HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES PC 2013 592 2013 1217 RESOLUTION NO, PC-2013-592
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-03, AN AMENDMENT TO
THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT THE 2014-2021
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2013, the City Council, after considering public
testimony, adopted Resolution No. 2013-3226 initiating a General Plan Amendment for
the 2014-2021 Housing Element Update and directed that the draft 2014-2021 Housing
Element Update presented to them be forwarded to the California Department of
Housing and Community Development for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2013, the California Department of Housing and
Community Development determined that the draft 2014-2021 Housing Element Update
complied with State law; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing at a special meeting on December
17, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the Adoption of General Plan
Amendment No. 2013-03, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2014-2021
Housing Element Update of the City of Moorpark General Plan and Send to State of
California Department of Housing and Community Development for Certification, on the
Application of the City of Moorpark, Citywide; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of December 17, 2013, the Planning Commission
considered the agenda report, the negative declaration, and any supplements thereto
and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public
testimony both for and against the proposal; and on December 17, 2013, reached a
decision on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that there is
no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant
effect on the environment and has prepared a Negative Declaration in that the Housing
Element does not require any re-zoning of property within the City nor does it authorize
any specific housing developments. The public review period for the Negative
Declaration extended from November 26, 2013 to December 16, 2013. No comments
were received that provided substantial evidence of any significant effects resulting from
the adoption of the Housing Element Update.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTION: An Initial Study and a
Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and City Policy. Based upon the Initial
Study and Negative Declaration, including any comments received, the Planning
Commission finds that the negative declaration reflects its independent judgment, and
further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment in that the Housing Element does not require any
re-zoning of property within the City nor does it authorize any specific housing
developments. The public review period for the Negative Declaration extended from
November 26, 2013 to December 16, 2013. No comments were received that provided
substantial evidence of any significant effects resulting from the adoption of the Housing
Element Update. The Negative Declaration and related documents that constitute the
record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public
examination during normal business hours at the Community Development Department,
located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The custodian of records is
Joseph Vacca, Principal Planner. The Planning Commission therefore recommends that
the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council the approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2013-03, an Amendment to
the General Plan to Adopt the 2014-2021 Housing Element Update, dated November
2013, of the City of Moorpark General Plan and Send to State of California Department
of Housing and Community Development for Certification (attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference) based upon the following findings:
A. The Revised Housing Element establishes goals, policies and
objectives/programs that address the provision of adequate, safe, and
decent housing for all economic segments of the community.
B. The Revised Housing Element satisfies and is consistent with provisions
for Housing Elements as contained within California Government Code
Section 65585 regulating requirements for Housing Elements, which
mandates that cities submit draft Housing Elements to the California
Housing and Community Development Department, (HCD) prior to
adoption, and requires HCD to determine whether the draft element
substantially complies with the requirements of state law.
C. The Revised Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan and all
of its Elements.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 3
SECTION 3. Filing of Resolution: The Community Development Director shall
cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners DiCecco, Groff, Hamous, Landis, and Chair Gould
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th, day of December, 2013.
• pA -
Diana S. ould hair
David A Bobardt, Community Development Director
Attachments:
Exhibit A: 2014-2021 Housing Element Update (November 2013) of the Moorpark
General Plan
Exhibit B: Initial Study Negative Declaration (GPA 2013-03)
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 4
MOORPARK
GENERAL PLAN
O[, sin L EMEN T
2014-2021
-Aa i
Y r r
!I
Draft
November 2013
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 5
Acknowledgements
City Council
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
Roseann Mikos, Ph.D., Councilmember
Keith F. Milihouse, Councilmember
David Pollock, Councilmember
Mark Van Dam, Councilmember
Planning Commission
Diana Gould, Chair
Daniel Groff, Vice Chair
Kipp Landis, Commissioner
Mark Di Cecco, Commissioner
Bruce Hamous, Commissioner
City Staff
Steven Kueny, City Manager
David Bobardt, AICP, Community Development Director
Joseph Vacca, AICP, Principal Planner
Consulting Assistance:
J.H. Douglas & Associates
Cover photo: Charles Street Terrace (Ventura County Area Housing Authority)
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 6
Contents
I. Introduction |-1
A. Setting |-1
B. State Policy and Authorization 1-2
C. Public Participation 1-2
D. Consistency with [}the, Elements of the General Plan 1'2
U. Housing Needs Assessment U-1
A. Population Characteristics U-1
l. Population Growth Trends U-1
2. Age 11-2
3. Race and Ethnicity 11-2
B. Household Characteristics 11'3
1. Household Composition and Size 11-3
2. Housing Tenure 11'4
3. Overcrowding 114
4. Household Income 11'5
5. Overpayment 11'6
6. Current Employment 11-6
7. Projected Job Growth 11-7
8. Jobs-Housing Balance 11-8
C. Housing Stock Characteristics 11-9
1. Housing Type and Growth Trends 11'9
2. Housing Age and Conditions U'lO
3. Vacancy U'll
4. Housing Cost U'll
D. Special Needo |I-l4
1. Persons with Disabilities |1-l4
2. Elderly |1-l6
3. Large Households |1-l6
4. Female-Headed Households 11-1 7
5. Farm Workers 11'1 7
6. Student Population 11-20
7. Homeless Persons 11-20
E. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion 11-23
F. Future Growth Needs 11-24
l. Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment 11-24
2. 201 4-2021 Moorpark Growth Needs 11-24
III. Resources and Opportunities |||'l
A. Land Resources |||-1
B. Financial and Administrative Resources III-1
l. State and Federal Resources |||-1
2. Local Resources |||-3
3. Local Non-Profit Agencies 111-3
C. Energy Conservation Opportunities 111-5
IV. Constraints IV-1
A. Governmental Constraints |V-1
l. Land Use Plans and Regulations |V-1
2. Development Processing Procedures |\-l2
3. Development Fees and Improvement Requirements |V')6
B. Non-Governmental Constraints |V-l8
l. Environmental Constraints |V-l8
2. Infrastructure Constraints |V-l9
3. Land Costs 1Vc1 9
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 7
4. Construction Costs |V-20
5. Cost and Availability of Financing |V'20
C. Fair Housing |V-20
V. Housing Plan V-1
A. Goals and Policies V-7
I. Housing and Neighborhood Conservation V-1
2. Adequate Residential Sites V-2
3. Housing Assistance and Special Needs V-2
4. Removal of Government Constraints V-3
5. Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity V-3
B. Housing Programs V-4
Appendix A- Evaluation of the 2008-2013 Housing Element
Appendix B- Residential Land Inventory
Appendix C- Public Participation Summary
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 8
List of Tables
Table U'l Population Trends 1990-2010 U'l
Table 11-2 Age Distribution 11'2
Table 11'3 Race/Ethnicity 11-3
Table 11-4 Household Composition 11'3
Table 11-5 Household Tenure 11-4
Table 11-6 Overcrowding 11-4
Table 11'7 Median Household Income 11-5
Table 11-8 Overpayment by Income Category 11-5
Table 11-9 Labor Force Status 11-6
Table 11-10 Employment by Occupation 11'7
Table 11-11 PnojeotedJob {3rovvthby[)coupation'2OO8-2Ol8-{}xnord/ThousandOaks-
Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area 11-8
Table 11-12 Job Location for Moorpark Residents 11-9
Table 11-13 Housing by Type 11'9
Table 11-14 Age of Housing Stock by Tenure 11-10
Table 11-15 Housing Vacancy U-ll
Table 11-16 |ncomeCotegohesondAffonjob|eHoudnQCosb-VentunnCounty 11'12
Table 11-17 Ventura County Median Housing Sales Prices-2012 11-13
Table 11-18 Persons with Disabilities by Age 11'14
Table 11'19 Elderly Households by Tenure 11'16
Table 11-20 Household Size by Tenure 11-17
Table 11'21 Household Type by Tenure 11'17
Table 11-22 Ventura County Farm Workers-2000 11'19
Table 11-23 Agricultural Employment-Moorpark vs. Ventura County 11-19
Table 11-24 Ventura County Homeless Count:2012 11'21
Tob|e11-25 Ventura County Homeless Sub-Populations: 2012 11'21
Table 11-26 Assisted Housing Developments 11'23
Table 11'27 Regional Housing Growth Needs-Moorpark 11'24
Table |||'l Land Inventory Summary |||'l
Table |\cl Residential land Use Categories |V-1
Tob|e |V'2 Residential Development Standards IV-2
Table IV-3 Housing Types Permitted by Zone IV-5
Table IV-4 Development Review Times |V-lS
Tmb|e |V'5 Development Review Fees |V'17
Table IV-6 Road Improvement Standards |V'18
Table V-1 Housing Program Implementation Summary V-9
List of Figures
Figure 11-1 Population Growth 1990'2012 U-1
Figure 11-2 Agricultural Production Areas-Ventura County 11-18
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 9
This page intentionally left blank.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 10
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Setting
Nestled among the rolling hills in eastern Ventura County, Moorpark incorporated as a
city in 1983. Beginning with the small settlements of Epworth and Fremontville in the late
19th/early 20th centuries, Moorpark has experienced tremendous growth since the 1980s -
increasing to a population estimated at 37,576 in 2010. Despite this rapid population
growth, Moorpark has retained its country charm reminiscent of a small town.
Moorpark is distinct from other communities in Ventura County. The city has a high
percentage of younger families with children. Residents generally tend to have a higher
education level than many communities, and one of the highest median household
incomes in the county. Due to its predominantly residential nature, Moorpark serves as a
bedroom community for larger employment centers throughout Ventura County as well
as northwest Los Angeles County, which is readily accessible via the Ventura Freeway
(SR-101), the Ronald Reagan Freeway (SR-118) and SR-23.
The City's housing stock offers a range of housing opportunities consistent with the urban-
rural nature of Ventura County. The downtown area contains a mix of older single-family
neighborhoods, commercial and higher-density development. New residential develop-
ment nestled in surrounding hillsides offer more rural settings. Strong growth in the
Southern California economy during the first half of this decade fostered increased
residential development in Specific Plan areas and other areas around the city's
perimeter.
Although the strong economy spurred housing development, it also caused a rapid
increase in housing prices. Housing prices still remain well in excess of 2000 levels, despite
the downturn in the housing market since 2006. These increases place a burden upon
lower-income individuals and families, seniors, the disabled, large families, and other
persons with special housing needs. Though higher-priced homes ring the downtown
area, the city's center contains much of the older housing stock, some of which shows
signs of deterioration.
Moorpark faces several challenges over the 2014-2021 Housing Element planning period,
including maintaining the diversity and affordability of the housing stock, rehabilitating
older housing in the downtown area, fostering economic development, and balancing
growth with the needs of existing residents. The City has set forth the following goals for
addressing the housing needs facing the community (see Chapter V- Housing Plan):
• Adequate provision of decent, safe, and affordable housing for residents
without regard to race, age, sex, marital status, ethnicity, or other arbitrary
consideration.
• Adequate provision of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and location
with particular attention to the provision of housing for special needs groups.
• Identification of suitable parcels for residential development, and appropriate
recycling of land for future housing development.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 11
• Development of a balanced community accessible to employment,
transportation, shopping, medical services, and governmental services.
B. State Policy and Authorization
State law requires the preparation of a Housing Element as part of a jurisdiction's General
Plan (Government Code §65302(c)). The Element is to consist of the identification and
analysis of existing and projected housing needs, and a statement of goals, policies,
quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and
development of housing. It is also required to identify adequate sites for housing and to
make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments
of the community (§65583).
Periodic review of the Element is required to evaluate (1) the appropriateness of its goals,
objectives and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goals, (2) its
effectiveness in attaining the City's housing goals and objectives, and (3) the progress of
its implementation (§65588).
C. Public Participation
The City provided several opportunities for residents to participate in the Housing Element
update and recommend strategies for addressing local needs. Prior to public hearings,
the draft Housing Element was made available for review at City Hall, on the City's
website, and at public libraries. To ensure a wide distribution, notices were sent to the
School District, the Moorpark College Library, and the Post Office. Local non-profit and
housing advocate groups were also notified of the availability of the Housing Element.
Through these efforts all interested residents and stakeholders had ample opportunity to
participate in the development of the Housing Element.
Appendix C contains additional details regarding the City's efforts to encourage
participation by all economic segments of the community, as well as a summary of
concerns and recommendations expressed during the public review process.
As required by state law, a draft Housing Element was submitted to the State Housing
and Community Development Department (HCD) for review. After receiving HCD's
comments, a proposed final Housing Element was made available for public review prior
to adoption by the City Council.
Annual reviews of the Element have been, and continue to be, accomplished in
accordance with state law. Annual reports are placed on the City's website as a
resource for the public and interested parties.
D. Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan
The Housing Element is one of the elements of the comprehensive General Plan.
Moorpark's General Plan comprises the seven elements mandated by state law, and
includes the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the Housing Element, the Open
Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, the Noise Element, and the Safety
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 12
Element. The Housing Element builds upon the other General Plan Elements and is entirely
consistent with the policies set forth in those elements.
The City will ensure consistency between General Plan elements so that policies
introduced in one element are consistent with those in other elements. At this time, the
revised Element does not propose significant change to any other element of the City's
adopted General Plan. However, if it becomes apparent over time that changes to
another element are needed for internal consistency, such changes will be proposed for
consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 13
This page intentionally left blank.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 14
II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This chapter examines general population and household characteristics and trends,
such as age, race and ethnicity, employment, household composition and size,
household income, and special needs. Characteristics of the existing housing stock (e.g.,
number of units and type, tenure, age and condition, costs) are also addressed. Finally,
the city's projected housing growth needs based on the 2014-2021 Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) are examined.
Data Sources
The Housing Needs Assessment utilizes data from the U.S. Census, the California
Department of Finance (DOE), the California Employment Development Department
(EDD), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and other relevant
sources. These data sources are the most reliable for assessing existing conditions and
provide a basis for consistent comparison with historical data and the basis for forecasts.
A. Population Characteristics
1. Population Growth Trends
Compared to the rapid growth of the previous decade 1990-2000, Moorpark has
continued to experience population growth although at a slower pace, increasing
approximately 10.9% from 2000 to 2012 to an estimated population of 34,826 (see Table
II-1 and Figure II-1). The City's 2012 population represents approximately 4.2% of the
County's total population of 832,970.
Table II-1
Population Trends 1990-2010
Growth Growth
1990 2000 2012 1990-2000 2000-2012
Moorpark 25,494 31,415 34,826 23.2% 10.9%
Ventura County 669,016 753,197 832,970 12.6% 10.6%
Source:U.S.Census,California Dept.of Finance Table E-5(2012)
Figure II-1
Population Growth 1990-2012
25% 23.2%
20%
15% 12.6%
10.9%10.6% O Moorpark
10% -
id Ventura County
5%
WMVOiti
0% p
1990-2000 2000-2012
Sources:U.S.Census 2000,California Department of Finance Table E-1(2012)
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 15
2. Age
9
Housing needs are influenced by population age characteristics. Different age groups
require different accommodations based on lifestyle, family type, income level, and
housing preference. Table 11-2 provides a comparison of the city and county population
by age group in 2010. This table shows that the City's population was slightly younger 1
than the County's, with the "under 20 years" age cohort representing 31% of the City
compared to 29% of the County. The median age of Moorpark residents is 1.5 years
younger than that of all Ventura County residents (34.7 years vs. 36.2 years).
Table 11-2
Age Distribution
Moorpark Ventura County
Age Group Persons % Persons %
Under 5 years 2,272 6.6% 55,336 6.7%
5 to 9 years 2,461 7.1% 56,970 6.9%
10 to 14 years 2,803 8.1% 60,390 7.3%
15 to 19 years 3,061 8.9% 64,407 7.8%
20 to 24 years 2,493 7.2% 56,183 6.8%
25 to 29 years 2,137 6.2% 54,253 6.6%
30 to 34 years 2,098 6.1% 51,207 6.2%
35 to 39 years 2,115 6.1% 53,448 6.5%
40 to 44 years 2,475 7.2% 57,635 7.0%
45 to 49 years 3,009 8.7% 62,731 7.6%
50 to 54 years 3,089 9.0% 60,973 7.4%
55 to 59 years 2,335 6.8% 51,164 6.2%
60 to 64 years 1,618 4.7% 42,312 5.1%
65 to 69 years 886 2.6% 29,834 3.6%
70 to 74 years 568 1.7% 21,562 2.6%
75 to 79 years 450 1.3% 17,443 2.1%
80 to 84 years 297 0.9% 13,427 1.6%
85+years 254 0.7% 14,043 1.7%
Total 34,421 100% 823,318 100%
Median age 34.7 36.2
Source:2010 Census Table DP-1
3. Race and Ethnicity
The racial and ethnic composition of the City differs from the County in that a lower
proportion of City residents are Hispanic/Latino or other racial/ethnic minorities.
Approximately 75.1% of City residents are white, contrasted with 68.7% for the county as
a whole. The percentage of Hispanics residing in the City, at 31 .4%, is about 9% less than
that of the County. Asians, at 6.8%, represent the largest non-Hispanic minority group
(Table 11-3).
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 16
Table 11-3
Race/Ethnicity
Moorpark Ventura County
Race/Ethnicity Population %Total Population %Total
White 25,860 75.1% 565,804 68.7%
Black 533 1.5% 15,163 1.8%
American Indian 248 0.7% 8,068 1.0%
Asian 2,352 6.8% 55,446 6.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 50 0.1% 1,643 0.2%
Other race 3,727 10.8% 140,253 17.0%
2 or more races 1,651 4.8% 36,941 4.5%
Total 34,421 100.0% 823318 100.0%
Hispanic or Latino(any race) 10,813 31.4% 331,567 40.3%
Source:2010 Census,Table DP-1
B. Household Characteristics
1. Household Composition and Size
Household characteristics are important indicators of the type and size of housing
needed in a city. The Census defines a "household" as all persons occupying a housing
unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or
blood, or unrelated persons sharing a single unit. Persons in group quarters such as
dormitories, retirement or convalescent homes, or other group living situations are
included in population totals, but are not considered households.
Table 11-4 provides a comparison of households by type for Moorpark and Ventura
County as a whole, as reported in the 2010 Census. Family households comprised
approximately 82% of all households in the City, as compared to 74% for the County. The
City had more families with children at home, fewer singles living alone, and a somewhat
larger average household size than Ventura County as a whole. These statistics suggest
that there is a somewhat greater need for large units in Moorpark than for other areas of
the County.
Table 11-4
Household Composition
Moorpark Ventura County
Household Type Households % Households %
Family households: 8,586 81.9% 197,178 73.9%
Husband-wife family 6,966 66.4% 150,512 56.4%
With own children under 18 years 3,656 34.9% 71,149 26.7%
Male householder,no wife present 507 4.8% 15,134 5.7%
With own children under 18 years 248 2.4% 7,302 2.7%
Female householder,no husband present 1,113 10.6% 31,532 11.8%
With own children under 18 years 542 5.2% 15,632 5.9%
Nonfamily households: 1,898 18.1% 69,742 26.1%
Householder living alone 1,337 12.8% 53,037 19.9%
Households with individuals under 18 years 4,863 46.4% 106,457 39.9%
Households with individuals 65 years and over 1,839 17.5% 69,982 26.2%
Total households 10,484 100% 266,920 1
Average household size 3.28 3.04
Source:2010 Census,Table DP-1
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 17
2. Housing Tenure
Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) is an important indicator of the housing market.
Communities need an adequate supply of units available for rent and for sale in order to
accommodate a range of households with varying income, family size and composition,
and lifestyle. Table 11-5 provides a comparison of the number of owner-occupied and
renter-occupied units in the City in 2010 as compared to the County as a whole. It
reveals a very high level of homeownership in the City, approximately 14 percentage
points higher than the county (76% City vs. 62% County).
Table 11-5
Household Tenure
Moorpark Ventura County
Housing Type Units % Units
Occupied housing units 10,484 98% 266,920 95%
Owner-occupied housing units 8,182 76% 174,168 62%
Average household size of owner-occupied units 3.26 3.02
Renter-occupied housing units 2,302 21% 92,752 33%
Average household size of renter-occupied units 3.36 - 3.09
Vacant housing units 254 2% 5 0%
For rent 68 1% 4,664 2%
Rented,not occupied 6 0.1% 324 0.1%
For sale only 85 1% 2,467 1%
Sold,not occupied 16 0.1% 595 0.2%
For seasonal,recreational,or occasional use 15 0% 3,545 1%
All other vacants 64 1% 3,180 1%
Homeowner vacancy rate(%) 1 1.4
Rental vacancy rate(%) 2.9 4.8
Total housing units 10,738 100% _ 281,695 100%
Source:2010 Census,Table DP-1
3. Overcrowding
Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The
U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than
one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens, with severe overcrowding
when there are more than 1 .5 occupants per room. Table 11-6 summarizes overcrowding
for the City of Moorpark.
Table 11-6
Overcrowding
Moorpark Ventura County
Occupants per Room Units % Units
Owner occupied units 8,509 100% 175,452 100%
1.01 to 1.50 184 2% 4,640 3%
1.51 to 2.00 70 1% 943 1%
2.01 or more 2 0% 235 0.1%
Renter occupied units 1,903 100% 88,853 100%
1.01 to 1.50 59 3% 7,351 8%
1.51 to 2.00 0 0% 2,288 3%
2.01 or more 41 2% 792 1%
Source:Census 2006-2010 ACS,Table B25014
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 18
According to recent Census data, overcrowding was more prevalent among renters
than for owner-occupied units. Approximately 5% of the City's renter-occupied
households were overcrowded compared to only 3% of owner-occupied households.
4. Household Income
Household income is a primary factor affecting housing needs in a community.
According to recent Census data, the median household income in Moorpark was
$103,009, 34% higher than the County as a whole (Table 11-7).
Table 11-7
Median Household Income
%of County
Jurisdiction Median Income Median Income
Moorpark 103,009 134%
Ventura County 76,728 100%
Source:U.S.Census,2007-2011 ACS,Table DP-3
Extremely Low Income Households
State law requires quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of
extremely low-income (ELI) households. Extremely low income is defined as households
with incomes less than 30% of area median income. The 2013 area median income for
Ventura County was $89.300 (see Table 11-16). For extremely-low-income households, this
results in an income of $26,800 or less for a four-person household. Households with
extremely-low-income have a variety of housing needs.
Existing Needs
According to recent Census estimates, approximately 165 extremely-low-income house-
holds resided in Moorpark, representing about 2% of all households. All ELI households
were reported to be paying more than 30% of their income toward housing costs (Table
11-8).
Table 11-8
Overpayment by Income Category
Owners Renters
Income Category Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely low households 125 40
Households overpaying 125 100% 40 100%
Very low households 815 335
Households overpaying 575 70.6% 285 85.1%
Low households 660 345
Households overpaying 520 78.8% 345 100%
Subtotal:All lower-income households 1,600 720
Subtotal:Households overpaying 1,220 76.3% 670 93.1%
Moderate households 1,170 250
Households overpaying 840 71.8% 150 60.0%
Above moderate households 5,060 475
Households overpaying 1,680 33.2% 55 11.6%
Source:U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development,CHAS,based on the 2006-2008 ACS.Table 15.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 19
Projected Needs
The projected housing need for ELI households is assumed to be 50% of the very-low
income regional housing need of 289 units. As a result, the City has a projected need for
145 ELI units during this planning period. The resources and programs to address this need
are the same as for low-income housing in general and are discussed throughout the
Housing Element, including the Chapter V, Housing Plan. Because the needs of ELI
households overlap extensively with other special needs groups, further analysis and
resources for these households can be found in Chapter II, Needs Assessment, Section E,
Special Needs, and Chapter IV, Constraints, Section A.1 .e. Special Needs Housing.
5. Overpayment
According to state housing policy, overpaying occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of
gross household income. Table 11-8 displays recent estimates for overpayment by income
category. About 93% of all lower-income renter households and 76% of all lower-income
owner households were overpaying for housing. Extremely-low-income households
generally suffer the greatest cost burden.
Although homeowners enjoy income and property tax deductions and other benefits
that help to compensate for high housing costs, lower-income homeowners may need to
defer maintenance or repairs due to limited funds, which can lead to deterioration. For
lower-income renters, severe cost burden can require families to double up resulting in
overcrowding and related problems. Employment
Employment is an important factor affecting housing needs within a community. The jobs
available in each employment sector and the wages for these jobs affect the type and
size of housing residents can afford.
6. Current Employment
Current employment and projected job growth have a significant influence on housing
needs during this planning period. Table 11-9 shows that the City had a workforce of
18,907 persons, or 73.2% of the working-age population, according to recent Census
data . This table shows that the City's population had a higher labor force participation
rate than the County as a whole (73.2% City vs. 67.3% County) and had a lower
unemployment rate (5.1% City and 7.2% County).
Table 11-9
Labor Force Status
Moorpark Ventura County
Labor Force Status Persons Percent Persons Percent
Population 16 years and over 25,829 100% 623,606 100%
In labor force 18,907 73.2% 419,563 67.3%
Civilian labor force 18,907 73.2% 415,148 66.6%
Employed 17,944 94.9% 385,262 92.8%
Unemployed 963 5.1% 29,886 7.2%
Armed Forces 0 0% 4,415 0.7%
Not in labor force 6,922 26.8% 204,043 32.7%
Source:Bureau of the Census,2006-2010 American Community Survey,Table DP-3.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 20
According to recent Census data, approximately 42% of the City's working residents
were employed in management and professional occupations (Table 11-10). A low
percentage of workers (18%) were employed in service-related occupations such as
waiters and beauticians. Blue-collar occupations such as machine operators, assemblers,
farming, transportation, handlers and laborers constituted about 16% of the workforce.
Table 11-10
Employment by Occupation
Moorpark
Occupation Persons
Civilian employed population 16 years and over 17,944 100%
Management,business,science,and arts occupations 7,593 42%
Service occupations 3,203 18%
Sales and office occupations 4,347 24%
Natural resources,construction,and maintenance occupations 1,359 8%
Production,transportation,and material moving occupations 1,442 8%
Source:U.S.Census 2006-2010 ACS,Table DP3
7. Projected Job Growth
Future housing needs are affected by the number and type of new jobs created during
this planning period. Table II-11 shows projected job growth by occupation for the
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura MSA along with median hourly wages for the period
2008-2018. Total employment in Ventura County is expected to grow by 7.7% between
2008 and 2018. The overall growth is expected to add 26,500 new jobs and bring the
County's employment to about 371,000 by 2018.
Residents who are employed in well-paying occupations have less difficulty obtaining
adequate housing than residents in lower-paying jobs. Table II-11 illustrates the growth
trend in low-wage service jobs such as health care support, food preparation and
serving, cleaning and maintenance, sales, and office/administrative support.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 21
Table II-11
Projected Job Growth by Occupation, 2008-2018-
Oxnard/Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area
Annual Average
NAICS Employment Employment Change
Code Industry Title 2008 2018 Jobs Percent
Total Employment 344,900 371,400 26,500 7.7
Self-Employment(A) 25,500 26,000 500 2.0
Unpaid Family Workers(B) 800 900 100 12.5
Private Household Workers(C) 2,200 2,600 400 18.2
Total Farm 25,100 26,700 1,600 6.4
Total Nonfarm 291,300 315,200 23,900 8.2
1133,21 Mining and Logging 1,200 1,300 100 8.3
23 Construction 16,700 18,000 1,300 7.8
31-33 Manufacturing 35,900 37,000 1,100 3.1
22,48-49 Transportation,Warehousing,and Utilities 6,000 6,500 500 8.3
22 Utilities 1,000 1,200 200 20.0
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 5,000 5,300 300 6.0
51 Information 5,600 5,700 100 1.8
52-53 Financial Activities 21,100 21,700 600 2.8
54-56 Professional and Business Services 38,300 41,900 3,600 9.4
61-62 Education Services,Health Care,and Social Assistance 31,800 37,200 5,400 17.0
71-72 Leisure and Hospitality 31,500 35,800 4,300 13.7
71 Arts,entertainment,and Recreation 5,100 5,800 700 13.7
72 Accommodation and Food Services 26,500 30,000 3,500 13.2
81 Other Services(excludes 814-Private Household Workers) 10,000 10,800 800 8.0
Government 43,100 44,900 1,800 4.2
Federal Government 7,300 7,400 100 1.4
State and Local Government 35,800 37,500 1,700 4.7
Notes:
(A) Self-Employed persons work for profit or fees in their own business,profession,trade,or farm. Only the unincorporated self-employed are included in this
category.The estimated and projected employment numbers include all workers who are primarily self-employed and wage and salary workers who hold a
secondary job as a self-employed worker.
(B) Unpaid family workers are those persons who work without pay for 15 or more hours per week on a farm or in a business operated by a member of the
household to whom they are related by birth or marriage.
(C) Private Household Workers are employed as domestic workers whose primary activities are to maintain the household.
Industry employment is based on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages(QCEW)program.
Source:California Employment Development Department,March 2009 Benchmark
8. Jobs-Housing Balance
A regional balance of jobs to housing helps to ensure that the demand for housing is
reasonably related to supply. When the number of jobs significantly exceeds the housing
supply, the rental and for-sale housing markets may become overheated, requiring
households to pay a larger percentage of their income for housing. In addition, a tight
housing market can result in overcrowding and longer commute times as workers seek
more affordable housing in outlying areas. The current jobs-housing objective within the
SCAG region is one new housing unit for every 1.5 jobs.1
I SCAG 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, Land Use &Housing Chapter
ill
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 22
According to recent Census data, about 72% of employed Moorpark residents worked in
Ventura County, and 24%were employed within the Moorpark City limits (Table 11-12).
Table 11-12
Job Location for Moorpark Residents
Work s lace Location
Worked in state of residence 99.8%
Worked in county of residence 71.7%
Worked in place of residence 24.0%
Worked outside county of residence 28.1%
Worked outside state of residence 0.2%
Source:Census 2006-2010 ACS,Table S0801
C. Housing Stock Characteristics
This section presents an evaluation of the characteristics of the community's housing
stock and helps in identifying and prioritizing needs. The factors evaluated include the
number and type of housing units, recent growth trends, age and condition, tenure,
vacancy, housing costs, affordability, and assisted affordable units at-risk of loss due to
conversion to market-rate. A housing unit is defined as a house, an apartment, a Mobile
Home, or a group of rooms, occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended
for occupancy as separate living quarters.
1. Housing Type and Growth Trends
According to recent Census data, the housing stock in Moorpark was comprised mostly
of single-family detached homes, which made up about 86% of all units, while multi-
family units comprised about 13% of the total. Mobile Homes comprised approximately
1 .3% of the City's housing stock. Table 11-13 provides a breakdown of the housing stock by
type along with growth trends for the City compared to the county as a whole for the
period 2000-2012.
Table 11-13
Housing by Type —
2000 2012 Growth
Structure Type Units % Units % Units %
Moorpark
Single-family 7,832 86% 9,275 86% 1,443 86%
Multi-family 932 10% 1,362 13% 430 26%
Mobile homes 330 3.6% 143 1.3% -187 -11%
Total units 9,094 100% 10,780 100% 1,686 100%
Ventura County
Single-family 187,856 75% 213,917 76% 26,061 83%
Multi-family 51,693 21% 57,677 20% 5,984 19%
Mobile homes 12,162 5% 11,329 4% -833 -3%
Total units 251,711 100% 282,923 100% 31,212 100%
Source:Cal.Dept.of Finance,Tables E-5&E-8
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 23
Between 2000 and 2012, single-family detached homes represented more than two-
thirds of all units built in the City. While detached homes also comprised the majority of
new construction in the County during this period, it is noteworthy that over one-quarter
of all residential development in the City was comprised of multi-family units. Mobile
homes experienced a decrease in both the City and the county during this period (-11%
City vs. -3% countywide).
2. Housing Age and Conditions
Housing age is often an important indicator of housing condition. Housing units built prior
to 1978 before stringent limits on the amount of lead in paint were imposed may have
interior or exterior building components coated with lead-based paint. Housing units built
before 1970 are the most likely to need rehabilitation and to have lead-based paint in
deteriorated condition. Lead-based paint becomes hazardous to children under age six
and to pregnant women when it peels off walls or is pulverized by windows and doors
opening and closing.
Table 11-14 shows the age distribution of the housing stock in Moorpark compared to
Ventura County as a whole.
Table 11-14
Age of Housing Stock by Tenure
Moorpark Ventura County
Year Built Units % Units
Built 2005 or later 313 3% 7,782 3%
Built 2000 to 2004 1,322 12% 21,000 8%
Built 1990 to 1999 1,714 16% 29,852 11%
Built 1980 to 1989 5,108 47% 46,776 17%
Built 1970 to 1979 1,391 13% 65,050 23%
Built 1960 to 1969 420 4% 60,323 22%
Built 1950 to 1959 359 3% 28,761 10%
Built 1940 to 1949 72 1% 9,179 3%
Built 1939 or earlier 159 1% 10,675 4%
Total units 10,858 100% 279,398 100%
Source:Census 2006-2010 ACS,Table DP-4
This table shows that only 9% of the housing units in Moorpark were constructed prior to
1970. These findings suggest that there may be a lesser need for maintenance and
rehabilitation, including remediation of lead-based paint, for the City's housing stock
than other areas of the County.
The City employs one full-time code compliance technician. Typical issues include
property maintenance, illegally parked/inoperative vehicles, overgrown vegetation, and
occupancy of non-habitable structures, such as garages and tool sheds. Code
compliance activities cover the entire city, however the majority of cases are focused in
the central area of Moorpark, where much of the City's older housing stock is located.
The Code Compliance Technician also works in conjunction with the Building and Safety
Division to enforce the City's building code to ensure that construction is safe and legal,
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 24
non-habitable spaces such as garages are not used for occupancy, and smoke
detectors are operable.
Based on field experience, Code Compliance and Building Department staff estimate
that approximately 8% of all housing units in the downtown area (an estimated total of
500 units) are in need of some type of rehabilitation (e.g., roofing, doors/windows,
plumbing, electrical) but none are deteriorated to the point of requiring demolition and
replacement. All other residential neighborhoods in the City are less than 30 years old
and do not have significant needs for major rehabilitation.
3. Vacancy
Housing vacancy rates as reported by the Department of Finance for 2012 are shown in
Table 11-15. The table shows that vacancy rates in Moorpark were very low compared to
most jurisdictions in Ventura County, with just 2.37% of units available for rent or sale.
Rental vacancy rates in the 2% range indicate nearly full occupancy, and contribute to
upward pressures on rents.
Table 11-15
Housing Vacancy
Jurisdiction Vacanc Rate
Camarillo 4.66%
Fillmore 5.71%
Moorpark 2.37%
Ojai 7.99%
Oxnard 5.64%
Port Hueneme 13.09%
San Buenaventura 5.58%
Santa Paula 4.59%
Simi Valley 2.99%
Thousand Oaks 3.50%
Unincor.orated Area 8.76%
Coun Total 5.25%
Source:Cal.Department of Finance Table E-5,2012
4. Housing Cost
a. Housing Affordability Criteria
State law establishes five income categories for purposes of housing programs based on
the area (i.e., county) median income ("AMI"): extremely-low (30% or less of AMI), very-
low (31-50% of AMI), low (51-80% of AMI), moderate (81-120% of AMI) and above
moderate (over 120% of AMI). Housing affordability is based on the relationship between
household income and housing expenses. According to the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and
Community Development2, housing is considered "affordable" if the monthly payment is
2 HCD memo of 4/18/07 (http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/inc2k7.pdf)
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 25
no more than 30% of a household's gross income. In some areas (such as Ventura
County), these income limits may be increased to adjust for high housing costs.
Table 11-16 shows affordable rent levels and estimated affordable purchase prices for
housing in Ventura County by income category. Based on state-adopted standards, the
maximum affordable monthly rent for extremely-low-income households is $670, while the
maximum affordable rent for very-low-income households is $1,116. The maximum
affordable rent for low-income households is $1,780, while the maximum for moderate-
income households is $2,679.
Maximum purchase prices are more difficult to determine due to variations in mortgage
interest rates and qualifying procedures, down payments, special tax assessments,
homeowner association fees, property insurance rates, etc. With this caveat, the
maximum home purchase prices by income category shown in Table 11-16 have been
estimated based on typical conditions.
Table 11-16
Income Categories and Affordable Housing Costs-Ventura County
2013 County Median Income= Affordable Price
$89,300 Income Limits Affordable Rent (est.)
Extremely Low(<30%) $26,800 $670 --
Very Low(31-50%) $44,650 $1,116 --
Low(51-80%) $71,200 $1,780 $250,000
Moderate(81-120%) $107,150 $2,679 $400,000
Above moderate(120%+) $107,150+ $2,679+ $400,000+
Assumptions:
-Based on a family of 4
-30%of gross income for rent or PITI
-10%down payment,4%interest,1.25%taxes&insurance,$200 HOA dues
Source:Cal.HCD;J.H.Douglas&Associates
b. For-Sale Housing
Median housing sales price statistics for Ventura County during 2012 (Table II-17) show
that the median price for single-family detached homes was $475,000 while the median
condo price was $218,000. For the County as a whole, median prices were $406,000 and
$242,000 for single-family and condos, respectively. .
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 26
Table 11-17
Ventura County Median Housing Sales Prices - 2012
Single Family Residences Condominiums
Jurisdiction ZIP Code SFR Price %Change Condos Price %Change
Countywide 7,234 $406 2.7% 2,469 $242 3.1%
Camarillo 93010 417 $420 1.2% 123 $298 4.4%
Camarillo 93012 331 $494 4.9% 276 $268 -2.5%
Fillmore 93015 150 $261 -3.4% 12 $153 20.1%
Moorpark 93021 374 $475 -3.4% 76 $218 -3.1%
Newbury Park 91320 483 $528 1.5% 119 $320 20.6%
Oak Park 91377 156 $635 1.8% 80 $328 -7.6%
Oak View 93022 80 $300 -1.8% 1 $170 n/a
Ojai 93023 255 $445 6.0% 17 $280 3.7%
Oxnard 93030 332 $313 -2.8% 79 $240 1.3%
Oxnard 93033 389 $246 2.3% 87 $159 -5.6%
Oxnard 93035 336 $406 -3.2% 210 $320 -3.5%
Oxnard 93036 317 $310 3.3% 110 $202 -5.6%
Piru 93040 9 $190 -15.6% 0 n/a n/a
Port Hueneme 93041 103 $250 -3.8% 209 $169 -1.7%
Santa Paula 93060 152 $269 7.7% 44 $114 18.8%
Simi Valley 93063 549 $380 1.3% 147 $215 0.0%
Simi Valley 93065 844 $390 2.6% 197 $260 0.0%
Somis 93066 26 $775 12.2% 0 n/a n/a
Thousand Oaks 91360 455 $461 -0.9% 88 $235 6.8%
Thousand Oaks 91362 367 $690 0.7% 256 $330 6.1%
Ventura 93001 251 $377 14.0% 68 $209 -3.7%
Ventura 93003 376 $403 3.2% 178 $182 3.7%
Ventura 93004 257 $379 -1.6% 30 $258 -2.8%
Westlake Village 91361 168 $885 9.3% 213 $459 -2.0%
Based on the estimated affordable purchase prices shown in Table II-16, only a very small
percentage of single-family homes were affordable to lower-income or moderate-
income residents. However, the median condo price indicates that many low- and
moderate-income households may be able to find affordable attached units for sale in
Moorpark.
c. Rental Housing
An internet search3 of available rental units in large complexes in Moorpark found rents
ranging from approximately $1,400 for a 1-bedroom unit to $2,300 per month for a 3-
bedroom unit.
When market rents are compared to the amounts low-income households can afford to
pay (Table II-16), it is clear that very-low- and extremely-low-income households have a
difficult time finding housing without overpaying. The gap between market rent and
affordable rent at the very-low-income level is about $700 per month, while the gap at
the extremely-low-income level is $1,100 per month. However, at the low-income and
moderate-income levels, households are much more likely to find affordable rentals.
3 http://www.forrent.com/search-apartments-by-area/CA/Greater-Los-Angeles/Ventura-County/Moorpark.php
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 27
D. Special Needs
Certain groups have greater difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to
special circumstances. Such circumstances may be related to one's employment and
income, family characteristics, disability, or other conditions. As a result, some Moorpark
residents may experience a higher prevalence of overpayment, overcrowding, or other
housing problems.
State Housing Element law defines "special needs" groups to include persons with
disabilities, the elderly, large households, female-headed households with children,
homeless people, and farm workers. This section contains a discussion of the housing
needs facing each of these groups.
1. Persons with Disabilities
Recent ACS data estimated that approximately 2,609 people in Moorpark, or about 8%
of the total population, had some type of disability (see Table 11-18). As may be
expected, those aged 65 and over had the highest rate of disabilities. Included within
these disabilities are persons whose disability hinders their ability to live independently
(1.4% of the working age population and 21%of the senior population).
Table 11-18
Persons with Disabilities by Age
Disability by Age Persons Percent
Total civilian noninstitutionalized population 34,466
With any disability 2,609 7.6%
Under Age 5-total persons 2,281 --
With a hearing difficulty 0 0.0%
With a vision difficulty 0 0.0%
Age 5 to 17-total persons 7,165
With a hearing difficulty 81 1.1%
With a vision difficulty 200 2.8%
With a cognitive difficulty 250 3.5%
With an ambulatory difficulty 11 0.2%
With a self-care difficulty 38 0.5%
Age 18 to 64-total persons 22,281
With a hearing difficulty 393 1.8%
With a vision difficulty 327 1.5%
With a cognitive difficulty 537 2.4%
With an ambulatory difficulty 445 2.0%
With a self-care difficulty 129 0.6%
With an independent living difficulty 302 1.4%
Age 65 and over*-total persons 2,739
With a hearing difficulty 291 10.6%
With a vision difficulty 112 4.1%
With a cognitive difficulty 302 11.0%
With an ambulatory difficulty 691 25.2%
With a self-care difficulty 409 14.9%
With an independent living difficulty 574 21.0%
Source: U.S.Census,2009-2011 ACS Table S1810
Note:Totals may exceed 100%due to multiple disabilities per person
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 28
Housing opportunities for persons with disabilities can be expanded through housing
assistance programs and providing universal design features such as widened doorways,
ramps, lowered countertops, single-level units and ground floor units. During the prior
planning period the City amended the Municipal Code to establish procedures to
ensure reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities pursuant to California
Government Code §65008 and §65583 (SB 520).
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
As defined by federal law, "developmental disability" means a severe, chronic disability
of an individual that:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental
and physical impairments;
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 22;
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following
areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language;
c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or
g) economic self-sufficiency;
• Reflects the individual's need for a combination and sequence of special,
interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of
assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually
planned and coordinated.
The Census Bureau does not record developmental disabilities. According to the U.S.
Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage
of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. Many
developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a
conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group
living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals
may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy
are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in
supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person's
living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-
based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and
their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental
centers, and two community-based facilities. Moorpark is served by the Tri-Counties
Regional Center4 (TCRC) which is based in Santa Barbara and operates a field office in
Oxnard. As of 2011 the Center served approximately 11,300 clients and had 280 staff
persons. TCRC reported that it assisted 238 Moorpark residents in 2013. Any resident who
has a developmental disability that originated before age 18 is eligible for services.
4 www.tri-counties.org
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 29
Services are offered to people with developmental disabilities based on Individual
Program Plans and may include: Adult day programs; advocacy; assessment/
consultation; behavior management programs; diagnosis and evaluation; independent
living services; infant development programs; information and referrals; mobility training;
prenatal diagnosis; residential care; respite care; physical and occupational therapy;
transportation; consumer, family vendor training; and vocational training. TCRC also
coordinates the state-mandated Early Start program, which provides services for children
under age three who have or are at substantial risk of having a developmental disability.
One of the challenges for persons with developmental disabilities is obtaining suitable
affordable housing. Many children with developmental disabilities are cared for at home
by family members, but as these children move into adulthood their parents or other
caregivers may have increasing difficulty providing needed care at home. Suitable
supportive housing is in short supply. To address this issue, Program 15 includes a
commitment to encourage and facilitate the production of supportive housing for
persons with developmental disabilities.
2. Elderly
According to recent Census data, there were 1,240 households in Moorpark where the
householder was 65 or older (Table 11-19). Approximately 12% of both owner and renter
householders were in the 65+ age groups. Many elderly persons are dependent on fixed
incomes or are disabled. Elderly householders may be physically unable to maintain their
homes or cope with living alone. The housing needs of this group can be addressed
through smaller units, second units on lots with existing homes, shared living arrange-
ments, congregate housing and housing assistance programs.
Table 11-19
Elderly Households by Tenure
Owner Renter
Householder Age Households %a Households
Under 65 years 7,492 88% 1,680 88%
65 to 74 years 581 7% 115 6%
75 to 84 years 377 4% 72 4%
85 years and over 59 1% 36 2%
Total Households I 8,509 I 100% I 1,903 100%
Source:U.S.Census 2006-2010 ACS,Table B25007
3. Large Households
Household size is an indicator of need for large units. Large households are defined as
those with five or more members. Large households are considered a special needs
group because they require more space and larger bedroom counts. According to
recent Census data (Table 11-20) there were 934 households in Moorpark with a least five
persons, representing approximately 7% of the total households in the City. About 8% of
owner-occupied households but only 3% of renter-occupied households had 5+
members. This distribution indicates that, while a portion of the City's households need
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 30
large units with four or more bedrooms, this demand is expected to be less than for
smaller units.
Table 11-20
Household Size by Tenure
Owner Renter
Householder Age Households % Households
1 person 1,909 20% 1,869 45%
2 persons 3,123 33% 1,357 32%
3 persons 1,400 15% 495 12%
4 persons 2,329 24% 316 8%
5 persons 634 7% 101 2%
6 persons 135 1% 38 1%
7 persons or more 26 0% 0 0%
Total Households ( 9,556 100% I 4,176 100%
Source:U.S.Census 2006-2010 ACS,Table B25009
4. Female-Headed Households
Female-headed households are a special needs group due to comparatively low rates
of homeownership, lower incomes and higher poverty rates experienced by this group.
According to recent Census estimates (Table 11-21) there were approximately 848 female-
headed households in Moorpark. Of the total female-headed households in the City, 44%
were renter-occupied and 56% were owner-occupied. About 6% of owner households
and 19% of renter households had female householders.
Table 11-21
Household Type by Tenure
Owner Renter
Household Type Households % • Households
Married couple family 6,165 72% 861 45%
Male householder,no wife present 395 5% 59 3%
Female householder,no husband present 477 6% 371 19%
Non-family households 1,472 17% 612 32%
Total Households I 8,509 100% I 1,903 100%
Source:U.S.Census 2006-2010 ACS,Table B11012
5. Farm Workers
Unlike most areas of the Southern California metropolitan area, agriculture is still a
significant component of the economy in Ventura County, with a total value of over$1.8
billion in 20115. There is strong public sentiment for retaining agricultural production, as
reflected in the SOAR (Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources) initiatives that have
been approved by voters. Figure 11-2 illustrates the wide variety of crops produced in the
county.
5 Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner,2011 Crop Report
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 31
Figure 11-2
Agricultural Production Areas -Ventura County
Ltaynez Ojai
` ,i
Mountains 'r •�
�' Santa Paula ��
0r r _ Ridge
j ; 1J 1 Fillmore Piro
1 Sulphur Mountain Z 4'
'":co , Santa Patty,+-f ,F
')2, g , m Oa' Ridge
k
d• I 4.�o =. Big Mountain r.
4t,. top r ,k r ,,,.. - Ls, Simi r'
,Irior ,�* / Ventura ', 1 ft ',s o n," •% 4 r'+ Moo -rk Valley .,
7.r
i
I �ti
COUNTY Osmanli° ' ' - _ ' , 11--.
' ,# " I> Thousands^` ""V.:-Agriculture w�
Oaks w..�
` Oxnard ., .i,:a , •, R►:..�. , i. ""
Summer,2004 gtlg ' so kovontavomb
vmwacourc,AVriva,w,icmn::. , e -1 •• '+°�:'t ... .•
®w.tne
Port Huenem ,', Santa Monica ��
_ .« • r* ;?' Mountains
According to the Ventura County Workforce Investment Board, over the past two
decades the number of farm workers continued to increase — there were 5,000 more
agricultural jobs in Ventura County in 2003 than there were in 1983. This represents more
than 30% growth in an industry that is stagnant in the value of its output. As a result, while
agriculture has become a less significant component of the county's economy, its
relative importance as a source of jobs has slipped only a little.
In spite of the increase in agriculture sector jobs, wages have shown no tendency to
increase. Quite the opposite has occurred, in fact. The real, inflation-adjusted agricultural
worker's average salary has fallen in 2000 dollars from $20,503 in 1983 to only $19,729 in
2003. This is counter to the national trend where real agricultural wages grew by 15%
between 1993 and 2002.
Official employment data suggests there are over 20,000 agricultural workers in Ventura
County. Agricultural Commissioner Earl McPhail estimates that 17,000 to 24,000 immigrant
workers come to the county each year at peak growing seasons. Other estimates of the
Ventura County farm population come from the Migrant Health Program, housed in the
federal Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration6. In
their most recent study (2000), MHP researchers estimated the number of farm workers in
several categories: total number of farm workers, the number of seasonal farm workers,
6 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study:California," Alice C. Larsen, Ph.D.,Migrant Health
Program, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration.September 2000.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 32
and the number of migrant farm workers (those who establish temporary residences in
connection with their work), as well as the total number of people living in farm worker
households (Table 11-22).
Table 11-22
Ventura County Farm Workers—2000
Farmer Workers+
Migrant Farm Seasonal Other Household
Farm Workers Workers Workers Members
Totals 35,181 16,289 18,892 62,605
Source:Bureau of Primary Health Care,Health Resources and Services Administration,2000
As part of its technical assistance to member jurisdictions for the 2013 Housing Element
Cycle, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) compiled a variety of
demographic and employment statistics' that included information related to farm
workers. According to SCAG's sources, about 14,500 persons in Ventura County are
employed in agricultural occupations. Of these, 183 reported Moorpark as their place of
residence (1.3% of the County total), and 250 worked in Moorpark (1.7% of the County
total) (Table 11-23). A variety of factors could explain the difference between Census
data and the Bureau of Primary Health Care estimates, including the difference between
job location and residence location, the undocumented status of some workers, or their
living arrangements.
Table 11-23
Agricultural Employment—
Moorpark vs. Ventura County
%of County
Farm Workers Workers Total
Total farm workers in Ventura County1 14,487 100%
Farm workers who live in Moorpark1 183 1.3%
Farm workers who work in Moorpark2 250 1.7%
Sources:
1.SCAG based on 2005-2009 ACS
2.SCAG based on 2006-2008 Census Transportation Planning Package
Since the majority of farm laborers in Ventura County are permanent non-migrant and
seasonal laborers, the housing needs of farmworkers are primarily addressed through the
provision of permanent affordable housing, such as apartments, lower-cost single-family
homes, and mobile homes. In compliance with the Employee Housing Act (Health and
Safety Code §17021 .5 and §17021 .6), the City amended the Municipal Code to allow
farmworker housing for up to 12 units or 36 persons by-right (i.e., without a CUP or other
discretionary approval) in zones allowing agricultural uses. The City has also approved
non-profit affordable housing developments that respond to the needs of permanent
and seasonal farmworkers.
7 http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/Housing-Elements-2012.aspx
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 33
6. Student Population
The City is home to Moorpark Community College with an enrollment of approximately
15,000 students. Moorpark is also located near several regional colleges, including
California State University Channel Islands (Camarillo), and California Lutheran University
(Thousand Oaks).
Students have special housing needs due to limited income and financial resources.
Many students attending part-time in community colleges work full-time jobs, while full
time students often work less. In either case, students often earn low income, pay more
than half their income for housing, and thus may double up to save income. According
to recent Census estimates8, 2,767 Moorpark residents were enrolled in college.
The type of housing need depends on the nature of the enrollment. Currently, about 67%
of the students are part-time9, and many work full-time or part-time within their respective
communities. As is the case with most community colleges, no housing is provided by the
college. Because the vast majority of students commute from other communities where
they work or live, the need for housing is not considered significant. Moorpark College
does, however, assist students in finding appropriate housing in the community.
7. Homeless Persons
Homelessness is a continuing national problem that persists within local cities and
communities including Ventura County. During the past two decades, an increasing
number of single persons have remained homeless year after year and have become
the most visible of all homeless persons. Other persons (particularly families) have
experienced shorter periods of homelessness. However, they are often replaced by other
families and individuals in a seemingly endless cycle of homelessness.
The homeless count conducted by the Ventura County Homeless and Housing Coalition
(VCHHC) in January 2012 reported 5 homeless persons in Moorpark, which represents
about 0.3% of the county total (Table 11-24). The most recent survey by VCHHC identified
a number of sub-populations of the homeless, as shown in Table 11-25. These include
families that might be displaced through evictions, women and children displaced
through abusive family life, persons with substance abuse problems, or persons suffering
from mental illness.
8 2007-2011 ACS Table DP-2
9 http://www.moorparkcollege.edu/college_information/about/index.shtml
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 34
Table 11-24
Ventura County Homeless Count: 2012
%of
Jurisdiction Number Total
Camarillo 30 1.5%
Fillmore 16 0.8%
Moorpark 5 0.3%
Ojai 41 2.1%
Oxnard 522 27.0%
Port Hueneme 12 0.6%
Santa Paula 60 3.1%
Simi Valley 284 14.7%
Thousand Oaks 90 4.6%
Ventura 701 36.2%
Unincorporated County 175 9.0%
Total 1,936 100%
Source:County of Ventura 2012 Homeless Count
http://www.vchhc.orq/imaqes/PDFs/2012 Ventura HomelessCount Report.pdf
Table 11-25
Ventura County Homeless Sub-Populations: 2012
Sub-Po.ulation %of Total
Chronic Homeless Persons 56%
Men 75%
Persons with a Developmental Disability 20%
Persons with a Physical Disability 42%
Persons with HIV/AIDS 4%
Persons with Mental Illness 28%
Substance Abusers 26%
Veterans 13%
Victims of Domestic Violence 22%
Women 25%
Youth A.es 18-24 7%
Source:2012 Ventura County Homeless Survey
http://www.vchhc.orq/images/PDFs/2012 VenturaSurvev.pdf
Although there are myriad causes of homelessness, according to Ventura County
information from 2007, among the most common causes are the following:
• Substance Abuse and Alcohol
The incidence of alcohol and other drug abuse within the homeless population
is estimated to be three times higher than the general population (30% vs.
10%). This estimate is closely aligned with national survey statistics. The Ventura
County Housing and Homeless Coalition identifies a need in Ventura County
for treatment facilities with housing and clinical staff. They also recommend
that a treatment facility be established within the county for youth with drug
and alcohol addiction.
The State of California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs licenses
residential facilities and/or certified alcohol and drug programs in Ventura
County. There are eleven residential facilities and two residential detoxification
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 35
facilities in the county. None are located in Moorpark. Facilities available for
substance abusers (including homeless substance abusers) are coordinated
through the County's Alcohol and Drug Program.
• Domestic Violence
The Ventura County Housing and Homeless Coalition has identified a need for
additional shelters for battered women and runaway youth. These individuals
also require counseling and assistance to become self-sufficient or return to
their families. Victims of household violence can become homeless as a result
of escaping abusive living environments. They also suffer physical and psycho-
logical trauma as a result of the abuse. Many of these persons (almost
exclusively women) are ill-equipped to fend for themselves and their children.
Without access to affordable housing, reliable transportation and supportive
counseling, they are at a greater disadvantage and create special homeless
needs. Common issues faced by battered women are lack of jobs, lack of
child care, lack of suitable housing, under-employment, codependent
substance abuse, and a need for marketable skills.
• Mental Illness
According to the Turning Point Foundation, persons who are homeless and
mentally ill have special needs and are not being served well in traditional
homeless shelters. Many are at risk in the community, frequently being
victimized and often suffering from physical and mental illnesses due to lack of
proper nourishment and shelter. Many of the homeless mentally ill do not avail
themselves of services or cannot be served by traditional services due to their
untreated psychiatric symptoms, active substance abuse, or histories of
abusive behavior.
The incidence of homelessness for the chronically mentally ill is expected to
increase in Ventura County due to a shortage of affordable housing and the
closing of single occupancy hotels and residential care facilities. National
surveys indicate the mentally ill comprise approximately 20% of the homeless
population (plus a portion of the 21% of the homeless who are both mentally ill
and are suffering from drug and/or alcohol abuse). Local service providers
estimate that 33% of the homeless are also mentally ill. Moorpark, as part of the
Ventura County service area, receives assistance with the homeless mentally ill
from the Ventura County Behavioral Health Department.
Needs of the Homeless Population
While there are no emergency homeless shelters in Moorpark, several homeless shelters
and service providers operate in adjacent communities. These include the Conejo Winter
Shelter in Thousand Oaks, which is operated by Lutheran Social Services, the winter
shelter run by PADS in Simi Valley, and the Samaritan Center in Simi Valley, which
operates a drop-in center and supportive services.
As a member of the Ventura County Council of Government's Standing Committee on
Homelessness, the City is engaged in addressing homelessness and the needs of the
homeless throughout the region. Locally, the City funds Catholic Charities, which
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 36
provides eviction prevention services that help very-low-income individuals and families
that are at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, the agency provides a variety of
services such as food, clothing and referrals to those persons who are homeless. Local
service providers also provide eviction prevention services and landlord/tenant
counseling to lower-income Moorpark residents.
E. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
This section identifies residential projects in the city that are under an affordability
restriction, and identifies those that are at risk of losing their low-income affordability
restrictions within the ten-year period 2013-2023. This information is used in establishing
quantified objectives for units that can be conserved during this planning period. The
inventory of assisted units includes units that have been assisted under any federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), state, local and/or other
program.
Table 11-26 provides a list of developments within the City of Moorpark that currently
participate in a federal, state or local program that provided some form of assistance,
either through financial subsidy or a control measure. As seen in the table, none of the
units have covenants due to expire prior to 2023. Data compiled by SCAG and the
California Housing Partnership confirm that there are no at-risk units in Moorpark.
Table 11-26
Assisted Housing Developments
Assisted Covenants
Project Units Program Expire
Tafoya Terrace 30 Public housing complex operated by the Ventura County Area Housing Authority, Permanent
provides affordable rental housing for lower-income seniors.
Waterstone 62 6 extremely-low income,23 very-low income,21 low-income,and 12 moderate-income Permanent
rental apartment units within a 312-unit apartment complex as part of Development
Agreement with City.
Villa Del Arroyo 48 48 spaces within Mobile Home park are reserved for lower-income households.Villa 2030
Del Arroyo Mobile Home Estates was purchased through issuance of Mortgage
Revenue Bonds,which require 20%of the units to be affordable.
Villa Campesina 62 31 very-low income and 31 low-income for-sale detached units in 62-home"sweat- n/a
equity"development. 12 homes still carrying 2nd Mortgages that restrict income of
owners.
Vintage Crest 190 190-unit senior apartment project with 48 units reserved for very-low income senior Permanent
households,and 142 units reserved for low-income senior households built with an
affordable housing bond program
Mountain View 15 4 very-low and 11 low income for-sale detached units in a 59-unit housing 2033
development.
Moonsong 6 2 very-low and 4 low-income for-sale detached units in a 25-unit housing development. Permanent
TR Partners 1 1 low-income for-sale detached unit in 8-home development. Permanent
Canterbury Lane 7 7 low-income attached single-family units Permanent
Waverly Place 25 25 low-income attached condominium units in 102-unit attached condominium Permanent
development.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 37
F. Future Growth Needs
1. Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for local governments to
plan for anticipated growth. The RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing within
each jurisdiction for the period from January 2014 to October 2021. Communities then
determine how they will address this need through the process of updating the Housing
Elements of their General Plans.
The current RHNA was adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) in October 2012. The future need for housing is determined primarily by the
forecasted growth in households in a community. Each new household, created by a
child moving out of a parent's home, by a family moving to a community for
employment, and so forth, creates the need for a housing unit. The housing need for new
households is then adjusted to maintain a desirable level of vacancy to promote housing
choice and mobility. An adjustment is also made to account for units expected to be lost
due to demolition, natural disaster, or conversion to non-housing uses. The sum of these
factors - household growth, vacancy need, and replacement need - determines the
construction need for a community. Total housing need is then distributed among four
income categories on the basis of the County's income distribution, with adjustments to
avoid an over-concentration of lower-income households in any community.
2. 2014-2021 Moorpark Growth Needs
The total housing growth need for the City of Moorpark during the 2014-2021 planning
period is 1,164 units. This total is distributed by income category as shown in Table 11-27.
Table 11-27
Regional Housing Growth Needs—Moorpark
Extremely Low* Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
145 144 197 216 462 1,164
12.4% 12.4% 16.9% 18.6% 39.7% 100%
Source:SCAG 2012
*Assumed to be 50%of the VL RHNA need per AB 2634
A discussion of the City's capacity to accommodate this growth need is provided in the
land inventory section of Chapter III.
10 The RHNA does not identify extremely-low-income needs separately. In accordance with Government Code
§65583.a.1,the extremely-low-income need is assumed to be 50%of the very-low category.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 38
III. RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES
A. Land Resources
Section 65583(a)(3) of the Government Code requires Housing Elements to contain 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." A detailed analysis of approved projects,
pending applications, vacant land and potential redevelopment opportunities is
provided in Appendix B. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table III-1 . The table
shows that the city's land inventory, including approved projects, pending applications
and the potential development of vacant and underutilized parcels, exceeds the RHNA
allocation for all income categories
Table III-1
Land Inventory Summary
Income Category
Site Category Lower Mod Above Total
Approved projects(Table B-1) 112 196 776 1,084
Pending projects(Table B-1) 312 48 834 1,194
Potential second units 8 8
Vacant land—residential(Table B-3) 521 52 573
Subtotal 945 244 1,662 I 2,851
RHNA(2014-2021) 486 216 462 1,164
Adequate capacity I Yes I Yes Yes I Yes
Source:City of Moorpark Community Development Dept,2013
A discussion of public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve future development is
contained in Section IV.B, Non-Governmental Constraints. There are currently no known
service limitations that would preclude the level of development described in the RH NA,
although developers will be required to pay fees or construct public improvements prior
to or concurrent with development.
B. Financial and Administrative Resources
1. State and Federal Resources
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Federal funding for housing programs is available through the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Since the City is not an entitlement
jurisdiction, Moorpark receives its CDBG allocation through the County of Ventura
rather than directly from HUD. The CDBG program is very flexible in that the funds
can be used for a wide range of activities. Eligible activities include, but are not
limited to, acquisition and/or disposition of real estate or property, public facilities
and improvements, relocation, rehabilitation and construction (under certain
limitations) of housing, homeownership assistance, and clearance activities. The
County is the final decision-making body regarding annual CDBG applications and
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 39
the City plays an advisory role in recommending which applications to fund. In past
CDBG cycles, Moorpark received approximately $192,000 annually in CDBG funds,
15% of which was allocated to public service projects and the remainder allocated
toward public improvement projects. Under the CDBG agreement, the County
ensures that an amount within 5% of the City's annual allocation is used for any
applications received relevant to Moorpark. In the past, the City's public service
allocation has typically been used to fund social service organizations located
within the City. The public improvement allocation has been used to fund
architectural services for the Ruben Castro Human Services Center, a 25,000-sq.ft.
"under one roof" concept that will house various social service agencies at one
location.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program was created by the Tax Reform Act
of 1986 to provide an alternate method of funding low- and moderate-income
housing. Each state receives a tax credit allocation, based upon population,
toward funding housing that meets program guidelines. The tax credits are then
used to leverage private capital for new construction or acquisition and
rehabilitation of affordable housing. Limitations on projects funded under the Tax
Credit programs include minimum requirements that a certain percentage of units
remain rent-restricted, based upon median income. One tax credit project has
been built in Moorpark to date-- the Area Housing Authority's Charles Street
Terrace, which was completed in 2012.
Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC)
This program provides a federal tax credit for income-qualified homebuyers
equivalent to 15% of the annual mortgage interest. Generally, the tax savings are
calculated as income to help buyers qualify to purchase a home. Using an MCC,
first-time buyers can save $700 to $2,500 a year on their annual federal income tax
bill. The City has participated in the program since 1997. There have been no MCC's
issued during this planning period. This is presumably due to the fact that in order to
purchase a home in Moorpark, a prospective purchaser's income has to be higher
than the income limits allowed by the MCC program. The current goal is to assist 3
households over a 3-year period.11 There may be MCC's issued during the current
planning period due to the downturn in the housing market.
Section 8 Rental Assistance
The City maintains membership in the Area Housing Authority of the County of
Ventura, which administers the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program. The
Housing Assistance Payments Program assists elderly and disabled households by
paying the difference between 30% of an eligible household's income and the
actual cost of renting a unit. The Housing Authority also operates Tafoya Terrace, a
30-unit affordable senior apartment project in Moorpark and Charles Street Terrace,
a 20-unit affordable large family apartment project adjacent to Tafoya Terrace.
Ventura County 2005 Consolidated Plan,page 97
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 40
While these two apartment developments are available to tenants who receive
Section 8 certificates, they are not restricted to only Section 8 tenants.
2. Local Resources
Moorpark Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark (Redevelopment Agency)
has been dissolved by AB xl 26. The City of Moorpark (City) has elected to
become the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Moorpark (Successor Agency) and is tasked with winding down the activities of
the former Redevelopment Agency. The City has also elected to assume the
housing activities of the former Redevelopment Agency. The Successor Agency
has successfully transferred the housing assets to the City with approval from the
Oversight Board to the Successor Agency and the Department of Finance (DOF).
The City plans to develop the vacant parcels during this planning cycle and use
the land proceeds to continue its affordable housing land banking program. The
Successor Agency has completed the Long Range Property Management Plan
and has submitted it to the DOF for approval.
In-Lieu Fees and the Housing Trust Fund
Since 1997, the City has collected or has agreements in place for the collection of
in-lieu fees from developers for the purposes of providing affordable housing
pursuant to defined development agreements. The In-Lieu Fees are project-specific
and vary based on the terms of the Development Agreement. Annual increases in
the fees are tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The revenue collected from
developers is placed in the Housing Trust Fund, which is used for the provision and/or
maintenance of affordable housing in Moorpark. At the current rates for all
approved Development Agreements, the City can expect a total of about $1.9
million of in-lieu fees, contingent upon buildout of market rate units. The trust fund is
currently at about $3.6 million.
3. Local Non-Profit Agencies
First 5 Moorpark/Simi Valley Neighborhood For Learning (Moorpark Family
Resource Center)
The center provides services to families with children aged 0-5. Services provided
include family education training on parenting issues; Information, guidance &
referrals for children with special needs; Resources for childcare and childcare
providers; Medical/dental/vision/nutrition screenings and workshops; Health
Services including: Healthy Families/MediCal application assistance; Enrichment
for children: Family & Me Art & Music, story times; information & referrals to outside
agencies; Book/video lending library; and Adult ESL & literacy classes
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 41
Catholic Charities and Moorpark Community Service Center
Catholic Charities is a non-profit organization that provides various social services
such as eviction prevention assistance, utility payments, and emergency rental
payments. They also run the Moorpark Food Pantry, which collects various
donations of perishable and non-perishable food items, clothes, and personal
hygiene items to be distributed to the neediest families in the community.
Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC)
The Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) is an active affordable
housing developer in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. CEDC also has
construction, property management, homeownership, counseling, and community
building divisions. CEDC was involved in developing two projects in Moorpark: the
62-unit Villa Campesina project and the 59-unit Mountain View project.
Mercy Charities Housing California (MCHC)
Mercy Charities is a statewide non-profit housing development corporation whose
mission is to support and strengthen communities through the provision of quality,
affordable, services-enriched housing for lower income individuals and families.
MCHC has been active in nearby Oxnard, and has completed construction of three
affordable housing projects. There are currently no active projects in Moorpark.
Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County
Habitat for Humanity is a non-profit, Christian organization dedicated to building
affordable housing and rehabilitating damaged homes for lower income families.
Habitat builds and repairs homes for families with the help of volunteers and
homeowner/partner families. Habitat homes are sold to partner families at no profit
with affordable, no-interest loans. Volunteers, churches, businesses, and other
groups provide most of the labor for the homes. Land for new homes is usually
donated by government agencies or individuals. There are currently no active
projects in Moorpark.
Many Mansions, Inc.
Many Mansions is a non-profit housing and community development organization
founded in 1979 to promote and provide safe, well-managed housing to limited
income residents of the Conejo Valley and surrounding communities in Ventura
County. Many Mansions develops, owns, and self-manages special needs and
permanent affordable housing. The organization also provides resident services,
housing counseling, a food bank and homeownership counseling. There are
currently no active projects in Moorpark.
Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation (PSHHC)
PSHHC is a housing and community development corporation serving San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. PSHHC provides design,
implementation, technical assistance, and property management of low-income
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 42
homeownership and rental housing. PSHHC is known to have produced attractive
single-family homes at affordable prices in Santa Barbara. PSHHC partnered with
Cabrillo and developed the Villa Campesina project consisting of 62 homes in
Moorpark.
C. Energy Conservation Opportunities
State law requires all new construction to comply with "energy budget" standards that
establish maximum allowable energy use from depletable sources (Title 24 of the
California Administrative Code). These requirements apply to such design components
as structural insulation, air infiltration and leakage control, setback features on
thermostats, water heating system insulation (tanks and pipes) and swimming pool
covers if a pool is equipped with a fossil fuel or electric heater. State law also requires
that a tentative tract map provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision, including designing the lot sizes and configurations to
permit orienting structures to take advantage of a southern exposure, shade or prevailing
breezes.
The 2010 California Green Building Standards Code became effective January 1, 2011,
and the City will adopt updates as they become available.
Consistent with Assembly Bill 1881, in January of 2010, the City adopted by reference, the
model water efficient landscape ordinance of the State of California, as contained in
the California Code of Regulations Title 23. Waters, Division 2. Department of Water
Resources, Chapter 2.7. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Sections 490
through 494, as the water efficient landscape ordinance of the city of Moorpark. The
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, (WELO) has been updated to establish a structure
for designing, installing, maintaining and managing water efficient landscapes in new
and rehabilitated projects. The ordinance reduces water use to the lowest practical
amount and sets an upper limit that shall not be exceeded. It also establishes provisions
for water management practices and water waste prevention for established
landscapes. The ordinance intends to promote the values and benefits of landscapes
while recognizing the need to use water and other resources efficiently.
In 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-2169 establishing Design Standards
for Solar Energy Systems to ensure that solar energy systems are integrated into the
buildings they serve without detracting from the visual character. This Resolution allows
issuance of ministerial permits, by-right for the installation of solar panels on residential
structures.
Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company offer energy
conservation programs to residents of Moorpark, including audits of home energy use to
reduce electricity consumption, refrigerator rebates, appliance repair and weatheriza-
tion assistance to qualified low-income households, buyer's guides for appliances and
incentives (by the Gas Company) to switch from electric to gas appliances. Direct
assistance to low-income households is provided by the Gas Company through the
California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Program and by SCE through its Energy
Management Assistance Program.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 43
Both companies have programs to encourage energy conservation in new construction.
SCE's energy rebate program applies to residential developers as well as individual
customers. SCE also offers an Energy STAR new home program, and Sustainable
Communities Program offering design assistance and financial incentives for sustainable
housing development projects. The Gas Company's Energy Advanced Home Program is
offered to residential developers who install energy-efficient gas appliances that exceed
California energy standards by at least 15%.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 44
IV. CONSTRAINTS
A. Governmental Constraints
1. Land Use Plans and Regulations
a. General Plan
Each city and county in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term General
Plan to guide its future. The land use element of the General Plan establishes the basic
land uses and density of development within the various areas of the city. Under state
law, the General Plan elements must be internally consistent and the City's zoning must
be consistent with the General Plan. Thus, the land use plan must provide suitable
locations and densities to implement the policies of the Housing Element.
Table IV-1
Residential land Use Categories
General Plan Land
Use Category Zoning Designation Purposes of Zone and Permitted Residential Type(s)
Open Space and Open Space(0-S) Single-family detached home within a large open space area
Agricultural Agricultural Exclusive(A-E) Single-family detached home within a large agricultural area
Rural Residential Rural-Agricultural(R-A) Single-family detached home on larger lots designed to maintain a rural
setting
Rural Exclusive(R-E) Single-family homes on smaller lots designed to maintain a rural setting
Single-Family Estate(R-0) Single-family homes or cluster developments in a rural setting
Urban Residential Single-Family Res.(R-1) Attached/detached single-family homes in a subdivision setting
Two-Family Res.(R-2) Single family detached units,two units,or one duplex per lot
Residential Planned Development Attached and detached single-family and multi-family units
(RPD)
Residential Planned Development- Attached single-and multi-family units,20 units/acre minimum
20 units/acre(RPD-20)
Sources:Land Use Element,1992;Moorpark Zoning Code,2013
The Land Use Element of Moorpark's General Plan sets forth policies for guiding local
development. These policies, together with zoning regulations, establish the location and
type of residential development that may occur. A comprehensive update to the Land
Use Element was adopted in 1992, and several significant amendments have been
adopted since that time. These include conversion of about 2,071 acres of rural
residential designated land to higher residential densities and open space; including the
Country Club Estates, Meridian Hills, Pacific Communities, Birdsall and Essex residential
developments. There have been adoptions or substantial amendments of three Specific
Plans (Carlsberg, Downtown and Moorpark Highlands) and the approval of a voter-
initiated City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB).
Table IV-1 details the major General Plan and zoning land use categories and types of
homes permitted. The Zoning Code allows for a range of residential uses in different
settings. The Code was amended in 2013 to establish a new RPD-20 zoning district
allowing attached housing by-right at a minimum density of 20 units/acre.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 45
Table IV-2
Residential Development Standards
General Plan Land Use Category
Agricultural Rural Residential Urban Residential
R-P-D*,SP,
Development Standard Zone 0-S AE R-A R-0 R-E R-1 R-2 TPD
Building Standards
Density Maximum dwelling units 1 du/10 1 du/40 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 15.0 No
per gross acre acres acres maximum(1)
Min.Unit Size n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Max.Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35'
Lot Standards
Net lot area(in square feet 10 acres 40 acres 1 acre 20,000 10,000 6,225 6,500 By permit
unless noted
Lot Coverage maximum(%) 20 10 35 35 35 50 50 By permit
Lot Width(in feet) 110 110 100 80 80 60 60 By permit
Lot Depth(in feet) 150 150 100 100 100 100 100 By permit
Building Setbacks
Front yard setback 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20'
Side yard setback(interior) 10' 10' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 10'
Rear yard setback 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 0
Park Standard
Local Standard 5 acres/per 1,000 people or 120%of appraised value of usable parkland
Parking Standards
Single Family 2 spaces in a garage for units 52,800 sf and 3 spaces in a garage for units>2,800 sf
Multi-Family Units 1 space per unit covered in a garage or carport for each studio unit;and 1.75 spaces per unit
with 1 covered in a garage for each unit with 1 bedroom
2 spaces per unit with 1 covered in a garage or carport for each unit with 2 or more bedrooms,
plus 1/2 space per unit for visitors
Mobile Homes 2 tandem spaces covered in a garage or carport per unit+'/4 space/unit for visitors
Second Units 1 space per 1-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit
Senior housing(age 55+) 0.5 spaces per unit with 0.25 spaces in a garage or carport I
Source:City of Moorpark Zoning Code(current through October 2013)
*RPD permit required for any development that creates five or more separate residential lots in the R-A,R-E,R-0,R-1,and R-2 zones.
1.Density Bonuses can be approved up to 100%with a City Council Approved Density Bonus and Development Agreement
n/a:Residential development standard not specified in the Zoning Code
Note:Residential development is also permitted within the Planned Community(P-C)zone on minimum 100-acre site.As with R-P-D,SP
and TPD zones,development standards are by permit."
b. Zoning
The type, location, density, and scale of residential development is regulated primarily
through the Zoning Code. Zoning regulations are designed to protect and promote the
health, safety, and general welfare of residents, as well as implement the policies of the
General Plan. The Zoning Code also serves to preserve the character and integrity of
existing neighborhoods. Table IV-2 summarizes pertinent development standards for the
non-Specific Plan areas of Moorpark. These standards allow maximum densities to be
achieved and do not add significantly to development costs.
c. Specific Plan Areas
Moorpark has four Specific Plans areas: Carlsberg, Hitch Ranch, Moorpark Highlands, and
the Downtown Specific Plan. These Specific Plans have been designated to compre-
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 46
hensively address a variety of unique land uses (e.g. topography, viewshed, and
circulation) and provide focused planning and development standards tailored to the
unique characteristics or purpose of a particular area.
Carlsberg Specific Plan
The Carlsberg Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1994. This specific
plan area encompasses a total of 488.4 acres of land, of which 220.4 acres are
designated open space. There are a total of 155.0 acres dedicated to single-family
detached residential development ranging in densities between 3.0 units an acre
up to 5 units per gross acre. There are 73.0 acres designated for Sub-regional Retail /
Commercial / Business Park uses and 7.0 acres of Institutionally designated land.
There is also a 9.0 acre nature preserve, a 6.5 acre public park and 17.5 acres of
land dedicated for roadway, access purposes. The residential component of this
Specific Plan is completely built out.
Hitch Ranch Specific Plan
The Hitch Ranch Specific Plan, in the northwest quadrant of the City, consists of
285.10 acres, of which over half of the acreage is proposed for 755 residential units.
The project contains two single-family residential development areas, with lots
ranging from 4,000 to 7,000 square feet. The Specific Plan includes a multi-family
housing component consisting of a high-density residential area of 32.78 acres with
295 housing units. This project entered into the planning and environmental stage as
of 2000. The site planning and project description has been finalized for application
processing purposes and the Draft EIR is being completed for circulation and
consideration. In 2013, a 23.44-acre portion of this property was rezoned to RPD-20-
U..
Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan
The Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan, located in the northern part of the city,
consists of approximately 445 acres. Of the total acreage, 40% is designated for
residential use at densities ranging from 1.3 to 12.0 units/acre. According to the
Specific Plan, approximately 685 single- and multi-family homes will be built in this
Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan has been approved by the City Council and
development implementation is underway. Twenty-eight low-income affordable
units have been provided in this development. All 28 affordable units are currently
occupied, and 7 more are under construction.
Downtown Specific Plan
The Downtown Specific Plan contains High Street, Old Town, several residential
neighborhoods, and the downtown commercial area. Within this area, residential
zones permit up to 6 dwelling units per acre, while the Residential Planned
Development zone permits up to 28 units per acre under land consolidation criteria,
when in conjunction with the City's density bonus provisions. Housing development
that has occurred in the Downtown Specific Plan in recent years has consisted of
infill housing projects, including single-family, duplexes, and one senior housing
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 47
project. The senior project, known as Tafoya Terrace, is operated by the Area
Housing Authority of the County of Ventura. There are 30 units restricted to very-low-
and extremely-low-income seniors. Within this Specific Plan area, the Area Housing
Authority also built Charles Street Terrace, with 20 apartment units restricted to low-
and very-low-income residents.
d. Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites with
appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of
housing for all economic segments of the population. Housing types include single-family
and multi-family housing opportunities, factory-built housing, Mobile Homes, as well as
housing for persons with special needs such as emergency shelters, transitional housing,
and farm labor housing.
Moorpark's Zoning Code permits a wide variety of housing types, as discussed below and
summarized in Table IV-3. Zone clearance and administrative permits require only the
approval of the Director of Community Development. A conditional use permit requires a
public hearing and clearance by the Planning Commission. RPD (Residential Planned
Development) clearance requires Planning Commission approval. Each of these permit
procedures is described in Subsection 4, "Development Permit Procedures."
Multi-Family Housing
Moorpark's Zoning Code provides for multi-family housing in the R-2 and Residential
Planned Development (R-P-D) zones, which allow densities up to 30 dwelling units
per acre (assuming a density bonus and additional incentives). In addition, the
Downtown Specific Plan allows multi-family housing up to 20 units/acre, excluding
density bonus, which can only be achieved for a low/very-low or senior housing
project. The provision of multi-family housing in . these zones facilitates the
production of lower-income housing. In 2004, the state legislature passed Assembly
Bill 2348, which established 20 units/acre as the "default density" that is assumed to
be suitable for lower-income housing in smaller suburban jurisdictions such as
Moorpark. Multi-family densities of at least 20 units/acre can be achieved in the R-2
and RPD zones as well as within specific plans.
Municipal Code Chapter 17.36.030 contains development standards for properties
within the Residential Planned Development (R-P-D) zone (see Table IV-2). These
minimum standards may be modified by up to 20% when the developer agrees to
include affordable units in the project.
The framework provided by the General Plan and Zoning Code creates a high
degree of flexibility for developers, which also allows the City to provide significant
incentives to encourage the provision of affordable housing. As noted in Appendix
B, this approach has been very successful in generating low- and moderate-income
housing in previous planning periods. Without the "leverage" created by this
regulatory flexibility, it is unlikely that affordable housing production would have
been as successful.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 48
Table IV-3
Housing Types Permitted by Zone
0-S Rural Residential Urban Residential
Residential Uses A-E R-A R-E R-0 R-1 R-2 R-P-D
Residential Uses
Single-family AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
Duplexes/Tri/Quad AP AP
Multi-family AP** PDP***
Mobile Home Parks CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Second Units ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Group Housing
Boarding house CUP(AE only) CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Transitional/Supportive Housing* * * * * * * *
Residential Care Facilities(6 or less) ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Farm Labor Housin• ZC ZC ZC
Special Need Housing
Affordable or Senior** AP AP AP
Source:City of Moorpark Zoning Code,current through October 2013.
Notes:*Transitional&supportive housing is permitted within all residential zones subject to the same standards and procedures as apply to other residential uses
of the same type in the same zone
**Less than 5 units
***Administrative Permit for projects with 4 or fewer units
ZC=zoning clearance; CUP=conditional use permit;AP=administrative permit;blank=not permitted
Second Units
In compliance with AB 1866, the City has adopted a Second Unit Ordinance which
makes permits for second units ministerial (Zoning Clearance only). Second units are
permitted on conforming lots of 1/4-acre or larger. Maximum unit sizes range from 800
to 1,100 square feet, depending on lot size. Production of second units ranges from
one to three units per year.
Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing •
There is often an economy of scale in manufacturing homes in a plant rather than
on site, thereby reducing cost. State law precludes local governments from
prohibiting the installation of Mobile Homes on permanent foundations on single-
family lots. It also declares a Mobile Home park to be a permitted land use on any
land planned and zoned for residential use, and prohibits requiring the average
density in a new Mobile Home park to be less than that permitted by the Municipal
Code.
Moorpark has about 243 Mobile Homes within the community. Mobile Home parks
are permitted in all residential zones subject to a CUP from the Planning
Commission. The Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Program (see Chapter V,
Program 11 a) limits space rent increases and the Hardship Waiver Program provides
a waiver for tenants if a space rent increase results in economic hardship. The City
also participates in Mobile Home revenue bond financing to provide for reserved
spaces and affordable units for very-low-income households.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 49
Single Room Occupancy
Single room occupancy (SRO) facilities are small studio-type units intended for
occupancy by one or two persons and may have shared bathroom or kitchen
facilities. The Zoning Code allows SROs by-right in the C-2 zone subject to objective
development standards.
e. Special Needs Housing
Persons with special needs include those in residential care facilities, persons with
disabilities, farm workers, persons needing emergency shelter or transitional living
arrangements, and single room occupancy units. The City's provisions for these housing
types are discussed below.
Extremely-Low-Income Households
Many of the persons and households discussed in this section under the topic of
special needs fall within the extremely-low-income category, which is defined as
30% or less of area median income, or up to $26,800 per year for a 4-person
household in Ventura County (2013).
A variety of City policies and programs described in Chapter V address the needs
of extremely-low-income households, including those in need of residential care
facilities, persons with disabilities, and farm workers. However, it should be
recognized that development of new housing for the lowest income groups
typically requires very large public subsidies, and the level of need is greater than
can be met due to funding limitations, especially during these times of declining
public revenues.
Residential Care Facilities
Residential care facilities refer to any family home, group home, or rehabilitation
facility that provides non-medical care to persons in need of personal services,
protection, supervision, assistance, guidance, or training essential for daily living.
Moorpark complies with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act by
allowing State-authorized, certified, or licensed family care homes, foster homes, or
group homes serving six or fewer persons by-right in all residential zones.
Care facilities, including congregate living health facilities, community treatment
facilities, hospices, long-term health care facilities, residential care facilities for the
elderly, residential care facilities for persons with chronic life-threatening illness,
skilled nursing and intermediate care facilities, social rehabilitation facilities,
transitional housing placement facilities, and transitional shelter care facilities are
permitted in C-O, C-1, CPD and C-2 zones, subject to approval of a conditional use
permit from the Planning Commission.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The City's building codes require that new residential construction comply with the
federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA provisions include requirements
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 50
for a minimum percentage of units in new developments to be fully accessible to
the physically disabled. Provisions of fully accessible units may also increase the
overall project development costs. However, unlike the Uniform Building Code,
enforcement of ADA requirements is not at the discretion of the City, but is
mandated under federal law. Compliance with building codes and the ADA may
increase the cost of housing production and can also impact the viability of
rehabilitation of older properties required to be brought up to current code
standards. However, these regulations provide minimum standards that must be
complied with in order to ensure the development of safe and accessible housing.
Some aspects of zoning regulations have the potential to act as a constraint on
housing for persons with disabilities. Such regulations include how "family" is defined,
physical separation or concentration requirements for group homes, site planning
requirements, parking standards, and procedures for ensuring reasonable
accommodation for persons with disabilities.
• Definition of "Family". The Municipal Code defines "family" as "One or more
persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to, and
common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit"
consistent with current law.
• Concentration requirements. The City imposes no minimum separation
requirements for residential care facilities.
• Parking requirements. One space per 2 beds plus 1 space for each 500 square
feet is required for care facilities.
• Reasonable accommodation. The current Zoning Code allows reasonable
accommodations by-right, that include construction of uncovered porches,
platforms, or landings that do not extend above the floor level of the first floor
of the main structure, and these features may extend into required setback
areas not more than six feet. Also, construction or installation of safety guard
railings required for stairs, landings, porches, and installation of depressed
ramps are allowed and may encroach into front, side or rear setback areas,
provided they are open and do not exceed 42 inches in height. While a
zoning clearance is not required by the Planning Department, issuance of a
building permit for construction is required to ensure that construction is in
compliance with building codes. In order to ensure that the City's procedures
for reviewing and approving requests for reasonable accommodation do not
pose a constraint to persons with disabilities, the Municipal Code was
amended in 2013 to establish procedures for reviewing and approving
requests for reasonable accommodation consistent with current law.
Farm Worker Housing
The state Employee Housing Act12 regulates farm worker housing and generally
requires that facilities with no more than 36 beds or 12 units be treated as an
agricultural land use that is not subject to any conditional use permit that is not
12 California Health and Safety Code§17021.5 and§17021.6
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 51
required of other agricultural uses in the same zone. The Zoning Code allows small
farm worker housing projects in conformance with the Employee Housing Act.
Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing
Emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing are part of the Ventura
County regional continuum of care to address the needs of the homeless
population. Emergency shelters are year-round facilities that provide a safe
alternative to the streets, usually for 30 days or less. Transitional housing is longer
term housing, typically up to two years. Transitional housing requires that the
resident participate in a structured program to work toward the established goals so
that they can move on to permanent housing. Residents are often provided with an
array of supportive services to assist them in meeting goals. Supportive housing has
no limit on length of stay and is intended to provide housing with support services to
persons with disabilities.
In conformance with Senate Bill 2 (California Government Code §65583 and
§65589.5), the Zoning Code allows emergency shelters by-right subject to objective
development standards in the C-2 zone, and also at existing established places of
worship in residential zones, provided that the use is established in coordination with
an existing permitted religious facility. The C-2 zone comprises approximately 1.05
acres and includes six vacant or underutilized sites that could accommodate at
least one year-round shelter. In addition, there are approximately 11 permitted
places of worship in Moorpark where shelters could be established.
SB 2 also requires that transitional/supportive housing be treated as a residential use
that is subject only to the same requirements and procedures that apply to any
other residential use of the same type in the same zone. The Zoning Code was
amended in 2013 in compliance with these requirements. As a result of the passage
of SB 745 in 2013, the Zoning Code will be amended to revise the definitions of
transitional and supportive housing consistent with Government Code §65582 (see
Chapter V, Program 7).
f. Off-Street Parking Requirements
The City's parking requirements for residential zones vary by residential type, housing
product, and parking needs (see Table IV-2). Two enclosed parking spaces are required
for a single-family residence 2,800 square-feet or less and three enclosed spaces are
required for a single-family residence over 2,800 square feet. For multi-family housing, one
space in a garage or carport is required for a bachelor or studio unit, 1.75 spaces per unit
with one space in a garage or carport is required for each one-bedroom unit, and two
spaces (one enclosed in a garage or carport) are required for units with two or more
bedrooms, plus an additional one-half space for guest parking is required for each unit.
Mobile Home parks require two covered parking spaces for each unit plus one-quarter
space per unit for guest parking. Second units are required to have one space for a one-
bedroom unit and two spaces for a two-bedroom unit. For senior housing projects
restricted to residents age 55 or older, 0.5 space is required per unit. The City has
reduced parking standards through development agreements to encourage the
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 52
production of affordable housing. The City also allows reduced parking consistent with
state Density Bonus law (Government Code §65915) upon the developer's request.
g. Density Bonus and Inclusionary/In-lieu Fee Program
Moorpark employs a variety of tools that facilitate and encourage the development of
affordable housing for all economic segments of the community. The two primary tools
are the density bonus program and the inclusionary/in-lieu fee program. These programs
are employed alone or in tandem to facilitate and encourage the construction of
affordable housing for lower- and moderate-income households.
Moorpark has adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 17.64 of the Zoning Code)
that allows a density increase of up to 100% above the otherwise allowable maximum for
qualifying projects (see Chapter V, Program No. 16). The increase in the allowable
housing units under a density bonus is based on the percentage density increase above
that permitted under the existing zoning per state density bonus law (Government Code
§65915 et seq.) and Chapter 17.64 of the Zoning Code, as follows:
• When one hundred percent (100%) of the units in a housing development
project are restricted to be affordable to low- or very-low-income households
for the life of the project, a density bonus up to a maximum of one hundred
percent (100%) greater density than allowed by the existing zone may be
granted by the city council when considering project entitlements. The one
hundred percent (100%) maximum density bonus is inclusive of all density
bonuses allowed under Government Code §65915 et seq., and Chapter 17.64
of the zoning code.
• When at least sixty percent (60%) of the units in a housing development
project are restricted to be affordable to low- or very-low-income households
for the life of the project, a density bonus up to a maximum of seventy-five
percent (75%) greater density than allowed by the existing zone may be
granted by the city council when considering project entitlements. The
seventy-five percent (75%) maximum density bonus is inclusive of all density
bonuses allowed under Government Code §65915 et seq., and Chapter 17.64
of the zoning code.
• For density bonuses higher than required by state law, the city council must
find that: (a) the project will help to meet a local housing need for family
housing as identified by the housing element of the general plan; and (b) the
project will be compatible with surrounding development. Density bonuses
higher than required by state law may not be granted for an age-restricted
senior housing project.
In conjunction with the Density Bonus Ordinance, concessions and/or incentives
determined by the city council necessary in order to develop affordable units in lieu of or
in addition to density bonuses may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 53
• A reduction in development standards by an amount not to exceed twenty
percent (20%), or a reduction in architectural design requirements beyond the
minimum building standards adopted by the city; and
• Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the
city, which result in identifiable cost reductions.
• The City Council, in granting higher density bonuses under subsections (B)(2)
and (B)(3), is not obligated to grant any additional incentives or concessions.
State law (Government Code §65915) was amended (SB 1818 of 2004) to increase the
maximum permitted density bonus to 35% along with other changes. Therefore, in 2009,
the City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance to update the Zoning Code in compliance
with current state law, as outlined above.
The City's Inclusionary Program (see Chapter V, Program No. 12) requires that a minimum
of 15% of units constructed within the Redevelopment Project Area to be affordable to
lower-income households and has a minimum 10% requirement for all Specific Plan
projects outside the Project Area. If a developer cannot meet all of the affordable
housing requirements, an in lieu fee is paid. In spite of the dissolution of the
Redevelopment Agency, this program is being maintained for projects within the former
redevelopment project area.
As an example, the 312-unit Archstone complex was required to build 62 lower-income
units (including 25 very-low-income units). Pacific Communities was required to provide
22 low-income units, but opted to pay $900,000 in fees to cover the very-low-income
requirement. In-lieu fees are used to assist in the development, rehabilitation or
preservation of affordable housing.
Density bonus can be an effective means, in conjunction with inclusionary requirements,
to facilitate affordable housing development. In order to ensure the provision of
affordable housing, the City has granted density increases for projects that are required
to provide inclusionary units or pay in-lieu fees. As an example, the Archstone project
was granted higher densities (16.2 du/acre), reduced parking standards, and reduced
setbacks in return for setting aside 20% of the units for lower-income households.
h. Condominium Conversions
In order to reduce the impacts of condominium conversions on residents of rental
housing and to maintain a supply of rental housing for low- and moderate-income
persons, the City's Municipal Code (Section 16.30.040 to .070) provides for the following:
1. Tenant notifications of the proposed conversion in compliance with Section
66452.8 of the State Subdivision Map Act;
2. A phasing plan to reflect unit sales and tenant relocation agreements;
3. A tenant assistance plan that provides for a 90-day period for the tenant to
exercise his or her right of first refusal to purchase a unit pursuant to Section
66427.1 (d) of the Subdivision Map Act. The assistance plan also provides for
the reimbursement of tenant moving costs;
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 54
4. Reservation of a minimum of 20% of the units as affordable, with 10% low-
income and 10% very-low-income units guaranteed through a recorded
affordable housing agreement between the property owner and city; and
5. A requirement that vacancy rates at the time of the approval of the
conversion are below guidelines set forth in the General Plan.
As a result of these requirements, the potential impact of condominium conversions is not
a significant constraint on the preservation of affordable rental housing.
i. Building Codes and Enforcement
State law prohibits the imposition of building standards that are not necessitated by local
geographic, climatic or topographic conditions and requires that local governments
making changes or modifications in building standards must report such changes to the
Department of Housing and Community Development and file an expressed finding that
the change is needed.
The City's building codes are based upon the 2010 California Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical and Electrical Codes with local amendments adopted that address
structural calculations. These are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the
public's health, safety and welfare. No additional regulations have been imposed by the
city that would unnecessarily add to housing costs.
The City attempts to link its code enforcement and housing preservation efforts, when
appropriate, by making property owners aware of available programs to help with
repairs, particularly for lower-income residents.
The City of Moorpark's Code Compliance Program (see Chapter V, Program No. 2) was
created in part to safeguard the health and safety of tenants living in rental units in
Moorpark by ensuring that rental properties in the city are sanitary and conform to
current state fire, building and municipal codes. Following receipt of a report on
deficiencies of a rental property, the program requires the rental property be subject to
inspection focusing on life and health safety issues such as working smoke detectors and
working heat and hot water.
t Growth Controls
Growth management has long been a concern in Ventura County. In 1999, the City
adopted the "SOAR" (Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources) Initiative. This
Initiative originated from public concern that rapid urban development over the past
decade was threatening agricultural, open space, watershed, sensitive wetlands, and
riparian areas vital to Ventura County. Voters thus passed an initiative amending the
General Plan to direct population growth into incorporated areas where infrastructure is
in place.
Until December 31, 2020, the City is required to restrict urban uses to areas within the
urban restriction boundary (CURB), which is generally coterminous with the City's Sphere
of Influence and corporate limits. The City Council may not approve any general plan
amendment, rezoning, specific plan, subdivision map, special use permit, building permit
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 55
or other ministerial or discretionary entitlement inconsistent with the General Plan and
CURB line established by the SOAR Initiative. Generally, the City Council may not amend
the CURB, without voter approval, unless specific procedures and purposes are followed.
If sufficient land resources are not available to address the City's RHNA allocation, the
SOAR Initiative allows the City Council to amend the CURB line to comply with state law
regarding the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community. In order
to invoke this provision, the Council must make the following findings:
• the land is immediately adjacent to existing compatibly developed areas and
that adequate services have or will be provided for such development;
• the proposed development will address the highest priority need identified
(e.g., the provision of lower income housing to satisfy the RHNA);
• there is no existing residentially-zoned land available within the CURB and it is
not reasonably feasible to re-designate land within the CURB for such
purposes; and
• no more than 20 acres may be brought within the CURB for this purpose
annually.
The SOAR Initiative is not expected to prevent the City from meeting its RHNA
requirements for the following reasons: (1) the City has a large reserve of vacant land
within its corporate limits; (2) the City makes wide use of development agreements to
require inclusionary units or in-lieu fees; and (3) the SOAR initiative has specific
amendment procedures to accommodate the lower-income affordability goals of the
RH NA.
2. Development Processing Procedures
a. Residential Permit Processing
The City has designed its development review procedures to streamline the permit
process while ensuring that residential development proceeds in an orderly manner and
contributes to the community. The City utilizes a range of mechanisms to approve
residential projects based on the size, complexity, and potential impact. The approach is
to allow by-right administrative approval for smaller projects with low potential for land
use conflicts, with more complex projects being reviewed by the Planning Commission
and City Council. The process is summarized below.
• Zoning Clearance - The Zoning Clearance is applied to projects that are
allowed by-right. The Zoning Clearance is used to ensure that the proposed
development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and
meets all applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Code. The Zoning
Clearance is a ministerial permit granted by the Director of Community
Development without a public hearing. Approval is typically granted within 1-3
days from submittal of a complete application. Examples of projects requiring
only Zoning Clearance include Second Dwelling units, Large Family day care
homes serving up to 14 children within a single-family residence; a balcony,
deck, patio cover; room additions or storage sheds; fences and walls greater
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 56
than 6 feet in height and retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height;
swimming pools, wading pools and spas; and finally maintenance and minor
repair to buildings involving structural alterations.
• Administrative Permit - Some projects may require an Administrative Permit,
such as detached single-family housing unit developments or affordable or
senior housing projects of less than five total units. These developments
typically have a higher level of concern regarding compatibility with adjacent
uses and therefore require a greater level of zoning review, requiring approval
of an Administrative Permit. The Administrative Permit is granted by the
Director of Community Development, without a public hearing. These projects
typically qualify for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA. Approval is
typically received within one month from submittal of a complete application.
• Conditional Use Permit - A Conditional Use Permit is required for uses such as
mobile home parks and boarding houses. Development projects are required
to meet site development standards and submit site plans and architecture
subject to design review. A public hearing is required. For residential
developments, the decision-making body is the Planning Commission, with
appeals heard by the City Council. Typical review and approval time is 2.5 to
9 months, depending on project complexity and the level of CEQA review
required. Conditions of approval typically include a minimum number of units
or tenant spaces to be provided and may include special conditions for
parking arrangements.
• Planned Development Permit- Planned Development Permits are required for
new residential developments of five or more units and for projects associated
with a subdivision of land, zone change, or Development Agreement and
may include a General Plan Amendment and are reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a public hearing. The standard of review for PDPs is confirming
that the project complies with objective development and design standards
rather than examining the use itself. Staff typically works with the applicant on
the project design to ensure the site planning and architecture is compatible
with the surrounding properties and will not negatively affect the safety, health
and welfare of adjoining property owners. The focus of this process is
confirming project conformance with development standards. The City also
offers applicants the option of pre-application meetings to discuss project
requirements with staff. These meetings help to expedite the permit process by
identifying key issues early in the process, thereby avoiding multiple rounds of
review, reducing design costs and increasing development certainty. Typical
review and approval time is 3-6 months, depending on project complexity
and the level of CEQA review required. Conditions of approval typically
ensure compliance with existing development standards in the Municipal
Code to address: parking standards, landscaping criteria, trash storage and
disposal services, minimum and maximum standards related to varieties of
architectural designs of units, setbacks and circulation and access.
The Planned Development Permit process provides flexibility and reduces
constraints on development, in that the purpose of this zone is to provide areas
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 57
for communities that will be developed utilizing modern land planning and
unified design techniques. This provides a flexible regulatory procedure in order
to encourage: 1) Coordinated neighborhood design and compatibility with
existing or potential development of surrounding areas; 2) An efficient use of
land particularly through the clustering of dwelling units and the preservation
of the natural features of sites; 3) Variety and innovation in site design, density
and housing unit options, including garden apartments, townhouses and
single-family dwellings; 4) Lower housing costs through the reduction of street
and utility networks; and 5) A more varied, attractive and energy-efficient
living environment as well as greater opportunities for recreation than would
be possible under other zone classifications. This review process also creates
incentives for developers to provide affordable housing and other public
benefits in projects by allowing higher densities and modified development
standards as part of a development agreement when such commitments are
provided. The City's successful track record in generating affordable housing
supports the validity of this approach and demonstrates that this process does
not unreasonably impact the cost and supply of housing.
th Efforts to Minimize Development Review Timeframes
State law requires that communities work toward improving the efficiency of their
planning and building permit processes by providing "one-stop" processing, thereby
eliminating the unnecessary duplication of effort. The Permit Streamlining Act reduces
delay by limiting permit processing time to one year and requiring agencies to specify
the information needed for an acceptable application.
Early consultation with City staff is encouraged to identify issues as soon as possible and
reduce processing time. A "pre-submittal conference" is strongly encouraged so that
applicants can become acquainted with the information and fees required by each
department and agency. Site and architectural plans are also reviewed for consistency
with City standards. This conference allows the applicant to determine the feasibility of
the project and make adjustments during the preliminary planning stages to minimize
costs.
Simultaneous processing of entitlements (e.g., subdivisions and planned developments
permits) is also provided as a means of expediting the review process. These procedures
help to ensure that the development review process meets all legal requirements without
causing an unwarranted constraint to housing development.
Table IV-4 summarizes the typical time frame for reviewing projects from pre-application
development review phase through approval.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 58
Table IV-4
Development Review Times
Typical Processing Time
Permits&Review Timeframe Factors Affecting Time
Pre-Application Review 1 to 4 mos. Complexity;special study needs
Variance 2 to 6 mos. Complexity;level of review
Zone Clearance 1—3 days Scale of project
General Plan Amendment 3—12 mos. Complexity;level of review
Administrative Permit 1 month Completeness of Application
Planned Development 3 to 6 mos. Scale of project/Completeness
Subdivision Map 6—12 mos. Environmental/design issues
Conditional Use Permit 6-9 mos. Scale of project;environmental
Environmental Review 6-12 mos. Scale—complexity of project
Source:City of Moorpark,2009
II
The timeframe for reviewing and approving permit applications, zone changes,
variances, conditional use permits, and other discretionary approvals varies on a case-
by-case basis. Developments in Moorpark typically range from a single home, to a large-
scale project of 100 homes, to even larger Specific Plan projects. The time needed to
review projects depends on the location, potential environmental constraints, the need
to ensure adequate provision of infrastructure and public facilities, and the overall
impact of large-scale developments on the community.
For larger development projects subject to the residential planned permit, the City allows
concurrent processing of a variety of actions (e.g., general plan amendment and zone
change) to help expedite the processing of development applications.
The Residential Planned Development (RPD) and Design Review processes are important
components in the development approval process. The RPD and design review process
work in tandem to facilitate and encourage projects that address the housing needs of
the community and also are designed in a manner that preserves and contributes to the
quality of the living environment in Moorpark.
The RPD and design review process begins with a joint application submittal to the
Community Development Department. City staff meets with the developer to discuss the
project and, upon request by the applicant, provides appropriate direction and
examples of projects that meet City design standards.
Once the project schematics are completed, staff reviews the application to make sure
it is complete, and then prepares a written report assessing the overall design and
consistency with the City's development standards. The Planning Commission then
reviews the project to ensure it complies with the following findings:
• Is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's general plan and
appropriate zoning chapter;
• Is compatible with the character of surrounding development;
• Would not be obnoxious, harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property;
• Would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare, and
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 59
• Is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of surrounding
properties.
The RPD process has resulted, at times, in lower densities for single-family projects,
particularly for hillside developments subject to environmental constraints. With respect
to multi-family developments, the RPD process has not resulted in lower densities for multi-
family projects containing affordable units. For example, multi-family projects built at or
above maximum allowable densities include the Archstone, Urban West, Essex and Area
Housing Authority Apartments projects.
In the previous planning period, a new RPD-20-U district was established allowing multi-
family development by-right at a minimum density of 20 units/acre. Development
projects within this district are reviewed through a non-discretionary process intended to
confirm that the project is in compliance with objective development standards.
As larger Specific Plan areas and remaining large vacant parcels in the community are
gradually built out, the remaining development in Moorpark will shift to smaller infill
locations. Rather than conduct design review for large open tracts, focus will shift to
neighborhoods, where developments must be compatible with adjacent uses. Therefore,
the City will continue to use the RPD and Design Review processes in the development
approval process to facilitate and encourage projects that address the housing needs of
the community and also are designed in a manner that preserves and contributes to the
quality of the living environment in Moorpark and is compatible in scale with existing
neighborhoods.
c. Environmental Review
Environmental review is required for all discretionary development projects under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Most projects in Moorpark are either
Categorically Exempt or require only an Initial Study and Negative Declaration.
•
Developments that have the potential of creating significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Most residential
projects require a Negative Declaration, which takes two to three weeks to complete.
Categorically Exempt developments such as second residential units require a minimal
amount of time. As a result, state-mandated environmental review does not pose a
significant constraint to housing development.
3. Development Fees and Improvement Requirements
State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost
of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are
charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit
applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks and
infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system,
based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will
be derived.
Moorpark collects fees and exactions from developments to cover the costs of
processing permits and providing the necessary services and infrastructure related to
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 60
new development. Fees are calculated based on the cost of processing a particular
type of case. Table IV-5 summarizes planning, development, and other fees charged for
new residential development.
Table IV-5
Development Review Fees
Fees
T se of Fees Sin.le-Famil * Multi-Famil ** Mobile Home
Planning Fees
Pre Screening for General Plan Amendment $5,800.00
General Plan Amendment $5,200.00
Residential Planned Development(SF or MF) $19,500.00<30 units or$26,000.00>30 units
Tentative Tract Map $9,100.00<30 units or$19,500.00>30 units
Administrative Exception(Minor Variance) $650.00
Variance—Existing Single-family Residential $5,000.00
Administrative Permit $780.00
Conditional Use Permit—Residential Uses $5,000.00
Zone Change $5,200.00
Zonin• Code Amendment $5,200.00
Development Impact and Building Permit Fees(per unit)
Roads:
Area of Contribution Spring/Tierra Rejada Roads $9,142.13 $9,142.13 $9,142.13
Area of Contribution Gabbert/Casey Roads $2,030.00 $2,030.00 $2,030.00
Area of Contribution Los Angeles Avenue $7,807.00 $7,807.00 $7,807.00
Fire Protection Facilities Fee $979.46 per unit $721.87 per unit $587.08 per unit
Police Facilities Fee $1,027.00 per unit $1,027.00 per unit $1,027.00 per unit
Calleguas Water District Fee—Capital Improvement Fee $4,649.00 per 1"meter $3,727 unknown
Water(Waterworks District#1)—Capital Improvement Fee $4,562.00 per 1"meter $3,992 unknown
Flood Control—Land Development Fee(Watershed Protection District) $600 per unit maximum $300 $600 per unit maximum
Sewer Connection $4,386.00 per unit $4,386.00 per unit unknown
Library Facilities Fee $925.68 per unit $596.91 per unit $612.06 per unit
School Fees $2.97 per sq.ft. $2.97 per sq.ft. $2.97 per sq.ft.
Building Permit Fee(including plan check fee) $4,467 $1,308"** N/A
Estimated Total Development Fees(per unit) $46,500 $37,000 $14,197
N/A=Not applicable
Source:City of Moorpark,2013
*Assumes construction of a 1,522 square foot home.
**Assumes 4 multi-family units on a half of an acre.
***Assumed fee using the per unit fee from building permit files for an existing 20 unit MF project
Moorpark's development fees are considered typical for jurisdictions in Ventura County.
The City Council has the authority to reduce or waive local fees on a case-by-case basis.
For affordable or senior housing, the City Council at its discretion may provide developers
with incentives such as the waiving of fees and other concessions that may result in cost
reductions. For the development of Villa Campesina, the City reduced development
fees for Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation in order to ensure the project's
affordability to lower income households.
After the passage of Proposition 13 and its limitation on local governments' property tax
revenues, cities and counties have faced increasing difficulty in providing public services
and facilities to serve their residents. One of the main consequences of Proposition 13 has
been the shift in funding of new infrastructure from general tax revenues to development
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 61
impact fees and improvement requirements on land developers. The City requires
developers to provide on-site and off-site improvements necessary to serve their projects.
Such improvements may include water, sewer and other utility extensions, street
construction and traffic control device installation that are reasonably related to the
project. Dedication of land or in-lieu fees may also be required of a project for rights-of-
way, transit facilities, parks and school sites, consistent with the Subdivision Map Act.
City road standards vary by roadway designation as provided in Table IV-6.
Table IV-6
Road Improvement Standards
Roadway Designation Number of Lanes Right-of-Way Width Curb-to Curb Width
6-lane arterial 6 110-120' 90-104'
4-lane arterial 4 80-100' 60-80'
Rural collector 2-4 70-90' 54-64'
Local collector 2 50-70' 36-54'
Source:City of Moorpark General Plan-Circulation Element
A typical local residential street requires a 56-foot right-of-way, with two 18 foot travel
lanes, these widths vary based on project location and circulation design needs. The
City's road standards are typical for cities in Ventura County and do not act as a
constraint to housing development.
The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a schedule of public
improvements including streets, bridges and other facilities needed for the continued
build-out of the city. The CIP helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is
coordinated with private development.
Although development fees and improvement requirements increase the cost of
housing, cities have little choice in establishing such requirements due to the limitations
on property taxes and other revenue sources needed to fund public improvements.
B. Non-Governmental Constraints
1. Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints include physical features such as steep slopes, fault zones,
floodplains, sensitive biological habitat, and agricultural lands. In many cases,
development of these areas is constrained by state and federal laws (e.g., FEMA
floodplain regulations, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and the
California Fish and Game Code and Alquist-Priolo Act). The City's land use plans have
been designed to protect sensitive areas from development, and also to protect public
safety by avoiding development in hazardous areas. While these policies constrain
residential development to some extent, they are necessary to support other public
policies.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 62
2. Infrastructure Constraints
Adequate infrastructure, services, and public facilities are important components of new
development. In order for residential development to not adversely impact the City's
service system levels, the City must ensure that various capital improvement plans and
adequate financing mechanisms are in place to provide essential services. The following
discussion details the adequacy of the city's infrastructure system.
• Streets - The City has mechanisms in place to address capital improvement
projects needed to facilitate new development. To provide needed
transportation improvements, the City has instituted an area of contribution
requirement and appropriate fees to pay for circulation and system
improvements. While this provides the City sufficient funds to construct
transportation improvements needed to serve new developments, ongoing
maintenance costs will be added to the City's budget. In addition, due to
upcoming restrictions on the use of TDA funds for maintenance, it is likely that
the City would require new developments to have private streets where
feasible and consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Private streets will add to Home Owner Association costs for new
developments as the Home Owner Association will be responsible for
maintenance.
• Drainage - The major drainage facility in Moorpark is the Arroyo Simi Channel.
The Army Corp of Engineers and local Ventura County Watershed Protection
District is acquiring right of way to complete projects to reduce the risk of
flooding in parts of Moorpark. Until such improvements are completed,
developers must provide site improvements necessary to protect the property
from flooding.
• Wastewater Treatment - Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1
encompasses 19,500 acres and serves 30,000 customers in Moorpark and
contiguous unincorporated areas. The District owns, operates and maintains
the Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWTP). In 2000, the MWTP was
upgraded to increase treatment capacity to 3.0 mgd - 50% higher than the
average flow in 1999. The plant expansion is intended to accommodate future
development in Moorpark beyond the current planning period.
• Water Supply - Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 provides domestic
water to Moorpark. The District receives water from five groundwater wells,
imports the remainder from the Metropolitan Water District and Calleguas
Municipal Water District, and treats water at the Jenson Plant in Granada Hills.
The District supplies 11,500 acre-feet of water annually, 75% of which is
imported. The District foresees sufficient water capacity to meet future housing
needs in Moorpark throughout the planning period.
3. Land Costs
Land represents one of the most significant components of the cost of new housing.
Land values fluctuate with market conditions, and the recent downturn in the housing
market has affected land values negatively. Changes in land prices reflect the cyclical
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 63
nature of the residential real estate market. It is expected that economic recovery will
occur and land prices will again rise, although the timing is unknown. Per-unit land cost is
directly affected by density - higher density allows the cost to be spread across more
units, reducing the total price. The City's policies regarding inclusionary housing and
density bonus help to reduce land costs, thereby improving affordability.
4. Construction Costs
Construction cost is affected by the price of materials, labor, development standards
and general market conditions. The City has no influence over materials and labor costs,
and the building codes and development standards in Moorpark are not substantially
different than most other cities in Ventura County and the state of California.
5. Cost and Availability of Financing
Moorpark is similar to most other communities with regard to private sector home
financing programs. Moorpark participates in a mortgage credit certificate program that
offers homebuyers a tax credit and assists in qualifying for a home loan. The City is also a
participant in the California Rural Housing Mortgage Finance authority homebuyer fund
that provides low-interest loans to first-time homebuyers. Low-interest loans and grants
are also offered through the -Tax Increment of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Moorpark or City housing funds for home improvements to help maintain existing housing
units.
The recent crisis in the mortgage industry has affected the availability of real estate
loans, although for those homebuyers who can qualify, interest rates are at historic lows.
Under state law, it is illegal for real estate lending institutions to discriminate against entire
neighborhoods in lending practices because of the physical, social or economic
conditions in the area ("redlining"). In monitoring new construction sales, re-sales of
existing homes, and permits for remodeling, it would not appear that redlining is
occurring in the city.
C. Fair Housing
State law prohibits discrimination in the development process or in real property
transactions, and it is the City's policy to uphold the law in this regard. Moorpark
participated in a countywide consortium that prepared an Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice in 2010. Such impediments are typically any action, omission, or
decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choice or the availability of housing
on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status,
familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.
The County contracts with a fair housing agency for these services. Fair housing
programs, referral, and counseling for Moorpark residents are provided by the Housing
Rights Center and funded through the Entitlement Area CDBG program. The City's
support and participation in fair housing activities minimizes the potential for housing
discrimination in Moorpark (see Housing Plan, Program No. 18).
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 64
V. HOUSING PLAN
Chapters II through IV describe the housing needs, resources and constraints in
Moorpark. This Housing Plan sets forth the City's goals, policies, programs, and quantified
objectives to address the identified housing needs in Moorpark from 2014 to 2021.
A. Goals and Policies
This section of the Housing Element contains a brief overview of the key issues from the
Needs Assessment as well as the goals and policies that Moorpark intends to implement
to address these housing needs. In addressing the City's housing needs, the City's overall
community goals are as follows:
• Adequate provision of decent, safe and affordable housing for residents
without regard to race, age, sex, marital status, ethnicity, disability or other
arbitrary considerations.
• Adequate provision of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and location
with particular attention to the provision of housing for special needs groups.
• Encourage growth through the identification of suitable parcels for residential
development, changes in land use patterns, and appropriate recycling of
land.
• Develop a balanced community accessible to employment, transportation,
shopping, medical services, and governmental agencies among others.
Within the aforementioned general framework, the City has developed the following
goals and policies to encourage the preservation, production, maintenance, and
improvement of housing within the Moorpark community.
1. Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
Housing and neighborhood conservation are important to maintaining and improving
quality of life. While the majority of housing in Moorpark is relatively new, some of the
older residential neighborhoods in the downtown show signs of deterioration. Efforts to
improve and revitalize housing must not only address existing conditions, but also focus
on preventive repairs to maintain the quality of the housing stock. The policies listed
below address the issue of housing and neighborhood conservation.
GOAL 1.0: Assure the quality, safety, and habitability of existing housing and the
continued high quality of residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.1 Continue to monitor and enforce building and property maintenance
code standards in residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.2 Continue to provide City public safety services, infrastructure maintenance,
graffiti removal, and other public services to maintain the quality of the
housing stock, neighborhoods, and the environment.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 65
Policy 1.3 Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the
importance of property maintenance to long-term housing quality.
Policy 1.4 Continue to promote the repair, revitalization, and rehabilitation of
residential structures which have fallen into disrepair.
Policy 1.5 Support the preservation and maintenance of historically and
architecturally significant buildings and neighborhoods.
2. Adequate Residential Sites
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment addresses the need for decent, adequate, and
affordable housing to accommodate existing and future housing needs induced from
regional growth. In order to further these goals, Moorpark is committed to assisting in the
development of adequate housing that is affordable to all economic segments of the
population through the following goals and policies:
GOAL 2: Provide residential sites through land use, zoning and specific plan
designations to provide a range of housing opportunities.
Policy 2.1 Identify adequate sites which will be made available and zoned at the
appropriate densities, to facilitate goals set forth in the 2014-2021 RHNA.
Policy 2.2 Ensure residential sites have appropriate public services, facilities,
circulation, and other needed infrastructure to support development.
Policy 2.3 Investigate rezoning or redesignation of commercial lots that are no longer
economically viable uses to appropriate residential uses.
Policy 2.4 Promote and encourage mixed-use residential and commercial uses where
appropriate as a means to facilitate development.
3. Housing Assistance and Special Needs
Moorpark is home to a number of groups with special housing needs, including seniors,
large families, disabled persons, and single parent families, among others. These groups
may face greater difficulty in finding decent and affordable housing due to special
circumstances. Special circumstances may be related to one's income, family
characteristics, disability, or health issues.
GOAL 3: Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income households
and special needs groups.
Policy 3.1 Use public financial resources, to the extent feasible, to support the
provision and production of housing for lower-income households and
persons and families with special needs.
Policy 3.2 Provide rental assistance to address existing housing problems and provide
homeownership assistance to expand housing opportunities.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 66
Policy 3.3 Support the conservation of Mobile Home parks, historic neighborhoods,
publicly-subsidized housing, and other sources of affordable housing.
Policy 3.4 Require, in aggregate, 10% of new units to be affordable to lower-income
households. Establish priority for usage of in-lieu fee as follows: 1st priority -
production of affordable housing; 2nd — subsidy of affordable housing; 3rd -
housing rehabilitation; 4th priority- housing assistance; and 5th staffing costs.
4. Removal of Government Constraints
Market factors and government regulations can significantly impact the production and
affordability of housing. Although market conditions are often beyond the direct
influence of any jurisdiction, efforts can be directed at ensuring the reasonableness of
land use controls, development standards, permit-processing, fees and exactions, and
governmental requirements to encourage housing production.
GOAL 4: Where appropriate, mitigate unnecessary governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
Policy 4.1 Periodically review City regulations, ordinances, fees/exactions to ensure
they do not unduly constrain the production, maintenance, and improve-
ment of housing.
Policy 4.2 Offer regulatory incentives and concessions for affordable housing, such as
relief from development standards, density bonuses, or fee waivers where
deemed to be appropriate.
Policy 4.3 Provide for streamlined, timely, coordinated, and concurrent processing of
residential projects to minimize holding costs and encourage housing
production.
Policy 4.4 Support infill development at suitable locations and provide, where
appropriate, incentives to facilitate their development.
5. Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity
Ensuring fair and equal housing opportunity is an important goal. Whether through
mediating disputes, investigating bona fide complaints of discrimination, or through the
provision of education services, the provision of fair housing services is an important tool
to ensure fair and equal access to housing. The following policies are designed to
continue implementation of applicable fair housing laws.
GOAL 5: Ensure fair and equal housing opportunity for all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex, marital status, family type, ancestry, national origin, color or
other protected status.
Policy 5.1 Provide fair housing services to residents and assure that residents are
aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect to fair housing.
Policy 5.2 Discourage discrimination in either the sale or rental of housing on the basis
of state or federal protected classes.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 67
Policy 5.3 Implement appropriate action items identified in the Ventura County
Analysis of Impediments to ensure fair and equal access to housing.
B. Housing Programs
The goals and policies discussed above are implemented through housing programs
offered by the City's Community Development Department and Redevelopment
Agency.
This section describes the programs that Moorpark will implement to address housing
needs within the community. Table V-1 provides a summary of each program, objective,
funding source, and agency having responsibility to implement the program.
Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
1. Housing Rehabilitation 8-Year Objective:
The Housing Rehabilitation Program provides rehabilitation loans to low-income Provide loans for a maximum of 25
owner households.Loans up to$50,000 are provided for owner-occupied housing and single-family units and 10 Mobile Home
$20,000 for Mobile Home units.Rehab participants pay only a 3%annual interest rate units. Promote this program on the City
amortized over 10 years for single family units. Mobile Home loans have a 20-year website and with flyers at City Hall and
term coupled with conditional forgiveness.The loan is forgiven at the rate of 10%per other public buildings.
year from years 11 thru 20.
2. Code Compliance 8-Year Objective:
The City currently maintains one full-time code compliance technician to ensure Continue code compliance activities,
compliance with building and property maintenance codes.The Code Compliance including inspections of rental units
Division receives approximately 90 complaints per month.The Code Compliance throughout the City following receipt of
Division plays a key role in improving neighborhoods.The Division handles a variety reports of non-compliance with existing
of issues ranging from property maintenance(e.g.illegally parked vehicles,overgrown codes and standards.
vegetation)to housing conditions.
Adequate Residential Sites
3. Sites to Accommodate Fair-Share Housing Needs 8-Year Objective:
Vacant or underutilized sites offer opportunities for residential development and Ensure no net loss of residential capacity
achieve lower-income housing goals,as identified by the RHNA. In the past several commensurate with the RHNA allocation
years,developers have initiated both the conversion of commercial sites for throughout the planning period.
residential use,and the up-zoning of low-density residential sites for higher-density
development.Zoning amendments have resulted in development of the Archstone
project,Shea Homes Tract 5425,and the CEDC Monte Vista project.Other projects
where zoning has been modified to allow for affordable housing opportunities that
have not yet been built include the Pacific Communities project,the Essex apartment
project,William Lyon Home 17-unit affordable project,Area Housing Authority
Apartment project,and the Pardee School Site project. Other projects are under
consideration.
The new RPD-20 zoning district was established in the previous planning period to
allow owner-occupied and multi-family rental residential development by-right at a
density of 20 units/acre.
For projects that require subdivision or lot consolidation prior to development,the City
will facilitate this process through expedited or concurrent processing of the required
approvals. Since most affordable housing developments occur on sites of 2 to 10
acres,the City will prioritize rezoning and subdivision of sites that can accommodate
developments of this size. In order to enhance the likelihood of affordable housing
development in these projects,the City will take the following actions:
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 68
• Contact affordable housing builders regarding development opportunities in
these projects,and convene meetings between the master developer and
interested builders, if requested.
• Offer incentives and concessions for affordable housing projects such as
expedited processing,reduced development standards,administrative
assistance with funding applications such as Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits,and fee waivers or reductions if feasible.
4. Downtown Specific Plan 8-Year Objective:
The Downtown Specific Plan,which was adopted in 1998,is designed to encourage a Continue to implement the Downtown
pedestrian-oriented mix of businesses,offices,and residential uses in the Downtown Specific Plan.
area.The Downtown Specific Plan area is characterized by smaller lots, underutilized
lots,older single-family homes,and a downtown commercial core.Because the
majority of lots are irregularly shaped,the Zoning Code restricts density for lots of
7,000 square feet to 7 units per acre.
According to the Specific Plan,the Downtown offers significant opportunities for public
or private involvement in facilitating mixed use,infill,and affordable housing.The
Zoning Code offers incentives to facilitate the Downtown Specific Plan, If parcels are
combined or merged,and the City's density bonus provisions are utilized,the
maximum density can be increased to 28 units/acre.
5. Farm Worker Housing 8-Year Objective:
Though most of the region's functional agricultural areas are located outside Continue to implement zoning
Moorpark,some farm workers live in the community.Year-round farm laborers are regulations in conformance with the
typically housed in older apartments,government-assisted units,and Mobile-Homes. Employee Housing Act.
In order to facilitate the provision of additional housing for agricultural workers,the
City will continue to permit Farm Worker Housing consistent with the Employee
Housing Act(Health and Safety Code§17021.5 and§17021.6).
6. Second Units 8-Year Objective:
A secondary unit is a separate dwelling unit that provides complete,independent The City will continue to permit second
living facilities for one or more persons.Second units are currently allowed on lots of units in all residential zones pursuant to
10,890 square feet or greater pursuant to an approved zoning clearance.The unit an administrative permit.Publicize
must meet the minimum.development standards for the primary residence unit. Given second unit regulations.The City
the limited developable land remaining in Moorpark,continuing to integrate second anticipates that 16 second units will be
units in appropriate locations presents an opportunity for the City to accommodate built during the planning period.
needed rental housing for lower-income persons,students,and seniors.Second unit
regulations will be publicized on the website and in flyers posted in City Hall.
7. Emergency Shelters and TransitionallSupportive Housing 8-Year Objective:
During the previous planning period,the City amended the Zoning Code to permit Continue to permit emergency shelters
emergency shelters by-right subject to the same development and management and transitional/supportive housing in
standards that apply to other allowed uses in the C-2 zone,except that other conformance with SB 2 throughout the
objective,written standards may be established as provided by Government Code planning period.Process an amendment
§65583(a)(4). Emergency shelters are also permitted in conjunction with permitted to the Zoning Code concurrent with
places of worship in residential zones, provided that the use is established in adoption of the Housing Element to
coordination with an existing permitted religious facility. update the definitions of transitional
The City also permits transitional and supportive housing as a residential use that is o and wit live housing
c
subject only to the same requirements and procedures as other residential uses of the connsisissg tent with SB 745 of 2013.
same type in the same zone.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 69
8. Single Room Occupancy(SROs) 8-Year Objective:
In order to encourage additional housing for persons with extremely-low incomes Continue to allow SROs by-right in the
(ELI),the Zoning Code allows Single Room Occupancy(SRO)units by-right(i.e., C-2 zone.
without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action)in the C-2 zone subject
to objective development standards.
Housing Assistance and Special Needs
9.Section 8 Rental Assistance 8-Year Objective:
The Section 8 program provides rent subsidies to very-low-income households who Continue to participate in the Section 8
spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent. Prospective renters secure program,advertise program availability,
housing from HUD-registered apartments that accept the certificates.HUD pays to the and encourage rental property owners to
landlords the difference between what the tenant can afford to pay and the payment register their units with the Housing
standard.Under the Section 8 voucher program,a family can choose more costly Authority.
housing,if they pay the rent difference.The Area Housing Authority of the County of
Ventura administers the Section 8 program on behalf of the City.
10. Mortgage Credit Certificate Program 8-Year Objective:
The City participates in the federal Mortgage Credit Certificate Program operated by Continue participation and advertise
Ventura County.The MCC program allows qualified first-time homebuyers to take an program availability.
annual credit against their federal income taxes of up to 20%of the annual interest
paid on the applicant's mortgage.The tax credit allows homebuyers more income to
qualify for a mortgage.Therefore,the MCC Program is a way to further leverage
homeownership assistance.
11. Preservation Programs
a. Mobile Home Park Affordability 8-Year Objective:
The Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Program has been non-operational since Continue monitoring Villa Del Arroyo's
the purchase of Villa Del Arroyo by Augusta Homes and the closing and relocation of compliance with the requirements of the
the tenants at Moorpark Mobile Home Park.The City issued bonds to assist Augusta Regulatory Agreement to ensure that the
Homes with the purchase of Villa Del Arroyo Mobile Home Park.The bond regulatory 48 housing units are occupied by very-
agreement at Villa Del Arroyo,requires the park to maintain 48 housing units for very- low-income families.
low-income families.The City hired a consultant to provide regular monitoring of the
Regulatory Agreement.
b. Resale Refinance Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreements 8-Year Objective:
Resale Refinance Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreements are required by the Continue to monitor the status of the
City for affordable housing units,which are covenants that preserve affordable units in Resale Refinance Restriction and Option
perpetuity.This ensures that after affordable units are created they are not sold or re- to Purchase Agreements for affordable
sold at market rate prices. units.
12. Inclusionary Program 8-Year Objective:
Through the use of development agreements,the City's inclusionary policies require Continue to implement fee expenditure
that 10%to 15%of all units in each development project and 15%to 20%of all units priorities as follows:
in development projects within the former redevelopment area must be affordable to
1st priority—affordable housing
low-and very-low-income households. In appropriate situations,developers unable to production;
provide units are assessed in-lieu fees based upon the estimated cost of providing
affordable units,or acquiring units or build units off-site.This occurs most often with 2nd--subsidy of affordable housing;
single-family developments in the hillsides.Currently,the City can allocate 3rd--housing rehabilitation;and
inclusionary fees for housing rehabilitation,construction,or assistance.To ensure that
the City addresses its RHNA affordability requirements for low-income housing,it may 4th--housing assistance.Adopt
become necessary to earmark funding to assist in the development.A policy was expenditure priorities by end of 2012.
developed by the City Council on Oct 2, 2013 prioritizing programs for in-lieu fee
expenditures. Assist in the development of up to 20
very low-income units by end of 2014.
Continue to monitor in-lieu fees.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 70
13. Land AssemblagelDispositionlAcquisition 8-Year Objective:
The City will continue to encourage the provision of quality,affordable housing Assist in the purchase and assembly of
through use of land write-downs,direct financial assistance,and/or regulatory land for housing at least twice during the
incentives.The City will use Housing Trust funds, County CDBG,and other funds to planning period in order to accommodate
assist in acquiring and assembling property and writing down land costs for the the City's fair share of housing needs.
development of new housing.Currently,the City is acquiring various pieces of
property in downtown Moorpark for redevelopment purposes and affordable housing
opportunities.
14. Regulatory and Financial Assistance 8-Year Objective:
Regulatory assistance can be used to assist in the development of projects that Continue to provide regulatory
address local housing needs. In the past,the City has adjusted development assistance for projects that address local
standards,increased density,and carried interest cost on land for affordable housing housing needs,including priority for
projects.The City will continue to provide regulatory assistance for the development of extremely-low-income housing,at least
affordable projects that address identified housing needs,such as special needs twice during the planning period in order
groups and the RHNA.Where feasible,the City will prioritize regulatory and financial to accommodate the City's fair share of
incentives for extremely-low-income housing. housing needs.
15.Assistance to CHDOs 8-Year Objective:
The City will continue to work with local Community Housing Development Continue to work with local CHDOs by
Organizations to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of lower-income providing assistance for the development
households. In the past,the City assisted the Villa Campesina project,a 62-unit of affordable housing in Moorpark,
single-family sweat equity development for farm workers and other lower-income including supportive housing for persons
households,by reducing development fees.The City also sold property acquired with developmental disabilities.
through bond financing to Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation for the
Mountain View project,which provides 15 single-family homes for lower-income
families and an additional 44 units for moderate-income families.
Removal of Government Constraints
16. Density Bonus Program 8-Year Objective:
In 2004 the state legislature amended density bonus law(SB 1818). In 2009,the City Continue to monitor State density bonus
amended the General Plan Land Use element and the Zoning Ordinance to go above law and make changes to local
and beyond State requirements by allowing up to 100%density bonus for affordable regulations as necessary to stay current
housing projects that are 100%affordable to low and very low income households. . with.State law. .
17. R-P-D Zone Designation and Planned Development Permit Process 8-Year Objective:
The R-P-D Zone designation provides flexibility in the development process to meet Continue.to use the R-P-D Zone
specific housing needs.The R-P-D Zone designation offers various densities that can designation to encourage a variety of
be tailored to the lot,nature of the development,and local housing needs.The R-P-D housing types to address local needs.
Zone provides a mechanism for the development of higher-density housing(up to 20
du/ac)and can be coupled with a density bonus,financial and regulatory incentives to
provide affordable housing.
In order to further reduce processing time the Zoning Code was amended in the
previous planning period to designate the Planning Commission as the final approval
authority(rather than City Council);and to modify the required findings for approval to
confirming that the project complies with objective development and design standards.
18. Off-Street Parking Requirements 8-Year Objective:
In order to facilitate the production of affordable housing,a Code amendment was Continue to monitor parking conditions in
adopted in the prior planning period to allow reduced off-street parking for projects residential developments.
meeting the requirements of state Density Bonus law(Government Code§65915)
when requested by the developer. In addition,the parking requirement for market rate
one-bedroom multi-family units were reduced to 1.75 spaces per unit(including guest
parking),one of which must be covered(garage or carport).The City will continue to
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 71
monitor parking conditions to ensure that Code requirements are appropriate to meet
the needs of residents.
Equal Housing Opportunity
19. Fair Housing Services 8-Year Objective:
Moorpark,in conjunction with Ventura County,will continue to ensure the provision of Continue to support provision of fair
fair housing services for its residents.These services will include counseling and housing services and publicize these
information on housing discrimination,landlord-tenant dispute resolution,bilingual services throughout the community using
housing literature,and testing for housing discrimination.The County contracts with a the City website and flyers posted in at
Fair Housing provider through the CDBG program.To facilitate public awareness of least five locations.
these services,the City will assist in making information available to property owners,
apartment managers,tenants,local media,and other service organizations.
20. Reasonable Accommodation 8-Year Objective:
The Municipal Code establishes procedures for reviewing and approving requests for Continue to implement the Reasonable
reasonable accommodation by persons with disabilities consistent with current law. Accommodation Ordinance throughout
The City will continue to implement the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance. the planning period.
21. Child Care Facilities Six-Year Objective:
The City of Moorpark complies with state regulations allowing childcare facilities to The Zoning Code was reviewed in 2011-
locate in the City and offers density bonuses for qualified childcare facilities per state 12 and no changes were deemed
law. However,recognizing the shortage and necessity of quality and affordable necessary.Continue to consider
childcare facilities,the City will pursue the following actions: 1)consider incentives for incentives for co-locating childcare
co-locating childcare facilities in affordable housing;2)give priority to funding for facilities with affordable housing;
acquisition and rehabilitation projects that include family support and childcare prioritize funding for projects with family
facilities;and 4)continue funding organizations that serve the City of Moorpark support and childcare;provide funding
children. assistance to support childcare.
•
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 72
Table V-1
Housing Program Implementation Summary
Funding Responsible
Housing Program Program Objective I Program Action Source Agency Time-Frame
Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
1.Housing Preserve and . Provide loans for a maximum of Housing Trust CDD 2014-2021
Rehabilitation Program improve neighbor- 25 single-family units&10 Fund
hoods and housing Mobile Homes.
2.Code Enforcement Continue code enforcement Department CDD 2014-2021
activities Budget
Residential Sites
3.Sites to Provide sufficient Ensure no net loss of housing Department CDD 2014-2021
Accommodate Fair sites to address the capacity. Budget
Share Needs full range of housing
4.Downtown Specific needs identified in Continue to implement the Department CDD 2014-2021
Program the RHNA. Downtown Specific Plan Budget
5.Farmworker Housing Continue to implement the Code Department CDD 2014-2021
regarding farmworker housing Budget
regulations.
6.Second Units Continue to allow second units. Department CDD 2014-2021
Publicize second unit Budget
regulations.
7.Emergency Shelters Continue to implement the Department CDD 2014-2021
and Transitional/ Municipal Code consistent with Budget
Supportive Housing SB 2.Process an amendment
to the Zoning Code concurrent
with adoption of the Housing
Element to update the
definitions of transitional
housing and supportive housing
consistent with SB 745 of 2013.
8.Single Room Continue to implement the Department CDD 2014-2021
Occupancy Municipal Code to allow SROs. Budget
Provision of Housing and Housing Assistance
9.Section 8 Rental Facilitate rental Continue to participate in the Section 8 Ventura County 2014-2021
Assistance opportunities Section 8 program,advertise Vouchers Housing
program availability,and /Certificates Authority
encourage rental property
owners to register their units
with the Housing Authority.
10.Mortgage Credit Facilitate home- Continue to participate in Ventura County RDA 2014-2021
Certificate Program ownership program and advertise
opportunities
11a.Mobile Home Preserve Monitor Mobile Home Park Department CDD 2014-2021
Affordability affordability of affordability. Budget
11b.Resale Refinance publicly-assisted Continue to monitor the status Housing Trust CDD 2014-2021
Restrictions&Option housing of affordable housing Funds
to Purchase restrictions.
12.Inclusionary Facilitate the Continue to implement fee Department CDD 2014-2021
Program provision of expenditure priorities; Use Budget,
affordable housing inclusionary funds to assist in Housing Trust
the development of VL units. Funds
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 73
Funding Responsible
Housing Program Program Objective Program Action Source Agency Time-Frame
13.Land Assemblage Assembles property Assist in the purchase and Housing Trust CDD 2014-2021
/Disposition/ to encourage assembly of land for housing Funds and
Acquisition affordable housing CDBG
14.Regulatory and Provide assistance Continue to provide assistance Housing Trust CDD 2014-2021
Financial Assistance to projects that for projects that address local Funds
address local housing needs.
housing needs
15.Assistance to Addresses local Continue to work with local Housing Trust CDD 2014-2021
CHDOs housing needs by CHDOs by providing assistance Funds
working with CHDOs for affordable housing including
supportive housing for persons
with developmental disabilities..
Removal of Government Constraints
16.Density Bonus Encourage Continue to facilitate affordable Department CDD 2014-2021
development of housing development through Budget
affordable housing density bonus and incentives.
17.R-P-D Zone Provide flexibility in Continue to use the R-P-D Department CDD 2014-2021
Designation and meeting local Zone designation to address Budget
Planned Development housing needs, local housing needs.
Permit Process streamline review
process.
18.Off-Street Parking Reduce parking Continue to allow reduced Department CDD 2014-2021
requirements for parking for affordable units. Budget
affordable housing.
Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity
19.Fair Housing Provide fair housing Continue to provide fair housing Department CDD 2014-2021
Services services services Budget,CDBG
funds
20.Reasonable Reduce potential Continue to implement the Department CDD 2014-2021
Accommodation constraints to Municipal Code to ensure Budget
persons with special reasonable accommodation
needs
21.Childcare Facilities Support additional Consider incentives for co- Department CDD 2014-2021
childcare facilities in locating childcare facilities with Budget;CDBG
conjunction with affordable housing;prioritize funds
affordable housing. funding for projects with family
support and childcare;provide
funding assistance to support
childcare.
Summary of Quantified Objectives
Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation Preservation
Extremely Low Income 145 5 0(no at-risk units)
Very Low Income 144 15
Low Income 197 15
Moderate Income 216 0
Above Moderate Income 462 0
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 74
Appendix A -
Evaluation of the 2008-2013 Housing Element
Section 65588(a) of the Government Code requires that jurisdictions evaluate the
effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of goals, objectives
and policies, and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning
period. This appendix contains a review the housing goals, policies, and programs of the
previous Housing Element and evaluates the degree to which these programs have
been implemented during the previous planning period, 2008 through 2013. This analysis
also includes an assessment of the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies. The
findings from this evaluation have been instrumental in determining the City's 2014-2021
Housing Implementation Program.
Table A-1 summarizes the programs contained in the previous Housing Element along
with the source of funding, program objectives, accomplishments, and implications for
future policies and actions.
Table A-2 evaluates the appropriateness of previous goals and policies, and identifies
any changes that are called for in response to the City's experience during the past
planning period.
Table A-3 presents the City's progress in meeting the quantified objectives from the
previous Housing Element.
v CD
c0 cn
CD 0
Table A-1 -4 C
Housing Element Program Effectiveness Evaluation 2008-2013 U' 0
City of Moorpark Z
0
Funding Responsible Accomplishments and Objectives for the
Housing Program Program Objective Program Action Source Agency Time-Frame 2013 Housing Element C7
Housing and Neighborhood Conservationo
1.Housing Rehabilitation Preserve and Provide loans for a maximum of RDA Set-Aside RDA 2008-2014 Ongoing—4 Mobile Home loans during this period;no w
Program improve neighbor- 25 single-family units&10 and Housing single family loan applications have been received during to
hoods and housing Mobile Homes. Trust Fund this period. CD
N
2.Code Compliance Continue code enforcement Department CDD 2008-2014 Ongoing
activities Budget
Residential Sites
3.Sites to Accommodate Provide sufficient Rezone sites totaling 25.8 acres Department CDD 2012 3 sites totaling 26.14 acres were rezoned on September 4,
Fair Share Needs sites to address the to allow multi-family Budget 2013 satisfying the requirements of this program
full range of housing development at a density of 20 (Ordinances#421 &422).All 3 sites were rezoned to
needs identified in units/acre. RPD-20U to allow multi-family development at a density of
the RHNA. 20 units/acre by-right.All 3 parcels can accommodate
more than 16 units and allow exclusively residential use.
4.Downtown Specific Prepare Downtown Specific Department RDA&CDD 2012 Completed with latest Specific Plan update and update to
Program Plan land inventory Budget High street area parking requirements(Ordinance#381
adopted 9/2/2009)
5.Farmworker Housing Comprehensive review of Department RDA&CDD 2012-13 Completed,Ord#420(Sept 11,2013). Farmworker
farmworker housing regulations Budget housing with 36 beds or 12 units is permitted by-right in
&Municipal Code amendment. any zone where agriculture is a permitted use.
6.Second Units Continue to allow second units. Department CDD 2008-2014 Ongoing
Publicize second unit Budget
regulations.
7.Emergency Shelters Amend the Municipal Code Department CDD Within one Completed,Ord#415(Oct 3,2012)
and Transitional/ consistent with SB 2. Budget year of
Supportive Housing Housing
Element
adoption
8.Single Room Amend the Municipal Code to Department CDD Within one Completed,Ord#415—Oct 3,2012
Occupancy allow SROs. Budget year of
Housing
Element
adoption
CD
c� rn
0
Funding Responsible Accomplishments and Objectives for the h
Housing Program Program Objective Program Action Source Agency Time-Frame 2013 Housing Element pProvision of Housing and Housing Assistance :3'
Z
9.Section 8 Rental Facilitate rental Continue to participate in the Section 8 Ventura County 2008-2014 Ongoing o
Assistance opportunities Section 8 program,advertise Vouchers Housing
program availability,and /Certificates Authority 0
encourage rental property N
owners to register their units
with the Housing Authority. w
10.Mortgage Credit Facilitate home- Continue to participate in Ventura County RDA 2008-2014 Ongoing,no applications received during this period. �
Certificate Program ownership program and advertise Iv
opportunities
11a.Mobile Home Preserve Monitor Mobile Home Park Department RDA 2008-2014 Ongoing
Affordability affordability of affordability. Budget
11 b. Resale Refinance publicly-assisted Continue to monitor the status RDA Set- RDA 2008-2014 Ongoing
Restrictions&Option to housing of affordable housing Aside, Housing
Purchase restrictions. Trust Funds
12. Inclusionary Program Facilitate the Adopt fee expenditure priorities; Department RDA&CDD 2008-2014 Completed,Updated City Council Policy(Oct 2,2013)
provision of Use inclusionary funds to assist Budget,
affordable housing in the development of VL units. Housing Trust
Funds
13.Land Assemblage Assembles property Assist in the purchase and RDA Set- RDA 2008-2014 16 lots have been purchased for potential assemblage
/Disposition/Acquisition to encourage assembly of land for housing Aside, Funds during this period.
affordable housing and CDBG
14.Regulatory and Provide assistance Continue to provide assistance RDA Set-Aside CDD 2008-2014 Ongoing
Financial Assistance to projects that for projects that address local or Housing
address local housing needs. Trust Funds
housing needs
15.Assistance to CHDOs Addresses local Continue to work with local RDA Set- RDA&CDD 2008-2014 Ongoing,no CHDOs have requested assistance during
housing needs by CHDOs by providing assistance Aside, Housing this period.
working with CHDOs for affordable housing. Trust Funds
Removal of Government Constraints
16.Density Bonus Encourage Continue to facilitate affordable Department CDD 2008-2014 Completed(Ordinance#376 adopted 7/1/2009)
development of housing development through Budget
affordable housing density bonus and incentives.
17.R-P-D Zone Provide flexibility in Continue to use the R-P-D Department CDD 2008-2014 Completed,Ords#421 and#422(Sept 11,2013)
Designation and Planned meeting local Zone designation to address Budget
Development Permit housing needs, local housing needs.Amend
Process streamline review the Planned Development
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 78
Table A-2
Appropriateness of Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goal Policy Appropriateness
Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
1 Assure the quality,safety,and habitability of existing housing and the continued high quality of Appropriate-retain
residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.1 Continue to monitor and enforce building and property maintenance code standards Appropriate-retain
in residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.2 Continue to provide City public safety services,infrastructure maintenance,graffiti Appropriate-retain
removal,and other public services to maintain the quality of the housing stock,
neighborhoods,and the environment.
Policy 1.3 Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the Appropriate-retain
importance of property maintenance to long-term housing quality.
Policy 1.4 Continue to promote the repair,revitalization,and rehabilitation of residential Appropriate-retain
structures which have fallen into disrepair.
Policy 1.5 Support the preservation and maintenance of historically and architecturally Appropriate-retain
significant buildings and neighborhoods.
Adequate Residential Sites
2 Provide residential sites through land use,zoning and specific plan designations to provide a Appropriate-retain
range of housing opportunities commensurate with the city's needs.
Policy 2.1 Identify adequate sites which will be made available and zoned at the appropriate Retain as revised for the
densities,to facilitate goals set forth in the 2014-2021 RHNA. new planning period.
Policy 2.2 Ensure residential sites have appropriate public services,facilities,circulation,and Appropriate-retain
other needed infrastructure to support development.
Policy 2.3 Investigate rezoning or redesignation of commercial lots that are no longer Appropriate-retain
economically viable uses to appropriate residential uses.
Policy 2.4 Promote and encourage mixed-use residential and commercial uses where Appropriate-retain
appropriate as a means to facilitate development.
Housing Assistance and Special Needs
3 Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income households and special needs Appropriate-retain
groups.
Policy 3.1 Use public financial resources,to the extent feasible,to support the provision and Appropriate-retain
production of housing for lower-income households and persons and families with
special needs.
Policy 3.2 Provide rental assistance to address existing housing problems and provide Appropriate-retain
homeownership assistance to expand housing opportunities.
Policy 3.3 Support the conservation of Mobile Home parks,historic neighborhoods,publicly- Appropriate-retain
subsidized housing,and other sources of affordable housing.
Policy 3.4 Require,in aggregate, 10%of new units to be affordable to lower-income Appropriate-retain
households.Establish priority for usage of in-lieu fee as follows: 1st priority—
production of affordable housing;2nd--subsidy of affordable housing;3rd--housing
rehabilitation;and 4th priority--housing assistance.
Removal of Government Constraints
4 Where appropriate,mitigate unnecessary governmental constraints to the maintenance, Appropriate-retain
improvement,and development of housing.
Policy 4.1 Periodically review City regulations,ordinances,fees/exactions to ensure they do not Appropriate-retain
unduly constrain the production,maintenance,and improvement of housing.
Policy 4.2 Offer regulatory incentives and concessions for affordable housing,such as relief Appropriate-retain
from development standards,density bonuses,or fee waivers where deemed to be
appropriate.
Policy 4.3 Provide for streamlined,timely,and coordinated processing of residential projects to Appropriate-retain
minimize holding costs and encourage housing production.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 78
Table A-2
Appropriateness of Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goal Policy Appropriateness
Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
1 Assure the quality,safety,and habitability of existing housing and the continued high quality of Appropriate-retain
residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.1 Continue to monitor and enforce building and property maintenance code standards Appropriate-retain
in residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.2 Continue to provide City public safety services,infrastructure maintenance,graffiti Appropriate-retain
removal,and other public services to maintain the quality of the housing stock,
neighborhoods,and the environment.
Policy 1.3 Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the Appropriate-retain
importance of property maintenance to long-term housing quality.
Policy 1.4 Continue to promote the repair,revitalization,and rehabilitation of residential Appropriate-retain
structures which have fallen into disrepair.
Policy 1.5 Support the preservation and maintenance of historically and architecturally Appropriate-retain
significant buildings and neighborhoods.
Adequate Residential Sites
2 Provide residential sites through land use,zoning and specific plan designations to provide a Appropriate-retain
range of housing opportunities commensurate with the city's needs.
Policy 2.1 Identify adequate sites which will be made available and zoned at the appropriate Retain as revised for the
densities,to facilitate goals set forth in the 2014-2021 RHNA. new planning period.
Policy 2.2 Ensure residential sites have appropriate public services,facilities,circulation,and Appropriate-retain
other needed infrastructure to support development.
Policy 2.3 Investigate rezoning or redesignation of commercial lots that are no longer Appropriate-retain
economically viable uses to appropriate residential uses.
Policy 2.4 Promote and encourage mixed-use residential and commercial uses where Appropriate-retain
appropriate as a means to facilitate development.
Housing Assistance and Special Needs
3 Expand and protect housing opportunities for lower income households and special needs Appropriate-retain
groups.
Policy 3.1 Use public financial resources,to the extent feasible,to support the provision and Appropriate-retain
production of housing for lower-income households and persons and families with
special needs.
Policy 3.2 Provide rental assistance to address existing housing problems and provide Appropriate-retain
homeownership assistance to expand housing opportunities.
Policy 3.3 Support the conservation of Mobile Home parks,historic neighborhoods,publicly- Appropriate-retain
subsidized housing,and other sources of affordable housing.
Policy 3.4 Require,in aggregate, 10%of new units to be affordable to lower-income Appropriate-retain
households.Establish priority for usage of in-lieu fee as follows: 1st priority—
production of affordable housing;2nd--subsidy of affordable housing;3rd--housing
rehabilitation;and 4th priority--housing assistance.
Removal of Government Constraints
4 Where appropriate,mitigate unnecessary governmental constraints to the maintenance, Appropriate-retain
improvement,and development of housing.
Policy 4.1 Periodically review City regulations,ordinances,fees/exactions to ensure they do not Appropriate-retain
unduly constrain the production,maintenance,and improvement of housing.
Policy 4.2 Offer regulatory incentives and concessions for affordable housing,such as relief Appropriate-retain
from development standards,density bonuses,or fee waivers where deemed to be
appropriate.
Policy 4.3 Provide for streamlined,timely,and coordinated processing of residential projects to Appropriate-retain
minimize holding costs and encourage housing production.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 79
Goal Policy Appropriateness
Policy 4.4 Support infill development at suitable locations and provide,where appropriate, Appropriate—retain
incentives to facilitate such development.
Fair and Equal Housing Opportunity
5 Ensure fair and equal housing opportunity for all persons regardless of race,religion,sex,marital Appropriate—retain
status,family type,ancestry,national origin,color,disability or other protected status.
Policy 5.1 Provide fair housing services to residents and assure that residents are aware of their Appropriate-retain
rights and responsibilities with respect to fair housing.
Policy 5.2 Discourage discrimination in either the sale or rental of housing on the basis of state Appropriate-retain
or federal protected classes.
Policy 5.3 Implement appropriate action items identified in the Ventura County Analysis of Appropriate-retain
Impediments to ensure fair and equal access to housing.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 80
Table A-3
Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives 2008-2013
Quantified
Program Category Objective* Progress
New Construction'
Very Low(Extremely Low) 363(181) 16
Low 292 39
Moderate 335 93
Above Moderate 627 456
Total 1,617 603
Rehabilitation
Very Low(Extremely Low) 20 1 Mobile Home unit
Low 15 3 Mobile Home units
Moderate -
Above Moderate -
Total 35
Preservation of Units at Risk of Conversion**
Very Low - -
Low - -
Moderate - -
Above Moderate - -
Total - -
Notes:
*Quantified objective and progress for new construction reflect units built 2006-2012,per the previous RHNA
**There were no at-risk units in the previous period
•
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 81
This page intentionally left blank.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 82
Appendix B
Residential Land Inventory
1. Assumptions and Methodology
The assumptions and methodology for the residential land inventory are provided below
and summarized in Tables B-1 through B-3. Affordability assumptions are based on deed
restrictions or market conditions (for approved projects) as described in Chapter II
(Needs Assessment). Market conditions indicate that attached housing units are likely to
be affordable to moderate-income households in Moorpark. Sites without project
entitlements as assigned to the lower-income category if the allowable density is 20
units/acre or more, pursuant to state law13.
2. Approved Projects
Projects that are approved but not yet completed, are shown in Table B-1 . These projects
include 51 very-low-income units, 61 low-income units, 196 moderate units, and 776
above-moderate units. Income categories are based on specific project requirements or
market conditions, as described in Section 1 above. Given the uncertainty in the current
economic climate, it should be recognized that the anticipated development schedule
noted for each project is based on City experience with typical development projects. If
the recovery in the real estate market proceeds more slowly than expected, the
development timeline for some projects may be delayed.
Pending Projects
Pending projects are those with filed applications but no approval has been granted.
The status and anticipated characteristics of these projects are described below. The
potential units for these projects are summarized in Table B-2. The estimated number of
lower-income units is based on the default density of 20 units/acre.
• The "Specific Plan-1 Hitch Ranch" project consists of 283 acres of vacant land
located north of the Union Pacific Railroad, west of Walnut Canyon Road
(Highway 23), and east of Gabbert Road. An application has been filed for a
Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, development agreement,
residential planned development permit and a tract map to allow
construction of 755 dwelling units, 3 acres of institutional use, and open space.
The project is currently undergoing review, an EIR scoping meeting has been
held and environmental review is underway. Final entitlement review is
expected to occur in 2014, which would allow subdivision maps and building
permits to be issued during the current planning period. The site slopes
downward from north to south and has available utility connections and
services. There are no additional city requirements that would affect the rate
of construction or limit the number of housing units that can be constructed at
any one time, following approval of entitlements. The estimate of 468 lower-
13 Government Code Sec.65583.2(c)(3)(B) provides that a density of 20 units/acre is deemed to be appropriate for
lower-income housing in Moorpark.
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 83
income units for this project is based on the rezoning of a 23.44-acre portion of
the site that was designated for multi-family development at 20 units/acre in
2013 (see Figure B-1). No specific development project has been submitted to
the City for this high-density planning area. The developer has indicated that
the entire planning area may be sold to a multi-family builder.
• The "RPD 2005-02 (Chiu)" project consists of a 2+ acre site on the north side of
Everett Street, east of Walnut Canyon Road (Highway 23). An application has
been filed for a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, development
agreement, residential planned development permit and a condominium
tract map to allow construction of a 60-unit condominium building with 125
parking spaces. The city is currently negotiating the development agreement
with the applicant and preparation of a Negative Declaration is underway
with the public hearings anticipated for a 60-unit condominium project. The
site slopes downward from north to south and has available utility connections
and services. Final entitlement review is expected to occur in 2014, which
would allow building permits to be issued during the current planning period.
There are no additional city requirements that would affect the rate of
construction or limit the number of housing units that can be constructed at
any one time, following approval of entitlements. Although no entitlements
have yet been approved for this property, the affordability levels shown in
Table B-2 assume that only 20% of the units will be restricted to lower-income
households because the developer has expressed the intention of building the
entire project as condominiums.
• The "RPD 2007-01 Casey Road - Mansi" project consists of 48.2 acres of vacant
land on the north side of Casey Road, west of Walnut Canyon Road, (Highway
23). An application has been filed for a Zone Change, General Plan
Amendment, development agreement, residential planned development
permit and a tract map to allow construction of 390 senior housing units. The
site is moderately sloping on the west and east with a shallow valley in the
middle of the site. The application is currently incomplete and CEQA analysis
has not yet begun. The property has available utility connections and services.
Final entitlement review is expected to occur in 2014, which would allow
building permits to be issued during the current planning period. There are no
additional city requirements that would affect the rate of construction or limit
the number of housing units that can be constructed at any one time,
following approval of entitlements.
• The "Pacific Communities" project consists of 37.09 acres on the South Side of
Los Angeles Avenue between Leta Yancy Road and Maureen Lane (see
Figure B-2). An application has been filed for a Zone Change, General Plan
Amendment, development agreement, residential planned development
permit and a tract map to allow construction of 157 single-family detached
dwellings and 300 attached units with integrated recreation areas for the
community. The application is currently incomplete and CEQA analysis has not
yet begun. The property is relatively flat and is bound on the southern
perimeter by the Arroyo Simi. Remainder lot areas within the Arroyo Simi would
be dedicated to the Ventura County Flood Protection District. The property
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 84
has available utility connections and services. Final entitlement review is
expected to occur in 2014-15, which would allow building permits to be issued
during the current planning period. There are no additional city requirements
that would affect the rate of construction or limit the number of housing units
that can be constructed at any one time, following approval of entitlements.
A total of 300 lower-income units are assumed for this project based on a 15-
acre planning area that is proposed at a density of 20 units/acre. Only
conceptual development plans have been submitted to the City for this high-
density planning area, and the anticipated entitlement would allow
reconfiguration of the site plan to accommodate different product types. The
developer has indicated that the planning area may be sold to a multi-family
builder. As noted in Program 3, the City will take proactive steps to encourage
and facilitate affordable housing development in this multi-family planning
area.
•
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 85
■▪®�
i "4, _
G. c 43 .
i i „.
LL _
x ,
.tt
'!7 . ll\11-wy -is ' _I.r
_ ti ..1 L w
It .-may I —
r , gip = - ,jI.�� �, ,
o
li-
c
"' �; r ilillt_ll 1
. i .E,„-F.,, •3, . ,,,,„\\\m . 1 11 ( 11 111111 ,' e ---�'j, `�,
x V' *'! ti ,
c1 /� y,l
ir 0 % , 7....■, -.;a.--'.-.--. 1! , Mr/ s... . Aport:--rr----- A',....:' -')
i . , ..,. . s„
C
Va I *l `t' i,
• 111 R •at a.
---0".‘) '.
',h} r
=11111�i�01i11C1
1 1111®1111i®Ii 1Mal '''\ 1 A
91®1®IIIIIIIIi1111r111111
__ ,
iliiiiiiiiiiilliimiiiim11111 t .,„„
i il&IiiiiiiiiiImmumniummikl,
, _-.-
,,, .,
. ,i: .
.:. . 1
. .,n,
i Ili 1111111111111 1 11
i
a` t 4 . a e < i
A a a .a a
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 86
:ill .42,i7i. a , :ii jcii. 1 r...k, „lc. I 1 iir,, ip.v..„.,,,,, i 4
pl
, :._!
lK
1 i I j 11-- - L / ,1► / i
I �, /1//I
o
i Wq .*T1 i al•'Alf* ilit . / I/ ii 1111111111-I go ;I _ r �1 1 r ithflh !;
D V - - 1
F- i - 7 1. . . • di IiiiiiIlliii
c , �� 1 ! _I
=1 F-� { ) 4,
tn ct
, ty ilihil 1: '-7'
5
I Iq� , r I — %R. L - -p1 kv i1 1... 44
`. if ii° U i
b - Jf. I _l b V di 4 / 1 lye', , t u °-
U out fit Itir .� 7, 1
0 ! 1 ®� MInkt'•, \, 1 ii 1 NM
I i 1111111111111111k\Sa c. 8k\ . .
I I; ! REIokIii '\ , ,,,,,,,,.,
'►n ®M _ ' ' A \\ew��i ZIEll
1 Wi
B xi . MIN'I MILE`1 a y r:v i eril !! a. WNW ! N_ -_ `
7, • – Irte _ !e '
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 87
3. Vacant Land
The City's inventory of vacant land suitable for residential development is described
below and summarized in Table B-3.
• The "Waste Management" property consists of 256 acres of vacant land,
comprised of varied topography consisting of a valley ringed by moderately
sloped foothills. This property is constrained by limited vehicular access,
valuable natural habitat and wildlife corridors and floodways. No entitlement
applications have been submitted for this property. The realistic capacity for
this site (under current general plan) has been estimated at 6 units based on
the 1 unit/40 acres land use designation. The realistic potential for multi-family
development is not known at this time, since this area has not been the focus
of any development studies. There are no known environmental constraints
that would preclude development during this planning period.
• The "Rasmussen" property consists of 68 acres of vacant land. The topography
consists of mild to moderately sloping land adjacent to a rural large-lot
equestrian oriented neighborhood. The realistic capacity for this site (under
current Agricultural Exclusive zoning) has been estimated to be 1 unit based
on density allowed in the AE zone. A General Plan amendment pre-screening
application to increase density has been submitted and is under review. There
is estimated to be potential capacity of up to 150 housing units on this
property, which will be studied as part of the application review process. There
are no known environmental constraints that would preclude development
during this planning period.
• The "AB Properties-North Village" property consists of 82.8 acres of vacant
land. The realistic capacity for this site (under current zoning) has been
estimated to be 16 units based on Rural Exclusive-5Acre zoning allowing 1 DU /
5 acres. A General Plan amendment pre-screening application has been
approved to allow the processing of a request to increase density to allow up
to 50 large-lot single-family homes on this property. Affordable housing would
be provided off-site as determined through a development agreement, which
is required for this project. There are no known environmental constraints that
would preclude development during this planning period.
• The "La Perch" property is a 25.73-acre site which has one single-family
residence, one second unit and an equestrian boarding facility. The property
is sloped and the useable areas are mostly comprised of a moderate slope
leading up to a hilltop, with steeper unusable slopes dropping off to the west
and north toward Walnut Canyon Road (Highway 23), and east to Spring
Road. This property is adjacent to the Moorpark Highlands master planned
residential community and is accessible from existing roadways, and has
available utility connections and services. The realistic capacity for this site
(under current zoning) has been estimated to be 2 units based on the Rural
Agricultural-10Acre zoning, allowing 1 DU / 10 acres. No entitlement
applications have been submitted for this property. The potential for higher-
density development is currently unknown for this site, as no applications have
been submitted. However, portions of the site are adjacent the Moorpark
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 88
Highlands master planned community which consists of a variety of densities,
some of which are detached single-family homes and one neighborhood
contains an attached tri-plex. The site appears to be developable at a similar
density to that of adjacent single-family detached neighborhoods, with the
steeper portions of the site remaining as natural sloped areas. There are no
known environmental constraints that would preclude development during
this planning period.
• The "Old Fire Station Properties" (four contiguous parcels that can be
consolidated) total approximately 1.36 acres, are owned by the City of
Moorpark, with the intention of consolidation and resale to developers for
construction of affordable housing. These properties are mostly undeveloped
land except for an old unused fire station office and garage, and a vacant
commercial office building. These properties are gently sloping from west to
east with a drop in elevation of approximately five feet. These properties have
access from Walnut Canyon Road (Highway 23), Charles Street, Walnut Street
and Everett Street with available utility connections and services. The current
capacity for this site is only 2 units based on current zoning of R-1, Commercial
Office and Institutional. However, the anticipated capacity for the project is
estimated at 20-25 units based on a density of 20 to 25 units/acre. There are no
known environmental constraints that would preclude development during
this planning period. The site has excellent potential for affordable housing
development during the planning period and the City completed a zoning
amendment for the site to RPD-20-U in 2013.
• The "Walnut Canyon Road Properties" total 2.37 acres, are owned by the City
of Moorpark and are being acquired for potential consolidation and
construction of affordable housing units. Several of the parcels are contiguous,
and it is anticipated that lots will be consolidated for the clustering of new
developments. These properties are accessed from Walnut Canyon Road
(Highway 23), with available utility connections and services. The properties
are gently sloping towards the west and some lots have large slopes at the
western perimeters of the properties. All of these lots have drainage
easements along the western perimeter and some have an open drainage
channel in these areas. The realistic capacity for this site (under current zoning)
has been estimated at 18 units based on the Rural Exclusive zoning of 4
DU/Acre with a 100% density bonus for affordable housing. This could result in
approximately 18 affordable housing units being constructed on this site. There
are no known environmental constraints that would preclude development
during this planning period. The City is currently in negotiations with a
developer on an agreement for an affordable housing project.
• The "Charles Street" properties are 3 properties totaling 0.53 acre owned by
the City. Two of the properties are contiguous and the other property is
separated by a non-agency owned parcel. These properties are being
consolidated for resale to a developer. Two of the properties are relatively flat
with the topography having a gradual slope down to High Street. The third
property is at a similar grade elevation as High street and is generally flat. All
properties are currently unimproved with available utility connections and
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 89
services. The realistic capacity for this site (under current zoning) has been
estimated to be a total of 6 units based on Residential Planned Development
7-14 DU/Acre zoning. The anticipated density for the project is 20 units/acre. At
100% affordable, this would result in a potential for construction of 10
affordable housing units. There are no known environmental constraints that
would preclude development of this property during the current planning
period. The City is currently exploring options for affordable housing
development and it is feasible that rezoning could occur during the current
planning period.
4. Second Units
The Zoning Code allows second units in single-family residential districts, pursuant to state
law. A total of nine second unit permits have been issued from 2005 to 2013, or an
average of about one unit per year. It is anticipated that second unit development will
continue at a similar pace during the 2014-2021 planning period, which would result in 8
additional units. Based on affordability categories (see Chapter II) these units are
expected to rent in the Very-Low and Low-income ranges.
5. Land Inventory Summary
The following chart summarizes the City's residential development potential compared
to the RHNA allocation for the 2014-2021 planning period. This table demonstrates that
the City has sufficient capacity to accommodate the RHNA in all income categories for
the planning period.
Income Category
Site Category Lower Mod Above Total
Approved projects(Table B-1) 112 196 776 1,084
Pending projects(Table B-1) 312 48 834 1,194
Potential second units • 8 8
Vacant land—residential(Table B-3) 521 52 573
Subtotal 945 244 1,662 I 2,851
RHNA(2014-2021) 486 216 462 1,164
Adequate capacity I Yes Yes Yes I Yes
Source:City of Moorpark Community Development Dept.,2013
CD
cc Cn
cu o
Table B-1 Co c
Approved Residential Projects 0
General Plan/ Potential Units b Income Cate o Z
0
Pro'ect Zonin Acrea a Densi VLIL I Mod U er Total
Approved projects
n
Tract 4928 Toll Bros.)* I Med.-Low Res./RPD 1.48U 43 1.5 u/ac 6 6 N
Tract 5463 Toll Bros. Med.-Low Res./RPD 1.481-1 43 1.1 u/ac 49 49
Tract 5045 Planning Areas 1-4 Pardee* Moorpark Highlands SP-2/Specific Plan 81 3.9 u/ac 67 67 w
Tract 5045 Planning Area 5 Pardee* Moorpark Highlands SP-2/Specific Plan 9 12.0 u/ac 0/5 4 9 cn
Tract 5860 Planning Area 7 Pardee*- Moorpark Highlands SP-2/Specific Plan 21.8 6.1 u/ac 0/7 126 133 IN)Tract 5045 Planning Area 8&9 Toll Bros.)* Moorpark Highlands SP-2/Specific Plan 68 1.9 u/ac 132 132
Tract 5133 Shea Homes)* Very High Res./RPD 12U 9 8.5 u/ac 0/3 18 21
Tract 5130(Moorpark 150,LLC Med.-Low Res./RPD 1.631J 72 1.5 u/ac 5**/7** 110 122
Tract 5187 W.L on/Resmark* Med.-Low Res./RPD 1.8U 140 1.8 u/ac 183 183
Tract 5405 W.L on/Resmark High Res./RPD 71.1 3 5.7 u/ac 4/4 9 17
Tract 5425 Shea Homes Very High Res./RPD 12U 15 6.8 u/ac 6/9 5 82 102
Tract 5347 Birdsall Rural High Res./RPD 11.1 21 1.0 u/ac 1**/1** 21 23
Essex Moorpark Apartments Very High Res./RPD 19U 11 19.0 u/ac 16/24 160 200
Area Housing Authority Apartments I High Res./RPD 7-14U 1 0.9 22.2 u/ac 1911 20
Subtotal 51161 1 196 776 1,084
Pending projects
Specific Plan-01 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 283 2.2 u/ac 287 287***
RPD 2005-02(Chiu) Existing:Very High Res./RPD 7-14U 2 25.0 u/ac 12 48 60
Proposed:25 u/ac
RPD 2007-01 Casey Road(Mansi) Existing:Rural Low&Med Res./RE&RE-5ac 48 2.3 u/ac 390 390
Proposed:2.3 ulac
Tract 5053 Pacific Communities Hi h Res./RPD 7U 35 7.1 u/ac**** 300 157 457
Subtotal 312 48 834 1,194
TOTALS 424 244 1.610 2,278
Notes:
Information is current as of September 2013
No development rights are implied for Pending Projects and Vacant sites.Estimated units and affordability are subject to change.
All VL&Low units are deed-restricted
*Project under construction—No.of units refers to units not completed as of September 2013
**Off-site units to be provided under terms of Development Agreement
***A 23.44-acre portion of this Specific Plan was rezoned to RPD-20-U in 2013.The entire Specific Plan would allow 755 total units including the portion previously rezoned.
****15-acre portion expected at 20 udulac
(D
c0 cn
CD
Table B-3 c
Vacant Land Inventory o
City of Moorpark 73Z
0
Potential Units by Income Category*
Site Existing General Plan/Zoning Size VL/L Mod Upper Total 0
Hitch Ranch APN 511-0-020-110, 130, 180 VHR/RPD-20 23.44 acres 468 N
SE corner Moorpark Ave/Everett St. APN 512-0-062-020 120110 070 VHR/RPD 20 1.36 acres 27 C)
SE end of Majestic Court APN 506-0-020-525 VHR/RPD-20 1.34 acres 26 w
Waste Management APN 500-0-292-015,035,&195;500-0-281-465,&545 Open Space 2/OS 1 at 10 d.u./acre 192 acres 19 19 coo
c
Rasmussen APN 511-0-190-205&305 Rural Low/AE-1 d.u./40 acres 67.96 acres 1 1 N
AB Properties-North Village APN 511-0-190-120 Rural Low/RE-5-1 d.u./5 acres 88.2 acres 17 17
La Perch APN 513-0-130-025 Open Space 1 /RA-10-1 d.u./10 acres 25.73 acres 2 2
Old Fire Station Property/782 Moorpark Avenue Public Inst./Institutional 30,000 s .ft. unknown unknown
Old Fire Station Property/798 Moorpark Avenue Office/C-0 7,500 s .ft. unknown unknown
Old Fire Station Property/765 Walnut Street Med. Res./R-1 —4 d.u./acre 15,000 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
Old Fire Station Property/81 Charles Street C-2 Gen.Comm./R-1—4 d.u./acre 7,500 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
1063 Walnut Canyon Road Med Res./RE—4 d.u./acre 11,167 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
1073 Walnut Canyon Road Med Res./RE—4 d.u./acre 11,225 scift 1-2 1-2
1083 Walnut Canyon Road Med Res./RE—4 d.u./acre 11,388 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
1095 Walnut Canyon Road Med Res./RE—4 d.u./acre 11,421 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
1113 Walnut Canyon Road Med Res./RE—4 d.u./acre 11,421 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
1123 Walnut Canyon Road Med Res./RE—4 d.u./acre 11,421 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
1293 Walnut Canyon Road Med Res./RE—4 d.u./acre 23,436 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
1331 Walnut Canyon Road Med Res./RE—4 d.u./acre 11,718 s .ft. 1-2 1-2
450 Charles Street High Res./RPD 7-14 d.u./acre 7,750 sq.ft. 1-2 1-2
460 Charles Street High Res./RPD 7-14 d.u./acre 7,750 sq.ft. 1-2 1-2
484 Charles Street High Res./RPD 7-14 d.u./acre 7,750 sq.ft. 1-2 1-2
TOTALS 521 +1-52
*Based on current zoning designations
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 92
Figure B-3
RPD-20 Sites
I
PROPOSED DESIGNATION:RPD-20U-N-D PROPOSED DESIGNATION:RPD-20U-N-D
EXISTING DESIGNATION:A-E ' EXISTING DESIGNATIONS:I,CO,AND R-I
SITE=23.44ac RE COMBINED SITE: I.36ac
' — A - 1414 IPPlir REHIAC .. MA
IIP'TigilMi — 1 A "DaumtiAN
-- 041 U
L-11121 I 11, PA*
1 :
----11-R-1!
r—D,11.1:'D j M2 I H ,
ION ,EA
[ 7.1 TEN CM ME
RE
NNNN .:-_), i
NNNNNNNNNNII E azE
-i--)7)
,:e.1.= •:::,-1-1: 'NUM ,._:-.1
krillimmalmus
MEOHIll
RE 1
_ IMI • Es
. ."2 Sal — .... II
N 'I 11.1 in If CUM mill im 1131
o• mum • ,
U - 4 •
44 -1 • iii ,4...02 s - - JUNIN Iri Nun
1 1 RE 411 i
II ----N r-n,
-- NM CM r...,—.).1......1 i Iwo Ell •• inatunq
.-Dudgs - an :A at i! ER-1 ,
- .... . „I:. .
M'i ' I:3D i 62,-..., Lam=
2 SaT - ilium w itir
—___ I 4
4 - •
---,, 7 EN No •
no Ell a m .
—1"
' -- •r 1 Iv i 4 I
a MN
R 1 L In
4•-•••••• --'-': Kai till il ___
- MIZE MIS C PD
MA
0 .00, CPO
..._
,
- • r R-2
N... I_
— UN
-_,.---ti 67 [1 R-1
INA 111111imm■r.-
';')MI'- , -aalTirtill R-1
fl
• lem . , Avenue
111111 11
'' •1.1 ji
PD - -cpo
? RPD-7U i I3 NUM
RPO-16U unu R-i
1 ,
; ..---,,,,,,,, ,. .,, .. ,•
7
II——--- 2 FI:0 12U
iill* P.I. .1111.--, M. WM*AA ileltIti I IM iiMi J
? J tvz Hum
' e
__,.. ------- ------, RPO-7U N. RPD-20U
1. ' I
E f - --- -- RP D-16 2U t7i:i RP D-12U
RPO-16U 1
I I'
`..:-'„...,.....,...'------------- ---- --- -----
7
PROPOSED DESIGNATION:RPD-20U-N-D 11111
PC EXISTING DESIGNATION:RPD451-
SITE=1.34ac -----
* 1
4 -- —
. I
. 7 g
.
0 400 800 ZONE CHANGE 2013-01 MAP
0
.......-Feet
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 93
i ' 1
I 1
i S c
ll $g
-
Ga-0
§ ggl3gingiii:i]
/
5 mm.,11xxmmx..m ,
/ ; C E ?-9.-il-zzKlikkli
fy ,
I 4::',, giL=r),75,75t6.,, ,I4'fii41
4-,
a>:
> /
0
.I■ C , 1
c \ ' \
(1) ■••••=111 ' /- 1 1 i N, \
>
. 1
co -0 ,.--
\\.__
,....
D —
—J
0113 ,._
, ,
1,17 = ....... , , .
' . r - "-I' l.
0 CU ,r; • /1 . , . ,
I ,
._ .4—• ' I ! ,,,
a) ,
wd .._ , li ) (
"Ci - 1 . 7. 0., 7* ,
, - •• s, - $--7 , i i'l..I T-- — —
i,‘ - i
a) i ,- . ,,,1, ,,„ _
t . i
ct .
i
- - ..,---Ii- ,, ,,..,
.,, ....-,--, ,_
„.:-,., - Ill
V. , --
$ I;
,. ...„. ,..
I, ,
ill
_
.,,,.. — ,._. . 1---1 'V.44:0
r ■
7:1
'
'.11•S‘' ; . '‘
l\ ,
_Li 1■ 'i \ ' I
1 . \
! •-1
)111'11
. .,
- - 1 1
* 1,1
-.. , - . - / 11!
— ,
11"
- 1
' !,f
_ ,Of
', ' ' -- LP
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 94
Appendix C
Public Participation Summary
This summary of Housing Element public participation efforts describes opportunities for
public involvement along with an explanation of how public comments were
incorporated into the Housing Element. In addition, prior to the adoption hearings all
interested parties were given the opportunity to review proposed revisions.
Public participation is an important component of the planning process, and this update
to the Housing Element has provided residents and other interested parties numerous
opportunities for review and comment. Public notices of all Housing Element meetings
and public hearings were published in the local newspaper in advance of each
meeting, as well as posting the notices on the City's website. The draft Housing Element
was made available for review at City Hall, posted on the City's website, as well as at the
Public Library. The document was also made available to housing advocates and non-
profit organizations representing the interests of lower-income persons and those with
special housing needs. The following organizations with an interest in housing for lower-
income households were included in the notices of all public meetings for this Housing
Element update:
Contact Person Agency
Tanya McMahan Constructing ConnectionslWorkLife
Child Development Resources
Sonja Flores House Farm Workers
Bernardo Perez Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation
Milton E.Radant Habitat for Humanity Simi Valley, CA
Debra Vernon Communications and Corporate Responsibility American Water,Western Region
Cathy Brudnicki VC Homeless&Housing Coalition
•
Eileen McCarthy California Rural Legal Assistance
Environmental Services City of Simi Valley
Community Development Dpt. City of Thousand Oaks
Resource Management Agency County of Ventura
Gloria Miguez Interested Citizen
After receiving comments on the draft Housing Element from the State Housing and
Community Development Department, a proposed final Housing Element was prepared
and made available for public review prior to adoption by the City Council. The
following is a list of public meetings held to review the 2014-2021 Housing Element:
City Council Study Session October 2, 2013
Planning Commission hearing
City Council hearing
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 95
Table C-1 below summarizes the public comments received during the review of the
draft Housing Element along with a description of how those comments have been
addressed.
Table C-1
Housing Element Comments and Responses Summary
Comment Response
•
-- - o. PC-2013-592
_6401th 441
Mitts)30'-'4 CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY
'saw
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
.94Tfb - MOORPARK, CA 93021
(805) 517-6200
Project Title: GPA Housing Element Update(2014-2021) Case No.: GPA 2013-03
Contact Person and Phone No.: Joseph R. Vacca, AICP Principal Planner(805) 517-6236
Name of Applicant: City of Moorpark
Address and Phone No.: 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark CA 93021
Project Location: Citywide
General Plan Designation: Citywide Zoning: N/A
Project Description:
California Government Code Section 65302(c)mandates that each city shall include a Housing Element in its
General Plan. The Housing Element is required to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs,
and include statements of the City's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the
preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The City, in adopting its Housing Element, must
consider economic,environmental, and fiscal factors, as well as community goals as set forth in the General
Plan. However, while cities generally have considerable flexibility in drafting the other elements of their
General Plan, the Housing Element must comply with the detailed statutory provisions of the California
Government Code, which are codified in Section 65580 et seq.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA), presented in Table 11-27 of the draft Housing Element,
identifies Moorpark's"fair share"of the regional housing need for the planning period January 2014 through
October 2021 as 1,164 units. This total includes 145 extremely-low income units, 144 very-low income units,
197 low-income units,216 moderate-income units,and 462 above-moderate units. State law requires the City
to demonstrate that its"land inventory"contains adequate sites to accommodate the various types of units that
have been allocated in the RHNA. Policies and programs contained in Chapter V of the Housing Element
include the following:
Conserving the Existing Supply of Affordable Housing
• Housing Rehabilitation (Program 1)
• Code Compliance(Program 2)
Providing Adequate Housing Sites to Achieve a Variety and Diversity of Housing
• Sites to Accommodate Fair-Share Housing Needs(Program 3)
• Downtown Specific Plan (Program 4)
• Farm Worker Housing (Program 5)
• Second Units (Program 6)
• Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing (Program 7)
• Single Room Occupancy(SROs) (Program 8)
Assisting in the Provision of Housing
• Section 8 Rental Assistance(Program 9)
• Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (Program 10)
• Preservation Programs: a. Mobile Home Park Affordability; b. Resale Refinance Restriction and
Option to Purchase Agreements(Program 11)
• Inclusionary Program (Program 12)
• Land Assemblage/Disposition/Acquisition (Program 13)
• Regulatory and Financial Assistance(Program 14)
• Assistance to CHDOs (Program 15)
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 97
Project Description (continued):
Removing Governmental Constraints
• Density Bonus(Program 16)
• Efficient Project Processing R-P-D zone and Planned Development Permit Process(Program 17)
• Off-Street Parking Requirements (Program 18)
Promoting Equal Housing Opportunities
• Fair Housing Services(Program 19)
• Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities (Program 20)
• Child Care Facilities (Program 21)
The major focus of these programs is to improve the quality of the city's housing stock, conserve existing
neighborhoods, increase housing affordability, and remove potential constraints to housing for persons with
special needs.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Moorpark lies in the eastern center of Ventura County, midway
between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. The City is separated from nearby cities (Simi valley, and
Thousand Oaks)by agricultural green belts and mountainous open space areas. The Housing Element is a
General Plan policy document and encompasses the entire city.
Responsible and Trustee Agencies:
State law requires that the City submit the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for review prior to its adoption, and that the City Council consider HCD's
comments. A Draft Housing Element Update(2014-2021)was prepared and reviewed by the City Council on
October 2,2013. Following review by the City Council,the Draft Housing Element Update was submitted to the
California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)for review. On October 21, 2013, a
letter was received from HCD stating that the draft element addresses statutory requirements and that the
element would comply with state law when adopted. The revised draft Housing Element incorporates minor
changes made in response to HCD comments.
Review of specific development proposals by other governmental agencies may be required prior to
development of new housing anticipated in the Housing Element. Appropriate public agency review will be
determined at the time specific development applications are submitted.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially
Significant Impact"or"Less Than Significant With Mitigation,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Significance
None
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project could not have a
significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Prepared by: Joseph R. Vacca Reviewed by:
Date: Date:
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 98
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
A. AESTHETICS—Would the project:
1)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
2)Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not X
limited to,trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Response: Al. Through 4.:
The Housing Element identifies a need for 1,164 new housing units during the 2014-2021 planning period.
Some new development is expected to occur in urbanized areas as in-fill or redevelopment. This type of
development would not be expected to substantially alter the aesthetic character of the site,and in most cases
would be expected to improve the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. A significant portion of new
development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant, and would therefore result in the
conversion of open space to urban use. However,without specific details regarding such future developments,
it is not possible to determine or analyze potential visual impacts with any precision. All future developments
will be required to conform to the General Plan Land Use Element, zoning regulations and development
standards, and therefore would not be expected to create a negative aesthetic effect on the City's visual
qualities. New housing development could also create new sources of light and glare due to exterior lighting,
lighting of streets and walkways, and interior lighting that could be visible from the outside. Prior to approval,
each new development will be reviewed to ensure compliance with all appropriate development standards to
mitigate any potential aesthetic impacts. No significant impacts are expected to occur and no mitigation
measures are necessary in connection with this general plan amendment and Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES—In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, the City of Moorpark may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's
inventory of forest land including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and Forest Legacy
Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted
by the California Air Resources Board-Would the project:
1)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency,to
non-agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? X
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 99
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause, rezoning of, X
forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production(as defined by Govemment Code section 51104
(g)?
4)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land X
to non-forest use?
5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X
due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland,to non-agricultural use?
Response: B1. Through 5.:
The Housing Element identifies a need for 1,164 new housing units during the 2014-2021 planning period.
While some new development would be expected to occur in urbanized areas as in-fill or redevelopment, a
significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant,and would
therefore result in the conversion of open space to urban use. However, none of the sites currently designated
for residential development contain prime farmland, unique farmland,or farmland of statewide importance,nor
are any such sites currently used for farming. Therefore no significant impacts are expected to occur and no
mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element update. At the time development
projects are considered, potential impacts to agricultural resources will be analyzed and mitigation measures
will be adopted as appropriate in conformance with CEQA.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013), California
Dep't of Conservation: Ventura County Important Farmland Map (2000).
Mitigation: None required
C. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
1)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air • X
quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
3)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
5)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 100
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Response: C1. Through 5.:
The Housing Element update includes policies,programs and guidelines through which Moorpark can continue
to meet the fair share of regional housing growth. The Housing Element is a policy document; as a result
setting forth the programs will not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the Ventura County Air Quality
plans nor violate any air quality standard or have a substantial contribution to any air quality violation. Further,
adoption of the Housing Element will not have a cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
region is not attaining any relevant air quality standard. The Housing Element also will not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor create objectionable odors. Any future housing
development will be evaluated through a separate environmental review process in accordance with CEQA.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Long-term air quality impacts are those associated with the emissions produced from project-generated vehicle
trips as well as from stationary sources related to the use of natural gas and electricity for heating, cooling,
lighting,etc. Without specific details regarding future development,such as unit types and vehicle trips,it is not
possible to accurately quantify long-term emissions. As part of the review process for future development
projects, potential air quality impacts will be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures will be adopted.
No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this Housing
Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
1)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through X
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or
regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
2)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool,coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption,or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 101
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Response: Dl. Through 4.:
The Housing Element identifies a need for 1,164 new housing units during the 2014-2021 planning period.
While some new development would be expected to occur in urbanized areas as in-fill or redevelopment, a
significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant,and would
therefore result in the conversion of open space to urban use. The Housing Element is a policy document that
includes an examination of housing statistics, housing need, and identification of housing programs to make
sure the city continues to address Moorpark's share of regional housing need. Doing so will not significantly
impact biological resources including modifications to habitats of any species identified as sensitive or having
special protective status nor will it have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations,or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, review of the draft Housing Element indicates
that it will not impact federally-protected wetlands nor substantially interfere with the movement of any native or
migratory fish or wildlife species.
Response: D5. Through 6.:
The Moorpark Municipal Code contains tree preservation regulations,which are codified under Chapter 12.12
(Historic Trees, Native Oak Trees and Mature Trees). The ordinance defines"historic, mature and native oak
trees,"and specific requirements are described for protecting or mitigating their removal. Permits are required
for pruning or removal of protected trees,which include historic, mature and native oak trees. All residential
developments anticipated in the Housing Element that could impact such trees will be required to comply with
the provisions of this ordinance,which will reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. No
mitigation measures are necessary at this time.
There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan,or other local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plans that would be impacted in association with the programs outlined in the
Housing Element update. No mitigation measures are necessary at this time. The draft Housing Element also
does not conflict with adopted conservation local, regional or state conservation plans. Any future housing
development will be evaluated through a separate environmental review process in accordance with CEQA.As
a result, no further environmental review is necessary.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013),
Moorpark Municipal Code Chapter 12.12: Historic Trees, Native Oak Trees and Mature Trees
(1988)
Mitigation: None required
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
1)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource as defined in§15064.5?
2)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside X
of formal cemeteries?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 102
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Response: El. Through 4.:
The Housing Element identifies a need for 1,164 new housing units during the 2014-2021 planning period.
While some new development would be expected to occur in urbanized areas as in-fill or redevelopment, a
significant portion of new development would be expected to occur on land that is currently vacant,and would
therefore result in the conversion of open space to urban use. Some of these areas could contain sensitive
cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources. As part of the planning and review process for new
developments, potential impacts to cultural resources will be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures
will be adopted. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection
with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project:
1)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death Involving:
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X
iv)Landslides? X
2)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? • X
3)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?
4)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of X
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 103
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im•act Incor•orated Im'act Im•act
Response: F1. Through 5.:
Moorpark is located in a seismically active region containing active faults. These faults have the potential to
expose people or structures to significant impacts as a result of a fault rupture and seismic ground shaking.
Parts of the city may contain expansive or unstable soils that have the potential to cause structural damage. In
addition, grading associated with future development could result in substantial soil erosion. While it is not
possible to determine specific potential impacts related to future developments at this time, some general
requirements designed to minimize geological impacts will apply to all new development. These include
compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act,the Uniform Building Code,Title 24 of the California Building Code,and
the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Compliance with these building standards
is considered the best means of reducing geologic hazards. In addition, as part of the City's planning and
development review process, the proposed zone changes and future development projects will be analyze to
evaluate site-specific geotechnical conditions and determine appropriate construction methods to address
potential hazards such as liquefaction. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
necessary in connection with this Housing Element update.
GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013), General
Sources: Plan Safety Element(2001), Uniform Building Code (2010)
Mitigation: None required
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS—Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
2)Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X
•
gases?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 104
Response: G1. Through 2.:
Many of the world's leading scientific experts agree that greenhouse gases (GHGs) generated by human
activities affect climate by increasing the "greenhouse effect." The gases concentrate in the Earth's
atmosphere and trap heat by blocking some of the long-wave energy the Earth normally radiates back into
space. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels(coal,oil and natural gas for heating
and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock,
deforestation activities;and some agricultural practices. These activities are increasing the greenhouse gases
in the Earth's atmosphere and could be accelerating global climate change. Long-term environmental
consequences in California could potentially include a reduction in water supply from the Sierra Nevada snow
pack, which could result in a reduction in imported water, and public health problems due to degraded air
quality and more intense summer heat.
In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32
requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 2000 levels by the year 2010, 1990 levels by the year
2020, and to 80 percent less than 1990 levels by year 2050. These reductions will be accomplished through an
enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement
the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB)to develop and implement regulations to
reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in
response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However,AB 32 also includes
language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new
regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. AB 32 requires that CARB
adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the
cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement
mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. In
2007, CARB adopted the statewide 2020 emissions cap at 427 million metric tons(MMT)equivalent carbon
dioxide (CO2e) greenhouse gas emissions. CARB estimated that 2020 'business-as-usual' emissions
(meaning,emissions of greenhouse gases without consideration of climate change)would be 596 MMTCO2e;
therefore, emissions will need to be reduced by 169 MMTCO2e (28 percent) statewide to meet the 2020
threshold. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner
and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. A
numerical threshold to determine the significance of greenhouse gas emissions has not been established by
the City or Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
Because the Housing Element update assumes that development will occur consistent with the adopted
growth forecast and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, it would not cause an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions beyond the level currently projected to occur. Therefore, no new significant
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary at this time. However, subsequent
amendments to the Zoning Code, and review of development applications will be evaluated to assess
potential greenhouse gas emissions and appropriate mitigation measures may be required at that time.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project:
1)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous
materials?
2)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 105
4)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
6)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the X
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving wild land fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Response: H1. Through 8.:
The Housing Element is a policy document that addresses the city's capability to address the community's
housing need. As a result, the review of the present Housing Element and the update to comply with state
housing regulations will not create hazards and hazardous materials. The adoption of the draft Housing
Element will not create hazards through transporting, using, or disposing hazardous materials. Further, it will
not create hazards through the reasonably foreseeable up-set and accidental conditions nor result in hazardous
emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed elementary school.The approval of the Housing
Element will not impact any identified hazardous material sites.There are no airports within the city limits,and
the update of the Housing Element will not result in a safety hazard for people working or living in the city.
There are no private airstrips in Moorpark, so there would not be any hazards as a result of the Housing
Element update. Further, adoption of the Housing Element will not impair implementation of the emergency
response plan, nor will it expose people or structures to wildfires. Any future housing development will be
evaluated through a separate environmental review process in accordance with CEQA.As a result, no further
environmental review is required.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume ora lowering of the
local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
X
3)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
4)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 106
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on-or off-site?
5)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
8)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
10)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X
Response: 11.:
New development could impact water quality through runoff and wastewater discharge. However, all future
developments will be required to comply with applicable federal, state and local water quality requirements
such as the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Additionally,through the City's development review process,future projects will be evaluated for potential site-
specific water quality and flooding impacts. Development projects will be required to prepare water quality
plans and/or incorporate "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) into their construction operations to reduce
erosion, siltation and water pollution both during and after construction. Compliance with these regulations
would be expected to reduce water quality impacts to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation
measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element amendment.
Response: 12.: Development consistent with Housing Element assumptions would result in increased water
•
• consumption having the potential to deplete groundwater supplies. Additionally, new developments will result in
an increased amount of impervious surfaces and the potential to decrease groundwater recharge. These
potential impacts related to groundwater supplies and recharge will be analyzed as part of the planning and
development review process for future projects. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element amendment.
Response: 13. Through 10.,: Future residential developments could result in modification of existing drainage
patterns through grading and construction of homes, streets and other facilities. Such changes to drainage
patterns could result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site, as well as greater risk of flooding from
increased runoff. However, prior to development of any new projects, potential impacts related to alteration of
drainage patterns and flood hazards will be analyzed and appropriate conditions will be required. In addition,
existing policies require the provision of adequate storm water drainage facilities and prevent residential
development within 100-year floodplains. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
necessary in connection with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project:
1)Physically divide an established community? X
2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 107
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,
local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
Response: J1. Through 3.:
Future residential development as anticipated in the Housing Element update would be either small-scale
infill/redevelopment projects or larger-scale master-planned projects on vacant land. As such, these future
projects would not have the potential to divide an existing community. However, as part of the planning and
development review process, all new projects will be evaluated to determine potential impacts and any
appropriate mitigation measures will be imposed. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element amendment.
New residential development will be required to comply with all applicable plans and regulations, including the
General Plan,specific plan,and zoning. The Housing Element contains a commitment to rezone at least 25.8
acres of land for multi-family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre. Prior to approval of
any development applications, a CEQA analysis will be prepared to evaluate the projects'conformance with
applicable policies and regulations of the City; and all new projects will be evaluated to determine potential
impacts and any appropriate mitigation measures will be imposed. No significant impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element update.
There is no known adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan within the areas of Moorpark that will be considered for future
development. No impacts would occur and mitigation measures are necessary at this time.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
K. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
1)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource x
that would be of value to the region and the residents of
the state?
2)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral X
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Response: K1. Through 2.:
According to the City of Moorpark General Plan, no classified or designated mineral deposits of statewide or
regional significance have been identified in the city. The State Geologist has not mapped any Mineral
Resource Zones in the city, and consequently the State Mining and Geology Board has not designated any
regionally significant mineral resource areas in the city. However, prior to development of specific projects,
potential site-specific impacts to mineral resources will be evaluated as part of the planning and development
review process and any appropriate requirements will be applied at that time. No significant impacts would
occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013), General
Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element(1986)
Mitigation: None required
L. NOISE—Would the project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in x
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 108
x
3)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
6)Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Response: L1. Through 4.:
Future residential developments would be expected to result in short-term construction-related noise impacts,
including groundborne vibration noise that could exceed established standards. Required compliance with the
City's noise regulations and restrictions on construction hours will help to mitigate these impacts. Development
would also be expected to result in an incremental increase in long-term noise levels from increased vehicular
traffic as well as new stationary sources of noise. As part of the planning and development review process,
projects will be subject to site-specific analysis of potential noise impacts and any appropriate mitigation
measures will be imposed at that time. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
necessary in connection with this Housing Element amendment.
Response: L5. Through 6.:
There are no public airports or private airstrips located within the city. As such,future residential development
would not be expected to expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. However, as part of the planning
and development review process, projects will be subject to site-specific analysis of potential aircraft noise
impacts and any appropriate mitigation measures will be imposed at that time. No significant impacts would
occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project:
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
•
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 109
Response: M1. Through 3.:
The level of new residential development anticipated in the Housing Element would directly induce population
growth. However, the City is required by state law to accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs,
therefore this is not an adverse environmental impact under CEQA. No mitigation measures are required.
It is expected that most new residential development would occur on vacant land and therefore would not
displace existing houses or people. However, some redevelopment of existing housing could occur, such as
with a redevelopment project to replace deteriorated structures and eliminate blight. In such cases,evaluation
of the need for replacement housing and/or relocation assistance would be required. As part of the planning
and development review process,any new development that would displace existing housing will be evaluated
and appropriate mitigation measures will be imposed. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are required in connection with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Response: N1.:
New residential development would be expected to increase the demand for public services. As part of the
planning and development review process, all new developments will be evaluated to determine the level of
demand for public services and appropriate mitigation measures will be imposed to ensure that adequate
service levels are maintained. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary
in connection with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
O. RECREATION
1)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood X
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
X
2)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 110
Response: 01. Through 2.:
New residential development would be expected to increase the demand for parks and other recreational
facilities. As part of the planning and development review process, all new developments will be evaluated to
determine the level of demand for recreational facilities and appropriate mitigation measures will be imposed to
ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. The City of Moorpark Park Fees(Quimby Act fee)that all
new residential subdivision developments are required to pay are used to acquire and/or improve park facilities,
which helps to mitigate the impact of additional residents. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project:
1) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy X
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
2) Conflict with an applicable congestion management X
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
3)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an X
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
4)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible
uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?
5)Result in inadequate emergency access? X
•
6)Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
7)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting X
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
Response: P1. Through 7.:
New residential development anticipated by the Housing Element would be expected to generate increased
traffic on the road network and could also result in hazardous road conditions, inadequate emergency access
or insufficient parking. The level of new residential development anticipated in the Housing Element(1,164
additional housing units during the 2014-2021 period)would not be expected to have a significant effect on air
traffic volume beyond the levels assumed in the regional growth forecast. No significant impacts would occur
and no mitigation measures are required at this time. As part of the planning and development review process,
all new developments are evaluated to determine the extent of traffic impacts relative to road capacity,design,
emergency access and parking, and appropriate requirements will be imposed to ensure that safe design
standards and adequate service levels are maintained. The proposed zoning amendments will be subject to
CEQA review and appropriate mitigation measures will be required to avoid impacts. The traffic impact fees
that new residential developments are required to pay will help to mitigate the impact of additional traffic
through funding of new road improvements. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures
are necessary in connection with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 111
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project:
1)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
2) Require or result in the construction of new water or X
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
4)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
6)Be served by the landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
Response: Q1. Through 7.:
New residential development anticipated in the Housing Element would be expected to increase the demand
for utilities and service systems, including water,wastewater treatment,storm water drainage,and solid waste
disposal. As part of the planning and development review process, new developments will be evaluated to
determine the level of demand for these facilities and appropriate mitigation measures and project-specific
requirements will be imposed to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. No significant impacts
would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element update.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Mitigation: None required
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of X
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 of prehistory?
2)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effect of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects,and effects of probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either
directly or indirectly?
Resolution No. PC-2013-592
Page 112
Response: R1.:
Under state law,cities are required to prepare a Housing Element that,among other things, identifies how the
jurisdiction's fair share of regional housing growth needs will be accommodated. The City of Moorpark's fair
share of the region's new housing need, as established by the Southern California Association of
Governments, is 1,164 units for the period 2014-2021. The City's new housing need is distributed among
various income levels as shown in Housing Element Table 11-27. Since the City's current land use plans and
zoning demonstrate adequate capacity to accommodate its need for lower-income households, the Housing
Element does not include a commitment to rezone any land for multi-family residential development. Prior to
approval of any future proposed zoning amendments or development applications,site-specific CEQA analysis
will be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures will be required to address any potentially significant
impacts.
Response: R2.:
As noted in Item R1., above,the Housing Element identifies a need for 1,164 new residential units during the
2014-2021 period. However,this Housing Element update does not convey any development entitlements nor
identify the specific location of sites to be developed. Prior to adoption of any future proposed development or
zoning amendments, site-specific CEQA analysis will be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures will
be required to address any potentially significant impacts.
Response: R3.:
As noted in Items R1., and R2., above, the Housing Element is a policy document that does not convey
development entitlements for any specific sites or projects. Prior to adoption of any proposed zoning
amendments,and/or development applications, site-specific CEQA analysis will be conducted and appropriate
mitigation measures will be required to address any potentially significant impacts that may be identified.
Sources: GPA 2013-03: Housing Element Update, (Draft 2014-2021, dated November 2013).
Earlier Environmental Documents Used in the Preparation of this Initial Study
None
Additional Project References Used to Prepare This Initial Study
One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and
are available for review in the Community Development Office, City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue,
Moorpark, CA 93021. Items used are referred to by number in the Response Section of the Initial
Study Checklist.
1. The City of Moorpark's General Plan, as amended.
2. The Moorpark Municipal Code, as amended.
3. The City of Moorpark Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 2004-2224
4. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section
15000 et. seq.