Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2012 0516 CC REG ITEM 08A ITEM 8.A. OF MOORPARK,CALIFORM-, City Council Meeting of_T 3"/G '070/8 Ac T ION: MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL`lw • GUM- 3/6.6' AGENDA REPORT . TO: Honorable City Council FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director Prepared by Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Planne .' DATE: May 1, 2012 (CC Meeting of 05/16/2012) SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Adopting a Negative Declaration and Approving General Plan Amendment 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Housing Element is one of the state-mandated elements of the General Plan. State law requires Housing Elements to be updated periodically to reflect changing housing needs and conditions. All cities and counties within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 2008- 2014 planning period. The current Housing Element was adopted by City Council on December 19, 2001. A draft Housing Element Update for the 2008-2014 planning period was prepared and reviewed by the City Council on October 6, 2010. Following review by the City Council, it was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)for review. After a series of discussions between City and HCD staff, along with the submittal of several revisions, HCD sent the City a letter on January 31, 2012 (Attachment 1) stating that the draft element update addresses statutory requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Housing Element Update on March 27, 2012, and unanimously adopted PC Resolution No. 568, recommending adoption of the Housing Element Update. The detailed discussion of the housing element update is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report, (Attachment 2). Two speakers addressed the Planning Commission during the public hearing: • Tanya McMahan, of Child Development Resources, who spoke in support of the draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. • Sonja Flores, of House Farm Workers, indicated that while there was support for the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, comments relating to farm worker housing will be prepared for City Council consideration. 1 • Honorable City Council May 16, 2012 Page 2 For this public hearing before the City Council, a public notice was published in the Ventura County Star and staff emailed the public notice and a digital copy of the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update to the persons who had previously inquired, as follows: No. Contact Person Agency 1. Tanya McMahan Constructing Connections/WorkLife Child Development Resources 2. Sonja Flores House Farm Workers 3. Bernardo Perez Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation 4. Milton E. Radant Habitat for Humanity Simi Valley, CA 5. Debra Vernon Communications and Corporate Responsibility American Water,Western Region 6. Cathy Brudnicki VC Homeless&Housing Coalition 7. Eileen McCarthy California Rural Legal Assistance 8. Environmental Services City of Simi Valley 9. Community Development Dpt. City of Thousand Oaks 10 Resource Management Agency County of Ventura 11 Gloria Miguez Interested citizen Also, an electronic copy of the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update was posted on the City's website on April 19, 2012, and currently remains on the website. On April 23, 2012, City staff met with Sonja Flores, Bernardo Perez, and Miguel Magdeleno, representing House Farm Workers, to answer questions on the City's density bonus ordinance and discuss the content of the draft Housing Element, specifically Table B-3, the Vacant Land Inventory. Staff explained that the City's density bonus ordinance is more permissive than State density bonus law. Staff indicated that the City Council may allow a density bonus up to a maximum of one hundred percent 100%greater density than allowed by the existing zone 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. The City's density bonus ordinance also allows City Council to provide concessions and/or incentives as deemed necessary to develop affordable units. In the meeting, staff presented the Charles Street Terrace project as a recent example where a one hundred percent (100%) density bonus was approved by City Council and constructed as an affordable housing development. In discussing the vacant land inventory, staff indicated that the inventory is not one hundred percent inclusive of every vacant parcel in the City. For example the Birkenshaw property is not included in the proposed draft Housing Element 2008-2014 but, may likely be included in the next Housing Element Update (2014-2021). S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN Housing Element\2008 Update\Staff Reports\CC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120516.doc 2 Honorable City Council May 16, 2012 Page 3 FINDINGS The following findings are offered for General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, dated May 2012, of the City of Moorpark General Plan: A. The updated 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 updated Housing Element satisfies and is consistent with provisions for Housing Elements as contained within California Government Code Section 65585 of the Government Code 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 updated Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan and all of its Elements. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS General Plan Amendments are legislative acts that are not subject to processing time limits under the Permit Streamlining Act(Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5), the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). Therefore, there are no statutory processing time limits required for review. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation can not be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared. S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element12008 Update\Staff Reports\CC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120516.doc 3 Honorable City Council May 16, 2012 Page 4 The Director has prepared or supervised the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the potential significant impacts of this project. Based upon the Initial Study, the 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, (Attachment 3, Exhibit - A) for City Council review and consideration before making a decision on the project. The public review period for the draft Negative Declaration is from April 23, 2012 to May 12, 2012, and as of the writing of this report staff has not received any comments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2012- for adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02 for the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. ATTACHMENTS: 1. January 31, 2012, letter from California Department of Housing and Community Development stating that the draft element addresses statutory requirements. 2. March 27, 2012, Planning Commission Staff Report, (without exhibits). 3. Draft Resolution with Exhibit A: Negative Declaration and Initial Study 2008-2014 Housing Element Update; and, Exhibit B: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update dated May 2012, of the Moorpark General Plan. S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element\2008 Update\Staff Reports\CC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120516.doc 4 . _ �: -9US` SS.—R \ 'PGPT:T'0'I;AID"irr I '4.'GFMCI F 7itill?ND G.Bit DEPARTMENT O HOUSING AHD COMMUi'1N r EL ),Pme DIVISION O :OOLONG PO:ACV 07Vn_QFM _b �>tu r;rrrr '=4 1800 Third Street,Suite 430 = �- P.O.Box 952053 Sacramento.CA 94252-2053 w �\ �f /y (916)323-3177/FAX(916)327-260.3 'rGec:i'` ,January 31, 2012 Mr. David Bobardt, Director Community Development Depar-rrs t, City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mr. Bobardt: RE: Review of the City of Moorpark's Revised Housing Element Thank you for submitting Moorpark's draft revisions to the housing element received for review on January 19, 2012. The Department is required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 55585(b). The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the Department's November 23, 2011 review. For example, the element now demonstrates adequate sites and includes Program 3 to rezone at least 25 acres at minumum densities of 20 units per acre to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, As a result, the revised element will comply with State housing element law(Article 10.6 of the Government Code)when these revisions are adopted and submitted to the Department, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g). The Department appreciates your efforts and cooperation throughout the course of the • review and looks forward to receiving Moorpark's adopted housing element. If you have any questions, please contact Jess Negrete, of our staff, at(916) 323-3185. Sincerely, 'Glen A. Campora Assistant Deputy Director • CC ATTACHMENT 1 5 MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director, Prepared by Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Plannerm,l' DATE: February 21, 2012 (PC Meeting of 03/27/12) SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 20082014 Housing Element Update SUMMARY The Housing Element is one of the state-mandated elements of the General Plan. State law requires Housing Elements to be updated periodically to reflect changing housing needs and conditions. All cities and counties within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 2008- 2014 planning period. The current Housing Element was adopted by City Council on December 19, 2001. The guidelines adopted by California, Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)are also to be considered in the preparation of the Housing Element. Periodic review of the Housing 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. Under state law, the City is required to prepare a Housing Element update for the 2008-2014 planning period. A Draft Housing Element was prepared and reviewed by the City Council on October 6, 2010. Following review by the City Council, the Draft Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. After a series of discussions between City staff and HCD and revisions to the draft element, on January 31, 2012 a letter, (Attachment 1), was received from HCD stating that the draft element addresses statutory requirements. CC ATTACHMENT 2 6 Honorable Planning Commission March 27, 2012 Page 2 Staff is presenting the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update to the Planning Commission for review, to receive public comment, provide direction to staff as appropriate, and to recommend to City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. BACKGROUND The Housing Element establishes the framework for working toward the goal of providing a variety of housing units to serve the needs of the community. The updating of the Element is an effort to keep the City's General Plan current by updating the demographic information and housing inventory data. In addition, it serves as an opportunity to review adopted housing programs and identifies the number and type of residential units developed in the City. According to the Government Code of the State of California, the Housing Element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The Housing Element shall identify adequate sites for housing for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The Housing Element is required to include: ➢ An assessment of housing needs; ➢ An inventory of resources relevant to the meeting of these needs; ➢ An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to meeting housing needs; ➢ Goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement and development of housing; and ➢ A plan of actions to achieve goals and objectives State law requires that the Draft Housing Element be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for 60-day review, and that cities consider the comments of HCD prior to adoption of the Housing Element. DISCUSSION The draft Housing Element update was prepared following the State of California Housing Element guidelines. Housing Element law requires local governments to plan for their projected housing needs as determined by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The regional housing need was determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in consultation with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).A portion of the regional housing need was subsequently distributed to each jurisdiction in Ventura County by SCAG in consultation with Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). By negotiation and ultimately mutual agreement, VCOG members agreed to a specific allocation of SCAG's County-wide RHNA of 26,534 units among all the 11 jurisdictions. That portion of the regional housing need that was distributed to each local jurisdiction is referred to as its RHNA allocation. 7 S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element\2008 Update\Staff Reports\PC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120327.doc Honorable Planning Commission March 27, 2012 Page 3 The draft updated Housing Element incorporates the RHNA which identifies Moorpark's housing need as 1,617 units during the time frame of 2006 through 2014. State law requires that cities analyze the realistic capacity for new residential development on vacant or underutilized parcels based on existing zoning regulations, and demonstrate that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA allocation for all income levels. The Preliminary Draft Housing Element Update shows that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the City's RHNA allocation in the moderate and above-moderate income categories, but there is currently a shortfall in the City's land inventory compared to the very-low- and low-income RHNA allocation, as shown in Table 11-29, of the Housing Element Update, provided as follows: Table 11-29 Regional Housing Growth Needs-Moorpark Extremely Above Low* Very Low Low Moderate Moderate Total 182 181 292 335 627 1,617 11.2% 11.2% 18.1% 20.7% 38.8% 100.0% Source:SCAG 2007*Assumed to be 50%of the VL RHNA need per AB 2634 Potential constraints that could affect the City's ability to accommodate its RHNA allocation, including governmental and nongovernmental issues, are also discussed in the proposed 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. These include potential governmental constraints such as zoning, General Plan, Municipal Code, and building codes. Nongovernmental constraints include environmental conditions, infrastructure, land and construction costs, and financing. Goals and policies are included in the proposed 2008-2014 Housing Element Update to implement the plan. They are based on a review of present goals and policies as well as changes to state law, and have been updated as necessary. Included in the update is a review of present housing programs and a discussion of accomplishments and future policies and actions. 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. The Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD for review on December 24, 2010, June 2, 2011, September 11, 2011, November 17, 2011, and January 19, 2012, and on January 31, 2012 a letter was received from HCD stating that the element would comply with state law when adopted. The revised draft Housing Element incorporates numerous changes made in response to HCD comments. While the 2008-2014 Housing Element represents a "fine tuning" and update of the previous Housing Element, there are some significant changes proposed in response to changes in state law and the latest regional growth forecast. The most significant of these proposed changes include programs summarized as follows: 8 S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element\2008 Update\Staff Reports\PC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120327.doc Honorable Planning Commission March 27, 2012 Page 4 Program to Designate Additional Sites for Multi-family Housing As noted above, the Housing Element identifies a shortfall in the City's land inventory to accommodate its RHNA allocation for lower-income housing. As a result, the proposed program No. 3, as shown in Chapter V, of the Housing Element Update, reports the City's lower-income need as 655 units and a total of 139 new lower-income units have been built or approved since the beginning of the new planning period. Additional sites to accommodate at least 516 lower income units are needed in order to meet RHNA requirements. While pending projects and vacant sites contain sufficient potential to accommodate this remaining need, a new RPD-20 zoning district will be established and additional sites with a minimum of 25.8 total acres will be rezoned to this designation that allows owner-occupied and multi-family rental residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre in order to ensure adequate capacity to accommodate the City's fair-share needs during this planning period. Rezoned sites to accommodate the remaining lower- income need will be provided in pending projects and vacant sites identified in Table B-2 of Appendix B, of the Housing Element Update. The projects are primarily in the Hitch Ranch, Chiu, and Pacific Communities projects. Zoning for these projects shall meet all the requirements of Government Code Sec. 65583.c.1., which include the following: • Permit a minimum density of 20 units/acre. • Permit a minimum of 16 units per site. • Accommodate at least 50% of the units on sites designated for residential use only. 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: • 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. 9 SACommunity Development1GEN PLAN Housing Element12008 UpdatekStaff Reports1PC Agenda Report Hong Elemerrt_120327 doc Honorable Planning Commission March 27, 2012 Page 5 • Farm Worker Housing Though most of Ventura County's agricultural areas are located outside Moorpark, some farm workers live in the community. Year-round farm laborers are typically housed in older homes and apartments, government-assisted units, and mobile homes. Although limited agricultural land uses remain in Moorpark (primarily container nurseries as well as orchards on rural residential properties), agricultural uses continue to be permitted by right in a variety of agricultural, open space, and residential zones. State law requires that small farm worker housing complexes be treated as agricultural uses in terms of zoning regulations. In order to comply with state law, the City will address farm worker housing as part of a comprehensive study of agricultural zoning and land uses (see Program 5 in the Draft Housing Element, .pg V-5). • Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing Recent amendments to state housing law (SB 2 of 2007) require jurisdictions to designate at least one zone where year-round emergency shelters are allowed by-right(i.e.,without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action). To comply with State law, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment is being prepared for Planning Commission and City Council consideration to permit emergency shelters by-right in the C-2 zones subject to objective development standards, and in conjunction with permitted places of worship, in residential zones. The City Council has already initiated a study of this issue by directing the Planning Commission to study and provide the Council with a recommendation on this matter. SB 2 also requires that transitional and supportive housing be treated as a residential use that is subject only to the same requirements and procedures as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone (see Program 7 in the Draft Housing Element, .pg V-6). • Single Room Occupancy (SROs) Recent amendments to state housing law (AB 2634) require jurisdictions to facilitate the development of housing for persons with extremely-low incomes (ELI). Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing can help to address this need. The Draft Housing Element includes a commitment to consider amendments the Zoning Code to permit SROs by-right in the C-2 zones subject to objective development standards, to be consistent with State Law (see Program 8 in the Draft Housing Element, .pg. V-6). Staff anticipates presenting the City Council analysis regarding amendments to the zoning code to permit SROs by- right in only the C-2 zone. • 10 SACommunity Development\GEN PLANAHousing Element120013 Update1Slaff Reports\PC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120327 doc Honorable Planning Commission March 27, 2012 Page 6 PUBLIC OUTREACH On September 24, 2010, staff posted the Preliminary Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update on the City website and made a hard copy available at City Hall for access by the public. A notice of a public meeting was published in the Ventura County Star, a newspaper of general circulation for the area, on September 25, 2010, advertising the time and date for a City Council public meeting of October 6, 2010. Prior to scheduling the public meeting, interested parties submitted requests that they be provided notification of upcoming meetings on the consideration of the Preliminary Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. Therefore, staff emailed the public meeting notice and a digital copy of the Preliminary Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update to the persons who had previously inquired, as follows: No. Contact Person Agency Constructing Connections/WorkLife 1. Rafaela Frausto Child Development Resources L2. Sonja Flores House Farm Workers Cabrillo Economic Development 3. Bernardo Perez Corporation 4. Milton E. Radant Habitat for Humanity, Simi Valley, CA Communications and Corporate 5. Debra Vernon Responsibility American Water, Western Region • 6. Cathy Brudnicki VC Homeless & Housing Coalition 7. Eileen McCarthy California Rural Legal Assistance 8. Environmental Services City of Simi Valley Community Development 9. City of Thousand Oaks Department 10. Resource Management Agency County of Ventura As additional requests were received from interested parties, staff continued to add any contact persons to the data base above in order to ensure notification of interested persons during the upcoming public hearing review process. 11 SACommunity Development\GEN PLANkHousing Elernent1200B Update Staff Reports\PC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120327.doc Honorable Planning Commission March 27, 2012 Page 7 For this public hearing, a public notice was published in the Ventura County Star, a newspaper of general circulation for the area, on March 17, 2012, advertising the time and date for the public hearing before the Planning Commission of March 27, 2012. Prior to scheduling the public hearing, interested parties submitted requests that they be provided notification of upcoming meetings on the consideration of the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. Therefore, on March 13, 2012, staff emailed the public notice and a digital copy of the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update to the persons who had previously inquired, as follows: No. Contact Person Agency Constructing Connections/WorkLife 1. Rafaela Frausto Child Development Resources —271-Sonja Flores House Farm Workers Cabrillo Economic Development 3. Bernardo Perez Corporation 4. . Milton E. Radant Habitat for Humanity Simi Valley, CA Communications and Corporate 5. Debra Vernon Responsibility American Water, Western Re•ion 6. Cathy Brudnicki VC Homeless & Housing Coalition 7. Eileen McCarthy California Rural Legal Assistance 8. Environmental Services City of Simi Valley 9. Community Development Dpt. City of Thousand Oaks 10 Resource Management Agency County of Ventura 11 Gloria Miguez Interested citizen • 12 SACommunity Development‘GEN PLAN1Housing Element12008 UpdatetStaff Reports1PC Agenda Report Hsng Element_12032Tdoc Honorable Planning Commission March 27, 2012 Page 8 FINDINGS The following findings are offered for General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, dated March 2012, of the City of Moorpark General Plan: 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 of the Government Code 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. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS General Plan Amendments are legislative acts that are not subject to processing time limits under the Permit Streamlining Act(Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5), the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). Therefore, there are no statutory processing time limits required for review. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient 13 S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element\2008 Update\Staff Reports\PC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120327.doc Honorable Planning Commission March 27, 2012 Page 9 environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation can not be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared. The Director has prepared or supervised the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the potential significant impacts of this project. Based upon the Initial Study, the 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, (Attachment 2) for Planning Commission review and consideration before making a recommendation on the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC-2012- recommending to the City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02 for the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. ATTACHMENTS: 1. January 31, 2012, letter from California Department of Housing and Community Development stating that the draft element addresses statutory requirements. 2. Initial Study and Negative Declaration. 3. Draft PC Resolution with Exhibit A: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, dated March 2012, of the Moorpark General Plan. 14 S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element\2008 Update\Staff Reports\PC Agenda Report Hsng Element_120327.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2012-02, AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT THE 2008-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public meeting on October 6, 2010, City Council reviewed and considered comments on the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update of the City of Moorpark General Plan and directed staff to submit the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, (HCD) for review; and WHEREAS, following review of the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update by the City Council, the Draft Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review; and, on January 31, 2012, a letter was received from HCD stating that the draft element addresses statutory requirements and accepted the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 27, 2012, the Planning Commission considered the agenda report and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal for the Adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update of the City of Moorpark General Plan, on the Application of the City of Moorpark, Citywide, and adopted Resolution No. PC-2012-568, recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2012- 02; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 16, 2012, the City Council considered the agenda report for General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02 and any supplements thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing and took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal, closed the public hearing and reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read, reviewed, and considered the proposed Negative Declaration prepared for the project referenced above. CCATTACHMENT3 15 Resolution No. 2012- Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for this project, attached as Exhibit A, are complete and have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and City CEQA Procedures. B. The City Council has considered information in the environmental document in its deliberation of this project before making a decision concerning the project and the Negative Declaration. C. No Mitigation Measures are required since there are no known environmental impacts associated with the project that require mitigation. D. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Negative Declaration prepared in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02, (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference), is hereby adopted. SECTION 3. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02, an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, dated May 2012, of the City of Moorpark General Plan (attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference), is approved, based upon the following findings: A. The Updated 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 Updated Housing Element satisfies and is consistent with provisions for Housing Elements as contained within California Government Code Section 65585 of the Government Code 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 Updated Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan and all of its Elements. S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element\2008 Update\Resos\CC Reso HsngElement_120516.doc 16 Resolution No. 2012- Page 3 SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 16th, day of May, 2012. Janice S. Parvin, Mayor Maureen Benson, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Initial Study and Negative Declaration - 2008-2014 Housing Element Update Exhibit B: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, dated May 2012, of the Moorpark General Plan S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element12008 Update\Resos\CC Reso HsngElement_120516.doc 17 aK �q��� 60•■✓ °9 NEGATIVE DECLARATION *ems CITY OF MOORPARK �'y'�"�\A�-'�, 799 MOORPARK AVENUE °�� ���' MOORPARK, CA 93021 qq 7 � y�, (805) 517-6200 o The following Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Procedures of the City of Moorpark. Public Review Period: April 23, 2012 to May 12, 2012 Project Title/Case No.: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02 Project Location: The Housing Element Update will apply citywide. Project Description: General Plan Amendment No. 2012-02, is an Amendment to the General Plan to Adopt the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. Project Type: Private Project X Public Project Project Applicant: City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark CA 93021 Finding: After preparing an Initial Study for the above-referenced project, it is found that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Moorpark, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Initial Study Attached) Responsible Agencies: City of Moorpark Trustee Agencies: None Attachments: Initial Study Contact Person: Joseph R. Vacca Community Development Department City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 (805) 517-6236 EXHIBIT - A 18 S:\Community Development\GEN PLAN\Housing Element\2008 Update\Env\Proposed ND Cover Page_120411.doc oP4 °9 2008-2014 Housing Element Update F GPA 2012-02 ' CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY %- ^ 799 MOORPARK AVENUE °g47Fp �' DVy{ MOORPARK, CA 93021 (805) 517-6200 Project Title: 2008-2014 Housing Element Update Case No.: GPA 2012-02 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 11-29 of the draft Housing Element, identifies Moorpark's"fair share"of the regional housing need for the planning period July 2006 through June 2014 as 1,617 units. This total includes 182 extremely-low income units, 181 very-low income units,292 low- income units, 335 moderate-income units, and 627above-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. In accordance with Government Code Section 65583 et seq., the residential density (excluding any density bonus) presumed to be adequate to facilitate development of lower-income housing in most metropolitan . areas, including Moorpark, is 20 units/acre. There are currently no vacant or underutilized sites in Moorpark with zoning that allows residential development at densities greater than 20 units/acre, excluding density bonus. Accordingly,the City must rezone at least 25.8 acres of land to accommodate the development of 516 lower-income units at a density of 20 units/acre commensurate with the RHNA. The Housing Element (Program 3) contains a commitment to identify parcels totaling at least 25.8 acres to be rezoned to a new RPD-20 zoning to allow multi-family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/ac to meet the City's obligations under the RHNA for the 2008-2014 planning period. It is important to note, however,that the Housing Element itself will not change any zoning, as that process will occur subsequent to the Housing Element adoption process. The sites to be considered for rezoning are located within the Hitch Ranch, Chiu and Pacific Communities project areas and are summarized in Appendix B,Table B-2 of the Housing Element. In connection with the rezoning, a new"RPD-20"zoning district will also be established in the Zoning Code. 1 19 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 Project Description,(Continued): While the program to rezone land for affordable housing is considered the most significant land use and environmental issue related to the Housing Element update,other 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 l-lousing 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) 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) • Definition of"Family" (Program 20) • Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities (Program 21) • Child Care Facilities (Program 22) 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. The Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD for review on December 24, 2010,June 2, 2011,September 11,2011, November 17,2011,and January 19,2012,and on January 31,2012 a letter was received from HCD stating that the element would comply with state law when adopted. The revised draft Housing Element incorporates numerous 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. 2 20 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 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 pr-a red. .t) Prepared - Reviewed by: / , Date: ?72_( 2_0 I 2— Date: 72, • 3 21 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A. AESTHETICS—Would the p ject 1)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X 2)Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not X limited m, trees,rock o tcrnp ingo. 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 � would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Response:A1. Through 4.: The Housing Element identifies a need for 1.O17 new housing units during the 2008-2014 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 Bement, zoning regulations and development sbandando, 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 Housing Element amendment. At the time zone changes are considered, potential impacts will be analyzed and mitigation measures will be adopted as appropriate in conformance with CEQA Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). Mitigation: None required B. �SOURC�— |nd�e���y�o��imp�e�ag��kund ��u��am Significant envronmenba| efhact , 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 oh agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including dnnbedend, 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 P ject 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) nnbnd.o,Fannlandof X Statewide Importance (Farmmnd), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency,to non-agricultural use? • 4 2 2 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X 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 Government 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 1,617 new housing units during the 2008-2014 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 amendment. At the time zone changes are considered, potential impacts to agricultural resources will be analyzed and mitigation measures will be adopted as appropriate in conformance with CEQA. Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012), California Dept 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? 5 23 20OD-2O14 Housing Element update GRA2U12'O2 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. Thonefnne, no further environmental review is required. Long-b*nnm|rquo|hximpactoared`oaeasaooiatedwiththaenlssionspnodunedhomproject-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. However, the amendments to land use plans and regulations called for in Program 3 (creation of a new RPD 20 zoning district and rezoning of 25.8 acres of land)would not be expected to result in long-term air quality impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR since the total amount of new development under these amended regulations is expected to remain consistent with the lorg-term growth forecast. As part of the review process for the proposed zone changes, 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 amendment. • Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). Mitigation: None required D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: 1)Have effect,. ~substantial ~directly through � habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,o special status species in loca or regional 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 � other sensitive natural community identified in local or ' regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California nt of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial euVomeenect on federally X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct (including,but not limited to, marsh,vernal poo coastal, etc.) through direct remo"u|, filUnn, hydrological interruption,or othe 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 vwm/hecorridors. 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 24 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 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? Response: D1. Through 4.: The Housing Element identifies a need for 1,617 new housing units during the 2008-2014 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 Game 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 plan within areas that are to be considered for re-zoning. 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: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012), 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? 7 25 2OO8-2O14 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 Response: El Through 4.: The Housing Element identifies a need for 1,617 new housing units during the 2008-2014 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 uu/tuna|, archaeological or paleontological resources. As part of the planning and review process for the proposed zone changes and 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 amendment. Draft 2OOO'2U14 Housing Element Updahe (January 2012). 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 earthquak 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 lan6slWe, 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 dispos systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Response: Fl. Through 5.: Moorpark is located in a seismically active region containi active faults These faults have the Potential to expose people or structures to significant impacts as a result of a faultrupture 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 vNUboano/yzato 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 amendment. 8 2 6 2008-2014 Housing Element Update (]PA 2012-O2 Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012), General Plan Safety Element Sources: (2001), Uniform Building Code (2010) None required Mitigation: G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS—Would the project: 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or � indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2)Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or reg labo for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? 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 e|ecthuib/, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfiUwastes 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 paok, which could result in a reduction in imported wab*r, 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 Ac 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 mhaUonaryaouncem. AB 32 speoifiasthat regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissionsfrom 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, reportinQ, 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; thmrafona, emissions will need to be reduced by 189 yWK8TC[)2e (28 percent) statewide to meet the 2020 threshold. AB 32 also includes guidance toinmdtuteemiasionsnedunUonsinaneoonominaUyaMicientnnanner 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 assumes that development will occur consistent with the a forecast and the Regional HomsingNeedsAaoemnment, it would not cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the level currently p jected to occur. Therefora, no new significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary at this time. However, subsequent amendments to the Zoning Code and zone changes will be evaluated to assess potential greenhouse gas emissions and appropriate mitigation measures may be required at that time. Sources: Draft 2VU8-2O14 Housing Element Update, (January 2O12). Mitigation: None required 9 27 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 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? 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: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). Mitigation: None required I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? 10 • 28 • 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a 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 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 • 11 • 29 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 Response: 11.: New development could impac water quality through runoff and wastewater discharge. However, all future developments will be required to comply with applicable fedeno|, state and local water quality requirements such as the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. AddibonaUy,through the City's development review process, future p jgctow/iUbeeva|uahadforpohanda|mibo' specific water quality and flooding impacts. Development p jects 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. Responsa: |3. Through 1O..: Future residential developments could result inmodifimadonof 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 amendment. Sources: Draft 2OO8-2O14 Housing Element Update, (January 3012). Mitigation: None required J. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the p ject: 1)Physically divide an established community? � 2) Conflict with any applicable land use p|an, policy, or � regulation of an agency with j risdmxi n over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,v,zonin ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or � natural community conservation plan? 12 3 0 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 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 these zone changes (and General Plan amendments, if necessary) a CEQA analysis will be prepared to evaluate the projects' conformance with applicable policies and regulations. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary in connection with this Housing Element amendment. There is no 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 rezoning. No impacts would occur and mitigation measures are necessary at this time. Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). 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 amendment. Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012),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? x 3)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 13 31 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GpA2O12-O2 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, � where such a plan has not beenadopted,within in 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)For a 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 m gate 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 ap /pophoba 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 vviUbesub)ecthnsite-specifioanalysisofpobentia| aircnoftnoise 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. Sources: Draft 2UU8'2O14 Housing Element Update, (January 2O12). Mitigation: None required M. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Wo ld the project: 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either. X directly new homes and businesses)or indirectl (for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, % necessitating the construction of replacement housing o|ewxerev 3)Displace substantial numbers nrpoonle necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Response: KA1. 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 p ject 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 amendment Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). Mitigation: None required 14 3 2 2008'2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 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 amendment. Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). Mitigation: None required 0. RECREATION 1)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood � and regional parks or other recreational facilities such tha substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? � 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? 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 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 amendment. Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). Mitigation: None required 15 33 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the p ject: 1) Conflict with an applicable p|an, ordinance or policy X establishing rneasu res 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 heewmyn, 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 meaoures, 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., � sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? 5)Result in inadequate emergency acces 7 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 e 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(1,617 additional housing units during the 2006-20 14 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 amendment. Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). Mitigation: None required Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the p ject: 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 treatm nt facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ' • 16 34 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 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,the proposed zoning amendments and 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 amendment. Sources: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). 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? • 17 35 • 2008-2014 Housing Element Update GPA 2012-02 Response: R1.: Under state law.ddesmnarequiradtoprepaneaHoueingEhsmendUhmt among ot er 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 Guven)monts. is 1,617 units for the period 2008-2014. The City's new housing need is distributed among • various income levels as shown in Housing Element Table 11-29, Since the City's current land use plans and zoning do not demonstrate adequate capacity to accommodate its need for lower-income households, the Housing Element includes a commitment to rezone 25.8 acres of land for multi-family residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre (Program 3). However, this program commitment does not convey any development entitlements nor identify the specific location, size,or configuration of future projects. Andoipobsd development on sites currently designated for residential development would not result in environmental impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the General Plan and EIR. As part of the City's planning and development review process, each p ject will be evaluated prior to construction and appropriate conditions and measures will be required to mitigate any potential impacts. Prior to approval of the proposed zoning amendmonts, 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 Ri., above,the Housing Element identifies a need for 1,617 new residential units during the 2006-2014 planning period and includes a commitment to rezone 25.8 acres of land for multi-family residential development. However, this Housing Element program commitment does not convey any development entitlements nor identify the specific location of sites to be rezoned. Prior to adoption of the proposed zoning mmendnnents, 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 F{1.. and R2., above, the•Houohng Element is a policy document that does not convey development entitlements for any specific sites or p jeots. Prior to adoption of the proposed zoning amendnnents, 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: Draft 2008-2014 Housing Element Update, (January 2012). Earlier E l 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 inco into the Initial Study by reference, and are available for review in the Community Development Office, City HaU, 799 Moorpark AVenUe, Moo[parh, 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. • 18 36 CITY OF MOORPARK 2008 - 2014 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Proposed Final May 2012 EXHIBIT - B Acknowledgements City Council Janice S. Parvin, Mayor Roseann Mikos, Ph.D., Councilmember Keith F. Millhouse, Councilmember David Pollock, Councilmember Mark Van Dam, Councilmember Planning Commission Kipp Landis, Chair Diana Gould, Vice Chair Mark Di Cecco, Commissioner Daniel Groff, Commissioner Bruce Hamous, Commissioner City Staff David Bobardt, AICP, Community Development Director Joseph Vacca, AICP, Principal Planner Consulting Assistance: J.H. Douglas & Associates 32 City of Moorpark Housing Element Contents I. Introduction I-1 A. Setting 1-1 B. State Policy and Authorization 1-2 C. Public Participation 1-2 D. Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan 1-2 II. Housing Needs Assessment II-1 A. Population Characteristics 11-1 1. Population Growth Trends II-1 2. Age 11-2 3. Race and Ethnicity 11-3 B. Household Characteristics 11-3 1. Household Composition and Size 11-3 2. Housing Tenure 11-4 3. Overcrowding 11-4 4. Household Income 11-5 5. Overpayment 11-6 C. Employment 11-7 1. Current Employment 11-7 2. Projected Job Growth 11-8 3. Jobs-Housing Balance 11-9 D. Housing Stock Characteristics II-1 1 1. Housing Type and Growth Trends 11-1 l 2. Housing Age and Conditions 11-12 3. Vacancy 11-13 4. Housing Cost 11-14 E. Special Needs 11-17 1. Persons with Disabilities 11-17 2. Elderly 11-18 3. Large Households 11-19 4. Female-Headed Households 11-19 5. Farm Workers 11-20 6. Student Population 11-21 7. Homeless Persons 11-22 F. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion 11-25 1. Introduction 11-25 2. Inventory of Assisted Units 11-25 G. Future Growth Needs 11-26 1. Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment 11-26 2. 2006-2014 Moorpark Growth Needs 11-26 III. Resources and Opportunities III-1 A. Land Resources III-1 1. Regional Growth Needs 2006-2014 111-1 2. Inventory of Sites for Housing Development III-1 B. Financial and Administrative Resources 111-2 1. State and Federal Resources 111-2 2. Local Resources 111-4 3. Local Non-Profit Agencies 111-6 C. Energy Conservation Opportunities 111-7 IV. Constraints IV-1 A. Governmental Constraints IV-1 1. Land Use Plans and Regulations IV-1 i May 2012 39 City of Moorpark Housing Element 2. Development Processing Procedures IV-13 3. Development Fees and Improvement Requirements IV-17 B. Non-Governmental Constraints IV-19 1. Environmental Constraints IV-19 2. Infrastructure Constraints IV-20 3. Land Costs IV-20 4. Construction Costs IV-21 5. Cost and Availability of Financing IV-21 C. Fair Housing IV-22 V. Housing Plan V-1 A. Goals and Policies V-i 1. 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 2001 Housing Element Appendix B- Residential Land Inventory-2006-2014 Appendix C- Public Participation Summary ii May 2012 40 City of Moorpark Housing Element List of Tables Table 11-1 Population Trends, 1990-2010-Moorpark vs. Ventura County U-| Table 11'2 Age Distribution 11'2 Table 11'3 Race/Ethnicity 11-3 Table 11-4 Household Composition 11-4 Table 11`5 Household Tenure 11-4 Table 11-6 Overcrowding 11'5 Table 11-7 Median Household Income-Ventura County and Citie 11'5 Table 11'8 Overpayment by Income Category-Moorpark 11'7 Table 11'9 Labor Force-Moorpark vs. Ventura County 11'7 Table 11-10 Employment by Occupation-Moorpark 11'8 Table 11-11 Projected Job Growth by Occupation, 2004-2014-Oxnard/Thousand Oaks- Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area 11'9 Table 11'12 Job Location for Moorpark Residents 11'10 Table 11-13 Employment Profile and Jobs/Housing Ratio (2002) -City of Moorpark 11-10 Table 11'14 Housing by Type U'l | Table 11-15 Age of Housing Stock by Tenure 11'12 Table 11'16 Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure 11'13 Table 11'17 Housing Vacancy 11'14 Table 11-18 Income Categories and Affordable Housing Costs-Ventura County 11'15 Table 11'19 Housing Sales Price Distribution: 2006-07-Moorpark 11'15 Table 11-20 Rental Market Comparison-Selected Ventura County Cities 11'16 Table 11-21 Persons with Disabilities by Age-Moorpark 11'18 Table 11-22 Elderly Households by Tenure-Moorpark 11'18 Table 11-23 Household Size by Tenure-Moorpark 11'19 Table 11-24 Household Type by Tenure-Moorpark 11'19 Table 11'25 Ventura County Farm Workers-2O00 11'21 Table 11-26 Agricultural Employment 11'21 Table 11-27 Homeless Profile 11-23 Table 11-28 Assisted Housing Developments-Moorpark 11-25 Table 11'29 Regional Housing Growth Needs-Moorpark 11-26 Table U!'l Net Remaining RHNA UA Table 111-2 Land Inventory Summary 111-2 Table U|'3 Use of Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Funds 2006-2014 111'5 Table 1V-1 Residential land Use Categories IV-1 Table IV-2 Residential Development Standards IV-2 Table IV-3 Housing Types Permitted by Zone |V'5 Table IV-4 Development Review Times 1V'16 Table IV-5 Development Review Fees |V'18 Table IV-6 Road Improvement Standards |V-19 Table V-1 Housing Program Implementation Summary V'10 List of Figures Figure ||-1 Population Growth l99O'2Ol0-Moorpark vs. Ventura County 11'2 Figure 11-2 Agricultural Production Areas-Ventura County 11-20 iii May 2012 4 1 City of Moorpark Housing Element This page intentionally left blank. iv -May 2012 42 City of Moorpark Housing Element I. Introduction 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 2008-2014 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. I-1 May 2012 43 City of Moorpark Housing Element I. Introduction • 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 details regarding the City's efforts to encourage participation of 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 1-2 - May 2012 44 City of Moorpark Housing Element I. Introduction Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, the Noise Element, and the Safety Element. The Housing Element builds upon the other General Plan Elements and is entirely consistent with the policies set forth in those elements. The City will ensure consistency between General Plan elements so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with those in other elements. At this time, the revised Element does not propose significant change to any other element of the City's adopted General Plan. However, if it becomes apparent over time that changes to another element are needed for internal consistency, such changes will be proposed for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Recent statutory changes to Government Code Section 65302 (AB 162 of 2007) require amendment of the safety and conservation elements to include analysis and policies regarding flood hazard and management information upon the next revision to the Housing Element after January 1, 2009. 1-3 May 2012 45 City of Moorpark Housing Element I. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. 1-4 May 2012 46 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment 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 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RH NA) are examined. Data Sources The Housing Needs Assessment utilizes data from the 2000 U.S. Census', the California Department of Finance (DOF), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and other relevant sources. Although dated, the 2000 Census remains the most comprehensive and reliable source of demographic information. Supplemental data was obtained through field surveys and from private vendors. In addition, the County's Consolidated Plan provides useful information for this update of the Housing Element. A. Population Characteristics 1. Population Growth Trends Compared to the previous decade 1990-2000, Moorpark has continued to experience rapid population growth, increasing over 19.6% from 2000 to 2010 to an estimated population of 37,576 (see Table II-1 and Figure II-1). The City's 2010 population represents approximately 4.4% of the county's total population of 844,713. Table II-1 Population Trends, 1990-2010- Moorpark vs. Ventura County Moorpark 25,494 31,415 37,576 23.2% 19.6% Ventura County 669,016 753,197 844,713 12.6% 12.2% Sources:1990 and 2000 Census;California Department of Finance,Table E-5(2010) I Although some more recent Census estimates exist,such as the American Community Survey,the 2000 Decennial Census is the most widely accepted benchmark for demographic analysis. II-1 May 2012 47 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Figure 1I-1 Population Growth 1990-2010-Moorpark vs. Ventura County 50.0% 47.4%. t ( I40.0% _ co 1 c 30.0% 63t U 23.2% F a 19.6% 20.0% - i 12.6% 12.2% I {{ i 10.0% ---- �----- I 1 r 0.0% - ._ _-_ _... I -_.,_...�c -_- 1:.._.=i 1990-2000 2000-2010 1990-2010 B Moorpark !i Ventura County Sources:U.S.Census 2000,California Department of Finance Table E-1(2010) 2. Age 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 2000. This table shows that the City's population was somewhat younger than the County's, with the "under 18 years" age cohort representing 34% of the City compared to 28% of the County. The median age of Moorpark residents is almost 3 years younger than that of all Ventura County residents (31.5 years vs. 34.2 years). Table 11-2 Age Distribution Under 18 years 10,741 34.2% 214,244 28.4% 18 to 24 years 2,692 8.6% 67,520 9.0% 25 to 44 years 10,157 32.3% 231,146 30.7% 45 to 64 years 6,396 20.4% 163,483 21.7% 65 to 74 years 854 2.7% 40,244 5.3% 75 to 84 years 456 1.5% 27,271 3.6% 85 and over 119 0.4% 9,289 1.2% Total 31,415 1 100.0% 753,197 I 100.0% Median Age 31.5 _ 34.2 Source:2000 Census,Table QT-P1 11-2 May 2012 48 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment 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 62% of City residents are non-Hispanic white, contrasted with 57% for the county as a whole. The percentage of Hispanics residing in the City, at 28%, is about 6% less than that of the County. Asians, at 5.5%, represent the largest non-Hispanic minority group (Table 11-3). Table 11-3 Race/Ethnicity - .,ter � _ ._ ,n�._.�xw, `'. -�gym-�-� Not Hispanic or Latino 22,680 72.2% 501,463 66.6% - White 19,611 62.4% 427,449 56.8% - Black or African American 435 1.4% 13,490 1.8% - American Indian/Alaska Native 82 0.3% 3,177 0.4% - Asian 1,738 5.5% 39,452 5.2% - Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 29 0.1% 1,379 0.2% - Other races or 2+races 785 2.5% 16,516 2.2% Hispanic or Latino(any race) 8,735 27.8% 251,734 33.4% Total I 31,415 100.0% I 753,197 I 100.0% Source:2000 Census,SF1 Table P8 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 2000 Census. Family households comprised approximately 86% of all households in the City, as compared to 75% 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. 11-3 May 2012 49 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Table 11-4 Household Composition Total households 8,994 100.0% 243,234 100.0% Families 7,703 85.6% 182,959 75.2% - w/children under 18 4,294 47.7% 96,626 39.7% Non-family households 1,291 14.4% 60,275 24.8% - Single living alone 888 9.9% 45,931 18.9% Average household size 3.49 3.04 Source:2000 Census,SF1 Tables P18 and H12 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 2000 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 (82% city vs. 68% county). Table 11-5 Household Tenure Owner occupied 7,385 82% 164,380 68% Renter occupied 1,609 18% 78,854 32% Total occupied units I 8,994 I 100% 243,234 I 100% Source:2000 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 in 2000. As of 2000, overcrowding was more prevalent among renters than for owner-occupied units. Approximately 21% of the City's renter-occupied households were overcrowded compared to only 6% of owner-occupied households. 11-4 May 2012 50 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Table 11-6 Overcrowding Owner Occupied 7,412 100.0% 164,380 100.0% - Overcrowded 193 2.6% 3,727 2.3% - Severely Overcrowded 256 3.5% 2,500 1.5% Renter-Occupied 1,572 100.0% 78,854 100.0% - Overcrowded 105 6.7% 5,474 6.9% - Severely Overcrowded 229 14.6% 5,798 7.4% Source:2000 Census,Table H20 4. Household Income Household income is a primary factor affecting housing needs in a community. According to the 2000 Census, the median household income in Moorpark was $76,642, the second highest in Ventura County, only slightly lower than Thousand Oaks and 28% higher than the county as awhole (Table 11-7). Table 11-7 Median Household Income-Ventura County and Cities Moorpark $76,642 128% Thousand Oaks $76,815 129% Simi Valley $70,371 118% Camarillo $62,457 105% Ventura $52,298 88% Oxnard $48,603 81% Ojai $44,593 75% Fillmore $44,510 75% Port Hueneme $42,246 71% Santa Paula $41,651 70% Ventura County $59,666 100% California $47,493 80% Source:2000 Census,SF3 Table P53 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 (307of area median income. Th Ventura County was $79,500 30% (see Table 11-18). For extremely-low-income f 2007 area median income for y el low-income households, this results in an income of $25,700 or less for a four-person household. Households with extremely-low-income have a variety of housing needs. 11-5 May 2012 51 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Existing Needs In 2000, approximately 564 extremely-low-income households resided in Moorpark, representing 6% of all households. Approximately 65% of ELI renter households and 73% of ELI owner households paid more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs (Table 11-8). Projected Needs The projected housing need for ELI households is assumed to be 50% of the very-low income regional housing need of 363 units. As a result, the City has a projected need for 182 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 estimates for overpayment in 1999 by lower- income households. According to SCAG, about 52% of all lower-income renter households and 68% of all lower-income owner households were overpaying for housing. While extremely-low-income renters generally suffer the greatest cost burden, a greater percentage of owners than renters in all income categories were found to be overpaying for housing. 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. 11-6 May 2012 52 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Table 11-8 Overpayment by Income Category-Moorpark G.X F�� s sur YG -.sa. r••-t - " ,1 '{{_` +±h , -:? q. ? ? -r-- �-r ..."^�;w+a-F- �6P�F� 9 B L<.. ..�. l6 ,;lAl1� iQ '' . Extremely low households 209 -- 355 -- - Households overpaying 135 64.6% 260 73.2% Very low households 274 -- 375 -- - Households overpaying 135 49.3% 280 74.7% Low households 350 -- 790 -- - Households overpaying 160 45.7% 495 62.7% All lower-income households 833 -- 1,520 -- - Households overpaying 430 51.6% 1,035 68.1% Moderate households 170 -- 635 -- - Households overpaying 55 32.4% 420 66.1% Above moderate households 570 -- 5,260 -- - Households overpaying 20 3.5% 1,010 19.2% Source:SCAG 2006 based on 2000 Census C. 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. 1. 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 15,799 persons, or 72.5% of the working-age population, as reported in the 2000 Census. This table shows that the characteristics of the City's population are very similar to those countywide. About 4% of City residents worked at home, and over one-quarter were not in the labor force. Table 11-9 Labor Force-Moorpark vs. Ventura County In labor force 15,799 72.5% 372,020 66.2% - Work at home 614 3.9% 14,532 3.9% N of in labor force 5,980 27.5% 190,062 33.8% - With Social Security income 1,240 5.7% 56,552 10.1% Total population age 16+ I 21,779 -- I 562,080 -- Source:2000 Census,DP-3 11-7 May 2012 53 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment In 2000, approximately 41% of the city's working residents were employed in manage- ment and professional occupations (Table II-10). A low percentage of workers (15%) 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 17% of the workforce. Table 11-10 Employment by Occupation -Moorpark I.%. Management,professional and related 6,142 40.7 Service 2,222 14.7 Sales and office 4,183 27.7 Farming,fishing and forestry 165 1.1 Construction,extraction,and maintenance 901 6.0 Production,transportation,and material moving 1,478 9.8 Source:2000 Census,DP-3 As of 2005, the four largest employment sectors within Ventura County were manufacturing (40,929 employees), retail trade (38,702 employees), health care and social services (27,480 employees), and accommodation & food services (25,815 employees)2. 2. 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 2004-2014. Total employment in Ventura County is expected to grow by 12% between 2004 and 2014. The overall growth is expected to add 39,900 new jobs and bring the County's employment to almost 371,000 by 2014. 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. 2 U.S.Bureau of the Census,2005 County Business Patterns 11-8 May 2012 54 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Table II-11 Projected Job Growth by Occupation, 2004-2014- Oxnard/Thousand Oaks-Ventura Metropolitan Statistical Area s Total,All Occupations 331,000 370,900 39,900 12.1 $15.61 Management Occupations 19,610 22,480 2,870 14.6 $44.78 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 16,420 19,100 2.680 16.3 $27.58 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 7,940 9,740 1,800 22.7 $34.80 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 8,360 9,290 930 11.1 $34.73 Life,Physical,and Social Science Occupations 4,860 5,550 690 14.2 $33.72 Community and Social Services Occupations 2,690 3,070 380 14.1 $18.96 Legal Occupations 2,150 2,350 200 9.3 $35.79 Education,Training,and Library Occupations 17,440 20,140 2,700 15.5 $23.03 Arts,Design,Entertainment,Sports,and Media Occupations 5,320 5,860 630 12.0 $19.11 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 10,750 12,870 2,120 19.7 $28.53 Healthcare Support Occupations 6,890 8,940 2,050 29.8 $12.46 Protective Service Occupations 6,470 7,260 790 12.2 $12.41 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 22,600 25,690 3,090 13.7 $8.32 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maint.Occupations 12,020 13,910 1,890 15.7 $10.37 Personal Care and Service Occupations 7,920 9,300 1,380 17.4 $9.41 Sales and Related Occupations 36,730 40,850 4,120 11.2 $11.18 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 55,990 58,730 2,740 4.9 $14.63 Farming,Fishing,and Forestry Occupations 16,080 17,880 1,800 11.2 $8.57 Construction and Extraction Occupations 18,720 20,720 2,000 10.7 $20.49 Installation,Maintenance,and Repair Occupations 11,420 12,830 1,410 12.3 $18.34 Production Occupations 23,030 24,470 1,440 6.3 $11.64 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 17,670 19,770 2,100 11.9 $10.79 Source:California Employment Development Department,March 2005 Benchmark *2006 wages 3. 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.3 3 SCAG Draft 2007 Regional Comprehensive Plan, Land Use&Housing Chapter II-9 - May 2012 55 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment According to the 2000 Census, about two-thirds of employed Moorpark residents worked in Ventura County, and 19%were employed within the Moorpark city limits (Table 11-12). Table 11-12 Job Location for Moorpark Residents Persons Work in Ventura County 9,798 65.9% - Work in city of residence 2,746 18.5% - Work elsewhere in Ventura County 7,052 47.5% Work in another California county 4,997 33.6% Work outside California 66 0.4% Total workers age 16+ 14,861 -- Source:2000 Census,SF3 Tables P26 and P27 The largest employment sector within Moorpark is manufacturing (3,673 employees), followed by wholesale trade (1,000 to 2,499 employees). With 8,815 jobs and 9,544 housing units, the city's jobs/housing ratio was 0.92 as of 2002 (Table 11-13). The City's jobs/housing ratio is in somewhat greater balance than Ventura County as a whole, which had ratio of only 0.78 jobs per housing unit in 2002. Table 11-13 Employment Profile and Jobs/Housing Ratio (2002)-City of Moorpark . ..�.,..,.�_._..,.. _,..,....... �.ar ".tea .,. .#-'-�...�..:`� :§o - ..W..�:.- _w-�''3. �.� '�'-ate, Manufacturing 61 3,673 Wholesale trade 61 g Retail trade 30 327 Information 10 148 Real estate,rental,leasing 25 103 Professional,scientific,technical services 71 609 Administrative,support,waste management,remediation service 33 377 Education services 4 10 Healthcare and social assistance 25 c Arts,entertainment,recreation 8 57 Accommodation,food services 34 Other services(except public administration) 25 159 Totals -- 8,815 Housing Units -- 9,544 Jobs/Housing Ratio -- 0.92 Source:2002 Economic Census;California Department of Finance,Report E-5 Notes:c=100 to 249 employees;f=500 to 999 employees;g=1000-2499 employees 111-10 May 2012 56 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment D. 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 As of 2000, the housing stock in Moorpark was comprised mostly of single-family detached homes, which made up about 72% of all units, while multi-family units comprised about 14% of the total. About 12% of units were single-family attached units, while Mobile Homes comprised the remaining 3%. Table 11-14 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 2000-2007. Table 11-14 Housing by Type w Moorpark Single-family detached 6,598 72.6% 7,459 71.6% 861 64.8% Single-family attached 1,234 13.6% 1,253 12.0% 19 1.4% Multi-family 2-4 units 223 2.5% 223 2.1% 0 0.0% Multi-family5+units 709 7.8% 1,189 11.4% 480 36.1% Mobile Homes 330 3.6% 298 2.9% -32 -2.4% Total units 9,094 100% 10,422 100% 1,328 100% Ventura County Single-family detached 160,532 63.8% 175,906 64.1% 15,374 68.3% Single-family attached 27,324 10.9% 28,088 10.2% 764 3.4% Multi-family 2-4 units 16,408 6.5% 16,963 6.2% 555 2.5% Multi-family 5+units 35,285 14.0% 40,933 14.9% 5,648 25.1% Mobile Homes 12,162 4.8% 12,334 4.5% 172 0.8% Total units 251,711 100.0% I 274,224 I 100.0% I 22,513 I 100.0% Source:California Department of Finance,Table E-5,2007 Between 2000 and 2007, single-family detached homes represented almost two-thirds of all units built in the City. While detached homes also comprised the majority of new construction in the city and the county during this period, it is noteworthy that over one- third of all residential development in the city was comprised of multi-family units. II-1 1 May 2012 57 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment 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 11-15 shows the age distribution of the housing stock in Moorpark compared to Ventura County as a whole, as reported in the 2000 Census. Table 11-15 Age of Housing Stock by Tenure ji ;fir s a Owner Occupied 7,412 100% 164,373 100% 1990 or later 1,431 19% 23,126 14% 1980-89 4,132 56% 33,867 21% 1970-79 1,242 17% 43,372 26% 1960-69 294 4% 39,288 24% 1950-59 229 3% 15,586 9% 1940-49 10 0% 4,240 3% 1939 or earlier 54 1% 4,894 3% Renter Occupied 1,572 100% 78,861 100% 1990 or later 175 11% 7,504 10% 1980-89 799 51% 13,980 18% 1970-79 310 20% 22,064 28% 1960-69 134 9% 17,286 22% 1950-59 115 7% 9,137 12% 1940-49 24 2% 4,252 5% 1939 or earlier 15 1% 4,658 6% Source:2000 Census,H36 This table shows that only 8% of the owner-occupied housing units and 19% of rented 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 and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark have an existing Housing Rehabilitation program (see Chapter V, Program 1). This program offers up to $50,000 in low- or no-interest loans for rehabilitation of homes in need of repair, for owner- occupied properties based on income qualifications. This program has been in effect since 2007. 11-12 May 2012 58 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Table 11-16 Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure Owner Occupied 7,412 100.0% 164,373 100.0% Complete kitchen facilities 7,400 99.8% 163,921 99.7% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 12 0.2% 452 0.3% Renter Occupied 1,572 100.0% 78,861 100.0% Complete kitchen facilities 1,567 99.7% 77,686 98.5% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 5 0.3% 1,175 1.5% Owner Occupied 7,412 100.0% 164,373 100.0% Complete plumbing facilities 7,400 99.8% 163,782 99.6% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 12 0.2% 591 0.4% Renter Occupied 1,572 100.0% 78,861 100.0% Complete plumbing facilities 1,567 99.7% 78,299 99.3% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 5 0.3% 562 0.7% Source:2000 Census,H48,H51 Table 11-16 identifies the number of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities in the city and the county as a whole. This table shows that well under 1% of renter- and owner-occupied units lacked complete kitchens or plumbing facilities. The lack of complete kitchen or plumbing facilities is often an indicator of serious problems, and housing units may need rehabilitation even though they have complete kitchens and plumbing facilities. 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, 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 in the 2000 Census are shown in Table II-17. The table shows that vacancy rates in the city were very low, with just 1.2% of rental units and 0.5% of for-sale units available for rent or sale, respectively. The vacancy rates for the county 11-13 May 2012 59 City of Moorpark Housing Element U. Housing Needs Assessment as a whole was higher, for both rental and for-sale housing. Rental vacancy rates in the 2% range indicate nearly full occupancy, and contribute to upward pressures on rents. Table 11-17 Housing Vacancy Total housing units 9,094 100.0% 251,712 100.0% Occupied units 8,994 98.9% 243,234 96.6% - Owner occupied 7,385 81.2% 164,380 65.3% - Renter occupied 1,609 17.7% 78,854 31.3% Vacant units 100 1.1% 8,478 3.4% - For rent1 20 1.2% 2,070 2.6% - For sale2 39 0.5% 1,501 0.9% - Rented or sold,not occupied 18 0.2% 795 0.3% - For seasonal or occasional 11 0.1% 2,653 1.1% - For migrant workers 0 0.0% 33 0.0% - Other vacant 12 0.1% 1,426 0.6% Source:2000 Census,Table QT-H1 Notes: 1 Estimated percent of all rental units 2 Estimated percent of all for-sale units 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 Development'', housing is considered "affordable" if the monthly payment is 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 11-18 shows affordable rent levels and estimated affordable purchase prices for housing in Moorpark by income category. Based on state-adopted standards, the maximum affordable monthly rent for extremely-low-income households is $643, while the maximum affordable rent for very-low-income households is $1,071. The maximum affordable rent for low-income households is $1,714, while the maximum for moderate- income households is $2,385. 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 4 HCD memo of 4/18/07(http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/inc2k7.pdf) 11-14 May 2012 60 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment maximum home purchase prices by income category shown in Table 11-18 have been estimated based on typical conditions. Table 11-18 Income Categories and Affordable Housing Costs-Ventura County 3 i ., s` a�rp rG`i s t 1 �' 9 »l l i t i'- r .; r ,71,:l• a s + ! ,. _ Extremely Low(<30%) $25,700 $643 $85,000 Very Low(31-50%) $42,850 $1,071 $135,000 Low(51-80%) $68,550 $1,714 $215,000 Moderate(81-120%) $95,400 $2,385 $300,000 Above moderate(120%+) $95,400+ $2,385+ $300,000+ Assumptions: -Based on a family of 4 -30%of gross income for rent or PITI -10%down payment,6.25%interest,1.25%taxes&insurance,$200 HOA dues Source:Cal.HCD;J.H.Douglas&Associates b. For-Sale Housing Housing sales price statistics for the period January 2006 through August 2007 (Table II-19) show that the vast majority of both new and resale homes sold for more than $500,000 during this period. Table 11-19 Housing Sales Price Distribution: 2006-07-Moorpark Under$150,000 0 0 1 $150,000-$174,999 0 0 0 $175,000-$199,999 0 0 0 $200,000-$224,999 0 1 0 $225,000-$249,999 0 0 0 $250,000-$274,999 0 0 0 $275,000-$299,999 0 0 0 $300,000-$324,999 0 0 0 $325,000-$349,999 0 3 1 $350,000-$374,999 0 11 2 $375,000-$399,999 0 7 2 $400,000-$424,999 0 11 1 $425,000-$449,999 0 14 0 $450,000-$474,999 0 7 1 $475,000-$499,999 0 2 4 $500,000+ 25 18 288 Median $855,000 $420,000 $650,000 Data for January 2006 through August 2007 Source:DataQuick Information Systems 11-15 May 2012 61 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment The median new home sales price for this period was about $855,000 (SFD and condo combined), while the median price for resale single-family detached homes was $650,000. For resale condos, the median price was $420,000. Based on the estimated affordable purchase prices shown in Table 11-18, only a very small percentage of for-sale units were affordable to lower-income or moderate-income residents. These data illustrate the fact that large public subsidies are generally required to reduce sales prices to a level that is affordable to low- and moderate-income buyers. At a median price of $420,000, there is a "gap" of over $120,000 between the market price and the maximum price a moderate-income household can afford to pay for a home. For low-income households, this gap is $205,000. c. Rental Housing Table 11-20 shows 2007 market data for rental apartments in selected market areas of Ventura County based on surveys of large complexes. The table shows that the average rent for all surveyed units in Moorpark was $1,611 per month, which was higher than the countywide average, and comparable with the City of Thousand Oaks, which is also close to the Los Angeles metro area. Table 11-20 Rental Market Comparison-Selected Ventura County Cities t F i rte:- 'L i s.. t Average Rent All $1,443 $1,535 $1,662 $1,611 $1,542 Studio $1,013 * $1,108 * $1,023 1 bd/1 bth $1,256 $1,362 $1,447 $1,368 $1,347 2 bd/1 bth $1,408 $1,649 $1,654 $1,641 $1,534 2 bd/2 bth $1,584 $1,637 $1,808 $1,606 $1,692 3 bd/2 bth $1,954 $1,859 $2,059 $2,012 $2,042 Average Square Feet All 846 894 983 872 894 Studio 435 * 550 508 1 bd/1 bth 666 710 795 694 718 2 bd/1 bth 884 980 966 839 916 2 bd/2 bth 970 1,009 1,066 887 999 3 bd/2 bth 1,168 1,030 1,274 1,133 1,199 11-16 May 2012 62 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Thousand `aura Camarillo Oaks Moorpadt County Average Cost/Square Foot All $1.71 $1.72 $1,69 $1.85 $1.72 Studio $2.33 * $2.01 * $2.01 1 bd/1 bth $1.89 $1.92 $1.82 $1.97 $1.88 2 bd/1 bth $1.59 $1.68 $1.71 $1.96 $1.67 2 bd/2 bth $1.63 $1.62 $1.70 $1.81 $1.69 3 bd/2 bth $1.67 $1.80 $1.62 $1.78 $1.70 Average Occupancy 95.7% 95.4% 94.0% 94.6% 93.8% Average Year Built 1980 1991 1980 1992 1982 *Information was not available for Studio units Source:RealFacts,9/07 When market rents are compared to the amounts low-income households can afford to pay (Table 11-18), 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 $600 per month, while the gap at the extremely-low-income level is $1,000 per month. However, at the low-income and moderate-income levels, households are much more likely to find affordable rentals. An average 2-bedroom, 2-bath apartment currently rents for about $1,650 while the affordable payment for a 4-person low-income household is $1,714. E. 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 In 2000, 1,840 people between 16 and 64 years of age, or 9% of the working age population, reported a work-related disability (see Table 11-21). Of those aged 65 and over, 498 (35%) reported some physical disability. Among the reported disabilities are persons whose disability hinders their ability to go outside the home (3.7% of the working age population and 24.2% of the senior population). Housing opportunities for the handicapped can be maximized through housing assistance programs and providing universal design features such as widened doorways, ramps, lowered countertops, single- level units and ground floor units. 11-17 May 2012 63 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Table 11-21 Persons with Disabilities by Age-Moorpark Age 5 to 15—total persons 7,031 -- Sensory disability 60 0.9% Physical disability 50 0.7% Mental disability 306 4.4% Self-care disability 56 0.8% Age 16 to 64 20,367 -- Sensory disability 356 1.7% Physical disability 639 3.1% Mental disability 377 1.9% Self-care disability 171 0.8% Go-outside-the-hole disability 746 3.7% Employment disability 1,840 9.0% Age 65 and over 1,412 -- Sensory disability 191 13.5% Physical disability 498 35.3% Mental disability 177 12.5% Self-care disability 211 14.9% Go-outside-the-hole disability 342 24.2% Source:2000 Census,SF3 Tables P8 and P41 2. Elderly In 2000, there were 758 households in Moorpark where the householder was 65 or older (Table II-22). Of these, 7% were below the poverty level in 1999 (2000 Census, SF3 Table DP-3). 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 (over 2% of all households). The housing needs of this group can be addressed through smaller units, second units on lots with existing homes, shared living arrangements, congregate housing and housing assistance programs. Table 11-22 Elderly Households by Tenure-Moorpark Under 65 years 6,714 90.6% 1,485 94.5% 65 to 74 years 405 5.5% 53 3.4% 75 to 84 years 223 3.0% 14 0.9% 85 and over 43 0.6% 20 1.3% 65+living alone 155 2.1% 39 2.5% Total households 7,412 I 100.0% I 1,572 100.0% Source:2000 Census,SF1 Table H17,SF3 Table H14 II-18 May 2012 64 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment 3. Large Households Household size is an indicator of need for large units. Large households are defined as those with five or more members. The City's average household size has increased slightly from 3.34 persons in 1990 to 3.49 persons in 2000. This corresponds with the slight increase in the city's percentage of children (under 18 years of age) from 33.5% in 1990 to 34% in 2000. Among owner households, 20% had five or more members, while about 27% of renter households had five or more members (Table 11-23). This distribution indicates that, while a significant proportion of the city's households need large units with four or more bedrooms, this demand is expected to be less than for smaller units. Table 11-23 Household Size by Tenure-Moorpark iv 194Y @tea ` - g S._. r. ` �� fire ": g fr AS.i. 1 person 739 10% 159 10% 2 persons 1,857 25% 362 23% 3 persons 1,441 19% 302 19% 4 persons 1,872 25% 331 21% 5 persons 877 12% 182 12% 6 persons 312 4% 95 6% 7+persons 314 4% 141 9% Total households 7,412 100% 1,572 100% Source:2000 Census,SF3 Table H17 4. Female-Headed Households While the 788 female-headed households represent only 7% of the city's 8,984 households, (Table II-24), they make up 17% of households that are below the poverty level.5 Table 11-24 Household Type by Tenure-Moorpark Married couple family 5,685 �.Ne.�.. 77% 59% Male householder,no wife present 198 3% 121 8% Female householder,no husband present 534 7% 254 16% Non-family households 995 13% 269 17% Total households I 7,412 I 100% I 1,572 100% Source:2000 Census,SF3 Table H19 5 2000 Census,SF3,Table DP-3 II-19 May 2012 65 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment 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 billion per year6. There is strong public sentiment for retaining agricultural production, as reflected in the SOAR (Save Our Agricultural Resources) initiatives that have been approved by voters. Figure 11-2 illustrates the wide variety of crops produced in the county. Figure 11-2 Agricultural Production Areas -Ventura County u Ojai Santa Ynez .• I ` 'w•" Mountains 8 , _ i . fr Santa Paula ? Ridge `T ,,:'' s ,- � Pir �r (i Sulphur Mountain i, Fillmore r7R a ti P/;) i Santa PPauli ' eM' ,i� 1-t ii■ 0<, , t , „ OA , P J M1 .4,, C1 tat d. _ 4 b Q,, i, . Fr Big Mountain it \' _j/ ' ^> -�: ' : :t� ' Simi �'I Ventura 16 .jh'' Moorpark Valley VENTURA � � :4'11- .a � 'i � ' t �.� , j-21- �1�� .y 'P'''' M.��a� � r----.k_ r - fCamarillo 2, � ' - , Agriculture g, -- ` v '+11-ousand R Oaks 9' �-� t ' Oxnard�� � N c ' . Summer,2004 -^ :7�� �� vam..ca.Rr,a �ica,.�::-.wY, �l� .V_71 R...... �, Port Huenem B � Santa Monica L ; , 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 6 Workforce Investment Board of Ventura County,The Future of Ventura County Agriculture: Issues and Opportunities for Workers and Growers,2006 11-20 - May 2012 66 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment 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 Administration7. 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, 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 11-25). Table 11-25 Ventura County Farm Workers-2000 Farmer Workers+ Migrant Farm Other Household Farm Workers Workers Seasonal Workers Members Totals 35,181 16,289 18.892 62 605 Source:Bureau of Primary Health Care,Health Resources and Services Administration,2000 The 2000 Census reported about 11,000 persons employed in agricultural occupations in Ventura County. A variety of factors could explain the difference between Census data and the Bureau of Primary Health Care estimates, including the undocumented status of workers or their living arrangements. Census data indicates that just 1.5% of the county's farm workers live in Moorpark (Table 11-26). The city has one development that was built in 1989 to assist permanent farm worker housing and permits additional farm worker housing in certain zones pursuant to a conditional use permit. Table 11-26 Agricultural Employment %of U Y f raY.r. T Moorpark County Total County Workers 165 1.5% 10,869 Source:2000 Census,SF3 Table P50 6. Student Population The City is home to Moorpark Community College with an enrollment of over 14,000 students. Of this total, approximately 1,600 (12% of the students) live in Moorpark itself. 7 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. 11-21 May 2012 67 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment 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 the 2000 Census, 1,998 persons, or approximately 6% of the total population living in Moorpark, were enrolled in college. The type of housing need depends on the nature of the enrollment. Currently, 58% of the students are part-time, 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 problem throughout California and urban areas nationwide. 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. Moorpark is fortunate, as studies by government agencies and homeless advocacy groups have shown that homelessness is not pervasive in the community. A homeless count conducted by Ventura County in January 2010 indicated that on any given day there may be up to 1 homeless person in Moorpark (Table 11-27). Countywide, 2 homeless persons identified Moorpark as their home. Homeless persons include families that might be displaced through evictions, women and children displaced through abusive family life, persons with substance abuse problems, or persons passing through Moorpark. The most significant difference between the city's homeless population and the county's is that the city's homeless are males between the ages of 25 and 61. However, due to the small number of homeless persons in the city, comparisons between city and county homeless populations are difficult to validate. II-22 May 2012 68 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment Table 11-27 Homeless Profile Total Homeless 1 100% 1,815 100% Age:Children(under 18) 0 0.0% 211 12% Age:Youth(18-24) 0 0.0% Unknown - Age:Adults(25-61) 1 100% 1,604 88% Age:Seniors(62+) 0 0.0% 124 8% Male 1 100% 1078 59.4% Female 0 0.0% 526 28.9% Families* 0 0.0% 117 6.4% Race and Ethnicity - White 1 100.0% 831 45.7% - Black/African American 0 0.0% 97 5.3% - American Indian/Alaskan 0 0.0% 28 1.5% - Asian or Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 10 0.5% - Other 0 0.0°l0 48 2.6% - Hispanic/Latino 0.0% 583 32.1% *Combined 2-parent and 1-parent families Source:Ventura County 2010 Homeless Count 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 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- 11-23 May 2012 69 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment 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 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. 11-24 May 2012 70 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment F. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion 1. Introduction 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 2008-2018. 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. 2. Inventory of Assisted Units Table 11-28 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 2018. Data compiled by SCAG and the California Housing Partnership confirm that there are no at-risk units in Moorpark. Table 11-28 Assisted Housing Developments -Moorpark Assisted Covenants Project Units Program Expire Tafoya Terrace 30 Public housing complex operated by the Ventura County Area Housing Permanent Authority,provides affordable rental housing for lower-income seniors. Waterstone 62 6 extremely-low income,23 very-low income,21 low-income,and 12 Permanent moderate-income 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 2030 households.Villa 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 n/a "sweat-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 Permanent senior 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 Permanent development. 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 Permanent condominium development. 11-25 May 2012 71 City of Moorpark Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment G. 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 8'/2-year period from January 2006 to July 2014. 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 July 2007. 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 categories8 on the basis of the county's income distribution, with adjustments to avoid an over-concentration of lower-income households in any community. 2. 2006-2014 Moorpark Growth Needs Through a delegation agreement with SCAG, the Ventura County Council of Governments determined the RHNA growth needs for each of the county's cities plus the unincorporated area. The total housing growth need for the City of Moorpark during the 2006-2014 planning period is 1,617 units. This total is distributed by income category as shown in Table 11-29. Table 11-29 Regional Housing Growth Needs-Moorpark Moderate Total 182 181 292 335 627 1,617 11.2% 11.2% 18.1% 20.7% 38.8% 100.0% Source:SCAG 2007 `Assumed to be 50%of the VL RHNA need per AB 2634 All new units built or preserved after January 1, 2006 may be credited against the RHNA period. A discussion of the City's net remaining growth need is provided in the land inventory section of Chapter III. 8 The 2007 RHNA did 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. 11-26 May 2012 72 City of Moorpark Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities III. RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES A. Land Resources 1. Regional Growth Needs 2006-2014 In accordance with Government Code §65584, projected housing needs for each city and county in the Southern California region are prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) under a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). SCAG's Regional Council adopted the final Regional Housing Need Allocation in July 2007. The RHNA covers the 8.5-year planning period of January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014. The RHNA process began with an update of the population, employment and household forecasts for both the region as a whole and for each county. These forecasts were largely derived from California Department of Finance (DOF) population and employment forecasts and modified by regional demographic and modeling efforts by SCAG. SCAG then disaggregated the regional and county forecasts to each jurisdiction and estimated the number of dwelling units needed to achieve a regional target vacancy rates (2.3% owner-occupied and 5% rental) and to account for projected housing demolitions. The total housing needed in each jurisdiction was then distributed by income category (very low, low, moderate and upper income). All new units built or preserved after January 1, 2006 are credited in the current RHNA period. Table III-1 shows the net remaining growth need after crediting units built during 2006-2009. A detailed listing of these new units by income category is provided in Appendix B. Table III-1 Net Remaining RHNA a : r; RHNA(2006-2014) 182 181 292 335 627 1,617 Units completed 2006-2009 0 0 27 96 416 539 RHNA(net 2010-2014) 182 181 265 239 211 1,078 Source:City of Moorpark Community Development Dept.,2010 2. Inventory of Sites for Housing Development 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-2. The table shows that the city's land inventory, including approved projects, pending applications III-1 May 2012 73 City of Moorpark Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities and the potential development of vacant and underutilized parcels, exceeds the net remaining RHNA in the moderate and above-moderate income categories but there is a shortfall of 232 units in the lower-income category for this planning period. The Housing Plan (Chapter V) contains Program 3 to ensure that adequate sites with appropriate zoning for lower-income housing will be made available to bridge this shortfall. Table III-2 Land Inventory Summary { , �..�• �. .+���.-,�. �-`'�..-.,� r >l fir" Approved projects 112 196 776 1,084 Pending projects 276 626 480 1,382 Vacant land-residential 50 50 Potential second units 8 8 Subtotal 396 822 1,306 2,524 RHNA(net 2010-2014) 628 239 211 1,078 Surplus(Deficit) (232) 583 1,095 I 1,446 Source:City of Moorpark Community Development Dept.,2010 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 RHNA, 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 of Ventura has recently changed how the CDBG contracts with the entitlement area cities are handled. The County is the final decision-making body regarding annual CDBG applications. 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 III-2 May 2012 74 City of Moorpark Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities improvement projects. Under the new agreement, the County has agreed to ensure 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. No tax credit projects have been built in Moorpark to date; however, the Area Housing Authority currently has an approved project that has received approval for an allocation of 2010 tax credits (see Table B-2), and construction will commence by November 1, 2010. 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.9 There may be more 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. As of December 2008 the Section 8 Program assisted 150 households in Moorpark, including 60 families, 48 elderly households and 42 disabled households. The Housing Authority also operates Tafoya Terrace, a 30-unit 9 Ventura County 2005 Consolidated Plan,page 97 111-3 May 2012 75 City of Moorpark Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities affordable senior apartment project in Moorpark and will also be building a 20-unit affordable large family apartment project adjacent to Tafoya Terrace. 2. Local Resources Moorpark Redevelopment Agency State law requires the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency to set aside 20% of its annual tax increment into a low- and moderate-income (L/M) housing fund. The purpose of the L/M set-aside fund is to produce, increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing (CCRL Section 3334.2). As of October 2010, the Agency had an unencumbered balance of $300,000.00 in its Low- and Moderate-income Housing Fund. The Agency has used L/M housing funds to acquire 9 properties at a combined cost of approximately $2,300,000. Anticipated relocation costs were $80,000 for 2 households. Plans include assembling these 9 properties and developing 18 to 25 deed-restricted affordable ownership units. Other Agency efforts include acquisitions of three properties on Charles Street which totaled approximately $1,385,000 (L/M housing funds). The agency anticipates purchasing a fourth property to be added to the other 3 properties for an ownership condominium project anticipated to provide 12 to 20 units, 2 to 4 of which will be deed-restricted affordable units. The Agency has also acquired three properties on the corner of Everett and Walnut Streets, (former Fire Station property) for a combined cost which totaled approximately $1,150,000.00. The Agency plans to build 20-25 condominiums or rental apartments, 20% of which will be deed-restricted affordable units. The Agency has partnered with the Area Housing Authority of Ventura County for the development of a multi-family rental project which will have 20 affordable rental units on three parcels donated by a developer as part of the developer's in-lieu requirement for affordable housing. The project has been approved and is funded with tax credits, home funds and L/M set aside funds and construction will commence by November 1, 2010. The Agency is developing a site, which was acquired in a previous year, with a single-family residence to be deed restricted and sold at an affordable price. Construction costs are estimated to be approximately $508,000. Residential units being developed by others within the Redevelopment Project Area include approximately 1,847 dwelling units, both attached and detached product, ownership and rental. Many of these units will be identified as affordable units, through binding agreements between the developer and the City. Some projects have been delayed for varied reasons, including the redrawing of the digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (dFIRM) and economic conditions. Approximately 388 lower-income affordable units are expected to be added to the City's housing stock during the 2006-2014 period through conditions of approval on development projects. 111-4 May 2012 • 76 City of Moorpark Housing Element Ill. Resources and Opportunities The State took $1,900,000.00 in tax increment from the Agency in Fiscal Year 2009/10 and is scheduled to take an additional approximate $400,000.00 in Fiscal Year 2010/11 to be used towards balancing the State budget. Table III-3 Use of Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Funds 2006-2014 , ATti/ inarinfe °*7: 2006 42 $1,200,000 2007 $1,200,000 2008 9 $1,200,000 2009 23 $1,200,000 2010 22 13 $1,300,000 2011 22 12 $1,300,000 2012 22 12 $1,400,000 2013 22 13 $1,400,000 2014 22 12 $1,400,000 Totals 144 62 $11,600,000 The City estimates that the Agency will receive approximately $11,600,000 in housing set-aside funds during the planning period for the 2008 Housing Element (2006-2014). Anticipated expenditures on housing programs and projects during this period are forecast to be approximately $11,600,000 and include the following: • Promote and participate in public/private partnerships with non- profit and for-profit developers and/or property owners to build new housing units and/or rehabilitate existing rental units for very- low- and low-income households. • Develop and implement owner-occupied, revolving loan program(s) to help low- and moderate-income households purchase new or rehabilitated homes. • Work with property owners and the development community to identify and acquire in-fill housing development parcels, and to partner with private and non-profit entities to construct new housing units for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households on these parcels. • Work with the City to require new housing developments outside of the Project Area to contribute financing and/or inclusionary units intended for low- and moderate-income households. • Provide additional opportunities for improving the Walnut Canyon residential neighborhood III-5 May 2012 77 City of Moorpark Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities 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 Development Agreements. Annual increases in the fees are tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The revenue collected from developers is then placed in the Housing Trust Fund, which is used for the provision and/or maintenance of affordable housing in Moorpark. At the current rates for all approved Development Agreements, the City of Moorpark can expect a total of $1,622,000of in-lieu fees, contingent upon buildout of market rate units. The trust fund is currently at $3,400,000. 3. Local Non-Profit Agencies Moorpark Family Resource Center The center provides services to families with children aged 0-5. Services provided include Family Education trainings 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 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. 111-6 May 201 2 78 City of Moorpark Housing Element Ill. Resources and Opportunities 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 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 2008 California Green Building Standards Code is currently in use, effective as of August 1, 2009, however, the requirements are not mandatory at this time, they are elective. The 2010 California Green Building Standards Code is currently in draft form and Moorpark staff anticipates adoption by summer of 2010, effective January 1, 2011. The 2010 code update would make portions of the California Green Building Standards 111-7 May 2012 79 City of Moorpark Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities Code mandatory. Additional Green Building Standards and requirements will become mandatory in future code updates in coming years, so that mandatory requirements are phased in over a period of time. 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. On February 18, 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 weatherization 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. 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%. III-8 May 2012 80 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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) Sources:Land Use Element,1992;Moorpark Zoning Code,2010 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. Iv-1 May 2012 81 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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 RA R-0 R-E & lam-,., TPD Building Standards Density Maximum dwelling 1 du/10 1 du/40 1 0 2.0 4.0 7.0 15.0 No units per gross acre acres acres maximum(') 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 x2,800 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 2 spaces per unit 1 — — covered in a garage for each unit with 1 or more bedrooms,plus 1/2 space per unit for visitors Mobile Homes 2 tandem spaces covered in a garage or carport per unit+%space/unit for visitors Second Units 1 space per 1-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit Source:City of Moorpark Zoning Code(current through March 2008) *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. • IV-2 May 2012 82 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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- 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. (A fifth specific plan, the North Park Village and Nature Preserve Specific Plan, which proposed to extend the Moorpark City Urban Restriction Boundary and designate 3,544 acres of land outside the City to a combination of residential, open space and commercial uses, was rejected by Moorpark voters on February 28, 2008.) Carlsberg Specific Plan The Carlsberg Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in September of 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 planned for a proposed 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. The Specific Plan includes another multi-family housing component consisting of a very-high-density residential area of 20 acres with 225 housing units. Staff anticipates having 151 low- and very-low-income, affordable units provided within the Specific Plan. 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. 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-five low-income affordable units were provided in this development. All affordable units are currently occupied. IV-3 May 2012 83 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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 over the past number of years has consisted of infill housing projects, including single-family, duplexes, and one senior housing project. The senior project is a Public Housing Project run 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 of the County of Ventura also has received entitlements and is proceeding with a development project consisting of 20 apartment units that would be 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 or City Council 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 state 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. Iv-4 May 2012 84 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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. During the previous planning period, nearly 20% of all new housing units were deed-restricted for lower-income households and an additional 23% were affordable to moderate-income households. Without the "leverage" created by this regulatory flexibility, it is unlikely that affordable housing production would have been as successful. 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 Housing* * * * * * * * Emergency Shelters* * * * * * * * Farm Labor Housing AP AP Special Need Housing Affordable or Senior** AP AP AP Source:City of Moorpark Zoning Code,current through June 2010. Notes:*Transitional housing is permitted within commercial zones(C-0,C-1,CPD,C-2)with a conditional use permit. **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. IV-5 May 2012 85 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints Mobile Homes & 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 11a) 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. 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 does not currently contain a definition or development standards for SROs. The Housing Plan includes Program 8 to amend the Code to include this type of housing in order to provide additional housing options for lower-income persons. The update to the Zoning Code will result in the allowance of 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 $25,700 per year for a 4-person household in Ventura County (2007). 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. IV-6 May 2012 86 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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 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 does not currently contain a definition of "family." Program 19 in Chapter V (Housing Plan) includes a commitment to amend the Code 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 IV 7 May 2012 87 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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 will be amended consistent with current law (see Chapter V, Program 20). Farm Worker Housing The state Employee Housing Act'° 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 required of other agricultural uses in the same zone. The Zoning Code allows farm worker housing, subject to an Administrative Permit, in the Open Space, Agricultural Exclusive and Rural Agricultural zones. Agricultural land uses within Moorpark are limited to small orchards on rural residential lots and container plant nurseries as much of the land previously used for agriculture has been developed with urban uses or converted to open space uses or is presently unused. The Housing Plan includes Program No. 5 to amend the Zoning Code in conformance with the Employee Housing Act, to address Farm Worker Housing as part of a comprehensive study of agricultural zoning and land uses within Moorpark. Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing Emergency shelters and transitional housing are part of the Ventura County regional continuum of care to address the needs of the homeless population. The Moorpark Zoning Code treats emergency shelters and transitional housing as boarding homes and permits them in most residential zone districts, subject to an approved CUP. Emergency shelters are year-round facilities that provide a safe alternative to the streets either in a shelter facility, or through the use of motel vouchers. Emergency shelter is short-term, 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. Pursuant to recent changes in state law (Senate Bill 2 of 2007), jurisdictions with an unmet need for emergency shelters are now required to identify at least one zone where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action. The identified zone must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the shelter need, and at a minimum provide capacity 10 California Health and Safety Code Sec. 17021.5 and 17021.6 IV-8 May 2012 88 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints for at least one year-round shelter. Permit processing, development and management standards for emergency shelters must be objective and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. In order to comply with Senate Bill 2 (Government Code §65583 and §65589.5), Program No. 7, requires that the City's Zoning Code be amended to identify a zone(s) where emergency shelters are permitted by right subject to objective development standards. The Zoning Code provisions regarding emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing shall be revised in conformance with SB 2 within one year of Housing Element adoption, to allow emergency shelters by- right in the C-2 zone when in compliance with established minimum lot size and location standards, 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 suites 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 Housing Plan includes Program No. 7 to amend the Zoning Code in compliance with these requirements. L 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, two spaces (one enclosed in a garage) are required for units with one or more bedrooms, plus an additional '/2 space for guest parking is required for each unit, regardless of unit size. Mobile Home parks require two covered parking spaces for each unit plus '/4 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 production of affordable housing. In order to facilitate affordable multi-family housing development, Program 18 includes a commitment to process a Code amendment that would: 1) Reduce required parking to 1 .75 spaces per unit (including guest parking) for market rate one-bedroom multi-family units and allow the required covered parking to be provided in carports instead of garages; and 2) Allow reduced parking consistent with state Density Bonus law (Government Code Sec. 65915) upon the developer's request. IV-9 May 2012 89 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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: • 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 IV-10 May 2012 90 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints • 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. As an example, the 312-unit Archsfone 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. Over the 2000-2005 period, the City accrued approximately $2.5 million in in-lieu fees that 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; 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 IV-]I May 2012 91 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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. L 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 2007 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. 1. 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 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. IV-12 May 2012 92 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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 RHNA. 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 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. IV-13 May 2012 93 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints • 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. A public hearing is then required before the City Council, which makes the final determination on Planned Development Permits. Generally, the applicant must demonstrate that the project is (1) consistent with the intent and provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Code, (2) compatible with the character of surrounding development, (3) would not be obnoxious, harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or use, and (4) would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare, or convenience. 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. IV-14 May 2012 94 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints The Planned Development Permit process provides flexibility and reduces constraints on development, in that the purpose of this zone is to provide areas for communities which will be developed utilizing modern land planning and unified design techniques. This zone 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. In order to further reduce processing time, Program 17 includes a commitment to process a Zoning Code amendment to make the following changes to the Planned Development Permit process: 1) Designate the Planning Commission as the final approval authority (rather than City Council); and 2) Modify the required findings for approval to confirming that the project complies with objective development and design standards. I.V.- 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. IV-15 May 2012 95 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints Table IV-4 summarizes the typical time frame for reviewing projects from pre-application development review phase through approval. Table IV-4 Development Review Times r"!1.�OWN—"_ _ ' f. _.. z 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 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; IV-16 May 2012 96 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints • Is compatible with the character of surrounding development; • Would not be obnoxious, harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property; • Would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare, and • Is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of surrounding properties. The RPD process has resulted, at times, in lower densities for single-family projects, particularly for hillside developments subject to environmental constraints. With 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. 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 IV-17 May 2012 97 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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 Type of Fees Sip9le-FamjW Mum Mobile Home 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 -ermit Fees(per unit) Roads: Area of Contribution Spring/Tierra Re'ada 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 Calle uas 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 olstdd) $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. 1 $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,2011 *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 IV-18 May 2012 98 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints been the shift in funding of new infrastructure from general tax revenues to development 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 O WIN ci ����� � �� �. curs=to curhwdtn 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 state 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. IV-19 May 2012 99 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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, if 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. I 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 2014 planning period. • Water Supply - Ventura County Waterworks District No. I 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 steadily increased during the previous IV-20 May 2012 100 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints planning period, (prior to - 2009). The recent downturn in the housing market is expected to affect land values negatively, however. Changes in land prices reflect the cyclical nature of the residential real estate market. It appears as though we are in a downturn similar to the early 1980s and early 1990s, and 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, S. 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 will affect the availability and cost of real estate loans, although the long-term effects are unpredictable. The credit "crunch" resulted when "sub-prime" lenders made it possible for persons who could not qualify for conventional mortgages to become homeowners even though they did not have the credit history and income to support repayment of the loans. The problem typically occurred with adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) after the initial fixed interest rate period expires (generally two to three years) and the interest rate converts to market. Because ARMS often offer "teaser" initial interest rates well below market for the first few years, monthly payments may increase by several hundred dollars when the loan converts to market rate. When property values were increasing, as was the case from 2000 - 2006, homeowners had the option of refinancing to a new loan when the initial interest rate period expired. However, in the current market with declining values, homeowners may owe more than the resale value of their home, making refinancing impossible. As a result of these conditions, there has been a significant rise in foreclosure rates, and changes in mortgage underwriting standards are likely to have greater impacts on low-income families than other segments of the community. Under state law, if 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 IV-21 May 2012 101 City of Moorpark Housing Element IV. Constraints 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). The County is updating the Analysis of Impediments in 2010. IV-22 May 2012 102 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan V. HOUSING PLAN Chapters 11 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 2008 to 2014. 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. V-1 May 2012 103 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan 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 2008-2014 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 reclesignafion 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. V-2 May 2012 104 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan 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: Is' priority - production of affordable housing; 2nd - subsidy of affordable housing; 3rd - housing rehabilitation; 41" priority- housing assistance; and 51" 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. V-3 May 2012 105 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan Policy 5.2 Discourage discrimination in either the sale or rental of housing on the basis of state or federal protected classes. Policy 5.3 Implement {]ppK}[)hatB action iƒerDS identified in the Ventura County Analysis Of Impediments hJensure fair and equal access tOhousing. B. Housing Programs �. �"����U�� The goals and policies discussed above are implemented through housing programs offered by the City's CODl[DUAitv Development Department and Redevelopment /\{lenCY. This section describes the programs that Moorpark will implement to O[jd[eSs housing needs within the cOrnnnUOih/. Table V-1 provides a 3UmrDQry of each program, six-year objective, funding sources, and agency responsible fD implement the program. Housing and Neighborhood Conservation 1. Housing Rehabilitation Six-Year Objective: The Housing Rehabilitation Program provides rehabilitation loans to low-income Provide loans for a maximum of25 owner households.Loans up to$50,000 are provided for owner-occupied housing single-family units and 1O Mobile Home and$2U.00O for Mobile Home units.Rehab participants pay only e396annual units.Promote this program un the City interest rate amortized over 10 years for single family units.Mobile Home loans webmihe and with flyers at City Hall and have a 20-year term coupled with conditional forgiveness.The loan is forgiven at other public buildings. the rate oy1OY6 per year from years 11thm2O. 2. Code Compliance Six-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 nf Division plays a key role in improving neighborhoods,The Division handles o reports nf non-compliance with existing variety of issues ranging from property maintenance(e.g.illegally parked vehicles, codes and standards. overgrown vegetation)bo housing conditions. Adequate Residential Sites 3. Sites to Accommodate Fair-Share Housing Needs Six-Year Objective: Vacant or underutilized sites offer opportunities for residential development and By2O12.create a new RPD-2Ozoning achieve lower-income housing goals,an identified by the RHNA. |n the past district and rezone ot least 26.8acres several years,developers have initiated both the conversion cfcommercial sites uf land oda density of2O units per acre. for residential use,and the up-zoning cf low-density residential sites for higher- density devo|opmont.Zoning amendments have resulted in development ofthe Archstonaproject,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,andthePandoe3ohoo|0haproject.Other projects are under consideration. An shown in Appendix B.the City's lower-income need io855 units and o total of 139 new lower-income units have been built or approved since the beginning of the new planning period.Additional sites ho accommodate oL least 51G lower- income VnUs are needed in order ho meet RHNA requirements.While pending projects and vacant sites contain sufficient potential to accommodate this V-4 May 2012 106 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan remaining need,a new RPD-20 zoning district will be established and additional sites with a minimum of 25.8 total acres will be rezoned to this designation that allows owner-occupied and multi-family rental residential development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre in order to ensure adequate capacity to accommodate the City's fair-share needs during this planning period. Rezoned sites to accommodate the remaining lower-income need will be provided in pending projects identified in Table B-2 of Appendix B,primarily in the Hitch Ranch,Chiu, and Pacific Communities projects.Zoning for these projects shall meet all the requirements of Government Code Sec.65583.c.1.,which include the following: • Permit a minimum density of 20 units/acre. • Permit a minimum of 16 units per site. • Accommodate at least 50%of the units on sites designated for residential use only. 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: • 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 Six-Year Objective: The Downtown Specific Plan,which was adopted in 1998,is designed to Prepare Downtown Specific Plan land encourage a pedestrian-oriented mix of businesses,offices,and residential uses inventory by end of 2012. in the Downtown 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.However, given the rapid pace of development in the City,there is a need for a more formal inventory of suitable sites for potential residential development. 5. Farm Worker Housing Six-Year Objective: Though most of the region's functional agricultural areas are located outside Amend the Zoning Code in Moorpark,some farm workers live in the community.Year-round farm laborers are conformance with the Employee typically housed in older apartments,government-assisted units,and Mobile- Housing Act in within two years of Homes. In order to facilitate the provision of additional housing for agricultural Housing Element adoption,following workers,the City will address Farm Worker Housing as part of a comprehensive completion of a comprehensive study of study of agricultural zoning and land uses within Moorpark,consistent with the agricultural zoning and land uses within Employee Housing Act(Health&Safety Code Sec. 17021.5&17021.6). Moorpark. V-5 May 2012 107 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan 6. Second Units Six-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 units in all residential zones pursuant to of 10,890 square feet or greater pursuant to an approved zoning clearance.The an administrative permit. Publicize unit must meet the minimum development standards for the primary residence second unit regulations.The City unit.Given the limited developable land remaining in Moorpark,continuing to anticipates that 10 second units will be integrate second units in appropriate locations presents an opportunity for the City built during the planning period. to accommodate 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 Transitional/Supportive Housing Six-Year Objective: Recent amendments to state housing law(SB 2 of 2007)require jurisdictions with Revise the Zoning Code provisions an unmet shelter need to designate at least one zone where year-round regarding emergency shelters and emergency shelters are allowed by-right(i.e.,without a conditional use permit or transitional/supportive housing in other discretionary action).To comply with State law,the City will amend the conformance with SB 2 within one year Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters by-right subject to the same of Housing Element adoption. development and management standards that apply to other allowed uses in the C-2 zone,except that other objective,written standards may be established as provided by Government Code Sec.65583(a)(4).Emergency shelters may also be permitted in conjunction with permitted places of worship in residential zones, provided that the use is established in coordination with an existing permitted religious facility. SB 2 also requires that transitional and supportive housing be treated as a residential use that is subject only to the same requirements and procedures as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.The Zoning Code will be amended in conformance with this requirement. 8. Single Room Occupancy(SROs) Six-Year Objective: In order to encourage additional housing for persons with extremely-low incomes Revise the Zoning Code within one (ELI),the Zoning Code will be amended to allow Single Room Occupancy(SRO) year of Housing Element adoption to units by-right(i.e.,without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action)in allow SROs by-right in the C-2 zone. the C-2 zone subject to objective development standards. Housing 9.Section 8 Rental Assistance Six-Year Objective: The Section 8 program provides rent subsidies to very-low-income households Continue to participate in the Section 8 who spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent.Prospective renters program,advertise program availability, secure housing from HUD-registered apartments that accept the certificates.HUD and encourage rental property owners pays to the landlords the difference between what the tenant can afford to pay and to register their units with the Housing the payment standard.Under the Section 8 voucher program,a family can choose Authority. more costly 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 Six-Year Objective: The City participates in the federal Mortgage Credit Certificate Program operated Continue participation and advertise by Ventura County.The MCC program allows qualified first-time homebuyers to program availability. take an annual credit against their federal income taxes of up to 20%of the annual interest paid on the applicant's mortgage.The tax credit 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 Six-Year Objective: The Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Program has been non-operational Continue monitoring Villa Del Arroyo's V-6 May 2012 108 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan since the purchase of Villa Del Arroyo by Augusta Homes and the closing and compliance with the requirements of relocation of the tenants at Moorpark Mobile Home Park. The City issued bonds to the Regulatory Agreement to ensure assist Augusta Homes with the purchase of Villa Del Arroyo Mobile Home Park. that the 48 housing units are occupied The bond regulatory agreement at Villa Del Arroyo,requires the park to maintain by very-low-income families. 48 housing units for very-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 Six-Year Objective: Resale Refinance Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreements are required by Continue to monitor the status of the the City for affordable housing units,which are covenants that preserve affordable Resale Refinance Restriction and units in perpetuity. This ensures that after affordable units are created they are Option to Purchase Agreements for not sold or re-sold at market rate prices. affordable units. 12. Inclusionary Program Six-Year Objective: Through the use of development agreements,the City's inclusionary policies Adopt fee expenditure priorities as require that 10%to 15%of all units in each development project and 15%to 20% follows: of all units in development projects within the redevelopment area must be 1 It priority—affordable housing affordable to low-and very-low-income households. In appropriate situations, production; developers unable to provide units are assessed in-lieu fees based upon the estimated cost of providing affordable units,or acquiring units or build units off- 2nd--subsidy of affordable housing; site.This occurs most often with single-family developments in the hillsides. 3rd--housing rehabilitation;and Currently,the City can allocate inclusionary fees for housing rehabilitation, construction,or assistance.To ensure that the City addresses its RHNA 4f--housing assistance.Adopt affordability requirements for low-income housing,it may become necessary to expenditure priorities by end of 2012. earmark funding to assist in the development.Therefore,the City will develop a policy for expending the estimated$3 to$3.5 million in in-lieu fees,these Assist in the development up to 20 estimated fees assume all projects are completed,(ie.Pacific Communities,Tract very low-income units by end of 2014. 5187, Shea,etc.),that may be generated over the planning period. Priority will be given to projects that address any shortfall in the RHNA,particularly for VL households. 13. Land Assemblage/Disposition/Acquisition Six-Year Objective: The City and its Redevelopment Agency will continue to encourage the provision Assist in the purchase and assembly of of quality,affordable housing through use of land write-downs,direct financial land for housing at least twice during assistance,and/or regulatory incentives.The City will use Redevelopment Set- the planning period in order to Aside, Housing Trust funds,County CDBG,and other funds to assist in acquiring accommodate the City's fair share of and assembling property and writing down land costs for the development of new housing needs. 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 Six-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 standards,increased density,and carried interest cost on land for affordable local housing needs,including priority housing projects.The City will continue to provide regulatory assistance for the for extremely-low-income housing,at development of affordable projects that address identified housing needs,such as least twice during the planning period in special needs groups and the RHNA.Where feasible,the City will prioritize order to accommodate the City's fair regulatory and financial incentives for extremely-low-income housing. share of housing needs. 15.Assistance to CHDOs Six-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 households. In the past,the City assisted the Villa Campesina project,a 62-unit development of affordable housing in single-family sweat equity development for farm workers and other lower-income Moorpark. households,by reducing development fees.The City also sold property acquired through bond financing to Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation for the V-7 May 2012 109 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan 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 Six-Year Objective: In 2004 the state legislature amended density bonus law(SB 1818). In 2009,the Continue to monitor State density City amended the General Plan Land Use element and the Zoning Ordinance to bonus law and make changes to local go above and beyond State requirements by allowing up to 100%density bonus regulations as necessary to stay for affordable housing projects that are 100%affordable to low and very low current with State law. income households. 17. R-P-D Zone Designation and Planned Development Permit Process Six-Year Objective: The R-P-D Zone designation provides flexibility in the development process to Continue to use the R-P-D Zone meet specific housing needs. The R-P-D Zone designation offers various densities designation to encourage a variety of that can be tailored to the lot,nature of the development, and local housing needs. housing types to address local needs. The R-P-D Zone provides a mechanism for the development of higher-density Process a Code amendment by 2012. 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 a Zoning Code amendment will be initiated to make the following changes to the Planned Development Permit process: 1)Designate the Planning Commission as the final approval authority(rather than City Council);and 2)Modify the required findings for approval to confirming that the project complies with objective development and design standards. 18. Off-Street Parking Requirements Six-Year Objective: In order to facilitate the production of affordable housing,a Code amendment will Process a Code amendment by 2012. be processed to allow reduced off-street parking for projects meeting the requirements of state Density Bonus law(Government Code Sec. 65915)when requested by the developer. In addition,the parking requirement for market rateone-bedroom multi-family units will be reduced to 1.75 spaces per unit (including guest parking),one of which must be covered(garage or carport). Housing Equal Opportunity 19. Fair Housing Services Six-Year Objective: Moorpark,in conjunction with Ventura County,will continue to ensure the Continue to support provision of fair provision of fair housing services for its residents.These services will include housing services and publicize these counseling and information on housing discrimination,landlord-tenant dispute services throughout the community resolution,bilingual housing literature,and testing for housing discrimination.The using the City website and flyers posted County contracts with a Fair Housing provider through the CDBG program.To in at least five locations no later than facilitate public awareness of these services,the City will assist in making December 2011. information available to property owners,apartment managers,tenants,local media,and other service organizations. 20. Definition of"Family" Six-Year Objective: The Municipal Code will be amended to include a definition of"family"consistent Municipal Code amendment in 2010- with current law. 2011. 21. Reasonable Accommodation Six-Year Objective: The Municipal Code will be amended to include procedures for reviewing and Municipal Code amendment in 2010- approving requests for reasonable accommodation by persons with disabilities 2011. consistent with current law. V-8 May 2012 110 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan 22. Child Care Facilities Six-Year Objective: The availability of affordable,conveniently located,quality childcare is one of the Review Zoning Code in 2011-12; most pressing concerns of contemporary family life,particularly for families with consider incentives for co-locating single parents or two working parents.The City of Moorpark complies with state childcare facilities with affordable regulations allowing childcare facilities to locate in the City and offers density housing; prioritize funding for projects bonuses for qualified childcare facilities per state law. However,recognizing the with family support and childcare; shortage and necessity of quality and affordable childcare facilities, the City will provide funding assistance to support pursue the following actions: 1)review the Zoning Code to ensure that daycare childcare. and childcare provisions are consistent with changing state laws; 2)consider incentives for co-locating childcare facilities in affordable housing; 3)give priority to funding for acquisition and rehabilitation projects that include family support and childcare facilities;and 4)continue funding organizations that serve the City of Moorpark children. V-9 May 2012 111 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan Table V-1 Housing Program Implementation Summary Funding Responsible FHousing Program Program Objective Program Action Source Agency Time-Frame Housing and Neighborhood 1.Housing Preserve and Provide loans for a maximum of RDA Set-Aside RDA 2008-2014 Rehabilitation Program improve neighbor- 25 single-family units& 10 and Housing hoods and housing Mobile Homes, Trust Fund 2.Code Enforcement Continue code enforcement Department CDD 2008-2014 activities Budget Residential Sites 3.Sites to Provide sufficient Rezone sites totaling 25.8 acres Department CDD 2012 Accommodate Fair sites to address the to allow multi-family Budget Share Needs full range of housing development at a density of 20 needs identified in units/acre. 4.Downtown Specific the RHNA. Prepare Downtown Specific Department RDA&CDD 2012 Program Plan land inventory Budget 5.Farmworker Housing Comprehensive review of Department RDA&CDD 2012-13 farmworker housing regulations Budget &Municipal Code amendment. 6.Second Units Continue to allow second units. Department CDD 2008-2014 Publicize second unit Budget regulations. 7.Emergency Shelters Amend the Municipal Code Department CDD Within one 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 Occupancy allow SROs. Budget year of Housing Element adoption Provision 9.Section 8 Rental Facilitate rental Continue to participate in the Section 8 Ventura County 2008-2014 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 2008-2014 Certificate Program ownership program and advertise opportunities 11 a.Mobile Home Preserve Monitor Mobile Home Park Department RDA 2008-2014 Affordability affordability of affordability. Budget 11 b.Resale Refinance publicly-assisted Continue to monitor the status RDA Set- RDA 2008-2014 Restrictions&Option housing of affordable housing Aside, Housing to Purchase restrictions. Trust Funds 12.Inclusionary Facilitate the Adopt fee expenditure priorities; Department RDA&CDD 2008-2014 V-10 May 2012 112 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan Eurg Responsible dousing Program Program Objective Program Action Saurce " Agency-T T`m�e-Frame Program 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 /Disposition/ to encourage assembly of land for housing Aside, Funds Acquisition affordable housing and CDBG 14.Regulatory and Provide assistance Continue to provide assistance RDA Set-Aside CDD 2008-2014 Financial Assistance to projects that for projects that address local or Housing address local housing needs. Trust Funds housing needs 15.Assistance to Addresses local Continue to work with local RDA Set- RDA&CDD 2008-2014 CHDOs housing needs by CHDOs by providing assistance Aside,Housing working with CHDOs for affordable housing. Trust Funds Removal of Government Constraints 16.Density Bonus Encourage Continue to facilitate affordable Department CDD 2008-2014 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 Designation and meeting local Zone designation to address Budget Planned Development housing needs, local housing needs. Amend Permit Process streamline review the Planned Development process. Permit review process to designate the Planning Commission as the final approval authority(rather than City Council);and modify the required findings for approval to confirming that the project complies with objective development and design standards. 18.Off-Street Parking Reduce parking Process a Code amendment to Department CDD 2012 requirements for reduce parking requirements. Budget affordable housing. Fair • Equal Housing Opportunity 19.Fair Housing Provide fair housing Continue to provide fair housing Department CDD 2008-2014 Services services services Budget,CDBG funds 20.Definition of Family Reduce potential Municipal Code amendment Department CDD 2010-11 constraints to Budget persons with special needs 21.Reasonable Reduce potential Municipal Code amendment Department CDD 2010-11 Accommodation constraints to Budget persons with special needs V-11 May 2012 113 City of Moorpark Housing Element V. Housing Plan Funding Responsible Housing Program Program Objective Program Action Source Agency Time-Frame 22. Childcare Facilities Support additional Review Zoning Code in 2011- Department CDD 2011-12 and childcare facilities in 12;consider incentives for co- Budget;CDBG ongoing conjunction with locating childcare facilities with funds affordable housing. affordable housing;prioritize funding for projects with family support and childcare;provide funding assistance to support childcare. Summary of • Objectives Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation Preservation Extremely Low Income 182 5 0(no at-risk units) Very Low Income 181 15 Low Income 292 15 Moderate Income 335 0 Above Moderate Income 627 0 - V-12 May 2012 114 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A- Evaluation Appendix A - Evaluation of the 2001 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, adopted in 2001 and evaluates the degree to which these programs have been implemented during the previous planning period, 2001 through 2008. 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 2008 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. A-1 May 2012 115 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A- Evaluation Table A-1 Housing Element Program Effectiveness Evaluation City of Moorpark 2001-2008 Housing and '::Program Objectives Accotn Uehments Fukure Policies and Actions Neighborhood Conservation 1. Housing Rehabilitation RDA RDA Set-Aside and Preserve and improve neighborhoods No single-family rehab loans were provided. Continue program and provide Program Housing Trust Fund and housing by providing loans for a There were 25 Mobile Home rehab loans 4 additional rehab loans; maximum of 50 single-family units& completed. expand single-family rehab 25 Mobile Homes. loan promotion. 2.Code Enforcement Community Department Budget Preserve and improve neighborhoods The Code Compliance Technician works in Continue inspection program, Development and housing by continuing code conjunction with the Building and Safety as needed. Department(CDD) enforcement activities. Division to enforce the City's regulations for all properties to ensure that construction is safe and legal,non-habitable spaces such as garages are not used for occupancy,and smoke detectors are operable. Residential Sites 3. Rezone Sites CDD Department Budget Provide sufficient sites to address the Vintage Crest was rezoned from CPD to The City Council will be full range of housing needs identified in RPD 20U providing 190 units with 48 very considering rezoning the RHNA. If a shortfall appears low and 141 low income affordable units, applications on the following: evident by end of 2002 in the RHNA, Tract 5425—Shea II,was rezoned from Specific Plan 1 Hitch Ranch to (1)upzone selected sites at a CPD and R-1 to RPD 12U with 6 very low,9 2.2 unit to the acre density; minimum density of 15 du/ac and/or(2) low and 5 moderate income affordable RPD 2005-02(Chiu)to 25 unit rezone commercial land for residential units. to the acre density; RPD 2007- use at a minimum density of 15 du/ac. Essex was rezoned from RE to RPD19U 01 Casey Road(Mansi),to 2.3 resulting in 16 very low and 24 low income unit to the acre density and affordable units. Tract 5053(Pacific Communities)to 7.1 unit to the Tract 5187 William Lyon/Resmark,was acre density. rezoned from RE-5Acre to RPD 1.8U and resulted in approval of 248 residential units and approval of an Affordable Project- Tract 5405 which was rezoned from RE- 5Acre to RPD 7U with 4 very low,4 low and 9 moderate income affordable units. Tract 5437 Birdsall—Canyon Crest,was rezoned from RE-5Acre to RPD 7U. A-2 May 2012 N rn City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A- Evaluation 4. Downtown Specific RDA&CDD Department Budget Provide sufficient sites to address the The Area Housing Authority Apartments The City Council will be Program full range of housing needs identified in project in the Downtown Specific Plan area considering rezoning the RHNA by furthering the Downtown was approved by the City Council in 2009 applications on the following: Specific Plan purposes by conducting with density bonus provisions to provide 20 Old Fire Department property a formal land inventory. affordable units. for densities ranging between 20 to 25 du/acre. MRA has been assembling land adjacent to Everett Street to develop a higher density affordable housing unit project, known as the"Chiu project"for densities ranging between 25 to 30 du/acre to allow construction of a 60-unit apartment building. 5. Farmworker Housing RDA&CDD Department Budget Provide sufficient sites to address the The affordable units created by the City The City plans to address full range of housing needs identified in were available to Farm workers for housing. Farm Worker Housing as part the RHNA by continuing to make of a comprehensive study of provision for availability of farm worker agricultural zoning and land housing in the community. uses within Moorpark, consistent with the Employee Housing Act. 6. Land Use Element CDD Department Budget Provide appropriate land use Vintage Crest was rezoned from CPD to Continue to look for /Zoning designations and sites to facilitate the RPD 20U providing 190 units with 48 very opportunities for redesignating achievement of the City's RHNA as low and 141 low income affordable units. land use and zoning to provide follows:269 very low income, 155 low Tract 5425—Shea II,was rezoned from affordable housing income,383 moderate income,and CPD and R-1 to RPD 12U with 6 very low,9 opportunities. Pacific 448 upper income units. low and 5 moderate income affordable Communities approved plan is units. to be modified to include Essex was rezoned from RE to RPD 19U provisions for affordable resulting in 16 very low and 24 low income housing. affordable units. Tract 5187 William Lyon/Resmark,was rezoned from RE-5Acre to RPD 1,8U and resulted in approval of 248 residential units and approval of an Affordable Project- Tract 5405 which was rezoned from RE- 5Acre to RPD 7U with 4 very low,4 low and 9 moderate income affordable units. A-3 May 2012 v City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A- Evaluation 7 :A�lNOMOMO ildn Tract 5437 Birdsall—Canyon Crest,was rezoned from RE-5Acre to RPD 7U. 7. Second Units CDD Department Budget 7fPur,01range vide sufficient sites to address the The Municipal Code was amended to allow The City anticipates permitting 7- of housing needs identified in second units by right in conformance with approximately 2 or more the RHNA by continuing to permit state law(AB 1866).9 2nd units were second units per year in the second units in all residential zones approved. next reporting period. pursuant to an administrative permit. Provision 8. Section 8 Rental Ventura County Section 8 Vouchers Facilitate rental opportunities by The City continued its participation in the Continue programs. Assistance Housing Authority /Certificates continuing to participate in the Section Section 8 program by increasing awareness 8 program,advertising program of application posting periods through availability,and encouraging rental advertisement on the City government property owners to register their units channel and display of applications in the with the Housing Authority. lobby. 9a. Mortgage Credit RDA Ventura County Facilitate home-ownership No mortgage credit certificates were issued Continue program as available. Certificate opportunities by continuing to during the plan period. participate in program and advertise. 10a.Mobile-home Rent RDA Department Budget Preserve affordability of publicly- Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization and Continue to monitor regulatory Stabilization Program assisted housing by continuing Hardship Waiver program is no longer agreement requirements of the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization operational,due to relocation of tenants in Villa Del Arroyo bonds to Program and Hardship Waiver the Moorpark Mobile Home Park.Staff ensure continued affordability Program. continues to monitor the Regulatory of the units in this park. Agreement requirements of the Villa Del Arroyo bonds to ensure continued affordability of the units in this park. 10b.Preservation of At-Risk RDA RDA Set-Aside, Preserve affordability of publicly- There were 37 very-low-income rental units Continue monitoring and Units Housing Trust Funds assisted housing by continuing to lost in the Fountains Apartments due to preserving affordability of at monitor the status of the assisted units expiration of bond covenants. risk units, in affordable projects. 10c.Mobilehome RDA RDA,Housing Trust Preserve affordability of publicly- The Moorpark Mobile Home Park was No further action required as Replacement Funds assisted housing by providing for closed and all tenants were relocated to there are no Mobile-Home replacement of units and relocation of other Mobile Home parks or to conventional parks in the redevelopment tenants as required by law. housing. area. 11. Inclusionary Program RDA&CDD Department Budget, Subsidize the provision of affordable Please see Table A-3 for a tabulation of Continue to require Housing Trust Funds housing by adopting fee expenditure accomplishments. inclusionary units through priorities as follows; 15t priority— development agreements. affordable housing production;2nd subsidy of affordable housing;3,1 housing rehabilitation;and 4th-- housing assistance. A-4 May 2012 00 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A— Evaluation NOW flad`A #iairis Use inclusionary funds to assist in the development of up to 20 very low- incomeunits by end of 2004. 12.Zoning Code Revision CDD Department Budget Review and revise Zoning Code to Not accomplished during this timeframe due State law has been updated allow the siting of emergency shelters to staffing limitations. since this reporting period. A and transitional housing pursuant to an Zoning Ordinance Amendment approved CUP. has been initiated by Resolution 2010-2954 to update the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with State law and public hearings are anticipated in the first quarter of 2011. Removal of Government Constraints 13. Land Assemblage RDA RDA Set-Aside,Funds Encourage affordable housing by The Redevelopment Agency has purchased Will continue to acquire /Disposition/Acquisition and CDBG assisting in the purchase and 19 lots through open-market transactions or property where affordable assembly of land for housing. developer land donations for future housing opportunities exist. affordable housing developments. 14. Regulatory and Financial CDD RDA Set-Aside or Continue to provide regulatory Not accomplished during this timeframe due Continue program. Assistance Housing Trust Funds assistance for projects that address to staffing limitations. local housing needs. 15.Assistance to CHDOs RDA&CDD RDA Set-Aside, Continue to work with local CHDOs by Not accomplished during this timeframe due Continue program. Housing Trust Funds providing assistance for the to staffing limitations. development of affordable housing. 16. Density Bonus CDD Department Budget Encourage housing development The City revised its density bonus Continue to encourage use of through State density bonus law and provisions to be consistent with State Law density bonus provisions for incentives. and to provide a 100%bonus for projects affordable housing that are 100%affordable. One such opportunities. project,the Area Housing Authority Apartments on Charles Street has already taken advantage of the update to the City's density bonus provision. 17. R-P-D Zone Designation CDD Department Budget Provide flexibility in meeting local All large subdivisions and multi-family Continue to use RPD zoning to housing needs by continuing to use the projects used RPD zoning's flexibility to provide flexibility in allowing a R-P-D Zone designation. achieve development objectives to increase range of densities,provide densities and for provisions of affordable inclusionary affordable housing housing. and affordable housing units. A-5 May 2012 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A- Evaluation 18. Design Review CDD Department Budget Streamline RPD and design review Title 17 Zoning,Chapter 17.24 Continue to seek opportunities process in areas not covered by Development Requirements of the to streamline permitting Specific Plans by developing citywide Municipal Code was updated in 2006 and processes. design standards and guidelines. Chapter 17.44 Application Review Procedures was updated in 2003 and the Design Guidelines for the Downtown Specific Plan were updated in 2006. Housing Fair and Equal Opportunity 19. Fair Housing Services CDD Department Budget, Continue to provide fair housing In collaboration with Ventura County, Fair Continue program. CDBG funds service and implement the City's Fair Housing services are provided for Moorpark Housing Choice program(AI), residents,funded by the City's CDBG allocations. A-6 May 2012 N O City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A— Evaluation Table A-2 Appropriateness of Housing Element Goals and Policies City of Moorpark Housing and Neighborhood 1 Assure the quality,safety,and habitability of existing housing and the continued high quality Appropriate-retain of residential neighborhoods. Policy 1.1 Continue to monitor and enforce building and property maintenance code Appropriate-retain standards in residential neighborhoods. Policy 1.2 Continue to provide City public safety services,infrastructure maintenance, Appropriate-retain graffiti 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 Retain as revised. 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 Retain as revised for the appropriate densities,to facilitate goals set forth in the 1998 2006 2006-2014 new planning period. RHNA. Policy 2.2 Ensure residential sites have appropriate public services,facilities,circulation, Appropriate-retain and 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 Appropriate-retain 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 Appropriate-retain homeownership assistance to expand housing opportunities. Policy 3.3 Support the conservation of Mobile Home parks,historic neighborhoods, Appropriate-retain 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 Appropriate-retain households.Establish priority for usage of in-lieu fee as follows:1 sc priority— production of affordable housing;2nd subsidy of affordable housing;3rd housing rehabilitation;and 4'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,feeslexactions to ensure they Appropriate-retain do not unduly constrain the production,maintenance,and improvement of housing. Policy 4.2 Offer regulatory incentives and concessions for affordable housing,such as Appropriate-retain relief from development standards,density bonuses,or fee waivers where deemed to be appropriate. A-7 May 2012 121 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A- Evaluation Goat g Appropriateness Policy 4.3 Provide for streamlined,timely,and coordinated processing of residential Appropriate-retain projects to minimize holding costs and encourage housing production. Policy 4.4 Support infill development at suitable locations and provide,where appropriate, Appropriate—retain as incentives to facilitate their such development. revised Housing Fair and Equal Opportunity 5 Ensure fair and equal housing opportunity for all persons regardless of race,religion,sex, Appropriate—retain as marital status,family type,ancestry,national origin,color,disabili or other protected status. revised Policy 5.1 Provide fair housing services to residents and assure that residents are aware Appropriate-retain 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 Appropriate-retain state 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. t A-8 May 2012 122 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A— Evaluation Table A-3 Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives City of Moorpark 2001-2009 New Construction2 Very Low 269 83 Low 155 205 Moderate 383 160 Above Moderate 448 1,434 Total 1,255 1,882 Rehabilitation Very Low 5 Low 70 29 Moderate 0 Above Moderate 0 Total 75 29 Preservation Very Low 104 Low 0 Moderate 0 Above Moderate 0 Total 104 Notes: *Quantified objective and progress for new construction reflect units built 1998-2005,per the previous RHNA See Table B-1 in Appendix B for a detailed summary of these new units A-9 -May 2012 123 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix A- Evaluation This page intentionally left blank. A-10 May 2012 124 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B - Residential Land Inventory Appendix B Residential Land Inventory The detailed assumptions and methodology for the residential land inventory are provided below and summarized in Tables B-1 through B-3. The affordability assumptions for units without covenants are based on the following guidelines, derived from the 2008 income limits for Ventura County'' and monthly payments no greater than 30% of gross income. to m Category ' Annual Income Af o _fie" Extremely Low $25,700 or less $643 or less Very Low $25,701 -42,850 $644-1,071 Low $42,851 -68,550 $1,072-1,714 Moderate $68,551 -100,700 $1,715-2,518 Figures are based on a family of four. 1. Units Built 2006-2009 Table B-1 summarizes projects built during 2006 - 2009. All units allocated to the very-low- and low-income categories have long-term affordability covenants, as well as the moderate-income units at Waterstone. Other projects listed in the table are assumed to be Above-Moderate income. Second Residential Units. The Zoning Code was amended to allow second units by-right in single-family residential districts, pursuant to state law. Nine new second units were built during 2006-09. Based on Ventura County affordability categories shown above, these rented units fall within the Very-Low- (maximum $1,071/month) and Low-income (maximum $1,714/month) ranges. All told, these completed projects include 27 low-income units, 96 moderate-income units, and 416 above-moderate units. 2. Units Approved or Pending Approved Projects Projects that are approved but not yet completed, are shown in Table B-2. 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. >> http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/inc2k8.pdf B-1 May 2012 125 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B - Residential Land Inventory 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 2012, 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 225 lower-income units for this project is based on the proposed site plan that includes a 12.42-acre planning area designated for multi-family development at 20 units/acre (see Figure B-1). No specific development project has been submitted to the City for this high-density planning area, and the anticipated entitlement would be conceptual in nature. The developer has indicated that the entire 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 planning area. • 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 2012, 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 B-2 May 2012 126 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B - Residential Land Inventory 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 110 single-family houses. 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 2012, 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 this project will be required to comply with the City's inclusionary policy, no affordable units have been assumed with respect to the RHNA. • 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 has available utility connections and services. Final entitlement review is expected to occur in 2012, 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. B-3 May 2012 127 HITCH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN`; �r•ffinl�•_�Irc�ml�imi© FIGZU ' �fSSF'•IEF4aCL�f K�'�.-I����I ��I�I�®I I�I I�I �Irmrrar;nrrmn;snrrc•IEIit71��!IE's�101 � f °y$�<:,a —��,r'°��, ,� �1 1MEMI==© d �I I iFlrm "+�►%� r ' � Olrrn•I®Ioon=,IFI� li � +m+rc^T:-t"icrrz�l�Zfl�lil� rrnirrarrrm�K��I��[71�1�1� i a` MEMO='MYTY.T.ram IE�F]I�lil� �I �IIMDTMI�IiIF� ki �1�•I] FLI LS'_�l♦I�i.SlI�I�I� - ,. lt? �IiII7lileT7l�l�l® ,/•/,';' � � ^�Y ,r i� r( a I�I�lil� �. ..>j"� �1� �6� e•S�r�e� yl � i' �Kr s.��r•3r.��Krfrranls��rr�ira��i�rn ■ qtr F �^�f .[.►•le� ; � City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B - Residential Land Inventory Figure B-2 Conceptual Pacific Communities Plan �ru ttI it ,# i,l ',Y xal x4 1a• • ! i r e !' � S � � + ' I - I V f ,u � I24 ICI.^:-' "�•-r , � � r 31 1d. S4! 143 14f..: • 1 _ c 106 g tlli ,l¢ 104 1 r 1 lq Y #1�' a7 #71's M p 'b _ r is I ... . .. �.' '>">"::: I'I, �' •. 136 4T Est I 1iT '. ,,2, ., lid 114 no 1Lk I 1!! `.,.. • 110 °'= � �I �u '4J !W t o � •7rp �i0 i5 ,AI .+-r �,r..Gxy¢� n a mma. 4rn1� p�.� �� M1 3 il: e W W lot to Ilk 03 14 77, `- lALC iczw a ,r +'��,f'�' R r � „` • samsrl�c II,.�1 oa �� llc ruu.41 la �^-. :. /�„`// r. l�� +f Y4Y? I-��•. i/AW FL L••1• 1'. JLO 1/0 !j•�x fir' ./ !MV a ]Pt ,/ ••-� I�IfJ y�� a �• I�3. tll' I'IA d 'J 91 J L MI — I•' t i+l Tu1ai L• !1 66 p !M I MiiL TGI lif9 ,,. sm,6sms�crr,owrlrsFO CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN „ i 'P-C ll c PACIFIC ARROYO MOORPARK,CAl fF-ORNJA B-5 May 2012 N City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B- Residential Land Inventory 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-I OAcre 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 B-6 May 2012 130 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B- Residential Land Inventory the Moorpark 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 .3 acres, are owned by the City of Moorpark, and are being acquired for 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 intends to move forward with a zoning amendment in 2012. • 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 B-7 May 2012 131 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B- Residential Land Inventory unimproved with available utility connections and 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 in 2012. 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 2010, or an average of about 2 units per year. It is anticipated that second unit development will continue at a similar pace during the 2011-2014 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 2006-2014 planning period. Program 3 in the Housing Plan (Chapter V) describes the actions the City will take to ensure that adequate capacity is provided for multi-family housing commensurate with the remaining need in the lower- income categories. Sites to be rezoned will be selected from the land inventory shown in Table B-3. Units completed 2006-09(Table B-1) 27 96 416 539 Approved projects(Table B-2) 112 196 776 1,084 Pending projects(Table B-2) 537 343 502 1,382 Potential second units 2011-14 8 8 Vacant land—residential(Table B-3) 1 50 50 Subtotal 684 635 1,744 3,063 RHNA(2006-2014) 655 335 627 1,617 Adequate capacity Yes Yes Yes Yes Source:City of Moorpark Community Development Dept.,2011 B-8 May 2012 132 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B - Residential Land Inventory Table B-1 Units Completed - 1998-2009 City of Moorpark N1�I Jt l�n; �l �otgl Tr.4174(Campus Hills) Med.Res,/RPD 5U 5.0 u/ac 1 1 Tr.4081 (Orchard Downs) Rural Low Res./RE 5ac 1 ul5ac 6 6 1 1 Tr.4340(Deauville) Med.Low Res./RPD 1.84U 1.8 u/ac 15 15 Tr.4637(Mirabella) Very High Res./RPD 12.2 u/ac 23 23 12.21 U Tr.4975(Greystone/Lyon) Carlsberg SP 92-1/Specific 3.7 u/ac 127 127 Plan Tr.4976(Greystone) Carlsberg SP 92-1/Specific 5.0 u/ac 160 160 Plan Tr.4977(Richmond American) Carlsberg SP 92-1/Specific 3.0 u/ac 109 109 Plan Tr.4980(Western Pacific) Carlsberg SP 92-1/Specific 3.0 u/ac 138 138 Plan RPD 97-01 (Archstone) Very High Res./RPD 16.2U 16.2 u/ac 29 21 12 250 312 Tr.5161 (Cabrillo) Very High Res./RPD 15U 8.9 u/ac 4 11 44 59 Tr.5201 (Wilshire Builders) Med.Resd RPD 5U 5 u/ac 10 10 Tr.5307(Colmer) Very High Resd RPD 9,1U 9.1 u/ac 2 4 19 25 Vintage Crest Senior Apts. Very High Res./RPD 20U 20 u/ac 48 141 1 190 Tr.5181 (TR Partners) Med.Res./R1 4 u/ac 1 7 8 Tr.4928(Toll Bros.) Med.-Low Res./RPD 1.48U 1.5 u/ac 152 152 1 49 49 Tr.5045 Areas 1-4(Pardee) Moorpark Highlands SP- 3.9 u/ac 251 251 2/Specific Plan Tr.5045 Area 5(Pardee) Moorpark Highlands SP- 12.0 u/ac 23 70 93 2/Specific Plan Tr.5133(Shea Homes) Very High Res./RPD 12U 8.5 u/ac 4 15 37 56 Tr.5187(W. Lyon/Resmark) Med.-Low Res./RPD 1.8U 1.8 u/ac 65 65 PM 5371 (Sun State) Medium Res./RPD 4.51-1 4.5 u/ac 2 2 Miscellaneous 6*' 8 14 11 11 22 Totals 83 178 64 1,018 11---1,-3479F 0 27 96 416 539 Notes: *All VL&Low units are deed restricted **Mobile Homes and Second units B-9 May 2012 W W City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B - Residential Land Inventory Table B-2 Approved and Pending Residential Projects City of Moorpark y Approved projects r*.J Tract 4928 Toll Bros.)* Med. Low Res./RPD 1.48U 43 1 1.5 u/ac 6 6 Tract 5463 Toll Bros. Med.-Low Res./RPD 1.48U 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 Tract 5045 Planning Area 5 Pardee* Moor ark Highlands SP-2/Specific Plan 9 12.0-u/ac 0/5 4 9 Tract 5860 Planning Area 7 Pardee* Moorpark Highlands SP-2/Specific Plan 21.8 6.1 u/ac 0/7 126 133 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 013 18 21 Tract 5130 Moor ark 150,LLC Med.-Low Res./RPD 1.63U 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 7U 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 1 U 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 High Res./RPD 7-14U 0.9 22.2 u/ac 1911 20 Subtotal 511x1 196 776 1,084 Pending Specific Plan-01 Hitch Ranch Specific Plan 283 2.2 ulac*** 225 295 235 755 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 110 110 Proposed:2.3 u/ac Tract 5053 Pacific Communities Hi h Res.l RPD 7U 35 7.1 u/ac**** 300 157 457 Subtotal 537 343 502 1,382 TOTALS 649 539 1,278 2,466 Notes: Information is current as of January 1,2010 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 January 1,2010 **Off-site units to be provided under terms of Development Agreement ***1 2.4-acre portion expected at 20 du/ac ****15-acre portion expected at 20 udu/ac B-10 May 2012 W City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B- Residential Land Inventory Table B-3 Vacant Land Inventory City of Moorpark r 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 Rasmussen APN 511-0-190-205&305 Rural Low/AE-1 d.u./40 acres 67.96 acres 1 1 AB Pro erties-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 s .ft. 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 Hi h Res./RPD 7-14 d.u./acre 7,750 s .ft. 1-2 1-2 460 Charles Street High Res./RPD 7-14 d.u./acre 7,750 s .ft. 1-2 1-2 484 Charles Street High Res./RPD 7-14 d.u./acre 7,750 s .ft. 1-2 1-2 TOTALS +/-52 +/-52 'Based on current zoning designations Note: Since the city does not currently have adequate capacity to accommodate the lower-income RHNA,sites totaling a minimum of 12 acres will be rezoned to allow multi-family development by-right at a density of 20 units/acre.Sites to be rezoned will be selected from this inventory(see Chapter V, Program 3). N B-1 1 May 2012 W U1 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix B - Residential Land Inventory Figure B-3 'Residential Land Inventory" it i i AY. z .. 1q 15. ........._ t• 10„� 2, Legend 1. Waste Management 2. Rasmussen I - r 3. AS Properties-north Village i _ 4. l a Patch 5, old Fire 8 ttla r'62 tatoorparh A",vnu� i 8. Old Fine ration a n 798 tdoorpurk A""or u� bid Fro Station 1765 Walnut Shoot 8. Old Fire Station 181 Charles Strout i • t a 9_ 1053 Walnut Canyon Road 9 - r 10.1073 Walnut Canyon Road { 1 1 , r...1'r� � ' - y �•`ti 11.1083 Walnut Canyon Road I 12.1085 Walnut Canyon Road 13.1113 Walnut Canyon Road 14.1123 Walnut Canyon Road 15.1293 Walnut Canyon J_ 4_✓ / 4rl f f t r / - .y - 16.1331 Walnut Carryon Road x s Y i 17.450 Charles Street '•.. �!`; F s f, ..J . I 1 S.460 Charles Street ! . J I [•'' �` � I "'�� >W--.-,- - 19.484 Charles Street i glir i City of 4 MOORPARK omP+-d be cony .,. te.nl o W B-12 May 2012 a) City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix C - Public Participation Summary 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 - . 1. Tanya McMahan Constructing Con nections/WorkLife Child Development Resources 2. Sonja Flores House Farm Workers 3. Bernardo Perez Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation 4. Milton E. Radant Habitat for Humanity Simi Valley, CA 5. Debra Vernon Communications and Corporate Responsibility American Water, Western Region 6. Cathy Brudnicki VC Homeless & Housing Coalition 7. Eileen McCarthy California Rural Legal Assistance 8. Environmental Services City of Simi Valley 9. Community Development Dpt. City of Thousand Oaks 10. Resource Management Agency County of Ventura 11. 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 2008-2014 Housing Element: City Council Study Session October 6, 2010 Planning Commission hearing March 27, 2012 City Council hearing May 16, 2012 C-1, May 2012 137 City of Moorpark Housing Element Appendix C - Public Participation Summary 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 ii W-M A There is a need for more child care facilities Program#21 has been included in the draft Housing Element to address child care facilities More affordable housing is needed for farmworkers Farmworker housing needs are discussed in Chapter II of the Housing Element. Program#5 is specifically directed to farmworker housing, while a variety of other programs support affordable housing for all lower-income persons,including farmworkers. Cities can help to produce more affordable housing The Housing Element identifies sites where affordable housing can be built,as well as programs to encourage and facilitate housing production. Budget limitations will strain the City's ability to support Limited financial resources for infrastructure do pose a constraint that infrastructure serving new residential neighborhoods cities are faced with in these difficult economic times. How are we addressing the changes in data and While many changes have occurred and new data has become circumstances that have occurred since the Housing available since the City began the Housing Element update in 2008, Element update process began? the element covers the 2008-2014 planning period and it is not feasible to continually update all aspects of the element up to the time of final adoption.The next update will commence in 2012 for the 2013-2021 planning period. What are SROs? SRO means"single room occupancy",which is a type of housing similar to hotel rooms but is intended for long-term occupancy. How will the dissolution of redevelopment agencies affect Many housing activities were implemented for funded by the the Housing Element and its programs? Redevelopment Agency,and it is uncertain whether many of those programs will continue or how they will be funded.This issue will be addressed in the 2013 Housing Element update. C-2 May 2012 138 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR Debbie Traffenstedt ITEM 8.A. From: David Bobardt Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:17 PM To: City Council & City Manager; jparvin @networkomni.com; kmiIIhouse @mlglaw.net; rmikos @bigplanet.com; vandamage @roadrunner.com; dbpollock @aol.com Cc: Maureen Benson; Joe Vacca Subject: Staff-Recommended Changes and Corrections to Housing Element Attachments: Recommended Changes to HE Update Final doc 120515.doc Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, Attached is a list of corrections and minor, non-substantial changes staff will be recommending to the Housing Element for consideration under Item 8A at the 5/16/2012 Council meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Dave Bobardt 1 Staff-Recommended Corrections and Changes to the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update dated May 2012 • Stamped Page 64 (Page II-18) — Table II-21 will be corrected to state, "Go- outside the #rote home disability." • Stamped Page 66 (Page II-20) — Section 5. Farmworkers will be corrected to state, "SOAR (Save Ow Open-Space and Agricultural Resources)." • Stamped Page 67 (Page II-21) — The middle paragraph will be amended in the final document to state, "The city has one development that was built in 19891 known as Villa Campesina, to assist permanent farm worker housing..." • Stamped Page 75 (Page III-3) —Section 8 Rental Assistance last sentence will be updated to state, "The Housing Authority also operates Tafoya Terrace, a 30_ unit affordable senior apartment project in Moorpark and will be b •ildi^^Charles Street Terrace, a 20-unit affordable large family apartment project adjacent to Tafoya Terrace. While these two apartment developments are available to tenants who receive Section 8 vouchers, they are not restricted to only Section 8 tenants." • Stamped Page 78 (Page III-6) — The title will be amended to read, "First 5 Moorpark / Simi Valley Neighborhood For Learning (Moorpark Family Resource Center)." • Stamped Page 84 (Page IV-4) — Downtown Specific Plan, end of the first paragraph will be updated to state, "The senior project, known as Tafoya Terrace, is a Public Housing Project run 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 of the County of Ventura also has ronoi.,od eRtitl8MGRts and IS PFOGeediRg with built Charles Street Terrace, a development project consisting of 20 apartment units restricted to Low- and Very-Low-income residents." • Stamped Page 89 (Page IV-9) — Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing, second paragraph from the top will be corrected to state, "The C-2 zone comprises approximately 1.05 acres and includes six vacant or underutilized seites that could accommodate at least one year-round shelter." • Stamped Page 119 (Page A-5) — Top of the page, center column, will be corrected to state, "Use inclusionary funds to assist in the development of up to 20 very low-income units by the end of 20042014."