for
housing, business, industry, open space,
including agriculture, natural resources,
recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty,
education, public buildings and grounds, solid
and liquid waste disposal facilities, greenways
and other categories of public and private uses
of land.
2.2 OUR STARTING POINT—
MOORPARK IN 2022
2.2.1 Land Uses
Moorpark’s physical setting and history provide
context for understanding its land uses and
development form. The core of the community
resides in a valley framed by hillsides to the
north and south, historically used for agriculture
and converted over time to suburban and urban
uses. Its earliest settlement was concentrated
on the valley floor, which primarily expanded
southerly into the hillsides flanking the Tierra
Rejada Valley. Enactment of the Ventura County
Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources
(SOAR) initiative and Municipal Services
Boundary placed limits on the city’s urbanized
growth patterns.
Today, the city is characterized as a low-
intensity suburban community containing a mix
of residential neighborhoods, commercial
corridors and centers, industrial districts, civic
and educational facilities, parklands, and open
spaces. Figure LU-1 depicts the city’s existing
uses.
Residential uses represent the largest portion
of land uses in the city, occupying
approximately 2,072 acres (28% of its area).
Single-family residential uses (including mobile
homes and rural residential) are the
predominant form of housing (22%) and are
distributed throughout the city, while
multifamily residential units occupy 202 acres
(3%) and are largely concentrated south of and
adjoining Los Angeles Avenue.
Commercial uses occupy approximately 152
acres (approximately 2% of the city). These are
primarily located along Los Angeles
Avenue/California State Route 118 (SR-118),
with scattered clusters on Moorpark Avenue,
adjoining Moorpark College, and on other
primary streets and intersections. Commercial
buildings range from big-box stores in
multitenant shopping centers to individual
neighborhood grocery stores and fast-food
businesses on individual parcels. A number of
the centers contain vacant buildings and
24
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-2
storefronts that, before the onset of the COVID
pandemic, were impacted by the transition of
customers to on-line retailing. Mission Bell
Plaza and Varsity Park Plaza exhibit high levels
of vacancy.
Office uses comprise approximately 37 acres in
the city (0.5% of its land area). Office uses are
primarily clustered on properties abutting the
Los Angeles Avenue/State Route-23 (SR-23)
interchange, the business park to the east of
Princeton Avenue, and in the downtown area.
Offices can be found in structures like the
Carton Professional Building on High Street that
houses multiple small businesses and is
interspersed among a mix of uses, to large steel
frame and concrete, multistory complexes
occupied by a single corporation in multitenant
business parks.
There are approximately 280 acres of industrial
development in the city (4% of the total land
area). These uses include light industrial,
manufacturing, open storage, and wholesale
and warehousing uses. They are primarily
concentrated in two areas, one on lands
abutting the Los Angeles Avenue/State Route-
23 interchange and the other in the western
portion of the city between Los Angeles
Avenue, Poindexter Avenue, and Gabbert Road.
As of the date of this analysis, few vacancies
exist in industrial buildings.
Education uses consist of preschool,
elementary, K-8, middle, and high school as well
as Moorpark College and cover approximately
296 acres in the city (4% of its land area).
Generally, schools are located in residential
neighborhoods, with Moorpark High School
located on Tierra Rejada Road. Moorpark
College is a 150-acre community college
campus in the city’s northeast and north of
SR-23 with an enrollment of approximately
15,000 students.
Public facility and quasi-public uses include
local, County, and state government offices,
police and sheriff stations, fire stations, major
healthcare and medical centers, and religious
institutions. These occupy 101 acres
(approximately 1% of the land) and are
scattered throughout the city.
Open space and recreation land uses consist
of golf courses, local parks, regional parks, and
other reserved open spaces and natural areas.
With the exception of golf courses, these
properties are in public ownership. Open space
and recreation areas occupy 2,240 acres (28% of
the city’s land)—the second largest land use by
area. Parks are generally within or adjoining
residential neighborhoods. The greatest density
of parklands is in the southern half of city,
consistent with the distribution of residential
neighborhoods. Open space generally consists
of undeveloped hillsides not designated for
future development and areas abutting the
Arroyo Simi. Most of these areas are in the city’s
northwest and eastern foothills.
Agricultural land uses consist of cropland,
pasture, orchards and vineyards, nurseries, and
ranches and occupy approximately 29 acres in
the city (0.5% of its land area). These uses are
primarily on the city’s western edge
immediately north of the Arroyo Simi.
25
Existing Land Use
Date: 11/9/2022Source: The City of Moorpark 2022
}}
}}
}}
}}
23
118
118
23
Los Angeles Ave
Co
l
l
i
n
s
D
r
Mo
o
r
p
a
r
k Rd
Walnut
C
anyonRd
Mo
o
r
p
a
r
k
A
v
e
Tier ra
R
e
j
a da Rd
Spr
ing
R
d
High St
Mi
lle
r
P
k
w
y
Pe
a
c
h
H
i
l
l
R
d
Campus Park Dr
Ga
b
b
e
r
t
R
d
Broadway Rd
Pr
i
n
cet
on
A
v
e
LosAngeles
A
ve
Ch a m p i on s hi p Dr
Ar
ro
y
o
Dr
Sp
r
i
n
g
R
d
Gr
i
m
e
s
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Arr oyo
S
imi
Figure LU-1
L AND USE
0 2,000 4,0001,000
FT
City Boundary
Railroad
Existing Land Use
Agriculture
Rural Residential
Single Family Residential
Multi-family Residential
Mobile Home
Commercial Services
General Office
Industrial
Education
Public Facilities
Transportation, Communication, Utilities
Open Space and Recreation
Vacant
Water/Floodway
Right of Way
26
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-4
This page intentionally left blank.
27
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-5
Transportation, communications, and
utilities land uses consist of railroads, facilities,
utilities, and water storage and occupy
approximately 217 acres, or 3% of the city’s
land. Included in this category are the railway
used by Metrolink and Amtrak, SR-23 and
SR-118, power transmission line rights-of-way,
and water tanks. The rail and utilities rights-of-
way divide the city: the railway divides
Moorpark into northern and southern halves
and the power line right-of-way divides the
southwest area of the city from the rest of
Moorpark.
Approximately 13% of the city’s land is vacant
and potentially available for development. The
majority of these lands are characterized by
their topography with moderate to steep
slopes. The largest contiguous area is located
west of downtown, north of Poindexter Avenue,
with others scattered throughout residential
subdivisions in the southern and northern
portions of the city. In flatland areas, vacant
sites are found in the downtown area on or near
the High Street corridor and along Los Angeles
Avenue. Specific Plans have been adopted to
guide development of a number of these areas,
which may incorporate permanent open spaces
for recreation and preservation of natural
topography and habitat.
Water courses, such as the Arroyo Simi and
water detention areas, comprise approximately
141 acres in the city, representing 2% of its total
land area.
Public right of way, such as roadways and their
adjacent landscaped areas, comprises
approximately 1,155 acres in the city,
representing 14% of its total land area and 26%
of its urbanized land area.
2.2.2 Neighborhoods and Districts
Moorpark’s land uses cumulatively function as
the places where its residents live, work, shop,
and recreate; are educated and governed;
participate in social and cultural events; and
enjoy nature. These are its neighborhoods,
districts, and corridors, and each contains a mix
of uses and often is uniquely identifiable due to
its function, physical form, and/or history within
the community. For example, the places that
people relate to as a “neighborhood” typically
include housing, parks, schools, community
centers, and open spaces. A “district” or
“corridor” may include a mix of retail, office, and
housing. Moorpark’s neighborhoods and
districts are generally depicted in Figure LU-2
and are described as follows:
1. Charles Street Neighborhood. The earliest
residential development in Moorpark,
consisting predominantly of single-family
housing on small lots, with scattered small
apartments, abutting the commercial core
along High Street that served as the center
of community business and activity.
28
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-6
2. Downtown District. The Downtown District
encompasses the High Street Corridor and
Civic Center area. The High Street Corridor
is the earliest developed core of Moorpark
where residents purchased goods, worked,
dined, and enjoyed entertainment and
culture prior to the city’s rapid growth
beginning in the 1980s. It once served as
the distribution point for local agricultural
products to the region from the local
railroad station. Generally, buildings are
located directly along the street frontage,
enabling access by walking from Charles
Street and other neighborhoods. The
history, concentration and orientation of
buildings to the street, and presence of the
Amtrak/MetroLink transit station contribute
to the opportunity to establish a more
active, pedestrian-oriented environment
clearly distinguishing the area as Moorpark’s
“downtown.”
Moorpark’s Civic Center anchors the
western edge of the Downtown District and
encompasses the city hall, library, and
community rooms. Its proximity to a
revitalized High Street and the Charles
Street neighborhood offers the opportunity
to function as an integral continuation of
the downtown core.
Figure LU-2 Neighborhoods and Districts Map
29
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-7
3. Traditional/Core Neighborhood. The area
generally between the railroad and Los
Angeles Avenue for many years functioned
as the residential core of Moorpark. It is
primarily developed with one-story, single-
family housing on 5,000-square-foot lots
with scattered public and private schools,
including the Flory Academy of Science and
Technology, Chaparral Middle School, and
Poindexter Park.
4. Los Angeles Avenue Corridor. Los Angeles
Avenue is the primary travel corridor
bisecting the city linking it to the freeway
and region. Though considered a distinct
district due to its automobile orientation,
there are multiple subdistricts along its
length, including multi-tenant commercial
centers, industrial/office parks, and
multifamily apartments and condominiums
primarily south of Los Angeles Avenue.
Primary access to uses along its length
occurs from Los Angeles Avenue. Many
retail and office uses are clustered on large
properties with extensive surface parking
and few pedestrian-oriented amenities. A
few smaller properties are developed with
single tenant retail and office uses, primarily
at major street intersections. Retail trends to
online shopping has resulted in the closure
of a number of businesses, offering the
opportunity to reposition them for other
uses in the future. Northeast of Los Angeles
Avenue and Science Drive is the city’s
principal industrial area, containing. a
diversity of technology, light manufacturing,
and office uses surrounded by surface
parking lots and extensive site landscaping.
5. Spring Road Corridor. The east side of the
northern Spring Road contains a mix of
public and quasi-public uses that, in many
respects, function as a secondary center of
civic and public service uses. Among these
are the Police Department, Family Medical
Center, Food Pantry, and Family Resource
Center. Largely these are located in single-
purpose structures with surface parking lots.
6. West End Industrial Park. Properties
extending from Los Angeles Avenue to
Poindexter Avenue toward the west end of
the city are developed for industrial and
office uses in a landscaped “business park–
like” setting, with buildings surrounded by
parking spaces and landscaped open
spaces. Largely, these are concrete tilt-up
and steel frame buildings visually convey
the character of comparable multitenant
business parks throughout Southern
California.
7. Princeton Industrial Area/Virginia Colony.
Physically, the area south of the intersection
of the SR-118 and SR-23 freeways is largely
isolated from the remainder of Moorpark
and bisected by the railroad and the Arroyo
Simi. The Virginial Colony, in its southwest,
is of one of the city’s earliest developments,
containing single-family homes,
townhomes, and a neighborhood park. The
majority of the area north of the Colony is
developed with two large industrial parks
containing large footprint concrete tilt-up
buildings, with surface parking lots and
extensive landscaping along the Princeton
frontage. A mix of financial, technology, and
other businesses are located here, including
PennyMac, one of the city’s largest
employers and an anchor tenant for the
area.
8. Moorpark College Community. Moorpark
College occupies the northeast sector of the
30
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-8
city, surrounded by clusters of single-family
housing, multifamily apartments, a small
commercial center to its southwest, and
open space to its north and east. It is largely
isolated from Moorpark due to its
geography, layout of buildings and parking
spaces, and role as a commuter college,
though a number of students live in the
apartments along Campus Park and in the
Virginia Colony.
9. Residential Neighborhoods. As discussed
earlier, residential neighborhoods are the
predominant land use in Moorpark. These
range from traditional layouts of housing
built on small and medium-sized lots along
a connected street grid to large scale master
planned communities containing housing
built on streets often conforming to the
natural terrain and cul-de-sacs, with
integrated community facilities, parks, and
networks of open space and trails. Some
newer neighborhoods, particularly in the
southeast, are developed with controlled
access as gated communities and are
distinctly identified by their subdivision
name. Schools, parks, and religious facilities
are integrated in both older and newer
neighborhoods.
2.3 OUR STARTING POINT—
LAND USE PLANNING
ISSUES
Key planning issues considered in formulating
the Land Use Plan and goals and policies are
summarized as follows:
1. Inherently, Moorpark’s location in the
Southern California region, natural setting,
and desirability as a place to live will subject
it to demands for new housing, commercial,
and other development. The challenge for
the future will be how to manage growth
and sensitively integrate new development
in a manner that protects those assets that
contribute to the city’s character and quality
of life.
2. The characteristics distinguishing
Moorpark’s suburban and low-density
pattern of development are those that
necessitate primary travel and access by the
automobile. An imbalance of jobs and
housing and lack of businesses desired by
residents results in extensive commutes by
residents to destinations outside of the city,
significantly impacting local contributions of
air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions
and the lifestyles and health of residents.
3. The 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies a
deficit of housing to meet the needs of
current and projected resident populations.
Areas need to be planned at sufficient
densities to accommodate a diversity of
housing types at every income level. As
Moorpark develops in the future, the
Housing Element envisions a mix of infill
residential development, including compact
residential and mixed-use developments
within the Los Angeles Corridor, along with
new neighborhoods, such as Hitch Ranch.
These new housing types are needed to
accommodate emerging demographic
trends and their associated housing and
support service needs.
4. In concert with residential development, it
will be increasingly important to provide a
mix of health-serving land uses (e.g., health
facilities, community services, social services,
parkland and open spaces, education, and
31
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-9
other land uses that support resident
needs). Achieving fairness and equity in the
provision and access to these community
resources for residents will be a guiding
principle in decision-making.
5. A number of commercial centers exhibit
comparative high rates of vacancy due to
trends for on-line retailing. Their format and
layout place them at a disadvantage to
neighboring lifestyle centers and walkable
retail districts. Market analyses suggest the
total zoning capacity for commercial
development today exceeds that likely to be
supportable in the near future.
6. Similarly, existing commercial uses primarily
serve the day-to-day needs of local
residents who must drive to Thousand Oaks,
Simi Valley, or further to make most major
purchases diminishing the local capture of
resident disposable income and revenue for
the city, as well as impacting the number of
vehicle trips and their impacts.
7. Office and industrial uses offer a limited
range of job opportunities corresponding to
the education and skills of Moorpark’s
residents, with 90% commuting to jobs
outside of the city while 85% of the local
jobs held by those from other cities. At the
same time, the industrial parks do not offer
the mix of supporting uses and amenities of
contemporary business parks that make
them attractive for the work force
(recreation facilities, small restaurants, etc.).
8. As all cities, Moorpark is faced with rapid
technological changes that affect the
capabilities of its infrastructure, services, and
ability to attract emergent industries and
businesses pioneering in the use of these.
9. Moorpark College is a commuter-oriented
campus attracting students from the greater
region. While physically a part of the city, in
many respects it functions as an island
where students and faculty congregate and
go home in the evening with very little
participation and engagement in the
Moorpark community.
10. Future growth and development is
constrained by the physical geography and
legal limitations on the extension of
development into agricultural lands to the
south and west of the city. While some
vacant lands are available for development,
as Moorpark grows it will be faced with the
challenge of accommodating development
within the fabric of existing uses and as
infill.
11. Generally, there is a mismatch of
development densities and intensities
permitted by the current General Plan with
the scale necessary to achieve an
economically feasible project. The current
Plan’s maximum residential density (15 units
per acre) is below the minimum necessary
to support the development of housing that
is affordable to lower income households.
Similarly, the maximum intensity for
commercial (FAR of 0.25) is sufficient to
support commercial development with
extensive surface parking, but inadequate
for more contemporary developments
where buildings are clustered along plazas
and walkways and outdoor amenities
incorporated to foster pedestrian activity.
The Plan’s FAR limit of 0.38 for industrial is
also problematic and is inconsistent with
recent developments in the city’s industrial
business parks where buildings typically
range from 0.5 to 0.8 FAR.
32
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-10
2.4 OUR PLAN FOR THE
FUTURE—MOORPARK IN
2050
2.4.1 Overview
As a healthy, growing city, Moorpark’s focus is
on how to accommodate growth and change
while preserving and enhancing the qualities
and characteristics that make it such a desirable
place to live. The city recognizes that the quality
of life for its residents is dependent on
recognizing its heritage and natural setting,
while acknowledging that the next wave of
development will involve it maturing into a
balanced community, with a broader, and
economically sustainable, mix of land uses and
choices for its residents.
As extensive portions of Moorpark’s lands have
been developed and limited vacant areas are
suitable for new construction, development
will be largely focused inward as expansion,
infill, and/or replacement of existing uses.
Consistent with the Vision Statement, the
General Plan’s land use goals and policies
strategically target and shape future
development to protect existing residential
neighborhoods, economically successful
commercial and industrial districts, and
parks and open spaces. Change will occur on
lands that offer opportunities for enhancement,
such as commercial centers with expansive and
underused parking lots and businesses that
have closed or are marginally surviving, and in
areas where business prosperity, job
opportunities, and civic activity can be
strengthened. At the same time, vacant lands
adjoining existing development afford the
opportunity to accommodate new uses that
compatibly extend neighborhoods and districts
that are sensitively integrated and reflect their
natural setting.
Moorpark’s residential neighborhoods are in
many respects the “heart of the community.”
The Plan’s goals and policies recognize their
importance and diversity through preservation
of the historic neighborhoods in the city’s core,
those in planned hillside communities, and
multi-family neighborhoods adjoining business
corridors. The need for affordable and livable
housing for all is of paramount concern, as
discussed in the Housing Element, and the Land
Use Plan creates capacity for development of a
diversity of housing units including single
family, townhomes, apartments, and in
buildings and on properties integrated with
commercial and office uses.
Consistent with long-term intentions, the High
Street corridor is recognized as the historic
center of Moorpark offering the opportunity to
be enhanced as its symbolic and functional
center of community identity and culture with
vitalized and pedestrian-active businesses,
housing, and transit-oriented development.
Improved streetscapes and public spaces
contribute to the corridor’s function as an
outdoor “living room” for gatherings and
events.
33
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-11
North side of High Street with businesses oriented and accessible to street frontage.
A variety of commercial centers offer
opportunities for residents to shop, do business,
and be entertained nearby their neighborhood.
While historically these centers have been
oriented to access by the automobile and single
destination shopping, Plan policies promote the
development of a greater diversity of
businesses that engage the consumer, create
real-life experience, and inclusion of public
spaces and pedestrian-oriented amenities. This
enhances their desirability as places to shop,
dine, and spend time with their neighbors and
contributes to their economic prosperity.
Commercial centers are differentiated by their
role and markets with such places as the
Moorpark Marketplace serving citywide and
regional customers and the Campus Plaza,
Moorpark Town Center, and Vons Center (Tierra
Rejada Road) serving local shopping needs.
Plan policies support the opportunity for the
re-envisioning of commercial centers and
corridors experiencing declining activity for a
mixture of uses that enable residents to live in
proximity to places of shopping, dining, and
entertainment. Integration of housing with
commercial uses has proven to reduce vehicle
trips for residents of such projects, with
cumulative benefits in reducing energy
consumption, air pollution, and greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, should the market not
support full buildout and sustainability of retail
businesses at Mission Bell Plaza, Plan policies
support the development of new housing in
concert with commercial uses, either on upper
floors of buildings containing retail or office
uses on the ground floor or as free-standing
buildings, as illustrated in the conceptual plan
below.
Illustrates revitalized development of the Mission Bell Plaza site by retention of existing buildings (shown in gray) replacement of others, and construction of new buildings on surface parking lots (color highlighted). Buildings contain a mix of retail and housing, front onto, and are oriented to new
internal street grid with pedestrian-oriented amenities.
Parking is consolidated in structures.
Housing developed on the Campus Plaza site
with commercial uses to provides the
opportunity for students and/or faculty to live
in proximity to Moorpark College, as illustrated
in the conceptual plan below.
34
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-12
Illustrates development of mixed-use (housing above retail)
buildings on surface parking lots on the Campus Plaza site.
Similarly, corridors that have historically been
zoned to exclusively accommodate commercial
uses, such as Moorpark Avenue, may allow the
development of housing where there is
insufficient commercial market.
As the scale of land available for industrial
development is limited, policies target new
businesses as infill within and complementary
to the existing industrial clusters flanking the
community core in the east and west. The
Spring Road/Princeton Avenue Industrial Park is
envisioned to evolve over time responsive to
changing industrial markets and technologies
and inclusion of uses that support employees
and promote nighttime uses, such as health
clubs, restaurants, and wine bars/brew pubs. In
the long term, the concrete batching operations
on Princeton Avenue may be phased out
offering the opportunity to be redeveloped for
a master-planned industrial park containing
multiple tenants in a park-like campus setting.
Moorpark is recognized as a healthy community
and residents value their health and wellbeing.
As Moorpark matures, the General Plan land use
plan is intended to allow for land uses that can
accommodate a mix of community services
coupled with a calendar of active events and
celebrations where families, youth, and seniors
can have their health, recreational, educational,
and social needs met. Achieving fairness and
equity in accessing and benefitting from
community services will continue to guide city
priorities.
One of numerous events attracting broad community participation conducted annually in Moorpark.
Plan policies complement the elements of the
built land use environment with a network of
parklands, greenways, trails, and open
spaces described in the Open Space, Parks and
Recreation Element. The Arroyo Simi with its
parklands, planned trails, and natural areas
crosses Moorpark and functions as the central
spine that ties together the city’s
neighborhoods and districts.
Arroyo Simi channel located adjoining Arroyo Vista
Community Park. Opportunity to develop trail and
greenways along its length throughout the city.
35
Land Use Diagram
Date: 11/11/2022Source: PlaceWorks, 2022
}}
}}
}}
}}
SP-D
SP1
SP2
SP92-1
23
118
118
23
Los Angeles Ave
Co
l
l
i
n
s
D
r
Mo
o
rp
a
r
k Rd
Walnut
C
any
o
n
Rd
Los
A
ngeles Ave
Mo
o
r
p
a
r
k
A
v
e
Tie rra
R
e
j
a
d a R d
Spring
R
d
High St
Mi
lle
r
P
k
w
y
Pe
a
c
h
H
i
l
l
R
d
Campus Park Dr
Ga
b
b
e
r
t
R
d
Pr
i
n
cet
o
n
A
v
e
C h amp io nshi p D r
Arr
o
yo
Dr
Sp
r
i
ng
R
d
Gr
i
m
e
s
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
Arroyo Simi
Figure LU-3
L AND USE
0 2,000 4,0001,000
FT
City Boundary
Railroad
Proposed General Plan
AG - Agriculture
R - Rural
NVL Neighborhood Very Low
NL - Neighborhood Low
NM - Neighborhood Medium
NMX - Neighborhood Mixed Density
NH - Neighborhood High
MUD - Mixed Use District
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
C-A - Commercial Auto
IF - Industrial Flex
IP - Industrial Park
PUB - Public
S - School
NCP - Neighborhood/Community Park
OS - Open Space
FLDWY - Floodway
U - Utility
SP-D - Downtown SP
SP1 - Hitch Ranch SP
SP2 - Moorpark Highlands SP
SP92-1 - Carlsberg SP
ROW - Right of Way
36
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-14
This page intentionally left blank.
37
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-15
2.4.2 Land Use Diagram
Development in Moorpark will be guided by the
Land Use Diagram, which defines categories of
use and standards of population density and
building intensity, for all lands within its
jurisdictional boundaries, consistent with the
requirements of the California Government
Code (section 65302(a)). Referred to by the
California courts as the “constitution” for all
future development, any decision regarding
land use must be consistent with the Diagram,
including zoning and land use entitlements.
Figure LU-3 presents the Land Use Diagram
and the text below describes the general uses
and densities/ intensities permitted for each
land use category.
The Land Use Diagram represents the
culmination of extensive conversations and
input from the community regarding their
aspirations for the types of use and its physical
form and character that are appropriate for all
properties in the city. It is not a Plan driven by
targets for population and employment growth,
rather by the expressed values about the
intended character of the city’s neighborhoods
and districts.
Development Standards Definitions
Residential Uses
Standards of building density for residential
uses are stated as allowable dwelling units per
net acre (du/ac). Standards of population
density can be derived by multiplying the
maximum number of dwelling units per net acre
by the average number of persons assumed for
the applicable residential designation, as
specified below.
This illustration shows different densities for residential development on a similarly sized lot. This graphic is intended only to show the relative differences between residential
developments at various densities and does not represent a
density standard for this General Plan.
This illustration shows how various building configurations represent different FARs of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 on a similar sized parcel. This graphic is intended only to show the relative
differences in FAR and does not represent an intensity
standard for this General Plan.
Non-Residential Uses
Standards for building intensity for non-
residential uses such as commercial, industrial,
and mixed-use development are stated as floor-
area ratios (FARs). In the case of mixed-use
developments that incorporate residential uses,
the FAR includes residential building square
footage and the density range is not applicable.
In this case, the number of potential housing
38
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-16
units can be calculated by dividing the square
footage allocated to housing by an average unit
size of 1,000 square feet.
FAR is the gross building area on a site,
excluding structured parking, to the net
developable area of the site. The net
developable area is the total of a site excluding
portions that cannot be developed (e.g., right-
of-way, public parks, and so on). A site includes
all contiguous parcels that will share parking or
access. For example, on a lot with 25,000 square
feet of land area, a FAR of 0.5 will allow 12,500
square feet of usable building floor area to be
built regardless of the number of stories in the
building (e.g., 6,250 square feet per floor on two
stories, or 12,500 square feet on one floor). On
the same 25,000 square foot lot, a FAR of 0.8
would allow 20,000 square feet of usable floor
area and a FAR of 1.5 would allow 37,500
square feet of usable floor area. The diagram
above depicts various building configurations
representing FARs of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0.
Land Use Categories
The following describes the categories of uses
and their associated maximum densities/
intensities to be permitted on properties
throughout the city. The accompanying
photographs are illustrative of their intended
scale and character and not architectural
design.
Residential
Rural (R, 1 du/ac): This designation is intended
to allow development of residential estate lots
on minimum one-acre lots or using clustering
techniques for areas characterized by significant
site constraints, (rugged topography, steep
slopes, lack of services, limited access, etc.), or
areas of important visual and natural resources.
Illustrates typical rural housing located in the foothills and edges of the city.
Neighborhood Very Low/Estate (NVL, 3
du/ac): Housing developed on minimum 1/3-
acre lots, which may include estate-type units in
planned residential subdivisions with extensive
trail systems and open spaces; and on the
edges of the city.
Illustrates typical large lot estate housing located primarily in hillside areas and planned residential developments in the
north and south sides
Neighborhood Low (NL, 8 du/ac): This
designation includes single-family
neighborhoods at a variety of densities. The
purposes are to (a) protect existing single-
family areas and provide for infill development
within these areas at a similar scale as the
surrounding residential context and (b) provide
39
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-17
for the development of new single-family
subdivisions on large vacant properties
comparable in scale with existing single-family
neighborhoods.
Illustrates typical single family detached units, the
predominant form of existing housing in Moorpark.
Neighborhood Medium (NM, 24 du/ac): This
designation includes a mix of lower-scaled
attached multi-family homes, referred to as
“missing middle” housing types, often close to
existing or proposed retail and commercial
areas.
Illustrates courtyard ownership or rental housing with units
clustered on a property around shared open spaces and
amenities,
Neighborhood High (NH, 32 du/ac): This
designation includes a mix of attached multi-
family housing types, within walking distance of
retail, services, and major centers of activity and
transit stations.
Illustrates typical multi-family condominiums and apartments, with well-defined entries and off-set building elevations and heights to create visual interest and avoid the sense of large undifferentiated building blocks.
Neighborhood Mixed Density (NMX, 8
du/ac): This designation provides for a mix of
housing types (such as single-family detached,
duplex and multiplex, courtyard housing, and
townhomes) within a large planned
development area, with recreational amenities,
community meeting rooms, and/or small
neighborhood-serving retail, and extensive
open spaces and trail systems.
Illustrates the integration of multiple housing types within the same neighborhood block including single-family detached, duplex, and low-rise townhouses.
40
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-18
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (NC, .35 FAR):
This designation applies to small parcels,
typically 1 to 5 acres in size, providing
convenience-type retail, neighborhood offices,
and service activities in 1 story buildings
designed to serve the immediate neighborhood
accessible by car, bicycle, and on-foot.
Illustrates small commercial center with uses predominantly
serving adjoining residential neighborhoods and
incorporation of pedestrian-oriented plazas and amenities.
(Location: Calabasas).
Commercial Center – Auto (C-A, .5 FAR): This
designation provides for commercial areas with
a wide range of retail and service activities
(generally larger than 5 acres). Intended uses
include community shopping centers,
department stores, furniture and appliance
stores, restaurants, automotive uses, office and
professional services, and business support
services. This designation encourages the
grouping of commercial outlets into
consolidated centers with direct access to major
roads, arterials and/or freeways.
Illustrates typical multi-tenant commercial center containing
anchor retail use, restaurants, and similar uses with extensive
surface parking lots. (Location: Vons Center, Tierra Rejada
Road and Mountain Trail Street).
Mixed Use
Mixed Use Low (MUL, 1.5 FAR): This
designation provides for neighborhood-serving
goods and services and multi-family residential
in a mixed-use format (vertical or horizontal).
Buildings in this designation will be designed to
be walkable with wide sidewalks, active
frontages, and minimal setbacks from the back
of the sidewalk.
Illustrates buildings containing ground level commercial and
office use and housing on upper floors, with shared open spaces and amenities. Building heights modulated to reduce sense of mass. (Location: Thousand Oaks Boulevard).
Mixed Use Medium (MUM, 2.0 FAR): This
designation provides for a mix of commercial,
office, and housing development in buildings
with an additional story in height to achieve
41
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-19
project feasibility. Buildings will contain active
ground floor uses located at or near the
sidewalk with housing or office next to or
above.
Illustrates building integrating ground level commercial and housing on upper floors, with additional height and greater building modulation to reduce sense of mass. (Location: Redwood City, CA).
Mixed Use District (MUD, 2.0 FAR): This
designation applies to larger sized properties
developed with a mix of uses that may include
buildings developed for a single use (such as
retail, office, restaurant, and housing) and/or
structures that integrate multiple uses vertically
(such as housing above ground level retail).
Typically, such projects establish a compact,
walkable, “village-like” environment where
buildings are grouped along external and
internal street frontages and pedestrian-
oriented pathways, plazas, and open spaces,
with parking located in structures or
subterranean. A model for the redevelopment
of underutilized commercial centers.
Illustrates site developed with a mix of free-standing commercial and housing buildings and those integrating
housing above ground level retail. Buildings are accessible
and oriented to street frontage, with extensive shared open spaces and pedestrian-oriented amenities. (Location: Uptown District, San Diego).
Industrial
Industrial Park (IP, 1.0 FAR): This designation
applies to properties developed with multiple
industrial (light manufacturing), research and
development, offices, and other buildings
containing one or more tenant and limited
support uses, with surface parking lots. Some
areas developed with landscapes and
streetscapes to convey a “campus-like”
environment. Truck access to individual
businesses normally required.
Illustrates multi-tenant industrial buildings developed with extensive open spaces and pedestrian-oriented amenities.
42
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-20
Industrial Flex (IF, 1.0 FAR): This designation
applies to properties developed predominately
for with uses permitted by “Industrial Park”
category allowing the integration of ancillary
and a diversity of specialty commercial uses,
such as restaurants, brew pubs, reproduction
facilities, overnight accommodations, and
similar uses that activate the area in the evening
and on weekends. Truck routes and hours of
operation are limited to prevent conflicts with
customers.
Illustrates integration of arts and crafts stores, restaurants, brew pubs, and similar uses in a predominant industrial district. (Location: Funk Zone, Santa Barbara).
Agriculture
Agriculture (AG, .1-.025 FAR): This
designation applies to land used for the
growing and harvesting of crops and raising
livestock.
Open Space and Parks
Open Space (OS, .1-.025 FAR): This
designation identifies those open space lands
which contain various development constraints
such as slope gradient, soil and geotechnical
hazards, plus other environmental concerns,
access, and availability of public services. This
designation also includes permanent open
space areas which function to preserve visual
resources and natural areas, buffer communities
and provide relief from noise and crowding of
urban development, maintain environmentally
hazardous areas, etc. This designation allows for
trails and recreational use where the open space
is adjacent to existing recreational areas.
Expansive open spaces and hillsides surround Moorpark.
Neighborhood/Community Park (NCP): This
designation applies to properties developed for
active and passive recreational activity serving a
neighborhood or the larger community. Natural
open areas may be preserved and integrated
into the park. Ideally, a park is located within a
quarter mile of every residence.
Parks are distributed throughout and accessible to Moorpark’s neighborhoods. (Location: Miller Park).
43
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-21
Public
School (S): Public school sites of all levels,
elementary through high school, as well as the
Moorpark College facility are all identified by
this classification.
Schools are distributed throughout Moorpark. (Location: Moorpark High School).
Utilities (U): This designation identifies major
public utility facilities such as electricity sub-
stations and transmission lines; sewage
collection and treatment; water storage,
treatment, and distribution; telecommunication
equipment; and storm drainage systems.
Public/Institutional (PUB): This designation
identifies public facilities, including: government
buildings, libraries, fire stations, non-profit
organization buildings, and community service
centers but excludes jail facilities.
Floodway (FLDWY): This designation identifies
the floodway of the Arroyo Simi as identified by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Habitable structures are prohibited.
Freeway Right-of-Way (FRWY-R/W): This
designation identifies street, freeway and
railroad rights-of-way within the city.
Specific Plans
Hitch Ranch Specific Plan (SP-1): The
approved Hitch Ranch Specific Plan includes the
development of 755 residential units (372
single-family and 383 multi-family), public
parks, associated roadways and infrastructure,
as well as expansive open space, trails, and
manufactured slopes. Hitch Ranch is generally
located north of Poindexter Avenue, west of
Casey Road, and extending approximately 1,700
feet to the west of Gabbert Road.
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan II (Sp-2):
The Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan II,
adopted June 1999, covers a 445-acre site in the
northern section of Moorpark. It guides the
phased development of a new residential
neighborhood with supporting parks and
schools balanced by the preservation of
surrounding open spaces. The plan is nearing
buildout, with a few residential parcels
remaining to be developed.
Carlsberg Specific Plan (SP-92-1): The
Carlsberg Specific Plan, adopted October 30,
1990, and subsequently amended on
September 7, 1994, covers a 500-acre site in the
southeastern area of Moorpark. The Specific
Plan, which has been substantially implemented,
includes a mix of uses, including residential (154
acres), subregional retail/commercial/business
park (40 acres), open space (220.4 acres), nature
preserve (9 acres), park space (6.5 acres) and
institutional (7 acres). The remaining
development activity is centered on vacant sites
at the Patriot Commerce Center. The GPAC
members have recommended Industrial Flex
uses for these vacant parcels.
Downtown Specific Plan (SP-D): The
Downtown Specific Plan, adopted October 7,
44
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-22
1998, and most recently amended July 15, 2020,
encompasses the Moorpark Downtown Area
and Old Moorpark along and surrounding
Moorpark Avenue and High Street. The plan
envisions transforming Downtown Moorpark
into a vibrant commercial and residential
destination in the heart of the city. The
Downtown Specific Plan furthers the vision for
the overall revitalization of the downtown and
implements design standards, guidelines, and a
strategy for business attraction and
development of the city-owned parcels in the
downtown area. The GPAC members have
recommended that the Specific Plan be
amended to allow for uses conforming to the
Mixed-Use Medium designation along High
Street and for uses conforming to the Mixed-
Use Low designation along Moorpark Avenue.
This district allows residential densities from 7
to 32 dwelling units per acre and commercial
intensities between .25-2.0 FAR.
Development Capacity
The Land Use Plan’s estimate of development
capacity (see Table 2-1) represents the acreage
and maximum number of housing units and
building square feet that could occur by 2050. It
is not a projection or mandate, but represents
what could occur under normal market
conditions should lands be developed for the
uses and densities/intensities defined by the
Plan. Its calculation is based on the preservation
of existing neighborhoods for current uses and
densities with new development targeted as
infill of vacant properties and reuse of retail
properties containing uses no longer
supportable by the marketplace.
45
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-23
Table 2-1 Land Use Plan Development Capacity
Land Use
Acreage
Housing Units Building SF Acres % Total
RESIDENTIAL Rural 394.2 382 Neighborhood Very Low 979.7 2,624 Neighborhood Low 808.0 4,532 Neighborhood Mixed Density 67.5 568 Neighborhood Medium 157.6 1,220 Neighborhood High 254.6 3,143 MPK Highlands SP 388.0 548
Accessory Dwelling Units 480 Sub-Total 3,335.4 41.88% 13,497 0
COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Commercial 12.3 173,532 Commercial-Auto 51.4 606,377 Sub-Total 63.7 0.80% 0 779,909
MIXED USE Mixed Use District 70.6 1,088 675,267 Mixed Use Medium 7.7 100 796
Hitch Ranch SP 285.8 755 6,398
Downtown SP 93.5 961 1,092,991 Carlsberg SP 450.1 554 1,387,495 Sub-Total 528.4 6.62% 3,458 3,162,947
INDUSTRIAL Industrial Park 352.3 3 6,797,695 Industrial Flex 39.2 1,153,815 Sub-Total 391.5 4.90% 3 7,951,510
PUBLIC School 258.9 1,314,684 Public Facility 28.1 1 113,487 Park 138.7 1 39,966 Sub-Total 425.7 5.33% 2 1,468,137
UTILITIES AND CORRIDORS Utility 46.2 39,971 Rights-of-Way 1,035.8 Floodway 206.2 Sub-Total 1,288.2 16.13% 0 39,971
OPEN SPACE Open Space 1,842.0 64 164,609 Agriculture 15.5 Sub-Total 1,857.5 23.27% 64 164,609
TOTAL 7,983.9 17,025 13,567,083
46
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-24
2.4.3 GOALS AND POLICIES
Guided by the Vision Statement, the following
goals and policies provide for strategic growth
and change while protecting the important
assets and characteristics contributing to
Moorpark’s identity and quality of life. These are
organized in three sections: goals and policies
that address all uses and locations in the city,
those relevant to specific categories of land use,
and those uniquely applicable to specific
districts in the city.
Policies provide for the protection of existing
neighborhoods and targeting of new
development to infill areas that are vacant or
underutilized, at densities and scale that
complement adjoining uses. Changes focus on
enhancing the quality of life with a reduced
need for automobile trips, increased walkability,
improved connectivity among neighborhoods
and districts, and the completion of cohesive
and well-defined districts.
CITYWIDE
GOAL LU 1
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY: SUSTAINABLE
GROWTH THROUGH WELL-PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT THAT PROVIDES FOR THE
NEEDS OF MOORPARK’S RESIDENTS AND
BUSINESSES, MAKES EFFICIENT USE OF LAND
AND INFRASTRUCTURE, PROTECTS
IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES,
PROMOTES THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY,
AND MAINTAINS THE UNIQUE CHARACTER
DISTINGUISHING THE CITY AS A SPECIAL PLACE
IN THE REGION.
LU 1.1
Growth respecting Moorpark’s values and character: Accommodate growth that is
consistent with community values and complements the scale and character of Moorpark’s residential neighborhoods, business districts, and natural environmental setting.
LU 1.2
Types and distribution of land uses: Accommodate population and employment growth attributable to the categories and standards for densities/intensities of the land uses depicted on the Land Use Diagram and as evaluated in the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
LU 1.3
Housing to meet resident needs: Review the city's land use inventory concurrent with Housing Element updates and, if necessary, modify the land use element to ensure that general plan policies are being adhered to and to provide an adequate up-to-date database for continuing development considerations.
LU 1.4
Public services to support growth: Coordinate new development and redevelopment of existing properties to ensure that the existing and planned capacity of public facilities and services shall not be adversely impacted.
LU 1.5
Development timing: Manage new development and redevelopment to ensure that it is orderly with respect to location, timing, and density/intensity; concurrent with the provision of local public services and facilities; and compatible with the overall community character.
LU 1.6
Development priorities: Prioritize infill and redevelopment of existing developed areas and immediately adjoining properties to achieve a seamless and connected development pattern, limiting expanded development outward into hillsides and natural areas.
47
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-25
GOAL LU 2
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: A LOGICAL SPHERE
OF INFLUENCE ENSURING CONSISTENCY WITH
MOORPARK’S VISIONS AND VALUES.
LU 2.1
Growth beyond the city’s boundaries: Evaluate the appropriateness of expanding Moorpark’s Sphere of Influence to manage conservation and uses adjoining the city boundary, consistent with the community’s visions and values and consideration of the area’s environmental resources, hazards, accessibility of infrastructure and services and local and regional growth policies and regulations.
LU 2.2
Process for considering future areas of growth: Participate in Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission’s five-year
municipal service and Sphere of Influence
reviews to identify appropriateness of any
modifications to city’s designated Sphere of
Influence.
GOAL LU 3
LAND USE MIX: A MIX OF LAND USES THAT
MEETS THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF THE
MOORPARK COMMUNITY.
LU 3.1
Housing for all residents: Provide a mix of residential densities to accommodate the housing needs of all members of the community and address Moorpark’s fair share of regional housing needs consistent with the Housing Element.
LU 3.2
Housing types: Provide for the development of a diversity of residential product types, lot sizes, and designs, unless determined by the city to be infeasible due to the size of the project.
LU 3.3
Broader mix of housing types: Facilitate the development of mid-range, or “missing middle,” housing units such as duplexes, multiplexes,
courtyard homes, and townhomes.
LU 3.4
Reuse of declining commercial properties: Promote the redevelopment of commercial centers and corridors that are underutilized, where businesses have closed, and do not exhibit supportable market demand for economically viable uses desired by the community.
LU 3.5
Mixed-use development: Provide for development projects that mix housing with commercial uses to enable Moorpark’s residents to live close to businesses and employment, reducing vehicle trips, and supporting social interactions.
LU 3.6
Industries and jobs: Prioritize the development of industries that have limited emissions, meet local, regional, and state air and water pollution control goals and standards, and are designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses.
LU 3.7
Transit-oriented development: Promote opportunities to develop uses that can economically benefit from their proximity to the Moorpark Metrolink station and promote increased ridership.
LU 3.8
Public services and facilities: Support a diversity of uses and services supporting Moorpark’s residents such as facilities for governance and administration, public safety, seniors and youth, community gatherings, and comparable activities.
48
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-26
LU 3.9
Parks, recreation, and open spaces: Maintain existing parks and recreations facilities, trails, and other open space amenities and develop
new parks, facilities and amenities in areas of
need consistent with the provisions of the Open
Space, Conservation and Recreation Elements.
GOAL LU 4
URBAN FORM: A CITY OF DISTINCT,
COMPACT, AND WALKABLE CENTERS AND
CORRIDORS, SURROUNDED BY DIVERSE AND
COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND
CONNECTED TO A UNIFYING NETWORK OF
GREENWAYS AND OPEN SPACES.
LU 4.1
Sustainable urban form: Provide an overall pattern of land uses that promotes efficient development; reduces automobile dependence, greenhouse gas emissions; and consumption of non-renewable resources; ensures compatibility among uses; enhances community livability and health; and sustains economic vitality.
LU 4.2
Focused development: Reinforce existing patterns of development by concentrating development in key centers and districts serving as destinations and gathering places for the community that are linked by pedestrian connections to adjoining residential neighborhoods, such as the downtown High Street corridor, Mission-Bell/Moorpark Town Center, and Moorpark Marketplace.
LU 4.3
Residential neighborhoods: Maintain a development pattern of distinct residential neighborhoods oriented around parks, schools, and community facilities that are connected with neighborhood-serving businesses and public transit.
LU 4.4
Multi-family housing: Promote the development of multiple-family dwellings in close proximity to employment opportunities, shopping areas, public parks, and transit lines, with careful consideration of the proximity to and compatibility with single-family neighborhoods.
LU 4.5
Community-serving uses: Encourage uses that meet the daily needs of residents such as grocery stores, local-serving restaurants, and service businesses to be located within safe walking distance of residents.
LU 4.6
Highway-oriented development: Cluster commercial development in compact areas along major roadways and provide pedestrian links to adjacent residential areas.
LU 4.7
Moorpark College community: Promote the
long-term development of commercial uses and
housing in proximity to Moorpark College.
LU 4.8
Enhanced industrial districts: Support new industrial development adjacent to and as infill within existing industrial uses and along major transportation corridors.
LU 4.9
Development fit with natural terrain: Decrease the overall density and intensity of development as the slope of the natural terrain increases.
49
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-27
GOAL LU 5
CHARACTER: A WELL-DESIGNED COMMUNITY
CONTRIBUTING TO THE CITY’S DISTINCT
IDENTITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF RESIDENTS.
LU 5.1
Development complements existing character: Require that new development be designed to complement Moorpark’s historical family-oriented small-town feel.
LU 5.2
Integration of public spaces: Maintain public spaces and services to create an aesthetically and functionally welcoming environment.
LU 5.3
Special design districts: Establish design concepts for the overall community and special treatment areas, such as the downtown district, which may include guidelines for architecture, landscape architecture, signage, streetscape, and infrastructure.
LU 5.4
Landscapes for quality development: Require the use of landscaping around residential, commercial and industrial buildings and parking areas as well as along easements of flood control channels, roadways, railroad right of ways, and other public and private areas, to soften the urban environment and enhance views from roadways and surrounding uses.
LU 5.5
Compatible land uses: Require design features that provide visual relief and separation between land uses of conflicting character.
LU 5.6
Historic resources: Collaborate with the County of Ventura Cultural Heritage Board and Moorpark Historical Society to identify, inventory, and preserve Moorpark's historical resources.
LU 5.7
Public art: Encourage the provision of art in public places and inclusion of works of art or artistic elements as a part of commercial and industrial development projects.
LU 5.8
Entryways: Encourage the development of identifiable entryways for the overall community, and in unique or principal business/commercial districts of the city (i.e. city core and transportation corridors) by establishing design standards for these areas that include landscape setbacks, sign monumentation and other special design treatments.
GOAL LU 6
MAINTENANCE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH
OTHER USES: DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED AND
DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITIES
DISTINGUISHING MOORPARK AND ENSURE
EFFECTIVE TRANSITIONS AMONG
NEIGHBORHOODS AND DISTRICTS.
LU 6.1
Land use compatibility: Require that development is located and designed to assure compatibility among land uses.
LU 6.2
Development transitions: Require that the scale and massing of new development in higher density locations provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of the adjoining uses.
LU 6.3
Design for safety: Require that development and public spaces are designed to enhance public safety and discourage crime by providing street-fronting uses, adequate lighting, and features that cultivate a sense of community ownership.
50
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-28
LU 6.4
Property maintenance: Maintain aging structures and prevent deteriorating conditions through private and public conservation and
rehabilitation programs.
LU 6.5
Property upgrades: Provide for and promote the revitalization of visually degraded landscaping, building facades and deteriorated buildings in the community.
LU 6.6
Gathering places for residents: Permit the development of assembly facilities for social, cultural, and educational, organizations in locations where they can be located, designed, and managed to assure compatibility with adjoining uses.
LU 6.7
Protection from environmental hazards: Prohibit or effectively control land uses that pose potential environmental hazards to Moorpark’s neighborhoods and districts.
GOAL LU 7
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT: LAND USES AND
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES THAT ARE
COMPATIBLE WITH SCENIC AND NATURAL
RESOURCES AND THAT ENCOURAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION.
LU 7.1
Mitigate environmental impacts: Locate and design new development to minimize adverse visual and/or environmental impacts to the community.
LU 7.2
Design development to respect natural setting: Require that new development respect, integrate with, and complement the natural features of the land including conforming
building massing to topographic forms, restricting grading of steep slopes and encouraging the preservation of visual horizon lines and significant hillsides as prominent visual features.
LU 7.3
Protect uses from hazards: Require that new development be located and designed to avoid or mitigate any potentially hazardous conditions.
LU 7.4
Open space corridor: Preserve and enhance the flood control easement area adjacent to the Arroyo Simi floodway as an important natural and scenic feature of the community.
LU 7.5
Arroyo Simi corridor recreation: Encourage the development of compatible open space/recreational uses of the Arroyo Simi floodway that are consistent with the provisions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for floodway uses.
GOAL LU 8
SUSTAINABLE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT:
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES THAT
PROTECTS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES,
REDUCES GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,
REMOVES CARBON FROM THE ATMOSPHERE,
AND IS RESILIENT TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
LU 8.1
Model of environmental sustainability: Establish Moorpark as a leader of land use development practices that contribute to the sustainability and stewardship of environmental resources including air quality protection, energy and water efficiency, natural resource conservation, greenhouse gas reduction, and climate change resiliency.
51
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-29
LU 8.2
Reduction of energy and water use: Encourage developers to exceed standards for building design and construction specified by
the California Green Building Standards Code,
with goals of achieving net zero energy and
water use.
LU 8.3
Design for climate change: Require major development projects, as defined in the Municipal Code, to prepare greenhouse gas reduction and climate change resilience plans.
LU 8.4
Adaptive re-use of existing buildings: Encourage the adaptive reuse of structures as a means of minimizing waste, capitalizing on a building’s embodied energy, and supporting environmental sustainability.
LU 8.5
Low-impact landscapes: Require new development projects to use, and encourage existing development to retrofit properties using, low impact landscaping techniques which include drought-tolerant plant species, reduction of turf area, irrigation designed to meet plant needs, and grouping plants according to their watering needs.
LU 8.6
Sustainable streetscapes: Consider improvements of the city’s streetscapes addressing the impacts of climate change by such techniques as tree canopies to reduce heat islands and use of pervious paving, and bioswales to capture stormwater and percolate into the groundwater.
LU 8.7
Habitat protection: Encourage public & private projects to be located and designed to preserve significant habitats, vegetation, and other significant educational, scientific, scenic, resources of social value, protect air quality, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions as specified by the Conservation, Open Space and Recreation Element.
LU 8.8
Waste reduction and recycling: Require that commercial, industrial and manufacturing uses implement reuse, reduction, and recycling programs consistent with the city's Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
LU 8.9
Design to avoid hazards: Require that development in significant hazard areas is located and designed to ensure safety in accordance with the Safety Element.
GOAL LU 9
HEALTH AND WELLNESS: LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS
THAT CONTRIBUTE TO HEALTHY LIVES FOR
MOORPARK’S RESIDENTS.
LU 9.1
Healthy buildings and places: Promote a healthy built environment by encouraging the design and rehabilitation of buildings and sites for healthy living and working conditions, including promoting enhanced pedestrian-oriented circulation, lighting, building materials and universal accessibility using existing tools, practices, and programs.
LU 9.2
Active pedestrian environment: Locate and design new development to foster active pedestrian access and use by such techniques as locating a mix of uses and buildings around common plazas and open spaces to promote
outdoor gatherings and walking among
businesses, inclusion of bicycle storage facilities,
and pedestrian walkways and connections to
adjoining residential neighborhoods.
52
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-30
LU 9.3
Age-friendly living: Encourage the development of barrier-free buildings and streets, enhanced mobility, and independence
of people with disabilities and safe
neighborhoods to support a life-long process of
active aging by making Moorpark an “age
friendly” city that strives to create a positive,
socially inclusive, and supportive environment.
LU 9.4
Active transportation: Promote infrastructure improvements that support active transportation with safe, attractive, and comfortable facilities that meet community needs.
LU 9.5
Parks contributing to healthy lives: Promote opportunities for physical activity for users of all ages and abilities by continuing to improve the quality of existing park and open space facilities
and creating recreation programs as defined by
the Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation
Element.
LU 9.6
Urban agriculture: Encourage and preserve land for urban agriculture in the city to ensure a long-term supply of locally produced healthy food; promote resiliency, green spaces, and healthy food access through resources such as a farmers’ market; increase the number of urban agriculture sites including but not limited to: community gardens, parkway gardens, urban farms and rooftop gardens.
LU 9.7
Arts and culture: Support arts and culture as a way of enhancing mental health, social connectedness and overall well-being.
LU 9.8
Healthy food options: Promote ready access to affordable, fresh, and healthy food options by supporting and promoting community
gardens, urban agriculture, culinary classes, farmers markets, and full service and culturally diverse markets.
LU 9.9
Responsible alcohol use: Support responsible alcohol regulations that protect public health, safety, and welfare that include, but are not limited to: responsible advertising, licensing conditions, social host regulations, prevention
of overconcentration of stores selling alcohol,
and appropriate public education.
LU 9.10
Drug aversion: Discourage drug (mis)use through prohibition of the cultivation or use of cannabis, appropriate public education, and extra-curricular programs and activities for youth (e.g., Teen Center, Boys and Girls Club, etc.).
LU 9.11
Childcare provision: Support an adequate supply of affordable and quality child-care options in a variety of settings- private homes, schools, public agencies, faith-based organizations, and private agencies- for caregivers.
LU 9.12
Elder and assisted care: Support the increased availability of home care and appropriate assisted-living opportunities for older adults and people with disabilities, including appropriate support and resources for their caregivers.
LU 9.13
Health services: Support nonprofit and for-profit organizations, business, and local schools that are engaged in health and wellness education and that provide access to affordable, quality health care for all residents.
LU 9.14
Access to quality health care: Leverage city tools to attract and retain a full complement of
53
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-31
primary, preventive, and specialty health care providers, including those providing mental health, vision, and dental care.
LU 9.15
Mental health literacy: Support a range of appropriate activities and resources, and promote community awareness and sensitivity regarding the importance of mental health literacy and care for residents of all ages.
LU 9.16
Food security: Support nonprofit agencies, local schools, and governmental agencies that reduce food insecurity and improve readily available nutrition for lower income or assistance-dependent residents, particularly in underserved areas.
LU 9.17
Family resources: Support family resource centers that offer activities for children and their caregivers that focus on early literacy, parenting classes and workshops, caregiver-and-child classes, childcare, nutrition classes, school readiness, and other services.
LU 9.18
Library and lifelong learning: Provide and promote a state-of-the-art library that offers resources and engaging programs to meet the varied educational, cultural, civic, and general business needs of all residents and support opportunities for lifelong learning and enrichment.
LU 9.19
Smoking and vaping: Continue to support public health and safety through local tobacco/smoking regulations; discourage youth smoking and vaping and support prevention and cessation efforts.
GOAL LU 10
FAIR AND EQUITABLE: FAIR AND EQUITABLE
ACCESS FOR ALL RESIDENTS TO EMPLOYMENT,
HOUSING, PARKS, EDUCATION, RECREATION,
TRANSPORTATION, RETAIL, AND PUBLIC
SERVICES, INCLUDING PARTICIPATION IN
GOVERNMENTAL DECISION-MAKING.
LU 10.1
Access to services and amenities: Strive to ensure that recreational, health, public service, and other desired services and neighborhood amenities are distributed equitably throughout the city.
LU 10.2
Access to housing: Promote an equitable distribution of housing types for all income groups throughout the city and promote mixed-income developments rather than over-concentrating below-market-rate housing in certain areas.
LU 10.3
Employment and education match: Encourage a balance between job type, the workforce, and housing development to reduce the negative impacts of long commutes and provide a range of employment opportunities for all city residents.
LU 10.4
Overconcentration of impact uses: Avoid the overconcentration of high-impact uses and facilities that disproportionally affects a particular neighborhood, center, or corridor to ensure that such uses do not result in an inequitable environmental burden on low-income or minority neighborhoods.
LU 10.5
Local-serving businesses: Encourage mixed-use and commercial development to provide retail spaces conducive to community-serving small businesses and business incubation.
54
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-32
LU 10.6
Community participation: Provide and promote opportunities for all residents to fully participate in civic decision-making through the
city’s commissions, boards, oversight entities,
and committees and processes that emphasize
the collaborative exchange of ideas by all
segments of the community.
LU 10.7
Educational partnerships: Collaborate with local schools in areas of opportunity, including school transit, health and safety, academic performance, and educational outcomes.
LU 10.8
Economic security: Promote and support workforce development options for residents seeking to enhance their job skills, employment stability, and economic security by supporting collaborations with Moorpark College, high schools, adult schools, and employers.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
GOAL LU 11
MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS: A CITY COMPOSED OF
NEIGHBORHOODS WITH A VARIETY OF
HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE DESIRABLE PLACES
TO LIVE, CONTRIBUTE TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE,
AND WELL-MAINTAINED.
LU 11.1
Quality neighborhoods: Maintain the uses, character, amenities, and quality of Moorpark’s residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the city’s identity, economic value, and residents’ quality of life.
LU 11.2
Neighborhood maintenance and upgrades: Promote the renovation of existing housing units in single- and multi-family neighborhoods requiring that they maintain the distinguishing
characteristics and qualities of their neighborhood, such as prevailing lot sizes; building form, scale, massing, and relationship to street frontages; architectural design; landscape; property setbacks; and comparable elements.
LU 11.3
Pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods: Maintain sidewalks, parkways, street tree canopies, and landscaping throughout the residential neighborhoods to promote walking as an enjoyable and healthy activity and alternative to automobile use.
LU 11.4
Safe neighborhoods: Require that residential developments be designed to facilitate and enhance neighborhood surveillance for safety.
LU 11.5
Sustained development standard: Preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods through enforcement of land use and property standards, ensuring that adjacent nonresidential uses are buffered from residences in harmonious and attractive ways.
GOAL LU 12
COMPATIBILITY OF NEW RESIDENCES: NEW
HOUSING THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE
CHARACTER OF EXISTING INDIVIDUAL
NEIGHBORHOODS AND MINIMIZES LAND USE
INCOMPATIBILITY.
LU 12.1
Managed growth: Require that new residential development be consistent with city-adopted growth ordinance policies for location and standards.
LU 12.2
Development that complements: Require that new residential development complements the overall character of the city, establishes a sense
55
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-33
of place, is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood, and ensures compatibility with important existing local community identities.
LU 12.3
Accessory dwelling units: Require that accessory dwelling units are located and designed to complement the scale and architectural character of the existing single
family unit on a property.
LU 12.4
Recreation and open space: Require that new residential development includes adequate public and private open space and recreational uses to serve residential neighborhoods.
LU 12.5
Multi-family housing quality: Require that new and renovated multi-family residences achieve a high level of architectural design and quality of life for residents, in consideration of the following principles:
a. Consistent architectural design treatment of all elevations, including those not visible from public places
b. Design elevations of multi-family buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways to exhibit a high level of visual interest and distinguish entries for separate residences as feasible for security and privacy
c. Incorporate setbacks, modulate building mass, and design multi-family buildings and projects in consideration of the development patterns of the surrounding neighborhood
LU 12.6
Inclusion of public spaces: Provide ample public spaces and tree-lined sidewalks or pathways furnished with appropriate pedestrian amenities that contribute to comfortable and attractive settings for pedestrian activity in multi-family neighborhoods.
GOAL LU 13
MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE COMMERCIAL
AREAS: VITAL, ACTIVE, PROSPEROUS, AND
WELL-DESIGNED COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND
CORRIDORS THAT OFFER A DIVERSITY OF
GOODS, SERVICES, AND ENTERTAINMENT AND
CONTRIBUTE A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE FOR
MOORPARK’S RESIDENTS AND VISITORS.
LU 13.1
Commercial uses and diversity: Provide for and encourage the development of a broad range of uses in Moorpark’s commercial centers and corridors consistent with Economic Development Element that reduce the need to travel to adjoining communities and capture a greater share of local spending.
LU 13.2
Los Angeles Avenue commercial centers: Provide for the concentration of commercial uses along Los Angeles Avenue and other arterial corridors in a manner that provides for improved commercial services to the community, maximizes revenue generation, and improves access to adjoining residential neighborhoods.
LU 13.3
Intensification of commercial centers: Encourage the intensification of existing commercial centers by permitting the construction of new buildings on surface parking lots, provided that sufficient parking is developed to support existing and new businesses.
LU 13.4
Economic enhancement of commercial centers: Prioritize the transition of existing commercial centers to incorporate experiential uses that enhance their economic vitality and role as active places for community gathering and patronage.
56
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-34
LU 13.5
Commercial center identities: Establish and maintain distinct identities for Moorpark’s commercial centers and corridors to reflect their
location, mix of uses, surrounding uses, and
targeted markets, differentiating these by use,
scale and form of development, and amenities.
LU 13.6
Quality commercial design: Require that new development and renovated or remodeled multi-tenant commercial centers and corridors be designed to complement existing uses, as appropriate, and exhibit a high quality of architecture and site planning in consideration of the following principles as feasible and appropriate to the site:
a. Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, in terms of building scale, elevations, and materials
b. Landscaping contributing to the appearance and quality of development
c. Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking areas, and to adjoining neighborhoods and districts
d. Incorporation of plazas and expanded sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian, outdoor dining, and other activities.
LU 13.7
Connections with neighborhoods and districts: Require the development of external cross-connections between commercial uses so as to reduce the number of curb cuts and number of vehicle trips on adjacent roadways.
LU 13.8
Coordinated design: Encourage adjacent commercial developments to coordinate design with regard to access, parking, and architectural features.
GOAL LU 14
COMPATIBILITY OF NEW COMMERCIAL
USES: NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING
LAND USES.
LU 14.1
Commercial compatibility with adjoining uses: Require that new commercial uses are compatible in scale and character with adjacent commercial uses and residential neighborhoods.
LU 14.2
Managed truck access: Require that automobile and truck access to commercial properties be located so as to minimize impacts to adjacent uses.
LU 14.3
Maintained commercial properties: Require that commercial uses be well maintained to enhance the visual characteristics of the area.
GOAL LU 15
MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS: A
DIVERSITY OF WELL-DESIGNED DISTRICTS AND
CORRIDORS CONTAINING AN INTEGRATED
MIX OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND/OR
HOUSING THAT ENABLE MOORPARK’S
RESIDENTS TO LIVE CLOSE TO BUSINESSES
AND EMPLOYMENT, REDUCE AUTOMOBILE
USE, AND ACTIVELY ENGAGE AND ENHANCE
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY.
LU 15.1
Integrated housing and commercial development: Support the development of housing integrated with commercial and/or office uses on existing commercially-developed properties in Moorpark characterized by declining retail activity where full development for such uses is unlikely to be supportable by
57
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-35
the marketplace and/or properties with expansive surface parking lots.
LU 15.2
Mix uses to enhance economic activity: Support mixed-use development projects as a strategy to enhance the economic vitality of adjoining commercial districts, through increases of population in proximity to these uses.
LU 15.3
Mixed-use compatibility: Require that buildings and sites integrating housing with nonresidential uses be designed to assure compatibility among uses.
LU 15.4
Inclusion of recreation and amenities: Require that residential/commercial mixed-use projects provide on-site recreational areas and other pedestrian-scale amenities such as benches, fountains, and landscaping that contribute to the living environment of residents, or contribute funds for their development within proximity of the project.
LU 15.5
Active mixed-use districts: Require that sites and corridors integrating housing and commercial/office uses are designed to establish the character of distinct, cohesive, and pedestrian-oriented places that are linked with and walkable from adjoining residential neighborhoods. Contributing elements may include:
a. Wide sidewalks, plazas, and courtyards along building frontages for outdoor dining and gathering
b. Pedestrian walkways connecting parking areas with buildings and public spaces that are well defined by paving materials, landscaping, lighting, and way-finding signage
c. Landscaping that is sustainable and contributes to the aesthetic and economic value of the center and provides a tree canopy reducing the heat island effect and greenhouse gas emissions
d. Buildings oriented toward the street and public spaces with parking located to the
rear of the buildings, underground, or in
structures
LU 15.6
Ground floor building frontages: Require that the ground floor of buildings facing primary street frontages, as defined in the Municipal Code, be developed for pedestrian active retail and comparable uses, with housing located on
their upper floors or to their rear.
LU 15.7
Parking: Encourage that parking be located and accessed from the rear of buildings along corridor frontages, while supporting the development of shared parking structures as an alternative to individual on-site parking.
LU 15.8
Transitions with adjoining uses: Require that development projects in the “Mixed Use Corridors” are designed to assure transitions in density and scale, and avoidance of impacts on adjoining residential neighborhoods.
GOAL LU 16
INDUSTRIAL USES: A DIVERSITY OF
INDUSTRIAL USES THAT ARE LOCATED AND
DESIGNED IN A COMPATIBLE MANNER WITH
SURROUNDING LAND USES.
LU 16.1
Diverse industries and jobs: Support a variety of industrial uses, including green industries, that offer job opportunities for Moorpark’s residents and revenues to the city without compromising environmental quality.
58
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-36
LU 16.2
Industrial expansion: Provide sufficient land capacity and development standards attracting development of technology and digital,
research and development, and creative
industries offering skilled jobs for Moorpark’s
residents consistent with the Economic
Development Element.
LU 16.3
Technology and innovation: Anticipate the technological and innovative evolution to support a greater diversity of activity by facilitating new development that is flexible and can accommodate changing uses over time.
LU 16.4
Redevelopment of Princeton Avenue industrial: Support the long-term redevelopment of the concrete batching facilities along Princeton Avenue as a unified industrial park, integrating multiple buildings
and tenants in a “park-like” setting with
extensive common areas, landscape, and
amenities for employees.
LU 16.5
Industrial park diversity: Support the integration of uses in areas designated as “Industrial Flex” supporting local employees and that may attract evening use, such as financial offices, health clubs, childcare, restaurants, and entertainment, provided that these are compatible and do not detrimentally impact the primary industrial function of the area.
LU 16.6
Design for compatibility: Require that industrial uses incorporate design features, such as screen walls, landscaping and setbacks, and include height and lighting restrictions, so as to
minimize adverse impacts on adjacent uses and
enhance the visual characteristics of the area.
LU 16.7
Maintenance and enhancement: Require that industrial uses shall be well maintained to
enhance the visual characteristics of the area.
LU 16.8
Bicycle access: Encourage major business park and industrial projects, as defined in the Municipal Code, to incorporate facilities that promote employee access by bicycles such as secured storage, showers, and lockers.
LU 16.9
Alternative energy infrastructure: Encourage large scale industrial development projects, as defined in the Municipal Code, to provide on-site alternative energy sources and containment of stormwater runoff.
GOAL LU17
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES:
GOVERNMENTAL, UTILITY, INSTITUTIONAL,
EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL,
RELIGIOUS, AND SOCIAL FACILITIES AND
SERVICES ARE LOCATED AND DESIGNED TO
COMPLEMENT MOORPARK’S
NEIGHBORHOODS, CENTERS, AND
CORRIDORS.
LU 17.1
Services supporting Moorpark’s residents: Provide public facilities and services that are cost effective, and contribute to the health, safety, welfare, and personal development of all residents.
LU 17.2
Efficient development: Promote the co-location of parks, schools, libraries, health services, recreation facilities, and other community facilities to support resident needs and leverage limited resources.
59
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-37
LU 17.3
Maintenance and enhancement: Coordinate, partner with, and encourage school and utility districts and other government and
independent agencies that may be exempt from
city land use control and approval to plan and
improve their properties and design
improvements to achieve a high level of visual
and architectural quality that maintains the
character of the neighborhood or district in
which they are located.
LU 17.4
Compatibility with adjoining uses: Ensure that city-owned buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, character, and landscape with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and minimize potential impacts such as traffic, noise, and lighting.
LU 17.5
Design excellence: Lead by example,
demonstrating design excellence in new
buildings developed by the city by
incorporating sustainable building practices and
providing a high level of architectural quality.
LU 17.6
Utility undergrounding: Encourage the undergrounding of utilities in conjunction with development projects where feasible.
LU 17.7
Design of utility facilities: Minimize the visual impacts of above-grade utility structures, such as water storage tanks, water check valves, electric and telephone boxes, etc. through use of landscaping, screening materials, and colors that blend with the environment to the extent feasible.
LU 17.8
Equitable access to infrastructure: Support equitable access to a full complement of critical
infrastructure and utilities for all residents and business.
GOAL LU 18
SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS: DISTRICTS
INTEGRATING MULTIPLE BUILDINGS, PROJECTS,
AMENITIES, AND LANDSCAPE INTO A
COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
DISTINGUISHED AS A SPECIAL PLACE TO LIVE,
WORK, AND VISIT.
LU 18.1
Role of specific plans: Utilize Specific Plans as a tool for implementation of General Plan policies and priorities as appropriate to integrate uses and establish a unique district.
LU 18.2
Consistency of specific plans with 2050 General Plan: Review and amend existing adopted Specific Plans to ensure that the ultimate land uses, design guidelines, development standards, infrastructure and phasing requirements are consistent with the 2050 General Plan text discussion for the type, location and intensity of use determined appropriate for each Specific Plan area.
SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
GOAL LU 19
DOWNTOWN: REVITALIZE THE DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL CORE (MOORPARK AVENUE
AREA, WALNUT STREET, BARD STREET,
MAGNOLIA AVENUE, AND HIGH STREET)
LU 19.1
Core community district: Support the continued development of the area along High Street as a distinct place identified as the symbolic and functional downtown of Moorpark.
60
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 2 : LAND USE | 2-38
LU 19.2
Complementary development: Promote the development of new commercial and office uses, housing, park or recreational facilities,
public parking, and a potential multimodal
transportation center in the commercial core.
LU 19.3
Relationship to transit station: Locate and design development to capitalize on and reflect its adjacency to the Metrolink station, including developing direct pedestrian connections.
LU 19.4
Visual character: Strengthen the visual character of the downtown commercial core in order to attract a variety of commercial and mixed-use (commercial and housing) projects and promote the economic viability of downtown Moorpark.
LU 19.5
Tree canopy: Maintain and expand the tree canopy in the downtown area to provide shade, improve air and water quality, reduce the heat island effect, and create habitat for birds and pollinators.
LU 19.6
Cooling elements: Encourage the use of trees and architectural elements that provide shade, cooling stations, and seating areas for pedestrian corridors.
LU 19.7
Pedestrian-oriented development: Require that buildings are located along and oriented to the street frontage of High Street to maintain an active pedestrian environment.
LU 19.8
Historic buildings: Preserve where possible historic structures and ensure that where new development occurs, it complements the physical qualities and distinct features of existing historic resources.
LU 19.9
Parking: Consider creative programs to provide sufficient parking for commercial and mixed-use developments on High Street.
61
ATTACHMENT 2
62
63
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Draft | November 2022 i
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, Deputy Community Development Director
Shanna Farley, Principal Planner
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
PlaceWorks
Mark Hoffman, Housing Element Project Lead
64
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Draft | November 2022 ii
This page intentionally left blank.
65
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft | November 2022 iii
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 ................................................................................................... 44
4.3.3 Residential Development Standards ...................................................................................................... 55
4.3.4 Development Permit Procedures ............................................................................................................. 66
4.4 Fair Housing Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 70
4.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 70
4.4.2 Fair Housing Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 72
4.4.3 Assessment of Opportunity ....................................................................................................................... 81
4.4.4 Contributing Factors .................................................................................................................................. 102
4.5 Housing Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 107
4.5.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .................................................................................................... 107
4.5.2 Housing Production ................................................................................................................................... 109
4.5.3 Fair Housing Implications for Sites ...................................................................................................... 118
4.5.4 Summary of Projects and Credits Toward the RHNA ................................................................... 121
4.5.5 Financial and Administrative Resources ............................................................................................. 122
66
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft | November 2022 iv
4.6 Housing Program Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 126
4.6.1 Quantified Objectives................................................................................................................................ 126
4.6.2 Progress in Implementing Housing Element Programs ............................................................... 128
4.6.3 Housing Element Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 133
4.7 Housing Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 136
4.6.1 Housing Goals and Policies .................................................................................................................... 137
4.6.2 Housing Programs...................................................................................................................................... 142
Appendices
A. Community Development Organizational Audit and Recommendations
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, 2015-19 .................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4-5 Moorpark Affordable Housing ................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 4-6 Locations Where Emergency Shelters Are Permitted ...................................................................... 49
Figure 4-7 Moorpark, Predominant Race-Ethnic Groups ..................................................................................... 90
Figure 4-8 Moorpark, Median Household Income by Census Block Group ................................................. 91
Figure 4-9 Moorpark, Prevalence of Children in Married Family Couples ..................................................... 92
Figure 4-10 Moorpark, Prevalence of People with a Disability ............................................................................. 93
Figure 4-11 Moorpark, Prevalence of Overcrowding ............................................................................................... 94
Figure 4-12 Moorpark, Prevalence of Renter Overpayment .................................................................................. 95
Figure 4-13 Moorpark, Prevalence of Homeowner Overpayment ...................................................................... 96
Figure 4-14 Moorpark, Opportunity Resources, Composite ................................................................................. 97
Figure 4-15 Moorpark, Educational Resources ........................................................................................................... 98
Figure 4-16 Moorpark, Economic Resources ............................................................................................................... 99
Figure 4-17 Moorpark, Environmental Conditions .................................................................................................. 100
Figure 4-18 Approved or Pending Developments in Moorpark ........................................................................ 117
67
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft | November 2022 v
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 ................................................................................................ 40
Table 4-19 Residential Development Fee Burden in Moorpark ......................................................................... 41
Table 4-20 AB1483 Required Documents and Website Access .......................................................................... 43
Table 4-21 Existing General Plan Residential Land Use Categories .................................................................. 44
Table 4-22 Residential Land Uses by Zone ................................................................................................................. 45
Table 4-23 Residential Development Standards ...................................................................................................... 55
Table 4-24 Residential Parking Requirements .......................................................................................................... 56
Table 4-25 Suitability of RPD-20 Zone for Affordable Housing ......................................................................... 60
Table 4-26 Development Time Frames ........................................................................................................................ 68
Table 4-27 Predominant Population by Neighborhood ....................................................................................... 72
Table 4-28 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions ....................................... 104
Table 4-29 Moorpark’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029..................................................... 107
Table 4-30 Infrastructure Adequacy for 2021-2029 RHNA Projects ............................................................... 115
68
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft | November 2022 vi
Table 4-31 Status of Projects Proposed for 2021-2029 RHNA Credit ............................................................ 116
Table 4-32 Impact of New Projects on Housing Affordability by Neighborhood ..................................... 118
Table 4-33 Approved and Planned Residential Projects in Moorpark ........................................................... 121
Table 4-34 2014-2021 Housing Element Objectives and Accomplishments ............................................... 126
Table 4-35 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress ........................................................................ 128
Table 4-36 Highlights of Selected Program Changes Based on Outreach ................................................... 135
Table 4-37 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period ............................................................................. 158
Appendix
A. Community Deveopment Organizational Audit, City of Moorpark
69
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 1
HOUSING ELEMENT
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Background
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.
70
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 2
4.1.2 Statutory Authority
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 residents.
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.
71
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 3
4.1.3 Related Planning Efforts
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.
72
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 4
4.1.4 Public Engagement
State law requires cities to make a "diligent effort" to achieve participation by all segments of a 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. The comments received
during these venues were incorporated into the housing needs assessment, constraints analysis, and
the goals, policies, and programs of the Housing Element. Venues included:
o Community Events. Multiple community workshops.
o Community Surveys. Conducted General Plan and quality of life surveys.
o General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). More than one dozen meetings.
O Special Needs Consultations. More than a dozen interviews with stakeholders.
• Housing Element Posting and Hearing. The City maintained a General Plan update website,
moorparkgeneralplan.com, that provided notifications and results of opportunities for public
engagement, surveys, and documents, including the draft 2021-2029 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 and to
the City Council on January 19, 2022. Subsequent draft revisions were also posted for review.
• State of California Review. Once approved by the City’s reviewing authorities, the draft 2021-2029
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 and
HCD regulations. HCD’s letter(s) on the City’s Housing Element are available online at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml. “HCD” provided two
letters requesting revisions, the first dated May 9, 2022 and the second dated September 2, 2022, to
the City. The City made revisions to address comments received in each transmittal and circulated the
document for the required public review prior to resubmitttal to HCD.
• Public Hearings. Upon completion of revisions to the 2021-2029 Moorpark Housing Element and
preparation of environmental clearance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the City will hold public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, for public
comment. The Housing Element will be posted prior to the public hearings and made available to any
party requesting a copy. The Planning Commission will review the draft on _________ ____, and the City
Council will consider adoption the Housing Element on _______________. The final Housing Element can
be found online at: www.moorparkca.gov/HousingElement.
73
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 5
4.2 Community Profile
This chapter discusses Moorpark’s demographic, economic, housing, and special needs characteristics
and trends in order to identify existing and future housing needs. This community profile provides a
foundation for responsive goals, policies, and programs in the element.
4.2.1 Population and Household Characteristics
Population Growth
Moorpark is the sixth most populous community 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 by 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.
74
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 6
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.
75
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 7
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, Moorpark 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.
76
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 8
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.
77
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 9
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. Moorpark’s median household income 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-
occupied 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. C h i i ff d bili S 201 2018
78
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 10
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.
79
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 11
4.2.2 Neighborhoods
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 Avenue 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 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 associations.
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
80
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 12
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.
81
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | September 2022 13
Figure 4-1 Moorpark Neighborhood Areas
82
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | September 2022 14
This page intentionally left blank.
83
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 15
4.2.3 Housing Characteristics
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
84
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 16
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 Moorpark 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.
Condominiums 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 number 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
85
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 17
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
86
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 18
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. Many
homes in this area 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
87
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 19
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.
The sample size for condominium and townhome sales is small; and therefore, the median prices may not be as representative.
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
88
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 20
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 2019, 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, 2015-19
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Jan-15
Jul 19
89
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 21
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 FreddieMac. 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.
90
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 22
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
91
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 23
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.
92
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 24
4.2.4 Special Housing Needs
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.
93
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 25
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 disposable 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. 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.
94
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 26
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.
95
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 27
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.
96
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 28
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 as 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.
Services for homeless people are coordinated from the Ruben Castro Human Services Center (RCHSC),
which includes the Moorpark Family Medical Clinic and the County Human Services Agency (HSA). The
HSA operates the Homeless Services Program, which connects people to 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
RCHSC 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. Ruben Castro Charities also provides a food pantry operation at Moorpark College.
97
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 29
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
Charities 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
98
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 30
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 that the City will, in cooperation with the County of Ventura, help fund a farmworker
study that will assess opportunities for farmworker housing, countywide and locally.
Underwood Family Farms, south of Moorpark
Underwood Farms
99
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 31
Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income Households
Nearly one of every four households in Moorpark is a lower income household, which includes extremely
low and very low income). Extremely low-income households (earning 0-30% of AMI) earn an annual
income of $33,800 for a four-person household in 2020, and very low-income households (earning 31-
50% AMI) earn up to $56,000. These groups consist of minimum-wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes,
disabled persons, college students, etc.—all have difficulty finding affordable housing. Table 4-14
documents the prevalence of each group and their housing problems in Moorpark.
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
(63% of owners and 89% of renters) still overpay for housing. Looking forward, SCAG projects that low
income households will increase by 610 households from 2021 to 2029. Of that total, 189 would be
extremely low income, 189 would be very low income, and 233 would be low income households.
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 240 195 | 81% 0% 190 | 79%
Very Low-Income 415 305 | 73% 7% 320 | 77%
Low-Income 910 475 | 52% 0% 480 | 53%
All Low Income Owners 1,565 975 | 62% 990 | 63%
Renters
Extremely Low-Income 375 315 | 100% 7% 315 | 84%
Very Low-Income 495 450 | 91% 19% 450 | 91%
Low-Income 520 470 | 90% 4% 470| 90%
All Low Income Renters 1,390 1,235 | 89% 1,235 | 89%
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.
100
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 32
4.2.5 Affordable Housing Projects
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 restricted 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
Homes
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Affordability Level
101
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 33
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
102
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 34
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 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.
103
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 35
4.3 Housing Constraints
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.
4.3.1 Nongovernmental Constraints
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
104
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 36
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 400 low-income housing tax credit projects and found that construction
costs were about 70% of the cost of developing affordable housing. 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 costs of $327,000 for Walnut Apartments and $360,000 for Vendra Gardens.
However, when the entire project development cost is considered, the per unit cost is much higher.
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 any of these three cost
reduction measures are used, 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.
105
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 37
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 local government to accommodate lower-income RHNA targets.
106
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 38
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.
107
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 39
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 have the least
required infrastructure. However, bicycle lanes and associated rights-of-way may be required. The City is
reviewing and evaluating its street infrastructure requirements as part of the General Plan currently in-
process. To that end, an updated Circulation and Infrastructure Element that will introduce revised
roadway standards is anticipated for adoption in early 2023.
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.
108
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 40
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.
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
Planning Compliance Review 100% Map/PD deposit $21,500 $21,500
Landscape & Lighting Plan Review Ii and inspection 100% City cost +15% admin fee
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
Source: City of Moorpark, 2021. Posted at https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11764/Schedule-of-Fees-and-Service-Charges?bidId=
109
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 41
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 of new housing, the City developed three
prototypes–accessory dwellings, single-family housing, and multiple-family housing of similar size.
Typical projects built on one acre of land were calculated by assuming a single-family home project of 7
units and a 20-unit apartment project—all built on one acre of land. Finally, the total fee was compared
to ICC building fee valuation tables, and land costs were added to obtain total development costs.
As summarized in Table 4-19, total development fees were $58,900 per single-family unit and $57,400
per multiple-family unit—approximately 17% of building permit valuation. However, once land costs are
added, the fee burden declines to 11.3% and 12.5% of the total development cost for single- and multiple-
family housing. It should be noted that fees are artificially higher for single-family homes since most
homes are larger than the 1,200 sf prototype and land costs should be higher due to their location. While
the results are below the threshold of “15%” often cited as a potential constraint, the findings underscore
the need to study fees to determine the cost burden under a variety of scenarios.
Table 4-19 Residential Development Fee Burden in Moorpark
Types of Fees
Residential Fees Per 1,200 sf. Unit
Accessory Unit Single-Family Multiple-Family
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
City Development Fees None $31,838 $31,141
County Water and Sewer None $9,046 $9,046
School Fees $3,792 $4,032 $4,032
Total Fees Per Unit $14,050 $58,864 $57,397
Building Permit Valuation $326,000 345,000 $330,000
Total Land Costs Cost Per Unit none $155,571 $108,900
Total Project Valuation
Fee as % Total Development Cost
$325,000
4.3%
$500,571
11.3%
$438,900
12.5%
Source: City of Moorpark, 2020
The City is undergoing a comprehensive fee update and impact fee nexus study to analyze the costs
related to new development. The intent is to modernize the fee structure and apply a consistent fee for
all development that is reliable and can provide developers with assurances of costs before application.
110
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 42
Other Nongovernmental Factors
Other nongovernmental factors 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. Occupied Sept. 2018
Shea Homes - Canterbury Lane. Application November 2010. Constructed 2015
The City is revising the application process for Residential Planned Development permits, which is the
primary means of approving residential developments 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.
111
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 43
Transparency Requirements
In 2019, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1483, which increases the transparency of
various codes, fees, and processes required for residential development projects in a community.
Specifically, AB 1483 requires all governmental agencies to publish on their websites specific financial and
local zoning information. Starting January 1, 2021, any City with a website is required to make information
available online. Moreover, agencies must update this information within 30 days of any changes.
Items to be provided online include:
• Current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by the city, county, or
special district applicable to a proposed housing project
• All zoning ordinances, design standards, and development standards for each parcel including other
regulatory requirements
• Current and five previous annual fee or financial reports and archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost
of service studies done by the city, county, or special district after January 1, 2018.
Table 4-20 outlines the documentation required to be made available online and the web path where it
can be found. The table also includes direct links to current versions of these documents.
Table 4-20 AB1483 Required Documents and Website Access
Required Documents Online Location
Schedule of Fees, Exactions & Affordability Requirements https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11486/Schedule-of-Fees-and-Service-Charges-Mar-17-2021?bidId=
Zoning Ordinance and Development Standards https://library.qcode.us/lib/moorpark_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_17
Current & Previous (5) Annual Fee and Financial Reports https://www.moorparkca.gov/890/Financial-Information-Hub
https://www.moorparkca.gov/225/Other-Financial-Reports
Impact Fee Nexus or Cost of Service Studies, and other financial reports In progress; RFP distributed for study (2022)
Source: City of Moorpark, 2022.
The City has also launched an online financial information hub to enhance transparency about the City’s
finances, and state of the economy of the Moorpark community at large. The financial hub can be
accessed at: https://www.moorparkca.gov/890/Financial-Information-Hub. The City Clerk's Division also
maintains a publicly available, searchable public records archive containing City ordinances, resolutions,
minutes, and staff reports at: https://www.moorparkca.gov/777/Public-Records-Archive.
112
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 44
4.3.2 Land Use and Housing Opportunities
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 4-21 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 4-21 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.
113
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 45
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 4-22 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 4-22 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.
114
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 46
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.
115
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 47
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.
116
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 48
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. They 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 must have a management plan, and are limited to one shelter per
lot, and a distance of at least 500 feet from any other shelter (as opposed to 300 feet per state law).
Overnight occupancy is limited to one bed per 70 sf. 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 requirements and procedures as other residential
uses of the same type in the same zone. There are no special occupancy, parking, or building standards.
Program 17 includes an update of these code provisions in compliance with Gov’t Code §65651.
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.
117
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 49
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
118
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 50
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 municipal codes and regulations make provisions for farmworker, employee, and
agricultural housing. These codes are 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.
119
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 51
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 requires 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
MMC does not allow larger residential facilities in residential zones, although such facilities are
conditionally allowed in commercial zones. The Housing Plan includes a program to revise the MMC to
accommodate larger residential care facilities in accordance with the latest fair housing law.
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.
120
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 52
Constraints on Housing People with Disabilities
Gov’t Code §65583(a)(4) requires an analysis of governmental constraints on the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for disabled people—including land use controls, building
codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions, and local processing and
permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints
that hinder the locality from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities. Gov’t Code
§65583(c)(3) requires the Housing Element provide a program to address, and where appropriate and
legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development
of housing for persons with disabilities, including providing reasonable accommodations for housing
designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.
Municipal Code Definitions
As part of the constraints analysis for the Housing Element, select definitions in the Moorpark Municipal
Code were carefully reviewed to determine whether they could be construed as a potential constraint. In
identifying a potential fair housing concern, three municipal code definitions—family, dwelling unit, and
disability—were particularly germane. According to the MMC, these terms are defined as follows:
• Family is defined as one or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to,
and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit.
• 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 exclusive use of one family.
• Disability means the same as that term is defined in the Fair Housing Laws. “Disabled person” or
“individual with a disability” means a person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits or
substantially limits one or more major life activities, anyone who is regarded as having such
impairment, or anyone who has a record of such impairment, as defined in the Fair Housing Laws.
Generally, the courts have invalidated definitions of family that distinguish between related and unrelated
persons or impose limits on the number of persons that constitute a family. Instead, definitions should
focus on barrier-free definitions of a family such as “one or more persons living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.” Similarly, dwelling unit definitions should not limit the number of
families occupying the unit or limit the number of facilities within a home that are designed to serve
multiple families, particularly common among those who have multiple generations in the same home.
While the City has not used code definitions to limit the occupancy, rental or lease, or design of housing,
the Housing Plan contains a program to amend the above code definitions as part of the zoning code
update and concurrent with the updated General Plan and Housing Element. Additional definitions will
be reviewed and amended to ensure that the zoning code is consistent with all fair housing laws.
121
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 53
Building and Land Use Policies
In addition to definitions, City staff reviewed existing building codes, residential development standards,
land use policies, and other local regulations to determine whether any of the above could be construed
as actual or potential constraints upon the maintenance, development, or improvement of housing for
persons with disabilities. To inform this assessment, the City also reviewed fair housing studies (e.g.,
Analysis of Impediments) conducted by Ventura County to identify areas of concern.
The following is a summary of findings.
• Building Codes. The City enforces the latest California Building Codes, including Chapter 11A and 11B,
which contain disability accessibility standards. The City has not adopted any local amendments
beyond those allowed for local climatic, geological, topographic, or environmental conditions unique
to Moorpark, and none of these requirements affect the accessibility of a unit. The City does not
mandate the inclusion of universal design elements in new housing.
• Development Standards. The City does not require additional residential development standards that
would impact the provision of housing for people with disabilities. Parking reductions are allowed for
senior housing and group homes. The City has been proactive in facilitating the development of group
housing, most recently the development of the 77-unit Oakmont Senior Living project, which is a
progressive memory care facility in the Carlsberg Specific Plan area.
• Siting Requirements. The City does not implement regulation that require special siting or separation
requirements for residential care facilities. Such uses are permitted like other land uses in the same
zone, and the City’s municipal code does not specify concentration limits. The only spacing and
concentration requirements that may apply are those already specified and authorized in the California
Health and Safety Code and other related codes.
• Density Ranges. The City’s Zoning Code does not have density ranges that for high density residential
development that allow for new single-family residences. All multiple-family projects that are counted
for the RHNA and allowed in the RPD zone allow 16 to 20 dwelling units per acre before density bonus
units are counted. Furthermore, all affordable apartment projects that were built in the past decade
were developed at a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre before density bonus units were added.
As discussed later, the City has been proactive in facilitating and approving housing projects for people
with a disability. The City has been active in facilitating the development of larger stand-alone facilities.
The 77-unit Oakmont Senior Living project, a market-rate housing project for seniors with memory
disabilities, was recently built. The City is also working with the developers of the 360-unit Aldersgate
continuing care retirement community to build their facility in Moorpark.
The chapter on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing will further discuss the fair housing implications and
issues surrounding providing housing and supportive services for disabled residents. The Housing Plan
also contains programs to address the varied housing and service needs of persons with disabilities.
122
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 54
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.
123
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 55
4.3.3 Residential Development Standards
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 4-23 provides a summary of the
residential development standards for the primary residential, commercial, and mixed-use zones.
Table 4-23 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 16-20
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.
124
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 56
Parking Standards
Adequate parking is an important component of well-designed residential development and is intended
to contribute to the value of a project; the safety of residents; and the project’s appearance and 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 4-24 lists the parking requirements for residential developments and the following text analyzes
the impact of standards on housing and proposes programs to address needed changes.
Table 4-24 Residential Parking Requirements
Housing Type Base Parking Standard Guest Parking Requirement Cumulative Spaces Per Unit
Dwellings, single or two
units on an individual lot
2 garage spaces for dwellings < 2,800 sq. ft. None Required
2.0 spaces
3 garage spaces for dwellings > 2,800 sq. ft. 3.0 spaces
Dwellings, multiple (greater than 2 units)
1 covered space per bachelor/studio unit 0.5 space/du 1.50 spaces
1.75 covered space for each 1-bedroom unit Incl. guest parking 1.75 spaces
2 spaces per 2-bedm unit, 1 in a garage 0.5 space/du 2.50 spaces
Mobile Home Parks 2 tandem spaces in a garage/carport 1 space per 4 mobile homes 2.25 spaces
Care Facilities < 12 people in a single-family home 2 spaces in a garage None Required 2 spaces
Care facilities not in a single-family home
1 space per 2 beds
plus 1 space for each 500 square feet
None Required
Depends
on unit size
Farmworker dwellings 1 off-street covered space for each home + one space for each 3 beds in group quarters 1 space
Senior housing restricted for residents 55 years plus
0.5 spaces per dwelling unit
(0.25 spaces in a garage or carport)
None Required
0.5 spaces
Emergency shelters Not explicitly stated
Transitional/Supportive Hsg Not explicitly stated
Low Barrier Navigation Cntr Not explicitly stated
Mixed Use Developments Not explicitly stated
Single-Room Occupancy Not explicitly stated
Accessory Dwelling 1 parking space, + required parking for the existing single-family unit on the same lot. None Required
Source: Moorpark Municipal Code, 2020. Note: Handicap parking must be provided where required by the California Accessibility Code.
125
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 57
Residential parking space requirements can, if too stringent and not related to consumer demand or
project needs, affect the cost and supply of housing to the extent that such standards make it infeasible
to obtain the requisite density or revenue necessary to finance new projects. However, the City of
Moorpark has not received specific comments from residential developers that the City’s current parking
space requirements constrain the production of market rate or affordable housing. In fact, the City Council
has approved the following pipeline residential projects which meet all City parking requirements without
any adjustments (e.g., variance, exceptions, etc.), demonstrating the appropriateness of City standards:
• Beltramo –three- and four-bedroom unit single family homes
• Everett Street Condos – two- and three-bedroom unit condominiums
• Green Island Condos – two-and three-bedroom unit condominiums
• Hitch Ranch Apartments – bedroom unit mix forthcoming
To facilitate residential development, the City has at times, reduced parking standards through
development agreements to encourage the production of affordable housing. Parking waivers may be
granted by the City Council after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. However, the
procedural requirements for a parking waiver are the same as for a variance (MMC §17.44.040(C)). This
process can, in some cases, take considerable time due to the public hearing requirements.
Although the City has had recent successes in accommodating residential development, a review of
current city municipal codes identified the need to make clarifications in its parking standards. Progam
#30, Parking Modifications, details several specific action items to be undertaken:
• Accessory dwelling units. 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 Gov’t Code §65852.2(a); make
other code amendments, including parking, as required by HCD to comply with state law.
• Homeless housing. Amend zoning code to modify parking standards for emergency shelters and
reduce the 500 foot spacing requirement to 300 feet, as required by Gov’t Code §65583 (a)(4)(A)(ii)
and §65583 (a)(4)(A) (v). Also, clarify parking standards for transitional and supportive housing.
• Mixed uses. Develop a process and standard to address the parking requirements for mixed use
developments that accommodate parking needs of both uses in a flexible and market driven manner.
• Density bonus. Update City’s density bonus ordinance, including provisions for reduced/modified
parking spaces, to comply with recently enacted state law (AB 2345, SB 290, and others).
• Parking reduction requests. Amend municipal code to allow for administrative reduction in parking
space requirements pursuant to applicant’s parking study; forward staff recommendations to the
appropriate project hearing body for consideration.
126
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 58
Analysis of Development Standards
The following is an analysis of all relevant land use controls as potential constraints on a variety of housing
opportunities, including but not limited to: building standards, lot standards, building setbacks, open
space, and parking in order to identify standards or regulations that might constrain or limit maximum
density or the development of housing. Key findings are as follows.
• Building Standards. The City’s municipal code includes conventional single- and multiple-family
residential zones, each with progressively greater levels of allowed residential densities. The highest
density zone, RPD-20, allows for a density of 16 to 20 units per acre. As discussed later, this density
has been successfully applied to various apartment projects to facilitate the production of affordable
housing. The municipal code regulates building height in feet; there are no limitations regarding the
number of stories as long as height limits are not exceeded.
• Lot Standards. Maximum lot coverage is 35% for housing in single-family residential zones, 50% in
multifamily residential zones, and potentially greater in RPD zones depending on the specifications of
the permit. Building setbacks are common to most cities and include a 20-foot front yard setback, a
15-foot setback for the rear yard, and small 5- to 10-foot side setbacks. These lot standards are typical
for Ventura County cities and are suitable for most residential developments. The City is developing
an ordinance to allow exceptions, if needed, at the request of developers.
• Open Space. The municipal code does not require a specific open space standard for housing; it is
regulated by the maximum lot coverage. There are no specific “on-site” open space standards—such
requirements would be proposed with and regulated through an RPD permit. As authorized by state
law, developers are required to pay a Quimby Fee to dedicate funding or land commensurate with the
amount of park and recreational facilities that would reasonably serve the new residential structure(s).
Otherwise, open space is determined by lot coverage and setback requirements.
• Parking. As stated in the prior table, parking standards are graduated based on the size and number
of bedrooms. For multiple-family housing, the parking standard is also graduated and includes: one
(1) covered space for each studio or bachelor unit, 1.75 covered spaces for each one-bedroom unit,
and two (2.0) spaces for each two-bedroom unit, one of which is in a garage. All multiple-family units
(EXCEPT one bedroom units) require 0.5 guest spaces per unit. As such, the “effective” one-bedroom
requirement is only 1.25 parking space/unit (assuming the 0.5 guest space/unit requirement is added
to it. Therefore, a normal mixed unit project would average two or fewer spaces per unit.
The City’s development standards have not, individually or cumulatively, constrained housing production.
While meeting all requirements can be challenging for infill sites where the land use is being intensified
above its current use, the City has the ability to modify such standards through the exception process.
Furthermore, the City will be adopting a citywide 15% inclusionary ordinance that applies to all parcels.
Therefore, any project that meets this requirement would be eligible for a state density bonus and entitled
to by-right modifications of development standards, including parking noted above.
127
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 59
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.
128
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 60
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 4-25 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 4-25 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.
129
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 61
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.
130
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 62
Affordable Housing Production and Preservation
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.
Recent examples of affordable housing properties include the following: 1) 62 units of very low, low, and
moderate-income affordable units at the Waterstone Apartments; and 2) 28-units affordable to lower
income households at the Waverly Place Townhomes. While successful in facilitating affordable housing,
the program is limited and covers 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. In practice, these discretionary actions extend the timeframe required to approve
projects, adding significant costs. The Housing Plan proposes a program to develop an inclusionary
program that can be applied citywide and that will be accompanied by a nexus fee.
Affordable Housing Preservation
In addition to building housing, the City has been successful in preserving its existing affordable homes.
As of 2022, the City has 725 units of affordable housing, which includes its one mobile home park. As
discussed earlier in this element, the City has negotiated long-term covenants on its affordable projects.
These covenants and affordability agreements help to stabilize the supply of affordable rental and
homeownership properties, many of which are affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income
individuals and families. The City’s 725 affordable housing units are preserved for the long term (through
at least the 7th cycle planning cycle), and new projects coming online have covenants of similar length.
As such, there are presently no apartment properties at risk of conversion from lower income uses.
The City has enacted a condominium conversion program to preserve apartment properties or mitigate
displacement. While many of the provisions mirror state law, the City’s ordinance contains additional
protections. For instance, an application for a condominium conversion must, among other items, ensure
that a minimum of 20% of the units are or will be reserved for the life of the project as affordable,
consisting of 10% low income units and 10% very low income units. The affordability of the units is
guaranteed through a recorded affordable housing agreement between the property owner and the City.
In addition, a conversion can occur only when it is below the vacancy rate set forth in the General Plan at
the time of approval. These provisions help to stabilize the rental housing market.
131
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 63
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.
132
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 64
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.
133
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 65
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 design review process for all
projects 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.
The City of Moorpark does not have stand-alone residential design guidelines that are applied citywide.
Instead, residential design standards are through a specific plan, overlay zone (safety or hillside related),
or negotiated on a project-by-project basis during the development review process. At times, the lack of
standards has resulted in delays for approving and conditioning applications for projects. While the City
has historically been successful in facilitating the development of large-scale residential projects (e.g.,
Moorpark Highlands, Carlsberg, and Downtown mixed-use), the present process will be amended to
address the requirements of recently enacted Gov’t Code §66300, effective January 1, 2020.
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” required per state law.
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 for all residential and mixed-use projects that can improve certainty
for the development community, 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.
134
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 66
4.3.4 Development Permit Procedures
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 the conditional use process, the City Council makes a standard application available on its website.
135
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 67
Prior to approving, conditionally approving, or denying an application for a conditional use permit, the
planning commission shall adopt written findings, by resolution, based on substantial evidence in view of
the whole record to justify the decision. In order for a conditional use permit to be approved, the planning
commission shall find that the proposed use:
• Is consistent with provisions of the General Plan, zoning ordinance, and other applicable regulations.
• Is compatible with both existing and permitted land uses in the surrounding area.
• Is compatible with the scale, visual character, and design of surrounding properties.
• Would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or uses.
• Would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
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.
Prior to taking an action for a planned development permit, the City Council shall adopt written findings,
by resolution, based upon substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the decision. In order
for a planned development permit to be approved, the City Council shall find that:
• The site design, including structure location, size, height, setbacks, massing, scale, architectural style
and colors, and landscaping, is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan, any applicable
specific plans, zoning ordinance, and any other applicable regulations.
• The site design would not create negative impacts on or impair the utility of properties, structures, or
uses in the surrounding area.
• The proposed uses are compatible with existing and permitted uses in the surrounding area.
136
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 68
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 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.
Time Frame
The time frame for reviewing and approving permit applications and discretionary approvals is based on
the location, potential environmental constraints, the need to ensure adequate provision of infrastructure
and public facilities, and the impact of large-scale developments on the City. For larger projects subject
to the RPD, the City allows concurrent processing of actions (e.g., General Plan amendment and zone
change) to expedite processing of development applications. Table 4-26 lists time frames for the
processing, reviewing, conditioning, and approving applications for residential development.
Simultaneous entitlement processing is also provided to expediting the review process. These procedures
ensure the development review process meets legal requirements without causing unwarranted delays.
Table 4-26 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 entitlements.
137
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 69
Initiatives to Mitigate Constraints
As mentioned above, the cumulative time frame to process residential development projects varies.
Projects requiring an RPD 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 a Senate Bill 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.
In 2019, an audit was conducted of the City’s Community Development Department by Management
Partners, which included an analysis of the entitlement and development permit process. The resulting
report “Community Development Organizational Audit” includes a detailed analysis of the historic
development process, a process map, analysis of technologies used and other aspects related to the
overall process required of new development applications in the City. As a result, the report included an
“Implementation Plan” with various tasks that were advisable to streamline development review, remove
constraints, and ensure that development would have clear expectations outlined prior to application.
Appendix A includes the management study and recommendations thereof.
The City has begun implementing the Plan through the General Plan and Zoning Code Update. With the
adoption of updated land uses and residential densities, the need for General Plan Amendments and
Zone Changes will be far reduced, if no longer necessary, to develop in a manner consistent with the
City’s vision. The Zoning Code update would include changes that would also streamline development
review and remove constraints previously experienced during development in the City. For example,
where a project may have required a legislative action to amend the General Plan or Zoning Code, the
expectation is that the Land Use Plan would incorporate land uses and densities that would no longer
require such legislative actions. As such, the current use of Development Agreements to negotiate the
terms of the legislative change would no longer be used except in certain limited circumstances.
By updating the General Plan and zoning, projects that comply with both would be streamlined through
the Permit Streamlining Act. The City has begun to streamline permit application and processes, which
includes online application submittal and future use of a comprehensive permit tracking software called
Energov, which will likely be released by 2023. The City has also begun to streamline the internal review
process of new applications through the Development Review Committee (DRC). In practice, development
would have required numerous meetings and changes to work through the DRC process. Staff now aims
to have a project reviewed no more than two times by the DRC prior to proceeding to hearing (once for
site plan review and a second time for conditions of approval). Staff also makes review by the DRC
available prior to the filing of a formal application, to ensure that potential developers are able to receive
critical feedback up-front. Along with other implementations already accomplished, this additional
coordination has streamlined the review of new applications in a more expedited way.
Taken together, the City time frame to process applications, from submittal to entitlement will be
significantly shortened and streamlined, facilitating new mixed-use and residential development.
138
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 70
4.4 Fair Housing Assessment
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.
4.4.1 Introduction
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. Informative
maps are also provided to support the findings of the fair housing assessment and can be found online
at the California Department of Housing and Community Development website.3
2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, California Department of
Housing and Community Development (April 2021 Update)
3 AFH maps can be accessed online at: https://affh-data-resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/
Defining Fair Housing Choice
Fair housing choice means that
individuals and families have the
information, opportunity, and
options to live where they choose
without unlawful discrimination
and other barriers related to race,
color, religion, sex, familial status,
national origin, disability, or other
protected characteristics.
AFFH Guidance Memorandum,
California HCD (2021)
139
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 71
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.
140
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 72
4.4.2 Fair Housing Assessment
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 4-27). 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 4-27 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
141
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 73
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 economic 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.
142
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 74
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 concentrations of 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 Los Angeles Avenue Corridor/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.
143
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 75
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
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. However, 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 shows 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.
Ruben Castro Charities (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 Ruben Castro Human Services Center, providing a wide
range of services to Moorpark residents.
144
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 76
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 have 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.
Community stakeholders indicated the need for the development of additional 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 also 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.
145
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 77
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 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.
146
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 78
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 to implement its Pathways to Home program.
147
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 79
Displacement Risk
Displacement risk refers to the risk of an involuntary move by a household due to landlord actions, market
changes, or other disruptions outside the control of the household. For instance, displacement risk could
be increased by one or more of the following conditions: 1) increasing levels of overpayment and
overcrowding due to rising housing costs; 2) significant investment or disinvestment in housing,
transportation, jobs, or physical infrastructure that results in people leaving their homes or neighborhood;
or 3) vulnerability to local hazards and disaster (e.g., flood, fire, seismic, geologic, etc.).
Displacement due to Housing Problems
The Urban Displacement Project has identified the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor–Downtown
neighborhoods as areas that are subject to a higher displacement risk. This is due to the high levels of
renters and the higher prevalence and severity of housing overpayment and overcrowding. Nearby,
similarly small areas of Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, and Camarillo have “sensitive communities.” However,
the vast majority of cities in western Ventura County have significant areas designated as sensitive
communities due presumably to the high housing rents in much of Ventura County.
Overpayment and overcrowding are indicators of displacement risk. In the northern portion of the Los
Angeles Avenue–Downtown neighborhoods, from 2010 to 2019, overpayment declined from 70 to 62
percent among renters and from 30 to 26 percent among homeowners. In the southern half, the
percentage of mortgage-paying homeowners who overpaid for housing declined from 47 to only 34
percent, but the prevalence of overpayment among renters increased from 53 to 68 percent.
Overcrowding was prevalent (25 percent plus) in the northern (not southern) half of this neighborhood.
While displacement risks continue to be a concern, the Housing Plan and AFH discussed later propose
the following actions to mitigate displacement risk in this area:
• Reinitiate the City’s homeownership programs and seek opportunities and funding sources to extend
preferences or marketing strategies to improve homeownership among 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 this neighborhood 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 options.
• Develop more apartments with affordable inclusionary units to increase the supply of housing and
reduce the incidence of market-driven rent escalation in neighborhoods.
• Continue to encourage use of rental vouchers, preserve existing affordable housing, and implement
condominium conversion protections to protect the supply of affordable housing.
148
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 80
Displacement Concern due to Historic Investment
As has been noted in the housing element, the Los Angeles Corridor-Downtown and Virginia Colony are
the oldest neighborhoods and date back more than 50 years before city incorporation. These areas have
historically had the oldest infrastructure, housing, and community facilities. The City has targeted the
areas identified as at risk for displacement with significant new investment. As discussed later under
“Concentration of Fair Housing Issues,” the City targeted millions in funds to build hundreds of units of
affordable housing for seniors, families, and disabled individuals. The City also invested in water and sewer
infrastructure, rail transit, roadway rehabilitation, and commercial façade programs.
The City continues to earmark funds to improve the physical and economic infrastructure in this area,
which improves the quality of life and opportunities for residents. In 2022, the City will earmark
approximately $8.0 million of ARPA funds for a new downtown Library, slated for construction in 2023. In
2025/2026, the City will refurbish playgrounds citywide including in parks. With respect to housing, the
City has approved and anticipates the construction of the Aldersgate project (390 units for seniors and
disdabled people), and will pass a $75 million bond to finance the development of Vendra Gardens, a
200-unit apartment property for low income families. As such, while these neighborhoods have had the
greatest needs, the City continues to make investments to improve quality of life.
Displacement Concern due to Hazards/Disasters
Moorpark’s natural topography, while a source of beauty and community pride, is also susceptible to
natural hazards that increase the risk of displacement of residents. The natural hillsides that frame
Moorpark’s northern and southern flank are designated as a very high fire severity zone according to
CALFIRE due to the terrain and natural vegetation. In addition, several earthquake faults cross the
southern flank of the community while the northern hillsides are susceptible to earthquake induced
landslides. The primary type of development in these areas is single-family residential development.
The central portion of Moorpark, referred to as Los Angeles Corridor-Downtown, and Virginia Colony, is
home to the majority of apartments, condominiums, mobilehomes, deed restricted affordable housing,
and older single-family residential homes. This neighborhood has a high prevalence of renters, seniors,
disabled residents, and lower income households. Unlike the periphery of the City, this area is designated
as a flood zone and is subject to the 100-year or 500-year flood risks. The City has made strides toward
protecting this area through the adoption of a floodplain management ordinance.
To mitigate potential displacement concerns due to hazards, the City is updating its Safety Element as
part of the update of the comprehensive General Plan. Policies will incorporate the most recent version
of the Ventura County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Moorpark Annex, most recently certified by FEMA in 2022,
into the Safety Element by reference, as permitted by California Government Code 65302.6. The City is
updating evacuation routes and developing a multi-hazard evacuation plan, in coordination with
surrounding cities, to ensure evacuation routes remain open and functional during emergencies. The City
is also incorporating the Ventura County Fire Department Strategic Fire Plan into the Safety Element.
149
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 81
4.4.3 Assessment of Opportunity
Community resources—their quantity, quality, and distribution—are known to affect opportunity for
residents in a community. In some cases, the effect may be direct and immediate, such as an
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.
150
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 82
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
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.
151
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 83
Economic Opportunity
Moorpark is known for strong economic opportunity. According to TCAC/HCD maps, economic
opportunity reflects not just proximity to jobs, but the prevalence 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.
The only exceptions to this pattern are the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor/Downtown and College
neighborhoods, but for different reasons than job proximity.
Key markers of economic opportunity are as follows:
• 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 prevalence 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.
152
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 84
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.
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.
153
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 85
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.
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.
Moorpark is prone to significant hazards of fire, flooding, and fault lines, posing risk 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.
154
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 86
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:
• 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 that 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.
155
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 87
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
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.
156
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 88
Concentration of Fair Housing Issues
The City of Moorpark incorporated in 1983, but its history dates well back to the early 1900s. Prior to
incorporation, Moorpark was known for its agricultural industries. Original founders established a variety
of agricultural industries, including walnuts, dry land crops, and later citrus and apricots. After World
War II, agriculture continued to play a large role in the economy, but the poultry industry became big
business in Moorpark, with turkey, chicken, and egg ranches dotting the landscape. Moorpark had only
4,000 residents up to 1980, concentrated primarily in the downtown in its older housing stock. Agricultural
uses dotted the surrounding landscape until the county approved specific plans in the 1980s.
As development sprung up around the City on vacant land, new residents moved in, and many of the
original farmworker families stayed in the Downtown and Virginia Colony Tract because these areas had
the most affordable housing as well as cultural institutions and services for residents. As housing prices
continued to rise throughout Ventura County and housing replaced crops, lower income residents
continued to stay in these neighborhoods, albeit experiencing higher levels of overpayment and
overcrowding. The existing housing stock continued to age along with the condition of infrastructure.
The City of Moorpark, Moorpark Unified School District, and nonprofit partners have made extensive
efforts to improve the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown and Virginia Colony. An abbreviated
sample of efforts since 2000 is summarized below:
o 2000: City approved $15 million in bonds for acquisition of Villa Del Arroyo MHP
o 2001: City approved $11 million in bonds for infrastructure improvements downtown
o 2002: MUSD issued $33 million in bonds for school rehabilitation
o 2002: City approved $16 million in bonds for Vintage Crest Senior Apartments
o 2008: MUSD issued $39 million in bonds for schools and Moorpark College
o 2012: City provided $14 million in RDA funds to build the Ruben Castro Human Services Center
o 2012: City provided $2.5 million to assist in the development of the Charles Street Apartments
o 2018: City provided $3.8 million to assist in the development of Walnut Family Apartments
Today, the broader downtown has the greatest concentration of public facilities and services of any
neighborhood in Moorpark. However, revitalization work remains to be done. As mentioned earlier in this
Housing Element, the housing conditions and infrastructure of this neighborhood continues to need
improvement along with programs to improve the economic condition and security of local residents.
The Housing Plan contains additional programs to target new housing, rehabilitate housing, provide
capital improvements, and continue services to these neighborhoods to improve quality of life and
mitigate concerns over potential displacement as the neighborhood receives quality of life improvements.
157
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 89
This page intentionally left blank
158
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 90
Figure 4-7 Moorpark, Predominant Race-Ethnic Groups
159
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 91
Figure 4-8 Moorpark, Median Household Income by Census Block Group
160
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 92
Figure 4-9 Moorpark, Prevalence of Children in Married Family Couples
161
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 93
Figure 4-10 Moorpark, Prevalence of People with a Disability
162
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 94
Figure 4-11 Moorpark, Prevalence of Overcrowding
163
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 95
Figure 4-12 Moorpark, Prevalence of Renter Overpayment
164
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 96
Figure 4-13 Moorpark, Prevalence of Homeowner Overpayment
165
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 97
Figure 4-14 Moorpark, Opportunity Resources, Composite
166
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 98
Figure 4-15 Moorpark, Educational Resources
167
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 99
Figure 4-16 Moorpark, Economic Resources
168
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 100
Figure 4-17 Moorpark, Environmental Conditions
169
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 101
This page intentionally left blank
170
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 102
4.4.4 Contributing Factors
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.
Moorpark’s approach to addressing fair housing issues fall within the following general strategies: (1)
expanding opportunities to encourage a wider range of housing types and prices; (2) significantly
reducing regulatory and governmental constraints to housing production; (3) implementing specific
mobility strategies that promote inclusion and protection from displacement; (4) encouraging
development of new affordable housing in all areas, including high resource areas; (5) implementing
place-based strategies to revitalize neighborhoods; and (6) furthering fair housing.
Key issues are described as follows.
Issue 1: Limited Housing Opportunities
Moorpark’s suburban fabric is defined predominantly by single-family homes, which account for 73% of
all homes—the second-highest proportion among Ventura County cities. The City has eight apartment
properties offering 1,132 housing units, including affordable properties, or 10% of the City’s stock. This is
directly related to the lack of land zoned for multiple-family residential along with discretionary regulatory
processes. As discussed in Issue 2, the lack of available zoned land has led to the necessity of processing
all applications for residential development through discretionary entitlements that require legislative
decisions for zone changes, General Plan land use changes, etc. The City is completing a General Plan
update that will address many of the underlying land use supply and availability challenges.
Issue 2: Regulatory Constraints
The production of housing, both market rate and affordable, requires that local regulations facilitate and
do not unduly impede development. In Moorpark, the development of higher-density housing types has
been historically inhibited by zoning, density limits, development standards, and the discretionary RPD
process. Fees and development agreements have also served to constrain housing production, leading
to lengthy delays. 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. The City is conducting a comprehensive update to the Zoning
Code that will address underlying governmental constraints.
171
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 103
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, suitable housing for many of these groups
does not exist in Moorpark, and the breadth of services is limited, in part due to the small 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. The Moorpark Municipal Code was inherited from the county
prior to the City’s incorporation. While select updates have been made, the City will commence a
comprehensive update of changes to state law.
Issue 4: Neighborhoods Requiring Investment
Although Moorpark is a new city, it predates 1900. The Downtown and Virginia Colony, the oldest
neighborhoods, have a disproportionate concentration of low-income and minority populations, greater
need for housing rehabilitation, older infrastructure, and greater prevalence and severity of housing
problems. In the oldest portions of these 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. In addition, all of the City’s eight apartment buildings, providing more than 1,100 units, are in
these neighborhood. 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.
Issue 5: Fair Housing Services
Fair housing providers revealed a relatively small number of complaints, due in part to the few apartment
properties in Moorpark and the lack of a local fair housing service provider. However, there is a need for
greater levels 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.
Table 4-28 includes fair housing issues discussed in the prior section, along with contributing factors,
meaningful actions and commitments, and timelines.
172
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 104
Table 4-28 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions
AFH Fair Housing Issues and
Contributing Factors
Meaningful Actions and
Specific Commitment by Program Timelines
Issue #1: Limited housing opportunities that limit the choices of residents in finding housing
• Lack of available land zoned
at appropriate densities to
facilitate the production of a
range in housing types
• 13a. Maintain inventory of residential sites needed to
address the 2021-2029 RHNA; periodically review list
of sites for compliance with no-net-loss requirement
• 13c. If housing types and affordability levels are
different than anticipated and cause a RHNA shortfall,
redesignate sites within 180 days to address shortfall
• Annual Review
• Need for concentrated
efforts to facilitate and
navigate the development
process to ensure timely
project completion
• 14a. Outreach to property owners and developers of
pipeline projects as a means to identify and address
potential obstacles to developing their property
• 14b. Support funding applications (tax credit, bonds,
etc.) to help applicants be awarded local, state, and
federal monies for affordable housing projects
• 14c. Continue coordination with applicants using a
“Conditions Compliance Checklist” to approve and
ensure remaining entitlements are followed
• Annual
• Annual
• Continuously
• Limited affordable housing,
especially in high resource
areas
• 5a-b . Conduct a nexus study as a prerequisite to
design an inclusionary requirement and
• 5b. Draft and adopt a citywide inclusionary program
and expenditure priorities
• 6a. Develop and adopt AHTF program parameters
• 6b. Seek mechanisms to grow trust fund, and fund
affordable housing in conjunction with the City's land
acquisition, assemblage, and disposition program
• 2022
• 2023
• 2023
• 2024
• Issue #2: Need to revise permitting, regulatory codes, standards, and fees that constrain development
• Lack of more formal
program to provide
regulatory assistance for
housing
• 23a. Review and revise the City’s density bonus
regulations to ensure consistency with changes in
state law
• 23b. Review the administrative exception ordinance
and add authority to allow flexibility in other specific
development standards cited as potential constraints
All three:
Concurrent with
Zoning Code
update by Dec
2023
• Permitting system that
constrains development of a
range in housing types
• 24a. Review and revise R-P-D process to remove
threshold of 5 or more units, review and revise as
needed the approving authority, criteria, etc.
• 24b. Review other administrative and conditional
permit processes as part of the overall update of the
zoning code
173
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 105
Table 4-28 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions
AFH Fair Housing Issues and
Contributing Factors
Meaningful Actions and
Specific Commitment by Program Timelines
• Lack of objective design
standards that allow for
certainty for developers
• 12a. Prepare and adopt objective development and
design standards (zoning, subdivision, or design
review) for all projects in accordance with state law
• 2024
• Fees that have not been
updated in many years, with
varying reimbursements
• 21a. Review development-related fees to determine
their appropriateness (nexus), amount charged, and
reasonableness; revise fees based on findings
• 21b. Periodically assess cumulative impact of fees and
service charges; make revisions as needed to achieve
cost recovery and further City goals and objectives
• July 2023
• Annual
Issue #3: Lack of housing opportunities for special needs groups
• Shortage of accessory
dwelling units citywide
• 15a. Amend zoning code to permit ADUs as a by-right
use in accordance with Government Code §65852.2(a) All four:
Concurrent with
Zoning Code
update by Dec
2023
• Shortage of housing for
homeless people
• 17a/b. Amend zoning code to permit transitional,
supportive, and navigation centers per state law
• Shortage of housing and
services for disabled people
• 19a. Amend zoning code to define and permit
residential care facilities in accordance with state law
• Shortage of housing for
farmworkers
• 20a. Amend zoning code to define and permit
employee housing in accordance with state
• Special needs groups have
significant unmet needs
• 27a. Work with current housing partners and expand
the breadth of collaborative partnerships to augment
existing administrative and financial resources.
• 27b. Produce and update a brochure advertising all
services provided by City partners and publicize on
the City’s website. Update annually
• Annual
• 2023
Issue #4: Need for improving older neighborhoods through reinvestment, displacement protection,
education, and wealth generation opportunities
• Older homes require more
frequent and substantive
maintenance and repair
• 3c. Conduct code compliance inspections totaling an
average of up to 150 residences on an annual basis
• 2a. Seek, apply for, and allocate funding for housing rehabilitation program.
• 2b. Develop program to include assistance for
ownership units, mobile homes, and rental units
• 2c. Contact nonprofits capable of making home
repairs and/or assisting in financial assistance on an
annual basis
• Annual
• 2023
• 2024
• Annual
• Downtown contains the
oldest infrastructure
requiring rehabilitation
• 4a. Prepare, implement, and report the CIP to City
Council to improve community infrastructure
• 4b. Develop GIS-based pavement management
system to guide street maintenance and repair
• Annual
• 2023
• Annual
174
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 106
Table 4-28 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions
AFH Fair Housing Issues and
Contributing Factors
Meaningful Actions and
Specific Commitment by Program Timelines
• 4c. Target efforts, to the extent feasible, to areas
which have experienced disinvestment
• Residents require services
that generate wealth,
protect jobs, provide
income security
• 27a Work with current housing partners and expand
the breadth of collaborative partnerships to augment
existing administrative and financial resources
• 27b Produce and update a brochure advertising all
services provided by City partners and publicize on
the City's web page. Update annually
• Annual
• 2023
• Reinvestment in the area
could raise property values
and rents, displacing
resident
• 10a-b. Conduct discussions with owners of affordable
housing as to their needs, ensure proper notification,
and provide technical assistance where feasible
• 10c. Continue to implement condominium conversion
ordinance and review for effectiveness
• 10d. Prepare an annual report for the Planning Commission, City Council, and stakeholders regarding status on achieving housing program goals.
• Annual
• Annual
• Annual
Issue #5: Fair Housing Measures
• 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
• 28a. Implement initiatives in Table 4-28 of the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing
• 28b Contract with Fair Housing agency to provide services and annually assess the need for changing level or mix of services
• 28c Report progress as part of the Annual Progress
Report for the Housing Element and annually review
contract for needed program change
• Ongoing
with annual
review
175
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 107
4.5 Housing Resources
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.
4.5.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
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 4-29
shows the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA for use in the Housing Element.
Table 4-29 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
Extremely Low Households earning 0-30% of AMI 189 14.6%
Very Low Households earning 31-50% of AMI 188 14.7%
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.
176
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 108
It is important to note that local governments 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 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.
177
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 109
4.5.2 Housing Production
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
approved (2022) 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. 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
178
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 110
• 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
179
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 111
• Beltramo. Beltramo is an approved (2022)
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. This 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, detention basins,
and manufactured slopes. Included are 20 affordable
units (18 moderate and 2 lower income) in
accordance with its development agreement and
affordable housing agreement. The project is
anticipated for consideration by the City Council in 2022.
• 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
180
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 112
Hitch Ranch Specific Plan
The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan encompasses a 277-acre site north of Poindexter Avenue and west of
Moorpark Avenue. The Specific Plan area will accommodate a residential community with park facilities,
private recreational facilities, open spaces, and equestrian trails. Of the 755 units, 642 units are anticipated
to be above moderate-income units, and 113 units (15%) will be deed restricted as affordable to lower
income households in accordance with the affordable housing agreement. The Specific Plan EIR and
project application were approved by City Council in July, 2022.
The DA for Hitch Ranch indicates that 113 units will be affordable to very low and low income households
as defined in state law in accordance with the RHNA categories. The overall project is anticipated to begin
construction in 2024 and be completed by 2029. In terms of phasing, the DA specifies that at the date of
the issuance of the building permit for the 400th unit, the building permit for the affordable housing
buildings will occur. At the date of the issuance of the building permit for the 600th market rate unit, the
affordable housing units would have received a certification of occupancy. Therefore, the affordable
housing units would be built within the middle phase of the Hitch Ranch project.
As part of the DA, the developer of Hitch Ranch is
obligated to dedicate a 23.44-acre vacant site to
the City. Specifically, the site will be delivered with
20 du/ac zoning intact and in “blue top”
condition, meaning the site is fully graded,
suitable for development, and ready to accept
utilities delivered to the boundary of the City site.
Once the City takes title to the land, the site will
be suitable for multiple-family housing. There will
be no delay due to off-site infrastructure needed
to accommodate the affordable housing project.
The City intends to sell the land to a developer
and execute a DA and Affordable Housing
Agreement (AHA) for units that will 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 though it may change to accommodate any
deficit that occurs as other projects are finalized. Staff anticipates circulating a RFP/RFQ in 2025 and
initiating development of the City Site for the described affordable housing within a year of that date.
The City continues to work with Hitch Ranch developers to ensure all requirements are followed. As the
project proceeds, the City will be working closely to ensure that all terms of the DA and AHA are fully
addressed and the City receives its donated site in accordance with the DA and AHA.
Hitch Ranch Land Plan
181
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 113
Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs have become an increasingly attractive option
for providing housing 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 continues to receive and approve applications
for ADUs on a consistent basis and updates its
ordinances as required by state law to facilitate the
construction of new ADUs. The following applications
and building permits have been submitted since 2018.
• 2018, 9 applications submitted, 3 permitted
• 2019, 14 applications submitted, 4 permitted
• 2020, 25 applications submitted, 19 permitted
• 2021, 15 applications submitted, 15 permitted
Over four years, an average of 10 ADUs received building permits. However, the use of averages for
making projections is inappropriate since the data show a significant discontinuous trend; 2018 and 2019
are distinctly different than 2020 and 2021 due to the adoption of the City’s ADU ordinance in 2020.
When policy interventions create a new baseline, the accepted practice for analyzing policy interventions
is a discontinuous regression design. In other words, when the City’s ADU ordinance was adopted in 2020,
it created two distinct periods of analysis—pre City ADU ordinance adoption (average 3.5 units annually)
and post City ADU ordinance adoption (17 units annually). Using a four-year average misses and
significantly underestimates the impact and effectiveness of the City’s ADU ordinance.
If the City assumes an average production of 10 ADUs annually, 80 units would be expected over the
2021-2029 planning period. The City is working with the Ventura Council of Governments to assist and
support projects that facilitate the development of ADUs. 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.
Prototype of an Accessory Dwelling
182
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 114
Additional Projects to Be Submitted
The City has additional residential/mixed-use projects that could reasonably be expected to develop
during the time frame of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. While not as advanced as the prior residential
projects, which have formal applications and nearly completed CEQA clearance, the City can nonetheless
expect additional applications for housing, in particular given the update of the General Plan and the
redesignation of new sites for housing. Several future sites are briefly summarized below.
• Moorpark Gateway. The City has received a
preliminary application for the Moorpark Gateway,
a project in northeast Moorpark. The developer
proposes a master plan for a mixed-use
development consisting of a 230-room hotel,
three apartment structures totaling 300 units, and
9,000 sf of commercial and restaurant space. The
six-story apartment structures will be built over a
partially subterranean parking structure. While
only in the initial stages, this project offers a
significant opportunity for additional housing,
including affordable inclusionary units. This
project originally received a GPA in 2015, but is
now proposing a modification to allow residential
uses (see illustration of project to the right).
• Other Residential Projects. Additional residential projects are in the development review pipeline but
are not fully described herein nor presently being counted toward the 2021-2029 RHNA. Moreover, it
is also expected that as a result of the General Plan update, additional sites will likely be redesignated
for housing. Until then, the following projects represent additional potential capacity:
o 95-unit townhome development (Spring Road)
o 110 single-family home development (Vistas)
o 21 single-family home development (Birdsall)
Should these and other residential projects advance further into the development pipeline, they may
be available as contingency (“buffer”) to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA and address the no-net loss
requirements in state law. Until then, these projects are listed for informational purposes only and will
not be used for meeting the baseline RHNA requirements. Nonetheless, these trends demonstrate the
high demand for housing in the community and support the contention that housing will be built
commensurate with the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA during the 6th cycle planning period.
Hilltop Site
183
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 115
Infrastructure Availability
The Housing Element must demonstrate that there is or will be sufficient water, sewer, and other dry
utilities capacity and infrastructure, including the availability and access to distribution facilities to
accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period (Gov’t Code, §65583.2(b)). This
analysis is needed to show that housing can reasonably be expected to be developed during the planning
period and that there are no infrastructure deficiencies that would unduly delay the timing of the project.
Table 4-30 lists each project credited toward the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA, the type of CEQA clearance
approved for each project, and findings of adequacy of infrastructure. As summarized below, all of the
residential projects have or will have adequate infrastructure in place. Only one project–Moorpark 67–has
pending CEQA clearance and this project is not necessarily needed to address the lower income RHNA.
In any case, the availability of existing infrastructure or ability to construct any required infrastructure
should not constrain the development of these residential projects.
Table 4-30 Infrastructure Adequacy for 2021-2029 RHNA Projects
RHNA Projects
Adequacy of Infrastructure and Services
CEQA Clearance
Water
Supply + Infrastr.
Sewer
Capacity + Infrastr.
Storm
Drainage Capacity
Electricity,
Gas, Other Utilities Solid Waste
Oakmont Exempt NI NI NI NI NI
High Street Depot MND-2020 LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Green Island Villas ND-2019 LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Aldersgate MND-2018 NI NI NI NI NI
Vendra Gardens MND-2018 LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Beltramo Ranch MND-2022 LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Everett Street MND-2022 LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Hitch Ranch EIR-2022 LSI LSI LSI* LSI* LSI
Hitch Donated Site EIR-2022 LSI LSI LSI* LSI* LSI
Pacific Communities MND-2017 LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Moorpark 67 In process MND-2022 NI NI NI NI NI
Source: CEQA clearance documents, City of Moorpark, 2022 Notes: NI: No Impact LSI: Less than significant impact LSI* Less than significant impact with mitigation 1_ Although the City has three other projects–Spring/Duncan/Ashley, Birdsall, and Vista–that have completed their CEQA clearance, these projects are not credited toward the 2021-2029 RHNA at this time. Instead, they presently serve as potential buffer projects.
184
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 116
Project Status and Feasibility
The City’s residential projects selected to address the 2021-2029 RHNA are anticipated to be built by the
midpoint of the Housing Element planning period (Table 4-31). While several of these residential projects
extend from the prior planning cycle, all projects have or will have received final CEQA and project
approval by the end of 2022. Table 4-31 shows each proposed residential project, completion status, and
remaining steps in the entitlement process required before the developer can submit for building permits.
The Housing Plan contains a specific program to continue to work with the developers of these projects,
to outreach to them, provide assistance needed to facilitate the timely completion of their applications
(including CEQA and DA/AHA), and other final steps in the entitlement process.
Table 4-31 Status of Projects Proposed for 2021-2029 RHNA Credit
RHNA Projects
Stage of Development Process and Estimated Time Frame
Expiration CEQA Apprv’d Plan Apprv’d DA/AHA Apprv’d Bldg Permit Anticipated Completion
Oakmont Project complete
High Street Depot 10/221 Yes Yes Yes 2022 2024
Green Island Villas 02/231 Yes Yes Yes Est. 2023 2024
Pacific Communities** 03/23 Yes Yes Yes Est. 2023 2025
Aldersgate** 09/221 Yes Yes Yes Est. 2023 2025
Vendra Gardens** N/A Yes Yes Yes Est. 2022 2025
Beltramo Ranch 1 7/2022 7/2022 Yes Est. 2023 2024
Everett Street 1 9/2022 9/2022 Yes Est. 2023 2024
Hitch Ranch** 1 6/2022 6/2022 Yes Est. 2023 2024+
Hitch Donated Site** 1 6/2022 6/2022 pending Est. 2023 2024+
Moorpark 67** 1 Aut 2022 Aut 2022 pending Est. 2023 2025
Source: City of Moorpark, 2022. Notes: DA: Development Agreement AHA: Affordable Housing Agreement Plan Approval: Final Development Plans Approved ** Projects listed in the prior 2014-2021 Housing Element. 1_Projects are generally eligible for at least a 2-year extension and up to 6 years if a tract map is filed.
185
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 117
Figure 4-18 Approved or Pending Developments in Moorpark
186
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 118
4.5.3 Fair Housing Implications for Sites
This section addresses the fair housing implications of the proposed projects/sites that will address the
2021-2029 RHNA. Included is an assessment of: 1) the impact of the projects to the existing household
income distribution in each planning area; 2) how the projects/sites are related to fostering opportunity;
and 3) how the sites/projects influence other parts of the fair housing assessment (e.g., segregation,
integration, disproportionate housing needs, and displacement risk).
Income Distribution and Inclusive Communities
Moorpark is relying on ten residential projects/sites to achieve its 2021-2029 RHNA. These projects are
primarily in two neighborhoods: 1) Championship-Gabbert-Hitch Ranch; and 2) Los Angeles Avenue-
Downtown-Virginia Colony. To determine the potential impact of these projects on each neighborhood,
federal data was used to estimate the household income distribution of each neighborhood at the census
tract level. Approved and soon-to-be-developed residential projects by affordability level were added to
the neighborhood’s existing household income distribution. Table 4-32 shows how the income
distribution of each neighborhood is anticipated to change due to new projects.
Four of six Moorpark neighborhoods will show no change in income distribution because either no
projects were proposed or the few small projects proposed had no material effect on the neighborhood.
The vast majority of growth in Moorpark (80% plus) will be in the high resource neighborhood of
Championship-Gabbert-Hitch neighborhood, and that will result in a more inclusive community. The LA
Avenue-Downtown-Virginia Colony, a low resource neighborhood, will house several new projects that
reduce the low to moderate share and increase the above moderate income share of residents, which
overall will bring a greater balance of household incomes to this historically disadvantaged area. These
projects will not require the demolition or replacement of any affordable housing in this area.
Table 4-32 Impact of New Projects on Housing Affordability by Neighborhood
Current Income Distribution Proposed Income Distribution
Neighborhood Lower Moderate Above Lower Moderate Above
Championship-Gabbert-Hitch 26% 14% 60% 29% 13% 58%
Mountain Meadows 16% 13% 70% <------- No Change ----->
Peach Hill 11% 23% 66% <------- No Change ----->
LA Avenue-DT-Virginia Colony 50% 26% 25% 44% 22% 33%
Highland/Carlsberg 16% 15% 69% <------- No Change ----->
Moorpark College 24% 28% 49% <------- No Change ----->
Source: HUD User, CHAS, 2014-2018, City of Moorpark, 2022.
187
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 119
Championship-Gabbert-Hitch Ranch
Residential projects will result in over 2,000 new units in this neighborhood. This includes a 100%
affordable project (Vendra Gardens) which will provide 198 apartments affordable to lower income
families and Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, which will provide 369 units affordable to lower-income
households. The Aldersgate continuing-care retirement community will provide 260 senior units, with
approximately 15% of the units set aside (or 26 deed restricted units) that are affordable to lower income
households. The following discussion assesses the impacts of residential development according to fair
housing concerns.
Integration/Segregation
Proposed projects will result in a broader range of incomes within this neighborhood. The neighborhood
is not a RCAA or R/ECAP since it contains some racial/ethnic diversity, but the neighborhood has a median
income of more than $150,000. Different race-ethnic and age groups in Moorpark have a strong
correlation with income levels, with lower incomes often correlated with Hispanics and African Amercians.
Although it is not possible to predict the race/ethnicity, age, familial status, disability, or other status of
residents, the increase in 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.
Access to 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.
Disproportionate Burden
New development will not exacerbate overcrowding, overpayment, or displacement. These conditions
typically occur in lower income, older, or substandard units. Homeowners or renters who desire to
purchase or rent homes will largely be moderate and above moderate income households and would not
be expected to overpay or overcrowd. Lower income units are deed restricted, and such lease agreements
are structured to avoid overpayment (which inevitably leads to overcrowding and displacement). While
new housing projects will add new residents, 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 AFH goals. Moreover,
new development will not replace any existing housing unit, thus preventing displacement.
188
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 120
Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown
Moorpark’s Los Angeles Avenue Corridor-Downtown neighborhood encompasses the middle of the City,
extending from the eastern to western city limits. It is home to all of the City’s eight apartment complexes,
including five that offer 100% affordable or rent-restricted units. Moreover, most of the City’s commercial,
office, and service sectors are in this area. Five projects are planned during the 2021-2029 period that will
provide just under 500 new units in this neighborhood, which will add 19 percent to the number of
existing housing units in this neighborhood. The proposed new projects will include the 300-unit Pacific
Communities project and the Green Island Villas, Beltramo, Spring Road, and High Street Depot.
Integration/Segregation
The City is cognizant of the neighborhood needs–it has a disproportionate concentration of Hispanics,
50% of households earn low incomes, older housing needs rehabilitation, and one in four households in
specific subdistricts are overcrowded. There are no other known concentrations based on familial status,
age, disability, or other status. However, the neighborhood needs reinvestment in infrastructure. The
integration of new housing, given the projects envisioned, would attract wealthier households, including
White, Asian, or other race and ethnic groups. While some demographic change can be expected, that
would be tempered by the provision of lower and moderate income units. Taken together, the projects
would broaden out the income distribution but the area would still be low to moderate income.
Access to Opportunity
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. Thus the introduction of mixed income
housing would benefit from all of the amenities concentrated in downtown Moorpark.
Disproportionate Burden
New development will not exacerbate overcrowding, overpayment, or displacement. These conditions
typically occur in lower income, older, or substandard units. Homeowners or renters who desire to
purchase or rent homes will largely be moderate and above moderate income households and must
prove the ability to afford housing. Lower income units will be deed restricted, and such lease agreements
would preclude overpayment (which leads to overcrowding and displacement). Renewed interest and
investment in the area could exacerbate housing concerns expressed by residents, particularly renters. In
light of these concerns, the Housing Plan contains programs to mitigate displacement concerns and
improve housing security, such as homeownership assistance, targeted marketing and housing
preference policy, condominium conversion protections, at-risk inventory protections, voucher policy, etc.
189
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 121
4.5.4 Summary of Projects and Credits Toward the RHNA
Table 4-33 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. Six projects were in the prior 2013-2021 Housing Element. Project
affordability is assumed to be market rate and affordable to above moderate income households unless
the project rent or sales prices are controlled by an Affordable Housing Agreement. Comparing the RHNA
credits across income levels shows a deficit among the very low income category but a strong surplus
among low income RHNA credits. Therefore, as allowed by law, when the City combines the two
categories into a “lower” income category, the low income component of the RHNA is fully addressed.
Table 4-33 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 77 N/A Not eligible for RHNA credit
High Street Depot Apts 79 DA/AHA –– –– 11 68 A
Green Island Villas Town 63 DA/AHA –– 10 –– 53 A
Pacific Comm. 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 –– –– –– 47 P
Everett Street Condo 60 DA/AHA 3 6 –– 51 P
Moorpark 67 SFR 137 DA/AHA 2 –– 16 119 P
Hitch Ranch SP Mix 755 DA/AHA 56 57 –– 699 P
City Site Apts 468 DA/AHA –– 234 234 –– P
Accessory Dwellings ADU 80 Market 12 25 34 9 ––
RHNA Credit 653 295 1,541
2021-2029 RHNA 610 245 434
Balance RHNA Met RHNA Met
Source: City of Moorpark, March 2020. Notes: ** Project listed in the prior 2013-2021 Housing Element. 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, DA/AHA, or application)
190
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 122
4.5.5 Financial and Administrative Resources
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
191
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 123
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 of 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.
192
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 124
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
has 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.
193
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 125
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), 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.
194
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 126
4.6 Housing Program Evaluation
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.
4.6.1 Quantified Objectives
The 2014-2021 Moorpark Housing Element contained specific quantified objectives for the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Moorpark. Table 4-34 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 4-34 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.
195
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 127
Progress Toward Addressing Special Needs Groups, 2014-2021
Moorpark is home to a number of groups with special housing needs, including seniors, large families,
disabled persons, single-parent families, homeless people, and farmworkers. The 2014-2021 Housing
Element thus included Goal 3, “Expand and Protect Housing Opportunities for Lower Income Households
and Special Needs Groups,” to guide objectives for housing and related service programs. The following
summarizes progress made over the 2014-2021 period with respect to housing and supportive services.
• Disabled Residents. The City updated its Transition Plan and continued to modify infrastructure,
facilities, and services to improve accessibility. This included an inclusive playground at Tejada Park.
The Housing Authority allocated 41 vouchers to households with a disability in Moorpark. The City also
approved the Oakmont Living project for residents with a disability. Regionally, transit agencies
provided subsidized low cost transit to residents with a disability. Moorpark College and the local
school district also provided specialized educational services to disabled students.
• Large and Female-Headed Families. The City worked with Many Mansions to approve development
of the Walnut Family Apartments, which contains 24 units (one-, two-, and three-bedroom floorplans).
The Housing Authority provided 88 vouchers to lower income families. The City also worked with
developers to build 43 single-family homes in three- and four-bedroom unit formats. The City also
continued to maintain the long-term affordability of all its housing, including mobile homes. The First
Five Learning Center continued to provide services to children of lower income families.
• Seniors. The City approved an application for the 390-unit Aldersgate senior retirement community
(as well as Oakmont Living), which will be developed during the 6th cycle. The Housing Authority
continued to assist 60 elderly households with housing choice vouchers. The City provided a variety of
services (e.g., recreation, health, fitness, etc.) to seniors at its Active Adult Center. Locally, Ruben Castro
Charities, through its pantry locations, serve 50 senior households each month. The City also
completed construction of the Ruben Castro Human Services Center in 2013 for local service agencies.
• Homeless. The City has historically had one of the smallest homeless populations in Ventura County.
In 2019, the City signed an MOU with the county committing to participation in a regional service
system (Pathways to Home), use of the County’s HMIS system, and annual financial contributions to
the county’s 2-1-1 system. Furthermore, the City committed to addressing local housing needs
(transitional, supportive, extremely affordable, etc.). The City also supported the Ruben Castro
Charities, which provides food pantry and other services to residents at risk of homelessness. The City
also participated in the biennial homeless census to track emerging needs in Moorpark.
• Farmworkers. The City updated its municipal code definitions regarding farm workers and agricultural
housing. In 2012, Clinicas health clinic opened, which serves low income individuals and farmworkers.
The Ruben Castro Charities also provides services to low income residents, including farmworkers.
196
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 128
4.6.2 Progress in Implementing Housing Element Programs
The 2014–2021 Housing Element contained 22 housing programs to implement the goals and policies of
the Housing Element. Table 4-35 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 workshop sessions with 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.
Progress is summarized below.
Table 4-35 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Programs 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 60 rehab 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 housing sites will be added as part of the General
197
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 129
Table 4-35 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Programs Program Specifics and Progress
Objective Progress and Continued Appropriateness
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 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.
198
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 130
Table 4-35 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Programs 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 assistance. From 2014 to 2021, the City facilitated development of 19 VLI units.
199
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 131
Table 4-35 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Programs Program Specifics and Progress
Objective Progress and Continued Appropriateness
to assist development of up to 20 VLI units by the end of 2014.
• 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 continues 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 has been effective in facilitating and encouraging the development of affordable housing and therefore 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 DAs 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 Designation and PDP Process
Continue to use R-P-D Zone to encourage a variety of housing to address local
• The City continues to use the R-P-D zone and PDP process to facilitate the development of affordable housing, most 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.
200
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 132
Table 4-35 Moorpark’s 2014-2021 Housing Element Progress
Programs Program Specifics and Progress
Objective Progress and Continued Appropriateness
needs. • 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 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 may be 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 be folded into the density bonus update program for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Sources: City of Moorpark, Annual Progress Reports, 2014-2020; Interviews with City staff and program managers; housing stakeholders.
201
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 133
4.6.3 Housing Element Outreach
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 update 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
202
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 134
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.
203
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 135
Incorporation of Outreach Results
Through more than a dozen GPAC meetings and many supplemental discussions with community
stakeholders, new and expanded housing programs were proposed for the Housing Element. Table 4-36
lists those programs. Further information on each program is found in the Housing Plan.
Table 4-36 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 requirements 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.
204
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 136
4.7 Housing Plan
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.
205
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 137
4.6.1 Housing Goals and Policies
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 districts.
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 Condition. Facilitate the repair, revitalization, and rehabilitation of residential
dwellings to provide safe and healthful housing 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.
206
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 138
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.
207
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 139
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.
208
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 140
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 goals 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.
209
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 141
Fair Housing
State law requires that all communities affirmatively further
fair housing. These provisions guarantee protections to all
residents, prohibiting housing discrimination through
public or private land-use practices, decisions, and
authorizations based on protected status according to
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 where they reside. This includes providing a
diversity of housing and services that are available in each respective neighborhood. 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 equitable 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.
HE-5.6 Housing Stability, Health and Equity. Expand the availability of a diverse housing stock that is
suitable for different lifestyle needs, is affordable, and in healthful condition.
HE-5.7 Place-Based Investment. Focus resources to improve and maintain the resources and
opportunities available in older areas of Moorpark which require greater investment.
210
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 142
4.6.2 Housing Programs
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, and
will improve housing security by allowing residents to live in safe and healthful housing.
Objective(s):
• Seek, apply for, and allocate funding for housing rehabilitation program.
• Develop program to include assistance for ownership units, mobile homes, and rental units.
• Contact nonprofits capable of making home repairs and/or providing financial assistance.
211
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 143
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 code compliance inspections averaging up to 150 residences or properties on an annual basis.
• Implement new Energov system to track code compliance cases, building permit issuance, and
entitlement permitting.
Program 4: Capital Improvement Plan
Every year, the Public Works Department submits a Capital Improvement Program (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):
• Prepare, implement, and report the CIP to City Council 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.
212
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 144
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 affordable
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 and adopt 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.
213
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 145
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. Moorpark will develop an affordable
housing assistance program to assist in the development of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income
housing by leveraging a variety of affordability tools, incentives, partners, and financing. For instance, the
City will develop an inclusionary ordinance that requires the provision of affordable housing as part of
new projects (Program #5). The second component (Program #23) will be the implementation of
regulatory and financial incentives (e.g., density bonus, administrative exceptions, and other regulatory
relief) to improve project feasibility. The third component (Program #6) will be the establishment of the
Moorpark Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide a self-sustaining fund to support the long-term
delivery of affordable housing. The combination of affordability requirements, development incentives,
funding sources, and administrative capacity will be the basis for the City’s new housing program.
Objective(s):
• Recruit a new Program Manager, Housing, or equivalent position to implement housing program
• Develop the City's affordable housing assistance program, including funding and revenue stream
• Fund affordable housing projects that achieve the goals of the Housing Element and General Plan
Program 8: Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)
The housing choice voucher program is 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 program through a housing resource brochure and on the City’s website, including outreach
and education on the state’s source of income protection (SB 329, SB 222)
• Publicize housing choice program to homeowners every two years to maintain at least 189 vouchers
issued by the AHACV and encourage participation
214
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 146
Program 9: Homeownership Assistance
Moorpark has always been known for its high rate of homeownership. However, 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 cities, 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.
• Apply for up to two funding grants before 2025 and two after 2025; and if successful, seek to assist up
to 10 households during the planning period.
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):
• 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 affordability of the properties.
• If needed, coordinate technical assistance and education to tenants and work with owners regarding
proper notification procedures should properties become at risk of conversion.
• Continue to implement condominium conversions, require adherence to regulation requiring housing
affordability, and periodically review for effectiveness.
• Prepare an annual report for the Planning Commission, City Council, stakeholders, and the public
regarding status and progress in achieving housing goals.
215
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 147
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 and adopt current specific plans to include objective development and design standards for all
projects to be drafted in accordance with Gov’t Code §65913 and 66300.
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 applicable state law.
Objective(s):
• Prepare and adopt objective development and design standards (zoning, subdivision, or design review)
for all projects in accordance with Gov’t Code §65913 and 66300.
216
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 148
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: Developer Assistance
The City is relying on the development of ten (pipeline) residential projects along with accessory dwelling
units to satisfy its 2021-2029 RHNA. All of these pipeline residential projects have been proceeding
through various stages of the entitlement process—application, CEQA clearance, developer agreement,
affordable housing agreement, building permit, and construction. As such, various assistance is beneficial
at times to ensure that these projects continue to move forward. The City will play an active role in
facilitating the timely approval and development of each of these projects. In addition, the City is working
with other applicants on future/proposed mixed-use development projects following adoption of the
General Plan. To ensure timely completion, the City commits to continue proactively working with
developers and property owners throughout each step of the projects. If projects are not completed in a
timely manner, the City will undertake measures to find additional sites or projects (see Program #13).
Objective(s):
• Outreach to property owners and developers of pipeline projects as a means to identify and address
potential obstacles to developing their property
• Support funding applications (e.g., tax credit, bonds, etc.) to help applicants be awarded local, state,
and federal monies
• Continue to coordinate with applicants using a “Conditions Compliance Checklist” to approve stages
of the project and ensure remaining conditions are followed
217
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 149
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
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 80 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 Gov’t Code §65852.2(a); make other substantive
changes and municipal code amendments required by HCD to comply with state law.
• Record progress in ADU production on the annual progress report for the Housing Element by April 1
of each year; monitor every year and, if production falls short of goals and shortfall in sites become
apparent, take measures to rezone sites or other actions to address shortfall within six months.
• Review and implement options for encouraging ADU productions, 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 Gov’t Code §65852.3 and other applicable provisions of state law.
218
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 150
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,
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):
• Amend zoning code to clarify the process and the zones where transitional and supportive housing is
permitted in accordance with Gov’t §65583 (4)(A)(ii) and 65651.
• Amend zoning code to modify parking standards for shelters and reduce the 500 foot spacing
requirement to 300 feet, as required by Gov’t Code §65583 (a)(4)(A)(ii) and §65583 (a)(4)(A) (v).
• 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).
• 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.
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.
219
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 151
Program 19: Housing for Seniors and Disabled People
Moorpark has a large senior population that is the fastest-growing segment. The City is responding by
approving retirement communities and specialized housing for memory care. The City also provides
services to seniors through its Active Adult Community Center. The City implements a transition plan to
update its facilities, services, and programs to make them accessible and provides low-cost transit.
Despite these efforts, affordable senior housing is in short supply as are housing options and services for
disabled people. To address the unmet 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.
• Assist developers, homeowners, and others at the planning and building safety counter regarding how
to incorporate universal/accessible housing features and/or reasonable accommodation process;
publicize and advertise the housing directory and reasonable modification process via web, email, etc.
Seek to assist at least 10 parties/individuals over the planning period.
• 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 support, 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.
220
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 152
Housing Constraints Programs
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):
• Review residential development-related fees to determine their appropriateness (nexus), amount
charged, and reasonableness; revise fees based on the findings.
• 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.
• Create a publicly accessible map which includes sites that are acquired, being consolidated, or
otherwise being disposed of for affordable housing.
221
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 153
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
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 historically used the R-P-D and PD permitting process to review, condition, and approve
residential developments that are larger than four units. While this process has resulted in the
development of more than 100 affordable units, it typically requires a DA/AHA, which results in significant
delays in time. With the enactment of state law for expedited permit processing and to reduce the delay
in processing future projects, revisions to permit processing procedures are warranted and beneficial to
the City, developers, and residents. To that end, the City has committed to examining, 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. In 2020, the Staff concluded an audit of the Community Development
Department work program prepared by Management Partners. This audit identified 34 recommendations
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the development process and review. Staff have rapidly set
to work on making these changes. As an example, Recommendation No. 2 to update the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance are currently underway and will be completed within the next year.
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.
• Continue to implement other regulatory and management measures from the City’s 2020
management audit of planning and permitting processes in the City.
222
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 154
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 municipal codes have not been revised in 40 years and many provisions pre-date incorporation. State
law has been amended many times over the past several decades, making obsolete certain municipal
codes or regulatory processes. Moreover, the General Plan update will require additional zoning districts
and other amendments to implement its vision and land use element. As such, the City will undertake a
comprehensive update of its zoning code following adoption of the General Plan and Housing Element.
Objective(s):
• Review and revise land use designations and zoning districts to eliminate any inconsistencies and to
implement the land use element of the updated General Plan.
• Identify and make required changes to the Municipal Code in compliance with state and federal
statutes, including building, safety, land use, and permitting requirements.
• Modify municipal codes (see Programs 15-20) to affirmatively further fair housing, including allowing
residential care facilities serving seven or more residents as a by right use in all residential zones.
• Amend municipal code to allow for administrative reduction in parking space requirements pursuant
to applicant’s parking study; forward staff recommendations to the appropriate project hearing body
for consideration.
Program 26: Water and Sewer Priority
The 2006 Senate Bill 1087 (Gov’t Code §65589.7 and Water Code §10631.1) requires that water providers
develop written policies that grant priority to proposed development that includes housing affordable to
lower income households. The legislation also prohibits water providers from denying or conditioning
the approval of development that includes housing affordable to lower income households unless specific
written findings are made. Senate Bill 1087, described above, also mandates priority wastewater collection
and treatment service to housing developments providing units affordable to lower income households.
The City will comply with this legislation by continuing to ensure priority service provision to affordable
housing developments and provide the adopted Housing Element to such agencies within 30 days of
adoption. Ventura County Waterworks District 1 does not have such policies.
Objective(s):
• Provide the adopted 2021–2029 Moorpark Housing Element to the Ventura County Water Works
District 1 within 30 days of adoption for inclusion in its planning projections.
• Coordinate with Ventura County to ensure affordable housing developments receive priority water and
sewer service if and when development is restricted by capacity shortages.
223
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 155
Program 27: 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 Charities, Moorpark College, First Five, Area Housing Authority, affordable housing developers,
Moorpark Unified School District, and many other 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):
• Meet with with housing partners (e.g., county, developers, stakeholders, realtors) to augment existing
administrative and financial resources and coordinate on future projects.
• Produce and update a brochure advertising all services provided by City partners and publicize on the
City’s web page. Update annually.
Program 28: Fair Housing
The City contracts with the Housing Rights Center to provide a broad range of services associated with
fair housing. This includes education, testing, investigation, and case resolution services related to tenant
and landlord issues. The City has a generally modest number of cases due to the limited number of
apartment properties. 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 4-28 summarizes approximately three dozen meaningful
actions the City will undertake to affirmatively further fair housing.
Objective(s):
• Implement initiatives in Table 4-28 of the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing.
• Contract with Fair Housing agency to provide services and annually assess the need for changing level
or mix of service, including but not limited to: tenant and landlord education, homeownership
counseling, testing and investigations, and case processing.
• Report progress as part of the Annual Progress Report for the Housing Element and annually review
contract for needed program changes.
224
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 156
Program 29: Place-Based Program
The Los Angeles Avenue Corridor and the Virginia Colony are the oldest areas of Moorpark, dating back
long before the City’s incorporation in 1983. Developed many decades before residential subdivisions
were built, these neighborhoods have the greatest need for infrastructure, housing, and social services.
The City continues to earmark funds for both areas. In 2022, the City will earmark $8.0 million of ARPA
funds for a new Library, slated for construction by 2023/2024. In 2025/2026, the City will refurbish
playgrounds citywide including parks in these neighborhoods. The City has approved and anticipates the
construction of the High Street Depot and Aldersgate project (390 units for seniors/disdabled), and will
pass a $75 million bond to finance Vendra Gardens, a 200-unit apartment property for low income
families. Princeton Avenue, which connects to Virginia Colony, is also being improved.
Objective(s):
• Facilitate the completion of Vendra Gardens, Aldersgate, and High Street Depot from 2023 to 2025
• Allocate $8 million in American Rescue Plan funds to develop a new City Library to commence in 2023.
• Refurbish and replace playgrounds citywide, including the greater downtown by 2025/2026
• Continue to seek other community development projects for the greater downtown
• Update the General Plan Safety Element, incorporating Ventura County’s MultiHazard Plan, Fire
Strategic Plan, and FEMA flood plans; identify and maintain evacuation routes to ensure safety for
residents, business, and animals; and integrate with the City’s Emergency Operation Plan as required.
Program 30: Parking Management
Although the City has had success in faciliting new residential development under current parking space
standards, a review of current municipal codes identified the need to make clarifications in several parking
standards. The following modifications will be undertaken as part of the update of the zoning code.
Objective(s):
• Amend zoning code to align ADU requirements with Gov't Code §65852.2(a); make other code
amendments, including parking, as required by HCD to comply with state law.
• Amend zoning code to make parking standards for emergency shelters consistent with Gov’t Code
§65583 (a)(4)(A)(ii); clarify parking standards for transitional/supportive housing.
• Develop a process and standard to address the parking requirements for mixed use developments that
accommodate parking needs of both uses in a flexible and market driven manner.
• Update City’s density bonus ordinance, including provisions for reduced/modified parking spaces, to
comply with recently enacted state law (AB 2345, SB 290, and others).
225
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 157
• Allow for administrative reduction in parking space requirements pursuant to applicant’s parking study;
forward staff recommendations to the appropriate project hearing body for consideration.
• To ensure the City’s parking requirements are not a constraint to residential development, especially
new housing units affordable to lower and moderate-income households, the City shall continue to
review and monitor all parking requirements and specifically requirements for 1.75 spaces for 1-
bedroom multifamily housing. If it is determined that this requirement is not in line with regional
requirements or is a constraint to the development of housing, the City will revise their parking
requirements, as appropriate.
226
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 158
Table 4-37 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program
Responsible
Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Time Frame
1. Historic
Preservation
ComDev 4
General Fund
• 1a Initiate a general identification and assessment of historic resources in the downtown to assist in determination of the need for more formal preservation activities
2023
• 1b Work with Moorpark Historical Society and other local and regional partners to assist in identifying resources 2023
• 1c 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
• 2a Seek, apply for, and allocate funding for housing rehabilitation program. 2023
• 2b Develop program to include assistance for ownership units, mobile homes, and rental units 2024
• 2c Contact nonprofits capable of making home repairs and/or assisting in financial assistance on an annual basis Annual
3. Code Compliance ComDev
General
Fund
• 3a Require adherence to local property regulations and requirements Annual
• 3b Ensure that new housing meets state building codes, including green building designs Annual
• 3c Conduct code compliance inspections totaling an average of up to 150 residences on an annual basis Annual
• 3d Implement new Energov system to track code compliance cases, building permit issuance, and entitlements
Fall 2022
4. Capital Improvement Plan
Public Works 5
Varied
• 4a Prepare, implement, and report progress on the CIP to City Council to improve community infrastructure. Annual
• 4b Develop GIS-based pavement management system to guide street maintenance and repair 2023
• 4c Target efforts, to the extent feasible, to areas which have experienced disinvestment Annual
5. Inclusionary Housing/Nexus Study/Fee
ComDev
General Fund
• 5a Conduct a nexus study as a prerequisite to design an inclusionary requirement 2022
• 5b Draft and adopt the inclusionary housing program and expenditure priorities 2023
• 5c Monitor program effectiveness on an annual basis Annual
6. Affordable Housing Trust ComDev • 6a Develop and adopt AHTF program parameters (priority, eligibility, and assistance levels) 2023
4 Community Development Department
5 Public Works Department
227
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 159
Table 4-37 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program Responsible Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Time Frame
Fund
General Fund
• 6b Seek mechanism to establish, grow, and maintain the affordable housing trust fund Annual
• 6c Issue RFQs and fund an affordable housing in conjunction with the City’s acquisition, land assemblage, and disposition program to further affordable housing goals and priorities
2024
7. Assist in Development of Affordable Housing
ComDev
General Fund
• 7a Recruit a new Program Manager, Housing, or equivalent position to implement housing program 2023
• 7b Develop the City's affordable housing assistance program, including funding and revenue stream 2024
• 7c Fund affordable housing projects that achieve the goals of the Housing Element and General Plan As projects proposed
8. Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)
ComDev
Federal funds
• 8a Participate in the housing choice voucher program and refer eligible households to the AHACV for rental vouchers Annual
• 8b Publicize program through a housing resource brochure and on the City’s website, including outreach and education on the state’s source of income protection (SB 329, SB 222)
2022
Federal funds • 8c Publicize housing choice program to homeowners every two years to maintain at least 189 vouchers issued by the AHACV and encourage participation
Biennial
9. Home-ownership Assistance
ComDev
Funding TBD
• 9a Retool the homeownership program, focusing on moderately priced single-family homes, condominiums, and townhomes
2023
• 9b Prioritize funds and opportunities to residents and those working or attending educational institutions in the City 2024
• 9c. Apply for up to two funding grants before 2025 and two after 2025; and if successful, seek to assist up to 10 households during the planning period.
Periodically
10.
Affordable Housing Preservation
ComDev
General Fund
• 10a 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 affordability of the properties
Annual
General Fund • 10b If needed, coordinate technical assistance and education to tenants and work with owners regarding proper notification procedures should properties become at risk of conversion
Annual
General Fund • 10c Prepare an annual report for the Planning Commission, City Council, stakeholders, and the public regarding status and progress in achieving housing goals
Annual
228
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 160
Table 4-37 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program Responsible Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Time Frame
11. Downtown Specific Plan ComDev
General Fund
• 11a Continue to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and support the introduction of residential, mixed uses, and other land uses within the area.
Ongoing
• 11b Revise and adopt updated Downtown Specific Plan to include objective development and design standards in accordance with Gov't Code §§65913 and 66300
2024
12. Objective Development Design Standards
ComDev
General Fund
• 12a Prepare and adopt objective development and design standards (zoning, subdivision, or design review) for all projects in accordance with Gov't Code §65913 and 66300.
2024
13. Housing Sites Inventory
ComDev
General Fund
• 13a 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
• 13b 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 proposed
• 13c 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. Developer Outreach ComDev
General Fund
• 14a Outreach to property owners and developers of pipeline projects as a means to identify and address potential obstacles to developing their property
Annual
• 14b Support funding applications (e.g., tax credit, bonds) to help applicants be awarded local, state, and federal monies Annual
• 14c Continue to coordinate with applicants using a “Conditions Compliance Checklist” to approve stages of the project and ensure remaining conditions are followed
Continuously
15.
Accessory Dwelling Units
ComDev
General Fund
• 15a 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)
Dec. 2023
• 15b Record progress in ADU production on the annual progress report for the Housing Element by April 1 of each year; monitor every year and, if production falls short and shortfall in sites become apparent, take measures to rezone sites or other actions to address shortfall within six months.
Annual
• 15c Review and implement options for encouraging ADU productions, such as prototype plans, fee waivers, expedited procedures, and affordability monitoring programs
Annual
229
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 161
Table 4-37 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program Responsible Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Time Frame
16.
Single-family, Mobile Homes, and Mfgr Homes
ComDev
General Fund
• 16a Remove the references to potentially restricting single-family residential units designed or used exclusively to one family to address any potential fair housing
End of 2023
Dec. 2023 • 16b Review and, as need, revise provisions for mobile homes and factory-built housing in accordance with Government Code §65852.3 and other provisions of state law
17 Homeless Services ComDev
General Fund
• 17a 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
• 17b Amend zoning code to modify parking standards for shelters and reduce the 500 spacing requirement to 300 feet as required by Gov't Code §§65583 (a)(4)(A)(ii) and (v).
End of 2023
• 17c Amend zoning code to clarify the process and the zones where transitional and supportive housing is permitted in accordance with Gov’t Codes §65583 (4)(A)(ii) and §65651.
End of 2023
• 17d Amend zoning code to permit Low-Barrier Navigation Center by-right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses (Gov't Code §65662.)
End of 2023
18 College Housing Services
ComDev
General Fund
• 18a 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
• 18b Support housing initiatives to address student and faculty needs As projects opportunity arises • 18c Assist in the development of housing attainable to this group
19. Housing for Seniors and Disabled People
ComDev
General Fund
• 19a 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.
End of 2023
• 19b Assist developers, homeowners, and others at the planning and building safety counter regarding how to incorporate universal/accessible housing features and/or reasonable accommodation process; publicize and advertise the housing directory and reasonable modification process via web, email, etc. Seek to assist at least 10 parties/individuals over the planning period.
As requested
• 19c Support efforts to provide community support services; expand affordable/accessible transit and community walkability in accordance with the City’s transition plan
Annual
230
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 162
Table 4-37 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program Responsible Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Time Frame
20. Farmworker Housing
ComDev
General Fund
• 20a 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.
End of 2023
• 20b Work with County-led coalition to support, fund and implement a countywide survey of farmworkers, employers, and housing providers to define housing conditions, needs, and barriers
2022 and ongoing
• 20c Use 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
2023 and ongoing
21. Developer Fee Study ComDev
General Fund
• 21a Review residential development-related fees to determine their appropriateness (nexus), amount charged, and reasonableness; revise fees based on findings.
July 2023
• 21b 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.
Annual per City Ord.
22. Land Acquisition/ Consolidation/ Disposition
ComDev
General Fund
• 22a Continue to acquire, consolidate, and dispose of land in return for the production of deed-restricted affordable housing
As land becomes available and is suitable • 22b As assets are acquired, periodically release an RFQ to advertise land sale or lease for deed-restricted affordable housing
• 22c Create a publicly accessible map which includes sites that are acquired, being consolidated, or otherwise being disposed of for affordable housing purposes
2023
23. Regulatory Assistance ComDev
General Fund
• 23a 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
By Dec 2023
• 23b Review the administrative exception ordinance and add authority to allow additional flexibility in other specific development standards cited as potential constraints
24. Permit Process Streamlining
ComDev
General Fund
• 24a Review and revise the R-P-D permit process to remove threshold of 5+ units, and review and revise as needed the approving authority, criteria, and other provisions
By Dec 2023
• 24b Review other administrative and conditional permit processes as part of the overall update of the zoning code following adoption of the General Plan
• 24c Continue to implement regulatory and management measures recommended from the 2020 City's management audit of planning and permitting processes in the City
231
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 163
Table 4-37 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program Responsible Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Time Frame
25. Zoning Code Update ComDev
General Fund
• 25a Review and revise land use designations and zoning districts to implement the updated General Plan By Dec 2023
• 25b Identify required changes to the municipal codes for compliance with state and federal statutes, including building, safety, land use, and permitting requirements
• 25c Modify municipal codes (Programs 15–20) to further fair housing, including allowing residential care facilities serving seven or more clients as a by-right use in residential zones.
Dec 2023
26. Water and Sewer Priority
ComDev
General Fund
• 26a Provide adopted 2021-2029 Moorpark Housing Element to the Ventura County Water Works District 1 within 30 days of adoption for inclusion in its planning projections.
Within 30 days of adoption
2023
• 26b Coordinate with Ventura County to ensure affordable housing receives priority water and sewer service if and when development is restricted by capacity shortages.
27. Collaborative Partners
ComDev
General Fund
• 27a Meet with housing partners (e.g., county, developers, stakeholders, realtors) to augment existing administrative and financial resources and coordinate on future projects.
Annual
• 27b Produce and update a brochure advertising all services provided by City partners and publicize on the City's web page. Update annually.
Annual
28. Fair Housing ComDev
Gen Fund
• 28a. Implement initiatives in Table 4-28 of the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing. 2021-2029
• 28b Contract with Fair Housing agency to provide services and assess the need for changing level or mix of services Annual
• 28c Report progress as part of the Annual Progress Report for the Housing Element and annually review contract for needed program changes
Annual
29. Place-based Program
CommDev
CommSvc
• 29a. Facilitate completion of the Vendra Gardens and the Aldersgate housing projects from 2023 to 2025 2023-2025
General Fund; • 29b. Allocate $8 million in ARPA funds to develop a new City Library to commence in 2023. 2023
Grants • 29c. Refurbish and replace playgrounds citywide, including the greater downtown by 2025/2026 2025/2026
• 29d. Continue to seek other community development projects for the greater downtown Continuously
• 29e. Update the General Plan Safety Element, incorporating Ventura County's MultiHazard Plan, Fire Strategic Plan, and FEMA flood plans; identify and maintain evacuation routes to ensure safety for residents, business, and animals; and integrate with City's Emergency Operation Plan as required.
2023 and ongoing
232
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022 164
Table 4-37 Program Summary, 2021-2029 Planning Period
Program Responsible Party & Fund
Program Specifics and Progress
8-Year Objectives Time Frame
30. Parking Management CommDev
General Fund
• 30a. Amend zoning code to align ADU requirements with Gov't Code §65852.2(a); make other code amendments, including parking, to comply with state law.
• 30b. Amend zoning code to make parking standards for emergency shelters consistent with Gov't Code §65583 (a)(4)(A)(ii); clarify transitional/supportive housing parking.
• 30c. Develop a process and standard to address parking requirements for mixed use that accommodate parking needs of both uses in a flexible and market driven manner.
• 30d. Update City's density bonus ordinance, including provisions for modified parking spaces, to comply with recently enacted state law (AB 2345, SB 290, and others).
• 30e. Amend municipal code to allow for administrative reduction in parking space requirements pursuant to applicant's parking study; forward staff recommendations to the appropriate project hearing body for consideration.
• To ensure City parking requirements are not a constraint to residential development, especially new housing units affordable to lower and moderate-income households, the City shall continue to review and monitor all parking requirements and specifically requirements for 1.75 spaces for 1-bedroom multifamily housing. If it is determined that this requirement is not in line with regional requirements or is a constraint to the development of housing, the City will revise their parking requirements, as appropriate.
Make code amendments by Dec 2023
Review and Monitor annually as part of the APR
Quantified Objectives
Ext. Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Total
New Construction 189 188 233 245 434 1,289
Rehabilitation 5 15 15 -0- -0- 35
Preservation 17 152 533 23 -0- 725
Sources: City of Moorpark, 2021.
233
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022
Appendix A
234
HOUSING ELEMENT
Draft | November 2022
235
December 2019
City of Moorpark, California
Community Development Organizational Audit
Comprehensive Executive Summary
APPENDIX A
111236
December 11, 2019
Mr. Troy Brown
City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr. Brown:
Management Partners is pleased to transmit this Comprehensive Executive Summary
containing the results of our organizational audit of the Community Development Department
and Moorpark’s development review process.
We conducted this assessment after reviewing a wide variety of documents and data,
interviewing several City staff and reaching out to key stakeholders who are experienced
customers of Moorpark’s development process. Our team spent considerable time onsite to
understand the department and development process, and to observe operations firsthand.
During our time onsite we collaborated with City staff to develop a framework for a revised
development process. This revised process is illustrated in the process map attachments to this
report.
Our report identifies 34 recommendations designed to improve department operations, increase
efficiency, and guide changes in the development process. The recommendations also address
the need for updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance/Map. Additionally, we found
that improving various business systems is necessary to improve staffs’ effectiveness and to
ensure the department’s work is transparent to stakeholders and the general public.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you and the City of Moorpark.
Sincerely,
Gerald E. Newfarmer
President and CEO
1730 MADISON ROAD • CINCINNATI, OH 45206 • 513 861 5400 • FAX 513 861 3480 MANAGEMENTPARTNERS.COM
2107 NORTH FIRST STREET, SUITE 470 • SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95131 • 408 437 5400 • FAX 408 453 6191
3152 RED HILL AVENUE, SUITE 210 • COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 • 949 222 1082 • FAX 408 453 6191 112237
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
Table of Contents
Overview....................... .............................................................................................................................. 2
Stakeholder and Staff Comments .......................................................................................................... 5
Themes from Stakeholder Outreach .............................................................................................. 5
Themes from Staff Interviews ........................................................................................................ 7
Context for Development ........................................................................................................................ 9
Moorpark’s Use of Residential Planned Development Permits ................................................ 9
General Plan, Zoning Status and Use of Development Agreements ...................................... 10
Development Impact Fees and Exactions ................................................................................... 11
Organization Structure and Workload ............................................................................................... 13
Organization Structure is Typical of Similar Cities ................................................................... 13
Workload ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Development Review Process .............................................................................................................. 17
Process Mapping ............................................................................................................................ 17
Improving the Development Process .......................................................................................... 18
Business Technologies ........................................................................................................................... 22
EnerGov ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Electronic Plan Review .................................................................................................................. 22
Transition to Paperless System ..................................................................................................... 23
Enterprise Resource Planning Software ...................................................................................... 23
City Website and Handouts .......................................................................................................... 24
Management System........... ................................................................................................................... 26
Cycle and Task Times .................................................................................................................... 26
Measuring Performance ................................................................................................................ 28
Standardized Conditions .............................................................................................................. 29
Staff Engagement and Training .................................................................................................... 30
Use of On-Call Consultants .......................................................................................................... 32
Analytic Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 34
Fees, Cost Recovery and Cost Center Management .................................................................. 35
2
113238
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
Pre-Application Reviews and Fees ............................................................................................ 35
Cost Recovery ........................................................................................................................... 36
Basis for Calculating Building Fees .......................................................................................... 37
Implement Surcharges to Recover Business System Costs ....................................................... 38
Workplace Environment ........................................................................................................................ 39
Conclusion.................... ............................................................................................................................ 42
Attachment A – List of Recommendations ......................................................................................... 43
Attachment B – Draft Process Maps for Major Discretionary Projects ......................................... 45
Attachment C – Draft Process Maps for CEQA Review .................................................................. 46
3
114239
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Table of Contents Management Partners
Tables
Table 1. Planning Permitting Workload ............................................................................................. 14
Figures
Figure 1. Stakeholder Ratings ................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Organization Structure of the Community Development Department................... .... 13
4
115240
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
Overview
Management Partners was engaged by the City of Moorpark to conduct an
organizational audit of the Community Development Department and
development review process. This section contains a brief overview of the
project, including the City’s reasons for initiating the study.
Background. In becoming a city in 1983, Moorpark inherited a substantial
number of entitlements for major development projects that were previously
approved by the County of Ventura. Early leaders found themselves having
to manage around projects they did not approve and applying an ad hoc
system to address issues such as design quality, offsite infrastructure,
community amenities and related matters that typically set apart cities from
counties.
• Ad hoc development review. Moorpark’s ad hoc approach to
development review worked for some time; however, the City has
outgrown it because it does not provide a clear process and a
reasonable level of predictability for the development industry, large
and small businesses seeking to locate in Moorpark, and individuals
wanting to upgrade their residential sites. The City’s past practices
have also led to a highly siloed organization that reviews
development piecemeal rather than on the basis of comprehensive
land use policies and regulations such as a General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
• Identifying infrastructure requirements. Another challenge with the
current practices is that the City does not have an effective system of
identifying infrastructure and related fees for new development
projects. This means that the infrastructure requirements for new
development must be analyzed piecemeal rather than on the basis of
comprehensive land use policies and regulations.
While the City currently imposes Development Impact Fees (DIFs) on
certain new projects, this is also done on a piecemeal basis due to the
lack of comprehensive land use policies and a nexus-based analysis of
infrastructure needs. This makes managing infrastructure
2
116241
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
requirements and fees, as well as the actual improvements, more
difficult for the City. The current practices also make it difficult for
developers to understand the scope and cost of the infrastructure
requirements before deciding whether to pursue a project.
• Delay and uncertainty. The unfortunate by-products of the current ad-
hoc review of development projects and infrastructure requirements
are delay and uncertainty for customers and staff.
Goals of the study. Given its concerns about these issues, the City identified
several goals for Management Partners’ assessment, as follows.
a) Analyze the current practices and recommend a framework of
development policies, regulations and procedures;
b) Create a team-oriented organization focused on outcomes that serve
the community and stakeholders and provide professional growth for
staff;
c) Establish a clear development process that is easier to understand,
and improves predictability for stakeholders;
d) Identify business systems and new technology to improve
effectiveness and efficiency and make information easier to obtain
and understand;
e) Establish a clear management system that focuses on outcomes,
implements effective internal controls, and allows staff to do their
best work;
f) Improve the cost center system by making it more transparent and
easier to administer;
g) Establish a proactive approach to infrastructure and development-
related improvements through a nexus analysis of future needs and
the adoption of comprehensive development impact fees; and
h) Create a spirit of partnership with the community and stakeholders
through better communication and greater transparency.
Recommendations. The 34 recommendations identified in this
comprehensive executive summary, when taken as a whole, will position the
City to meet each of the eight goals and apply best practices going forward.
Attachment A provides a summary of all recommendations.
Project approach. Management Partners used a variety of techniques to
inform our assessment. These included reviewing documents, conducting
3
117242
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Overview Management Partners
interviews with key stakeholders and City staff, observing activity at the
front counter, analyzing the methods used to process development projects,
reviewing application forms, analyzing workload volumes, and creating
proposed process maps. We examined areas of responsibilities, overlaps and
interconnections related to staff review of entitlement/permit applications,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and reviewing
compliance with conditions of approval.
Organization of the Document. In addition to this Overview Section, the
remainder of this document is organized as follows:
• Stakeholder and Staff Comments
• Context for Development
• Organization Structure and Workload
• Development Review Process
• Business Technologies
• Management System
• Workplace Environment
• Conclusion
4
118243
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
Stakeholder and Staff Comments
This section contains a summary of comments from development
stakeholders and comments from City staff. During the period May through
July 2019, our team conducted interviews with staff members and several
stakeholders to learn their perspectives on operations that are working well
and those that could be improved. We received useful data and information,
good advice about resource documents, as well as candid comments about
impediments to productivity and problems in the work environment.
Themes from Stakeholder Outreach
Management Partners interviewed several stakeholders with broad
development experience with residential, commercial and industrial projects
in Moorpark. City staff assisted by identifying prospective stakeholders, and
Management Partners was solely responsible for the confidential interviews,
with no participation by City staff.
Stakeholders were asked to share comments about what is working well and
what changes they would recommend, as well as to rate the City’s
performance on a variety of factors. This technique helped us to gauge the
seriousness of the issues and concerns customers have. The categories and
ratings are illustrated in Figure 1. A rating of 1 indicates poor service while a
rating of 10 means excellent service.
Summary of comments. Stakeholders felt that the best aspects of the
department’s service were the helpfulness and accessibility of staff, although
there was a wide range of opinions. Stakeholders more consistently said that
complexity of the development process and getting quality information about
it are problematic.
We would note that stakeholders understood the department was working
hard under new leadership to implement improvements; therefore, their
ratings are retrospective comments on operational policies and processes that
have been in place for many years.
5
119244
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
Figure 1. Stakeholder Ratings
Consistent themes emerged from the stakeholder interviews regarding the
development review process, as noted below.
• Building and Safety plan check and inspection services are highly
regarded.
• It was difficult to get a meeting scheduled to resolve high-stakes
technical matters. That is changing for the better under the current
administration.
• Previously it took too long for City staff to follow up on important
matters and staff did not convey a sense of urgency. Stakeholders
said that the current administration is sensitive to this issue and
appears to be committed to addressing it.
• The status of entitlement and condition compliance sub-processes
were difficult for customers to understand. The ambiguity made it
harder to explain the status to investors and property owners.
However, the current administration is implementing a permit
tracking system to address this and other challenges.
• No one on staff exhibited ownership or overall responsibility for
the management of the process.
• The development review process was not predictable and “11th
hour” surprises for applicants had become the norm.
• The civil engineering review of projects has relied too heavily on
the judgment and technical acumen of a single contractor to the
City.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ease of understanding Moorpark's development review process
Quality of information about the process
Helpfulness of staff
Accessibility of staff
Time it takes for staff review and comments
Consistency of staff's comments and code corrections
Overall experience with Moorpark's process
6
120245
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
• There is a perception that some of the City’s contractors slow up
the technical review of projects when there are disagreements
about plans and drawings.
• Customers believe that the engineering contractor’s time and costs
are not well managed, which is important because those costs are
passed on to customers.
• Reconciling developer deposits for entitlement/permit processing
and condition compliance can take several months to a year or
more because the City is missing (or has inaccurate) details.
• Customers are given no direction or assistance from staff when
their projects require them to deal with other departments or
outside agencies.
Management Partners has found that, in conducting many development
process studies, it is common for differences and misunderstandings to arise
between staff and the development community. However, these conflicts can
be unsettling, and they can affect the customer/staff relationship. More
important, the conflicts can affect an organization’s ability to improve and
move forward.
An annual meeting with local leaders of the development community would
be one way to provide an open opportunity to customers to work
collaboratively with staff to address thorny issues, policy and regulatory
goals and professional roles. This could help to clear the air and improve
understanding on both sides.
Conduct annual meetings with local Recommendation 1.
development community leaders to obtain feedback about
the development review process and identify steps for
continued improvement.
Themes from Staff Interviews
A consistent theme from the staff interviews was a desire for change to a
more traditional development review process based on best practices. A
comment we heard that was reflective of many staff comments was “What’s
taking so long? Show us the way – we are ready.”
Themes arising from the staff interviews included:
• There is good team spirit despite challenges of the past, and there are
areas within the department (and City organization) where
communication is effective.
7
121246
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Stakeholder and Staff Comments Management Partners
• The Building Division and its processes are viewed by staff as
working relatively well, with a high level of service (e.g., plan check
and inspection turnaround timeframes).
• Technology in the department has been inadequate and there have
been significant delays implementing new business systems such as
EnerGov. IT support is inadequate for staff to do their jobs efficiently.
Some examples included “the City website is unfriendly”, “wireless
internet in City Hall does not work well”, and “tasks such as ordering
a new keyboard are too complicated”.
• Moorpark is a small community where people know one another;
relationships are easy to develop but also problems are easily
magnified.
• The Community Development Department was characterized by
some staff as having been “in a rut.”
• The development process is perceived as arcane. An example noted
by several staff was the City’s reliance on development agreements
for so many projects which adds complexity, reduces predictability
for applicants and delays the overall development process.
• There is a high degree of dissatisfaction (and some finger pointing
among staff) about the cost center system of collecting developer
deposits and charging staffs’ time against project accounts.
• Staff members have not had adequate training and what they have
had has lacked focus.
• The prospect of change in the organization has been met with a little
resistance. Such resistance is common in the change process, in
Management Partners’ experience, and it will require commitment
and follow to help those who may not embrace change easily.
• Some silos exist which can hinder the ability of the organization to
work efficiently between departments. This is a common challenge
for cities, in Management Partners’ experience.
8
122247
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
Context for Development
This section summarizes the historical context for the development
processes in effect today, where the City is with its General Plan and
zoning status, and development impact fees.
Moorpark’s Use of Residential Planned Development Permits
In 1983, the development pattern for Moorpark’s 12.8 square miles was
thought of in “thirds.”
• One-third of the City had already been built out for a population
of approximately 8,000 residents,
• Another one-third was covered by county-approved and vested
subdivisions yet to be developed, and
• The remaining one-third was left for future consideration.
The middle one-third (approved, undeveloped subdivisions) was the
focus of attention during the first year of incorporation. City leaders
wanted higher quality development (site layout, design and building
materials) than had been approved by the county. Community members
wanted visually appealing streetscapes and landscaped medians and, in
some cases, reduced density of development.
To achieve these objectives, the City invited developers to either
renegotiate and modify the Residential Planned Development (RPD)
permits that accompanied the vested subdivisions or start over under
Moorpark’s undefined standards and process which were to take effect at
the one-year anniversary.
9
123248
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
Developers were concerned with starting over, so almost every RPD
project was renegotiated with the City. This experience framed future
expectations, especially related to negotiating for exactions and public
benefits in development agreements as they relate to community benefit
exactions that would not be subject to the Mitigation Fee Act.1
General Plan, Zoning Status and Use of Development
Agreements
The General Plan and zoning ordinance need to be updated, and the use
of development agreements limited to only those projects that truly
warrant such an extraordinary entitlement.
• The Moorpark General Plan is today more of a series of resolutions than a
comprehensive vision of the community’s future. Moreover, the Land Use
Element and Circulation Element are 27 years old; the Open Space
and Conservation and Recreation Element are 33 years old; and the
Noise Element is 21 years old. Fortunately, the Housing Element is
only about five years old; however, it will require updating in 2021
pursuant to state law.
• The Zoning Ordinance is largely the same as was inherited from Ventura
County at the City’s incorporation, with several mandated provisions tacked
on. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance includes a few requirements
that were adopted by the City of Moorpark (e.g., lighting regulations,
hillside management, revised sign regulations, accessory dwelling
units, newspaper racks and telecommunication transmitters and
receivers).
1 Development agreements are a type of land use approval or permit that give cities
latitude to advance their land use policies. A development agreement also gives cities
more flexibility in considering conditions and requirements, including how public
benefits associated with the project may make the project more desirable and worth
approving. In exchange for this latitude, flexibility and the public benefits, a developer is
typically granted more assurance that, once approved, their project can be built. A
development agreement is a contract; therefore, it requires consent of both city and
developer. However, because it is a contract, it allows a city to negotiate the terms of the
agreement including the exactions and public benefits provided by the developer.
10
124249
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
• Today, almost all medium- to large-sized development projects in Moorpark
require a General Plan Amendment and/or a Zoning Ordinance amendment.
The City encourages a developer seeking such modifications to negotiate a
development agreement. While a development agreement requires
consent by both parties, the City controls the process and timing.
Moreover, for projects of this nature, there is no set process with
benchmark timelines, other than legally required public notices, the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and procedures for public hearings and appeals. Development
agreements are powerful tools in the land use approval process in
California. However, our experience is that most cities use them for
unique projects and situations and not as the norm, which is what has
happened in Moorpark. This is one of the reasons for Moorpark’s
unpredictable development process and inability to review projects
efficiently.
On one hand, Moorpark’s planning and development framework has
given the City broad discretion regarding the timing and decisions for
major development projects. On the other hand, the framework is
regarded by customers as unpredictable, or as a stakeholder commented,
“You can’t see the goal posts, let alone the 50-yard line.” The current process
favors negotiation over a set, predictable process based on established
community standards and requirements set in policy that developers can
see and understand.
Making the development process more predictable and timely for
customers and more efficient for staff will require City leaders to adopt a
more traditional framework for guiding and regulating land use. This
would start with updating the General Plan to ensure it expresses the
City Council’s vision and goals for Moorpark. The Zoning Ordinance
(and perhaps the Zoning Map) should then be updated so that they serve
to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Conduct a comprehensive Recommendation 2.
update to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance/Map.
Development Impact Fees and Exactions
Once the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are updated, it will be
important to identify the types of infrastructure improvements that will
be necessary to support the development envisioned in the policy
documents. This involves preparing plans for future infrastructure and
improvements and determining what they will cost.
11
125250
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Context for Development Management Partners
Through a nexus study, the costs for the new infrastructure and
improvements would be apportioned to new development based on
project impact and need.
These steps will obviate the need for reliance on development agreements
to ensure infrastructure and improvements are incorporated into new
development projects.
Conduct a nexus study to Recommendation 3.
determine the infrastructure and
improvements required to serve new
development and analyze their costs in
relation to new development projects.
Once a nexus study is completed, City leaders should establish a system
of impact fees.
Adopt impact fees based on Recommendation 4.
the nexus study.
12
126251
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
Organization Structure and Workload
This section provides Management Partners’ observations about
organization structure and workload. Overall, we believe the way in
which the department is structured and staffed is appropriate for the
workload, except for the need for analytic capacity on staff. We address
that in recommendation 26 below.
Organization Structure is Typical of Similar Cities
The Community Development Department has three divisions, which is
typical of departments in similar cities.
Figure 2. Organization Structure of the Community Development Department
The structure and classification system and the positions are typical of
community development departments in similar cities.
• The department is comprised of nine full-time-equivalent (FTE)
positions, which at first appears relatively small but seems
appropriate given that the building function is provided through
Community Development
Director
(10 FTE)
Planning and Code Compliance
(5 FTE)
Building and Safety
(1 FTE)
Administration
(3 FTE)
Functions
Administration
Budget
City Council liaison
Housing
Functions
California Environmental Quality
Act
Code enforcement
Development review
Planning Commission liaison
Public counter
Functions
Building inspection (contract)
Permitting
Plan check (contract)
Public counter
13
127252
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
contract with the consulting firm of Charles Abbott Associates,
which provides their own staffing.
• Code compliance staffing is limited but the services are provided
internally under the auspices of the Planning Division.
• There is one FTE code compliance technician II position.
• The span of control is adequate as well.
Historically, staffing levels in the department appear to have been kept
relatively lean. Further, we understand the City has only rarely engaged
planning consultants to keep up with workload demand. However, the
current workload appears to be somewhat light compared with other
planning and development agencies, and staffing appears to be adequate
for workload.
Workload
Management Partners reviewed the case volume by permit types for
three fiscal years ending in FY 2018-19. Table 1 provides the volume of
permits processed during this period. These data show a general decline,
but we hesitate to call this a trend because it is based on a limited time
period.
Processing these permits is a large part of the Community Development
Department’s work. However, a similar workload is anticipated during
the current fiscal year budget as in FY 2018-19.
Table 1. Planning Permitting Workload
Permit Type Number of Permits Processed
FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Accessory Dwelling Units 5 8 2
Administrative Permits 14 8 6
Appeals 0 0 0
Certificates of Compliance 2 0 1
Commercial Planned Development 0 1 0
Conditional Use Permits 2 3 2
Film Permits 4 6 2
General Plan Amendments 0 1 0
General Plan Amendments Formal
Initiation 0 1 0
Historic Preservation Certificates 1 0 0
Home Occupation Permits 69 61 36
14
128253
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
Permit Type Number of Permits Processed
FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Industrial Planned Development 2 0 0
Lot Line Adjustments 1 0 0
Open House Sign Permits 74 65 43
Permit Adjustments 7 3 1
Parcel Maps 2 1 1
Pre-Applications 2 1 1
Residential Planned Development 0 1 0
Sign Permits 33 18 7
Temporary Use Permits 26 27 9
Variances 0 0 0
Zone Changes 0 1 0
Zoning Clearances 518 383 81
Zoning Ordinance Amendments 5 4 1
Source: Moorpark Community Development Department
There are 15 mid- to large-scale residential projects currently under
entitlement/permit review, along with three industrial projects planned.
The 108-room Fairfield Hotel is also under construction and inspections
for condition compliance are underway.
The Building and Safety Division’s workload for FY 2017-18 totaled 1,257
permits with a total project valuation of $54.3 million. By comparison,
workload for FY 2018-19 decreased to 863 permits with a valuation of $9.6
million.
A special meeting of the City Council was conducted on May 29, 2019 to
introduce the City Manager’s proposed budget for FY 2019-20. A
summary of anticipated near-term development projects was provided
and is reproduced below for context about the trends and scale of work
being conducted by staff members throughout the City organization and,
in particular, the planning, civil engineering, affordable housing and
landscape sections of the Community Development, Public Works and
Parks and Recreation departments.
On the development side, the City Council can anticipate a number
of residential development projects to come before you during FY
2019/20 that will add new residents, new infrastructure to support
residents, as well as increased sales and property tax revenue. These
projects include a proposed 69-unit townhome project on Los
15
129254
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Organization Structure and Workload Management Partners
Angeles Avenue (Green Island Villa/Grand Moorpark) and another
60-unit townhome project on Everett Street (Chiu). Due to the
relatively low number of residential units these projects may bring,
the proposed budget does not propose the addition of new service
levels; conversely no services are proposed to be reduced.
16
130255
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
Development Review Process
This section outlines Management Partners’ analysis of Moorpark’s
development process. Also included are an analysis and
recommendations for best practices that will help the department to
enhance services and improve outcomes.
Process Mapping
To fully understand each step in the City’s development process,
Management Partners prepared process maps. Our work began with a
day-long process mapping session with 12 staff members in May 2019.
Our goals in facilitating this session were twofold.
• Identify the current process steps. Documenting the existing process
is important because it helps to form the baseline to identify gaps,
redundancies and other problems in the current system, and to
illustrate changes needed for improving efficiency.
The process mapping exercise was useful in clearly showing that
the City does not have a uniform, identifiable process that could
be documented in process maps. The system in Moorpark, can
best be described as “ad hoc” where each project is processed
independently, and the steps, sequence and requirements can
change from one project to another. This non-uniform approach
defeats the objectives of predictability, clear and efficient
timeframes, and the ability for staff to provide clear guidance for
applicants. Our attempt at mapping the current process enabled
us to understand what we had heard from stakeholders and staff
in our interviews.
• Identify tangible ways to improve predictability and timeliness of the
development review process. These outcomes require an efficient
workflow, multiple ways for customers to access relevant data
and information, clear communication and feedback from staff,
and better overall customer service.
17
131256
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
Management Partners was able to focus on this second objective
of process mapping. Staff members were eager to challenge the
status quo, question existing methods, and discuss the various
forms, notices and the timing of the process. The discussions with
staff also included a review of the pre-application, development
review and condition compliance sub-processes.2
Our review of the development process in Moorpark resulted in two sets
of process maps, one set for major discretionary development projects
and the other for CEQA review.
Improving the Development Process
Management Partners has several recommendations regarding improving
the development process below.
Uniform development process needed. Management Partners observed
activity at the public front counter, heard suggestions from staff, and
reviewed application forms to understand how staff process applications
currently. We also examined areas of responsibilities, overlaps and
interconnections related to staffs’ review of entitlement/permit
applications, CEQA review and reviewing compliance with conditions of
approval.
The process maps we created will serve as a foundation for establishing a
clear and uniform development review process. The department should
review the process maps annually to keep them current by making
refinements, as necessary. We suggest this review be conducted as part of
an annual omnibus process outlined below and addressed in
Recommendation 9.
Establish a uniform Recommendation 5.
development review process, using the
process maps as a foundation.
2 As mentioned previously, most large development projects in Moorpark have been
processed with development agreements, each having a unique set of conditions and
requirements. In contrast, the conditions and requirements in most cities tend to be more
standardized and, therefore, easier to understand and predict for applicants and easier to
enforce for staff.
18
132257
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
Establish project manager. Each customer needs a single point of contact
that can help him/her understand and navigate through the process in a
straightforward and timely manner. Customers we interviewed voiced
the complaint that they were often referred to other departments or
outside agencies, and when that happened, they were confused and lost
time.
A better approach is for each applicant to have a staff member designated
as project manager. The project manager would be a sort of “air traffic
controller,” owning the flight path and trajectory for the project. Planning
staff should serve as project managers, with accountability built into their
job classifications and annual performance reviews.
One simple but effective way to standardize a workflow is to develop
checklists identifying key process steps and requirements. Checklists are
a tangible way to train staff and to serve as handouts to guide customers.
The checklists should be reviewed each year to ensure they are current
with policy changes, State law modifications, and process improvements
made by the City.
Establish the role of project Recommendation 6.
manager for each project that includes a
discretionary application.
Prepare comprehensive Recommendation 7.
internal checklists by project type for staff
members and applicants. This should also
involve an annual review of the checklists which
could be done as a part of the omnibus review
process by the Development Review Committee.
Communicate the steps of Recommendation 8.
the development review process, standards
and deposits/fees in a Development Review
Handbook that is provided to customers.
Conduct annual policy updates. The California Legislature periodically
enacts new regulations that affect land use policies, as well as imposing
new procedural requirements and practices. Instituting an annual
practice of reviewing Moorpark’s development policies, codes and
procedural changes along with implementing changes imposed by the
State would ensure that all elements of the City’s development policies tie
together.
19
133258
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
Doing this at a set time each year will give policymakers and the
community a comprehensive picture of major issues. As an example, the
City of Encinitas conducts a comprehensive overview of its community
development function each spring, side-by-side with the state-required
Annual General Plan Report. The timing of this session gives Council
members an opportunity to prioritize and budget what staff work is to be
conducted on policy, code, process and fee matters as well as timing of
such work.
Establish an annual Recommendation 9.
omnibus process for adopting and updating
land use policies, regulatory code standards,
programs, and administrative processes,
including the procedures for managing the
cost center program.
Expand role of Development Review Committee (DRC). An effective
development review process requires regular communication and
coordination between staff from various disciplines involved in a
complex series of tasks.
Moorpark has a staff-level Development Review Committee (DRC)
whose role it is to inform the City Council, Planning Commission and
City Manager about the technical merits of development projects that
require discretionary review. This role could be expanded to include an
interdepartmental staff review of pre -submittal, condition and mitigation
measure setting, and condition compliance phases of development
review. As the DRC’s role is expanded, it will also be important to
ensure clarity about the project manager’s duties in relation to the DRC.
Our process maps indicate what we view as an appropriate role for the
DRC.
In addition to reviewing individual development projects, we believe the
DRC should lead the annual omnibus process for reviewing and
reporting to the City Council on updates to legislation, policy,
procedures, programs and related matters. As a practical matter, this
process will be overseen by the Community Development Director, who
should also have the authority to delegate certain tasks to other
departments.
Expand the role of the Recommendation 10.
Development Review Committee to cover the
pre-submittal, condition and mitigation
measure setting, and condition compliance
20
134259
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Development Review Process Management Partners
phases of development review, and oversee
the annual omnibus review process.
Another concern we heard during the process mapping session is that not
all pertinent staff members are part of the Development Review
Committee, nor are they involved early enough in the technical reviews.
DRC membership should be expanded to include staff who can provide a
review of integrated waste management, stormwater and affordable
housing.
Expand membership of the Recommendation 11.
Development Review Committee to include
coverage of integrated waste management,
stormwater and affordable housing.
After the department implements this new development process, and
works with it for some time, it would be appropriate to examine the
process further and identify additional ways to improve it.
21
135260
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
Business Technologies
This section summarizes our recommendations regarding technology,
intended to increase efficiency of the development process.
EnerGov
The City purchased the EnerGov land management system and its web-
based portal to help streamline reviews and allow staff and customers to
access the status of development projects and plan review comments.
Expectations for a quick and smooth implementation of this system were
dashed after the contractor substituted personnel responsible for system
roll-out, the City was late in delivering process information, and the
implementation budget was depleted.
Now back on track under the guidance of the City Manager’s Office, staff
plan for the EnerGov system to be operational by late 2019. One of the
outstanding matters is to ensure the process steps and workflow
contained in the EnerGov system are consistent with the steps and
workflow in the City’s revised development review process.
Complete the configuration, Recommendation 12.
beta-testing and roll-out of the EnerGov
system. In so doing, provide licenses for staff,
conduct staff training, publicly announce a launch
date, and provide a user-friendly guide on the
City’s website for access to and use of the system.
Embed the process steps Recommendation 13.
and workflow identified in the process maps
within the EnerGov system.
Electronic Plan Review
Staff expressed interest in implementing other business systems that
would allow customers to use electronic tools such as Blue Beam or
Adobe Pro to submit applications and plans electronically. Most of these
tools provide for two-way electronic forwarding of technical drawings
22
136261
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
and reports, red-line mark-ups on plan sets, as well as the electronic
archival of such, at a considerable savings of paperwork, time, cost and
space. Management Partners’ experience and working with many public
agencies has convinced us that use of these technologies in local
government is a “when” not “if” proposition.
Procure and integrate an Recommendation 14.
electronic application submittal, distribution
and plan review business system.
Transition to Paperless System
Many large and small cities throughout California are currently engaged
or have recently completed transitions to a paperless development review
process. Examples are Encinitas, Carlsbad, Newport Beach, Roseville, and
Folsom. Paperless systems cannot be implemented overnight. They
require a deliberate and programmed transition for both staff members
and customers. To be successful, the transition needs to break long
established behaviors of working with paper in exchange for the
efficiencies from electronic tracking, communication and archiving.
Implementation of the EnerGov system must first be completed, as would
the transition to an electronic plan review system. We also see the move
to a paperless system for development review as a “when” not “if”
proposition. Implementing a paperless system would require staff
training, the validation of electronic signatures, the provision of electronic
kiosks for customers, as well as integration with outside agencies.
Examples are Caltrans, Ventura County Fire Protection District, Ventura
County Watershed Protection District and Wastewater District.
Develop a timeline for Recommendation 15.
future transition to a paperless development
review system.
Enterprise Resource Planning Software
The City Manager’s Office is overseeing an enterprise resource planning
(ERP) project, which will integrate multiple business functions such as
planning, finance, human resources and procurement through
technology. The use of an ERP system has become common in local
governments for business efficiency and as a way to innovate, given
limited staffing resources that are typical among smaller cities.
Plan for continued Recommendation 16.
investment in system upgrades and ERP
23
137262
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
integration of business systems. Particular
attention needs to be provided to the
integration of the EnerGov system with the
Geographic Information System and digital
application submittal and plan review software.
City Website and Handouts
A variety of guides, application forms and checklists are available on the
City’s website and at the public front counter. The various resolutions
that comprise the General Plan and the Zoning Code are also posted
online.
However, the City’s website needs updating. Searching for a routine
question, such as the process for securing a sign permit, requires multiple
steps rather than the industry standard of “1-2-Click.” It was noted by a
staff member that it is easier to obtain a copy of the Zoning Clearance
form by using the Google search engine instead of the City’s website.
Another interviewee remarked, “Redesign it so we don’t have to flip through
several pages to figure out the City’s submittal requirements.”
Changes that should be considered include replacing the department’s
webpages with application guides and checklists by type of project,
readily available to the user on the website. The guides and checklists
should cover items such as:
• Zoning requirements;
• Lot split/subdivision requirements;
• Sign permit requirements;
• Process steps;
• Fees (including a fee calculator);
• Staff contacts;
• Method to track an application, such as an applicant’s use of the
EnerGov system; and
• Other helpful resources.
The Development Review Handbook, which was previously
recommended (Recommendation 8), should also include these additional
materials. Further, implementing these changes would require assigning
responsibility to a staff position to update the website and handout
materials on a semi-annual schedule. This would ensure that customers
have the most current information on processes, requirements and public
access points to data, information, public notices and project status.
24
138263
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Business Technologies Management Partners
Update the website to focus on Recommendation 17.
providing application guides and other electronic
information, such as the Development Review
Handbook.
25
139264
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
Management System
Managing a community development department well requires a variety
of technical skills, an ability to provide clear direction to staff and a
commitment to being accessible and providing good service to customers.
Tools in the form of systems, policies, timeframes, procedures,
performance measures, analytic capacity, and other checks and balances
are also needed for effective management. We call these collective tools
the management system.
This section focuses on the various components of the department’s
management system.
Cycle and Task Times
The State’s Permit Streamlining Act provides benchmark standards for
processing of development projects. However, discretionary projects
involving a legislative decision (such as General Plan Amendments,
Zoning Code/Map modifications, and development agreements) are
exempt from these timeframes. Many projects in Moorpark, including
virtually every large project, involve one or more of these legislative
actions.
It may appear that having no time standards is an advantage to the City
because staff and policymaker review of projects is not constrained by
deadlines. However, lack of time standards can lead to unhappy
customers, dysfunctional systems, and inefficient work.
The lack of established time standards, or cycle times, contributes to
staffs’ inability to advise customers about what to expect and how long
things will take. Improving Moorpark’s development process will require
setting timeframes and managing the work within them.
Cycle times and task times. Implementing and managing timeframes in
a development process also requires differentiating between cycle and
task times. This is important because the development process in most
cities is iterative, starting when a customer submits an application and set
of plans. Staff then review what was submitted, preparing and sending
26
140265
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
comments to the customer explaining the changes to the project that are
necessary. A new cycle begins again when the customer revises plans and
resubmits them for further review. Obviously, limiting the number of
cycles of review is critical from a time management standpoint.
Our experience is that cities should aim to complete the development
process after two cycles of review. This is impeded in Moorpark by
several factors, as follows:
• Imprecise or unclear General Plan or Zoning Code policy that
leads customers to submit projects that are not in compliance.
• Lack of information that helps customers understand the review
process and a city’s requirements.
• Inaccessible (or a lack of) staff to answer questions promptly.
• Lack of or unclear policies and procedures that leave staff
uncertain about how to advise customers. (A related problem is
inconsistent implementation of policies and procedures by
different staff members or for different projects.)
• Lack of onboarding or training for staff about the entire
development process.
• Unclear applications and submittal requirements that do not
provide a comprehensive list of what is necessary when projects
are submitted.
• Lack of communication with customers (website, informational
materials, public counter, telephone) about which city department
is responsible for what review task.
• Ineffective internal coordination of the reviews by various
departments (e.g., where one or more departments do not conduct
a thorough review which results in a customer getting “last-
minute” or piecemeal comments).
Limiting the number of review cycles is a key step in improving the
development process. Another key step is to clearly identify and tightly
manage task times. Of course, by task we refer to one of the numerous
discrete steps in each review cycle. Examples of tasks might include:
• Circulating plans to the various reviewing departments after the
project has been submitted;
• Reviewing the development plans;
• Consulting with external agencies (e.g., school district, Caltrans);
• Conducting an environmental review pursuant to CEQA;
• Determining whether significant off-site improvements will be
necessary; or
27
141266
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
• Reviewing the type of construction to identify major building
code problems.
Need to set realistic timeframes. Managing tasks requires setting realistic
timeframes for each staff member to complete their portion of the review
and ensuring all staff members are conducting their reviews
concurrently. The project manager discussed earlier in this report is the
key to keeping a project on schedule because their role is to analyze,
communicate and coordinate with City staff and the customer.
The following are other timeframes that should be established.
• Completeness task time. The Permit Streamlining Act requires
determinations on application completeness be made within 30
days of application submittal.
• Tenant improvement cycle time. Establish a cycle time for review
of office/commercial tenant improvements of 20 calendar days.
• Discretionary project cycle time. Establish cycle times for review
of all other discretionary development projects within 45 calendar
days of the application completeness determination.
• CEQA cycle/task time. The CEQA process should run
concurrently with discretionary project review but recognizing
that CEQA review involves separate statutory timeframes for
public review and comment.
Establish cycle and task Recommendation 18.
times for the entitlement review of
development projects. Track timeframes and
share results with staff on a monthly basis.
Measuring Performance
The EnerGov platform is capable of producing data that will allow the
department to prepare management reports that measure cycle times and
other metrics by project type (e.g., residential tract development,
commercial or industrial development, infill or revitalization of highway
corridor centers, etc.), by permit type (e.g., Use Permit, Tentative Tract
Map, etc.), by geographic area of the city, as well as by staff position or
department. The system can also provide workload data for purposes of
strategic planning, budgeting, and deploying staff resources.
Using EnerGov data to measure performance will require programming
and formatting of standardized reports. Some land management systems
require these standardized reports to be created through third-party
28
142267
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
software such as SAP’s Crystal Reports software. Department leaders
should confer with the City’s IT staff and the EnerGov vendor to clarify
how this standardized reporting will be accomplished.
Department leaders will need to identify the types of metrics and reports
it needs to allow a continual assessment of the development review
process and department operations. Examples of typical metrics are
shown below.
• Percent of DRC reviews completed within the timeframe goal;
• Average number of days required to complete DRC reviews;
• Number of projects submitted with discretionary applications;
• Average number of review cycles conducted for:
a. discretionary projects, and
b. plan check;
• Average number of days from discretionary application submittal
to action by the Planning Commission and City Council;
• Total number of plan check submittals;
• Average number of plan check resubmittals;
• Average number of days required to complete plan check reviews;
• Number of building permits issued;
• Number of building inspections performed;
• Percent of building inspections performed within timeframe goal;
• Number of customers served:
o By telephone, and
o At public counter;
• Number of code enforcement cases filed;
• Average number of days for inspection after code enforcement
cases are filed; and
• Average number of days to resolve and close code enforcement
cases.
Establish a system of Recommendation 19.
performance reports and metrics to analyze
the development process and Community
Development Department operations.
Standardized Conditions
All discretionary entitlements in Moorpark include a 47-page list of
standard conditions of approval. Standard conditions and checklists are
effective because they ensure that important requirements or steps are not
overlooked, and they help to ensure consistency from one project to
another.
29
143268
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
However, many of the standard conditions in Moorpark may not be
applicable or scaled properly to their respective projects. Nonetheless,
they are required pursuant to City of Moorpark Resolution 2009-2799.
Several of the conditions in the City’s list recite regulatory requirements
already built into the development review process through state and local
laws, making them unnecessary. Further, we understand these standard
conditions can be confusing and costly for stakeholders. Worse, the
conditions could constitute an overreach when misapplied to mid-sized
projects, and this could be a “deal killer.”
A best practice is to have a scalable list of standard conditions of approval
that staff can choose from which are relevant to the development project
at hand.
Edit the standard conditions Recommendation 20.
to remove redundant requirements that
appear in state or local laws.
Amend Resolution 2009-Recommendation 21.
2799 to clarify that standard conditions of
approval are to be applied and scaled
commensurate with each development project.
Staff Engagement and Training
It is evident that Moorpark has quality, committed employees at every
level of the organization who are supportive of and even eager to begin
using new approaches to improve the development process and the
department. It is also clear the department has effective leadership.
Engaging staff in implementing changes, and in their professional
development, will be important to the success of improved development
processes.
The Community Development Department’s prior focus has been on
project review rather a broader approach that emphasizes timeliness,
clarity, predictability and customer service. The narrower project review
approach led to lack of coordination and a perception by customers of
30
144269
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
little sense of urgency.3 Management Partners notes that the only process
that had some structure in Moorpark was related to CEQA, and that was
due to State mandates. A “start-to-finish” type of project management
was not evident.
Under the new processes recommended in this report, staff at all levels of
the department will need to participate in the workflow and ownership of
their assigned development projects.
Key ingredients will include the following:
• Expanding staff roles to include anticipating pinch-points in the
process, greater problem-solving with one another and the
customer, and actively working to keep forward momentum for
projects at each step of the development review process.
• Enhancing an understanding of the customer’s perspective that
each project is important and urgent to that customer.
• Moving from working on parts of a project to managing for
project outcomes.
• Obtaining new skills in analytical methods and strategic
approaches to workflow management, as well as skillful use of the
business systems that can assist the staff team.
• Conducting annual performance reviews that are focused on
professional development, establishing goals for the coming year,
clarifying expectations, and identifying what will be most helpful
for each staff person’s success.
With regards to performance evaluations, we learned that they have been
inconsistent or even overlooked within the department in the past. This is
not particularly unusual in organizations, but it is a missed opportunity.
The timing for the annual performance evaluations can be set in a variety
of ways, such as based on the employee’s anniversary date, or all
evaluations conducted at the same time once a year. The latter timing can
be useful as a way to clearly incorporate the department’s goals and
3 Urgency implies a priority, where something is important enough to warrant swift,
persistent and earnest action. However, it is not the same thing as emergency, which is
characterized by a need for immediate, drop-what-you-are-doing action.
31
145270
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
expectations into individual performance goals and evaluations so that
there is meaningful feedback to each employee in a way that reflects on
the progress of the entire team and its goals for the coming year.
Regardless of the schedule, the important thing is for the department to
provide a structured, annual performance evaluation for each staff
member. Additionally, staff members should be provided regular,
specific feedback to support their success, along with training, coaching
and support.
Conduct annual evaluations Recommendation 22.
for each member of the department. Goals
established in performance evaluations should
identify specific ways for each team member to
advance the department’s efforts to improve the
development process and customer service.
Provide customer service Recommendation 23.
training that emphasizes workflow
management. The annual performance review
is key to setting expectations for behavioral
norms, particularly as the department’s culture
transitions to become more team-oriented and
outcome-focused.
Use of On-Call Consultants
Many cities use on-call contractors to assist with specialized tasks or to
assist during periods of peak workloads. The Community Development
Department has started doing this in two important ways.
1. The department has established on-call contracts with two
environmental firms to prepare CEQA reports for the City. Developer-
prepared environmental documents are no longer accepted for
processing, which was an important step by the City. Having on-
call contracts reduces the time required for the CEQA review.
2. The department has established an on-call contract with an estate
advisory firm to perform economic and related analysis as a part of
reviewing projects where development agreements are proposed. Again,
having this firm under contract allows the department to be
nimbler in responding to development proposals.
On-call contracts are sound practices because a department this size (in
fact, even much larger departments) would seldom have among their
staff the special expertise these firms offer. Using these experts ensures
32
146271
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
quality analysis and representation for the City of Moorpark.
Additionally, the cost of this expert assistance can be recovered through
fees, reimbursement agreements, and similar arrangements.
Other steps can be taken. Additional measures could also be considered,
such as the following.
• Hiring consultants to assist with updating building permit and
development impact fees would also ensure a high-quality
analysis and that the costs and impacts on the community are
being properly addressed.
• Engaging on-call contract with a planning firm(s) that provides
project-processing help is another good approach for addressing
periods of peak workload, rather than incurring the cost of hiring
staff for the peak, which is not affordable for most cities. Having
consultants on call allows the department to use the resources
when workload warrants it. The cost of these on-call services can
also be recovered from the applicants who benefit from the
service.
Expand consulting services Recommendation 24.
to include additional on-call economic and
planning casework assistance, as well as
services to analyze building permit fees and
development impact fees.
The City of Moorpark uses an engineering consultant to provide various
civil engineering services including participating in the development
review process. Unfortunately, the management of these services was
roundly criticized by stakeholders. The criticism centered on lax
oversight by the City’s consultant, particularly in the areas of cycle times
and cost containment.
Management Partners is not able to advise whether stakeholders’
perceptions regarding the contract engineering services are valid because
such an assessment is beyond our scope of work. However, it is clear
these matters are considered problematic by the stakeholders we
interviewed. Other complaints from stakeholders are that the engineering
function is not managed effectively and that there is a lack of
responsiveness to customers. These concerns warrant further review by
City staff.
33
147272
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
Conduct a focused Recommendation 25.
assessment of the civil engineering program,
including on-call engineering services.
Analytic Capacity
The system changes needed to improve the development process, and the
technology being implemented now or planned, will require additional
analytical capacity in the department. Additionally, the accounting
functions required within Community Development need additional
capacity. The lack of a position to provide this capacity means that the
director and managers are responsible for the various analytic tasks, and
time available for customer issues, complicated development projects and
overall management is strained.
Among the tasks needing attention are the following:
• Collecting and analyzing data, and tracking performance;
• Preparing the budget;
• Managing the cost center system;
• Ensuring proper accounting of various developer funds;
• Coordinating the department’s efforts with other departments,
especially the Finance Department;
• Problem solving issues from customers or staff, such as those
about deposits; and,
• Assisting with implementing improvements to the development
process.
Problems with accounting and monitoring. We understand that requests
of an administrative or financial nature usually take a backseat to other
important work in the department. For example, an accounting inquiry
from a customer (or staff member) about a deposit account can take quite
some time to answer. We heard of instances where this took as long as
one year. A related problem pertains to the commingling of developer
funds used for improvements required by conditions of approval or
mitigation measures.
The cost center system was assigned to the Finance Department at some
point in the past. This is understandable at first blush since the cost center
system is an accounting function. However, after examining it further we
think this may have been misguided.
While Finance staff are typically skilled at accounting and monitoring
financial records, doing so for the Community Development Department
is particularly complicated because of the numerous projects, complex
34
148273
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
timeframes, infrastructure requirements, conditions of approval and
several other variables. These factors complicate the accounting tasks.
Further, the Community Development Department is responsible for two
types of accounts: development processing deposit accounts and impact
fee or condition of approval funds used for various improvements or
requirements. Each project may have one account of the first type and
another account of the second type.
It would be difficult for Finance staff to spend the required time learning
and monitoring all the requirements and project variables in addition to
their regular work. Our experience is that effective community
development departments often have a dedicated analyst position to help
meet these needs yet maintain thorough accounting records consistent
with finance guidelines.
The department does not have an effective system for managing the types
of analytical, administrative and accounting challenges discussed above.
We believe a central problem is that there is no one single person
responsible for this work. Creating an analyst role in the department
would address this matter.
Create an analyst position in Recommendation 26.
the Community Development Department.
Fees, Cost Recovery and Cost Center Management
We understand there is a plan to conduct a study of administrative
processing fees in the near future. We have found wide variability in
development review fee schedules throughout California, both by region
and by purpose, such as incentivizing developers to seek pre-submittal
review of projects. While the City’s fee consultant will provide analysis
and specific recommendations, we offer some best practices and broad
recommendations below.
Pre-Application Reviews and Fees
The department’s website identifies two types of pre-submittal reviews.
“Pre-Submittal Review” is focused on discussing City requirements
before plans are prepared. It appears this process is free. “Pre-
Application” is a process where applicants can meet with and obtain
feedback from various City representatives. The fee for Pre-Application is
$1,400. Both processes are scheduled by appointment.
Early review of projects is good for customers and City staff because it
establishes clear communication at the beginning of the development
35
149274
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
review process. It also discourages ill-conceived concepts from being
submitted and then languishing in the review process. Making this
process easy, fast and cheap is in everyone’s interest.
However, having two similar processes is confusing and unnecessary.
Combining them into a single process would simplify things for
customers and staff. Of course, the department could continue offering
other informal consultations on request.
Some cities provide pre-application reviews on a regular schedule. The
advantage is a standardized process, timeframes and stakeholder/staff
expectations. It also helps address the problem of departments coming to
a pre-application meeting unprepared.
Combine the two pre-Recommendation 27.
application reviews into a single process and
determine whether they will be conducted on
request or on a regular schedule.
Establish a nominal (or no) Recommendation 28.
fee for pre-application review.
Cost Recovery
The cost of most of the work of the department is recoverable through
processing fees (e.g., fees for building permits, conditional use permits,
variances, zone changes, general plan amendments, and subdivisions).
However, it is common that cities are not able to recover certain types of
expenses because they cannot be attributed to new development.
The key is to build an understandable fee schedule that encourages
efficient service delivery and fee transparency. Establishing a cost
recovery policy is a recommended first step.
The principle of cost recovery is that the individuals or businesses who
receive a benefit from a city in the form of entitlements should bear the
cost of providing those services. When development review fees do not
recover a city’s costs, the result is that the cost burden is shifted
elsewhere, typically to the General Fund. The result of artificially low
development review fees is that other taxpayers subsidize new
development.
City Council policy. Cost recovery begins with a City Council policy that
establishes the intent to recover the City’s full cost of providing services
to development applicants, and whether some (or no) project types
should be subsidized. For example, some cities subsidize permit costs for
36
150275
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
project types they want to attract, such as affordable housing, because
they deem them important for the community’s general welfare.
Develop and recommend an Recommendation 29.
appropriate cost recovery policy to the City
Council.
Recovering external costs incurred by the City. Moorpark has a complex
system for reviewing project compliance with conditions of approval,
mitigation measures, infrastructure requirements, and subdivision
agreements. Some but not all costs for this work can be recovered
through projects’ cost center accounts. However, the City needs to ensure
that other costs, like consultant-related civil engineering costs and staff
preparation of Subdivision Improvement Agreements, are also recovered.
Cities can also incur other external costs for processing development
projects. Examples of these include costs for consultants to prepare
environmental documents, prepare third-party economic analysis, or
provide other technical or legal assistance.
Some cities enter into reimbursement agreements with applicants to
recover these costs. Another approach is to wait until the City receives a
proposal from the consultant and then require the applicant to deposit
the entire amount with the City in advance. Whichever option Moorpark
chooses, a clear and well-documented reimbursement process will be
useful when projects involve additional costs.
Prepare a policy and Recommendation 30.
procedure related to reimbursement of all
external City costs.
Basis for Calculating Building Fees
Moorpark, like most cities in California, has a series of building fees to
cover the cost of plan check, issuing permits and obtaining an inspection.
Cities typically use one of two basic approaches for calculating these fees.
• Project valuation, or
• Analysis of time/motion.
Project valuation is an approach that sets fees based on the cost to build
the project. To ensure uniformity, cities typically use project valuation
data published by a well-accepted authority such as the International
Code Council (ICC).
37
151276
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Management System Management Partners
The second approach is what Moorpark is using now. It is a more
detailed analysis of the actual work involved in issuing a permit,
performing a plan check, or conducting an inspection. This method then
multiplies the average hours required for the task by the fully burdened
rate of the employees performing the tasks. Moorpark’s other entitlement
fees are rooted in this time/motion method because a developer pays for
the time staff spend to process their project.
The project valuation method is a simpler approach, and is widely used,
but can be less defensible because the relationship between a project’s
cost and the task performed by the staff member(s) is not linear. In
contrast, a time/motion method is more complex to set up but can be
more accurate because it studies the actual work performed and
determines the fee on this basis.
As previously recommended, the City should seek the advice of a well-
qualified building permit fee consultant.
Determine whether Recommendation 31.
building fees are to be calculated on the basis
of project valuation or the estimated time for
completing each task.
Implement Surcharges to Recover Business System Costs
Cities incur substantial costs to procure, manage, license and update
business systems and policies such as land management systems (e.g.,
EnerGov), geographic information systems, general plans, and zoning
ordinances. Other miscellaneous business systems also include recording,
imaging and archival services related to maintaining public records. Since
these systems and policies exist to guide and support new development,
a significant portion of their costs can be recovered through application
and permitting fees.
A common way of recovering these costs is to establish surcharges on
each permit, approval or entitlement the City issues. In this way, the City
will recapture the costs incrementally over time and have sufficient
funding to offset large cost outlays to update these systems in the future.
Of course, these surcharge funds must be segregated for accounting
purposes to ensure they are spent for the intended purposes.
Establish a system of Recommendation 32.
surcharges on permits, approvals and
entitlements to recover costs of business
systems and policy documents.
38
152277
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
Workplace Environment
The most prominent face of Moorpark City Hall is the small, 10-foot wide
public counter in the portable, dimly lit building that houses the
Community Development Department and portions of the Public Works
and Parks and Recreation departments. This is the public’s only access to
City Hall because other departments and offices are located behind
locked gates.
There are a number of issues related to the current physical space,
including:
• The facilities are small and uncomfortable in terms of reviewing
large plan sets with customers and doing the other work of the
Community Development Department;
• The public queueing space is inadequate for the volume of users
during peak times in the morning;
• Public restrooms are located three buildings away and down a
hill;
• The portable building is accessed by a steep ramp from the
parking lot that may not meet the standards of the Building and
Safety Division it houses; and,
• Noise attenuation is a problem.
By comparison, the internal operating departments, Administration,
Human Resources, Finance, IT, City Clerk and the City Manager’s Office
are housed in a well-lit, air conditioned and nicely furnished modern
office building next door. This building, however, is inaccessible to the
public, despite the fact that it provides 40-feet of front counter space,
substantial queueing space and restrooms adjacent to the unused front
counters.
Moreover, all City Hall walk-in customers are directed to the Community
Development front counter. All telephone calls are also directed to the
Community Development Department, and specifically to an
administrative assistant who is seated next to the public counter. During
lunch and breaks, other administrative staff in the portable building
39
153278
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
provide backup relief for the primary staff who handle these tasks. When
asked about this situation, staff members explain it as a vestige of frugal
times to avoid layoffs.
This workplace environment is not conducive to a contemporary business
model that provides comfortable, business-like facilities for customers
and staff and multiple, direct points of public access to services at City
Hall.
Since our assessment was focused on the Community Development
Department and the development review process, we will focus on how
the inadequate facilities impact customers and staff in terms of providing
a business-friendly environment. In fact, most cities strive to create “one-
stop” centers for permitting with facilities and amenities designed around
the customer. These factors should be considered as Moorpark weighs its
facility needs in the future.
Conduct a facility needs Recommendation 33.
assessment to determine options for relocating
development review functions to City Hall, or
remodeling facilities to provide a modern and
workable office environment.
New counter schedule needed. The Development Services front counter is
open to customers on Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
for a total of 45 hours per week. The schedule does not provide downtime
to process paperwork or enable staff to accomplish other assigned tasks.
Moreover, the schedule does not afford attendance by all staff at
department-wide meetings and/or job-specific trainings, unless closure of
the public counter is authorized by the City Manager.
Many cities establish public counter hours that recognize the need for
mobilization and demobilization time in the morning and late afternoon.
Although large organizations may find coverage from other departments
or divisions for staff meetings, training and other important
administrative functions, this is often not possible in smaller
organizations.
Our experience is that the early morning hours are typically the most
valuable to contractors and others seeking permits so opening the public
counter at 8:00 a.m. could work so long as it closes early in the afternoon
for demobilization. For instance, closing the counter at 4:00 p.m. would
provide staff time to close out files, finish recordkeeping tasks and other
functions so they can start the next morning focused on that day’s work.
40
154279
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Workplace Environment Management Partners
Develop a counter schedule Recommendation 34.
that provides time for mobilization and
demobilization each day, as well as time for
meetings, training and other important
administrative functions.
41
155280
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Conclusion
The City of Moorpark is in a transitional period of change that includes
efforts to improve the City’s development review process and to ensure
the Community Development Department’s structure, staffing and
operations are optimized for the future.
The City has an opportunity to move from its current ad hoc
development review and land use system to one that is grounded in
policies that allow for predictability, consistency, timeliness and clarity
for development applicants. The current approach to development makes
providing information to customers difficult if not impossible.
Technology investments are underway, and more are planned, and more
system improvements will be needed to create an efficient development
process review system. Practices over the years have resulted in staff
members having a narrow scope of responsibilities, which complicates
their ability to assist customers effectively and impedes having a well-
integrated and coordinated development system across the organization.
It also works against professional development, which is critical in
maintaining top talent and keeping staff well trained.
Improving the development process will require establishing a
comprehensive framework of land use policies and regulations by
updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance/Map. With these
policies and regulations in place, the process maps prepared by
Management Partners will serve as a foundation for establishing a clear
and predictable development process.
Implementing the recommendations in this report will take time and
budgetary resources. City leaders, along with the enthusiasm and
dedication of staff, can establish a high-functioning development process
that customers appreciate, staff feel part of, and the community benefits
from.
42
156281
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Attachment A – List of Recommendations
Conduct annual meetings with local development community leaders Recommendation 1.
to obtain feedback about the development review process and identify steps for continued
improvement.
Conduct a comprehensive update to the General Plan and Zoning Recommendation 2.
Ordinance/Map.
Conduct a nexus study to determine the infrastructure and Recommendation 3.
improvements required to serve new development and analyze their costs in relation to new
development projects.
Adopt impact fees based on the nexus study. Recommendation 4.
Establish a uniform development review process, using the process Recommendation 5.
maps as a foundation.
Establish the role of project manager for each project that includes a Recommendation 6.
discretionary application.
Prepare comprehensive internal checklists by project type for staff Recommendation 7.
members and applicants.
Communicate the steps of the development review process, standards Recommendation 8.
and deposits/fees in a Development Review Handbook that is provided to customers.
Establish an annual omnibus process for adopting and updating land Recommendation 9.
use policies, regulatory code standards, programs, and administrative processes, including
the procedures for managing the cost center program.
Expand the role of the Development Review Committee to cover the Recommendation 10.
pre-submittal, condition and mitigation measure setting, and condition compliance phases of
development review, and oversee the annual omnibus review process.
Expand membership of the Development Review Committee to Recommendation 11.
include coverage of integrated waste management, stormwater and affordable housing.
Complete the configuration, beta-testing and roll-out of the EnerGov Recommendation 12.
system.
Embed the process steps and workflow identified in the process maps Recommendation 13.
within the EnerGov system.
Procure and integrate an electronic application submittal, distribution Recommendation 14.
and plan review business system.
Develop a timeline for future transition to a paperless development Recommendation 15.
review system.
Plan for continued investment in system upgrades and ERP integration Recommendation 16.
of business systems.
43
157282
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Update the website to focus on providing application guides and other Recommendation 17.
electronic information, such as the Development Review Handbook.
Establish cycle and task times for the entitlement review of Recommendation 18.
development projects. Track timeframes and share results with staff on a monthly basis.
Establish a system of performance reports and metrics to analyze the Recommendation 19.
development process and Community Development Department operations.
Edit the standard conditions to remove redundant requirements that Recommendation 20.
appear in state or local laws.
Amend Resolution 2009-2799 to clarify that standard conditions of Recommendation 21.
approval are to be applied and scaled commensurate with each development project.
Conduct annual evaluations for each member of the department. Recommendation 22.
Provide customer service training that emphasizes workflow Recommendation 23.
management.
Expand consulting services to include additional on-call economic and Recommendation 24.
planning casework assistance, as well as services to analyze building permit fees and
development impact fees.
Conduct a focused assessment of the civil engineering program, Recommendation 25.
including on-call engineering services.
Create an analyst position in the Community Development Recommendation 26.
Department.
Combine the two pre-application reviews into a single process and Recommendation 27.
determine whether they will be conducted on request or on a regular schedule.
Establish a nominal (or no) fee for pre-application review. Recommendation 28.
Develop and recommend an appropriate cost recovery policy to the Recommendation 29.
City Council.
Prepare a policy and procedure related to reimbursement of all Recommendation 30.
external City costs.
Determine whether building fees are to be calculated on the basis of Recommendation 31.
project valuation or the estimated time for completing each task.
Establish a system of surcharges on permits, approvals and Recommendation 32.
entitlements to recover costs of business systems and policy documents.
Conduct a facility needs assessment to determine options for Recommendation 33.
relocating development review functions to City Hall, or remodeling facilities to provide a
modern and workable office environment.
Develop a counter schedule that provides time for mobilization and Recommendation 34.
demobilization each day, as well as time for meetings, training and other important
administrative functions.
44
158283
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Attachment B – Draft Process Maps for Major Discretionary
Projects
45
159284
Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 1 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 1 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 1 of 7)
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Project Concept ReviewProject Concept Review
City of Moorpark Community Development Review – Proposed
DRAFT (08/2019)
Contact City Hall
with request to
meet on a concept
project or
modification of a
previously approved
project
Start
Does the project
require a legislative
action1 or a quasi-judicial
entitlement?
Notes
1Legislative Actions include General Plan Amendments (GPA), Zoning Code Amendments (ZCA), and/or Development Agreements (DA)
2This is the only DRC meeting that the customer attends.
3City Council Community and Economic Development Committee (CEDC)
Schedule DRC meeting
to review concept
project or modification
Legislative
action
Customer has option
to request DRC
meeting
Quasi-judicial
Do they request a
meeting?
Summarize the
content of the DRC
meeting in EnerGov
and update case status
Yes
Communicate results
to customer, City
Manager, Executive
Team, and CEDC3
Conduct first DRC
meeting2
No
Assign planning
manager team to the
project based on need
and workload
Generate a folder in
EnerGov
Submit project
description, details,
and drawings for
review
Email to customer an
application form,
checklist, and fee/
deposit agreement for
quasi-judicial land-use
entitlement to
customer
Process continues
on Page 6
Process continues
on Page 2 for
Legislative Actions
Process continues
on Page 6 for Quasi -
Judicial Actions
Legend and Notes
• indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
• indicate an internal City process.
Blue Boxes
White Boxes
160285
Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 2 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 2 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 2 of 7)
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
CE
D
C
2
CE
D
C
2
Formal Initiation of Legislative ProcessFormal Initiation of Legislative Process
Legend and Notes
• indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
• indicate an internal City process.
Blue Boxes
White Boxes
Submit application
materials, signed
agreement and
deposit
electronically
Issue Notice of
Receipt of
Entitlement
Application
(NOREA)1
Notes
1List of recipients could include the City Manager, Executive Team, Development Review Committee, CEDC, and nearby properties.
2City Council Community & Economic Development Committee (CEDC)
3Should analysis by an outside consultant be required and controlled by the City, a separate deposit agreement will be provide d to the
customer, along with contract details on scope of work.
Schedule meeting
with the CEDC
Create a summary
memo, upload it to
EnerGov, and email
the NOREA list
about where they
can find it
Conduct meeting
with customer to
provide feedback
about the project
and to hear initial
public comments
Schedule public
hearing for the full
City Council and
inform NOREA list
Conduct City Council
hearing for Formal
Initiation of
Legislative Review
Did the City
Council grant Formal
Initiation of Legislative
Review?
No
Email to the
customer an
application form,
checklist, and
deposit agreement
Process Ends
Yes
City of Moorpark Community Development Review – Proposed
DRAFT (08/2019)
Upload customer
application
materials into
EnerGov
Upload the decision
and all hearing
materials into
EnerGov and notify
the NOREA list of
decision
Process continues
on Page 3
Send written, formal
notification to
customer of City
Council decision
Process continues
from Page 1
161286
Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 3 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 3 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 3 of 7)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
a
n
d
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
a
n
d
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Entitlement Process (Conformity, Site Planning, Design, Engineering, and Affordable Housing)Entitlement Process (Conformity, Site Planning, Design, Engineering, and Affordable Housing)
City of Moorpark Community Development Review – Proposed
DRAFT (08/2019)
Email supplemental
information
requested in 30-day
letter
Refer to CEQA
process
Upload
supplemental
information into
EnerGov by next
business day
Email supplemental
information and the
45 calendar day
deadline for review
to DRC and outside
agencies
Review
supplemental
information 1
Email policy and
technical comments
to Planning Manager
Team by 45 calendar
day deadline
Upload comments
into EnerGov
Reconcile regulatory
conflicts and
comments
Email the City
negotiating team
with relevant
updates2
Notes
1Identify regulatory conformity or conflict, further technical needs, preliminary findings, and draft permit/map conditions.
2Include project status, summary of comments, preliminary findings, significant conditions
Submit application
materials, signed
agreement and
deposit
electronically
Upload customer
documents into
EnerGov
Notify NOREA list
about new
submission
Conduct 30-day
application
completeness
review to determine
completeness
Is the application
complete?
Contact customer by
email to inform
customer of
application
completeness
determination
No
Yes
Legend and Notes
• indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
• indicate an internal City process.
Blue Boxes
White Boxes
Process continues
from Page 2
162287
Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 4 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 4 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 4 of 7)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
o
r
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
A
g
e
n
c
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
o
r
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
A
g
e
n
c
y
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Ci
t
y
N
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
T
e
a
m
Ci
t
y
N
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
T
e
a
m
Ci
t
y
N
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
T
e
a
m
Reconcile Policy, Technical, and CEQA reviewsReconcile Policy, Technical, and CEQA reviews
City of Moorpark Community Development Review – Proposed
DRAFT (08/2019)
Notes
1Policy and technical comments, draft conditions, CEQA mitigation measures and alternatives, and preliminary findings
2Reconcile comments, conditions, mitigation measures, alternatives, and findings
Analyze and
reconcile policy,
technical, and CEQA
documents 1
Legend and Notes
• indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
• indicate an internal City process.
Blue Boxes
White Boxes
Conduct second DRC
meeting2
Draft permit
conditions, findings,
and CEQA Mitigation
Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Email
recommendations
to City Negotiating
Team
Confer with Planning
Manager Team on
project status and
recommendations
Process continues
on Page 5
Process continues
from Page 3
163288
Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 5 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 5 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 5 of 7)
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Ci
t
y
N
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
T
e
a
m
Ci
t
y
N
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
T
e
a
m
Ci
t
y
N
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
T
e
a
m
Negotiate AgreementsNegotiate Agreements
City of Moorpark Community Development Review – Proposed
DRAFT (08/2019)
Legend and Notes
• indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
• indicate an internal City process.
Blue Boxes
White Boxes
Form team suitable
based on project
description
Conduct initial
meeting with the
customer and
receive customer’s
economic analysis
Identify full range of
negotiable items
Review customer’s
economic
information and
conduct
independent pro
forma1
Negotiate
agreements with the
customer2
Notes
1Check development evaluation, economic development multiplier, public service cost, and tax revenue generation. Note that the City
recently executed a services agreement with Keyser Marston Associates for economic analysis.
2For example, a draft development agreement and/or affordable housing agreement.
Process continues
on Page 6
Process continues
from Page 4
164289
Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 6 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 6 of 7)Map 1 – Major Discretionary Development Project (Page 6 of 7)
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
Ci
t
y
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Preparation and Conduct of Public HearingsPreparation and Conduct of Public Hearings
City of Moorpark Community Development Review – Proposed
DRAFT (08/2019)
Did the City Council
approve the
entitlement/maps?
Prepare a
staff report of
findings and
recommendations1
Review documents
from Planning
Manager Team and
request adjustments
as needed
Adjust documents
based on City
Attorney comments
Confer with City
Clerk to schedule
and provide notice
of Planning
Commission and City
Council hearings
Notify NOREA list of
public hearings
Conduct public
hearing to
determine an
advisory
recommendation
Conduct public
hearing for action
on entitlements/
maps
Edit final documents
to comport with the
City Council’s
actions and email
NOREA list
Upload all
documents,
drawings, and plan
sets to EnerGov
Process Ends
Post the Notice of
CEQA Determination
with the county
No
Yes
Notes
1Include Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), resolutions, and o rdinance amendments
2Include project status, summary of comments, preliminary findings, significant conditions
Process continues
on Page 7
Legend and Notes
• indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
• indicate an internal City process.
Blue Boxes
White Boxes
Process continues
from Page 5 for
Legislative Actions
Process continues
from Page 1 for
Quasi-Judicial
Actions
165290
Map 1 – Discretionary Development Project (Page 7 of 7)Map 1 – Discretionary Development Project (Page 7 of 7)Map 1 – Discretionary Development Project (Page 7 of 7)
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
a
n
d
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
a
n
d
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Condition ComplianceCondition Compliance
City of Moorpark Community Development Review – Proposed
DRAFT (08/2019)
Notes
1CEQA Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan, permit conditions, e asement, property exchange, in lieu funds, subdivision tract
map or parcel map
Submit deposit
agreement, funds,
technical reports,
and plan sets
Upload documents
into EnerGov
Conduct technical
compliance review
Conduct DRC
meeting to share
information and
reconcile conflicts
Coordinate required
revisions with the
customer
Are transactions
and recordable
documents
involved?1
Draft Subdivision
Improvement
Agreement and
email to customer
for work-up
Yes
Review and
reconcile submittals
provided by
customer
Work with customer
and City Clerk to
record executable
documents
Upload all forms
into EnerGov
Determine final
approval of
Improvement
Agreement and
related subdivision
maps
Verify that all
conditions have
been met by
customer
Legend and Notes
• indicate direct customer involvement in a process.
• indicate an internal City process.
Blue Boxes
White Boxes
Upload Subdivision
Improvement
Agreement into
EnerGov
Submit applicable
funds, technical
reports, revised plan
sets, and executable
documents
Notify NOREA list of
the Council’s
decision
No
Process Ends
166291
Comprehensive Executive Summary
Conclusion Management Partners
Attachment C – Draft Process Maps for CEQA Review
46
167292
Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 1 of 4)Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 1 of 4)Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 1 of 4)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
Determination of Exemption and Initial StudyDetermination of Exemption and Initial Study
Moorpark Community Development Department Organizational Audit
Start
Prepare administrative
draft of initial study and
submit to assigned
planner
Create scope for the
customer and request
sign-off from City
Notify customer that an
initial study is required
through the 30-day letter
Does initial
study need to be revised
(based on either comments
or level of environmental
review proposed)?
Email consultant that a
revised initial study is
needed
Yes
Assigned department staff
review materials and
notify the assigned
planner what
environmental studies
and documents will be
required, if any
Hire consultant to
generate an initial study
(paid for by customer)
Prepare and
submit revised
administrative draft of
initial study to assigned
planner
Review administrative
draft of initial study and
route to other pertinent
departments No
Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)
(See Page 3)
Review application
materials to determine
exemption
Is the
project
exempt?
Yes
Notify customer that
project is exemptEnd
No
Communicate additional
requirements to
consultant
Is scope
adequate based on
review?
Yes
No
Review initial study and
communicate comments
to assigned planner within
10 business days
Determine what level of
environmental review is
required based on initial
study Negative
Declaration /
Mitigated Neg Dec
(See Page 2)
Addendum
to existing EIR
(See Page 4)
What level
of environmental
review is required?
168293
Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 2 of 4)Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 2 of 4)Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 2 of 4)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
Negative Declaration / Mitigated Negative DeclarationNegative Declaration / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Moorpark Community Development Department Organizational Audit
Generate draft Negative
Declaration (Neg Dec) or
Mitigated Neg Dec (MND)
Submit notice of
proposed Neg Dec to
newspaper of record and
take to County for posting
Public Comment Period:
Receive public comments
and forward them to the
consultant
Generate the revised Neg
Dec
Prepare responses to
comments and send to
assigned planner
Are
substantial changes
needed?
No
Finalize final responses to
comments; prepare
Mitigation Monitoring
Program Documents
Start
Neg Dec
Review Neg Dec and
route to other
departments as necessary
Review Neg Dec and
prepare comments
Communicate comments
to assigned planner
File notice of
determination with the
County
Bring Neg Dec to public
hearing during
entitlement process
Adopt and certify the
document
City Attorney’s Office
reviews responses to
public comments
Revise responses to public
comments as needed
Process Complete
Will an EIR be
required based on
noted impacts?
Send comments to
consultant
Notify consultant that EIR
will be required
Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)
(See Page 3)
Yes
Communicate required
changes to consultant
Is Neg Dec/MND
complete based on
City staff review?
No
No
Yes Yes
169294
Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 3 of 4)Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 3 of 4)Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 3 of 4)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Moorpark Community Development Department Organizational Audit
Prepare notice of
preparation with project
description, known
impacts
Generate administrative
draft EIR and send to
assigned planner
Submit notice of
preparation to newspaper
of record and take to
County for posting
Take notice of completion
to County for posting
Hold scoping and
community meeting with
stakeholders
Public Comment Period:
Receive public comments
and forward them to the
consultant
Generate revised draft EIR
(with additional analysis)
Prepare responses to
comments and send to
assigned planner
Has the
consultant provided
adequate analysis?
Yes
Generate final EIR and
Mitigation Monitoring
Program documents
No
Start
EIR
Review administrative
draft and route to other
departments as necessary
Review administrative
draft and prepare
comments
Email comments to
assigned planner
File notice of
determination with the
County
Take EIR to public hearing
during entitlement
process
Decision maker adopts
and certifies the
document
City Attorney’s Office
reviews responses to
public comments
Revise responses to public
comments as needed
Process Complete
Prepare draft EIR and
notice of completion
Is EIR analysis
adequate?Yes
Revise administrative
draft and send to assigned
planner
No
170295
Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 4 of 4)Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 4 of 4)Map 2 – CEQA Review (Page 4 of 4)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
T
e
a
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
D
R
C
)
Addendum to Existing EIRAddendum to Existing EIR
Moorpark Community Development Department Organizational Audit
Generate addendum to
existing EIR
Generate the revised
addendum
Communicate with
consultant
Is environmental
analysis adequate?
Yes
Generate final addendum
and revised Mitigation
Monitoring Program
documents
Start
Addendum
Review addendum and
route to other
departments as necessary
Review addendum and
prepare comments
Email comments to
assigned planner
File notice of
determination with the
County
Take EIR and addendum
to public hearing during
entitlement process
Adopt and certify
document
Process Complete
No
171296
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan
October 2019
ATTACHMENT 2
172297
Making the Most of the Draft Implementation Action Plan
Management Partners has developed this draft Implementation Action Plan to assist the Moorpark Community Development
Department with the phasing and scheduling of 34 recommendations. The work involved in implementing the recommendations
must be integrated into the other work of the departments and divisions tasked with their completion, along with appropriate
assignments of responsibility and with identification of specific planned completion dates. The draft Action Plan begins that process
with guidance about a recommended priority assignment. Priority 1 recommendations are those that we believe are the most
important to accomplish without delay or are easy to accomplish. Priority 2 have less importance in the near term or have an added
element of complication to complete or require a significant amount of resources (perhaps internal and external) to assist with
completion. Priority 3 are the least urgent to complete, either because they require action by a third party over which the City has no
direct control, or due to complexity, or their relative importance to department goals.
We suggest that you use this document to prepare a final Action Plan for the City of Moorpark. In doing so, the management team
will need to identify specific target dates for completing implementation. Additionally, you may want to modify the described
activities for implementing an individual recommendation based on internal knowledge of what will be required for completion, or
to adjust the assignment of responsibility based on pending or future workload or other considerations. Prudent implementation of
most recommendations requires “circling back” after the work of completing strategies has begun and fine-tuning the results based
on experience. The step to do that is not spelled out for each recommendation in this document on the assumption that it would be
part of your normal management system.
To turn this draft into the Action Plan you can use to manage implementation, replace the column entitled “Priority” with the
dates for planned completion. A target date can be specific (e.g., September 1) or by month or quarter (e.g., 3Q 2020), as appropriate
to the individual action.
Management Partners remains available to consult with you in this process in whatever way we can be helpful. All of the work to
implement the recommendations is in addition to the normal work of involved city staff. Management Partners can provide extra
capacity to expedite completion of many of the recommendations. Please do not hesitate to contact Jay Trevino at 714-926-1515 if we
can be of assistance. Jay can be reached by email at jtrevino@managementpartners.com.
The discipline of successful project planning is basic to successful execution of the work ahead. We hope that you find the draft
Action Plan useful in that regard.
173298
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
1 Conduct annual meetings with local
development community leaders to
obtain feedback about the
development review process and
identify steps for continued
improvement.
• Identify staff and community leaders who will be
invited to attend the meetings
• Determine and publicize meeting date and location
• Notify stakeholders of purpose and objectives for
these meetings
• Appoint responsibility for meeting agenda and note-
taking/distribution
• Set a schedule for meetings to occur annually
1 Community
Development
Director
2 Conduct a comprehensive update to
the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance/Map.
• Update the General Plan to ensure it supports
Council’s vision and goals
• Update the Zoning Ordinance and maps to ensure
they serve to implement the goals and objectives of
the General Plan
• Review updates with City Manager
• Communicate updates to staff
• Set up a process to provide regular briefings for
development community
2 Community
Development
Director
This is a high priority but will
take significant time and
resources to complete.
3 Conduct a nexus study to determine
the infrastructure and improvements
required to serve new development
and analyze their costs in relation to
new development projects.
• Assign team members responsibility for nexus study
• Apportion costs for new infrastructure and
improvements to new development, based on project
impact and need
• Review results with City Manager and Community
Development Director
2 Public Works
Director
This is a high priority but will
take significant time and
resources to complete.
4 Adopt impact fees based on the
nexus study.
• Collect and review sample/peer impact fee structures
• Establish impact fees based on the results of the nexus
study
• Communicate new fees to staff
2 Public Works
Director
This is the culmination of work
resulting from
Recommendation 3 above.
1 Priority 1: Important to accomplish without delay and/or easy to accomplish.
Priority 2: Second tier of importance to accomplish and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete.
Priority 3: Least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set-up or to execute.
2 To establish clear accountability there should be a single manager assigned responsibility for completing implementation of each recommendation. Where more than one manager is
identified in this column, responsibility should be clarified when the Final Action Plan is prepared.
1
174299
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
5 Establish a uniform development
review process, using the process
maps as a foundation.
• Review the process maps developed as part of the
development process review project
• Establish a clear and uniform development review
process
• Communicate expectations for the review process to
staff
• Set a schedule to review the process maps annually, to
keep them current and make changes, as needed
2 Community
Development
Director
Review of process maps
should coincide with
Recommendation 9.
6 Establish the role of project manager
for each project that includes a
discretionary application.
• Determine which planning staff will take on the role of
project manager
• Communicate new roles and responsibilities to
affected staff
• Market the new project manager system to the
development community
1 Community
Development
Director
7 Prepare comprehensive internal
checklists by project type for staff
members and applicants.
• Collect and review sample/peer checklists
• Develop a checklist that identifies all key process steps
and requirements
• Train staff on using checklists as a project
management tool
• Offer checklists to customers, to serve as a project
guide
• Set a schedule to review the checklists annually
3 Planning Manager Though a high priority, this
will require completion of
Recommendation 2 first. Also,
review of checklists should
coincide with
Recommendation 9.
8 Communicate the steps of the
development review process,
standards and deposits/fees in a
Development Review Handbook that
is provided to customers.
• Draft a Development Review Handbook
• Review with Community Development Director and
City Manager
• Finalize handbook
• Distribute handbook to all staff for review
• Upload handbook to the department’s website and
make hard copies available to customers at the permit
center
2 Planning Manager
2
175300
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
9 Establish an annual omnibus process
for adopting and updating land use
policies, regulatory code standards,
programs, and administrative
processes, including the procedures
for managing the cost center
program.
• Establish a set time each year to conduct the annual
review and updates
• Provide briefing for the City Manager
• Communicate the purpose and objectives of the
annual comprehensive review to staff
1 Community
Development
Director
This process will be useful
now but become even more
meaningful once
Recommendation 2 is
completed.
10 Expand the role of the Development
Review Committee to cover the pre-
submittal, condition and mitigation
measure setting, and condition
compliance phases of development
review, and oversee the annual
omnibus review process.
• Determine what additional responsibilities the
Development Review Committee will take on (i.e.,
more phases of development review, annual omnibus
process) and prepare draft Charter describing the
responsibilities of the Committee
• Clarify the project manager’s roles and responsibilities
• Clarify change of duties and reporting relationships of
other affected positions
• Communicate new roles to department staff
1 Planning Manager
11 Expand membership of the
Development Review Committee to
include coverage of integrated waste
management, stormwater and
affordable housing.
• Establish an interdepartmental team to serve on the
Development Review Committee
• Communicate goals and expectations for the
committee
1 City Manager
12 Complete the configuration, beta-
testing and roll-out of the EnerGov
system.
• Finish the configuration and implementation of the
new software
• Provide software licenses to staff
• Conduct EnerGov training to staff
• Develop and distribute a user guide
1 Assistant to the
City Manager
This should be a collaboration
with the Community
Development and Public
Works Departments.
13 Embed the process steps and
workflow identified in the process
maps within the EnerGov system.
• Ensure the process steps and workflow that is input
into EnerGov is consistent with the City’s new
development review process
• Provide training for affected staff
1 Assistant to the
City Manager
This should be a collaboration
with the Community
Development and Public
Works Departments.
3
176301
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
14 Procure and integrate an electronic
application submittal, distribution
and plan review business system.
• Research electronic plan review software options and
other organizations that have implemented such
systems (in California that might include the cities of
Auburn, Encinitas, Hayward, Visalia, Roseville, and
Santa Barbara County; Albany, Oregon; and in Texas,
the cities of Plano and Sugarland)
• Review options and costs with the City Manager
• Select and procure the technology
• Prepare user guides for staff and customers
• Hold a training session for staff and customers
• Implement new electronic plan review
• Market these improvements to the development
community
3 Community
Development
Director
Though the Community
Development Director should
be responsible, this is likely to
require approvals by the City
Manager and City Council.
15 Develop a timeline for future
transition to a paperless
development review system.
• Create a master timeline that estimates completion of
the EnerGov system, electronic plan review, and then
the implementation of a paperless development
review system
• Include action items such as validation of electronic
signatures, staff training, electronic kiosks, and
integration with outside agencies
• Review options and costs with the City Manager
3 Community
Development
Director
16 Plan for continued investment in
system upgrades and ERP integration
of business systems.
• Develop integration plan for EnerGov, GIS and related
business systems
3 Assistant to the
City Manager
17 Update the website to focus on
providing application guides and
other electronic information, such as
the Development Review Handbook.
• Assign responsibility for updating the website and
hand-out materials on a semi-annual schedule
• Review change of duties with affected positions
• Organize the department’s website with application
guides and checklists by type of project
• Upload the Development Review Handbook and other
electronic materials to provide easy access to
customers
2 Planning Manager This will require coordination
with IT staff.
4
177302
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
18 Establish cycle and task times for the
entitlement review of development
projects.
• Review sample/peer cycle and task times
• Agree upon and document cycle and task times
• Provide a briefing for the City Manager
• Implement mechanism for monitoring activity
• Establish a procedure to track times and review with
staff on a monthly basis
3 Community
Development
Director
Though a high priority, this
will require completion of
Recommendation 2 first.
19 Establish a system of performance
reports and metrics to analyze the
development process and
Community Development
Department operations.
• Based on best practices, determine which
performance measures will be tracked (i.e., workload,
efficiency, and effectiveness measures)
• Review the list of performance measures with the City
Manager
• Set up mechanisms/systems to track and report
performance measures
• Set a schedule to review and analyze measures on a
regular basis
1 Community
Development
Director
The metrics tracked today will
change over time as
Recommendation 2 is
completed and related
process improvements are
implemented.
20 Edit the standard conditions to
remove redundant requirements
that appear in state or local laws.
• Make edits to the standard conditions of approval list
to remove redundancies
• Review edits with department head
• Distribute revised standard conditions to staff and
customers
1 Planning Manager
21 Amend Resolution 2009-2799 to
clarify that standard conditions of
approval are to be applied and scaled
commensurate with each
development project.
• Confer with the City Attorney and revise the
resolution
• Provide briefing for the City Manager
• Distribute revised resolution to staff and provide
direction about implementation
• Market the improvements to the development
community
1 Community
Development
Director
22 Conduct annual evaluations for each
member of the department.
• Train managers and lead supervisory personnel on
consistent and effective methods of evaluating
performance and empower them to recognize good
performance and take action in response to poor
performance, when appropriate
1 Community
Development
Director
5
178303
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
• Establish performance goals for individual employees
• Determine annual schedule for performance
evaluations
23 Provide customer service training
that emphasizes workflow
management.
• Develop customer service training materials that
include departmental behavioral norms and
performance goals
• Communicate purpose and objectives of the training
to department staff
• Hold training sessions
1 Planning Manager
24 Expand consulting services to include
additional on-call economic and
planning casework assistance, as well
as services to analyze building permit
fees and development impact fees.
• Determine which additional services the department
will use consultants for (i.e., analyzing fees, on-call
project processing)
• Prepare and circulate a request for qualifications
• Select the appropriate consultants and finalize
contracts
2 Community
Development
Director
25 Conduct a focused assessment of the
civil engineering program, including
on-call engineering services.
• Develop a list of the critical tasks required of the civil
engineering program
• Conduct a confidential internal survey of key staff
members to determine strengths and weaknesses of
current operations
• Establish key performance goals for the civil
engineering program and implement methods to
measure success
• Monitor program area for a reasonable timeframe to
determine whether further changes are necessary
1 City Manager
26 Create an analyst position in the
Community Development
Department.
• Gain budget approval for the new position
• Develop a job description in consultation with Human
Resources
• Advertise position
• Review and interview top applicants
• Offer position and finalize paperwork
1 Community
Development
Director
6
179304
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
27 Combine the two pre-application
reviews into a single process and
determine whether they will be
conducted on request or on a regular
schedule.
• Combine the two reviews into a single process
• Document the new process in a process map
• Determine whether the reviews will be conducted by
request or on a regular basis
• Review streamlined process with department staff
1 Planning Manager
28 Establish a nominal (or no) fee for
pre-application review.
• Determine whether pre-application reviews will have
no fee, or a nominal fee
• Modify the fee schedule accordingly
1 Community
Development
Director
29 Develop and recommend an
appropriate cost recovery policy to
the City Council.
• Review sample/peer cost recovery policies
• Based on best practices, establish a cost recovery
policy that will recover most of the department’s
work, encourages efficient service delivery, and is
transparent
• Provide briefing for the City Manager
• Recommend the policy to Council
2 Community
Development
Director
30 Prepare a policy and procedure
related to reimbursement of all
external City costs.
• Determine which approach the City will take regarding
external cost reimbursements from developers
• Create a concise document that outlines the City’s
reimbursement policy and process
2 Community
Development
Director
31 Determine whether building fees are
to be calculated on the basis of
project valuation or the estimated
time for completing each task.
• Obtain advice from a building permit fee consultant
about the revenue implications of the alternatives
• Provide a briefing for the City Manager
• Determine whether the City will use project valuation
or actual costs for calculating building fees
2 Community
Development
Director
32 Establish a system of surcharges on
permits, approvals and entitlements
to recover costs of business systems
and policy documents.
• Propose a surcharge fee on permits, approvals, and
entitlements to recapture business systems costs
• Gain Council approval
• Edit the fee schedule to include the surcharge fees
• Communicate new surcharge fee to staff and
customers
2 Community
Development
Director
7
180305
Moorpark Community Development Department
Draft Implementation Action Plan Management Partners
Rec
No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority 1
Person
Responsible2 Comments
33 Conduct a facility needs assessment
to determine options for relocating
development review functions to City
Hall, or remodeling facilities to
provide a modern and workable
office environment.
• Consider whether public counter staff and functions
could be relocated to City Hall, or if the current facility
could be remodeled
• Assess which options would be most conducive for
assisting customers in a comfortable, professional
environment
• Determine the feasibility of providing a “one-stop”
center for customers
• Provide a briefing for the City Manager
2 Community
Development
Director
This will require collaboration
with directors from the other
departments whose staff or
operations could be affected.
34 Develop a counter schedule that
provides time for mobilization and
demobilization each day, as well as
time for meetings, training and other
important administrative functions.
• Evaluate options for counter hours that maintain focus
on customers but provide balance for common
administrative functions
• Provide a briefing for the City Manager
• Publicize the new front counter schedule
1 Community
Development
Director
8
181306
307
Economic Development
5
ATTACHMENT 3
308
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Moorpark’s local economy is interwoven with
the quality of life in the city. One of the key
economic attractors is the high regard with
which the city is viewed regionally and the
loyalty with which residents support local
businesses. At the same time, one of the valued
aspects of the quality of life is the array of local
businesses that provide goods and services
desired by residents while fitting into the
natural environment and small-town setting
that define life in Moorpark.
As residential growth continues, the city seeks
to support economic growth that will benefit
the community, provide employment and
business opportunities for residents, reduce the
need to travel to other communities for goods,
services, and entertainment, and broaden the
tax base to support the maintenance and
improvement of public facilities and services.
The city’s investment of time and resources into
economic growth and development will be
managed through an economic development
strategic action plan, which will be regularly
updated to reflect changing conditions. This
economic development element establishes the
long-term goals and policies for economic
growth. This element also provides goals and
policies to guide future decisions on land use
and development and the investment of public
resources.
5.1.1 Regulatory Context
Economic development is an optional rather
than required element in general plans. It also
differs from many other elements in that the
state has few statutory provisions that shape
the requirements for an economic development
element.
One role that cities used to play in economic
development was the assembly of adjacent
small parcels to be redeveloped. When the state
essentially eliminated the Redevelopment Law,
cities lost sources of funding to revitalize areas,
build affordable housing, and invest in
infrastructure to attract development. Cities can
still purchase small properties from willing
sellers, but they are limited by the State Surplus
Land Act (Government Code, Title 5, Division 2,
Part 1, Chapter 5, Article 8. Surplus Land) in how
they can sell land. In addition, cities can offer
incentives for economic development, but in
most cases, such assistance will trigger
prevailing wage requirements.
As described in the following sections, for much
of the work of economic development the city
will coordinate with regional partners who are
funded through the state and federal
governments. In addition, even though this
element is optional, as adopted it carries the
same weight of law as the required elements of
the plan.
5.2 THE LOCAL ECONOMY
TODAY
5.2.1 Types of Businesses
Goods-producing sectors of the economy
(primarily construction and manufacturing for
Moorpark) account for about 25% of the jobs in
the city, similar to the share of these jobs across
the county. The base-services sectors (primarily
utilities and wholesale trade in Moorpark, but
more so transportation and warehousing across
the county) account for a similar share of jobs in
309
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 5-2
the city as in neighboring jurisdictions.
However, other cities have had more growth in
these sectors, primarily from the regional
strength of warehousing. Knowledge-based
sectors of the economy (especially finance and
insurance and information, but less so for
professional services and management of
companies in Moorpark) are a larger share of
local economy than in neighboring jurisdictions.
Not only do these types of businesses account
for a larger share of employment locally, but
they also accounted for a much larger share of
job growth since 2010, mostly driven by growth
in finance and insurance.
Education provides more jobs per resident in
Moorpark than in neighboring cities and the
county as a whole. Growth in the education
sector will be closely tied to demographics—the
number of school age children and enrollment
at Moorpark College. In contrast, employment
in the health care sector provides only 24 jobs
per 1,000 residents locally, compared to 48 in
Ventura County and 61 in the state. This
suggests that there is potential for medical
services to be a key part of local economic
growth.
The other local-serving sectors (especially retail
and accommodations and food services in
Moorpark, but also arts, entertainment and
recreation, and personal services) account for
fewer jobs per 1,000 residents in the city than in
any of the neighboring jurisdictions and in the
county as a whole. This indicates that there
could be opportunities to expand the number
of local-serving businesses in Moorpark.
5.2.2 Taxable Retail Sales
In 2020, taxable sales at retail stores, restaurants
and drinking places (but exclude spending on
groceries which are not subject to sales tax in
California) in Moorpark were $27,520 per
household, 30.7% below taxable sales
countywide, $39,710 per household, and lower
than the sales per household in neighboring
jurisdictions. This difference once again
indicates that Moorpark is underserved by
local-serving sectors.
5.2.3 Commuting
Of Moorpark’s employed residents, 88.5%
commute to another city for work, with only
11.5% living and working the city. While this
might seem to be a high-level of out-
commuting, it is not an uncommon percentage
in suburban communities.
Nevertheless, the data indicates that on a
typical day, 12,460 residents leave Moorpark for
work and another 8,540 workers commute into
the city from other communities to work. There
are approximately 1.15 jobs in the city per
household, which is about the same as the jobs
per household countywide. This suggests that
while the city has a vibrant local economy, there
is a mismatch between the occupations of
residents and the types of jobs in the city. This
suggests that the city should promote
economic growth that provides jobs suited to
the skills and education of workers and
promote housing opportunities that are suited
to the needs and incomes of those working at
jobs in Moorpark.
310
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 5-3
5.3 STRUCTURAL CHANGES
The General Plan Update was prepared and
adopted during a time in which several
structural economic changes appear to be
underway, mostly in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. Only time will tell if these changes
are indeed structural and permanent.
5.3.1 Shift Away from In-Person
Shopping
The shift from retail spending at bricks-and-
mortar stores to online retail is nothing new. It
has been going on since the early days of the
internet. However, during the pandemic, the
shift accelerated as shown in Figure ED-1.
Indeed, online retail spending is about five
years ahead of its long-term trend.
However, the accelerated shift to online retail
has been accompanied by retailers expanding
the ways consumers can buy their goods,
including shipping from a central warehouse,
curbside pick-up at a local store, and same-day
home delivery from a local store. Most retail
chains are highly focused on this expansion,
often referred to as omni-channel, rather than
on opening new stores.
This change in retailing will likely challenge the
city’s efforts to attract new retail stores.
However, it also opens the door to a wider
embrace of experience-oriented retailing, which
can effectively compete for consumers
spending when they do desire to shop.
5.3.2 Work-from-Home
Working from home was given a huge
experiment at the beginning of the pandemic
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
19
9
9
Q
4
20
0
0
Q
4
20
0
1
Q
4
20
0
2
Q
4
20
0
3
Q
4
20
0
4
Q
4
20
0
5
Q
4
20
0
6
Q
4
20
0
7
Q
4
20
0
8
Q
4
20
0
9
Q
4
20
1
0
Q
4
20
1
1
Q
4
20
1
2
Q
4
20
1
3
Q
4
20
1
4
Q
4
20
1
5
Q
4
20
1
6
Q
4
20
1
7
Q
4
20
1
8
Q
4
20
1
9
Q
4
20
2
0
Q
4
20
2
1
Q
4
Figure ED-1 Online Retail Spending as a Share of Total Retail Spending; US; 1994 Q4 to
2022 Q2
311
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 5-4
when states across the nation restricted who
could go into work to essential workers only.
Since then, great strides have been made to
improve the technology that supports office
work from home. Furthermore, businesses
generally found that productivity did not suffer.
And finally, many people doing office work
found that they preferred working from home.
Currently, businesses have announced plans for
returning to the office, only to scrap those
plans. Based on key card swipes, building
occupancy in high-rise office buildings in
downtowns hovers at or below 50%. Office
vacancy rates are up. And it is not clear if or
when there will be a wholesale return to the
office.
This can be expected to dampen the market for
new office development for the next ten years,
until vacant space is absorbed by the market.
However, this does not necessarily apply to
medical offices. Even though the use of
telemedicine picked up, the medical office
market has not been as severely impacted as
the general office market has been.
5.3.3 Decreased Labor Supply
It appears that a part of the labor force who
stopped working during the pandemic, decided
to simply retire. Although, the quick rise in
inflation has motivated some of those to return
once again to the labor force.
At the same time, the pandemic and the
possibility of contracting a potentially deadly
virus just from going to work has encouraged
another slice of the labor force to seek other
types of work.
These changes result in very low unemployment
and rising wages, which partly fuels inflation.
Unlike the inflation of the 1970s, however,
technology is evolving to provide ways to
automate some work functions. This means that
future businesses may need fewer employees.
This is what has happened in manufacturing
since the end of the 1970s, fewer and fewer
employees produce more and more goods, with
the most labor-intensive production moving
overseas.
Relative to the local economy, the changes in
labor force participation may mean that the
economy continues to grow but the growth will
not be evident in rising numbers of jobs.
Nevertheless, economic growth without a
corresponding growth in jobs may still require
new industrial development and, once office
vacancies are absorbed, new office
development.
5.3.4 Industrial Development
Throughout Southern California, industrial
vacancy rates are at historical lows, and have
been for many years. Growth in warehousing
and distribution centers are driving demand for
industrial land, and Southern California does
not have sufficient land planned and zoned for
industrial uses to accommodate the projected
growth.
The land use plan does not envision substantial
warehousing development in Moorpark.
However, warehousing development is
pressuring manufacturers and other industrial
businesses, who are being priced out of the
market. Thus, the city should expect to see
healthy demand for existing industrial
properties for other industrial uses.
312
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 5-5
5.4 PLANNING FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
5.4.1 Land Use
The General Plan recognizes the need to
maintain the viability and function of the
existing office and industrial areas in the city.
These areas will accommodate much of the
economic activity and growth in the city.
The General Plan acknowledges that in the near
term, auto-centric retail centers will continue to
be important for retail goods and services, while
over a longer time frame, there will likely be a
transformation to predominantly experience-
oriented districts and mixed-use centers.
Managing this transformation from a land use
perspective will require continued assessment
of evolving economic and market conditions
and flexibility in the city’s approach, guided by
the vision, goals, and policies of the General
Plan.
The General Plan sees the revitalization of
downtown as fundamental to the city’s
economic growth and prosperity. Revitalization
will be a long-term multi-year endeavor. While
the projects and programs may evolve over
time, the General Plan provides the long-term
vision for the future of downtown.
5.4.2 The City’s Role
As discussed previously, the General Plan
envisions the details of economic development
activities to be covered by an economic
development strategic action plan, which will be
updated regularly. Nevertheless, there are
aspects of the city’s role in economic
development that can be expected to continue
across iterations of the action plan.
The city will collaborate with a wide variety of
economic development organizations and
service providers to leverage their expertise and
federal, state, and non-profit funding. Through
these partnerships, the city will seek connect
existing businesses, firms interested in locating
in Moorpark, and local entrepreneurs with
training and assistance. The city will prioritize
economic development investments that create
jobs and business opportunities for local
residents. At the same time, the city will
encourage the development of housing that is
suited and affordable to those working in
Moorpark. Finally, the city will capitalize on a
variety of economic assets, including Moorpark
College, a well-educated labor force, freeway
access, Metrolink and transit services, and a
revitalized downtown to achieve economic
development goals.
5.4.3 Fiscal Realities
Land use and development are the primary
drivers of the revenue that flows into city hall to
fund public facilities and services. The fiscal
analysis of the land use plan found that the
types of development and the densities and
intensities allowed under the General Plan
should generate an increase in net revenue for
the city.
Beyond this long-term fiscal impact, the General
Plan recognizes the need to invest in
infrastructure and capital improvements and to
invest in maintaining and improving public
facilities and services to support economic
development. The city would continue to
employ funding and financing mechanisms
where appropriate to ensure that new
development is fiscally beneficial.
313
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 5-6
5.5 GOALS AND POLICIES
The economic development goals and policies
below are intended to guide decision-making
and ensure the continued growth and vitality of
the local economy.
GOAL ED 1
ROBUST LOCAL ECONOMY: A SELF-
SUSTAINING, INNOVATIVE, AND RESILIENT
LOCAL ECONOMY THAT PROVIDES GOODS
AND SERVICES DESIRED BY LOCAL RESIDENTS,
ATTRACTS REGIONAL CONSUMER SPENDING,
AND CONTRIBUTES TO MOORPARK’S PREMIER
QUALITY OF LIFE.
ED 1.1
Business retention and expansion: Retain existing businesses and support their profitability and expansion, by collaborating with the Chamber of Commerce and regional economic development service providers to improve access by local businesses to business management training, financing, and marketing assistance.
ED 1.2
Business start-ups: Grow the number of independent businesses to diversify the local economy and to provide goods and services desired by local residents, by collaborating with the Chamber of Commerce and regional economic development service providers to provide entrepreneurial training and assistance.
ED 1.3
Business attraction: Attract businesses that diversify the local tax base and that create employment opportunities suited to the skills and education of residents, by collaborating with economic development service providers to market Moorpark and to market commercial and industrial sites and facilities to potential new businesses.
ED 1.4
Local workforce: Increase the number of residents working in the city, by prioritizing economic development activities that create employment opportunities suited to the skills and education of current and future residents.
ED 1.5
Workforce housing: Support an adequate and reliable workforce for local businesses, by promoting the development of housing opportunities suited to the range of incomes in accordance with the Land Use Element and the Housing Element.
ED 1.6
Economic value of residential uses: Support residential development to capitalize on the synergistic relations between residential growth and economic growth.
ED 1.7
Tourism, visitors, and events: Promote the quality of life and attract visitor spending by supporting agricultural uses, farmers markets, event venues, and tourism attractions and by collaborating with local business and civic organizations to promote special events.
ED 1.8
Education and workforce development: Promote life-long learning and support local businesses and workforce development, by collaborating with Moorpark College to expand access to the College’s programs and services by residents and businesses, collaborating with local education service providers to create pathways and pipelines and to improve access of residents of all ages to educational opportunities and enrichment, and helping to forge and sustain partnerships with businesses and education.
314
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 5-7
ED 1.9
Metrolink and transit: Collaborate with transit service providers to improve awareness of and access to transit services for current and future
residents and workers.
GOAL ED 2
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: A
LONG-TERM PROGRAM THAT SUSTAINS
LONG-TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT.
ED 2.1
Strategic action plan: Adopt and periodically update an economic development strategic plan that states the city’s vision for economic development, identifies objectives for the time frame of the strategy, establishes strategies and action plans, and that may also identify target sectors, partnerships, and marketing and
communications. Invest in the city’s economic
development program to maintain and enhance
the attractiveness of Moorpark for private
investment, to increase local job opportunities
for residents, and to facilitate growth in the
local economy that contributes to and enhances
Moorpark’s premier quality of life.
ED 2.2
Economic development thinking: Integrate economic development thinking throughout city government and ensure that Moorpark epitomizes being business friendly by providing economic development training for key city staff, discussing economic and fiscal implications in staff reports for land use cases, and regularly communicating the city’s economic development efforts and successes.
ED 2.3
Economic development partners: Leverage
investments by the federal and state
government and by private and non-profit
entities, by collaborating with economic
development partners, including but not limited to the Economic Development Collaborative, the Ventura County Economic Development Corporation Small Business Development Center, Ventura County Workforce Development Board, and other public agencies, Moorpark Chamber of Commerce, Moorpark
College, and Moorpark Unified School District,
and other stakeholders, including but not
limited to existing businesses, real estate
brokers and developers, and other community
organizations.
ED 2.4
Marketing and communications: Maintain
regular public communications of the city’s economic development efforts and successes, maintain regular communications with existing businesses and economic development stakeholders, and, consistent with the adopted economic development strategic action plan, invest in communications to market Moorpark as a location for new businesses and private investment.
GOAL ED 3
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES:
THRIVING RETAIL, OFFICE, AND INDUSTRIAL
BUSINESSES THAT FOSTER LOCAL ECONOMIC
PROSPERITY.
ED 3.1
Office and industrial preservation: Maintain and enhance the functionality of areas currently used for and planned for office and industrial businesses in order to promote economic resilience and growth.
ED 3.2
Experience-oriented commercial areas: Encourage a mix of uses that creates experience-oriented commercial places that can be effective in competing against online retail and that can attract visitor spending.
315
Public Hearing Draft | December 2022
MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN | CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | 5-8
GOAL ED 4
FINANCIALLY RESILIENT LOCAL
GOVERNANCE: FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE LAND
USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND
WELL-MANAGED MUNICIPAL FINANCES,
RESULTING IN A FISCALLY RESILIENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT THAT INVESTS IN PUBLIC
AMENITIES AND SERVICES.
ED 4.1
Purpose of financially resilient local governance: Maintain the city’s fiscal health and financial resiliency to ensure the city can invest in maintaining and enhancing public facilities and services that continue to attract private investment and support economic growth and prosperity.
ED 4.2
Funding and financing mechanisms: Improve the attractiveness of Moorpark for private investment, by encouraging the use of funding and financing mechanisms when such use contributes to the city’s fiscal health and when such use improves the financial feasibility of new development.
ED 4.3
Infrastructure and capital improvements: Invest in infrastructure and capital improvements that facilitate redevelopment, infill development, and new development that is consistent with the Land Use Plan, as funding is available.
GOAL ED 5
DOWNTOWN: A THRIVING DOWNTOWN
THAT IS CHERISHED BY RESIDENTS AND THAT
HELPS DEFINE THE POPULAR IMAGE OF
MOORPARK.
ED 5.1
Downtown revitalization plan: Collaborate with downtown businesses and the Chamber of Commerce to create and implement a Downtown Revitalization Plan, either as an augment to the Downtown Specific Plan or as a stand-alone plan, that provides actionable planning for infrastructure, provides guidance for the High Street Arts Center and special events, explores types of complementary businesses, and establishes a public relations and marketing communications strategy.
ED 5.2
Downtown infrastructure: Ensure that sufficient infrastructure is provided to support
the types of uses planned for the Downtown
area, including an actionable plan for such
upgrades.
ED 5.3
Events and activities: Maintain and implement an annual calendar of events and activities to attract resident and visitors to the Downtown.
ED 5.4
Business mix: Identify needed or desired complementary businesses and a strategy to attract these businesses; update this strategy periodically.
ED 5.5
Marketing: Establish a public relations and marketing communications strategy to publicize downtown and attract visitors; update this strategy periodically.
316