HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0906 CC REG ITEM 09CMOORPARK ITEM
ELOISE BROWN STEVEN KUENY
Mayor MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Manager
BERNARDO M. PEREZ City Council Meeting gra CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tern
v,..
City Attorney
CLINT HARPER, Ph. DPI /9 • ' 198 }Y A PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember V Director of
PAUL LAWRASON ACTION: _aiin. I/ Community Development
Councilmember 8' b . 9 • ef 3 R. DENNIS DELZEIT
SCOTT MONTGOMER City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
RICHARD T. HARE B Chief of Police
City Treasurer MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Council
PROD: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: July 12, 1989 (CC Meeting of 7-19-89)
SUBJECT: DRAFT ROUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (JULY 1989)
Background
At the Planning Commission's meeting of June 5, 1989, the Commission
held a public hearing for the Draft Housing Element, and on June 19,
1989, the Commission adopted a reso Lotion recommending that the City
Council approve the Negative Declaration and approve the proposed
revision to the Housing Element as modified by the Commission. The
attached memorandums to the Planning Commission dated June 13 and April 12,
1989, provide additional background related to the Commission's
recommendation and related to the State law requirements for Housing
Element content.
Discussion
The Draft (lousing Element dated July 1989 includes changes made to
the text to satisfy the City Attorney's comments as well as the comments
received from the State Department of Rousing and Community Development on
the Draft report dated March 1989 (letters attached). State law requires
the legislative body to consider the Department's findings prior to final
adoption of the housing element or amendment.
The most important changes that staff has made in response to these letters
are revisions to the Future Five-Year Housing Program discussion to more
clearly identify the five-year schedule of actions the City is undertaking
or intends to undertake to implement the policies, goals, and objectives;
and the Inventory of Suitable Sites Discussion has been modified to more
adequately address sites which are available, or could be made available
through appropriate zoning, to accommodate Moorpark's share of the regional
housing need. Staff has added Tables 10 and 11 and revised the Potential
Housing Sites exhibit (Figure 2) to include an identification of potential
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 805) 529-6864
2
Page 2
July 12, 1989
multi-family residential sites (i.e. , sites which have the potential of
being developed for multi-family residential use if the General Plan land
use designation and the zoning is changed to allow such use). Policies
have also been added to the Housing Element as follows:
The City will encourage the provision of affordable low- and
very low-income residential units by approving a rezoning to
allow a density higher than 10. 1 dwelling units to the acre only
when affordable housing is provided. No zone change application
should be approved to allow a density higher than 10.1 dwelling
units per acre unless a planned development permit and an
affordable housing agreement are conditionally approved by the
City.
Properties should not be rezoned for multi-family development
unless they are located within the central core area of the City
to ensure that adequate services are available within reasonable
walking distance of a site.
The following housing maintenance policies were added by the Planning
Commission:
Rigorously enforce zoning, building, and property maintenance
ordinances.
Develop and implement a proactive property maintenance program
that will identify areas within the City for code compliance.
Develop and implement programs and ordinances that will require
owners of substandard housing to provide rental assistance and
relocation assistance to tenants displaced as a result of City
code enforcement programs.
The Commission also directed staff to revise the text to address the
State Department of Housing and Community Development comments on the
Draft Housing Element.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the City Council open the public hearing,
review the Negative Declaration and Draft Housing Element, and provide
comments to staff related to the contents of the Draft Housing Element. It
is staff's intention to incorporate the City Council's comments and
recommendations into the text of the Draft and then return the document to
the City Attorney for a final review. Once the City Attorney is satisfied
with the content of the document, staff will reschedulegeboAtter before
the City Council for final action. KK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of-198_
ACTION:
Bye
3
Page 3
July 12, 1989
Attachments:
1. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated 6-13-89
2. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated 4-12-89
3. City Attorney's letter dated 5-5-89
4. Letter from State Department of Housing and Community
Development dated 6-15-89
5. Negative Declaration
6. Draft Housing Element (July 1969)
IMOORPARK H
ELOISE BROWN en on STEVEN KUENY
Mayor aAN/Or.',. City Manager
BERNARDO
ro
M.TemERPEZ tariff CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor P 04...49.1503 City Attorney
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember egli'V ' Director of
Community
PAUL LAWRASON
Development
Counellmember. R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Councilmember- t JOHN V. GILLESPIE •
RICHARD T. HARE -
Chief of Police
City Treasurer , MEH011ANDLIM
TO:i The Planning Commission
PROM: Patrick J. Richards,' Director of Community Development
DATE: ‘' '..Tuno;13, 19139: (PC meeting of 6/19/89)."-", ...Pin
n ''.„ i:-..',-a7; '.1
i•J
4'.“
fr.:
4
1.1 5A]:1•4!‘',4"791.:.•• ''-;!'!';!2.011',,K1/4C'f',:;',P., -4;'',1 ?: ,;.k7p,5 ''.Leh .Jr! • ,' ' ', . ,'.! !
L.": ''."'H'-'
r!''• :e . .
17.,Irr,,Lr.C• .r. ' A C.V.:4r:•;ill.::,'LiVi'.12''''.,',1'.-ir.F.,' ,; '..t ', r';" '“• .,-Y• " ,
7 .
Background
3 9, the Commission
lce"."lc. a 1plbl)iChoicntig,qf*t%'tL1rthe.tq:rria:-f!tpillou6g Element,
n,
closed the
45ittbliecheaAnlcYanrntilieid .VStaff *t prepare a resolution
leecif:$aYOir ;t-4lti1SiiOt,dltS1 ;C91ani1iaPPrOyeYi /, Degative Declaration
ELa approve tkaniS ogaieil&iiit9tth4 Houeifg
l,•':i':':.,.,V„, ,-..,;..,:,
r,-..,
2-
Element' as- modified 1 .
b37kti3e- °r11°?47s1-911naet-I `-f'!:( ' '&..:'',,':: :eye..t yit 1.:, ...,.L.',
4'.. ,... . 4'..„,, .
I
a' •••1'‘.1;},''.444
r'/.','
I'l' E''r/Y,/:','''.1 VrrWir",?1:ri,r"'
r*
I5-rerri'lQi[rOsJ i'rrrlit);4.4`;:,eetiritr;.'3,51;',';',.13'.;.,,„,:;;.,ri..:i'
it2":-(-..51,-, ,' ..''..,-..r' ,Art , ,,,,^:ii..
f.o.,,,,,Cy.,...1, Therirr.qqmm4.,sj.ontk4,4!FTcte..A-,,, tafc./..t9 .,acid-t-s the J,r,p110W1..,g policies.. ,e-,,..,page
t 17Yitrt0"..1t1(X[5 6.ePISe8..ticid1DVi tHcith. ingMaiiriatecet.Goals',andtTolicaes:a b(i:'%.'„' ;,.... '; 91!,
21 • V.':.. . e 1L;It' ; TA: ':.{.' 'I 1;11`.r.)7t;PAr-111;•,..)7:c&infiR71;iiiin;J:(2,4 ,nf.; i.N., : , p , u. r?....-f-i,yr-!:;.,
1:z.;:,,r.,re. .. ...-4.4';4,011.1P1,1,.',"'.."•:.z.,
I'dq...",1.)..L..4..,,,W er";,,1:41.s..”' ..15;..n ,'. f•Tai-
3 i . ,,
t '.. .•' ' .% '
1";.1:!. ).'K'gli'ti..,:,11.30 r9u ',41V erkf 0 r rk19111.-!. FcRing,ic ...onu ng,?,... and proper y
rniriiiiitaliiiieet.30tfili.iiiir86e'ZT1':'':‘' . 4,Prr; ..'1.1.:."g'7.fsrti.
Jr".' 1":;., .. rrr'r,
s.,,,,h7,T, r„..,.k.i.,V.",,30e,-.,wv:,-.9''±,m1,g;" ) !: :;”?,41'..t,c'..44'1 --- .. ].2 . . ' 12,4 '
r4; :,A;L'"
ic:,20:tr ';•7141-afift.4: 14",-,.,:<;'iri4-:.4., 1-5K:4''ilt?',.V.ittr-Ti!, ;:Z1 '', '''';Yt;'°',.•''''''Ig:?•:4 L • ' '- ,The:?:'""
dcti.,v-.-:- C..",r Dthielop),.. atidiqtaniplemene41Car'...',;proactive property. maintenance - program,...4j.J.,;::.: •
e-.7-...,......?;.1., ,"....,k'.:,,,...v that. will>identify 41reask within the,City, forcode;compliance.,„. .
c., .''' ../r irOz.'-i,-.-. ; ,-T.,..:-.: i,..:1..te,;E;'....-fi;;.! -C. - :- •-• .:• - " '',.., '''.... ' .'' '1/•, ].":!...;'-'Adpi-..21L;r,t,;.;7',':' ‘rtt ' :. 1. ' "... I J ,
i.,.,-::!iy1, ''' ! .::.':i. ' implement and2. vordinanCes.)".'; that will require
owners'' OC!silk;gtiindaie housing 1 to ,Proviele'.' , rental assistance ,and.:
telocation-: asaistance%pto- tenants—didplaced as a result of City ,.'
I'..
1,:
The' Commission also direeted staff‘to revise the text to address the State
Department of Housing and Community Development comments on the Draft
Housing Element as discussed at the Commission's June 5, 1989, meeting.
Discussion
Staff has contacted Castaneda &. AsSociates, the firm which prepared
the March 1989 Draft Housing Element, regarding incorporating all of
the changes to the text. - Due to' prior commitments, that firm cannot
provide a corrected document until June 26. Because of the time
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 805) 529-6864
S
constraints imposed by State law for adoption of the Housing Element,
staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution recommending approval of the Draft Housing
Element. Staff is proposing to schedule the Housing Element for a public
hearing at the City Council's July 5, 1989, meeting.
The attached resolution does identify that the Commission has not viewed a
final document. This resolution also recommends that the Housing Element
be reviewed again immediately following the adoption of a revised Land Use
Element and Circulation Element in conjunction with the General Plan
Update. This subsequent review is required to ensure that the Housing
Element is consistent with all General Plan elements and community goals.
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Negative '
Declaration and adopt the proposed Housing Element as an official element
of the General Plan of the City of Moorpark.
Attachment: Draft Resolution
he-peres.doc:PJR/DST
6
RESOLUTION NO. PC-89195
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF SAID CITY
WHEREAS, a Draft Housing Element has been prepared for the City
of Moorpark, is hereby designated as Exhibit A, and is incorporated herein
by reference as if fully set forth;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Housing
Element at its meetings- of April 17 and May 1, 1989, and held a public
hearing on June 5, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on June 5, 1989, reviewed the
City Attorneys written comments and was informed by staff of the verbal
comments made by State Department of Housing and Community Development
regarding the Draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after review and consideration
of the Negative Declaration has found that the adoption of the housing
element will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of June 5, 1989, the Planning Commission
opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to
testify, closed the public hearing, and directed staff to make certain
changes to the text of the Draft Housing Element and to prepare a
resolution for the Planning Commission's decision;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the
State of California (beginning at Section 21000) the Planning Commission of
the City of Moorpark recommends that the City Council approve the Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the
Draft Housing Element does address all of the content requirements as set
forth in Section 65583 of the California Government Code.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the
Draft Housing Element is consistent with the other General Plan elements.
SECTION 4. The Planning .Commission does hereby acknowledge that
the Commission has not viewed a final corrected version of the Housing
Element, but in the interest of complying with the time limits as set forth
in Section 65588(b) of the California Government Code, is forwarding a
recommendation of approval to the City Council.
7
SECTION 5. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that the Housing Element be reviewed again when the City's Land Use and
Circulation Elements are revised in conjunction with the current General
Plan Update.
SECTION 6. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that
the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and adapt the Housing
Element as amended by the Planning Commission (Exhibit A) as an official
element of the General Plan of the City of Moorpark.
The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll
cell vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 1989.
Chairman
Douglas Holland
ATTEST:
Celia La Fleur
Secretary
ATTACHMENT-2
g
MOORPARK
ELOISE BROWN STEVEN KUENY
Mayor City Manager
BERNARDO M. PEREZ F`` CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tern el A City Attorney
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. i=t-0'.V PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember Director of
PAUL LAWRASON 4 Community Development
Councilmember jO R. DENNIS DELZEIT
SCOTT MONTGOMERY City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
RICHARD T. HARE
Chief of Police
City Treasurer
MEMORANDUM
TO: _ The Planning Commission
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: April 12, 1989 (PC meeting of 4/17/89)
SUBJECT: REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (MARCH 1989)
Background
The City' s first Housing Element was adopted on June 2, 1986 almost
three years after the incorporation of the City. Although, this
revision is happening only two years after it' s adoption; State law
requires a revision of the Housing Element by July 1, 1989 so as to
include the updated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers
created by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Local housing elements must incorporate a share of regional housing need
figures or indicators of housing production and assistance needs within
the City. These need figures created by SCAG are revised. every five
years.
Along with the inclusion of updated RHNA numbers, the City must also
provide a description of the progress made towards implementation of the
previous housing element. Section V of this draft contains this
required progress report.
Another State requirement regarding updates is to include any
legislative or judicial decision which affects the preparation of
housing elements. Section IV addresses the State Attorney General ' s
opinion under inventory of suitable sites.
The last major item this element includes ls a discussion of Measure F,
a growth limitation ordinance initiated by the voters in November of
1986. This document goes into some detail to explain the relationship
of Measure F and this Revised Housing Element.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 805) 529-6864
April 13, 1989 Cl
page 2
Relevant Issues and Required Data and Analysis Per State Guidelines
The following aspects of data and analysis for housing elements are
based on state law' s regarding housing element requirements. The
relevant Government Code Section are cited.
Assessment of immediate housing needs (Section 65583ial)
Number of existing households and housing units.
Level of payment- compared to ability to pay: the number of very low and
lower income households occupying units at a cost greater than 25
percent _of their gross househojd income; and comparison of the income
distribution of low and moderate income households in the community to
the range of costs of housing units for sale and for rent in the
community.
Overcrowding: the number of households living in overcrowded conditions
1.01 or more persons per room).
Housing stock conditions: the number of households living in housing
units needing rehabilitation or replacement, identified separately for
owner-occupied and renter-occupied units.
Special needs: assessment of the special needs of large families; farm
workers; the elderly; the handicapped; families with female head of
households and the homeless.
Projected new construction needs (Section 65584)
Analysis of population and employment trends and quantification of
existing and projected housing needs (e.g. , five years) for all income
levels (e.g. , very low, lower, moderate, high).
Existing and projected housing needs must include the city's share of
the regional housing needs (calculated by SCAG) and take into
consideration six factors:
1. Housing market demand.
2. Employment opportunities.
3. Availability of suitable sites and facilities.
4. Commuting patterns.
5. Type and tenure of housing needed.
6. Farm worker housing needs.
Analysis of existing and potential sites for housing of all types in the
jurisdiction (Sections 65583, and 65583(a1)
Survey of vacant residential zoned land, including assessment of
dwelling unit capacity and availability of infrastructure.
I0
April 13, 1989
page 3
Survey of existing and potential redevelopment sites.
Survey of other sites suitable for residential development (e.g. , public
surplus land, under-utilized residential, commercial, and industrial
areas, mixed use areas).
Identify adequate sites to "meet the community' s housing goals,"
including making "adequate provision for the existing and projected
needs of all economic segments of the community."
Assessment of actual and potential governmental and nongovernmental
constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing
for all incomelevels (Section_65583(a](4) and (51)
Local land use controls and development standards (e.g. , lot sizes,
density, unit sizes, height limits, lot coverage, etc. ).
Local building codes and their enforcement.
On- and off-site improvements required of developers.
Local processing procedures, including zoning changes, use permits,
building permits, environmental clearances, etc.
Local fees and other exactions required prior to construction or
rehabilitation of a housing development.
Assessment of non-governmental factors constraining the availability of
housing, including availability of financing, price of land, and costs
of construction.
Analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential
development (Section 655831a]]7])-
Opportunities in the design and construction of individual units.
Opportunities in the design of subdivision.
Quantified Objectives
The housing element must include quantified objectives which specify the
maximum numbers of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated,
and conserved within a five-year time frame, based on the needs,
resources, and constraints identified in the housing element (Government
Code Section 65583[b]). Whenever possible, objectives should be set for
each particular housing program, establishing a numerical target for the
effective period of the program.
Ideally, the sum of the quantified objectives will be equal to the
identified housing needs.However, identified needs may exceed
April 13, 1989 II
page 4
available resources and limitations imposed by other requirements of
state planning law. Where this is the case, the quantified objectives
need not equal the identified housing needs, but should establish the
maximum number of units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and
conserved, given the constraints.
Development Policies
The housing element contains goals, objectives, specific policies,
programs, and plan proposals for the development, improvement, and
maintenance of - housing (Government Code Section 65583{b)). The
following are some of what is addressed by the housing element' s
development policies:
The maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
The preservation and conservation of existing housing and neighborhoods.
The provision of sites in suitable locations and with adequate services
which can collectively accommodate a range of housing (type, size, and
price) meeting the needs of all economic segments of the community.
To meet needs and implement policies, the housing element include a
five-year schedule of current and proposed implementation measures and
identifies the agencies or officials responsible for implementation
Government Code Section 65583[1). By law, the implementation program
must be designed to do all of the following:
1. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through zoning
and development standards for a range of housing types to meet the
community's housing goals.
2. Assist in the development of housing affordable to low and moderate
income households.
3. Address and where appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing.
4. Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable
housing stock.
5. Promote equal housing opportunities.
Mandated Implementation Measures
Provide density bonuses or other incentives to developers who include
units affordable to low or moderate income households.
Amend the zoning ordinance to provide for development of secondary
residential units on existing lots.
April 13, 1989
I2.
page 5
Review building and development requirements and standards and modify
those found to be unnecessary or excessive.
Establish a single administrative unit to coordinate processing of
multiple permits for residential developments.
Previous Element Evaluation
The revised element reflects an "evaluation of the results of the
previous element (Government Code Sections 65588(aj and ibj). There are
three parts to the information which the law requires to provided:
1. A comparison of the actual results of the earlier element with its
goals, objectives, policies and programs.
2. An analysis of the significant differences between what was
projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved.
3. A description of how the goals, objectives, policies and programs
of the updated element incorporate what has been learned from the
results of the prior element.
General Discussion
The Housing Element of the City's General Plan is by far the most
involved and complex of all the elements. Therefore, even during todays
efforts to update there are changes and amendments needed to the draft
text. With the settlement of the Building Industry Association law suit
the total allotments available is now 270 per year not 250 as stated in
the draft. Even as this report is being prepared the fees for
development processing are being amended. However, prior to the final
adoption and printing these technical corrections should reach a
conclusion.
In staff's opinion the heart of the revised draft, and for the most part
the element itself begins on page 49 of the text as a discussion of
action programs. Next is a listing of community goals (pg. 54). These
goals are generally created around mandates by the state under the
Housing Element Guidelines and those "need" numbers illustrated by the
SCAG RHNA numbers.
The Draft Housing Element has just recently been submitted to the state
for review. Therefore, no comments are available to the Commission.
State law requires that before the City Council takes any action on the
review draft they must consider the comments made by the state. The
state has 45 days to review and comment. If no comments are received by
the state the City is free to proceed.
13
April 13, 1989
page 6
Also, at this time the City Attorney is reviewing the draft as presented
to the Commission. Comments are not expected until after April 30,
1989. When comments are received they will be included in the
Commission' s next packet.
Staff is recommending that the Commission proceed with their review of
the draft at this time even though there are only four Commission
members available. Inasmuch as the Housing Element is such an important
part of the City' s overall development posture it is recommended that no
final recommendation be made on the draft until all five Commission
members are seated. Although, as stated earlier, the City is required
to approve an updated_Housing Element by July 1, 1989._ Given the fact
that the City Council may wish to conduct several meeting on this
subject the Commission should send forth it' s recommendation to the
Council no later than May 15, 1989.
Recommended Action
That the Planning Commission open the public hearing regarding the draft
revised Housing Element of the City' s General Plan; receive testimony,
discuss and comment on the draft and then continue this matter to the
regular meeting of May 1, 1989.
Note: 'The March 1989 draft Housing Element was previously forwarded to
the Commission under separate cover.
Hg
MOORPARK
ELOISE BROWN STEVEN KUENY
Mayor r8:all
City Manager
BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHERYL J. KANE
Mayor Pro Tem I^ City Attorney
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D.
a`V \V PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember v Director al
PAUL LAWRASON S Community Development
Councilmember R. DENNIS DELZEIT
SCOTT MONTGOMERY City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
RICHARD T. HARE Chief of Police
City Treasurer
MEMORANDUM
TO: _ Cheryl Kane, City Attorney
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: April 11, 1989
SUBJECT: DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (MARCH 1989) —
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS
Please find attached the Draft Housing Element of the General Plan (and
Negative Declaration, Initial Study Checklist, Location Map) for your
review and comments.
This item will appear for a public hearing before the Planning
Commission on April 17, 1989. No decision will be made on the matter
due to the fact that there are only four Commissioner's at this time and
the Commission prefers to have a full Commission and will be continuing
the matter to the Planning Commission meeting of May 1, 1989,
ZF
We would appreciate your review and comments by April )9,, 1989. Please
reply with confirmation to your scheduling of review and comment.
Thank you.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 805) 529-6864
is
TABLE 1
1980 - 2010 Population Forecast
1980
Census 1985* 1990 1995 2000 2005** 2010'.
Camarillo GA 45,711 52,690 61,560 68,150 74,300 79,340 84,280
Camarillo NGA 3,668 3,680 5,050 5,610 6,140 6,640 7,100FillmoreGA9,604 10,300 12,230 13,310 14,260 15,220 16,170
Fillmore NGA 2,182 2,240 2,240 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,240LasPosasNGA1,312 2,030 2,130 'n`
6:
2,240 ,: (%
C7
2;340 2,440 2,520MoorparkGA8,054 14,260 - 23,020 29,590 35,740 41,690 47,080MoorparkNGA670690750780810830860NorthHalfNGA487540570620650690730 ,Oak Park GA 3,617 4,880 10,720 13,850 16,740 19,510 22,080OakParkNGA228300320340350370390OjaiGA8,411 9,070 9,460 9,550 -9,630 9,700 9,760OjaiNGA2,298 2,540 2,510 2,560 2,640 2,690 2,770OxnardGA121,055 129,030 160,270 175,690 191,020 205,180 219,850OxnardNGA4,997 5,000 5,120 5,100 5,100 5,090 5,070PiruGA1,368 1,400 1,810 1,980 2,150 2,300 2,440PiruNGA196200240260280300310PortHuenemeGA18,507 20,000 21,670 22,810 24,050 25,230 26,330SantaPaulaGA20,889 22,320 24,130 25,630 27,130 28,630 30,130SantaPaulaNGA2,958 3,030 3,050 3,050 3,050 3,050 3,050SimiValleyGA80,294 90,640 103,220 112,650 121,170 129,220 136,930SimiValleyNGA1,087 1,400 1,600 1,830 2,040 2,260 2,470ThousandOaksGA91,962 101,910 109,900 118,300 126,500 132,600 135,800ThousandOaksNGA1,070 1,210 1,280 1,360 1,450 1,540 3,150Ventura_GA_ 3y209--90;190---g4,206 --- 102,000 __ -111,000 116,940 123,150VenturaNGA9821,120 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,360Vta. Riv. GA 12,849 13,500 13,270 13,300 13,300 13,410 13,500Vta. Riv. NGA 1,509 1,610 1,820 1 940e_ 2,050 2,170 2,280
TOTAL COUNTY 529,174 585,690 673,290 735,930 797,370 850,570 900,280
Estimated from 1985 actual dwelling unit count, obtained from building completion
records.
To be used for guideline purposes only
L76/1
16
TABLE 2
1980-2010 Dwelling Unit Forecast
1980
Census 1985, 1990 1995 2000 2005 ' 2010
Camarillo GA 16,804 19,069 23,144 26,314 29,484 31,484 33,484
Camarillo NGA 1,043 1,045 1,508 1,741 1,973 2,206 2,438
Fillmore GA 3,055 3,129 4,048 4,544 5,040 5,536 6,032
Fillmore NGA 729 740 775 797 820 843 866
Las Posas NGA 356 . 551 608 666 723 781 838
Moorpark GA 2,476 4,36f 7,379 9,830 12,281 14,732 17,184
Moorpark NGA 267 269 304 322 340 358 377
North Half NGA 323 340 360 380 399 418 437
Oak Park GA 1,078 1,447 3,338 4,468 5,598 6,728 7,858
Oak Park NGA 76 95 110 120 130 140 150
Ojai GA 3,316 3,502 3,797 3,912 4,027 4,127 4,227
Ojai NGA 855 929 953 1,000 1,050 1,099 1,148
Oxnard GA 39,815 42,029 54,514 61,863 69,212 76,561 83,911
Oxnard NGA 1,287 1,293 1,398 1,454 1,509 1,565 1,620 -
Piru GA 380 388 528 603 677 751 825
Piru NGA 64 64 82 91 100 110 118
Port Hueneme GA 6,942 7,351 8,301 8,980 9,659 10,338 11,018
Santa Paula GA 7,233 7,645 8,617 9,422 10,237 11,053 11,956
Santa Paula NGA 865 882 934 968 1,002 1,036 1,071
Simi Valley GA 23,534 26,425 31,761 35,875 39,988 44,102 48,215
Simi Valley NGA 447 561 665 774 883 992 1,101
Thousand Oaks GA 31,902 35,019 39,400 43,650 47,900 51,400 53,900
Thousand Oaks NGA 607 655 702 749 796__843. _, _ 891 -- -
Ventura GA_- 33,814---367184 --"-38;926- 42,857 47,436 50,842 54,249
Ventura NGA 627 674 698 721 744 767 791
Vta. Riv. GA 4,916 5,074 5,184 5,318 5,452 5,586 5,720
Vta. Riv. NGA 576 601 707 772 837 902 968
TOTAL COUNTY 183,384 200,342 238,741 268,191 298,297 325,300 351,394
Actual count, obtained from building copletion records
To be used for guideline purposes only
L76/2
I -
7
TABLE
3
POPULATION
PER
DWELLING
UNIT
RATIO
PROJECTIONS
Growth
Area
Ratios
Merge
with
County
Ratio
in
2080)
Area
Census
4/
1/
80
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005*
20I0*
Camarillo
GA
2.
72
2.
76
2.
66
2.
59
2.
52
2.
47
2.
42
Camarillo
NGA
3.
52
3.
52
3.
35
3.
22
3.
11
3.
01
2.
91
Fillmore
GA
3.
14
3.
29
3.
02
2.
93
2.
83
2.
75
2.
68
Fillmore
NGA
2.
99
3.
02
2.
89
2.
80
2.
72
2.
65
2.
59
Las
Posas
NGA
3.
69
3.
68
3.
50
3.
36
3.
24 -
3.
12
3.
01
Moorpark
GA
3.
25
3.
27 _
3.
12
3.
01
2.
91
2.
83
2.
74
Moorpark
NGA
2.
51
2.
57
2.
47
2.
42
2.
38
2.
32
2.
28
North
Half
NGA
1.
51
1.
59
1.
58
1.
63
1.
63
1.
65 -
1.
67
Oak
Park
GA
3.
36
3.
37
3.
21
3.
10
2.
99
2.
90
2.
81
Oak
Park
NGA
3.
00
3.
16
2.
90 .
2.
83
2.
69
2.
64
2.
60
Ojai
GA
2.
54
2.
59
2.
49
2.
44
2.
39
2.
35
2.
31
Ojai
NGA
2.
69
2.
73
2.
63
2.
56
2.
51
2.
45
2.
41
Oxnard
GA
3.
04
3.
07
2.
94
2.
84
2.
76
2.
68
2.
62
Oxnard
NGA
3.
88
3.
87
3.
66
3.
51
3.
38
3.
25
3.
13
Piru
GA
3.
60
3.
61
3.
42
3.
28
3.
18
3.
06
2.
96
Piru
NGA
3.
06
3.
13
2.
93
2.
86
2.
80
2.
73
2.
63
Port
Hueneme
GA
2.
67
2.
72
2.
61
2.
54
2.
49
2.
44
2.
39
Santa
Paula
GA
2.
89
2.
92 .
2.
80
2.
72
2.
65
2.
59
2.
52
Santa
Paula
NGA
3.
42
3.
44
3.
27
3.
15
3.
04
2.
94
2.
85
Simi
Valley
GA
3.
41
3.
43
3.
25
3.
14
3.
03
2.
93
2.
84
Simi
Valley
NGA
2.
43
2.
50
2.
41
2.
36
2.
31
2.
28
2.
24
Thousand
Oaks
GA
2.
88
2.
91
2.
79
2.
71
2.
64
2.
58
2.
52
Thousand
Oaks
NGA
1.
76'
1.
85
1.
82
1.
82
1.
82
Ventura_
GA_-
1.
83
83 .__ ..__
2.
46--- -
2:-
49---
2:
42
2.
38----
2.
34
2.
30
2.
27
Ventura
NGA
1.
57
1.
66
1.
65
1.
66
1.
68
1.
69
1.
72
Ventura
Riv.
GA
2.
61
2.
66
2.
56
2.
50
2.
44
2.
40
2.
36
Ventura
Riv.
NGA
2.
62
2.
68
2.
57
2.
51
2.
45
2.
41
2.
36
Total
Count
Y'`'`
2.
89
2.
92
2.
80
2.
72
2.
65
2.
58
2.
52
To
be
used
for
guideline
purposes
only
Countywide
projections
may
not
agree
with
the
ratio
between
the
countywide
population
and
dwelling
unit
totals
given
in
Tables
2
and
3.
The
countywide
ratio
will
be
amended
to
agree
when
final
recommended
totals
are
presented.
L76/
3
18
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 POPULATION FORECASTS
Bldg. Gen.
1980 Completion 208 AQMP:-* Plan
Area Census Trend* Plank (Unofficial) Capacity*-:,*
Camarillo GA 45,711 66,591 78,050 78,050 67,431
Camarillo NGA 3,668 3,269 11,901 9,851 7,881
Fillmore GA 9,604 9,529 12,950 14,264 14,472
Fillmore NGA 2,182 2,108 2,250 2,442 2,855
Las Posas NGA 1,312 3,802 1,444 1,444 3,944
Moorpark GA 8,054- 30,302 29,177 21,677 34,11i s c12.9
Moorpark NGA - 670 . 652 933 1,363 961
North Half NGA 487 644 650 725 • 1,464
Oak Park GA 3,617 7,870 17,000 14,121 22,435
Oak Park NGA 228 426 250 201 330
Ojai GA 8,411 9,797 8,375 11,389 9,490
Ojai NGA 2,298 2,929 3,651 2,497 5,488
Oxnard GA 121,055 135,618 184,590 191,024 157,431
Oxnard NGA 4,997 4,435 4,650 5,102 5,607
Piru GA 1,368 1,312 760 1,435 2,627
Piru NGA 196 178 340 279 2,065
Port Hueneme GA 18,507 21,573 26,900 24,900 22,954
Santa Paula GA 20,889 23,765 24,758 26,131 29,680
Santa Paula NGA 2,958 2,848 2,952 3,159 2,883
Simi Valley GA 80,294 108,192 121,165 121,165 134,881
Simi Valley NGA 1,087 2,141 2,165 2,365 4,148
Thousand Oaks GA 91,962 118,869 144,892 144,592 143,368
Thousand Oaks NGA 1,070 1,472 2,313 2,374 2,869 .
Ventura GA 83.,209___-102,-499-- 1-10;969 ---- 1I27781 107,083
Ventura NGA 982 1,386 2,611 2,365 2,362
Vta. Riv. GA 12,849 13,618 13,303 13,303 17,574
Vta. Riv. NGA 1,509 1,668 2,306 2,306 3,398
TOTAL COUNTY 529,174 677,493 811,305 811,305 809,796
Based on 1980-85 building completions and year 2000 population-per-dwelling-unit ratio for each GA/NGA
Adjusted for revisions to Growth/Nongrowth Area Boundaries.
General Plan holding capacity for dwelling units times Year 2000
population-per-dwelling-unit ratio.
L76/4
19
TABLES
COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 DWELLING UNIT FORECASTS
BLDG.
1980 COMP. GEN.
AQCENSUSFIC PLANTREND* 208 PLAN** (UNOFFICIAL) CAPACITY
Camarillo GA 16,804 26,425 29,478 31,135 27,081CamarilloNGA1,043 1,051 3,182 2,997 2,440FillmoreGA3,055 3,367 4,530 4,771
Fillmore NGA 1,042
729 775 750 814 1,042LasPosasNGA3561,177 560 560 1,167MoorparkGA2,476 - 10,413 9,743
Moorpark NGA 267
7,40 11,418 /l,3iy
275 289 440 418NorthHalfNGA323395490
Oak Park GA
483
1 078
1,061
Oak Park NGA
2,632 6,660 4,755 7,284
76 156 70 67OjaiGA3,316 4,0991203,093 4,910 4,073OjaiNGA8551,167 1,352 1,067 2,222OxnardGA39,815 49,137 66,199 67,064OxnardNGA1,287
56,42751,312 1,656 1,845PiruGA 1,79
380 414 235 475PiruNGA 796
64 64 120 93PortHuenemeGA6,942
735
8,664 8,907 10,000 9,369SantaPaulaGA7,233 8,968 8,746 9,787 11,200SantaPaulaNGA865937934
Simi Valley GA 23,534
970 0
35,707 38,711 42,473 43,0933SimiValleyNGA447927724
Thousand Oaks GA 31,902 45,026 48,566
897 1,860
51,908 51,782ThousandOaksNGA6078091,054
Ventura GA
908 1,782
33,811 43,803 43,907 47.,997. 47 38Ventura-NGA
825 -__- _
2.
998 902 1,640Vta. Riv. GA 4,916 5,581 4,967 4,967 7,353Vta. Riv. NGA 576 681 854 854 1,416
TOTAL COUNTY 183,384 254,787 283,322 300,483 303,233Basedon1980-85 building completions
Adjusted for revisions to Growth/Nongrowth Area boundaries.
L76/5
1..x..4'. •-,
1
OJAI ,
t
NORTH HALF
21,1...A. ::71-1-.;----tm ...-11
111, VENTURA RIVER VALLEY ..:;i1 '.FILUIORE
flii 1. -'- .xP":i";l:It ctiR;4-:' - •1 .--i 0_4m -_ - i ".-'
k-S'Iji • !: ,::*,:E:::. 2
1.
1 IS ."E‘`! ,,..' :::;M:.:::.:,
tilI I ' "-. ;"411SANTAPAULAmg
I I .1"..vam-rir1.0' .1
l' TEinii;:.... .iii.1:1V.A;; •:>.: r1;0RRIRCIIP. ,:e0........A;i;. ".
1.;:::::
11:.,...........1.:..).0..........;..:;:1NV.,,^% LAS POSAS I..,../
1.t.*:': iENTURA !:,:::::: :::0aptisitirta
17; 4:” neL*: ...,:44c:0;:;•::.:1:?::: :fATM .1::i....1 •
C.
ii'...114811.”..?. S MI VALLEY 4,....-italWari.... A1i?,d40).;fr/
r- ':!..:.!.:::Y: IC, :.,.?.:Me0.4.:!:P.:"3!'-'. ""c::::•:.."' ..CAMARILLO p:',i,:ii;1.p:. -Th. ---i'......,
o42,,,,:•ii.,;?„., ..:... ..i: i..;;,fin..i.g,......0.,k!...±9../.:<1c< .v.:::-.?.N...--....77,41 .2.::.:E.::::::::2;!-:,;;;;;;;i::::,,,:, .4101 ::....: Pr'. :14 : .:1*::;,.1.5. l'.: ?•)1.71 OXNARD .'•'..- 7 f. .... ,,....$::::-.1 THOUSAND OAKS : ';:;:::::
1:......;:..,:a..:.....;.;.. :... ;;;;;;.-1.1; ..„ .... 1
kC.JC.' 1 ..v. :j :I is - 11,4stiii 'r4'42:::7-nt.'M:. _10;;I: .:::c:::..::::: : :::: ::.:.114..
FIGURE 1
I, '.
tilliii.M ij. ---"L--Air 1::Ih......'::; :i.g>.::ftiM:.
PROPOSED OROWTH/NOIEGROWTH AREAS
ct ff?;1:11.211:::::.<::::...
Lj
4"t...,...:,4: , :i::::.... 1 ....
c.:.;:eN;M:.: .
I. Vj ',.... 1'.;:. :
1 I
PORT HUENEME ::t ::: 1 .
YAM/URA [Duni,F 1 .re-1/41—:::±
GROWTH AREA
c.
f X 1 •
1 1 HOUCK/WTI! AREA
1 i. r -0,..
I..?
N3.,..
0
21
TABLE 6
BUILDING ACTIVITY
MOORPARK DWELLING UNITS
April, 1980 (U.S. Census)2483
April to December, 1980 313
1981 382
1982 137
1983 350
1984 677
4342
1859 DU completed 4/80 to 1/85; average = 391, DU/yr
COUNTY-WIDE - Average number of dwelling units completed
annually (4/80 to 1/85)
Thousand Oaks 667
Simi Valley 583
Camarillo 512
Ventura 500
Oxnard 472
Moorpark 391
Port Hueneme 91
Oak Park 79
Santa Paula 78
Ojai Valley 37
Fillmore 16
Piru 2
6
ATTACHMENT 3'
LAW OFFICES
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
oNE WILSHIRE
N.NTUR*
024 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE.
G
FLOOR oVE DRIVELOSANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017
p PETERS 12131 236-0600 VENTuRfA.0 64.-24IA 93003
MARTIN L BURKE'NSA C SRAM!'
EARL K.NEWTON' SLADE J.NEIGHBORS
J.ROBERT DR!E
TELCCOP,cR:rzOl 236-2700
20 0ORANGE COUNTY
DRIVEHAROLDA.
DENNIS P BURKE'UREA t,DAUIlt
HARRY C WILLIAMS
SUITE 6S0
TwomAS J. „are „LiCpa..1.„ELSON
ROYAL M.SORENSEN
CHARLES M.CALDERON' FRANK R.WRITCHEAO.III
7300 COLLEGE BOULEVARD
BRIDGES. E"May 5, 1989
191313306200
O6TERRY Ep
MICHELE P.v.00p WRITER'S DI RECT DIAL
cc5sI.p..T.....ATOM 213-2 36-2 21
OUR FILE NO. 01359-001
Mr. Patrick J. Richards
Director of Community Development
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Re: Draft Housing Element/March, 1989
Dear Pat:
Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the
March, 1989 draft of the Housing Element. My comments are
of two general types--general and specific. As an initial
observation, many of the comments repeat or incorporate the
comments this office made with respect to the September,
1988 draft.
1. Editing. The draft needs to be subjected to a
thorough editing in order to: ( i) reconcile the table of
content with the body of the text; ( ii) correct the
recurrent typographical and grammatical errors; ( iii )
resolve inconsistent and ambiguous statements in the text;
and (iv) clarify the role of the document.
By way of illustration of the third point , I refer
you to page 25 of the text. The first two paragraphs deal
with the same subject--site- availability. In the first
paragraph, it is stated that "Moorpark consists of
substantial undeveloped areas11 , while in the second
RECEIVED
MAY 8 1989
23
Mr. Patrick J. Richards
May 5, 1989
Page 2
paragraph it is stated that "There are few vacant parcels of
land within the City of any size. "
By way of illustration of the fourth point, I refer
you to page 62 of the text. The second sentence of the last
paragraph reads as if the Housing Element were a report to,
rather than a report -by, the City.
2. Documentation. The draft Housing Element has
been a work in progress since the spring of 1988 and will
not be adopted until the summer of 1989. However, no effort
has apparently been made to update data and information
during the last 12 months. Moreover, many statements in the
draft Housing Element go undocumented.
With reference to the former point, I direct your
attention to the following:
a) Existing Housing Stock. Data from January,
1988 is used (page 4 of the text) .
b) Housing Inventory and Sales. Data from April,
1988 and as far back as September, 1987 is
relied upon extensively in the analysis. (By
way of illustration I refer you to tables 11-
13, 15 and 16. )
c) RENA Numbers. The discussion of the SLAG RHNA
numbers contains what is now extraneous
information regarding the appeal process
pages 17--21 of the text) , since the appeal
period long ago expired. Surprisingly,
however, Moorpark's successful appeal is not
even reported in the text; the reader is left
to infer this fact from Table 9 . Also, the
Draft RENA is quoted from extensively in the
text at pages 16--17; if these portions of the
Draft RENA were not incorporated into the
revised RHNA then some explanation needs to be
given for reliance upon the draft as
authoritative.
With reference to the latter point, I direct your
attention to the analysis of Handicapped Households. In the
second to the last sentence of the last paragraph (page 8 of
2'f
Mr. Patrick J. Richards
May5, 1989
Page 3
the text) it is baldly stated that "the 1980 percentage may
overstate current conditions, and, for this reason . . . ,
3. Regional Housing Need. Last summer in
meetings with you and the Housing Element consultant, this
office repeatedly emphasized that the Housing Element' should
contain an affirmative statement that the City's housing
need includes its share of the regional housing need
expressed by the RBNA numbers. No such statement is made in
this draft.
4. Measure F. The most blatant defect in the
discussion of Measure F is that the text has not been
updated since Urban West Communities was declared exempt
from the Measure or since the Measure was amended to
increase the yearly allotments. Moreover, the discussion of
Measure F (page 22 of the text) is so convoluted that the
point that Measure F will not impact housing need is all but
lost.
5. Housinq Constraints. Based upon the text, the
most obvious constraint on meeting regional housing need is
the lack of vacant land for residential development. The
City can expect to gain only 1394 additional units at build-
out (page 25 of the text) , which is barely half of the RHNA
numbers (page 22 of the text) . And yet, almost 10 pages are
spent on the fact that Measure F is not a constraint to
meeting regional housing need, while the lack of vacant land
is ignored.
6. Goals and Policies. This portion of the draft
Housing Element appears to still be in a very rudimentary
form. Goal #3 is a verbatim repeat of Goal #2 (page 56 of
the text) . Moreover, there is no Goal #4 even though the
number is called out (page 56 of the text) .
7. Housing Program. The Housing Element is to
contain "a five-year schedule of actions" the City is
undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the
policies, goals and objectives. (Gov' t Code § 655834 (c) . )
If the text at pages 58-63 of the draft is intended to
satisfy this requirement, an introduction and refinement of
the text are needed.
25
Mr. Patrick J. Richards
May 5, 1989
Page 4
Conclusion
In reviewing the March, 1989 draft of the Housing
Element, I have not considered the accuracy of statements
and conclusions set forth in the text, except as noted
above. It appears to me that the Housing Element is 'still
in a formative stage. and that considerably more-work will be
needed before the Housing Element is ready for adoption.
Very truly yours,
CHE YL KANE
CITY ATTORNEY, MOORPARK; and
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
CJK:hsk
cjk/LTR3740
ATTACHMENT-4 L(
OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Housing Policy Development
Division
1800 Third Street, Room 430
P.O. Box 952053 E COPY
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
916) 323-3176
June 15, 1989
Mr. Steven Kueny
City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr. Kueny:
RE: Review of the City of Moorpark's Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Moorpark's draft housing element, received
for our review on May 3, 1989. As you know, we are required to
review draft housing elements and report our findings to the
locality (Government Code 65585 (b) ) .
The Moorpark element is well written and responds to many of the
identified housing needs of the City. In our opinion, however,
there are several areas which require additional revisions to
bring'bringTrt element into compliance with State housing element law
Article 10.6 of the Government Code) .The City' s growth
management program is of some concern due to the limited sites
identified for new construction. Identified concerns were reviewed
with the City's consultant, Ralph Castaneda, in a telephone
conversation on June 6, 1989. A detailed listing of these
recommended changes is included in the attached appendix.
We hope our comments are helpful to the City, and we thank
Mr. Castaneda for his assistance during the review. In accordance
with requests pursuant to the Public Information Act, we are
forwarding copies of this letter to those persons and organizations
listed below.
RECEIVEf
J U N 1 9 1989
City of Moorpark
27
Mr. Steven Kueny
Page Two
If you have any questions about our comments, or if we can be ofassistanceinanyway, please contact William Andrews of our staff
at (916) 323-7271.
Sincerely,
Nan J. a C ' f
Divi ion of Housi Policy
Development
NJJ:WA:bt
Attachment
cc: Ralph Castaneda, Castaneda & Associates
Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Western Center on Law and Poverty
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Of Lice of Planning and Research
Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors
C
22
APPENDIX
CITY OF MOORPARK
The following changes would, in our opinion, bring Moorpark's
housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government
Code. Following each recommended change or addition, we refer to
the applicable provision of the Government Code. Where particular
program examples or data sources are listed, these suggestions are
for your information only. We recognize that Moorpark may choose
other means of complying with the law.
A. Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Analyze the special housing needs of large families,the
handicapped, female headed households-, the homeless, and
farmworkers (Section 65583 (a) (6) ) . Where available, .c
information on tenure characteristics should be provided.
In addition to quantifying the total number of households
within a special needs group, the element should discuss
the potential housing needs of each of the special needs
groups relative to their situation in Moorpark. The
conclusions drawn about the needs and problems of the
special needs groups appear to be based on assumptions,
rather than on specific data. For example: the perceived
needs of the handicapped discussed on pg. 6, may or may
not be described , depending on the results of an actual
analysis of their varied situations within Moorpark.
Additional information about the special needs groups may
also be available from local social services departments,
the local housing authority, or the City's Housing
Assistance Plan.
The element does not include an analysis of the,needs of
large households or provide information on the tenure of
elderly or overcrowded households in the City.
2. Include an inventory of vacant land available for
residential development in the City (Section
65583 (a) (3) ) . It is unclear whether there is land
available in the City for development of affordable
housing units. In our opinion, the land inventory should
include the amount of land in each zone category, the
potential number of units that could be constructed underthecurrentzoning, and the realistic expectations for
numbers of units given past experience with development
applications.
3. Analyze the potential and actual governmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing for all income levels, including land use
controls, building codes and their enforcement, site
2q
improvements, fees and other exactions required of
developers, and local processing and permit procedures
Section 65583 (a) (4) ) . Examples might include a
comparison of fee structures and lengths of permit
process with other localities, and examination of zoning
and use limitations (Section 65583 (c) (3) ) .
The element identifies potential governmental constraints
such as the residential development management program
included in "Measure F," and limitations on density in
some residential areas. However, no mitigating actions
for identified governmental constraints are included in
the analysis. Although affordable housing appears to
be exempt under guidelines set by Measure F, the
restrictive zoning overlay coupled with the growth
management program, in our opinion, does not provide
adequate opportunities for the production of affordable
units. Additional analysis in this area may indicate a
need for programs to mitigate the impacts of Measure F. .-
4. Analyze the potential and actual nongovernmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing for all income levels, including
the availability of financing, the price of land, and the
cost of construction (Section (65583 (a) (5) ) .
B. Programs
1. Identify adequate sites which will be made availablethroughappropriatezoninganddevelopmentstandardsand
with public services and facilities needed to facilitate
and encourage a variety of housing for all income levels,
to accommodate Moorpark's share of the regional housing
need Section 65583 (c) (1) ) . The adequacy of the existing
412asites cannot be determined due- to the impact of Measure
F and the limitations imposed on land located in hillside
areas. The element states that the "market rate" unit
requirements can be met, but makes no program provisions
for the needed affordable units. Depending on build-out
densities. there may be a need to rezone more available
land for residential usage. This should include sites
suitable for rental housing.
2. Describe programs that would remove or mitigate
identified governmental constraints Section
65583 (c) (3) ) .Although the element indicates that
affordable and senior housing is exempt from Measure F,
zoning for multi-family units is restricted. The City
may need to develop a program based on the conclusions
reached in the analysis mentioned in A-3 above.
Examples of possible programs could include waiving of
fees for affordable housing, direct assistance that would
cover required fees, and additional incentives to
encourage the development of affordable housing units.
30
3. For your information, as a result of new legislation
Chapters 1571 and 1572, Statutes of 1988) manufactured
housing must be permitted on permanent foundation systems
on all single-family-zoned lots, so long as the unit is
no more than ten years old on the date of application,
and meets federal and optional local standards specified
in Government Code Section 65852.3. (A locality may
exempt from this provision any place, building,
structure, or other object listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. ) Section 65852.3 specifies
that local governments may impose architectural
requirements on the manufactured home itself which are
limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding
material, so long as the requirements, or any other lot
development standards imposed on the manufactured home
installation, - do not exceed those required for a
conventional home on the same lot. Section 65852.4 has
been added to the Government Code to specify that a
locality may not subject an application to install a ;
manufactured home on a foundation system on a single-
family lot to any administrative permit, planning, or
development process or requirement unless it is identical
to those which would be imposed on a conventional home
on the same lot.
It is not clear in the element if the City complies with
State statutes in this area.
C. Other
Describe the City's efforts to achieve participation of all
economic segments of the community in the development of the
h4ps4ng element (Section 65583 (c) ) _ Efforts to provide for
citizen participation are not documented in the housing
element.
3 .1-
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF MOORPARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1. Entitlement: General Plan Housing Element Revision
2. Applicant: City of Moorpark
3. Proposal: A revision to the City's General Plan Housing
Element is proposed in compliance with Article 10.6 of the
State Government Code. State law requires that the
housing element shall be reviewed "as frequently as
appropriate" in order to evaluate progress made and any
changes in conditions affecting housing need, and shall be
revised as necessary but not less than every five years.
Specific statutory schedules were established for the
periodic updating of local housing elements. For cities
located in the region of the Southern California
Association of Governments, an update of adopted housing
elements is required no later than July 1, 1989.
To summarize, the City's Housing Element is proposed to be
updated to include the Southern California Association of
Governments "share of regional housing need" figures, a
description of the progress made toward implementation of the
previously adopted Housing Element, and recent legislative or
judicial decisions affecting the preparation of General
Plan housing elements.
Local housing elements must incorporate "share of regional
housing need" figures as indicators of housing production and
assistance needs within the City. These need figures are revised
by regional planning agencies every five years as required by
State law. On June 30, 1988, the Southern California Association
of Governments adopted draft "regional share" numbers for local
jurisdictions within its region. The subject Housing Element
update includes these new "regional share" numbers.
An amended housing element must also provide a written
description of the progress made toward implementation of the
previously adopted document. The City's previous Housing Element
was adopted on June 2, 1986. The updated Housing Element
contains a progress report regarding implementation of the
previously adopted document as a foundation for both the Housing
Plan (i.e. , goals, policies, and objectives) and the Housing
Program (implementing measures) .
32
Section 65583(c)(1) of the Government Code requires that by
January 1, 1988, or by the next periodic review of the housing
element, whichever is later, the housing program shall include an
identification of sites for emergency shelters and transitional
housing. The City's Housing Element has been revised to include
this information.
The most important judicial decision affecting the preparation of
a housing element is the State Attorney General's opinion,
rendered in September 1987, regarding the scope of
analysis for site suitability. The City's Housing Element
has been revised in response to that opinion.
4. Location 6 Parcel Number(s): Citywide
5. Responsible Agencies:
State Department of Housing and Community Development
Southern California Association of Governments
II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
An initial study was conducted by the Community Development
Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon
the environment. Based upon the findings contained in the
attached initial study, it has been determined that this project
could not have a significant effect upon the environment:
III. PUBLIC REVIEW:
1. Public Notice: Publication of a notice in a newspaper of
General Circulation in the Area.
2. Document Posting Period: April 5, 1989 through May 5,
1989.
Prepared by:A proved by:
y9< S.T.. , ett 4-5-84 S /
Deborah S. Traffenstedt (Date) atri J: Richards (Date)
Senior Planner Director of Community
Development
33
CITY OF MOORPARK
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
ryry I
1. Name of Applicant City of inOrn a-rK
2. Project Description Genera-I pan / NauSir,3 CIe. ern'E Revegion
3. Date of Checklist submittal LI, /
J
19 69
L'4. Project Location i't4 of 1 f rx7, ark
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
J
Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of •the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,
or changes in situation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
3y
YES MAYBE NO
2. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse X
impacts on air quality in the project area?
3. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction X
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood x
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in:x
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any X
alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of x
ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either X
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Degradation of ground water quality? X.
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j. Exposure of people or property to water related x
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
35
YES MAYBE NO
4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of
any species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of X
any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
b. Restrict the range of or otherwise affect any X
rare or endangered animal species?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an X
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife X
habitat?
6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? x
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? X-
B. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?X
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural X
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable X
resource?
36
YES MAYBE NO
10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, x
distribution, density or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, x
or create a demand for_additional housing?
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand
for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation X
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X_
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental servies in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? x
b. Police protection?
c. Schools? 2
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Other governmental services?
15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
37
YES MAYBE NO
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources x
of energy or require the development of new sources
of energy?
16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? x
b. Communications system?
c. Water?
d. Sewef or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
g. Street lighting annexation and/or improvements? X.
17. HUMAN HFATTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
19. RECREATION_ Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities?
20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal:
a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic- x
al sites?
b. Result in destruction or alteration of a known
archaeological or historical site within the
vicinity of the project?
c. Result in destruction or alteration of a known k
archaeological or historical site near the
vicinity of the project?
33
YES MAYBE NO
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the.quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are individu-
ally limited, but cumulatively considerable?. -
A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where impact on ea .h resource is,
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on 'the environment is
significant.)
A. Dogs the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I,e'Fer to Attochrnc t No. 1 .
IV, DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
In conformance with Section15060 of the State EIR Guidelines, I find with
cerrainity that the prolncal would not have a significant impact on the
environment.
I find the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to class
39
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION` should be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SHOULD BE PREPARED.
I find proposed project NAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find proposed projectj9AY have a significant effect on-the
environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified Environmental
Impact Report is required.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified
Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existingEIRisrequired.
L10
Attachment 1
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. EVALUATION
The proposed Housing Element revision is not expected to result in any
environmental impacts. No change to the planned land use of the City is
proposed. The proposed update will not adversely affect existing housing,
or create any new demand for additional housing. One purpose of the
Housing Element is to demonstrate that the City identifies local housing
problems and needs and takes steps to mitigate and alleviate these needs and
problems for all economic segments of the community. Another key purposee of
the Housing Element is to contribute to meeting the State housing goal as
stated below:
The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance,
and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for every California family is a priority of the
highest order. (Government Code Section 65581)
The housing element is expected to be a comprehensive assessment of current
and projected housing needs for all segments of the community and all
economic groups. In addition, it embodies policy for providing adequate
housing and includes action programs for this purpose. A housing element
must include an assessment of housing need and development of a housing
program; an analysis of household characteristics; an inventory of land
suitable fox residential development; an analysis of governmental
constraints on the development of housing; an analysis of nongovernmental
constraints on the development of housing; and an analysis of special
housing needs, such as those of the elderly or handicapped.
State law requires periodic updating of local housing elements in order to
evaluate progress - made and any changes in conditions affecting
housing need. The City's General Plan Housing Element is proposed to be
updated to include "share of regional housing need" figures as adopted by
the Southern California Association of Governments on June 30, 1988;
a description of the progress made toward implementation of the City's
previously adopted Housing Element; and revisions required by recent
legislative or judicial decisions.
The most important recent judicial decision affecting the preparation of
housing elements is the State Attorney General's opinion, rendered in
September 1987, regarding the scope of analysis for site suitability
The City's Housing Element was revised in response to that opinion.
Section 65583(c)(1) of the Government Code requires that by January 1,
1988, or by the next periodic review of the housing element, whichever is
later, the housing program shall include an identification of sites for
emergency shelters and transitional housing. The City's Housing Element
has been revised to include this information.
HI
STATE Of CALIFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO. CA 95814
Deborah Traffenstedt May 11, 1989
City of Moorpark
700 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Subject: City of Moorpark General Plan Housing Element Revision/ SCH# 89041202
Dear Ms. Traffenstedt:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and
none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you
have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Please call Garrett Ashley at 916/445-0513 if you have any questions
regarding the environmental review process . When contacting the
Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse
number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
David C. NuneCCCnkamp
11
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
RECEIVED
MAY 15 1939
y2
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT
Housing Element
of the
General Plan
CITY OF MOORPARK
July 1989
43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND 1
1. Purpose of Housing Element 1
2. Consistency with Other General Plan Elements 2
3. Public Participation and Adoption 4
B. PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT 5
C. AMENDED HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS 6
II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A. CONDITION OF THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK 7
1. Previous Housing Condition Survey 7
2. 1989 Housing Condition Update 8
B. HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS OF RESIDENT HOUSEHOLDS 9
C. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS 10
1. Handicapped Households 10
2. Overcrowded Households 11
3. Large Households 11
4. Female Head of Households 12
5. Senior Citizen Population 12
6. Farmworker Households 13
7. Homeless Population 13
D. PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS 14
1. Introduction 14
2. Population Trends 14
3. Employment Trends 14
4. Share of Regional Housing Need 18
5. Energy Conservation in New Housing 24
III. RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS 25
A. INVENTORY OF SUITABLE SITES 26
B. GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS ANALYSIS 30
1. Land Use Controls 30
2. Building Codes 33
3. Site Improvements 33
4. Fees 33
5. Processing and Permit Procedures 33
6. Measure F 34
4y
SECTION PAGE
C. MARKET CONSTRAINTS 47
1. Introduction 47
2. Housing Prices 47
3. Cost of Land and Construction 50
4. Financing Availability 50
IV. PROGRESS REPORT
A. INTRODUCTION 52
B. 1986 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND STATUS 52
V. HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM
A. FUTURE FIVE-YEAR HOUSING PROGRAM 57
1. Overall Community Goals 57
2. Housing Improvement and Maintenance Goals, Policies,
and Objectives 58
3. Housing Production and Assistance Goals, Policies,
and Objectives 61
4. Removal of Governmental Constraints Goals, Policies,
and Objectives 66
5. Promotion of Equal Housing Opportunities Goals,
Policies, and Objectives 68
B. FUTURE FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM SUMMARY 69
1. Housing Stock Improvement 69
2. Housing Production 70
3. Housing Assistance 70
C. SUMMARY OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES 73
45
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 1: City of Moorpark: Composition of the Housing Stock—January 1988
Table 2: City of Moorpark: Existing'Housing Need by Income and Tenure— 1987 9
Table 3: City of Moorpark: Population Trends— 1984 to 1989 15
Table 4: City of Moorpark: Share of Sub-Regional Population Growth-- 1984 to 1989 16
Table 5: City of Moorpark: 1980 to 2010 Population Forecast for the Growth and 17
Non-Growth Areas
Table 6: Ventura County: RHNA Household Growth 20
Table 7: Ventura County: RHNA Growth Rates—Ventura County— 1-88 to 7-94 21
Table 8: Growth Rates— 1983 to 1988 22
Table 9: City of Moorpark: Revised Share of Regional Housing Need 1-88 to 7-94 23
Table 10: Undeveloped Properties Zoned for Mull-Family Development 22
Table 11: Potential Mutti-Family Housing Sites 29
Table 12: Ventura County: Growth Management Limits by City— 1988
Table 13: Housing Demand Absorption in Ventura County for Single Family 40
Detached Housing— 1987 and 1988
Table 14: Inventory Summary: Ventura County—April 1988 42
Table 15: Ventura County: Housing Units Remaining In Approved Residential yy
Developments: September 1987 and August 1988
Table 16.: City of Moorpark: Possible Increase in Housing Supply Based on 46
County of Ventura Population Forecasts— 1985 to 2000
Table 17: City of Moorpark: Sales Price Distribution of Housing In the New Home 49
Market-- 1988
iii
1-
LIST OF CHARTS
CHART PAGE
Chart 1: Residential Zoning Districts 31
Chart 2: Moorpark Fee Schedule 314
Chart 3: Progress Report: City of Moorpark Housing Program 53
iv
N
z0H-0D00z
L3
A. BACKGROUND
1. Purpose of Houslop Element
The purpose of the Housing Element is to demonstrate that the City
identifies local housing problems and needs and takes steps to
mitigate and alleviate these needs and problems for all economic
segments of the community.Another key purpose of the Housing
Element is to contribute to meeting the State housing goal as stated
below:
The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance,
and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for every California family is a priority of the
highest order. (Government Code Section 65581)
Statewide interest in local housing elements are influenced by
legislative policy and intent of Article 10.6 of the Government Code.
Section 65581 contains the following declarations which describe the
Legislature's intent in enacting the most recent revisions to the
housing element law:
b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and
implement housing elements which, along with federal and state
programs, will move toward the attainment of the state housing
goal.
c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of
determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the
attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a
determination is compatible with the state housing goal and
regional housing needs.
d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the
powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and
development of housing to make adequate provision for the
housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this
responsibility,each local government also has the
responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal
factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to
cooperate with other local governments and the state in
addressing regional housing needs.
1
y9
2. Consistency with Other General Plan Elements
The goals, policies and objectives of this Housing Element are
considered consistent with the City's other General Plan Elements
Land Use; Circulation; Safety; Noise; and Open Space, Conservation
and Recreation). In particular, the following Land Use Element goals
and policies are considered consistent with the Housing Element:
Urban Form:
Goal 3: To promote revitalization and rehabilitation of
deteriorating residential, commercial and industrial areas where
desirable and compatible with currounding land use.
Policy 3: Promote methods of revitalizing and rehabilitating
deteriorating areas.
Residential:
Goal 1: To provide for all residents of Moorpark a safe, healthy,
stable and pleasant living environment with economically and socially
diversified residential neighborhoods.
Goal 3: To provide residential developments with properly planned
and adequate services and facilities.
Policy 1:Encourage a variety of housing densities and varying
densities within developments.
Policy 4:Encourage residential development with properly planned
and adequate public services.
Policy 6: To provide a range of residential densities which will
ensure a variety of housing types to the residents of Moorpark.
Energy.
Goal 1: To promote energy conservation including land use patterns
minimizing energy consumption.
Policy 3: Encourage the adoption of building standards which
minimize energy loss and maximize the utilization of solar and other
alternate non-polluting energy forms including:
2
50
a. efficient thermal insulation
b. double glazing
c. appropriate orientation of window surface and roof areas in
relation to the sun
d. appropriate planting of evergreen and deciduous shade trees
utilization of highly energy efficient appliances
f. supplemental solar space and heating systems
Housing:
Goal 1: To provide adequate housing to meet the needs and desires of
all residents.
Goal 2: To preserve desirable neighborhoods through conservation,
rehabilitation, and renewal of housing.
Goal 3: To provide for adequate, sound, and well designed housing.
Goal 4: To promote higher standards of design and construction for
all permanent structures.
Goal 5: To provide housing opportunities for all segments of the
population and for a variety of economic levels in proximity to jobs,
schools and shopping facilities.
Goal 6: To promote viable, safe residential neighborhoods.
Goal 7: To promote upgrading and maintenance of existing housing.
Goal 8: To create housing profiles which enhance community
stability.
Policy 1: Encourage development of housing for all segments of the
community.
Policy 2: A diversity of housing unit types and lot sizes should be
provided to meet various housing needs.
Policy 3: ensities that will accommodate multiple units should be
designated on the plan.
Policy 4: Encourage design standards that will promote housing units
which are soundly constructed and are energy efficient.
Policy 5:Examine methods of upgrading and maintaining existing
housing units.
Policy 6: Encourage a development mix which will provide for the
diverse needs of the community.
3
5/
Policy 7: To ensourage rehabilitation and code enforcemtn for the
preservation of neighborhood quality.
Policy 8: To provide for adequate, sound and well-designed
low-income housing in accordance with demand.
Policy 9: To revitalize depressed areas with maximum neighborhood
participation.
Policy 10:To ensure that due regard is given to the types,
densities and the appearance of all housing developments so that
necessary needs are met and a harmonious relationship exists between
adjoining uses, natural features and the total environment.
3. Public Participation and Adoption
The City has made a diligent effort to achieve public participation
of all economic segments of the commmunity in the development of the
housing element. The Planning Commission held two public hearings
and the City Council will hold one or more public hearings prior to
adoption. The City places all public hearing notices in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Moorpark. In addition, the City ran two
one-eight page ads in an attempt to increase public participation.
4
52
13. PREVIOUS OUSING ELEMENT
On June 2, 1986, the City Council adopted the previous Housing
Element. That adoption by the City Council followed a series of
public workshops and hearings by the Planning Commission and
consideration of the review comments of the State Department of
Housing .and..Community Development which were transmitted to the City
on--January- B, -1986. The Housing Element, which was adopted nearly
three years ago, incorporated a program encompassing the areas of
housing production, improvement and maintenance. A complete review
of the progress made by the City to implement that program is
explained in Section IV of this updated Housing Element.
5
53
G. AMENDED HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS
When Article 10.6 of the Government Code was originally enacted by
the State Legislature in 1981, a mandatory schedule was established
for periodic updating of local housing elements. For cities located
in the region.of the Southern California Association of Governments,
an update of adopted housing elements is required no later than July
1, 1989.
Local housing elements must incorporate "share of regional housing
need" figures as indicators of housing production and assistance
needs within the city. These need figures, too, are revised by
regional planning agencies every five years, as required by State
law. On December 19, 1988, the Southern California Association of
Governments adopted "regional share" numbers for local jurisdictions
within its region, it is necessary for the City of Moorpark to
include these numbers in the updated Housing Element.
In addition to the two foregoing requirements, an amended housing
element also must provide a written description of the progress made
toward implementation of the previously adopted document. The City's
progress report is contained in Section IV of the housing Element as
a foundation for both the Housing Plan (i.e. , goals, policies and
objectives) and the Housing Program.
Besides the above, this amended housing element also must incorporate
any other legislative or judicial decisions affecting the preparation
of Moorpark's Housing Element. The most important of these factors
contributing to the need for an update is the State Attorney
General's opinion, rendered in September 1987, regarding the scope of
analysis for a "site suitability analysis".
6
4l
zwU)U)wU)Q0wwz0zU)D0
4
55
A. CONDITION OF TILE EXISTING DOUSING STOCK
As of January 1989, the City of Moorpark had a housing stock
consisting of almost 7,500 dwelling units. As noted in Table 1, the
State Department of Finance estimates that the City's housing supply
encompasses 7,484 dwelling units: 82.4 of the total stock are
single-family dwellings. There are 189 mobile home units (2.5%) in
Moorpark's housing supply. In addition, there are 234 housing units
in duplex to 4-plex structures and another 896 dwellings in
structures containing five or more units.
1. Previous Dousing Condition Survey
The standards used by the City in the 1985 Housing Element survey to
assess the condition of the housing stock were as follows:
Excellent: New structures, generally less than 20 years old, that
were well-maintained.
Good: These structures had only slight, non-structural defects which
could be corrected with regular maintenance. There was generally
only a need for paint or other weather protection. Yard areas were
well maintained.
Fair: Repairs had been deferred to the point that deficiencies were
not correctable with normal maintenance. Porches and steps were
generally sagging and unsafe. Exterior walls had holes and or the
siding was pulling away from the supporting frame members. Exterior
window frames were deteriorated and rotting. Exterior yards had
extensive accumulations of rubbish and weeds.
Poor: The unit contains one or more major structural defects which
jeopardizes the structural integrity of the entire unit. Apparent
that the structure was originally inadequately constructed or
subsequent changes to the unit created hazardous conditions.
With very few exceptions, the housing units in the neighborhoods that
were surveyed in 1985 showed no visible signs of dilapidated or
deteriorated structural conditions. Of the 800 housing units
encompassed by the survey, 89 or 1.1% were in need of rehabilitation
or replacement. Assuming that the balance of the stock in 1985 was
in adequate condition, the dwelling units in need of improvement
represented only 2% of the entire stock (89 f 4, 361 = 2%).
7
S6
TABLE 1
CITY OF MOORPARK: COMPOSITION OF THE
HOUSING STOCK--JANUARY 1989
Number of Units Housing Percentage
in Structure Units Distribution
Single 6165 82.3
2 to 4 234 3.2
5 or more 896 12
Mobile Homes 189 2.5
7,484 100.0%
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Population Research
Unit, "Ventura County Population Estimates, " January 1, 1989.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
2. 1989 Housing Condition Update
The housing stock in Moorpark is relatively new with 46% of the units
built during the past 10 years. Almost 80% of the City's housing stock
was built less than 35 years ago. Prior to 1950, fewer than 250 units
had been constructed.
As noted earlier, a survey of housing conditions was conducted in 1985.
All units more than 10 years old were included in the survey. Because
such a large percentage of the City's housing was built recently, few
neighborhoods exhibit signs of deterioration. Of the 800 units
surveyed, only 89 were in need of rehabilitation or demolition. Since
that time, six units have been rehabilitated and six have been
demolished.
A more recent survey of housing conditions in Moorpark has been
conducted. A Redevelopment Plan approved by the City in June 1989
identifies that there are a total of 240 deteriorated residential
structures in the redevelopment area (Figure 1) which require
rehabilitation. In addition, the Redevelopment Plan identifies that
there are eight dilapidated structures in the redevelopment area which
are candidates' for demolition.
Deteriorated units are concentrated in the areas of Virginia Colony,
downtown and Walnut Canyon. Code enforcement staff is engaged in an
intensive effort to improve the downtown area this year, supported by
local community groups. Typical problems in these three areas consist
of substandard dwellings and illegal structures.
57
B. HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS OF RESIDENT HOUSEHOLDS
In the 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), existing need
is defined as the number of resident lower income households paying
30% or more of their income for housing. Previously, the same
definition had been used in the 1983 Regional Housing Needs Model
RADA). The 1980 Federal Census was the primary data source for both
the 1983 RHAM and RHNA.
According to the RHNA, there are 960 resident lower income households
paying 30% or more of their income on housing costs. This number
equals 14.4% of Moorpark's total resident households. The income and
tenure distribution of these 960 lower income households is listed
below:
TABLE 2
CITY OF MOORPARK: EXISTING HOUSING NEED
BY INCOME AND TENURE 1987
Owner Renter Total
Very Low Income 186 414 600
0-50% of median income)
Low income
50% - 60% of income)174 186 360
Total 360 600 960
Source: ' Southern California Association of Governments, 1988 Regional
Housing Needs Assessment for Southern California, December 1988.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
9
58
C. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Section 65583 of the Government Code states that a housing element
shall contain an analysis of special housing needs such as those of
the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families with
female heads of households, and families and persons in need of
emergency shelter.
The State Department of Housing and Community Development has
explained how special housing needs differ from other housing needs
in the following terms:
Special housing needs are those associated with relatively unusual
program responses, such as preservation of residential hotels or the
development of four-bedroom apartments."*
Limited statistical data is currently available related to special
housing needs in the City of Moorpark. Because the City was not
incorporated until 1983, the 1980 Census contains limited
information. Also, the population in Moorpark has almost tripled
since the 1980 Census.This section of the Housing Element will,
therefore, need to be updated when the 1990 Census information
becomes available.
1. Handicapped Households
Households with one or more members who have physical handicaps
sometimes require special design features in the housing they occupy.
Some, but certainly not all, handicapped households also have housing
assistance needs. The focus of handicapped households as a special
need segment is primarily on their number and economic situation.
One research study** has stated the following with regard to the
needs and problems of the disabled and handicapped population:
The major housing problems of disabled people are the lack of
affordable accommodations and inadequate accessibility to newly
built or existing housing. These basic problems are caused by a
variety of factors: a) subtle, or not so subtle,
discrimination; b) lack of understanding and sensitivity to the
needs of the disabled; c) lack of financial resources and
incentives available to those who want to make their buildings
accessible and; a) lack of knowledge as to how accessibility can
be improved.
State Department of Housing and Community Development, "Housing
Element Questions and Answers." (March 1984).
The Center for Independent Living Inc. , Berkeley and the Northern
Section, Cal Chapter of the American Planning Association, A Guidebook
on the General Plan and Disabled, June 1981.
10
59
General solutions include: a) public recognition and commitment to
correcting the problems; b) education of and dissemination of
information to the public and building owners; c) modifications to
existing codes and regulations; d) enforcement of existing laws and
regulation; and e) increased financial assistance for housing programs.
With respect to handicapped households, the 1980 Census contains data on
persons who have physical disabilities that are work and/or public
transportation related. According to the 1980 Census, there were 350
persons residing in Moorpark with physical conditions that imposed a
handicap to work and/or transportation mobility. This number translates
to a percentage figure of 4% of the City's population in 1980 (350 -
8,724 = 4%). Since 1980, the population of Moorpark has increased on
the order of 2.58; i.e. , more than doubled. An updated estimate of 997
handicapped persons would be derived by application of the 1980
handicapped population" percentage (4%) to the 1988 population
24,912) . However, using a straight figure percentage may overstate
current conditions and, for this reason, the mid-point figure between
350 and 997 was selected for estimating purposes. Thus it is estimated
that there are 647 persons with handicapped conditions as of 1989 in the
City of Moorpark.
2. Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with 1.01 or more persons per
room. In 1980, according to the Federal Census, there were 210
households living in overcrowded conditions in Moorpark. A household is
defined as any group of related or unrelated persons living together in
the same residence. The 1980 Census provided an estimate of 2,597
resident Moorpark households, thus, 8. 1% (210 4 2,597) of the City's
households experienced overcrowded living conditions in 1980. No tenure
information was provided in the 1980 census related to overcrowded
households in Moorpark . Based on City Code Enforcement records, the
majority of the overcrowding complaints received since 1987 were for
units that were being rented out.
This "overcrowding rate" is high if it were applied to the population
moving to Moorpark in the 1980s. Most of the new supply in the City is
detached, single family houses designed to accommodate the space and
other functional needs of expanding families. Consequently, the
magnitude of overcrowded households probably has increased marginally,
if at all, since the last Federal Census was completed. Therefore,_for
updating purposes, it is estimated that there are 250*
households residing in overcrowded conditions in Moorpark as of mid-year
1989.
11
60
3. Large Households -
There are a significant number of families with young children residing
in Moorpark. -The special housing need for large households of more than
four persons is for units with larger living space to avoid an
overcrowded situation. While most of the newer housing units in the
City-. are— single-family homes designed to accommodate the space
requirements of expanding families, the lower income households often
cannot afford the larger homes with sufficient rooms to minimize
overcrowding. When the 1990 Census data is available, the number of
households with more than four persons per unit should be quantified.
The State Department of Finance's May 1989 Population and Housing
Estimate identifies that Moorpark has an average of 3.394 persons per
household, which is higher than any other city in Ventura County.
4. Female Head of Households
Demographic, social and economic conditions have combined to generate a
demand for- independent living quarters by households headed by females.
Evidence from the .1980 Census -of Population seems to confirm the
consequences of this trend.
As noted - earlier, a household is defined as a group of related or
unrelated persons living together in the same residence. According to
the. 1980--Census,_there were 240 households reported to be headed by a
single, female householder which equaled 9% of all the City's households
eight years ago. As stated in the previous housing element, "The
dominance of married persons households will likely_ remain for the
immediate future because the high cost of single-family detached housing
is a limitation to single heads of households." As a result, the
current 1989 estimate of female head of households is 300±.
5. Senior Citizen Population
Many senior citizens have fixed incomes and experience financial
difficulty in coping with rising housing costs. The financial capacity
for coping with increased housing costs depends heavily on tenure; that
is, the owner of renter status of the elderly households. With
infrequent and small increases in income and potentially large gains in
housing costs,. the senior' renter is-.at"a"continuing affordability
compared to the senior owner. No specific tenure information is
currently available for the senior citizen population in Moorpark.
According to the 1980 Census, there were only 352 persons or 4% of the
entire City's population in the senior citizen population age group. At
that time, the City's population was predominantly clustered in two age
categories: under nine years of age and 25 to 34 years age. If seniors
now were the same proportion of the total population as in 1980, there
would be 900± resident senior persons. However, it is unlikely that
seniors are -this-high a percentage of the entire population because: 1)
no senior citizen housing has been constructed in the City since 1980;
2) most of Moorpark's population was in the
12
61
youth" age group which means that no many of the City's population
would have "aged" to the seniors group; and 31 new housing tracts built
during the past eight years have been designed primarily to meet the
space, yard and additional needs of younger, growing families. Thus, it
is estimated,- for purposes of this 1989 Housing Element, that there are
400 senior citizens residing in Moorpark.
The- -housing element- should • be updated to include more accurate
population data for senior citizens, including tenure information, when
the 1990 Census data isavailable. .
6. Farmworker Households
This is the sixth special needs category. Based on the 1980 Census and
the City's Housing. Assistance Plan there are estimated 102 farmworker
households within the City of Moorpark that have been identified as
needing housing assistance.
7. Homeless Population
The-increasing. number of homeless persons is an issue that has received
national attention in recent years. Due to the gravity of the problem,
the state housing • law now requires localities to included in their
housing program an identification of adequate sites to address the need
for- emergency. shelter and. transitional housing. This is to be
accomplished by January 1, 1988, or the next periodic review of the
housing element, whichever is later. The State Department of Housing
and Community Development will require the specified site
identification, based upon the locality's determination of need for
emergency shelter or transitional housing, or the housing program must
include an action to rezone the site(s) for these uses. within the
planning.period of_the- element..:
At present, the County of Ventura does not have the specific data on the
number of homeless people in the Moorpark area. The Southern California
Association of Governments is currently conducting a survey to gather
regional data on the homeless population. In 1988, the City of
Moorpark's code enforcement officer completed a survey of service
agencies in: prder to obtain data regarding the homeless population.
That survey identified that the Zoe Christian Center, located in Oxnard,
had no specific data relative to the City of Moorpark and the County
Sheriff's Department knew of no homeless person in Moorpark.
In 1988, Catholic Charities in Moorpark estimated that there were
approximately three homeless persons in the City. To meet this need,
Catholic Charities has a very active program to serve the needs of the
homeless. They provide Housing Authority vouchers for overnight
accommodations, rental assistance, revolving loan funds and FIMA funds
for lodging.
13
62
D. PROJECTED ROUSING NEEDS
1. Introduction
This section of the Housing Element discusses the various factors which
induce a demand for housing. The factors include a review of population
and employment trends as well as the City's "share of regional housing
need."
2. Population Trends
The City of Moorpark was incorporated six years ago, in July 1983. As a
result, the 1980 Census provides only general estimates of the resident
population and other demographic indicators. Moorpark's population has
increased from a little less than 9,000 to approximately 25,000 during
the past nine years, according to the 1980 Census and State Department
of Finance. In 1984, the State Department of Finance, the agency
responsible for official housing and population estimates, in
California, began annual reporting for Moorpark.Those annual
population estimates, which are summarized in Table 3, .reveal that the
population of Moorpark has almost doubled between 1984 and 1989.
Besides an absolute population increase, the City's relative share of
sub-regional population growth also has grown during the past five
years: The eastern Ventura County sub-region encompasses Moorpark, Simi
Valley and Thousand Oaks. Between 1984 and 1989, Moorpark's share of
the population included in these three cities increased to 10.9% from
6.3%. The complete details on sub-regional population growth are
contained in Table 4.
A population forecast for the entire Ventura County area has been
adopted by the Board of Supervisors with input from cities, the Local
Agency Formation Commission and special districts. Table 5 provides a
capsule summary of the population forecasts to the year 2010 for the
Moorpark "growth" and "non-growth" areas. The "growth" area is defined
as the area which is likely to become part of the City of Moorpark in
the future. In the 20 years between 1990 and 2010, the Moorpark "area"
is forecasted to support an additional population of 24,000. The full
details on the population forecasts are contained, as noted before, in
Table 5.
3. Employment Trends
According to the projections developed by the Southern Association of
Governments, the employment in Moorpark is expected to increase from
4,000 to 6,000 between 1984 and 2000. The City's percentage share of
all jobs in Ventura County is expected to decrease from 1.9% to 1.7%
during this time period, however. •Thus, employment growth is not
expected to be a strong inducement to housing demand.
14
63
TABLE 3
CITY OF MOORPARK: POPULATION TRENDS-- 1984-1989'
Pootklan Annual Increase
1984"11 58.1
1985 14034 2A51
1986 15.716 1,682
1987 17533 1,817
1988 22552 4,999
1989 24,912 2,360
Total Population Growth 13,309
The City of Moorpark was incorporated on July 1, 1983.
All dates refer to January 1st of each year.
Source: State of California, Department of Finance. Population Research Unit,Ventura
County Population Estimates,January 1, 1984 to January 1, 1989.
16
69
TABLE 4
CITY OF MOORPARK: SHARE OF SUB-REGIONAL
POPULATION GROWTH -- 1984 TO 1989
1984 Percentage
Moorpark 11,853 6.3%
Simi Valley 84,096 44.4%
Thousand Oaks 93377 49.3%
189,326 100.0%
15E9 Percentaae
Moorpark 24,912 10.9%
Simi Valley 99,770 43.6%
Thousand Oaks 101378 45.5%
229,060 100.0%
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Population Research Unit,
Ventura Population Estimates'January 1, 1984 to January 1, 1989.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates,
16
6S
TABLE 5
CITY OF MOORPARK: 1980-2010 POPULATION FORECAST
FOR THE GROWTH AND NON-GROWTH AREAS
Growth Area Non-Growth Area Total
Apr111980 8054 670 8,724
1985 14260 fA0 14,953
1993 23,120 75 23,770
1995 29590 780 30,370
210 35.740 810 36,550
2035 41b90 830 42520
2010 47080 860 47,940
Source: County of Ventura, 1980-2010 Population Forecast as approved by Board of
Supervisors. Except for 1980, all forecasts are January 1 forecasts. Growth
areas are generally larger than Incorporated areas for cities. Year 2005 and
2010 to be used for guideline purposes only.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates.
17
66
4. Share of Regional Housing Need
Article 10.6 Requirements:
Under Government Code Section 65584 (a), regional planning agencies are
responsible for determining projected housing needs, developed by
regional Councils of Government, for all income levels. The projected
housing needs must take into consideration the following factors:
Market demand for housing
Employment opportunities
Availability of suitable sites
Commuting patterns
Type and tenure of housing needs
Housing needs of farm workers
In addition, the distribution of housing need, pursuant to the state
housing element law, must seek to avoid further "impaction" of
jurisdictions with relatively high proportions of lower income
households.
State legislation describes the content requirements of local housing
elements. According to the State housing element legislation,". . .a
locality's share of the regional housing needs includes that share of
the housing needs of persons at all income levels within the area
significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan." (Government
Code Section 65584 (a)). In addition according to that same section,
Each locality's share shall be determined by the appropriate councils
of government consistent with the criteria' set forth by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development. In the case of
Moorpark, this appropriate council is SCAG.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Criteria
Definition of Need
Existing" and "future" need are identified by SCAG every five years as
required by the state housing law. "Existing Need" is defined as the
number of lower income households currently overpaying for housing; that
is, expending 30% or more of income on housing costs as of January 1,
1987. "Future Need" is defined as the number of additional housing units
by income level that will have to be added to each jurisdiction's
housing stock from July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1994 in order to:
Accommodate household growth
Compensate for demolitions and other inventory losses
Achieve 1994 vacancy rate that will allow the market to
Operate efficiently.
IS
67
Definitions of Income Levels
Four income levels are identified in state law that must be considered
in the Future Need calculations. These are:
Very Low" - - less than 50% of the Ventura County median income
Low' 50% - 80% of the median income
Moderate" 80% - 120% of the median income
Upper'more than 120% of the median income
According to SCAG:*
Identification of Future Need for the higher income levels gives each
jurisdiction an estimate of effective demand, or how much demand for
housing there will be in the locality as a function of market forces.
Future Need at the lower income levels is often largely latent demand,
since such income- levels, without subsidy or other assistance, are often
ineffective in causing housing to be supplied." (emphasis added)
Avoidance of Impaction
The State housing law requires that in SCAG's allocation of future
housing need by•income level further "impaction," or concentration of
lower income households, be avoided. Cities with a percentage of lower
income households higher than the regional average are called "impacted"
jurisdictions. The 1988 RHNA deals with the "avoidance of impaction"
criteria by allocating reduced percentages of lower income and increased
percentages of middle and upper income units to impacted jurisdictions,
while doing the reverse to non-impacted cities.
RHNA growth rates
From the household growth projections contained in Table 6. the
RHNA growth rates were constructed and these are shown on Table 7.
As can be easily observed, the growth rate applied to the City of
Moorpark (41. 1%) substantially exceeds all of the other growth
rates in Ventura County.
Additional research was completed to determine the actual growth
rates experienced in Ventura County during the five-year period of
1983-1989. The figures are shown in Table 8 and, as noted, the
highest growth rate was in the City of Simi Valley (26.1%).
Regional Housing Needs Assessment December 1988
19
68
TABLE 6
VENTURA COUNTY
RHNA HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
Total Households Household
Jan. 1989 July 1994 Growth
hrivSriinn Me TMA-4NB 7/89-7/94
Camarillo 17,727 20,696 2,598
Fillmore 3,382 3b91 259
Moorpark 7,339 10,992 2,743
Ojal 2.916 3,151 112
Oxnard 38570 42.477 3,341
Port Hueneme 6,810 7456 540
San Buenaventura 35,742 39,652 3.507
Santa Paula 7,748 8388 487
Simi Valley 29,845 34,581 4,132
Thousand Oaks 35264 40,957 5.0.38
Unincorporated 28511 31860 2,576
County Total:213,854 243,901 25,350
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 1988 Regional Housing
Needs Assessment and Revisions to the RHNA (19 December 1988).
20
69
TABLE 7
RHNA GROWTH RATES --VENTURA COUNTY-- 1-88 TO 7-94
Camarillo 19.5%
Fillmore 10.5%
Moorpark 41.1%
Ojai 3.9%
Oxnard 11.4%
Port Hueneme 10.3%
San Buenaventura 13.0%
Santa Paula 6.3%
Simi Valley 18.4%
Thousand Oaks 19.0%
Unincorporated 14.5%
County Total:16.5%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 1988 Regional Housing
Needs Assessment and revisions to RHNA (19 December 1988).
21
70
TABLE 8
GROWTH RATES -- 1983 TO 1988
Numerical Percentage
19E3 19E2 Irxrecrse Increase
Camarillo 15.035 17,727 2,722 18.1%
Fillmore 3.040 3,382 342 11.2%
Ojai 28055 2.916 111 3.9%
Oxnard 35,904 38570 2,666 7.4%
Pori Hueneme 6279 6.810 531 8.5%
San Buenaventura 32,327 35,742 3,415 10.5%
Santa Paula 7,128 7,748 623 8.7%
Siml Valley' 23,660 29.845 6,185 26.1%
Thousand Oaks 30,710 35264 4554 14.8%
Source: State Department of Finance.Housing Unit Estimates
22
7/
Share of Regional Housing Need:
Table 9, below gives the revised share of regional housing need as
identified by SCAG.
TABLE 9
CITY OP MOORPARK: REVISED SHARE OP
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED 1-88 TO 7-94
Income Group Number Percentage
Very Low 444 16.2%
Low 515 18.8%
Moderate 707 25.8%
High 1,077 39.2%
2,743 100.0%
Note:
Although the City. of Moorpark has a growth limitation ordinance, there
are exceptions for low and moderate housing. However, even with this
exception there is still the need to subsidize affordable housing units.
The need for subsidies has been noted by both SCAG and housing industry
officials currently and in the past.
As shown below, the housing unit potential under Measure F combined with
the dwelling units exempt and those approved with allotments exceeds
Moorpark's total regional housing needs as defined by the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (i.e. , 2,743 units).
Measure F 270/yr. x 6 yrs. (1989-94) 1,620
Units Finaled in 1968 649
Occupancy Approvals from 1-1-89 to 5-13-89 73
Under Construction plus approved with allotment 335
Exempt units 1650f
4,327±
The potential for providing the number of very low and low income units
identified in Table 9 is discussed further in the Inventory of Suitable
Sites discussion.
23
72
5. Energy Conservation in New Rousing
Under current law, the housing element must include the following:
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect
to residential development." (Government Code Section 65583 (a)
7)).
In relation to new residential development, and especially affordable
housing, construction of energy efficient buildings does add to the
original production costs of ownership and rental housing. Over time,
however, the housing with energy conservation features should result in
reduced occupancy costs as the consumption of fuel and electricity is
decreased. This means the monthly housing costs may be equal to or less
than what they otherwise would have been if no energy conservation
devices were incorporated in the new residential buildings. Reduced
energy consumption in new residential structures, then, is one way of
achieving more affordable housing costs when those costs are measured in
monthly carrying costs as contrasted to original sales price or
production costs. Generally speaking, utility costs are among the
highest components of ongoing carrying costs.
The City will continue to enforce the State's energy conservation
regulations on all new dwelling units. Special attention to energy
conservation opportunities also will be given to any large-scale
residential developments that may be proposed in the future.
24
f '
III,
RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
71
INTRODUCTION
This section of the housing element provides an inventory of resources
and constraints relevant to addressing Noorpark's housing needs. Under
present law, the element must include an inventory of resources and
constraints as follows:
An inventory of land suitable for residential development,
including vacant sites and sites having potential for
redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and
public facilities and services to these sites.
Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for
all income levels, including land use controls, building codes
and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local processing and
permit procedures.
Analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for
all income levels, including the availability of financing, the
price of land and cost of construction.
25
7s
A. INVENTORY OF SUITA LE SITES
The City's residential land use categories and the acreage
allocated to each category are described by the Land Use
Element. The City of Moorpark consists of substantial
undeveloped areas, although there is limited available land
suitable for development. asically, the majority of the remaining
undeveloped land is in hillside areas, is zoned for single-family
residential land use, and would be suitable only for providing more
expensive housing due to grading costs and the need to extend
utilities. As shown on Figure 2 (Potential Housing Sites), there are
currently only, six undeveloped sites, zoned for multi-family
development, that could reasonably be expected to be developed at a
density that would allow for the greatest amount of affordable
housing opportunity.
Figure 2 identifies undeveloped properties planned and zoned for
multi-family use as well as properties which have the potential to
accommodate multi-family development (i.e. , a General Plan amendment
and zone change would be required). The intent is to show that the
City has the capability to meet its share of regional housing need for
low and very low income units. Table 10 identifies that a total of
approximately 58 acres is currently zoned for multi-family
development, and Table 2 shows that there is a potential for
approximately 120 to 142 acres to be zoned for multi-family
development, if the General Plan Land Use Element is amended at some
later point in time. To encourage the provision of low and very low
income units, a policy has been added to this Housing Element which
states that the City will encourage the provision of affordable low-
and very low-income residential units by approving a density higher
than 10.1 dwelling units (du) to the acre only when affordable housing
is provided. No zone change application should he approved to allow a
density higher than 10.1 du per acre unless a planned development
permit and an affordable housing agreement are conditionally approved
by the City. Another policy which has been added to this housing
element is that properties should not be rezoned for multi-family
development unless they are located within the central core area of
the City to ensure that adequate services are available within
reasonable walking distance of a site.
Tables 10 and llshow the number of units which could be constructed if
the properties shown on Figure 2 are developed with very high density
residential land uses. Based on the current General Plan land use
designation for very high density, 10. 1 to 20 du's/acre are allowed,
with the average density given as 15 du/acre. Currently, the Land
Use Element states that all residential subdivisions will develop at
the average density of the designation.
26
76
Tables 10 and 11 also show the number of units which could be
constructed if the City allows a 25 percent density bonus based on 15
du/acre, the number of units allowed at the maximum 20 du/acre
density, and the number of units which could be constructed if a 25
percent density bonus is allowed based on 20 du/acre. Based on the
data contained in Table 10, there is a potential for the City to
obtain up to 606 affordable units with no change in the General Plan
Land Use Element. Based on the data contained in Table 11, there is a
potential for a maximum of 1,424 additional affordable units to be
constructed if the City revises the land use designation and zoning
for the sites shown on Figure as potential multi-family housing sites.
Potential multi-family housing sites numbered 3, 4, and 7,
currently have a commercial land use designation, and the
potential for amending the General. Plan to allow only high
density residential land uses is limited. Potential multi-family
housing sites numbered 2, 5, 10, 11, and 12 are currently under
consideration for a General Plan amendment, and the potential for very
high residential development should be considered as part of the
update process. All sites identified on Table 11 would require
consideration and study to determine whether or not an increased
density is compatible with the surrounding land uses and whether
significant environmental impacts would result from increasing the
allowed density of development.
27
77
TABLE 10
UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES ZONED FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
No. Units No. Units No. Units No. Units
at at 15 du/ac at at 20 du/ac
Site No. Acreage 15 du/ac 25%*20 du/ac** + 25%*
1 15. 14 ac 227 283 302 377
2 2. 18 ac 32 40 43 53
3 8.8 ac 132 165 176 220
4 29 ac 4 5 5 6
5 3.86 ac 57 71 77 96
6 27.5 ac 381*** 476 550 687
Totals: 57.77 ac 833 1,040 1,153 1,439
Unit numbers given are based on a 25% density bonus above the
maximum number of units allowed by the zone.
Unit numbers given would require the City to rezone identified
properties to allow a maximum density of 20 du/ac. The Very High
Density land use designation of the General Plan currently would allow
10.1-20 du/acre; however, under existing zoning, only a maximum of 15
du/acre can be constructed.
381 units have been approved under the Specific Plan for the
Mountain Meadows Community. Of this 381 units, 242 units would be
provided on 18 acres (which equals 13.4 du/ac); and 139 units would be
provided on 9.5 acres (which equals 14.6 du/ac).
2.3
73
TABLE 11
POTENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SITES
No. Units No. Units No. Units No. Units
at at 15 du/ac at at 20 du/ac
Site No. Acreage 15 du/ac 25%* 20 du/ac** + 25%*
1 2.0 ac 30 37 40 50
2 4.0 ac 60 75 80 100
3 5-7+ ac 75-105 93-131 100-140 125-175
4 20-30+ ac 300-450 375-562 400-600 500-750
5 35.4 ac 531 663 708 885
6 4.63 ac 69 86 92 115
7 7.59 ac 113 141 151 188
8 23 ac 3 3 4 5
9 1.2 ac 18 22 24 30
10 10-20+ ac 150-300 187-375 200-400 250-500
11 17.5 ac 262 327 350 437
12 13.0 ac 195 243 260 325
Totals: 120.05-142.05 ac 1,806-2,136 2,252-2,665 2,409-2,849 3,010-3,560
Unit numbers given are based on a 25% density bonus above the
maximum number of units allowed by the zone.
Unit numbers given would require the City to rezone identified
properties to allow a maximum density of 20 du/ac.The Very High
Density land use designation of the General Plan currently would allow
10.1-20 du/acre; however, under existing zoning, only a maximum of 15
du/acre can be constructed.
29
79
B. GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS ANALYSIS
Local housing elements, according to State law, must contain an
analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income
levels. The potential and actual constraints included in this
Element axe:
Land Use Controls
Building Codes and Enforcement
Site Improvements
Fees
Local Processing and Permit Procedures
State law does not presume that these act as constraints in all
jurisdictions. Rather, it calls for analysis of those regulatory
factors over which localities have extensive influence to determine
if any of them do in fact act as constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing. In addition to local
policies and regulations, State and Federal laws may create housing
constraints either directly or through requirements for compliance by
local governments.
1. Land Use Controls
Districts zoned for residential use are summarized in Chart 1.
Moorpark has nine zones that permit residential development. Uses
permitted include single_ family dwellings, farm labor housing, guest
houses, rest homes, boarding houses, multiple family dwellings and
mobile homes. The current zoning ordinance encourages the development
of a wide range of housing types. Development standards are not overly
restrictive. It is not anticipated that existing standards would
inhibit development.
30
SO
CHART 1
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Residential Uses Height of Main Minimum Lot Areas
7Ire Permtted aldhg Lot Per Dwelling Unit
Agrlcullural Farm Labor Housing Parking:
Exclusive 2-Car Garage
9x 20 Each Space
O-S One-Family Dwellings 25 Feet 10 Acres 10 Acre Min.
Open Space Farm Labor Housing Parking:
2-Car Garage
95(20' Each Space
R-A One-Family Dwellings 25 feet.may 1 Acre 1 Acre
Rural Agrl- Limited Farm Cottages, be Increased 43.560 Sq.Ft.) 43.560 Sq.Ft.)cultural Guest Houses to 35 ft.but Parking:
not more than 2-Car Garage
3 stories pro- 9'x20' Each Space
vlded each
dwelling has 2
side yards of
not less than 16
feet on each
side.
R-E One-Family Dwellings 25 feet.may 10AOO Sq.Ft. 10.000 Sq.Ft.Rural Exclu- limited Farm Cottage, be Increased Parking;sive Guest Houses to 35 tt.but not 2-Car Garage
more than 3 9x20' Each Space
stories provided
each dwelling
has 2 side yards
of not less than
16 feet on each
side.
R-O One-Family Dwellings 25 feet.may 30.N0 Sq.Ft. 10AN Sq.Ft.Single Family be increased Parking:Estate to 35 ft.butnor 2-Car Garage
more than 3 9'x20'Each Space
stories provided
each dwelling
has 2 side yards •
of not less than
15 feet on each
side.
31
2 )
Residential Uses Height of Main Minimum Lot Areas
Za"e Permitted Butt° Lot Per Dwelling Unit.
R-1 One-Family Dwellings 25 feet.may 7.000 Sq.Ft. 7,003 Sq.Ft.
One-Family be Increased Parking:
Residential to 35 feet but not 2-Car Garage
mare than 3 93:20' Each Space
stories provided
each dwelling
has 2 side yards
of not less than
15 feet on each
side.
R-2 One or Two Family 25 feet,may 7,000 Sq.Ft. 3500 Sq.Ft.
Two Famiry Dwellings be Increased Parking:
Residential to 35 feet butnot 2-Car Garage
more than 3 9'x20' Each Space
stories provided
each dwelling
has 2 side yards
of not less than
15 feet on each
side.
R-P-D - One,Two & 35 feet,may As specified As speckled in units
Residential Multi-Family Dwellings be Increased by permit, per acre by zoning.
Planned Boarding & Lodging provided that Example: R-P-D-
Development Houses setback from IOU permits 10 units
property line per acre. Base zon-
adjacent to Irg 30 dwelling units
perimeter street per acre.
Is increased by
8'for each l0 ft.
Is height above 25'.
T-P-D Trailer Parks 25 Feet 80.050 Sq.Ft. Residential uses are
Trailer Park Mobile Homes permitted only for
Development agricultural workers
employed on the pre-
mises when the land
Is farmed.
32
13,2
2. Building Codes
The City of Moorpark has adopted Uniform Building and Housing Codes.
These codes are model codes that regulate new construction and
maintenance of existing housing.
3. Site Improvements
The California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410
et. seq.) contains regulations and standards affecting residential
site improvements. The exaction of requirements over and above State
standards is allowed based on individual site conditions. For
example, local governments may institute the requirements for roadway
widening, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and construction
of drainage improvements as conditions to permit approval. There is
no single standard for - determining improvement conditions for
protecting public health an safety.
4. Fees
Moorpark's fee schedule is summarized on Chart 2. The fees charged
by Moorpark can be considered typical for this area.
Due to the limited availability of funding. Moorpark has found it
necessary to initiate development infrastructure fees in order to
meet the needs of the community. New development fees are listed
below:
Roads* School^= Fire Police Flood Water Sewer
Single Family Unit 1,200 $2,108.21 $120. 70 $83.58 $300 $360 $2,500
Multiple Unit(per unit) $1,200 1,204.69 75.44 4.16 -0- 360 1,000
Mobile Home(per unit) $1,200 602.34 73.55 55.54 -0- 360 1,000
Means
Roads for Tierra Rejada/Moorpark Road Area of Contribution (AOC) - $1,965
per .single., family unit and_ the Los Angeles Avenue AOC - $2,228 per single
family unit.
5. Processing and Permit Procedures
Processing time varies depending on whether the project conforms to the
development standards of the respective zone, and whether all required
materials have been submitted in a timely fashion. Another significant
factor relating to processing schedules is whether an environmental impact
report is required according to the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA).
33
S3
CHART 2
CITY OF MOORPARK LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING DEPOSIT SCHEDULE
PERMIT TYPE FEE DEPOSIT *
1. Planned Development
a. Mobilehome Park 1,440 (base) + $7.20 per
pad
b. Residential** 1,440 (base) + $7.20
2. Commercial Planned Development 1,584
3. Industrial Planned Development 1,728
4. Conditional Use & Open Space Use Permit
a: Residential and accessory
uses thereto 1,152
b. Agricultural and accessory
uses thereto 1,584
c._,__ _Commercial/Industrial/
Institutional uses 2,016
d. Oil Drilling and Production 2,736
e. Quarries and Mining** 4,320
f. Waste Disposal/Treatment* 4,320
5. Zone Change*** 1,800
Final cost of processing will be—computed upon actual time expended,
based upon the hourly rates established to cover all costs). If final
Cost is less than the deposit fee received, the- unused portion of the
deposit fee shall be refunded to the applicant. If final cost is more
than the deposit fee received, the balance shall be payable by the
applicant up to 75% of original deposit. If the cost of processing is
expected to be more than the original deposit, plus 75% of said
deposit, the City Council may approve the collection of an additional
deposit as they deem appropriate.
If a Residential Planned Development application is filed concurrently with
a Tentative Tract Map, the deposit fee for the Residential Planned
Development permit shall be reduced by 50%.
On any Zone Change application filed concurrently with a Tentative Tract
Map and/or Residential Planned Development permit, the deposit fee for the
zone change shall be reduced by 50%.
34
8H
CITY OF MOORPARK LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING DEPOSIT SCHEDULE
PERMIT TYPE FEE DEPOSIT *
6. Tentative Subdivision Maps
a. Tentative Tract Map 2,592 (base) + $50.40
per lot or unit.
b. Tentative Parcel Map,
Parcel Map Waiver or
Conditional Certificate of
Compliance. 2,016 (base) + $72.00
per lot or unit.
c. Time extension of approved
tentative tract map. 50% of current deposit fee •
d. Time extension of approved
tentative parcel map. 50% of current deposit fee
e. Parcel map reversion to acreage. 432.00 (non-refundable)
f. Lot line adjustments. 360.00 (non-refundable)
7. Variance 1,224
8. Major Modification Bo% of current fee deposit
9. Minor Modification 20% of current fee
deposit or $288.00
whichever is greater
10. Administrative Clearance 288.00 (non-refundable)
11. Zone Clearance 28.80 + $2.88 per
additional lot/unit
non-refundable)
12. Appeals 25% of current deposit
fee or $432.00 whichever
is greater
13. Revocation 50% of current deposit fee
non-refundable)
14. Violation Penalty**** 100% of current deposit
fee, not to exceed $720
non-refundable)
AAA In addition to permit deposit fee.
35
Rev.7/l0/89
SS
CITY OF MOORPARK LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING DEPOSIT SCHEDULE
PERMIT TYPE FEE DEPOSIT *
15. Environmental Impact Reports
a. Environmental Impact Report' 2,880
b. Environmental Impact Report
Supplement** 1,440
c. Special Consultants Total prepayment of
consultant's estimated
cost, or acceptable bond.
non-refundable)
16. Land Conservation Act Contract -
Agricultural Preserves
a. ' Applications 1, 152
b. Cancellation 1, 152
c. Portion Non-Renewal 1,152
17. Sign Permit 28.80 (non-refundable)
18. Landscape Plan Review &
Inspection'^ *`* 400.00
19. General Plan Amendments 1,440 (base) + $7.20 per
acre
20. Planned Community*****1,440(base) + $14.40 per
acre
21. Xerox Copies 8i" x 11" and 8i" x 14" 0.50 for 1st page +
26 cents per each
additional page
11" x 17" 1.00 for 1st page +
75 cents per each
additional page up to
nine pages + .50 cents
per each additional page
thereafter
22. Zoning Maps Actual Cost
ea. Final cost of processing will be computed upon actual time expended (based
upon the hourly rates established to cover all costs). If final cost is less
than the deposit fee received, the unused portion of the deposit fee shall be
refunded to the applicant. If final costs is more than the deposit fee
received, the balance shall be payable by the applicant.
Se,
Pan l/ta/AO
S6
Most discretionary actions involve an approval process that takes
approximately four (4) to (6) months. All projects must go through a
planned development review which involves the following steps:
1. File application form
2. Determine completeness of application (30 days)
3. Comment and review by public agencies (3-4 weeks)
4. Environmental determination (3-4 weeks)
5. Schedule for Planning Commission (3 months)
6. Approval by City Council (2-4 weeks)
Steps 2 and 3 are combined. Some staff time could be saved by establishing a
set of standard conditions for residential projects.
6. Measure F
This section provides an assessment of the potential constraints, if any,
posed by Measure F on the production of housing in Moorpark and the City's
capacity to satisfy its "share of regional housing needs" as projected by
the Southern California Association of Governments. Following a brief
explanation of Measure F. The discussion focuses on a comparison of the
Moorpark growth management program to other similar ordinances in Ventura
County; comparison of "market demand" for housing in Moorpark to the Measure
F quota; current and future approved residential development in Moorpark
compared to all other cities in Ventura County; and, finally, long-range
housing growth trends in the City's planning area.
Explanation of Measure F:
Measure F, Initiative Ordinance Measure F 1986, established a Residential
Development Management System for the City of Moorpark (minor amendments
to Measure F were adopted in 1988). Section 10.04 of Measure F
established "Annual Residential Development Allotments" which referred to
the number of housing units to be constructed each year in the City
except for exempt dwelling units) in accordance with the following
schedule:
Calendar year 1986 - a maximum of 400 dwelling units
Calendar year 1987 through December 31, 1988 - 250 dwelling units
Calendar year 1989 through December 1994 - 270 dwelling units
31
7
There are exemptions from the above-mentioned development ceilings,
including "dwelling units of any low income of senior citizen projects
funded or subsidized pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal, state
or local laws or programs."
The provisions of Measure F are implemented through the procedures adopted
by the City Council in Resolution No. 88-522. That Resolution enacts a
development allotment procedure based in part on the assignment of point
ratings for several criteria. One criterion is the inclusion of affordable
housing in the residential development. Five (5) points are awarded to a
25% density bonus project providing housing for median income households and
three (3) points are awarded for a 25% density bonus project providing
moderate income housing.
4 Growth Management in Ventura County:
Eight of ten cities in Ventura County have implemented residential growth
management programs which limit the number of new housing units that can
be constructed on an annual basis. The only two cities without such
programs are: Port Hueneme, which has limited growth potential, and
Oxnard, which has a potential for an additional 8,000 to 16,000 housing
units. Given these circumstances, it can be assumed that no single City
in Ventura County wants to accept more than its "fair share" of new
housing development. To partially assess the "reasonableness" of the
Moorpark housing development. To partially assess the "reasonableness" of
the Moorpark Measure F, a comparison was made to other cities in Ventura
County and their results are shown on the following page in Table 12.
As indicated by the table, one way to compare the various growth
management programs is in relative terms: the number of new housing units
allowed as a percentage of the existing inventory. Clearly, the City of
Moorpark, which is a compact community, permits the highest percentage of
new units in Ventura County. Even Oxnard, which has an inventory of
almost 40,000 housing units, has added only 1% to the stock during the
decade of the 80s. Thus, given the growth management strategy throughout
Ventura County, the Moorpark program is reasonable when the production
targets are measured in relative terms.
38
88
TABLE 12
VENTURA COUNTY: GROWTH MANAGEMENT LIMITS
BY CITY-- 1988
Annual Number of of DUs Allowed
Olv till Housing Units- 1989' to Housing Stock
Moorpark 270 7339 3.67%
Camarillo 40 17,727 2.26%
Ventura 650 35,742 1.81%
Fillmore 61 3382 1.80%
Simi Valley 500 29,845 1.67%
Santa Paula 124 7,748 1.60%
Thousand Oaks 507 35264 1.41%
Ojai 16 2916 0.54%
Source: Interviews with City staffs; review of local ordinances and policies. 1989
housing units per State Department of Finance annual estimates.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Housing Demand Absorption;
Another way to assess whether Measure F is as a significant constraint to meeting
housing production needs is to compare annual limits to local and sub-regional
absorption levels In Ventura County. The term 'absorption levels" refers to 'average
weekly sales rates' and measures how fast new housing products in the County are
absorbed or purchased. The absorption rates, then, are measured in sales per week,
not on an annual basis.
Information on housing demand absorption Is available for Camarillo, Moorpark,
Oxnard, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks and Ventura. The data are presented In detail in
Table 13.
39
g9
TABLE 13
HOUSING DEMAND ABSORPTION IN VENTURA COUNTY
FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING
1987
Number of Average Weekly Total Weekly
Plea Roiecls Project Sales Rote Sales Rate
Thousand Oaks 4 1.22 4.88
Moorpark 3 1.68 5.04
Simi Valley 3 1.97 5.91
Camarillo 1 1.43 1.43
Oxnard 1 2.35 2.35
Ventura 1 107 1.00
Total: 13 20.61
Average Project Sales Rate:1.585
1984
Number of Average Weekly Total Weekly
Area Projects Project Sales Rote Sales Rate
Thousand Oaks 5 1.02 5.1
Moorpark 2 3.15 6.3
Simi Valley 2 1.85 3.7
Camarillo 2 337 6.60
Total: 11 21.7
Average Project Sales Rate:1.973
Source: First American Title Insurance Company, Residential Sales Survey -- Ventura
County,September 1987 and August 1988.
Table construction and computations by Castaneda & Associates.
HO
90
For the 13 residential projects located in Ventura County, in 1988, the total average
weekly sales rate was 21.7 housing units. Thus, over a period of 52 weeks, or one year, a
total sales volume of 1,128 dwellings could be projected (i.e.,52 x 21.7= 1.128). The total
sales volume for Moorpark, (calculated on the basis of two projects) was 327.6 housing
units during 1988. For the expressed housing demand to reach 500 housing units, a per
project sales rate of 4.81 dwellings would need to be reached (for 2 projects), a figure
which was not attained throughout the market area. Alternatively,the rate could remain
the same and number of projects doubled to reach a total of 500.
Further examination of Table 13 shows that none of the cities included in the market area
had a sales rate of more than 350 housing units per year. The absorption levels in
Moorpark for single-family housing In 1987 and 1988 closely approximate the annual
growth target established by Measure F. This comparison does not account for
condominiums and planned unit developments.' In the decade of the 80's these
projects have not experienced good market success in Moorpark with one project
having an average weekly sales rate of.5 which translates to 26 sales per year.
Housina Develonment Trends;
A third method of evaluating Measure F Is in terms of the City's contribution to county
and sub-regional development trends, particularly in terms of approved housing In
current and future projects. Two market and development trend reports were consulted
for purposes of this analysis: 1) Ventura County Market Bulletin prepared by the
Continental Land Title Company and encompassing development trends through the
first quarter of 1988 and 2) a residential sales survey completed in September 1987 and
August 1988 by First American Title Insurance Company.
According to the April 1988 edition for the 'Residential Market Summary, published In
the Market Bulletin,the sales inventory Is comprised of three parts:
Pre-Selling: Units offered for sale prior to construction. i.e., prior to
pouring of a slab foundation.
Under Construction: Units in all phases of construction ,from the
pouring of a foundation to 30 days prior to final examination.
Completed: Units that are within 30 days of receiving the final
approval Inspection.
if
ql
The county-wide completed unsold Inventory was 16 units as of April 1988. All homes
offered for sale prior to construction were sold. Consequently, there was no inventory
overhang of pre-construction units. This is a decrease from the previous quarters
inventory of seven pre-construction homes,offered for sale prior to construction, but not
sold. The under construction inventory accounts for 93% or 215 homes of the total
available inventory. Thus, the inventory of units offered for sate, but sold, continued to
decrease during the first quarter of 1988,declining from 317 to only 231. This is a decrease
of 27% and an all time numerical low for the past decade in Ventura County. The data
are summarized in Table 14.
TABLE 14
INVENTORY SUMMARY: VENTURA COUNTY--APRIL 1988
A>ecr Completed Under Construction Pre-Construction Total,
Thousand Oaks 11 32 0 43
Moorpark 0 46 0 45
Simi Valley 1 26 0 27
Camarillo 4 0 0 4
Oxnard 0 25 0 25
Ventura 0 0 0 0
16 129 0 145
Source: Continental Land Title Company.Market Bulletin--April 1988.page 5.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates.
42
92
As noted earlier,the readily available housing inventory in Ventura County is 145 housing
units. The 46 housing units under construction in Moorpark represent 31.7% of the total
inventory that is available for purchase, which Includes attached and detached units.
Given the City's size,the Moorpark area contributes a rather large share of the available
inventory in Ventura County.
Another study, conducted by First American Title Insurance Company, focuses on the
future available housing supply in already approved projects, represented primarily by
the proposed total units less the total units sold in these developments. The data are
summarized below in Table 15 by type of project, single-family detached and
attached, and by city. As of August 1988,there were an estimated 3,396 housing units in
detached and attached projects in Ventura County: Moorpark's share of this future
available inventory is 843 housing units or 24.8%.
The magnitude of future available supply is important Information for purposes of
Interpreting the short-term impacts of the growth management programs in Ventura
County. First, the available inventory is housing for future absorption. Based on a
county-wide absorption rate of 21.7 sales per week,the single-family detached housing
will be absorbed over a 2-1/2 year period (I.e.,2,860 housing units+21.7 sales per week=
131.8 weeks+52 weeks/year=2.53 years).
43
93
TABLE 15
VENTURA COUNTY: HOUSING UNITS REMAINING
IN APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
SEPTEMBER 1987
Area Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Total
Camarillo 289 (4)0 289 (4)
Fillmore 0 1 (1) 1 (1)
Moorpark 1.015 (9) 140 (1) 1,155 (10)
Oxnard 120 (2) 573 (2) 693 (4)
Port Hueneme 0 40 (2) 43 (2)
Santa Paula 0 12 (1) 12 (1)
Simi Valley 269 (5) 63 (3) 332 (8)
Thousand Oaks 396 (6) 183 (1) 579 (7)
Ventura 543 (3) 1C8 (1) 651 (4)
2,632 (29) 1,120 (12) 3,752 (41)
AUGUST 1988
Area Single Family Detached Single FamilyAttached Total
Camarillo 389 (6) 10 (1) 399 (7)
Moorpark 816 (3) 27 (1) 843 (4)
Oxnard 6C2 (5) 217 (2) 819 (7)
Simi Valley 415 (5) 48 (1) 463 (6)
Thousand Oaks 278 (3)0 278 (3)
Ventura 240 (1) 234 (2) 474 (3)
Ojai 123 (1)0 12J (1)
2,860 (24) 536 (7) 3,396 (31)
Source: First American Title Insurance Company. Residential Sales Survey -- Ventura
County,September 1987 and August 1988.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
represent number of projects.
44
9y
The single-family attached Inventory will be absorbed over about a 13-month period
given an available future inventory of 1,120 housing units and a countywide absorption
rate of 19.5 sales per week.
In August 1988, the future inventory for Moorpark Included 843 housing units -- 816
detached and 27 attached. The detached Inventory will be absorbed over almost a
three-year period given an average citywide weekly sales rate of 5.7 units. (i.e., 816+5.7
143.16+2.75). The attached housing will be absorbed In a one-year period given the
1987 and 1988 trends which Indicate an average weekly sales rate of 5.7 units. There is a
substantial inventory of future sales housing already approved for development In the
years ahead. The future available inventory is sufficient to meet expressed housing
demand in Moorpark for an estimated three years(±).
4— Long-Range Housing Potential:
Population forecasts and average household sizes to the year 2000 have been
established for Ventura County and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The
geographic areas covered by the forecasts are community "growth° and °non-
growth° areas. The boundaries of the areas approximate those of the corresponding
incorporated jurisdictions.
Application of the population and average household size forecasts yields a
computation of the potential Increase in the housing supply by area. As indicated by
Table 16,the.official population forecasts for Moorpark"growth area reveal a potential
increase in the housing supply between 1985 and 2000 of 8,083 housing units. Because
the population forecasts are built on the framework of community general plans, the
figures for Moorpark do not represent a realistic growth potential in the long-range. The
contents of Measure F do not effect this long-range growth potential; rather it extends
the time for its eventual recitation.
Summary:
Measure F has been reviewed in the text above in the following ways: 1) relative
comparison to the other growth management programs in Ventura County; 2) housing
units allowed in comparison to housing demand; 3) short term future housing availability
In the County; and 4) long-range housing growth potential in the Moorpark area. The
415
95
City's annual limit is reasonable when the level of effort is measured in relative terms and
compared to other cities in Ventura County. Expressed housing demand, measured in
average weekly sales, approximates closely the annual limits set forth by Measure F.
The city already has approved developments which project the future construction of
843 housing units,which, given the area's absorption rate, is a supply sufficient to satisfy
expressed demand over a two to three year period. Finally, Measure F does not affect
the long-range growth potential of the City but merely extends the years over which it will
be reached.
TABLE 16
CIN OF MOORPARK: POSSIBLE INCREASE IN
HOUSING SUPPLY BASED ON COUNTY OF VENTURA
POPULATION FORECASTS -- 1985-2000
Growth Area Non-Growth Area Total
1985 Population 14260 so 14,950
Average Household Size 3.27 2.57
Occupied Housing Units 4361 268 4629
Total Housing Units 4A50 273 4,723
2000 Population 35,740 810 36,590
Average Household Size 2.91 2.38
Occupied Housing Units 12282 310 12622
Total Housing Units 12533 347 12,880
Increase in Housing Supply
1985 1o4.W 8083 74 8,157
Source: County of Ventura, 1980- 2010 Population Forecast,as approved by Board of
Supervisors. County of Ventura, Population Per Dwelling Unit Ratio
Projections, April 1980 - 2010. (These ratios were used as the average
household size).
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates.
46
96
G MARKET CONSTRAINTS
1.Introduction
This analysis Includes a review of market conditions that impede households from
securing housing within their economic means. The factors under review and analysis
include:
Housing prices
Cost of land and construction
Financing availability
2.Housing Prices
The cost of rental and sales housing Is dramatic throughout the country, particularly in
the sunbelt region of which southern California is a major part. During the first quarter of
1988 the Market Bulletin reported the following:
Prices continued to increase during the first quarter because many
projects opened new phases which reflected both pass throughs of cost
Increases and builder responses to intense local demand for new
homes, particularly for luxury single family detached products. Due to a
high demand for new housing In Ventura County, prices are expected to
continue to rise."
a) Ventura County Trends
Listed below are several sales price indicators for Ventura County based on information
supplied by Market Bulletin In April 1988,including current and past prices._
Average: 1st Average: 1st Median: 1st
Ha rdnaTvice 6kipter1985 Quufer1988 Quarter 1988
Attached 100A00 169250 156,950
Detached 168,5111 297A82 295E00
All S146AJ0 248.171 233C00
117
97
Another sales survey, completed in August 1988 by First American Title Insurance
Company, reported the following information for attached and detached housing units
in the Ventura County area and for Agoura, located just east of the City of Thousand
Oaks, in Los Angeles County.
SF-Detached SF-Attached
of Projects 12 4
Total Units Sold 1,868 323
Average Sales Price S380.045 222494
Median Sales Price S395,900 S179,990
Although each survey reports different cost figures, they reveal that new sales,
ownership housing Is not within the reach of lower Income households and most
moderate Income households. Housing price trends indicate that the cost of new
attached sales housing, on a countywide basis, has Increased by 69% and for
detached sales housing by 77% in only the past three years.
b) Moorpark Trends
Housing prices In Moorpark are less than elsewhere In Ventura County. For the most
part, the cost of new single-family detached housing in Moorpark is less than In the
County as a whole. Table 17 reports on the basic price ranges of both detached and
attached units sold when a survey was taken in August 1988. Once again,these costs
are generally below the average or median price of new housing available in other
cities in Ventura County. Consequently In Moorpark housing prices of new homes are a
less severe constraint, and some housing may even be affordable by moderate
Income households.
4S
98
TABLE 17
CITY OF MOORPARK: SALES PRICE DISTRIBUTION
OF HOUSING IN THE NEW HOME MARKET-- 1988
Single-Family Detached
Prefect Basic Price Ranae ProposedTotal Unils Total Sold
Buttercreek Estates S295Jb0-S460.IX0 283 257
urban West)
Northvlew 190.000-5270.000 313 296
Pardee)
Campus Hills Classic $167,990-5199,990 486 169
Griffin)
Griffin Campus Hills S220.0N-$292,000 484 171
Single-Family Attached
Tract 4095
Ranch View Partners)S150,000 27 0
Source: First American Title Insurance Company. Residential Sales Survey -- Ventura
County,September 1987
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates.
H9
99
3.Cost of Land and Construction
Three market constraints are mentioned in the State law: cost of land, cost of
construction and availability of financing. Land and construction costs are uniquely tied
to housing product types and often are best interpreted in terms of the concept "value
ratio" which indicates the cost per square foot of living space. Data are summarized
below on several Indicators for three single-family projects In Moorpark as of August
1988.
Basic Minimum House Size Value
PriceRanee Lot Sae Saone Feet) Ratio
Project 1 52951]00-54600 ) 6.500sq.ft. 2.665-3,654 S110.69-S125.89
Project 2 190,000-$270.0:0 7,000 sq.ft. 1A62-2A16 S129.96-8111.75
Project 3 167,990-S199,990 5,033 sq.ff. 1,326-2,900 $126.69-568.96
Based on this information, it appears that homes with square footages of 1,500 and
suitably appropriate lot sizes In 1988 cost approximately $190,000. Assuming a down
payment of about 20%,an annual income of$75,000±is necessary to afford a home with
a price of S 190,000.
4.Financina Availability
The financing of residential real estate has experienced wide fluctuations in terms of
interest costs,terms, and treatment by Federal income tax laws during the past 10 to 15
years. In comparison to past years,the cost of financing the purchase of homes Is fairly
reasonable.
Concurrently with the fluctuations in interest costs and impacts of tax reform legislation,a
wide variety of financing packages have become available. In September 1987, a
survey was completed by First American Title Insurance Company of the type of
financing offered In 28 residential developments in the Agoura area and Ventura
County. Of these 28 projects,24 only offered conventional financing; the remaining four
projects had the following financing packages:
Conventional, FHA and VA
Conventional, FHA,VA and Bond(2)
FHA and VA
Three of the four projects in Moorpark offered conventional financing; one had a
conventional,FHA,VA and Bond financing program.
50
lop
In August 1988, a survey completed by First American Title Insurance Company identifies
that for 16 residential developments in the Agoura and Ventura County area, all offered
conventional financing only.
51
0
cOa_WWCaVDaa_
I o2
A. INTRODUCTION
Section 65583 of the California Government Code requires a housing
element to consist of a statement of goals, policies, quantified
objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement,
and development of housing. Section 65583 also requires a program
which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government
is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and
achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element. Section
65588(a)(3) requires an evaluation of the progress of the City in
implementation of the previously adopted housing element. The
following discussion is intended to satisfy the requirements of
Section 65563 and 65588(a)(3) of the Government Code.
R. 1986 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND STATUS
The 1986 Housing Element included 23 action programs organized under
goal statements according to their relationship to housing
production, improvement and maintenance.Chart 3 consists -of a
progress report for the 1986 Housing Element action programs. For
purposes of this progress report, the 1986 programs have been placed
into one of five categories which more closely correspond to existing
state housing law, as follows:
Housing Improvement
Housing Production
Housing Assistance
Removal of Governmental Constraints
Promotion of Equal Housing Opportunity
The progress report indicates the current status of each action
program in the following terms:
On-going -- has become a regular aspect of the City's planning,
development and management program.
Continued -- action programs which have been partially
fulfilled, meet current unmet needs and will be retained for
implementation.
Completion -- action programs which have been completed within
the past two years and, therefore, do not need to be included in
the future Five-Year Housing Program.
Deleted -- action programs which are unnecessary or unworkable
and have not been included in the future five-year Housing
Program.
SZ
103
CHART 3
PROGRESS REPORT: CITY OF MOORPARK HOUSING PROGRAM
Program Action Program Current
C`ipariv Desatinn Status
Housing Improvement 1. Provide informational brochure to On-Going
residents regarding home
improvement programs by the
City. Increase community
awareness of self-help and
rehabilitation programs through
outreach. Encourage community
pride through neighborhood
associations.
2. Explore and employ all feasible On-Going
rehabilitation financing alter-
natives, including rehabilitation of
substandard rental units through
programs such as those offered
by California Housing Finance
Agency; programs to assist
rehabilitation of owner-occupied
housing: and the use of code
enforcement where appropriate.
3. Continued code enforcement by On-Going
appropriate City departments.
Housing Production
4. Analyze employment trends in On-Going
conjunction with county and
regional efforts.
5. Review General Plan Land Use Continued
Element and Zoning Map annually
to Identify any Inconsistencies in
the two documents. Review land
use and zoning designations with
the purpose of increasing
densities in areas where
appropriate.
6. Explore the feasibility of land On-Going
banking sufficient parcels to offer
an attractive package to resi-
dential developers, with nego-
tiated reimbursement to the City
upon completion.
53
loy
Program Action Program Current
rdwny Des sbenn Status
7. Study the feasibility and potential On-Going
of mixed residential/commercial
development in the downtown
area, specifically reviewing desig-
nated zoning and available sites
for housing development. When
sufficient, re-zone sites or areas to
encourage greater production of
housing to meet expressed hous-
ing needs.
8. Encourage In-fill housing in a Continued
variety of types and locations
through Identification of vacant
and/or underutilized parcels and •
promote development of such
parcels.
9. Review residential areas requiring On-Going
capital improvements. They
should be scheduled for funding
allocation at earliest date to
encourage private sector residen-
tial development.
10. Evaluate housing units under On-Going
consideration for demolition, to
determine rehabilitation potential
and avoid unnecessary reduct-
ions to the housing stock.
11. Develop housing replacement On-Going
plan to replace units removed
from housing stock through demo-
lition on a one-to-one basis, and
minimize the period during which
any lot may remain vacant,
whenever feasible.
Housing Assistance 12. Establish limitations on number of On-Going
condominium conversions, in
order to minimize losses to the
rental market.
13. Offer density bonuses to dev- On-Going
elopers proposing construction of
purchase and rental housing for
low and moderate income house-
holds, consistent with applicable
state law.
5'i
I og
Program Action Program Current
Cctemv Desaiirn Status
14. Explore manufactured housing to On-Going
cut production costs.
15. Continue to use all federal and On-Going
state funding sources for rental
subsidy, such as Section 8 Existing
Program, which currently provides
86 units of affordable rental
housing to Moorpark families.
Actively pursue other funding
sources or other rental programs.
16. Explore possibility of adopting Continued
redevelopment agency and
specific project areas which max-
im¢e use of Increment funding for
low and moderate income
housing production.
17. Study bonding authority legislation Discontinued
and consider merits for the dev-
elopment of rental and ownership
housing.
18. Use state and federal assistance On-Going
to develop affordable housing for
lower-income families.
Removal of Governmental
Constraints 19. Investigate a 'fast track' permit Continued
processing system for application
to developments which Include
housing affordable to low and
moderate income households.
20. Analyze relationship of available On-Going
public facilities and services to
sites suitable for residential dev-
elopment. Designate develop-
ment sites, in which affordable
housing is located, as priority
areas to receive capital improve-
ments.
21. Review site development stand-On-Going
ards, and critically evaluate
design and development criteria
which could add substantially to
the cost of basic shelter.
55
106
Program Action Program Current
Coleas' Desacfun Status
Promotion of Equal Housing
Opportunities 22. Promote equal opportunity in hou- On-Going
sing by avoiding economic
segregation, and discrimination
based upon age, sex, race,
ethnic background and other
arbitrary factors.
23. Review housing counseling pro- On-Going
grams such as those offered by
the Commission of Human Con-
cerns, and direct residents to
appropriate agency.
56 •
V.
HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM
108
A'. FUTURE FIVE-YEAR HOUSING PROGRAM
The purpose of this Five-Year Housing Program discussion is to
describe those actions and programs which the City of Moorpark will
undertake to continue the maintenance, improvement and development of
housing for all residents of the City. The described programs are to
serve as a guide to proposed implementation of the City's primary
goal of meeting identified housing needs.The following program
information also reflects the City of Moorpark's good faith and
diligent effort to provide housing pursuant to Government Code
Section 65583(c). The programs included in this element focus upon
housing improvement and maintenance, housing production, housing
assistance, removal of governmental ' constraints, and promotion of
equal housing opportunities.
Planning to achieve the type of community that the citizens of
Moorpark desire requires the careful use of technical planning
concepts. These concepts are described by terms that are in common
use and have multiple meanings. Definitions and examples of these
terms as they are used in this section of the Housing Element are
stated below:
Goal: A goal is a broad statement identifying a major
aspiration of a city. It describes a result in a way that is
general and 'unmeasurable. An example would be -- "to provide
for efficient and effective vehicular circulation in the City."
Policy: A policy is a specific statement committing the City to
a clear course of action. An example would be -- "The City will
require dedication and improvement of arterial highways in
conjunction with discretionary approvals."
Objective: An objective is a specific end, condition or state
that is an intermediate step toward attaining a goal. It should
be achievable and, when possible, measurable and time-specific.
An example would be -- "200 units by 1989."
1. Overall Community Goals
Adequate provision of decent, safe housing for all Moorpark
residents without regard to race, age, sex, marital status,
ethnic background or other arbitrary considerations.
Adequate provision of housing allowing maximum choice by type,
tenure and location with particular attention to the provision
of housing for the elderly, low and moderate income families,
handicapped and other households identified as having special
housing needs.
57
IOq
Encourage growth within the City through the identification of
suitable parcels for residential development, changes in land
use patterns and conscientious recycling of property to the
highest and best use.
Developing a balanced residential community which is accessible
to employment, transportation, shopping, medical services,
governmental agencies and any other services needed for a
well-founded community.
2. Mousing Improvement and Maintenance Goals, Policies and Objectives
Goal #1:
Assure the quality, safety, and habitability of housing within the
City of Moorpark, and assure the continued high quality and integrity
of residential neighborhoods.
Goal #2:
Meet the needs of current residents of the City of Moorpark by
upgrading affordable, low and moderate income units through
improvement of existing housing units and promoting greater housing
affordability.
Policies:
Continued monitoring and enforcement of code standards in
residential neighborhoods.
Continued provision of City services designed to maintain the
quality of the housing stock and the neighborhoods.
Continued programs to prevent housing deterioration and
replacement of housing stock beyond repair.
Rigorous enforcement of zoning, building, and property
maintenance ordinances.
Develop and implement a proactive property maintenance program
that will identify areas within the City for code compliance.
Develop and implement programs and ordinances that will require
owners of substandard housing to provide rental assistance and
relocation assistance to tenants displaced as a result of City
code enforcement programs.
o8
Ilo
Objectives and Scheduled Programs:
1. Program: Provide informational brochures to residents regarding
home improvement programs by the city. Increase community .
awareness of self-help and rehabilitation programs through
outreach. Encourage community pride through neighborhood
associations.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: CDBG funds and Redevelopment funds.
Objective: Under CDBG funded residential rehabilitation
program, assist 17 low-income owner households and 6 low-income
renter households; under redevelopment funded rehabilitation
program, provide rebates to 10 owner households and 5 renter
households for minor home repairs.
Implementation: Ongoing. Housing rehabilitation involves
structural improvements to the existing housing stock by
providing loans to low and moderate income people. The City has
allocated $25,000 of the 1989/90 CDBG funds for a housing
rehabilitation program and has designated use of $75,000 from
the 1988/89 grant for housing rehabilitation. (This $75,000 is
available because the City had deferred implementation of
1988/89 CDBG projects. )In June 1989, the City adopted a
Redevelopment Plan which proposes $25,000,000 for housing
programs over the next 45 years. The Redevelopment Plan for the
Moorpark Redevelopment Project (Figure 1) identifies that
approximately 240 residential structures need rehabilitation. Only a
small amount of money is expected to be available over the next five
years.
2. Program: Explore and employ all feasible rehabilitation
financing alternatives, including rehabilitation of substandard
rental units through redevelopment and programs such as those
offered by California Housing Finance Agency, Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs, and the use of code
enforcement where appropriate.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department
and City Manager's Office.
Funding: City general funds, CDBG funds, and Redevelopment
funds.
59
III
Objective: Under CDBG funded residential rehabilitation program,
assist 17 low-income owner households and 6 low-income renter
households; under redevelopment funded rehabilitation program,
provide rebates to 10 owner households and 5 renter households
for minor home repairs.
Implementation: On-going. City has allocated CDBG funds for a
housing rehabilitation program (refer to Program No. 1). City
City has adopted a Redevelopment Plan which identifies that
approximately 240 residential structures need rehabilitation.
3. Program: Continue to use all federal and state funding sources
for rental subsidy, such as Section 8 Existing Program, which
provides affordable rental housing. Actively pursue other
funding sources or other rental programs.
Coordination Responsibility: Ventura Area County Housing
Authority.
Funding: None.
Objective:Increase rental subsidies to serve 19 low-income
households in the following categories: 4 elderly, 11 small
family and 4 large family.
Implementation:On-going. • In February 1989, the Section 8
Existing Program provided 90 affordable rental housing units to
Moorpark families.
4. Program: Evaluate housing units under consideration for
demolition to determine reconstruction potential and avoid
unnecessary reductions to the housing stock.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: Redevelopment funds.
Objective: 8 units.
Implementation:On-going.Rehabilitation incentives discussed
under Programs 1 and 2 should reduce the number of units
proposed for demolition. The Redevelopment Plan identifies that
there are eight residential structures in the redevelopment area
which should be reconstructed to avoid demolition.Only a
limited amount of redevelopment funds will be available over the
next five years.
5. Program:Continued code enforcement by Community Development
Department.
60
112
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: City General Funds.
Objective: Continue or improve quality of neighborhoods.
Implementation: On-going. The City has a full-time code
enforcement officer.
3. Rousing Production and Assistance Goals Policies, and Objectives
Goal #1:
Assure that housing production maintains the integrity of its
residential community and also meets its existing and projected
housing needs.
Goal #2:
Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of
low and moderate income households.
Goal #3:
Encourage regional cooperation in the development of shelters for the
homeless.
Policies:
Review land use and zoning designations annually to ensure
compatibility with current development patterns.
Encourage the provision of affordable low- and very low-income
residential units by approving a general plan amendment and rezoning
for a density higher than 10. 1 dwelling units to the acre only when
affordable housing is provided. No zone change application should be
approved to allow a density higher than 10. 1 dwelling per acre unless
a planned development permit and an affordable housing agreement are
conditionally approved by the City.
Properties should not be rezoned for multi-family development unless
they are located within the central core area of the City to ensure
than adequate services are available within reasonable walking
distance of a site.
Develop internal system to monitor changes in the character of
residential neighborhoods and a method of adapting to such
changes.
61
113
Develop tracking system to identify vacant and/or underutilized
parcels suitable for development of a variety of housing types.
Promote the development of well-designed, lower-income housing
units with plans and programs developed and supported by the
City Council and Planning Commission.
Allow mixed residential and commercial uses (upper units) where
compatible.
Require residential developers to consider the City's adoptedhousingpoliciesandprogramsandreferencesamewithin
development proposals.
Balance employment opportunities with the provision of housingbybalancinghousingcostswithincomelevels.
Utilize density bonus provision of State law (Sections
69515-65918 of the California Government Code) to encourage
provision of very low and low income housing units to meet the
City's share of regional housing need.
Continue use of federal and state subsidy programs to the
fullest extent possible.
Maximize use of tax increment financing to provide funding forlowandmoderateincomehousingproduction.
Continue to financially support the Ventura County HomelessRevolvingLoanFund.
Work with the County of Ventura and neighboring cities to
jointly identify suitable sites for additional shelters for thehomeless.
Objectives and Scheduled Programs:
1. Program: Analyze employment trends in conjunction with countyandregionalefforts
Coordination Responsibility: City staff in conjunction with the
County of Ventura Planning Department and the Southern
California Association of Governments.
Funding: City, County and SCAG for staff time.
Objective: Promote balanced employment and housing
opportunities.
C2.
IIy
Implementation:Ongoing.The City is in the process of
implementing a business registration program (effective as of
June 24, 1989) which will allow the City to collect accurate,
up-to-date employment information, and which will aid in the
analysis of employment trends.
2. Program: Review General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Map
annually to identify any inconsistencies in the two documents.
Review land use and zoning designations with the purpose of
increasing densities in areas where appropriate.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: City general funds and developer funding.
Objective: Revise densities to encourage development at highest
and best use so as to meet City's housing goal of 2,743 units.
Implementation:Continued. In 1989, the City initiated a
General Plan update which will involve updating the Land Use
and Circulation Elements and also initiated preparation of a
Specific Plan. Both of these projects are expected to result in
increased residential densities.
3. Program: Study the feasibility and potential of mixed
residential/commercial development in the downtown area,
specifically reviewing designated zoning and available sites for
housing development. When efficient, re-zone sites of areas to
encourage greater production of housing to meet expressed
housing needs.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Director.
Funding: City general funds for staff time.
Objective:Maximum utilization of limited available space to
meet projected housing needs.
Implementation: On-going. The Moorpark Downtown Plan
encourages increasing the density of residential development in
some areas. Since the downtown area is within the designated
redevelopment area, mixed residential/commercial development
and/or greater production of housing may be encouraged.
4. Program: Encourage in-fill housing in a variety of types and
locations through identification of vacant and/or underutilized
parcels and promote development of such parcels.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
e3
IIs
Funding: City general funds for staff time.
Objective: 400 units.
Implementation: Continued. Applications for two in-fill,
multi-family residential projects were filed in 1989. If
approved, these projects could result in a total of
approximately 400 units.
5. Program: Review residential areas requiring capital
improvements. They should be scheduled for funding allocation
at earliest date to encourage private sector residential
development.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department
and City Manager's Office.
Funding: City general funds, CDBG and Redevelopment funds for
staff time and improvements.
Objective: Neighborhood improvement.
Implementation: On-going. The Redevelopment Plan proposes an
infrastructure program totaling $40,200,000, and housing
programs totaling $25,000,000.One of the identified housing
programs is a land write down "pool" and infrastructure
assistance for new and replacement of low and moderate income
and senior residential housing. It is expected, however, that
only a minimal amount of redevelopment money will be available
during the next five years.
6. Program:Develop housing replacement plan to replace units
removed from housing stock through demolition on a one-to-one
basis, and minimize the period during which any lot may remain
vacant, whenever feasible.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department
and City Manager's Office.
Funding: Redevelopment funds.
Objective:See Program No. 2 under Housing Improvement and
Maintenance.
Implementation: On-going. See Program 2, Housing Improvement
and Maintenance.
7. Program: Explore manufactured housing and self-build projects to cut
production costs.
64
I16
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: City general funds or CDBG funds.
Objective: 113 units.
Implementation: On-going. City policy permits manufactured
housing on all lots zoned for conventional single-family
residential dwellings if the manufactured home is no more than
ten years old on the date of application, and the unit will be
placed on a permanent foundation system.
In regard to self-build housing projects, the City of Moorpark,
State of California Community Development Department, Farmers
Home Loan Administration, People's Self Help Housing
Administration, and Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation
have worked together to finance 62 units called the Villa
Campesina Housing Project. Through this program, low and
moderate income people have obtained interest free loans to move
into a house that they have spent forty hours a week to build.
These 62 units are expected to be completed in 1989. A similar
project is Villa Campesina II, which has been initiated with a
100,000 grant for site location, pre-development costs and land
acquisition. This project is expected to result in the
construction of 51 units for low and moderate income people,
using a similar self-build requirement.
8. Program: Explore possibility of adopting redevelopment plan to
allow use of tax increment financing for low and moderate income
housing production.
Coordination Responsibility: City Manager's Office.
Funding: General funds for staff time.
Objective: 200 units (over the 45 years of the Redevelopment Plan).
Implementation: Continued. Redevelopment Agency has been
formed. A Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment
Project was adopted in June 1989. Figure 1 shows the redevelopment
area.
9. Program: Use state and federal assistance to develop affordable
housing for lower-income families.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: Grant funding.
Objective: 113 units.
65
117
Implementation:On-going.Community Development Block Grant
funds will continue to be used for the development of new
affordable housing units. As discussed under Program 7, 62 units are
under construction, and Villa Campesina II (51 units) has been
initiated with a $100,000 grant for site location, pre-development
costs, and land acquisition.
10. Program: Offer density bonuses, consistent with State law, to
developers proposing construction of rental and ownership
housing for very low- and low-income households.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: City general funds or developer fees for staff time.
Objective: 846 units.
Implementation: On-going. Community Development Department
will need to actively promote use of density bonus provision of
State law to developers proposing to construct residential
projects.
11. Program:Continue to financially support the Ventura County
Homeless Revolving Loan Fund and work with the County of Ventura
and neighboring cities to jointly identify suitable sites for
additional shelters for the homeless.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: City general funds for staff time and contribution to
Homeless Revolving Loan Fund.
Objective: Development of shelters for the homeless.
Implementation: On-going.
4. Removal of Governmental Constraints Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Goal #1:
Where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing.
Policy:
Review City procedures and ordinances to determine if there are
any existing governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing which can be removed or
minimized.
66
its
1. Program:Investigate a 'fast track" permit processing system
for application to developments which would provide affordable
housing to low and moderate income households.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: City general funds for staff time.
Objective: Fast-track processing for low and moderate income
housing projects.
Implementation: Continued.
2. Program:Analyze relationship of available public facilities
and services to sites suitable for residential development.
Designate affordable housing sites as priority areas to receive
capital improvements.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department
and City Manager's Office.
Funding: City general funds for staff time.
Objective:Assist very low- and low-income housing projects
with infrastructure improvements.
Implementation.On-going. There are several potential funding
sources for capital improvements including Redevelopment funds,
CDBG funds, and developer funded Area of Contribution deposits
for circulation system improvements.
3. Program: Review site development standards, and critically
evaluate design and development criteria which could add
substantially to the cost of housing.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: City general funds for staff time.
Objective:Eliminate unnecessary conditions of approval which
could add substantially to the cost of residential development
projects.
Implementation: On-going. The Community Development Department
should develop standard conditions of approval for residential
projects which take into consideration the need to minimize the
cost of housing. Low- and very low-income residential projects
should receive special consideration in regard to design and
development criteria.
67
119
5. Promotion of Equal Rousing Opportunities Goals, Policies, and
Objectives
Goal #1:
Promote equal housing opportunities.
Policy:
Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of
race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin,
or. color.
Objectives and Scheduled Programs:
1. Program: Promote equal opportunity in housing by avoiding
economic segregation, and discrimination based upon age, sex,
race, ethnic background, and other arbitrary factors.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development Department.
Funding: City general funds for staff time.
Objective: Equal housing opportunity.
Implementation: On-going.
2. Program: Review housing counseling programs such as those
offered by the Commission on Human Concerns, and direct
residents to appropriate agency.
Coordination Responsibility: Community Development epartment.
Funding: City general funds for staff time.
Objective: Equal housing opportunity.
Implementation: On-going.
b8
120
B. FUTURE FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM SUMMARY
1. Mousing, Stock Improvement
Demolition of Substandard Housing:
The condition of the majority of the City's existing housing
stock and the wide availability of vacant land in the City of
Moorpark for residential development makes it highly unlikely
that the demolition of standard residential units will occur.
The recently approved Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark
Redevelopment Project identifies that there are eight
residential structures within the redevelopment area which are
candidates for demolition. Based on the Redevelopment Plan data
and the number of permits issued for demoliton of housing units
within the City of Moorpark since incorporation in 1985, it is
expected that no more than eight substandard units would be
demolished during the 1989-1994 period. After redevelopment
funds have had a chance to accululate, dilapidated structures
are proposed to be reconstructed to avoid the loss of
residential units.The Redevelopment Plan allocates a total of
25,000,000 over 45 years for housing programs.
Residential Rehabilitation:
Federal CDBG funds will be used to develop and implement a
residential rehabilitation program. The program will be
designed to provide low interest loans to upgrade and improve
substandard ownership housing. It is expected that the program
will assist 17 low-income owner households and 6 low-income
renter households. The minimum and maximum loan requirements
will be established by the Community evelopment Department to
determine eligible households.
In addition to CDBG funds, a Redevelopment Plan was approved in
June 1989, which would provide $25 million over 45 years for
housing programs, including rehabilitation and reconstruction,
The Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project
identifies that there are 240 residential units in the City
which require rehabilitation; 8 of these units are candidates
for demolition. Only a limited amount of redevelopment funds
will be available for housing rehabilitation in the next five
years. The City may be able to use redevelopment money to fund
a home improvement rebate program which would provide rebates to
eligible homeowners, up to pre-established limits, for home
repairs.This program would be expected to serve 10 owner
households and 5 renter households over the next five years.
69
12l
Single-Family Residential Rehabilitation:
Eligibility for this program will be limited to single-family
households with gross family incomes at or below the 80% of the
area median income. Rehabilitation assistance to households
residing in multi-family structures will be limited to units
where 51% of the units are occupied by low to moderate income
households, based upon the 80% of area median income. With
regard to owner occupied units, the City expects to rehabilitate
5 units during the first year; 1 elderly, 3 small family and 1
large family. Twelve units would be provided with
rehabilitation assistance in the second and third years (6 units
each year). Rental unit rehabilitation assistance will be
provided for 2 units during the first year: 1 small family and 1
large family. During the second and third years, rental unit
rehabilitation assistance will be provided to upgrade 4 units.
2. Housing Production
General Plan Guidelines:
The City's housing production program encompasses the policies,
programs and strategies included in the Land Use Element and Measure
F. There is enough capacity with existing zoning and units allowed
under Measure F to accommodate Moorpark's "share of regional housing
need."
Density Bonus/Incentive Program:
A density bonus program will provide cost saving inducements to
developers to provide affordable housing in new developments.
Developers who provide ownership and rental housing or who provide a
set aside of ownership and rental housing for low and moderate income
households would qualify for bonus incentives. Under this program,
maximum density allowances would be increased by a predetermined
formula. The density bonus and incentive program is expected to
provide a total of 846 low- and very low- income housing units.
3. Rousing Assistance
Rental Assistance:
The City of Moorpark will pursue a cooperative agreement with the
County of Ventura Housing Authority to obtain Section 8 Existing
Housing Certificates for City residents. This rental subsidy program
is expected to serve 19 low-income households in the following
categories: 4 elderly, 11 small family and 4 large family.
70
122
All households assisted under this program must meet the Section 8
very low-income guidelines as prescribed by HUD. The City anticipates
that a total of 19 households will be assisted through the existing
Section 8 program over the three-year period. During the first year,
the City expects that rental subsidy assistance will be provided to 6
households: 1 elderly, 4 small family and 1 large family households.
The remaining 13 households are expected to be served during the
second and third year of the Housing Assistance Plan.
Homeowner Assistance:
The City has been a participant in the Small Cities Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program since 1985, and has utilized
these funds for the development of new affordable housing units. A
combined effort including the City, the State of California Community
Development Department, Farmers Home Loan Administration, People's
Self Help Housing Administration, and Cabrillo Economic Development
Corporation (CEDC), have worked together to finance 62 units called
the Villa Campesina Housing Project. The City, through the State, and
Farmers Home Loan have loaned low and moderate income people money to
allow them to move into a house that they have spent 40 hours a week
to build. These are three and four bedroom units, and'the loans are
interest free, and extend for up to 25 years if the family remains
eligible under the Section 8 Health and Safety Code criteria. This
grant ended in 1988, and the houses will be near completion by January
1990. The CDBG assisted down payments resulted in purchase prices of
approximately $60,000.
The City is currently a participant in the Urban County CDBG program
as administered through the County of Ventura. Since 1986, 50% of
these funds have been allocated for homeowner assistance. Villa
Campesina II, through CEDC, has been initiated with a $100,000 grant
for site location, pre-development costs, and land acquisition. This
project will follow a similar format to the Villa Campesina I project,
in that it will be a self-build project. A total of 51 units are
proposed for low and moderate income families.
Although specific plans are still being developed, the City is
proposing to use the Urban County CDBG funds to support an equity
share program for 3 new home buyers in the community. The City has
also allocated $5,000 towards a County program called Networking for
Housing in Ventura County. This program is designed to create a pool
of funds to be loaned to developers for the pre-development costs
associated with new affordable housing units through the area.
71
123
The Urban County CDBG program allows cities, like Moorpark, to
participate as long as funds are available. The CDBG program has
already contributed $730,000 towards homeowner assistance. Based on
past practice, it can be anticipated that 50 % of subsequent funding
average of $120,000 total grant per year), will be allocated for
future homeowner assistance programs, or to increase the services
established in the existing projects.
Other future homeowner assistance programs will be a part of the
Redevelopment Plan to be adopted prior to the 1989-90 fiscal year.
The Draft Redevelopment Plan has budgeted $25,000,000 towards the
rehabilitation of 240 homes, the demolition and reconstruction of 8
homes, and a "land write down pool" for low and moderate senior
residential housing. Additionally, State law requires that 20 % of
the projected $120,000,000 be allocated for affordable housing
assistance over the 45-year span of the Redevelopment. Plan.
Homeless:
Although there does not seem to be an unmet need far homeless shelters
in Moorpark, a regional problem does exist. The Ventura County
Homeless Revolving Loan Fund was organized in July 1986, and began
formal operations in September 1986, to deal with the problem of
homelessness.
The fund operates under the auspices of the Commission of Human
Concerns, who furnish staffing and fiscal services at no cost to the
program. The fund has provided direct financial assistance to 39
families and has made loan commitments to an additional. 17 familes.
The financial assistance is in the form of loans to cover associated
rental and move-in costs up to $1,500 and is required to be paid back
within 24 months. As of yet, no money has been distributed to
Moorpark residents. In 1988, the City of Moorpark contributed funds
to assist the County Homeless Revolving Loan Fund.
As regional growth continues, it is anticipated that the homeless
problem will become more severe. The following policies have been
included in this Housing Element:
Continue to financially support the Ventura County Homeless
Revolving Loan Fund.
Work with the County of Ventura and neighboring cities to jointly
identify suitable sites for additional shelters for the homeless.
72
1214
Community Development Block Grant funds can be utilized to assist
relief organizations in meeting regional needs of the homeless
population. Working together with neighboring communities, sites can
be explored for emergency shelters that are appropriate in zoning,
infrastructure and utilities to accommodate a number of people
equivalent to the unmet need within those jurisdictions.
C. SUMMARY OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES
The Housing Element's numerical objectives include the following:
Rehabilitation and repairs to 27 low-income owner occupied housing
units and 11 renter occupied housing units.
Provision of 19 affordable housing units under the provisions of
the Section 8 rental assistance program.
Development of 113 new housing units for very low and low income
households using grant funding.
Development of 846 low and very low income residential units through
use of the density bonus provision of State law.
73
1-ci - iiiin`
i aej`y _ml 4tt
c Y. =;
0
III innnnm.nmmn,::u:
amna rump s.lju..;
aro.a ti o4j6rn llml"
ra ,..... .,....
0 0: ,0 =??,; ifirro
a°
w Ili- =II: !
ISIIzonumt111 1 Lp\i,\I/ ^
nl r :- 1;;; H111111 . ii
s Ida-
Cr--- '
eu ' I Il;plllllll'he:
rlJ 0 /'/
1=1111111 A//I
wow mi.nil 1-j
nilli
p r, a= 1®iI DETAIL'AI
w: rJASuXL. S
15 l drip.1
b
k
l car- A
Ia
0-1ii.° °
I
o"u l= 0.,-0 10° arc MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
an/5 _ r1I! Ib_A
PROJECT AREA MAP
1,^;
p,,:2 '=tr Project Area Boundaries
rir7r,yiii..ir Fit .rsL
Rrr.Ir j E=di`:• mfonFtol:ON -..r .//'
t i _IE'- =_'omits IIIIIIIItn E:=MI _ N
1:..
p_as.Eon- -'
l
i. S1ilwn:11.1mnn6v I1 1 t ou nnm..
r`}p, a"'R1' 7, ^ mama - _ . I°fll IMPr""r""'%
Project Area Division Lines
lop1Pl.rnr -0m.`p ;tM O,r' 'AJ'.'-mama --
p rol A-n1
Silo` l „I, aye "\• r....mm
aiun q!__si EtL- -:CV: Irv-et/1st'SCALE
sao .000 moo i.rr
FIGURE 1 ui