Simi Valley City Council
February 27, 2023

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance
as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your inf
ormation, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf
and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.

HCD appreci
ates the cooperation and diligent efforts the housing element update team provided during the review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Shawn Danino, of our staff, at [email protected]
.

Sincerely,
Paul McDougal
l
Enclosure
Senior Program Manager
233

Simi Valley’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 1
January 25, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml .

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)

Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element was revised to describe the sites inventory with regards to different concentrations of socio-economic characteristics. However, the element should also evaluate the impacts of identified sites by income group and location, including any isolation of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) by income group and address whether identified sites improve or exacerbate segregation and inclusion. This analysis should be complimented by local data and knowledge and other relevant factors as described below.

Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors: As noted in the prior HCD review, the element must include local data and knowledge and other relevant factors to complete an assessment of fair housing. This information and factors should complement the data reported for the various components of the assessment (e.g., segregation and integration, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement) to formulate appropriate policies and programs. A complete assessment of fair housing should evaluate coincidence across the components of the assessment. For example, the element should address similarities between patterns related to poverty, overpayment and displacement risk.

Local data and knowledge should address local data not captured in regional, state, or federal data such as information from City’s records, information from planning documents and expertise and comments from community and stakeholder meetings.

Other relevant factors should discuss factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element should analyze historical land use, zoning, governmental and nongovernmental spending including transportation investments, effectiveness of past strategies, demographic trends, historical patterns of 234

Simi Valley’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 2
January 25, 2022
segregation, or other information that may have impeded housing choices and mobility.

Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: While the element now lists various contributing factors to fair housing issues, it should re-assess and particularly prioritize these factors based on a complete analysis.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element was revised to include discussions of priorities, goals, and actions in Table H4-20. However, these programs do not make sufficiently specific, quantifiable commitments to promote and AFFH opportunities. the element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have metrics and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. For further guidance, please visit HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in California webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml.

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

Realistic Capacity: While the element was revised with a few examples of recent development, it must still include additional and clear supporting information on typical densities as describe in the prior review. For example, the element could clearly list other recent projects, the zone, acreage, built density, allowable density, level of affordability and presence of exceptions such as a density bonus. This is particularly important since the element (p. 4-42) notes that projects do not always develop to the maximum available density due to developer decisions and market preference.

In addition, the element explains some built densities in the mixed-use overlay but must still account for the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential development, specifically if underlying zoning continues to allow 100 percent nonresidential uses despite the mixed- use overlay. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in zones allowing 100 percent non-residential uses, how often residential development occurs, and the potential impacts on likelihood of the mixed-use overlay zone. Depending on the results of a complete analysis, the element may need to adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly.

Nonvacant Sites: The element now includes underutilized floor area ratio as an additional factor to demonstrate the potential for additional development and describes some recycling trends. However, the element should still expand the discussion of recycling trends to support the various factors utilized. For example, the element should indicate the values of the factors from recent development and evaluate how that 235

Simi Valley’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 3
January 25, 2022
relates to identified sites. In addition, the element should include discussion on whether existing uses impede additional development, particularly for sites identified to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households based on existing zoning. In some cases, the element indicates property owner interest in housing development.

But, in the other cases, the element should include information that indicates the potential for redevelopment or turnover in uses, such as expiring leases, vacancies, past change in uses or ownership, lack of improvements, sites for sale or other factors.

In addition, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate that the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation. HCD is not aware that the City has made the appropriate finding. If applicable, any future re-adoption of the housing element must include the appropriate finding as part of the adoption resolution.

Large Sites: The element now notes two parcels over ten acres have been identified to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households. The element states lower- income residential capacities were assumed to account for commercial development, but it must still provide analysis to demonstrate the suitability of these sites to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households as described in the prior review. For example, the element could describe past projects on similarly sized sites and assumed affordability, any interest in developing these sites for housing affordable to lower-income households, input from affordable developers, plans to split or subdivide the sites at appropriate sizes (e.g., one-ten acres) or policies and programs to work with property owners and provide incentives to subdivide the sites at appropriate sizes.

Infrastructure: The element now includes a program and some discussion related to coordinating with water and sewer providers, including the availability of procedures to grant priority service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households.

The element also mentions the City will continue to ensure priority service. However, since the City is the sewer provider, the element should clarify whether the City has a written procedure to grant priority or modify Program 17 (Consult with Water and Sewer Providers) as appropriate.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element was revised to describe ADU trends from 2018, 2019 and 2020 and clarified that 48, 48, and 45 ADUs, respectively, received Certificates of Occupancy. However, the Annual Progress Reports (APRs) submitted by the City still show building permit figures of 27, 0, and 53 for 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. The City should reconcile these figures either through a correction to APRs or revise assumptions as appropriate.

Electronic Site Inventory: As noted in the prior review, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions 236

Simi Valley’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 4
January 25, 2022
adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory and submit an electronic version of the sites inventory. While the City has submitted an electronic version of the sites inventory, if changes occur, any future re-adopted versions of the element must also submit the electronic version of the sites inventory.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)

Land Use Controls: The element was revised to describe additional development standards for the mixed-use overlay zone (p. 4-95) and describe future strategies to review parking requirements as a possible constraint (p. 4-47). However, the element must still evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities. For example, the element should evaluate the cumulative impacts of setbacks, heights and height stepbacks on the ability to achieve maximum densities. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should revise programs as appropriate.

Streamlining Provisions: The element should clarify whether the City has procedures consistent with streamlining requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 and include programs as appropriate.

B. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)

As noted in the prior review, program must still be revised as follows:

Program 10 (Accessory Dwelling Units): Program 10 was revised to monitoring ADU’s affordability and providing some technical assistance by the end of 2023 (p. 4-114).

However, the Program should still commit to when additional actions will be established if ADUs are not permitted consistent with assumptions. For your information, if ADU results are significantly less than assumed, additional actions may warrant rezones or other efforts to identify additional sites.

Program 12 (Development Standards and Review Process): Program 12 was revised with various commitment, including marketing incentives; however, marketing incentives does not appear to streamline review. Further, the Program should make specific 237

Simi Valley’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 5
January 25, 2022
commitments to address parking and height requirements, beyond reviewing requirements based on a complete analysis as noted in Finding A3 and should commit to go beyond “evaluate” compliance with new transparency requirements (AB 1483) and make appropriate changes for compliance.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)

As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition:

Program 7 (Adequate Sites): The Program still must be revised to include discrete timing for completing rezoning, generally within three years of the beginning of the planning period or by October 15, 2022, depending on the circumstances.

City-Owned Sites: The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review.

Missing Middle: As noted in the prior review, given public comments, the element could include additional actions to encourage housing to accommodate this housing need such as expanding permitted uses in some zones, establishing incentives or other efforts.

3. Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)

The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)

238

Simi Valley’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 6
January 25, 2022
As noted in Findings A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

In addition, Program 13 (Zoning Ordinance Amendments) should revised to clarify commitments related to parking for emergency shelters and group homes for seven or more persons. For emergency shelters, the Program should clearly commit to parking requirements that do not exceed parking to accommodate all staff parking, provided those requirements do not exceed parking for the zone. The Program currently appears intended to allow parking requirements above staff parking. For group homes for seven or more persons, while the Program addresses conditional use procedures, it should also address excluding these housing types from several residential zones.

5. Promote AFFH opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)

As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs as appropriate.

C. Public Participation

Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9).)

The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review. 239
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
October 25, 2021
TO: City Council
FROM: Department o
f Environmental Services
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HE

ARING ON THE UPDATE OF THE SIMI VALLEY GENERAL
PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2021 -2029 PLANNING PERIOD (GPA-2021-0001) AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY UPDATES TO THE

GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP
AMENDMENTS (Z -S-2021-0005) AT SELECTED SITES, COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT AND SAFETY & NOISE CHAPTER UPDATES, AND A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT REQUESTS; INTRODUCTION
OF AN ORDINANCE; ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommende
d that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2021-42 approving GPA- 2021-0001 and introduce Ordinance No. 1329 approving Z-S-2021-0005 to: update the General Plan Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 planning period; make internal consistency updates to the General Plan Elements (including Community Development and Safety & Noise Chapters), Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for selected sites; adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for t he project, and submit the 2021-2029 Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of
Simi Valley is mandated by California Government Code Section 65580, et seq., to update its General Plan Housing Element (GPA-2021-0001) for State certification within a specified timeframe. State Housing Element law requires that the City identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within City limits, and prepare goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing. To comply with State law, the City’s Housing Element must be updated to ensure that the City’s policies and programs can accommodate the estimated housing growth allocation identified by the State’s determined Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) .

While the City is not responsible for constructing housing units, it must adopt land use policies that allow feasible opportunities to build housing units to meet the identified needs . By law, the Housing Element and associated environmental document(s) must be updated, certified by HCD, and adopted by the City Council within 120 days from the due date of October 15, 2021. All outstanding Land Use and Zo ning Map changes and subsequent zoning text changes required by the Housing Element must be completed within one year. The Land Use Map and Zoning Map changes AGENDA ITEM NO.

4B
EXHIBIT 2
240
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
required for
RHNA are included with this report, but subsequent zoning text changes will be brought back the City Council at a later date.

The City
has contracted with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and Veronica Tam & Associates (the Housing Team) to prepare the 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element (Exhibit 1). It has been prepared in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65350- 65362 and 65580-65589.8, provides an analysis of the existing and projected housing needs of the City, and incorporates goals and policies designed to preserve, improve, and develop housing to meet the needs of its residents.

The Housing
Element Update process included a robust community participation plan to encourage community input throughout the duration of the project as follows:

February 3,
2021 Planning Commission Public Workshop
March 17, 2021 Planning Commission Public Workshop
April 19, 2021 City Council Informational Presentation
April 21, 2021 Planning Commission Public Workshop and RHNA site presentation June 1, 2021 Draft Housing Element released for public review June 9, 2021 Planning Commission Public Workshop on Draft Housing Element June 15, 2021 City submitted draft Housing Element to HCD for a 60- day preliminary review for compliance with the State housing law June 21, 2021 City submitted to HCD newly mandated Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis
August 13, 2021 City received HCD’s Written Findings letter (Exhibit 2). The findings letter indicates that the draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements. However, revisions were necessary to comply with all aspects of the State housing law. The HCD’s Written Findings letter and the Housing Team revisions to the final draft Housing Element are incorporated herein.

Sept. 29, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing on Housing Element Update and related updates
Related General Plan Updates and Zoning Map Updates
The Housing
Team concurrently initiated updates to applicable General Plan Elements (including Community Development (Exhibit 3), and Safety & Noise chapters (Exhibit 4), the General Plan Land Use Map (Exhibit A of the attached Resolution), and the Zoning Map (Exhibit A to the attached Ordinance). These updates are to ensure that the General Plan, applicable elements and parts thereof , are integrated and internally consistent as required by State law. Additionally, the updates ensure that the Land Use and Zoning Map (Z -S-2021-0005) are revised to reflect the increased residential densities of the proposed opportunity sites needed to accommodate RHNA. These documents were made available to the public and reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 29, 2021.

On Septembe
r 29, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approval of GPA-2021-0001 and Z -S-2021-0005 by a 4:0 vote. Refer to Exhibit 5 for the Planning Commission Resolution, Draft Minutes, Staff Reports, and Supplemental Correspondence.
2 241
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
Most of
the information provided in the current Housing Element, which was adopted on February 3, 2013 , is still relevant. Updates, including responses to HCD’s Written Findings and utilization of the most recent data available, have been incorporated in the revised Housing Element to meet changes in State law. The Housing Element Update maintains the same format and organization as the current Housing Element and it addresses the need to identify undeveloped and underdeveloped sites that could be amended to accommodate higher densities in order to assist in meeting the City’s housing needs allocation. The following summary highlights some of the proposed changes included in the 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element Update:

1. The Regional
Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) analysis (Exhibit 1, p. 4-74) was updated with the latest housing needs allocations developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). For the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Cycle, the City of Simi Valley has been assigned a RHNA of 2,793 units, divided into the following income categories [based on Area Median Income (AMI)]:
• Extremely
Low (up to 30 percent AMI) ........................................... 374 units • Very Low-income (up to 50 percent AMI) ....................................... 375 units • Low-income (51–80 percent AMI) .................................................. 493 units • Moderate Income (81–120 percent AMI) ....................................... 518 units • Above Moderate Income (>120 percent AMI) ............................. 1,033 units In meeting R
HNA, the Availability of Land Suitable for Residential Development section (Exhibit 1, page 4- 79) has identified selected areas/sites that the City proposes to rezone (and amend the General Plan Land Use Map where required).

Generally, the proposed amendments for these sites will only increase to the next higher density level (or compatible zoning designation consistent with adjoining properties) as outlined in the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory (Table H3-2, page H3-17 of Appendix H3). However, under Senate Bill (SB) 375, which provides the legal framework for active transportation, Transit Oriented Development - TOD, and other infr astructure projects oriented towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, areas including the Old Town, Apricot Road, Metrolink vicinity including Leeds Street and adjacent church sites along Cochran Street, should be considered for high and very-high density residential development since they are located within ½ mile walking distance to transit, shopping, and other services.

While th
e Housing Element Update identifies the City’s RHNA obligation of 2, 793 units, there are a number of pending and approved residential projects (i.e. USA Properties on Sycamore Drive, Tapo/Alamo project), projects currently under construction, as well as projected Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development that will assist the City in meeting this goal. Subsequently, only the selection of areas/sites identified in the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory (Table H3-3 , page H3-31 of Appendix H3 ) is required to satisfy the remaining RHNA needs for the Extremely Low, Very Low, and Moderate income levels.
3 242
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
The City
has limited vacant land zoned for new development, thus creating a challenge to provide adequate housing development potential and for RHNA compliance. Therefore, staff looked for opportunities to rezone underutilized lots to provide development opportunities throughout the City and identified sites listed below and outlined in Table H3-1 of Appendix H3. These sites will require that the City concurrently amend its Land Use and Zoning Maps for many of the sites. The proposed Land Use Map changes (Exhibit A to the attached Resolution) and Zoning Map changes – (Exhibit A of the attached Ordinance), cover approximately 111 selected sites within the following opportunity areas:
• Old Town Ar
ea ................................................................. Rezone 8 Parcels • Patricia Avenue/Heywood Street ................................... Rezone 40 Parcels • Churches on Royal Avenue ............................................. Rezone 2 Parcels • Heyneman Lane .............................................................. Rezone 2 Parcels • Walnut Hills ...................................................................... Rezone 6 Parcels • Apricot Road Area ......................................................... Rezone 38 Parcels • Oak Road ......................................................................... Rezone 2 Parcels • Los Angeles Avenue TOD – Metrolink vicinity ................. Rezone 9 Parcels • Mountain Gate Plaza Area ......................................................... No Rezone • Tapo Street Corridor .................................................................. No Rezone

2. Housing Needs
Assessment : Persons with Special Housing Needs Section (Exhibit 1, page 4-14 ), subsections titled “Homeless Persons”, “Farmworkers”, “Persons with Developmental Disabilities”, and “Extremely Low Income Households” have included more details at the local level, including current data, projections and assessments, and available resources as requested by the State as well as updated policies.

3. Housing Cons
traints: Emergency Shelter Section (Exhibit 1, page 4- 50) includes more details at the local level, requiring the City to demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the identified housing need for emergency shelters. Additionally, Employee Housing Section (Exhibit 1, page 4-52) addresses accommodations and provision of agricultural worker housing through Zoning Ordinance Amendment as a response to Health and Safety Code requirements.

4. Housing Res
ources: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) Section (Exhibit 1, page 4-48) identified that the revised ADU law has improved its effectiveness at reducing barriers, improving streamline approval processes, and expanding development capacity of compact housing to accommodate independent living for small households, and deemed it an essential component in addressing California’s housing needs.

5. Housing Pl
an: (Exhibit 1, page 4- 106) Program 6 titled “Affordable Housing Development” specified that the City utilizes a variety of funding sources to assist in the development of affordable housing. Therefore, the City will explore the preparation of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to further address affordable housing needs.
4 243
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

6. The Managed G
rowth Plan : (Exhibit 1, page 4-61 ), which covers the peri od January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2022 and expires on January 1, 2023, has been updated to address new statutory mandates. Current State law SB 330 and recently adopted SB 8, the Housing Crisis Act, prohibit the adoption or implementation of growth management programs that set a cap on the number of housing units that can be permitted until January 1, 2030. It should be noted that the City has not been implementing the Managed-Growth Plan since 2019 due to the existing and pending housing laws and the large surplus of units accrued under the current system. Because the City’s Managed Growth Plan cannot be implemented, staff will return to the City Council with an agenda item recommending it be allowed to expire on January 1, 2023 and not be renewed.

7. The Affirm
atively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) : (Exhibit 1, page H4-1) is an obligation mandated by HCD to be included in the Housing Program. The State Legislature passed AB 686 in 2018 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The law requires all state and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusiv e communities. Additionally, it created new requirements that apply to all housing elements and were due for revision on or after January 1, 2021. Public agencies must now examine existing and future policies, plans, programs, rules, practices, and relat ed activities and make proactive changes to promote more inclusive communities.

SB 9 Discussion and Related Impacts to Acceptance or RHNA Sites On September 16, 2021 the Governor signed Senate Bill 9, the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, to increase statewide housing supply. The HOME Act creates opportunities for single-family residential lots to be developed with second units (or duplexes) and/or split to allow 1 or 2 units on each lot.

According to the Housing Team’s communication with HCD, many local jurisdictions have inquired about possible application of SB 9 toward accounting of the RHNA. HCD’s methodology to implement SB 9 toward RHNA accounting will be similar to quantifying ADUs. The methodology uses trends from the prior three years, taking the annual average of ADUs built from 2018 thru 2020. For Simi Valley, HCD credits 400 total potential units over the 8-year RHNA cycle since the City has demonstrated an average of 50 ADUs/JADUs built per year from 2018 thru 2020. Without the trends from prior years, and mandated analysis of eligible properties, it is too early and difficult to quantify SB 9’s built potential that may be deemed acceptable by HCD.

Since the last RHNA cycle beginning in 2013, a total of 722 housing units of 1,256 units zoned for possible development , that were qualified toward RHNA credits, have been built. The purpose of the RHNA allocations are to ensure that local jurisdictions ar e partners in housing development that meet the communities anticipated needs through their zoning authority. It is important to note that zoning compliance with RHNA allocations provides opportunities for housing development; however, that development is ultimately up to the developers and property owners to initiate. Areas that are upzoned (increased residential zoning density) in the Housing Element Update cannot later be rezoned to a lower density unless there is an offset with an equal or greater upzoning to 5 244
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
ensure there is no loss of potential housing unit development. Furthermore, once areas are designated for increased density , a number of other State laws apply to those sites (including each site identified to satisfy RHNA) including by-right approval for projects with 20 percent affordable units, with discretion limited to enforcement of objective zoning standards in place at the time of project application.

Community Development and Safety and Noise Element Updates Government
Code Section 65300.5 calls for the “General Plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency .” To comply with this policy triggered by the Housing Element Update, the General Plan Community Development Chapter (Land Use Element) and the Safety & Noise Chapter are being revised to maintain internal consistency and updated to reflect newer State legislation. Examples of some major additions and changes include Environmental Justice (the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies), and Emergency Preparedness (intergovernmental coordinated evacuation plan, fire protection, urban and wildland fire hazards, public utilities, land management, etc.) , and Climate Change and Vulnerability Assessment. Refer to Exhibits 3 and 4 for the redlined changes to the Community Development and Safety & Noise Elements.

General Plan and Zoning Amendment Findings
The required
findings for approval for the Housing Element update and related General Plan Amendments, Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendments are contained in the September 29, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5).

Environmental Review and CEQA Requirements
An Initial
Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and advertised for a 30-day public review period from August 26, 2021 through September 24, 2021. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) at their September 29, 2021 public hearing meeting.

During the
MND public review period, comment letters were received from four agencies, and these letters and City responses were included in th e Planning Commission staff report. Based on comments from the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, the City determined that minor corrections and clarifications should be made to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Sections in the Initial Study; however, no new environmental issues were raised that would have required modifying or adding mitigation measures. The Final MND incorporating these revisions could not be completed in time to include with the Planning Commission staff report. Therefore, the Final MND has been attached to the City Council staff report as Exhibit 6, with revisions presented in strike- through format.

The comment letters and City responses have been incorporated as an appendix in the Final MND document (MND Appendix A - “Response to Comments”). 6 245
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Staff has
also revised the MMRP to add clarifying language to aid staff in enforcing any mitigation measures applicable to fut ure projects. Again, no changes were made to the mitigation measures themselves. The Final MMRP is attached to the City Council staff report (Exhibit B of the attached Resolution).

Based on the
whole record, including the Initial Study prepared for GPA -2021-0001 and Z-S-2021-0005, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. In that the Final MND and the MMRP were prepared in coordination with the City, it is hereby found that the documents reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

The followi
ng alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution
No. 2021- 42 approving GPA -2021-0001 and introduce
Ordinance No. 1329 approving Z-S-2021-0005 to: update the General Plan Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 planning period; make internal consistency updates to the General Plan Elements (including Community Development and Safety & Noise Chapters), Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for selected sites; adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project, and submit the 2021-2029 Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

2. Provide furt
her direction to staff.

Staff recommen
ds Alternative No. 1.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTIONS

1. I move to adopt Resolution No. 2021-42 approving GPA-2021-0001 to: update the General Plan Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, make internal consistency
updates to the General Plan Elements (including Community Development and Safety &
Noise Chapters), Land Use Map amendments for
selected sites; adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project,
and submit the 2021-2029 Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and

2. I move to introduce Ordinance No. 1329 approving Z-S-2021-0005 to update the Zoning Map amendments for the rezone sites identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update; ad
opt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the
project.

SUMMARY
The current
Housing Element was adopted by the City Council in October 2013 and it is set to expire this year . Under State law, all jurisdictions , including Simi Valley, must prepare an update to the Housing Element for the upcoming 2021- 2029 planning period incorporating RHNA allocations as determined by HCD and SCAG . The City has contracted with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and Veronica Tam and Associates to help with 7 246
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
the implementation of the update . By law, the Housing Element and associated environmental document(s) must be certified by HCD and adopted by the City Council within 120 days from the due date of October 15, 2021. The amendments to the Housing Element necessitate several General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments to increase residential zoning density and accommodate additional housing units in the City. Concurrent with the Housing Element Update and for internal consistency, the Community Development and Safety & Noise Chapters of the General Plan are also being amended to reflect changes in State law and to provide consistency between the elements and required rezoning within one year of time. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the actions by a 4:0 vote. It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving GPA-2021-0001 and introduce an Ordinance approving Z-S-2021-0005 to update the General Plan Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period; internal consistency updates to the General Plan (Community Development and Safety & Noise Chapters, including Climate Change and Vulnerability Assessment), Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for selected sites, adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project, and submit the Draft 2021- 2029 Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
__________________
__________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
Prepared by:

Eric Chen, Associate Planner
INDEX Page
Public H
earing Procedure…................................................................................9 Resolution No. 2021-42 Approving GPA-2021-0001…………………………….11 Exhibit A
– Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Ordinance No. 1329 Approving Z-S-2021-0005 …………………………………46 Exhibit A
– Proposed Zoning Map Amendments
Exhibit 1 – Draft Housing Element ………………………………………………...60 Exhibit 2 – HCD Written Findings Letter.…………………………………………321 Exhibit 3 – Draft Community Development Chapter (Land Use Element).…..332 Exhibit 4
– Draft Safety & Noise Chapters (Safety Element) and Climate Change and Vulnerability Assessment……………………………….413
Exhibit 5 – September 29, 2021 Planning Commission Packet……………….481 Planning Co
mmission Resolution and Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Report (excluding draft Resolution and Attachments)
Supplemental Staff Reports (3)
Late Correspondence
Exhibit 6 – Updated Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration................647 8 247
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE

HEARING DATE: October 25, 2021

1. MAYOR: This is the time and place set for a public hearing to consider the Update of the Simi Valley General Plan Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 planning period (GPA -2021-0001) and internal consistency updates to the General Plan, including Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendments (Z -S-2021-
0005) at selected sites, Community Development and Safety & Noise Chapter updates, and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject requests; Introduction of an Ordinance; Adoption of a
Resolution.

2. MAYOR
: May we have an oral report on this matter by staff?

3. STAFF
: (Report)

4. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER
: (Questions of staff and staff response)

5. MAYOR: Do any members of the public wish to make a public statement on zoom for this item and if so, please use the hand raise function on your computer or *9 on your phone, staff will un-mute you when it is your turn.

6. AUDIENCE
: (Comments)

7. MAYOR
: The hearing is closed. Are there any comments or questions from members of the City Council?

8. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER: (Comments)

9. MAYOR
: The Chair will now entertain a motion.

10. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER:

City Council Actions (by motion of any Council Member):

1) Adopt, modify, or not adopt Resolution No. 2021- 42 (requires a second and a vote; requires reading of
resolution).

2) Introduce, modify, or not introduce Ordinance No. 1329 (does not require a second or a vote; requires reading of ordinance);
9 248
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

* Any action to refer the matter back to staff or to continue the matter requires a second and a vote.

11. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER: Second

12. MAYOR
: (Call for vote)

13. MAYOR
: Proceed to the next item.

10 249
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-42

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY APPROVING GPA- 2021-0001 TO UPDATE
THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2021-
2029 PLANNING PERIOD; TO UPDATE THE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT AND SAFETY & NOISE CHAPTERS OF
THE GENERAL PLAN; TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS FOR SELECTED SITES;

ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
FOR THE PROJECT; AND TO SUBMIT THE 2021 -2029

HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

WHEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has initiated an amendment to the General Plan (GPA -2021-0001) to update the Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 Planning Period, including several General Plan Land Use Map Amendments for real properties identified in Exhibit A attached hereto, and internal consistency updates to the General Plan (Community Development and Safety and Noise Chapters) and to authorize submittal of the 2021- 2029 Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and

WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and advertised for public review from August 26, 2021 through September 24, 2021; and

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of G PA-2021-0001, and the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan; and

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2021, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing and considered all evidence and testimony presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
. The findings for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, contained in the City Council Staff Report dated October 25, 2021, incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted.

SECTION 2. The project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration contained in the City Council staff report dated October 25, 2021 prepared for GPA -2021-0001, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B are hereby adopted.

SECTION 3. The findings, for approval, for GPA -2021-0001, contained in the City Council staff report dated October 25 , 2021, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby approved.
11 250
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

SECTION 4 . General Plan Amendment No. 2021- 0001, to update the General Plan Housing Chapter (Housing Element), Community Development Chapter and Safety & Noise Chapter, contained in the October 25, 2021 City Council Staff Report, incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted and authorized to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development;

SECTION 5
. General Plan Amendment No. 2021- 0001, to change the
General Plan Land Use Map to increase residential densities on properties identified in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved.

SECTION 6. The time within which judicial review must be sought for administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

SECTION 7
. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 25th day of October 2021.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, Interim City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager

Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director

12 251
RES. NO.2021-42

EXHIBIT A
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2021-0001

The Simi Valley Official General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential High Density (10.1 – 20 du/ac) to Residential Very High Density (20.1 – 35 du/ac).

B. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Very Low Density (0 – 2 du/ac) to Residential Very High Density (20.1 – 35 du/ac).

C. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Moderate Density (5.1 – 10 du/ac) to Residential High Density (10.1 – 20 du/ac).

D. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Very Low Density (0 – 2 du/ac) to Residential High Density (10.1 – 20 du/ac).

E. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Very Low Density (0 – 2 du/ac) to Residential Moderate Density (5.1 – 10 du/ac)

APN

Symbol on Map Existing Land Use New Land Use
625-0-220-24 A High Density Very High Density
625-0-081-05 A High Density Very High Density
625-0-081-06 A High Density Very High Density
625-0-081-19 A High Density Very High Density
625-0-081-18 A High Density Very High Density
625-0-081-11 B Very Low Density Very High Density
618-0-080-69 C Moderate Density High Density
618-0-080-66 C Moderate Density High Density
618-0-080-72 C Moderate Density High Density
618-0-080-73 C Moderate Density High Density
618-0-080-65 C Moderate Density High Density
618-0-070-17 C Moderate Density High Density
625-0-075-06 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-062-08 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-062-09 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-062-10 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-062-11 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-062-12 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-062-14 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-062-15 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-062-07 D Very Low Density High Density
13 252
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
625-0-075-05 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-075-03 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-075-04 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-19 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-20 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-081-12 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-081-13 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-081-14 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-01 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-05 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-11 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-16 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-17 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-14 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-06 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-07 D Very Low Density High Density
625-0-091-21 D Very Low Density High Density
644-0-080-19 E Very Low Density Moderate Density
644-0-080-17 E Very Low Density Moderate Density
644-0-080-18 E Very Low Density Moderate Density
644-0-080-16 E Very Low Density Moderate Density
644-0-080-85 D Very Low Density High Density
644-0-080-42 D Very Low Density High Density
644-0-080-84 D Very Low Density High Density
644-0-080-46 D Very Low Density High Density
644-0-080-50 D Very Low Density High Density

14 253
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

15 254
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2021-0001

The Simi Valley Official General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Low Density (2.1 – 3.5 du/ac) to Residential Medium Density (3.6 – 5 du/ac).

B. General Plan Land Use Change from Open Space (1 unit/40 ac) to Residential Medium Density (3.6 – 5 du/ac).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Land
Use
New Land Use
639-0-010-75 A Low Density Medium Density
639-0-010-76 B Open Space Medium Density

16 255
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2021-0001

The Simi Valley Official General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Medium Density (3.6 – 5 du/ac) to Residential Moderate Density (5.1 – 10 du/ac).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Land
Use
New Land Use
637-0-140-15 A Medium Density Moderate Density

17 256
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2021-0001

The Simi Valley Official General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential High Density (10.1 – 20 du/ac) to Residential Very High Density (20.1 – 35 du/ac).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Land
Use
New Land Use
631-0-140-10 A High Density Very High Density

SINALOA RD

FIRST ST
18 257
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2021-0001

The Simi Valley Official General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Medium Density (3.6 – 5.0 du/ac) to Residential Very High Density (20.1 – 35 du/ac).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Land
Use
New Land Use
631-0-114-03 A Medium Density Very High Density
631-0-114-02 A Medium Density Very High Density
631-0-114-09 A Medium Density Very High Density

19 258
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2021-0001

The Simi Valley Official General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential High Density (10.1 – 20 du/ac) to Residential Very High Density (20.1 – 35 du/ac).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Land
Use
New Land Use
632-0-351-70 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-351-71 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-351-72 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-23 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-22 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-19 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-17 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-080-14 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-13 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-12 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-21 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-20 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-080-18 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-14 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-18 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-25 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-48 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-24 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-51 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-020-11 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-67 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-66 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-47 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-28 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-27 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-030-55 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-060-01 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-060-26 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-060-25 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-060-23 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-060-29 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-060-04 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-060-05 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-050-39 A High Density Very High Density
20 259
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
632-0-060-22 A High Density Very High Density
632-0-080-01 A High Density Very High Density

21 260
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2021-0001

The Simi Valley Official General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Medium Density (3.6 – 5 du/ac) to Residential High Density (10.1 – 20 du/ac).

B. General Plan Land Use Change from Office Commercial (.5 FAR) to Mixed Use (Up to 1.5 FAR).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Land Use New Land Use
638-0-030-34 A Medium Density High Density
638-0-310-05 B Office Commercial Mixed Use

22 261
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2021-0001

The Simi Valley Official General Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. General Plan Land Use Change from Residential Low Density (2.1 – 3.5 du/ac) to Residential Medium Density (3.6 – 5 du/ac).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Land
Use New Land Use
611-0-370-07 A Low Density Medium Density
614-0-010-26 A Low Density Medium Density
614-0-010-22 A Low Density Medium Density
614-0-010-21 A Low Density Medium Density
614-0-010-24 A Low Density Medium Density
614-0-010-25 A Low Density Medium Density

23 262
RES. NO. 2021-42

EXHIBIT B

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND), specifications are made herein that identify actions required by the lead agency (the City of Simi Valley) to ensure that the mitigation measure is properly carried out, the timing of these actions, and the lead agency department responsible for these actions as well as any other responsible agencies, if applicable.

24 263
RES. NO. 2021-42
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Pre-Construction Biological Survey
Projects proposed on undeveloped lots shall be
subject to a pre-construction biological survey.

Within 48 hours of ground disturbance and
vegetation removal, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction survey for potential
rare, listed, or other special-status wildlife
species. The survey shall include all proposed
work areas, access routes, and staging areas
plus a 50-foot buffer where accessible. If
special-status species are observed during the
survey, they shall be relocated by the qualified
biologist to nearby suitable habitat, but far
enough where they will not re-enter the
project site. If a threatened or endangered
species is observed, consultation with the
appropriate regulatory agency shall be
conducted prior to removing the species and
work will not commence until approved by the
regulatory agency.

1. Review and approve contract with a
qualified biologist for a pre-construction
biological survey

2. Review the results of the pre-
construction survey and confirm that it
complies with the requirements of this
mitigation measure

3. If special-status species are observed
during the pre-construction survey,
confirm that all applicable requirements
of this mitigation measure, and
applicable recommendations of the
qualified biologist who conducted the
survey and appropriate regulatory
agencies if applicable, are carried out

1. Once prior to issuance of a
grading permit

2. Once prior to ground
disturbance and vegetation
removal

3. Once prior to and
periodically during (as
necessary) ground
disturbance and vegetation
removal

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

3. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.,
and appropriate
regulatory
agencies if
applicable

BIO-2: Nesting Bird Protection
If construction requires any vegetation
trimming or tree removal during the nesting
bird season (February 1 to August 31), pre-
construction surveys shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist not more than one week
before construction to determine the presence
or absence of nesting birds on the project site.

The survey shall be repeated if a lapse occurs
in construction activity of two weeks or more.

If active nests are found, the qualified biologist
shall establish an appropriate buffer,
accounting for species sensitivity and the
physical location of the nest (line of sight to

1. Monitor construction schedule of
proposed projects to determine if all
construction activities, including, but not
limited to, vegetation removal, ground
disturbance, and construction and
demolition, will occur outside of the bird
breeding season (February 1 through
August 31).

1. Once prior to issuance of a
grading permit

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

25 264
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
the work area) to comply with California Fish
and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. In
no case shall the buffer be smaller than 50 feet
for passerine species and 200 feet for raptor
species. To prevent encroachment, the
established buffer(s) shall be clearly marked
using high-visibility material. Encroachment
into the buffer shall be prohibited unless
approved by the qualified biologist with
adequate restrictions, protections, and/or
monitoring to ensure that impacts to the nest
are avoided. The established buffer(s) shall
remain in effect until the young have fledged
or the nest is abandoned.

2. If construction of a proposed project
will not be conducted outside the bird
breeding season (February 1 through
August 31) review and approve a pre-
construction nesting bird survey
conducted by a qualified biologist for
the site

3. If nests are found during the pre-
construction nesting bird survey, verify
that a qualified biologist has demarcated
an avoidance buffer and notified the
City, the construction contractor, and all
construction personnel of the existence
of the buffer zone and all other
avoidance requirements of this
mitigation measure

4. If the monitoring and reporting
requirements of this mitigation measure
are triggered, verify that a survey report
by the qualified biologist documenting
and verifying compliance with this
mitigation measure and with applicable
State and federal regulations protecting
birds has been submitted to the City

2. Once prior to issuance of a
grading permit

3. At least once after a nest is
identified by the qualified
biologist but before initiation
of construction activities

4. Once before issuance of a
building permit

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

3. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

4. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.
26 265
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
BIO-3: Avoidance and Fencing in Sensitive Communities
The following best management practices
(BMP) shall be implemented to minimize
indirect impacts to special-status vegetation
communities for projects proposed in the
Walnut Hills and Heyneman Lane Opportunity
Areas.

1. Landscaping Plan. Landscape plans
shall be consistent with the City of Simi
Valley’s General Plan and Municipal
Codes, the City of Simi Valley Citywide
Design Guidelines, and the goals of the
City of Simi Valley VISION 2020 report.

Landscape plans shall be reviewed by a
qualified botanist to recommend
appropriate provisions to minimize the
spread of invasive plant species as
defined by the County of Ventura, and
listed by the California Invasive Plant
Council (www.cal-ipc.org) and California
Native Plant Society (www.cnps.org)
within the project area. Provisions may
include:
a. Installation of container plants
and/or hydro-seeding areas adjacent
to existing, undisturbed native
vegetation areas with native plant
species common within temporary
impact areas
b. Review and screening of proposed
plants to identify and avoid potential
invasive species and weed removal
during the initial planting of
landscaped areas. Recommended
perennial plants and quick
germinating erosion control plant
species native to the coastal scrub
vegetation within the project area

1. Verify that landscaping plans are
consistent with City of Simi Valley
General Plan and Municipal Codes, the
City of Simi Valley Citywide Design
Guidelines, and the goals of the City of
Simi Valley VISION 2020 report; that
these landscaping plans are reviewed by
a qualified botanist; and that the
recommendations of the qualified
botanist are carried out, consistent with
the requirements of this mitigation
measure

1. Check landscaping plans
once prior to issuance of a
grading permit; confirm
compliance with landscaping
plans once after completion
of landscaping but prior to
issuance of certificate of
occupancy for each project

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

27 266
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
include coastal sagebrush (Artemisia
californica), Eastern Mojave
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum
var. fasciculatum), golden yarrow
(Eriophyllum confertiflorum),
California poppy (Eschscholzia
californica), deerweed (Acmispon
glaber), white sage (Salvia apiana),
and black sage (Salvia mellifera).

2. Fire. Maintain a minimum of 100 feet
between built structures and coastal scrub
habitat based on Cal Fire requirements for
defensible space.

2. Verify that landscaping plans maintain
a minimum of 100 feet between built
structures and coastal scrub habitat

2. Once prior to approval of
landscaping plans

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

3. Minimize Construction Impacts: To
prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas
outside the limits of work, the
construction limits shall be clearly
demarcated (e.g., installation of flagging
or temporary high visibility construction
fence) prior to ground disturbance
activities and all construction activities,
including equipment staging and
maintenance shall be conducted within
the marked disturbance limits.

3. Verify that construction limits are
clearly demarcated, as required by this
mitigation measure

3a. Verify that all construction activities
are conducted within the demarcated
construction limits

3. Once prior to
commencement of
construction

3a. Periodically during
construction

3. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

3a. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

28 267
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
BIO-4: Direct Impacts to Special-Status Plants
For projects proposed in the Walnut Hills
and Heyneman Lane Opportunity Areas,
rare plant surveys for rare plant species
likely to occur on project sites where
there is no existing development shall be
conducted within suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal scrub and grassland habitats) for
these species no more than one year prior
to commencement of construction
activities. Surveys shall occur at the
appropriate time to capture the
characteristics necessary to identify the
taxon. Surveys shall be conducted
consistent with CNPS protocols and by a
qualified botanist knowledgeable of the
local flora. Since yearly variation in
weather may result in fewer specimens
being observed, the locations of plants
considered will be cumulative (i.e., all
known plant locations over the course of
the various surveys, will be noted). For
direct impacts to special-status plant
species, one or a combination of the
following strategies shall be implemented:

1. Review and approve contract with a
qualified botanist for a pre-construction
rare plants survey

2. Ensure that the requirements of the
rare plant survey, including any
requirements resulting from agency
consultation, are carried out

1. Once prior to issuance of
grading permits

2. Once prior to, at least
once during, and once at the
completion of, construction,
as necessary

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept. and
appropriate
regulatory
agencies if
applicable

a. Agency Consultation. If special-
status plant species are present and
would directly or indirectly be
impacted by the proposed project
activities, the applicant shall consult
with the CDFW to determine the
recommended course of action.

b. Avoidance and Minimization.

Impacts to special-status plant
populations should be avoided to the
greatest extent possible and
minimized where avoidance is not

29 268
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
feasible. Where project impacts
cannot be avoided, mitigation is
required and is discussed further
below.
c. Salvage. If impacts to special-status
plants cannot be avoided, and it is
feasible to effectively salvage, a
qualified ecologist shall develop a
restoration and mitigation plan
based on the life history of the
species impacted, and in
coordination with CDFW to mitigate
project impacts. The plan shall
include at minimum: (a)
collection/salvage measures for
plants or seed banks, to retain intact
soil conditions and maximize success
likelihood; (b) details regarding
storage of plants or seed banks; (c)
location of the proposed recipient
site, and detailed site preparation
and plant introduction techniques
details for top soil storage, as
applicable; (d) time of year that the
salvage and replanting or seeding
will occur and the methodology of
the replanting; (e) a description of
the irrigation, if used; (f) success
criteria; and (g) a detailed monitoring
program, commensurate with the
plan’s goals.

30 269
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
BIO-5: Direct Impacts to Special-Status Plants
In addition to Mitigation Measure BIO-3,
the following BMPs shall be implemented
for projects proposed in the Walnut Hills
and Heyneman Lane Opportunity Areas to
minimize indirect impacts to special-status
plant species:
a. Minimize Impacts. To the extent
feasible, impacts to known special-
status plant populations identified in
the project area (e.g., two slender
mariposa lily individuals and one
Catalina mariposa lily individual;)
should be minimized. The full extent
of the occurrence of a special status
plant species within the survey area
shall be recorded and mapped with
the number of individuals for each
occurrence documented. The outer
extent of each occurrence of special-
status plants, including a 50-foot
buffer (to minimize potential indirect
effects due to fugitive dust and
accidental intrusion into the area)
should be flagged and avoided
during project-related activities.
b. Standard Dust Control Measures.

Standard dust control measures as
per the Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District shall be implemented
to reduce impacts on nearby plants
and wildlife. Measures include
controlling speed to 15 mph or less
on unpaved roads, replacing ground
cover in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible, frequently watering active
work sites, installation of shaker
plates, and suspending excavation
Ensure that the BMPs listed in this
mitigation measure are carried out as
described in this mitigation measure

Once prior to, at least once
during, and once at the
completion of, construction,
as necessary
City of Simi Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

31 270
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
and grading operations during
periods of high winds.
b. Minimize Spills of Hazardous
Materials. All vehicles and
equipment shall be maintained in
proper condition to minimize the
potential for fugitive emissions of
motor oil, antifreeze, hydraulic fluid,
grease, or other hazardous materials.

Hazardous spills shall be immediately
cleaned up and the contaminated
soil shall be immediately cleaned up
and the contaminated soil shall be
properly handled or disposed of at a
licensed facility. Servicing of
construction equipment shall take
place only at a designated staging
area.

BIO-6: Direct Impacts to Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Species For projects proposed in the Walnut Hills
and Heyneman Lane Opportunity Areas, a
qualified biologist shall be present during
ground-disturbing activities immediately
adjacent to or within any grassland and
coastal scrub habitat that could support
populations of special-status amphibian
and reptile species to monitor vegetation
removal and topsoil salvaging and
stockpiling. The qualified biologist shall
possess an appropriate California scientific
collecting permit to handle special-status
species likely to occur in the project area.

If special-status species (e.g., California
glossy snake, coast horned lizard, silvery
legless lizard, coastal whiptail, coast
patch-nosed snake, and western
spadefoot) are detected in the work area
during the surveys, the authorized

1. Review and approve contract with a
qualified biologist who meets the
requirements of this mitigation measure

2. Review and approve report submitted
by the qualified biologist documenting
compliance with the requirements of
this mitigation measure

1. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit

2. Prior to issuance of a
building permit

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

32 271
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
biologist shall capture and relocate
individuals to nearby undisturbed areas
with suitable habitat outside of the
construction area, but as close to their
origin as possible. All wildlife moved
during project activities shall be
documented by the biologist on site and a
report shall be provided to the City of Simi
Valley Planning Division.

BIO-7: Burrowing Owl
For projects proposed in the Walnut Hills
and Heyneman Lane Opportunity Areas,
preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl
shall be conducted in accordance with
CDFW guidelines. Preconstruction surveys
shall include the project footprint and
appropriate buffer as required in the most
recent guidelines. Focused surveys only
need to be conducted where suitable
burrow resources are present. The surveys
shall be conducted no more than 30 days
prior to initiation of ground disturbance or
site mobilization activities within 500 feet
from suitable burrowing owl habitat (e.g.,
grassland and/or disturbed land) where
legal access to conduct the surveys exists.

If burrowing owls are not detected during
the clearance survey, no additional
mitigation is required. If an active (as
determined by positive focused surveys)
burrowing owl burrow is located within
500 feet from any project work area or
disturbance area, a Burrowing Owl
Relocation and Mitigation Plan shall be
prepared and implemented following
approval from the CDFW. The plan shall
include the following:

1. Review contracts for preconstruction
burrowing owl surveys, and confirm that
they comply with the requirements of
this mitigation measure

2. Confirm that the requirements of this
mitigation measure are carried out
during construction

1. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit

2. Prior to issuance of a
building permit

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

33 272
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments

1. Avoidance and minimization measures,
including at a minimum:
a. Non-Disturbance Buffer. Fencing or
flagging shall be installed at a 250-foot
radius from the occupied burrow to create
a buffer area where no work activities
may be conducted. The non-disturbance
buffer and fence line may be reduced to
160 feet if all Project-related activities
that might disturb burrowing owls would
be conducted during the nonbreeding
season (i.e., conducted September 1
through January 31).
b. Monitoring. If construction activities
occur within 500 feet of the occupied
burrow during the nesting season
(February 1–August 31), a qualified
biologist shall monitor to determine if
these activities have potential to adversely
affect nesting efforts and shall implement
measures to minimize or avoid such
disturbance.
c. Relocation Plan. Relocation plan if
construction activities occur during the
non-breeding season (occupied burrows
may not be disturbed during the nesting
season (February 1 to August 31) to avoid
take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and California Fish and Game Code)
describing the following:

1. Detailed methods and guidance
for passive relocation of burrowing
owls.

2. Monitoring and management of
the replacement burrow site(s), and
provide a reporting plan; the
objective shall be to manage the
34 273
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
sites for the benefit of burrowing
owls, with the specific goals of
maintaining the functionality of the
burrows for a minimum of two years
and minimizing weed cover.

3. Ensure that a minimum of two
suitable, unoccupied burrows are
available off site for every burrowing
owl or pair of burrowing owls to be
passively relocated.

BIO-8: Coastal California Gnatcatcher
For projects proposed in the Walnut Hills
and Heyneman Lane Opportunity Areas,
during the year prior to initiation of
construction activities for each
construction phase, a focused coastal
California gnatcatcher survey shall be
conducted in accordance with USFWS
protocol (USFWS 1997). If focused surveys
are negative, no additional mitigation is
required. If focused surveys are positive,
consultation with USFWS shall occur
and/or an incidental take permit (ITP)
shall be obtained from the USFWS.

Occupied habitat shall be mitigated at a
minimum 1:1 ratio for temporary impacts,
2:1 ratio for permanent impacts, or as
specified by the resources agencies (e.g.,
within an ITP). Avoidance and
minimization measures shall be
implemented in accordance with
provisions of the ITP and shall include, at a
minimum:
a. Environmental awareness training
for all construction personnel to educate
personnel about coastal California
gnatcatcher, protective status avoidance

1. Confirm that a focused coastal
California gnatcatcher survey has been
conducted in accordance with USFWS
protocol

2. Review and approve results of
focused surveys

3. If focused surveys are positive,
confirm that consultation with USFWS
occurs and/or an incidental take permit
(ITP) has been obtained from the USFWS

1. Once during the year prior
to initiation of construction
activities for each
construction phase

2. Once after completion of
focused surveys, but before
issuance of a grading permit

3. Once after completion of
focused surveys, but before
issuance of a grading permit

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

3. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept. and
appropriate
regulatory
agencies if
applicable

35 274
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
measures to be implemented by all
personnel, including the avoidance of
nesting bird season to the greatest extent
feasible and minimization of vegetation
impacts within suitable coastal scrub
habitat
b. Removal of suitable coastal scrub
vegetation outside of the coastal
California gnatcatcher breeding season
(February 15 through August 31)
c. Establishment of environmentally
sensitive areas around coastal California
gnatcatcher nest locations (500-foot
avoidance buffer or as approved by
USFWS and CDFG) by a qualified biologist
prior to the start of any ground or
vegetation-disturbing activities, which
shall be maintained and avoided during
construction activities and until the nest is
determined to no longer be active by a
biologist
d. Presence of a qualified biological
monitor during initial grading activities,
adjacent to environmentally sensitive
areas, and as needed to document
compliance with the conditions of the ITP,
the biological monitor will have the
authority to stop work as needed to avoid
direct impacts to coastal California
gnatcatcher
e. Should an active gnatcatcher nest be
observed during construction activities,
activities shall cease until the nest is
determined to no longer be active.

4. If focused surveys are positive, and
once it has been confirmed that
consultation with USFWS has occurred
and/or an ITP has been obtained from
the USFWS, confirm that any required
avoidance and minimization measures,
including those listed in this mitigation
measure, are carried out

4. Once after confirmation
that consultation with
USFWS has occurred and/or
an ITP has been obtained
from the USFWS, but before
issuance of a grading permit

4. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept. and
appropriate
regulatory
agencies if
applicable
BIO-9: Indirect Impacts to Special Status Wildlife Species 36 275
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
For projects proposed in the Walnut Hills
and Heyneman Lane Opportunity Areas, in
addition to those listed above, the
following BMPs shall be implemented to
minimize indirect impacts to special-status
wildlife species. BMPs shall be
implemented to minimize indirect impacts
to special-status species.
a. Workers Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP) Training. Before
commencement of construction, a
qualified Biologist shall provide
environmental training to educate all on-
site personnel, including construction
personnel, contractors, and monitors, on
special-status biological resources that
may be encountered on the project site.

Personnel shall be reminded that
harassment, handling, or removal of
wildlife and/or other special-status
resources from the project site is
prohibited by law without appropriate
notifications and permitting. Personnel
shall be instructed on actions to take
should a special-status species be
identified within an immediate work area
(e.g., work will cease until the project
biologist is notified and provides further
instructions).
b. Mark/Flag Special-Status Biological
Resources. The qualified Biologist shall
review and/or designate the vegetation
removal area in the field with the
contractor in accordance with the final
plan. Any construction activity areas
immediately adjacent to special-status
biological resources may be flagged or
temporarily fenced by the monitor, at
their discretion.

Ensure that the BMPs listed in this
mitigation measure are carried out as
described in this mitigation measure

Once prior to, at least once
during, and once at the
completion of, construction,
as necessary
City of Simi Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

37 276
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
c. Biological Monitoring. The qualified
Biologist shall be present during
vegetation clearing, grubbing, and
grading. Biological monitors shall visit the
site periodically during construction to
ensure that biological measures are being
implemented and may also be required
when work is conducted close to an
established avoidance buffer.
d. Flush Special-Status Species. The
qualified Biologist shall flush special-status
species (i.e., non-nesting avian or other
mobile species) from occupied habitat
areas immediately prior to vegetation
removal activities.
e. Avoid Wildlife Entrapment:

1. Backfill Trenches. At the end of
each workday, check that all
potential wildlife pitfalls (trenches,
bores, and other excavations)
have been backfilled, covered, or
sloped to allow wildlife egress.

Should wildlife become trapped, a
qualified biologist shall remove
and relocate it.

2. Avoid entrapment of nesting or
migratory birds. All pipes or other
construction materials or supplies
shall be covered or capped in
storage or laydown areas at the
end of each workday. No pipes or
tubing of sizes or inside diameters
ranging from 1 to 10 inches shall
be left open either temporarily or
permanently.
f. Monitoring Reports. Biologist shall
record any inadvertent impacts to special
38 277
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
status biological resources outside the
designated construction zone in periodic
monitoring reports.
g. Trash. All food-related trash items
(such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food
scraps) shall be disposed of in closed
containers and removed daily from the
project site. Special attention should also
be given to leaving no microtrash (screws,
nuts, bolts, washers, etc.) at the job site.
h. Lighting. Lighting along the
perimeter of natural areas shall be
shielded and oriented to limit light shine
into the natural areas.
i. Pets. No pets shall be allowed within
the project site, to prevent harassment
and mortality to potential special-status
species during construction.
39 278
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Prior to the start of construction on sites
that are currently undeveloped or where
excavation would be to deeper levels than
previous excavation levels as determined
during plan review, the project
archaeologist or their designee shall
conduct training for construction
personnel regarding the appearance of
fossils and the procedures for notifying
paleontological staff should fossils be
discovered by construction staff. The
WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a
preconstruction meeting, which a
qualified archaeologist shall attend. This
training will include a printed handout
that provides examples of potential
cultural resources. The WEAP training will
be repeated when construction personnel
change and periodically renewed if the
project has a long duration (more than
three months.)
Confirm that a WEAP training is
conducted as described in this
mitigation measure
Once prior to the start of
construction on sites that are
currently undeveloped or
where excavation would be
to deeper levels than
previous excavation levels as
determined during plan
review
City of Simi Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

CUL-2: Archeological Resource Construction Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
on sites that are currently undeveloped or
where excavation would be to deeper
levels than previous excavation levels as
determined during plan review, the
property owner/developer shall retain a
qualified archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology
(National Park Service 1983) to be present
during all initial subsurface ground-
disturbing construction activities. At the
commencement of construction activities,

1. Review and approve contract with
qualified archaeologist for
archaeological monitoring during all
initial subsurface ground-disturbing
construction activities

2. Confirm that an orientation meeting

1. Prior to issuance of any
grading permit

2. Prior to commencement of

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

40 279
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
an orientation meeting shall be conducted
by the qualified archaeologist,
construction manager, general contractor,
subcontractor, and construction workers
associated with ground-disturbing
activities. The orientation meeting shall
describe the potential of exposing
archaeological resources, the types of
resources that may be encountered, and
directions on the steps that shall be taken
if such a find is encountered.
consistent with the requirements of this
mitigation measure is conducted at the
commencement of construction
activities by the qualified archaeologist,
construction manager, general
contractor, subcontractor, and
construction workers associated with
ground-disturbing activities
construction activities 2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects The term “human remains” encompasses
more than human bones. In ancient as
well as historic times, Tribal Traditions
included, but were not limited to, the
burial of associated cultural resources
(Funerary objects) with the deceased, and
the ceremonial burning of human
remains. These remains are to be treated
in the same manner as bone fragments
that remain intact. Associated funerary
objects are objects that, as part of the
death rite or ceremony of a culture, are
reasonably believed to have been placed
with individual human remains either at
the time of death or later; other items
made exclusively for burial purposes or to
contain human remains can also be
considered as associated funerary objects.

The Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act guidance specifically
states that the federal agencies will
consult with organizations on whose
aboriginal lands the remains and cultural
items might be discovered, who are
reasonably known to have a cultural
relationship to the human remains and

1. Review and approve contract with
Native American Monitor

2. Confirm that, in the event of discovery
of human remains and associated
funerary objects, the requirements of
this mitigation measure are carried out

1. Prior to commencement of
any ground-disturbing
activities

2. Once if and when human
remains and associated
funerary objects are
discovered

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

41 280
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
other cultural items. Therefore, it is
appropriate to consult with local Native
American groups as recommended by the
California Native American Heritage
Commission.

Any discoveries of human skeletal
material shall be immediately reported to
the County Coroner. The monitor shall
immediately divert work at a minimum of
50 feet and place an exclusion zone
around the burial. The monitor shall then
notify the Qualified Archaeologist and the
construction manager who shall call the
Coroner. Work shall continue to be
diverted while the Coroner determines
whether the remains are Native American.

The discovery shall be kept confidential
and secure to prevent any further
disturbance. If the remains are Native
American, the Coroner will notify the
California NAHC as mandated by state law
who will then appoint a Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall provide
recommendations as to the treatment and
disposition of the human remains within
48 hours MLD designation. In the case
where discovered human remains cannot
be fully documented and recovered on
the same day, the remains shall be
covered with a protective casing to
prevent further damage or looting.

If the Coroner determines the remains
represent a historic non-Native American
burial, the burial shall be treated in the
same manner of respect with agreement
of the Coroner. Reburial will be in an
appropriate setting. If the Coroner
determines the remains to be modern, the
Coroner will take custody of the remains.
42 281
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Each occurrence of human remains and
associated funerary objects shall be stored
in accordance with methods agreed upon
between the MLD and the landowner.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor
If tribal cultural resources are identified
during future tribal consultation efforts
for future specific development projects
or during construction of such projects,
the project applicant for that project shall
obtain the services of a qualified Native
American Monitor(s) during construction-
related ground disturbance activities.

Ground disturbance is defined as activities
that include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing or auguring,
grubbing, weed abatement, boring,
grading, excavation, drilling, and
trenching, within the project area. The
monitor(s) shall be present on-site during
the construction phases that involve any
ground disturbing activities. The Native
American Monitor(s) shall complete
monitoring logs daily to provide
descriptions of the daily activities,
including construction activities, locations,
soil, and any cultural materials identified.

The on-site monitoring shall end when the
construction-related ground disturbance
activities are completed, or when the
monitor has indicated that the site has a
low potential for archeological resources.

1. Review and approve contract with
Native American Monitor

2. If human remains and associated
funerary objects are discovered, review
results of monitoring logs and other
reporting from the Native American
Monitor to confirm that the
requirements of this mitigation measure
are carried out

1. Prior to commencement of
any ground-disturbing
activities for individual
development projects for
which tribal cultural
resources are identified
during future tribal
consultation efforts or during
construction of such projects

2. Once, if and when human
remains and associated
funerary objects are
discovered

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources 43 282
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
If tribal cultural resources are identified
during future tribal consultation efforts
for future specific development projects
or during construction of such projects, a
qualified archaeologist and Native
American Monitor shall be present during
construction-related ground disturbance
activities to identify any unanticipated
discovery of tribal cultural resources. The
qualified archaeologist and Native
American monitor may be different
individuals or the same individual if the
City determines that individual qualifies as
both a qualified archaeologist and Native
American monitor. All archaeological
resources unearthed by construction
activities shall be evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist and Native
American Monitor. If the resources are
determined to be human remains (see
also Mitigation Measure CUL-3) the
Coroner shall be notified, and if the
human remains are Native American in
origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC
as mandated by state law, who will then
appoint an MLD, who shall then
coordinate with the landowner regarding
treatment and curation of these
resources. Typically, the MLD will request
reburial or preservation for educational
purposes. If a resource is determined by
the qualified archaeologist to constitute a
“historical resource” pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a
“unique archaeological resource”
pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2(g), the
qualified archaeologist shall coordinate
with the applicant and the City to develop
a formal treatment plan that would serve
to reduce impacts to the resources. The

1. Review and approve contract with a
qualified archaeologist and Native
American Monitor for construction
monitoring

2. In the event of unanticipated
discovery of tribal cultural resources,
review treatment plan and any other
relevant and applicable materials
provided to the City by the qualified
archaeologist and Native American
Monitor to confirm that the
requirements of this mitigation measure
have been carried out

1. Prior to commencement of
any ground-disturbing
activities

2. Once if and when tribal
cultural resources are
discovered

1. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

2. City of Simi
Valley
Environmental
Services Dept.

44 283
RES. NO. 2021-42

HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required by Lead Agency
(City of Simi Valley) When Monitoring to Occur
Responsible
Parties
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
treatment plan established for the
resources shall be in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for
historical resources and PRC Sections
21083.2(b) for unique archaeological
resources. Preservation in place (i.e.,
avoidance) is the preferred manner of
treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include
implementation of archaeological data
recovery excavations to remove the
resource along with subsequent
laboratory processing and analysis. Any
historic archaeological material that is not
Native American in origin shall be curated
at a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as
the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if
such an institution agrees to accept the
material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be
donated to a local school or historical
society in the area for educational
purposes.

45 284
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
ORDINANCE NO. 1329

AN ORDINANCE O

F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY APPROVING Z-S-2021-0005 AMENDING THE

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ZONING MAP FOR SELECTED
SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE 2021 -2029 HOUSING
ELEMENT; AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING PLAN FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the
City of Simi Valley initiated Zoning Map Amendment (Z-S- 2021-0005) for selected sites to implement 2021- 2029 Housing Element requirements .

The sites are identified in the Draft Housing Element, incorporated herein by reference ; and
WHEREAS, a M
itigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and advertised for public review from August 26, 2021 through September 24, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on
September 29, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, held a public hearing and recommended approval of Z -S-2021-0005, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan; and WHEREAS, o
n October 25, 2021, the City Council considered evidence and public testimony on the project.

NOW, THERE

FORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The findings for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Z-S- 2021-0005, contained in the City Council Staff Report dated October 25, 2021, incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted.

SECTION 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration in the City Council staff report dated October 25, 2021 prepared for GPA -2021-0001 and Z -S-2021-0005, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan contained in the City Council Staff Report dated October 25, 2021, incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted.

SECTION 3. The findings for approval of the Zoning Map Amendment Z - S-2021-0005 contained in the City Council staff report dated October 25, 2021 and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted.

SECTION 4. Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005, which amends the City of Simi Valley Zoning Map referred to in Simi Valley Municipal Code Section 9-20.030, and consisting of properties cited by Assessor’s Parcel Number, existing zoning, and proposed zoning on maps contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto, is hereby approved. 46 285
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, adjudicated to a final determination, the City Council finds that said voided part is severable, that the City Council would have adopted the remainder of this Ordinance without the severed and voided part, and that the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary hereof to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, published in the County of Ventura and circulated in the City, and if applicable, to be posted, in accordance with Section 36933 of the California Government Code; shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a certified copy of this ordinance, together with proof of publication, to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of this City.

SECTION 7. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED and ADOPT
ED this 25th day of October 2021.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Approved a
s to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, Interim City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
47 ORD. NO. 1329
286

EXHIBIT A
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi V
alley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change fr
om Residential High Density in the Freeway Combining
Overlay District [RH(FC)] to Residential Very High Density in the Freeway Combining Overlay District [RVH(FC)]
B. Zone Change fr
om Residential Moderate Density in the Freeway Combining Overlay District [RMod(FC)] to Residential High Density in the Freeway Combining Overlay District [RH(FC)]
C. Zone Change fr
om Residential Medium Density in the Freeway Combining
Overlay District [RM(FC)] to Residential High Density in the Freeway Combining Overlay District [RH(FC)]
D. Zone Change fr
om Residential Very Low Density in the Freeway Combining and Animal Overlay Districts [RVL(A)(FC)] to Residential High Density in the Freeway Combining Overlay District [RH(FC)]
E. Zone Change fr
om Residential Very Low Density in the Animal Overlay
Districts [RVL(A)] to Residential Moderate Density (RMod) F. Zone Change fr
om Residential Very Low Density in the Southeast Kadota Fig Specific Plan [RVL(SP)] to Residential Moderate Density (RMod) G. Zone Change on a
split -zoned parcel from Residential High Density with
Conditional Zoning in the Southeast Kadota Fig Specific Plan [RH(CZ)(SP)] and Residential Very Low Density in the Southeast Kadota Fig Specific Plan [RVL(SP)] to Residential High Density (RH)
H. Residential
Very Low Density in the Southeast Kadota Fig Specific Plan [RVL(SP)] to Residential High Density (RH)
APN Symbol on
Map
Existing Zoning New Zoning
625-0-220-24 A RH(FC) RVH(FC)
625-0-081-05 A RH(FC) RVH(FC)
625-0-081-06 A RH(FC) RVH(FC)
625-0-081-19 A RH(FC) RVH(FC)
625-0-081-18 A RH(FC) RVH(FC)
625-0-081-17 A RH(FC) RVH(FC)
625-0-081-11 A RH(FC) RVH(FC)
618-0-080-69 B RMod(FC) RH(FC)
618-0-080-66 B RMod(FC) RH(FC)
48 ORD. NO. 1329
287
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
618-0-080-72 B RMod(FC) RH(FC)
618-0-080-73 B RMod(FC) RH(FC)
618-0-080-65 B RMod(FC) RH(FC)
618-0-070-17 C RM(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-075-06 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-062-08 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-062-09 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-062-10 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-062-11 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-062-12 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-062-14 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-062-15 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-062-07 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-075-05 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-075-03 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-075-04 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-19 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-20 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-081-12 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-081-13 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-081-14 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-01 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-05 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-11 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-16 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-17 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-14 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-06 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-07 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
625-0-091-21 D RVL(A)(FC) RH(FC)
644-0-080-19 E RVL(A) RMod
644-0-080-17 E RVL(A) RMod
644-0-080-18 E RVL(A) RMod
644-0-080-16 F RVL(SP) RMod
644-0-080-85 G RH(CZ(SP)/RVL(SP) RH
644-0-080-42 H RVL(SP) RH
644-0-080-84 H RVL(SP) RH
644-0-080-46 H RVL(SP) RH
644-0-080-50 H RVL(SP) RH
49 ORD. NO. 1329
288
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
50 ORD. NO. 1329
289
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi Va
lley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change from
Residential Low Density with Conditional Zoning [RL
(CZ)] to Residential Medium Density (RM).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Zoning New Zoning
639-0-010-75 A RL(CZ) RM
639-0-010-76 A RL(CZ) RM
51 ORD. NO. 1329
290
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi V
alley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change
from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential
Moderate Density (RMod).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Zoning New Zoning
637-0-140-15 A RM RMod
637-0-140-32 A RM RMod
52 ORD. NO. 1329
291
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi V
alley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change from
Residential High Density (RH) to Residential Very High
Density (RVH).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Zoning New Zoning
631-0-140-10 A RH RVH
53 ORD. NO. 1329
292
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi V
alley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change from
Commercial Planned Development in the Los Angeles
Avenue Planning Overlay [CPD (LAAPO)] to Commercial Planned Development in the Los Angeles Avenue Planning and Mixed Use Overlays [CPD (LAAPO) (MU)]
B. Zone Change from
Residential Medium Density (RM) to Commercial Planned
Development in the Los Angeles Avenue Planning and Mixed Use Overlays [CPD (LAAPO) (MU)]
C. Zone Change from
Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Very High Density (RVH)
APN Symbol on Map Existing Zoning New Zoning
631-0-101-08 A CPD (LAAPO) CPD (LAAPO) (MU)
631-0-101-04 A CPD (LAAPO) CPD (LAAPO) (MU)
631-0-101-12 A CPD (LAAPO) CPD (LAAPO) (MU)
631-0-101-14 B RM CPD (LAAPO) (MU)
631-0-114-03 C RM RVH
631-0-114-02 C RM RVH
631-0-114-09 C RM RVH
54 ORD. NO. 1329
293
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi Va
lley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change from
Residential High Density (RH) or with indicated parcels conditionally zoned [RH(CZ)] to Residential Very High Density (RVH) B. Zone Change from
Residential High Density conditionally zoned in the
Arroyo Simi Greenway Specific Plan [RH (CZ)(SP)] to Residential Very High Density in the Arroyo Simi Greenway Specific Plan [RVH(SP)] APN Symbol on Map Existing Zoning New Zoning
632-0-351-70 A RH RVH
632-0-351-71 A RH RVH
632-0-351-72 A RH RVH
632-0-020-23 A RH RVH
632-0-020-22 A RH RVH
632-0-020-19 A RH RVH
632-0-020-17 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-080-14 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-020-13 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-020-12 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-60 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-68 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-56 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-020-21 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-020-20 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-080-18 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-020-14 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-70 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-18 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-17 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-020-18 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-020-25 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-48 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-24 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-51 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-020-11 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-67 A RH RVH
632-0-030-66 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-030-47 A RH RVH
632-0-030-28 A RH RVH
632-0-030-27 A RH(CZ) RVH
55 ORD. NO. 1329
294
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
632-0-030-55 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-060-01 A RH RVH
632-0-060-26 A RH RVH
632-0-060-25 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-060-23 A RH RVH
632-0-060-29 A RH RVH
632-0-060-04 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-060-58 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-060-05 A RH(CZ) RVH
632-0-060-22 A RH RVH
632-0-080-01 B RH(CZ)(SP) RVH(SP)
56 ORD. NO. 1329
295
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi Val
ley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change from R
esidential High Density (RH) to Residential Very High
Density (RVH)
B. Zone Change f
rom Commercial Office (CO) to Commercial Office in t he Mixed Use Overlay [CO(MU)]
APN Symbol on Map Existing Zoning New Zoning
632-0-050-39 A RH RVH
638-0-310-05 B CO CO(MU)
57 ORD. NO. 1329
296
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi Val
ley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change from R
esidential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High
Density (RH).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Zoning New Zoning
638-0-030-34 A RM RH
58 ORD. NO. 1329
297
HousingElementccmtg10-25-21(klk)
Zone Change No. Z-S-2021-0005
The Simi V
alley Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

A. Zone Change from
Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Medium
Density (RM).

B. Zone Change from
Residential Low Density with Conditional Zoning [RL
(CZ)] to Residential Medium Density (RM).

APN Symbol on Map Existing Zoning New Zoning
611-0-370-07 A RL RM
614-0-010-26 B RL(CZ) RM
614-0-010-22 B RL(CZ) RM
614-0-010-21 B RL(CZ) RM
614-0-010-24 B RL(CZ) RM
614--0-010-25 B RL(CZ) RM
59 ORD. NO. 1329
298
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-i
CHAPTER 4 Housing
EXHIBIT 1
60 299
61 300
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-i

CONTENTS
CHAPTER 4 Housing ....................................................... ............................................................... ............... 4-i Housing (H) .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Community Context ................................................................................................................. 4-1 Authorization for the Housing Element ................................................................................... 4-1 Organization of the Housing Element ...................................................................................... 4-1 Data Sources............................................................................................................................. 4-2 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ......................................................................... 4-2 Public Participation .................................................................................................................. 4-2 Housing Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................. 4-4 Population Characteristics and Trends .................................................................................... 4-4 Employment Profile.................................................................................................................. 4-8 Household Characteristics........................................................................................................ 4-9 Persons with Special Housing Needs ..................................................................................... 4-14 Housing Stock Characteristics ................................................................................................ 4-26 Housing Costs and Affordability ............................................................................................. 4-30 Project-Based Rental Housing Assistance .............................................................................. 4-34 Estimated Housing Needs ...................................................................................................... 4-36 Housing Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 4-38 Non-Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................. 4-38 Governmental Constraints ..................................................................................................... 4-41 Infrastructure and Public Service Constraints ........................................................................ 4-70 Environmental Constraints ..................................................................................................... 4-71 Housing Resources ............................................................................................................................. 4-74 Residential Development Potential ....................................................................................... 4-74 Availability of Land Suitable for Residential Development .................................................... 4-79 Availability of Infrastructure and Services ............................................................................. 4-87 Environmental Constraints and Site Suitability ...................................................................... 4-88 Capacity for Emergency Shelters ........................................................................................... 4-89 Estimating Capacity in Opportunity Areas ............................................................................. 4-89 Financial Resources ................................................................................................................ 4-96 Administrative Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-97 Opportunities for Energy
Conservation ................................................................................. 4-99 Housing Plan .................................................................................................................................... 4-100 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................. 4-100 Housing Programs ................................................................................................................ 4-103 Summary of Objectives ........................................................................................................ 4 - 1 1 7 62 301

HOUSING (H)
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-ii
Figures
Figure H-1 Average Househ old Size Comparison ................................................................................................ 4-11 Figure H-2 Median Household Income Comparison ................. .......................................................................... 4-12 Figure H-3 Housing Unit Growth (2000–2020) .................... ................................................................................ 4-27 Figure H-4 Median Home Prices in Ventura County ............... ............................................................................ 4-31 Figure H-5 Development Review Process ......................... .................................................................................. 4-69 Figure H-6 Pending, Approved, and Under Construction Residentia l Projects ................................................... 4-77 Figure H-7 Opport unity Areas ............................................................................................................................. 4-81 Tables
Table H-1 Population Growth ................................... ........................................................................................... 4-4 Table H-2 Age Composition and Changes ......................... ................................................................................... 4-5 Table H-3 Race/Ethnicity ...................................... ................................................................................................ 4-6 Table H-4 Regional Comparison of Race and Ethnicity ........... ............................................................................. 4-7 Table H-5 Comparison of Educational Attainment ................ .............................................................................. 4-7 Table H-6 Employment Profile of Residents ..................... ................................................................................... 4-8 Table H-7 Major Employers in Simi Valley ...................... ..................................................................................... 4-9 Table H-8 Household Characteristics ........................... ...................................................................................... 4-10 Table H-9 Household Income Distribution – 2010 to 2018 ........ ....................................................................... 4-12 Table H-10 Household Income Levels – 2013-2017 ................ ............................................................................. 4-13 Table H-11 Overcrowding by Tenure, Simi Valley ................ ................................................................................ 4-14 Table H-12 Special Needs Groups in Simi Valley .................................................................................................. 4-15 Table H-13 Disability Status by Age—2018 .......................................................................................................... 4-16 Table H-14 Disabilities Tallied – 2018 ........................ .......................................................................................... 4-17 Table H-15 Services for Special Needs Populations ............. ................................................................................ 4-18 Table H-16 Single-Parent Families ............................. .......................................................................................... 4-22 Table H-17 Families Living in Poverty ......................... ......................................................................................... 4-23 Table H-18 Housing Unit Type ................................................................................................. ............................ 4-27 Table H-19 Housing Age ........................................ ............................................................................................... 4-28 Table H-20 Housing Tenure .................................................................................................... .............................. 4-29 Table H-21 Tenure by Household Size ........................... ...................................................................................... 4-29 Table H-22 Vacancy Status ..................................... .............................................................................................. 4-30 Table H-23 Average Apartment Rents—2019 ....................... ............................................................................... 4-31 Table H-24 Private Homes for Rent ............................. ........................................................................................ 4-32 Table H-25 Affordable Housing Cost ............................ ........................................................................................ 4-33 Table H-26 Rental Assistance in Simi Valley ................... ...................................................................................... 4-34 Table H-27 Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing ............... ................................................................................. 4-35 Table H-28 Estimated Housing Needs ............................ ...................................................................................... 4-37 Table H-29 Disposition of Home Purchase, Refinance, and Improve ment Loans—2019 .................................... 4-40 63 302
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-iii
Table H-30 Basic Residentia l Development Standards ........................................................................................ 4-44 Table H-31 Simi Valley Parking Requirements ................... .................................................................................. 4-46 Table H-32 Use Regulations for Residential Districts .......... ................................................................................. 4-47 Table H-33 Schedule of Typical Residential Development Processi ng Fees ........................................................ 4-56 Table H-34 Comparison of Planning Fees ....................................................................................... ..................... 4-57 Table H-35 Development Impact Fees (Typical Projects) ......... ........................................................................... 4-58 Table H-36 Actual Development Fees for Recent Projects ........ .......................................................................... 4-59 Table H-37 Approvals and Processi ng Times for Typical Developments ............................................................. 4-63 Table H-38 Slope and Density ................................................................................................. ............................. 4-72 Table H-39 Housing Needs for 2021-2029 ....................................................................................... .................... 4-74 Table H-40 Pending, Approved, and Under Construction Residential Projects ................................................... 4-75 Table H-41 RHNA Credits from Pending and Approved Units and Uni ts Under Construction and ADUs ........... 4-78 Table H-42 Development Potential – Summary of Sites That Do Not Require a Rezone .................................... 4-90 Table H-43 Development Potential – Sites That Require a Rezone to Accommodate Lower-Income Household Units ................................................................................................................................ 4-93 Table H-44 Development Potential – Sites That Require a Rezone to Accommodate Moderate- to Above Moderate-Income RHNA Needs ........................................................................................................ 4-94 Table H-45 Adequacy of Sites in Meeting RHNA .................. ................................................................................ 4-95 Table H-46 Housing Developers ................................. .......................................................................................... 4-98 Table H-47 Rezoning for RHNA .................................. ........................................................................................ 4-107 Table H-48 Quantifi ed Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 4-117 Appendices
Appendix H1 Review of Past Accomplishments
Appendix H2 Public Participation
Appendix H3 Sites Inventory
Appendix H4 Fair Housing Assessment
64 303

HOUSING (H)
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-iv

This page intentionally left blank.

65 304
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-1

HOUSING (H)
Community Context
The City of Simi Valley is located in the southeast corner of V entura County bordering the San Fernando Valley of the Greater Los Angeles Area. Simi Valley is surrounded by the Santa Susana Mountain range and the Simi Hills, west of the San Fernando Valley and northeast of the Conejo Val ley. It is characterized as a commuter bedroom community feeding the larger cities in Ventura County to the we st and the Los Angeles area and San Fer nando Valley to the east.

S i m i V a l l e y w a s o r i g i n a l l y i n h a b i t e d b y C h u m a s h I n d i a n s a n d t h en became one of the earliest Spanish colonial Ranchos in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties (Rancho Simi). Un til the late 19th century, the Rancho had a Spanish-speaking majority and was then settled by Anglo-Americans. The new settlers focused on farms, orchards a n d g r o v e s w h i c h d o m i n a t e d t h e a r e a ’ s l a n d s c a p e u n t i l t h e 1 9 7 0 s. The City was incorporated in 1969 with approximately 10,000 residents. According to the 2020 Californi a Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates, the City is home to 125,115 residents, covers 42.42 square miles, offers a wide variety of residential types and job opportunities, and is the home of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Authorization for the Housing Element
The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the state’s major housing goal. Recognizin g the important role of local planning programs in pursuit of this goal, the state law requires that all jurisdict ions periodically prepare a housing element as part of their comprehensive General Pla n. Section 65583 of the Governme nt Code sets forth the specific components to be contained in a Housing Element. This Housing Element was pre pared in compliance with state law and covers the period of October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029.

Organization of the Housing Element
The Simi Valley Housing Element is comprised of the following major components:
■ Introduction: An outline of the purpose, data sources and community participa tion undertaken to update the Housing Element.
■ Housing Needs Assessment: An analysis of the City’s population, household composition, employment base, and the characteristics to identify housing needs.
■ Housing Constraints: A review of potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs.
■ Housing Resources: An evaluation of opportunities that will further the development of new housing. ■ Housing Plan: A statement of the Housing Plan to address Simi Valley’s housin g needs identified in this document, including housing goals, policies, and programs. 66 305

HOUSING (H)
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-2
Data Sources
In preparing the Housing Element, various sources of informatio n were consulted. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) approved 2014-2018 ACS provided the basis for population characteristics. ACS data is supplemented with the following sources:
■ Housing market information, such as home sales, rents, and vaca ncies, updated by home sales data (Corelogic.com, Ventura County Apartment Market Rental Survey). ■ Local and County service agency information on special needs po pulations, the services available to them, and gaps in service.
■ Lending patterns were analyzed from financial institutions based on an analysis of the most recent available Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data for the year 2019.

Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The City of Simi Valley General Plan is comprised of the follow ing chapters, covering all of the state-mandated elements:
■ Community Development
■ Housing
■ Mobility and Infrastructure
■ Natural Resources
■ Community Services
■ Safety and Noise
According to state planning law, the Housing Element must be co nsistent with the other General Plan elements.

While each of the elements is independent, the elements are also interrelated. Certain goals and policies of each element may also address issues that are primary subjects of other elements. This integration of issues throughout the General Plan creates a strong basis for the implementation of plans and programs and achievement of community goals. The Housing Element is most closely tied to th e Land Use Element as residential development capacities established in the Land Use Element are incorporated into the Housing Element.

This Housing Element builds upon other General Plan elements and is consistent with the policies and proposals set forth by the General Plan. When an element in the General Plan is amended, the Housing Element will be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to ensure continued consistency amo ng the various elements. The Safety and Conservation Elements of the recently updated General Plan include an analysis and policies regarding flood hazard and management information. The City will be updating the Safet y Element again to comply recent requirements on high fire hazards and climate change.

Public Participation
Section 65583 (c)(7) of the Government Code states that, “The l ocal government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” The City of Simi V alley encourages and solicits the participation of its 67 306
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-3
residents and other local agencies in the process of identifyin g housing and community development needs and prioritizing expenditure of funds.

PUBLIC MEETINGS
The City conducted a series of public meetings to inform the pu blic regarding the Housing Element update and to proactively obtain input from the community and stakeholders. No requests were received for language translation services. The following meetings were conducted in English:
■ P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n ( F e b r u a r y 3 , 2 0 2 1 ) t o p r o v i d e a n o v e r v i e w of the Housing Element requirements, update process, and challenges that should be addressed ■ Homeless Task Force (February 11, 2021) to provide an overview of the Housing Element update and discuss housing needs in the community
■ City Council (April 19, 2021) to provide an overview of the Housing Element update ■ P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n ( M a r c h 1 7 a n d A p r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 1 ) t o d i s c u s s p otential strategies on how to best accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) ■ Planning Commission (June 9, 2021) to review the Draft Housing Element A summary of the City’s response to key comments received at these meetings is included in Appendix H2.

Outreach for the meetings were conducted in English via the following:
■ Social Media Posts: FaceBook, Instagram, LinkedIn
■ Local Television Stations: Simi Valley Television Channels 10 and 99, Community Bulletin Board ■ News Paper Press Releases: Ventura County Star
■ News Paper Ads: Simi Valley Acorn (with Quick Response Codes) ■ Online Video Platform: YouTube
■ City Website Posts: City Home Page – Latest News/Events, Housing Element Webpage, Community Calendar ■ Email Notifications
■ Direct Mailers: Postcards (with Quick Response Codes) ■ City Hall: Community Bulletin Boards
■ Simi Valley Public Library
Through these outreach methods, email address and Quick Respons e Codes are provided to residents seeking additional information including special accommodations. A phone number is also provided for residents who wish to speak to a staff/live voice.

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
The Draft Housing Element was available in electronic/downloada ble format and in hardcopy for public review beginning on June 1, 2021 at the following locations:
■ City Hall
■ City Website
■ Simi Valley Public Library
68 307

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-4

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Assuring the availability of adequate housing for all social and economic sectors of Simi Valley’s present and future population is an important goal of the Housing Element. To implement this goal, the City has targeted its programs toward those households with the greatest need. This section of the Housing Element discusses the characteristics and extent of Simi Valley’s unmet housing needs.

Population Characteristics and Trends
Population characteristics affect the type of housing needs in a community. Issues such as population growth, race/ethnicity, age, and employment trends are factors that combine to influence the type of housing needed and the ability to afford housing. The following section describes and analyzes the various population characteristics and trends that affect housing need.

POPULATION GROWTH
Simi Valley’s current population is 125,115 as reported by the 2020 California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates. Between 2010 and 2020, the City was one of the faster growing communities in the County.

However, according to forecasts provided by SCAG, Simi Valley is expected to grow only modestly over the next ten years. Smaller cities such as Fillmore, Moorpark, and Santa Paula are expected to grow significantly over the same period (Table H-1).

Table H-1 Population Growth
Jurisdiction
Total Population Percent Change
2000 2010 2020
2035
(Projected) 2010-2020
2020-2035
(Projected)
Camarillo 57,077 65,201 70,261 78,300 7.76% 11.44%
Fillmore 13,643 15,002 15,566 21,300 3.76% 36.84%
Moorpark 31,415 34,421 36,278 43,000 5.39% 18.53%
Santa Paula 28,598 29,321 30,389 37,100 3.64% 22.08%
Simi Valley 111,351 124,237 125,115 136,700 0.71% 9.26% Thousand Oaks 117,005 126,683 126,484 130,500 -0.16% 3.18% Ventura County 753,197 823,318 842,886 945,100 2.38% 12.13% SOURCES: 2000, and 2010 Census; Department of Finance (DOF) E-1: Population Estimates, 2020; SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) 2016-2040 Final Growth Forecast.

AGE COMPOSITION
Age is an important influence on housing demand because people of different age groups have different housing needs. It is generally assumed that younger persons will occupy apartments, low to moderate cost condominiums and smaller single-family units. Adults with higher incomes and larger household sizes provide the major market for 69 308
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-5
moderate to high-end apartments, condominiums, and single-family homes. Much of the senior population tends to occupy low to moderate cost smaller homes, apartments and condominiums, group quarters and mobile homes.

The City of Simi Valley has seen significant changes in its mix of age groups since 1990. The overall changes indicate increases in the number of young adults (ages 20-24 years) and adults 45 and over. The 2018 ACS (Table H-2) shows that there has been a decrease in the number of children and yo uth (up to age 14), and adults aged 25-44 years.

From 2000 to 2010, there was roughly an eight percent increase in Simi Valley residents ages 19 and under. From 2010 to 2020, there has been roughly a seven percent decrease in residents ages 19 and under. The population of seniors in the City more than tripled over the past 30 years.

Table H-2 Age Composition and Changes
Age Groups
2000 2010 2018 % Change
(2000-2018) Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent 0–4 years 8,163 7.30% 7,547 6.10% 6,984 5.50% -14.44%
5–14 years 18,576 16.70% 17,602 14.20% 15,358 12.10% -17.32% 15–19 years 7,747 7.00% 9,439 7.60% 8,314 6.60% 7.32%
20–24 years 5,979 5.40% 7,536 6.10% 8,181 6.50% 36.83%
25–44 years 36,627 32.90% 33,890 27.30% 32,014 25.40% -12.59% 45–64 years 25,755 23.10% 35,046 28.20% 37,132 29.50% 44.17% 65+ years 8,504 7.60% 13,177 10.60% 18,216 14.40% 114.21% Total 111,351 100.00% 124,237 100.00% 126,199 100.00% 13.33% SOURCE: 2000 and 2010 Census; 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) (5-Year Estimates).

This information indicates that, although the number of familie s with children in Simi Valley decreased between 2000 and 2020, the number of children has declined moderately a s a proportion of the City’s overall population.

This can be explained in part by the growth of the senior population, which is an indication that people are aging in place and new senior residents are moving into the community. In order to provide for the senior community, the City of Simi Valley continues to approve senior and affordable senior housing development and currently has 767 affordable senior units.

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Race/ethnicity may affect housing needs and conditions. Cultura l influences of races may reflect preference for a specific type of housing. Research has shown that some cultures (e.g., Hispanic and Asian) tend to maintain extended families within a single household. This tendency can lead to overcrowding or an increased demand for larger housing units.

The 2000 Census reported that approximately 73 percent of the population of the City of Simi Valley was Caucasian.

The second highest ethnic group at that time was Hispanic (17 p ercent) and less than 2 percent of the population was African American. Hispanic/Latino populations are considere d an ethnic group but are compared with racial groups in order to gain a more complete picture of the entire racial and ethnic composition of Simi Valley. 70 309

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-6
By 2020, the racial and ethnic makeup of the City had remained mostly the same with African Americans comprising a slightly smaller proportion of the population and Asians cons tituting a larger proportion of the population. Both the Hispanic/Latino and Asian populations in Simi Valley were the fastest growing groups in Simi Valley from 1990 to 2010 (Table H-3). The 2010 Census indicated that the Hispani c/Latino population made up 23 percent of the City’s population and less than one percent of residents were o f Asian/Pacific Islander descent. The 2018 ACS estimates indicate that the racial and ethnic makeup has genera lly continued along the same trend since 2000 – with Asian and Latino groups growing at a faster pace than Cauc asian (White), African American and Other Races.

Caucasian residents (roughly 60% of the City population) have declined in numbers by approximately seven percent since 2000.

Table H-3 Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
2000 2010 2018 % Change
(2000-2018) Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent White 80,908 72.66% 78,009 62.79% 75,488 59.80% -6.70%
Black/African American 1,348 1.21% 1,602 1.29% 1,526 1.20% 13.20% American Indian/Alaska Native 457 0.41% 356 0.29% 245 0.20% -46.39% Asian 6,932 6.23% 11,328 9.12% 12,296 9.70% 77.38%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander
143 0.13% 148 0.12% 134 0.10% -6.29%
Hispanic/Latino 18,729 16.82% 28,938 23.29% 33,136 26.30% 76.92% Other Race 191 0.17% 278 0.22% 173 0.10% -9.42%
Two or More Races 2,643 2.37% 3,578 2.88% 3,201 2.50% 21.11% Total 111,351 100.00% 124,237 100.00% 126,199 100.00% 13.33% SOURCE: 2000 and 2010 Census.

As of 2018, residents of Hispanic ethnicity made up a majority of the population in Fillmore and Santa Paula (Table H-4), whereas Caucasian residents made up more than half of the population in many other Ventura County cities. Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, and Camarillo were more than 50 percent Caucasian. African Americans, Native Americans and Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders comprised the s mallest proportion of all Ventura County cities’ populations. Simi Valley, Camarillo, Moorpark, and Thousand Oaks had the highest proportion of Asian residents in the County.
71 310
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-7
Table H-4 Regional Comparison of Race and Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark
Santa
Paula
Simi
Valley
Thousand
Oaks
Ventura
County
Total Population 67,543 15,598 36,274 30,258 126,199 128,481 848,112 Hispanic/Latino 25.60% 77.40% 31.80% 81.10% 26.30% 18.30% 42.40% Non-Hispanic Race/Ethnicities
White 58.70% 20.20% 54.20% 16.00% 59.80% 67.90% 45.80%
Black/African American 1.50% 0.30% 1.60% 0.20% 1.20% 1.30% 1.60% American Indian/Alaska Native 0.10% 0.40% 0.30% 0.10% 0.20% 0.20% 0.30% Asian 10.30% 1.30% 7.90% 1.40% 9.70% 9.30% 7.10%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander

0.10% <0.1% 0.50% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20%
Some Other Race 0.20% 0.00% 0.30% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Two or More Races 3.50% 0.40% 3.60% 1.10% 2.50% 2.80% 2.50% SOURCE: 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Educational attainment is closely linked to an individual’s abi lity to earn a living. The 2010 Census did not collect this information; however, according to the 2014-2018 ACS (Table H-5), the proportion of Simi Valley residents with college and advanced degrees was comparable to the County and t he State. ACS data indicates that, since 2010, the proportion of Simi Valley residents with college and advanc ed degrees has increased by approximately three percentage points.

Table H-5 Comparison of Educational Attainment

Simi Valley Ventura County California
2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018
No High School 4.30% 3.90% 9.90% 9.60% 10.40% 9.40%
Some High School, No Diploma 5.70% 4.50% 7.80% 6.00% 8.90% 7.60% High School Diploma/GED 23.90% 21.80% 19.80% 18.90% 21.50% 20.60% Some College, No Degree 26.00% 25.10% 23.60% 23.10% 21.50% 21.30% Associate degree 8.80% 11.40% 8.10% 9.30% 7.70% 7.80%
BA or Above 31.30% 33.30% 30.80% 33.10% 30.10% 33.30%
Note: Population 25 years and over
SOURCE: 2006-2010 and 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates). 72 311

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-8
Employment Profile
An assessment of the needs of the community must take into cons ideration the type of employment held by residents. Incomes associated with different jobs and the numbe r of workers in a household determines the type and size of housing a household can afford. In some cases, the types of jobs themselves can affect housing needs and demand (such as in communities with military installations, college campuses and seasonal agriculture).

Employment growth typically leads to strong housing demand, whi le the reverse is true when employment contracts.

OCCUPATION AND WAGE
Table H-6 shows the employment profile of residents of Simi Valley compared to those of Ventura County. Jobs held by Simi Valley residents are similar to those held by Ventura County residents; however, a slightly higher proportion of Simi Valley residents were employed in higher income occupations. Almost 43 percent of Simi Valley residents were working in management or professional positions, a high-income field, and one-quarter were in the sales and office occupations, a median income field. Service industry workers made up 16 percent of the employed residents; natural resources, construction, and maintenance made up eight percent of the employed residents; and 8 percent of the employed residents were in some form of production, tran sportation, and material moving occupations.

Service and construction industries tend to earn lower incomes, which can increase the need for affordable housing.

Table H-6 Employment Pr ofile of Residents
Occupations of Residents
Simi Valley Ventura County
2010 2018 2010 2018
Persons Percent Persons Percent
Median
Earnings Percent Percent
Management, Business, Science, and
Arts Occupations 25,366 39.81% 27,983 42.81% $74,355 37.34% 38.08% Service Occupations 9,835 15.44% 10,332 15.81% $21,148 15.83% 17.16% Sales and Office Occupations 18,297 28.72% 16,398 25.09% $35,743 25.94% 22.23% Natural Resources, Construction, and
Maintenance Occupations 5,324 8.36% 5,427 8.30% $48,066 11.20% 11.65% Production, Transportation, and
Material Moving Occupations 4,889 7.67% 5,227 8.00% $35,459 9.70% 10.87% Total 63,711 100.00% 65,729 100.00% $46,171 100.00% 100.00% Note: Civilian employed population 16 years and over
SOURCE: 2006-2010 and 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Simi Valley’s location makes it accessible to Santa Barbara and the greater Los Angeles area and therefore an attractive place for various firms to locate. Table H-7 shows the ten largest employers in the City. Major employers in Simi Valley include Simi Valley Unified School District, Meg gitt Safety Systems, Inc., and the Rancho Simi Parks and Recreation District. These jobs generally pay moderate incomes. 73 312
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-9
Table H-7 Major Employ ers in Simi Valley
Name of Employer Type of Service Number of Employees
Percentage of
Employed Labor Force
Simi Valley Unified School District Education 2,080 3.2% Meggitt Safety Systems, Inc. Electronics Manufacturing 653 1.0% Rancho Simi Parks and Recreation District Park Services 526 0.8% City of Simi Valley City Government 492 0.7%
Milgard Windows & Doors Window Manufacturing 488 0.7%
Costco Department Store 296 0.5%
Rexnord – PSI Bearings Bearing Manufacturing 235 0.4%
USTE, Inc. (dba Vista Professional) Lighting Manufacturing 165 0.3% Vallarta Supermarkets Grocery Store 165 0.3%
Polytainer, Inc. Bottle Manufacturing 150 0.2%
Note: Of ninety-seven employers surveyed by the City of Simi Valley, sixty-eight employers responded (68%).

SOURCE: City of Simi Valley Administrative Services Department, 2018-2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Household Characteristics
The Census defines a household as all persons who occupy a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood and unrelated individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories or other group li ving situations are not considered households.

Information on household characteristics is important to unders tand the growth and changing needs of a community.

HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Different household types generally have different housing need s. Seniors or young adults typically comprise the majority of single-person households and tend to reside in apar tment units, mobile homes, condominium, or smaller single-family homes. Families often prefer larger single-family homes.

Census data in Table H-8 shows that the total number of households in Simi Valley increased by almost two percent between 2010 and 2018. Family households decreased by almost tw o percent during this time and continue to make up almost three-quarters of Simi Valley households. However, married families with children decreased by 14 percent, while married families without children increased by nine percent. “Other” families are family households (as defined above) but do not include a married couple. They co uld be siblings living together or single parents. “Other” families in the City experienced a small decrease, with a decline of almost one percent since 2010.

The most significant increase during this time period, however, was in the proportion of single-person households.

The number of singles increased almost 20 percent and the most dramatic increase was in the number of elderly (age 65 and older) living alone, which jumped approximately 40 percent. These changes in household characteristics resulted in a slight decrease in the average household size. 74 313

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-10
Table H-8 Househol d Characteristics
Households Type
2010 2018 Percent
Change Households Percent Households Percent
Households 41,237 100.00% 42,029 100.00% 1.92%
Family Households 31,697 76.90% 31,140 74.10% -1.76%
Married with Children 11,916 28.90% 10,197 24.30% -14.43% Married No Children 12,908 31.30% 14,116 33.59% 9.36%
Other Families 6,873 16.70% 6,827 16.30% -0.67%
Non-Family Households 9,540 23.10% 10,889 25.90% 14.14% Singles 7,087 17.20% 8,481 20.20% 19.67%
Elderly Living Alone 3,013 7.30% 4,206 10.00% 39.60%
Other Non-Families 2,453 5.90% 2,408 5.73% -1.83%
Average Household Size 3.00 2.98 -0.67%
SOURCE: 2010 Census; 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Household size identifies sources of population growth and hous ehold overcrowding. A community’s average household size will increase over time if there is a trend towa rds larger families. In a community where the population is aging, the average household size may decline.

According to the 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate s, the average household size in Simi Valley (2.98) was comparable to neighboring communities and Ventura County (Figure H-1). Fillmore, Moorpark, and Santa Paula all have slightly larger average household sizes than Sim i Valley, while Thousand Oaks and Camarillo have slightly smaller average household sizes. All of these communit ies experienced little change in household size between 2010 and 2018.
75 314
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-11

Figure H-1 Average Household Size Comparison
SOURCE: 2000 and 2010 Census, 2018 ACS Table B25010 Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units by Tenure 5-Yr Estimates.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Household income is an important consideration when evaluating housing and community development needs because lower incomes typically constrain a household’s ability to secure adequate housing or services. While housing choices, such as tenure (owning versus renting) and loc ation of City residents are very much income- dependent, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing.

According to the 2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, the 47 percent of Simi Valley households earned more than $100,000 a year (Table H-9). Simi Valley’s income distribution generally skews toward the higher end of the spectrum—even more so than the income distribution of Ventura County. 76 315

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-12
Table H-9 Household Income Distribution – 2010 to 2018
Household Income
Simi Valley Ventura County
2010 2018 2010 2018
Less than $15,000 5.30% 4.60% 7.00% 6.00%
$15,000 to $24,999 4.40% 5.60% 7.30% 6.20%
$25,000 to $34,999 5.00% 5.30% 7.30% 6.60%
$35,000 to $49,999 8.90% 8.30% 11.00% 9.90%
$50,000 to $74,999 16.90% 14.50% 17.10% 15.80%
$75,000 to $99,999 16.90% 14.90% 14.10% 14.10%
$100,000 or more 42.60% 47.00% 36.10% 41.40%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Median Household Income $88,675 $95,543 $75,348 $84,017 SOURCE: 2006-2010 and 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

In addition to looking at income distribution, it is important to look at changes in median household income over time and to compare this growth to that of neighboring communit ies (Figure H-2). Simi Valley experienced a 36 percent increase in median household income from 2000 to 2018. Neighboring communities all experienced similar increases, and Ventura County as a whole experienced a 41 percent increase. Camarillo and Fillmore had the largest increases at 49 percent.

Figure H-2 Median Household Income Comparison
SOURCE: 2000 Census, 2006-2010 and 2014-2018 ACS 5-Yr Estimates. 77 316
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-13
The state and federal government classify household income into several groupings based upon the relationship to the County Area Median Income (AMI), adjusted for household siz e. The State of California utilizes the following income groups:
■ Extremely Low: 0–30% AMI
■ Very Low: 31–50% AMI
■ Low: 51–80% AMI
■ Moderate: 81–120% AMI
■ Above Moderate: 120%+ AMI
The 2018 American Community Survey does not collect information on the number of households belonging to each of the income categories described above. However, househo ld income data was tabulated by the Southern California Association of Govern ments (SCAG) (Table H-10). As s hown below, between 2013 and 2017, approximately 34 percent of the City’s households earned lower incomes, while approximately 66 percent had earned incomes of moderate or above. The proportion of lower income households in Simi Valley is noticeably lower than in Ventura County as a whole.

Table H-10 Household Income Levels – 2013-2017
Income Level Number of Households Percent of Total Ventura County Percent Extremely Low (0–30% AMI) 3,705 9.5% 11.7%
Very Low (31–50% AMI) 4,065 9.6% 11.7%
Low (51–80% AMI) 5,840 14.6% 16.6%
Moderate (81 to 120% AMI) 4,380 19.4% 18.8%
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI) 24,030 46.9% 41.1%
Total 42,025 100.0% 100.0%
SOURCE: SCAG RHNA Calculator, September 2020, based on 2013-2017 ACS.

OVERCROWDING
An overcrowded housing unit is defined as a unit occupied by more than one person per room1. Overcrowding can result when there are not enough adequately sized units within a community, when high housing costs relative to income force too many individuals to share a housing unit than it can adequately accommodate, and/or when families reside in smaller units than they need in order to dev ote income to other necessities, such as food and health care. Overcrowding also tends to accelerate the normal wear and tear, resulting in deterioration of housing.

Therefore, maintaining a reasonable level of occupancy and alleviating overcrowding are critical to enhancing quality of life for residents and aesthetic quality of neighborhoods.

Between 2000 and 2010, overcrowding decreased in Simi Valley. A s Table H-11 illustrates, only four percent of households in Simi Valley were considered overcrowded in 2018, inclusive of the 0.8 percent that were considered severely overcrowded. In 2000, approximately six percent of households in the City were overcrowded, and about two percent were considered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding continued to be more prevalent among renter- households in the City, as rental units are typically smaller i n size and renter-households are more likely to earn

1 The Census Bureau’s definition of a “room” excludes kitchen, bathroom, porch, balcony, foyer, hall or half-room. 78 317

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-14
lower incomes. In 2018, seven p ercent of Simi Valley renter-households were overcrowded compared to just two percent of owner-households. Overcrowding in Ventura County was a slightly larger issue than in Simi Valley. Nearly five percent of the County’s occupied housing units were overcr o w d e d , a n d s e v er e o v e r c r o w d i n g a f f e c t e d t w o percent of households countywide.

Table H-11 Overcrowding by Tenure, Simi Valley
Overcrowding
Owner-Households Renter-Households Total Households
Number
% of
Owners Number
% of
Renters Number % of Total
2000
Total Overcrowded (> 1.0 person/room) 1,147 4.10% 984 12.00% 2,131 5.80% Severely Overcrowded (>1.5 persons/room) 399 1.40% 445 5.40% 844 2.30% 2010
Total Overcrowded (> 1.0 person/room) 576 1.90% 597 6.00% 1,167 2.90% Severely Overcrowded (>1.5 persons/room) 121 0.40% 30 0.30% 362 0.90% 2018
Total Overcrowded (> 1.0 person/room) 514 1.70% 792 6.80% 1,306 3.10% Severely Overcrowded (>1.5 persons/room) 108 0.40% 233 2.00% 341 0.80% SOURCE: 2000 Census; 2006-2010 and 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

COST BURDEN
State and federal standards for housing cost burden are based o n an income-to-housing cost ratio of 30 percent and above. Households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing have limited remaining income for other necessities. Above moderate-income households generally are capable of paying a large proportion of income for housing; therefore, estimates of housing cost burden generally focus on low and moderate-income households.

According to Census tabulations by the U.S. Department of Housi ng and Urban Development (HUD), housing cost burden affects a significant portion of households in Simi Vall ey, particularly the elderly, large families, and those earning lower incomes, as shown in Table H-28 later on page 4-37. At the lower-income levels, cost burden impacts homeowners and renters fairly equally. For households with mode rate or above incomes, cost burden is less prevalent and has a limited impact on renter-households.

Persons with Special Housing Needs
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to their special needs. Special circumstances may be related to one’s em ployment and income, family characteristics, disability, and household characteristics, among other factors. Consequently, certain residents in Simi Valley may experience higher incidences of housing cost burden, overcrowding or other housing problems. 79 318
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-15
“Special needs” groups in Simi Valley include the following: se nior households, persons with disabilities, large households, single-parents house holds, persons living in povert y, the homeless, farmworkers, and students (Table H-12). This section provides a detailed discussion of th e housing needs facing each particular group as well as programs and services available to address their housing needs. Table H 17 identifies service providers for special needs populations in Ventura County.

Table H-12 Special Needs Groups in Simi Valley
Special Needs Group
# of Persons or
Households # of Owners # of Renters
% of Total
Households or Persons
Households with Members Age 65+ 12,770 – – 30.4%
Senior Headed Households 10,644 8,270 (77.7%) 2,374 (22.3%) 25.4% Senior Living Alone 4,237 2,613 (61.7%) 1,624 (38.3%) 10.1% Persons with Disabilities 14,015 – – 11.2%
Large Households 4,949 3,562 (72.0%) 1,387 (28%) 11.8%
Single-Parent Households 1,835 – – 4.4%
Female Headed Households w/Children 1,417 – – 3.4%
Residents Living Below Poverty 7,973 – – 6.4%
Homeless 162 – – 0.1%
Farmworkers (persons)* 265 – – 0.4%
Students (College/Graduate) 8,931 – – 7.1%
Notes:

The 2018 ACS 5-yr estimate data (certified by SCAG) was not available; therefore, 2019 ACS 5-year estimates were used. -- Data not available.
*All agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting occupations.

SOURCE: 2015-2019 ACS (5-yr estimates); County of Ventura 2020 Homeless Count.

SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
Many senior households have special housing needs due to their limited and/or fixed incomes, health care costs, and disabilities. Simi Valley’s senior population increased app roximately 55 percent between 2000 and 2010, and 38 percent between 2010 and 2018 (Table H-2). Approximately 25 percent of the City’s households were also headed by a senior in 2018 (Table H-12). According to HUD CHAS data (Table H-28), 17 percent of senior owners and 46 percent of senior renters were overpaying for housing. H ousing cost burden is especially prevalent among the City’s extremely low-income and very low-income senior households.

Aside from cost burden issues faced by seniors due to their rel atively fixed incomes, many seniors are faced with various disabilities. Roughly 35 percent of Simi Valley seniors suffered from some kind of difficulty in 2018 (Table H-13). Among these, the most common were ambulatory and independent living difficulties (disabilities that can make it difficult or prevent one from leaving their home alone). For senior residents that require assisted care, there are 53 residential care facilities (including assisted living facilities) for the elderly in Simi Valley that provide a total of 573 beds. There are three large senior residential car e facilities (Simi Hills/96 units, Sunrise of Wood Ranch/100 units, and The Foothills at Simi Valley/168 units) in Simi Valley, but a majority of the residential care facilities are single-family homes that operate as community care facilities. 80 319

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-16

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
The City of Simi Valley actively encourages senior housing development. Table H-27 on 4-35 provides an inventory of the affordable housing projects in the City. Several of the se projects are targeted for seniors. As of 2020, 678 households in Simi Valley were receiving Housing Choice Voucher assistance. Specifically, 340 were elderly headed households.

In addition to the affordable housing opportunities discussed above, senior residents in Simi Valley can also benefit from the programs and services offered by various providers loc ated in the City and neighboring communities.

Table H-15 details these organizations.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Disability is a physical or mental condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Physical disabilities can hinder access to housing units of conventional design, as well as limit the ability to earn an adequate income. The 2010 Census did not include information on disabili ties. However, according to the 20014-2018 ACS, approximately 11 percent of all residents in the city had one or more disabilities. Disabilities were more prevalent among the elderly population, with approximately 35 percent of the city’s senior residents having one or more disabilities (Table H-13). Among the adult population between the ages of 18 to 64, eight percent had one or more disabilities. Disabilities do not necessarily preclude a person from being employed. The ACS recorded the employment status of persons with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 64. Among thos e in this age group, nearly 30 percent were employed.

Disabilities affect the various age groups differently. The Census tallied the disabilities reported by residents by age group (Table H-14). Among children (5 to 17), the most common d isability was cognitive difficulty (usually developmental related), while amo ng the adult population (18 to 64), cognitive and ambulatory disabilities were more prevalent. Most seniors suffered from multiple disabilities, with ambulatory and independent living difficulties being reported most often.

Table H-13 Disability Status by Age—2018
Age Group Persons % Disabled % of Disabled That Are Employed 0-5 43 0.6% N/A
5–17 1,086 5.3% N/A
18-64 6,583 8.2% 29.4%
65+ 6,240 34.5% N/A
Total 13,952 11.1% N/A
SOURCE: 2014-2018 ACS (5-yr estimates).

81 320
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-17
Table H-14 Disabilities Tallied – 2018
Disability Type Under 18 18-64 65+
Hearing Difficulty 22.50% 22.41% 43.78%
Vision Difficulty 18.78% 16.57% 23.77%
Cognitive Difficulty 86.01% 43.78% 34.76%
Ambulatory Difficulty 17.27% 40.60% 66.81%
Self-Care Difficulty 30.47% 15.86% 27.90%
Independent Living Difficulty – 30.44% 47.29%
Total 1,129 6,583 6,240
Note: A person can suffer from multiple disabilities and the Census allows a person to check all disabilities that apply. Therefore, the number of disabilities tallied is greater than the number of persons with disabilities. This table presents the number of persons with disabilities by age group and then indicates the proportion of persons in that age group that are impacted by a particular disability.

SOURCE: 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities.

As defined by the Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
■ Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments; ■ Is manifested before the individual attains age 18;
■ Is likely to continue indefinitely;
■ Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d ) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and ■ Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are o f l i f e l o n g o r e x t e n d e d d u r a t i o n a n d a r e individually planned and coordinated.

The Census does not record developmental disabilities. However, according to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percent age of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. This equates to 1,877 persons in the City of Simi Valley with developmental disabilities, based on the 2020 California Department of Finances population and housing estimates.

According to the State’s Department of Developmental Services, as of the end of March 2021, 1,361 Simi Valley residents with developmental disabilities were being assisted a t the Tri-Counties Regional Center. Most of these individuals were residing in a private home with their parent o f guardian, and 637 of these persons with developmental disabilities were under the age of 18.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work indepen dently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided.

The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabiliti e s e x i s t b e f o r e a d u l t h o o d , t h e f i r s t i s s u e i n 82 321

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-18
supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

Several factors limit the supply of housing for persons with disabilities, including affordability, accessibility, location, and discrimination. The most obvious housing need for persons with disabilities is housing that is adapted to their needs. Most single-family homes are inaccessible to people with mobility and sensory limitations. Housing may not be adaptable to accommodate widened doorways and hallways, acce ss ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, and other features necessary for accessibility. Location of housing is also an important factor for many persons with disabilities, who often rely upon public transport ation to travel to necessary services and shops. The cost of retrofitting a home often prohibits homeownership, even for individuals or families who could otherwise afford a home. Furthermore, some providers of basic home buying services do not have offices or materials that are accessible to people with mobility, visual or hearing impairments.

State and federal legislation mandates that a percentage of units in new or substantially rehabilitated multi-family apartment complexes be made accessible to individuals with limi ted physical mobility. The City does not regulate residential care homes for six or fewer persons; such homes are permitted in all residential zones as standard residential uses. Residential care homes for more than six pers ons are conditionally permitted in the Residential Low Density (RL), Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Moderate Density (RMod), and Residential High Density (RH) zones. Any residential care facility may be allowed in the Commercial Office (CO) and Civic Center (CC) zones with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
Various residential facilities in Simi Valley serve those with disabilities. As of September 2020, a total of 23 adult residential care facilities primarily serving non-seniors, with a total capacity of 114 beds, are located in Simi Valley.

The City offers flexibility in development standards and reasonable accommodations for projects proposing housing affordable to seniors and persons with disabilities. The City also offers housing rehabilitation programs that can be used to make accessibility improvements. Residents with disabil ities can also benefit from a range of services offered by various agencies shown in Table H-15.

Table H-15 Services for Sp ecial Needs Populations
Special
Needs
Services Program Details Contact
Elderly 24 Hour Helpline Referrals 211
Adult Protective Services Abuse and neglect investigation and mediation 805.654.3200 ARC Ventura County Supportive services and residential care for adults with disabilities
805.650.8611
Area Agency on Aging Advocates on all needs of seniors 805.477.7300 County of Ventura District
Attorney
Senior crime prevention 805.654.2451
Elderlink Free housing referral services 800.613.5772
Mental Health Senior outreach for those in need of mental health services 805.777.3500 Ombudsman Services Nursing home visits and mediation 805.656.1986 83 322
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-19
Table H-15 Services for Sp ecial Needs Populations
Special
Needs
Services Program Details Contact
Senior Center Senior Nutrition Program, Brown Bag Program, Congregate Meal Site, Meals on Wheels
805.583.6363
Senior Concerns Provides support services to seniors 805.497.0189 Senior Nutrition Meal site information 805.583.6365
Senior Resources Specialist
(Senior Advocate)
Available at the Senior Center by appointment; provides information for seniors and their families and in-home
services
805.583.6363
Senior Support Line Provides support and linkages to community resources 800.235.9980 Shop Ahoy, by Elderpride, Inc. Provides shopping delivery service 805.236.1267 Veterans Home California Offer long-term care to veterans who are aged or disabled 800.952.5626 Persons with
Disabilities
Children’s Counseling Access Counseling for children with developmental and social disabilities
800.671.0887
Easter Seals of Southern
California
Offers medical, intervention, development, recreation, and referral services
805.647.1141
Independent Living Resource
Center, Inc.

Offers a wide array of services to persons of any age with a disability
805.650.5993
PathPoint Provides independent living and employment support services for those with disabilities or disadvantages to live and work independently
805.520.8744
Tri-Counties Regional Center Services for developmentally disabled persons 805.522.8030 Tri-County GLAD (Greater Los
Angeles Agency on Deafness,
Inc.)
Provides independent living and employment support
services
805.520.8744
Ventura County Behavioral
Health
Behavioral health services 805.582.4080
Veterans Home California Offer long-term care to veterans who are aged or disabled 800.952.5626 Children’s
Services
Action Family Counseling Support for adolescents, adults, and families with substance abuse issues; provides outpatient and residential treatment 800.367.8336
Berylwood Family Resource
Center
Free information and referral activities, mental health and dental services, parent education classes and other services for families with children ages 0 to 5
805.582.1214
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of
Ventura County
Provides children with caring adult volunteer mentors 805.484.2282 Boys and Girls Club of Simi
Valley
After school programs for youth ages 6–17, offers a low-cost option for after school and summer supervision
805.527.4437
Child Development Resources
of Ventura County, Inc. (CDR)
Referrals to childcare and abuse and neglect investigation 805.485.7878 Children’s Home Society of
California
Resource and support services for families 805.437.1910 Children’s Medical Services Income qualified medical services for children 805.981.5281 84 323

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-20
Table H-15 Services for Sp ecial Needs Populations
Special
Needs
Services Program Details Contact
Community Pregnancy Clinic Pregnancy services and resources 805.583.3590 FOOD Share Countywide food pantry referrals 805.983.7100 Interface Children & Family
Services
Provides temporary shelter and youth crisis prevention
services
805.469.5882
Kids and Families Together Provides support to families providing full-time parenting to minor children who are not their own
805.643.1446
Rainbow Connection Family
Resource Center
Provides support services for persons with special needs and their families
805.485.9643
Salvation Army/Care & Share Food Bank 805.522.5676
Salvation Army Free children’s summer camp 805.527.1070 School on Wheels, Inc. Provides tutoring to homeless children who live in shelters 805.641.1678 Simi Valley Family YMCA Recreation, after school care and daycare programs with financial assistance available for qualified families
805.583.5338
Food/Meal
Services
Berylwood Family Resource
Center
Free produce is distributed once a month 805.582.1214
Catholic Charities A variety of clothing, food, and housing options for low- income people
805.529.0720
Centerpoint Church-Angel Food
Ministry
Daily food donation and distribution 805.584.1200
Cornerstone Church Food distribution when available 805.581.9532 Food Share Countywide food bank and referral information 805.983.7100 Lutheran Social Services A variety of clothing, food, and housing options for low- income people
805.497.6207
NewHeart Four Square Church Weekly food distribution 805.583.3433 New Hope Christian Fellowship
Food Pantry
Clothing/food distribution every Sunday 805.581.1628
Project Understanding Provides food bank, housing, and tutoring 805.652.1326 Salvation Army/Care & Share Provides food bank and some clothing 805.522.5676 Shepherd of the Valley
Lutheran Church – Still Waters
Café
Prepared dinner services and canned food distribution 805.526.7577 Simi Valley Food Pantry Food distribution 805.584.9080
St. Rose of Lima, Mother
Teresa Charitable Services
Food pantry 805.526.1732
Trinity Lutheran and Lighthouse
Bible Church
Food distribution of locally donated food 805.584.8222
WIC (Women, Infants, and
Children) Nutrition Program
Nutrition education and food distribution 805.981.5251
85 324
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-21
Table H-15 Services for Sp ecial Needs Populations
Special
Needs
Services Program Details Contact
Housing/
Homeless
Services and
Shelters
Aanaca Program House Alcohol and drug recovery, sober living homes for males only
818.782.5326
Action Family Counseling Residential treatment for adolescent males and females with drug, alcohol, and mental health related problems
800.367.8336
Area Housing Authority of
Ventura County
Provides assistance to people in need of affordable housing. 805.480.9991 County of Ventura Homeless
Services Program
Referrals and services for homeless people 805.385.8585 County of Ventura Homeless
Prevention and Rapid Re-
Housing Program (HPRP)
Provides funding to local residents who are homeless or facing homelessness
805.385.8585
Emergency Shelter Program Mentally ill homeless services 805.981.4200 Farmworker Household
Assistance Program (FHAP)
Provides support for farmworkers 805.988.0196
HomeShare of Ventura Match people looking for housing with people who have extra space
805.477.7300
Lutheran Social Services Mental health counseling, hot meals, clothing, vouchers, utility and rental assistance, case management and referrals and resources
805.497.6207
Many Mansions/Housing
Central
Shelters and low-income housing 805.496.4948
Pathways to Home Provides services to homeless
Peoples Self-Help Housing Build affordable homes with site-based services 805.781.3088 Public Action to Deliver Shelter
(P.A.D.S.)
Simi Valley winter warming shelter 805.579.9166
RAIN Project Transitional
Housing
Provides resources to homeless 805.816.3057
Rescue Mission Alliance Men only shelter, year-round 805.487.1234 Rescue Mission
Alliance/Lighthouse
Women and children’s shelter, year-round 805.240.1644
Salvation Army Referrals and services 805.527.1070
Samaritan Center Drop in shelter, services, and referrals 805.579.9166 Sarah’s House Maternity home and transitional home for pregnant women and women with infants
805.581.1910
Turning Point Foundation Shelter for the mentally ill, year-round 805.652.2151 Ventura County Jewish Family
Service
Provides a wide array of social services and rental
assistance for women and children when available
805.641.6565
Veterans Home California Offer long-term care to veterans who are aged or disabled 800.952.5626 86 325

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-22

LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households are defined as households with five or more me mbers. A large household may be a large family (e.g., parents with children and/or extended family members), two or more families sharing the same housing unit, more than five unrelated individuals living together, or any of these combinations. Large households comprise a special needs group because of their need of larger units, whic h often command higher prices that are not affordable to many large households. In order to save for other necessities such as food, clothing and medical care, it is common for lower-income large households to reside in sma ller units, frequently resulting in overcrowding.

Large households can also put a physical strain on the housing stock, resulting in more wear-and-tear on the dwelling unit.

According to the 2010 and 2018 ACS 5-year estimates, the average household size has remained at approximately three persons per household. By the same estimates, the number of large households in Simi Valley decreased from 5,370 to 5,068 (a nine percent decrease). According to the 2018 ACS 5-year estimates, most of the City’s large households owned their homes (3,612 households or 71 percent of all large households), but a sizable number were renter-households (1,456 households or 29 percent of all large households).

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
Large households in Simi Valley can benefit from general housin g programs and services offered by the City that provide assistance to lower and moderate-income households in g eneral, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program, which offers rental assistance to residents. The City has Affordable Housing Agreements with 25 existing rental apartment communities, which are available to low- and v ery low-income households. The City also has a Home Rehabilitation Program available to qualified owners of de tached single-family homes. Households in need of assistance can also benefit from the programs and services offered by the agencies identified in Table H-15.

FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Female-headed households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for day care, health care and other assistance. Female-headed single-parent h ouseholds with children tend to have lower- incomes, thus limiting their ability to afford housing. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of single-parent households in Simi Valley decreased slightly. The majority of s ingle-parent households continued to be headed by females. In 2018, approximately one-third of single-parent hous eholds were male-headed while two-thirds were female-headed (Table H-16).

Table H-16 Single-Parent Families
Single Parent Families
2010 2018
Single-Parent Families % of All
Familiesa
Single-Parent Families % of All
Familiesa # % of Total # % of Total
Male Householder 1,017 32.00% 3.20% 821 28.64% 2.60%
Female Householder 2,158 68.00% 6.80% 2,046 71.36% 6.60% Total 3,175 100.00% 10.00% 2,867 100.00% 9.20%
a Represents the percentage of single-parent families (with male or female householders) out of the total number of families in the City.

SOURCE: 2010 Census; 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
87 326
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-23
Female-headed single-parent households face greater financial difficulties because they often do not have the same earning power as their male counterparts. As shown in Table H-1 7, ACS data indicates that approximately 40 percent of single-parent female-headed families in Simi Valley were living in poverty.

Table H-17 Families Living in Poverty
Family Type Number % of Families in Poverty % of all Families Single Female Parent 545 39.80% 1.80%
Married Couple Parents 260 19.00% 0.80%
Total Families in Poverty 1,370 100.00% 4.40%
Total Families 31,140 – –
SOURCE: 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
Simi Valley’s single-parent households can benefit from the Cit y’s general housing programs for lower income households, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program and Affo rdable Housing Agreements with 25 existing rental apartment communities. Single-parent households in the C ity can also benefit from the various programs and services offered by the agencies listed in Table H-15.

HOMELESS PERSONS
In general, the definition of homelessness (if he/she is not imprisoned) includes those persons who meet one of the following criteria:
■ Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; or ■ The primary nighttime residence is a publicly or privately oper ated shelter designed for temporary living accommodations; or
■ The primary residence is an institution that provides a tempora ry residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
■ The primary residence is a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, the State of California had the highest population of persons experiencing homelessness with 151,278 individuals, 108,432 of those individuals being unsheltered. The term unsheltered from HUD is defined as “anyone whose primary nighttime residence – where they sleep is a place not designed or ordinarily used for sleeping, including cars, parks, abandone d buildings, bus or train statio ns, airports, camping grounds, etc.” This definition does not include persons living in substandard housing, (unless it has been officially condemned); persons living in overcrowded housing (example, doubled up with others), persons being discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered to be homeless at discharge), or persons who may be at risk of homelessness (example, living temporarily with family or friends).

Assessing a community’s homeless population is difficult because of the transient nature of the population. There are essentially three categories of homeless populations: the c hronically homeless, migrant farmworkers, and the 88 327

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-24
situationally homeless. The chronically homeless often have pro blems that led to their homelessness such as substance abuse and mental illness. Based on HUD’s definition, the chronically homeless also typically opt to live on the streets rather than participate in a case managed progra m. Migrant farmworkers, who potentially are seasonally homeless, are especially transient and their housing needs are addressed in the following section. The last category of homeless people, the situationally homeless, often find themselves homeless due to a combination of factors beyond their control, such as rent increases, medical bills, or loss of employment. This is also the segment that is most likely to seek help from service agencies and best able to work toward becoming self-sufficient again.

The County of Ventura 2020 Homeless Count and Subpopulation Sur vey was conducted through a partnership between the Ventura County Continuum of Care Alliance, Ventura County Executive Office Staff, and community volunteers. The count was conducted in April 2020. The Survey f ound that, out of 1,743 homeless adults and children counted in Ventura County, 162 reported living in Simi Valley (148 adults and 14 children). This represents approximately nine percent of the Ventura County homeless population. Out of the 162 homeless residents in Simi Valley, 150 were unsheltered. Because Simi Valley has a limited agricultural industry only six migrant farmworkers or seasonal homeless in the City were identified in the annual countywide homeless count.

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
A list of organizations that offer services for the homeless is provided in Table H 17. The Housing Rights Center serves the Counties of Ventura and Los Angeles and is available for landlord/tenant dispute mediation. Several organizations are available for foreclosure prevention assistan ce, including the Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation and the Ventura County Community Development Corporation.

FARMWORKERS
Another special needs groups in Simi Valley is farmworker households, who need both temporary and permanent housing. Migrant farmworkers or day laborers live under difficult conditions in encampments often adjacent to farming operations. Because of their tenuous living conditions, it is very difficult to estimate their numbers.

In many parts of Southern California, agricultural production i s an important contributor to local economies. The City of Simi Valley has a very limited agricultural industry, a nd the City is not located near any of the farms in the coastal plains. The 2014-2018 ACS reports that, of the total pe rsons aged 16 and older, in the City of Simi Valley, 397 persons (or 0.6 percent) were employed in farming, forestry , and fishing occupations. This category could include people employed in plant nurseries. Data from the 2017 Census of Agriculture, conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) was consulted for comparison with the ACS data. The NASS data was aggregated at the County level and did not include subpopulation estimates for farmworkers in the City of Simi Valley. According the to the NA SS data, there were 22,694 hired farmworkers in Ventura County in 2017. As discussed above, it could be assumed that 0.6 percent (136) of the County’s farmworkers live in the city of Simi Valley. Farmworkers are typically cate gorized into three groups: 1) permanent, 2) seasonal, and 3) migrant. Permanent farmworkers are typically employed ye ar-round by the same employer. A seasonal farmworker works on average less than 150 days per year and earns at least half of their earned income from farm work. Migrant farmworkers are seasonal farmworkers who have to tra vel t o d o the far m work so tha t th ey are unable to return to their permanent residence within the same d ay. Among the 22,694 hired farmworkers in Ventura County, 12,165 were hired as seasonal workers and 3,595 were hired as migrant workers. Therefore, approximately 73 (0.6% of 12,165) seasonal farmworkers and 22 ( 0.6% of 3,595) migrant farmworkers potentially 89 328
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-25
live within the city of Simi Valley. Although Simi Valley resid ents are not within close proximity and commuting distance to the majority of farmworker job opportunities found in the western portions of Ventura County, statutory requirements must be met to provide farmworker housing near the areas of high level opportunity, as identified in Appendix C: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
Although farmworkers comprise a small proportion of the City’s population, the City will implement zoning ordinance amendments that allow Supportive Housing by right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted, when the development meets certain conditions, as detailed in Program 13. The housing needs of farmworkers in Simi Valley can be addressed th rough the City’s general affordable housing programs for lower income households, and the City will ensure that statutory requirements are met. Certain programs and services offered by agencies in Table H-15 can als o be of assistance to Simi Valley’s farmworkers, including the Farmworker Household Assistance Program (FHAP).

STUDENTS
Four universities and two community colleges are easily accessi ble to Simi Valley. California State University at Northridge, California State University at Channel Islands, Cal ifornia Lutheran University and DeVry University are all located within twenty miles from the city. Moorpark College in the Ventura County Community College District and Pierce College in the Los Angeles Community College District are also located within twenty miles of Simi Valley.

A total of 8,997 people in the city are enrolled in college or graduate school, making up nine percent of the population over the age of 15. Students have unique housing needs because their income is limited, and they need housing that is in close proximity to their school.

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
Students can benefit from the general services available to all lower and moderate-income residents of Simi Valley and available rental housing in the community. However, for state and federal housing program purposes, students typically do not qualify as lower and moderate income.

EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
The existing needs of extremely low-income households can be described by examining household income, tenure, o v e r c r o w d i n g , a n d t h e p r e s e n c e o f h o u s i n g p r o b l e m s s u c h a s i n a dequate plumbing. Extremely low-income households are defined as households with income less than 30 percent of area median income. The median income i n S i m i V a l l e y i s $ 9 5 , 5 4 3 . E x t r e m e l y l o w - i n c o m e h o u s e h o l d s i n Simi Valley would typically earn an income of approximately $28,000 or less for a four-person household. In 2 018, approximately 3,705 extremely low-income households resided in Simi Valle y, representing 9.5 percent of the total households. Extremely low income households may be considered a special needs group due to their precarious financial situation. Any unexpected expenses or loss of income or employment could render extremely l ow inc ome hous eholds at risk of be coming homeless. As shown in Table H-11 and Table H-28, 6.8 percent of renter households experience overcrowding, 73.9 percent of extremely low-income renter households experience a high incidence of housing problems, and 63.1 percent of those extremely-low income renter households were in overpayment situations in which they paid more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs. In addition, extremely low income renters and owners are 90 329

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-26
equally impacted by housing problems - about 75 percent of the households experienced at least one housing problem such as cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard hous ing conditions. The majority of the problems were related to cost burden, according to the 2013-2017 Compreh ensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data.

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
Housing options available to extremely low income households are limited. HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program remains the most significant resource for extremely low income households. Specifically, HUD policy requires that 70 percent of all new HCVs be allocated to extremely low income households. As shown in Table H-39, there is a projected need for 374 extremely-low income household units. Many extremely low-income households will be seeking rental housing and most likely face overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing conditions.

To address the range of needs, the City will employ a detailed housing strategy including promoting a variety of housing types, such as single-room occupancy (SRO) units. The S RO is a housing type that can facilitate affordable housing for lower income households, particularly extremely low income households. The City has adopted provisions in its Development Code to allow SROs in the Mixed U se (MU) and Commercial Planned Development (CPD) zones with a Conditional Use Permit. Conditions of approv al are based on performance standards such as parking, security, and property management. For more details on SRO standards, see the discussion on providing for a variety of different housing types under the Governmental Constraints section .

Supportive housing is generally defined as permanent, affordable housing with on-site services that help residents transition into stable, more productive lives. Services may include childcare, after-school tutoring, career counseling, etc. Most transitional housing includes a supportive services component. The City regulates supportive housing as a residential use; provided supportive services are subordinate to the residential use.

To address the housing needs of extremely low-income households , the City will implement a program to amend the Development Code to clarify where supportive housing develo pments are permitted by-right, and to remove any minimum parking requirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of public transit.

Housing Stock Characteristics
A community’s housing stock is defined as the collection of all housing units located within the jurisdiction. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e h ou s i n g s t oc k i n c l u d i n g g r o w th , t yp e , a ge and condition, tenure, vacancy rates, costs and affordability are important in determining the housing needs fo r the community. This section details the housing stock characteristics of Simi Valley in an attempt to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents of the City.

HOUSING UNIT GROWTH AND TYPE
Between 2000 and 2010, the City’s housing stock increased by 14 percent, outpacing Countywide housing growth (Figure H-3). Most recently (2010-2020), housing unit growth for all jurisdictions, including Simi Valley, dropped off significantly. The housing stock in the City grew by only 2.3 percent, lagging behind Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Santa Paula, and the County as a whole. The dramatic slow in residential construction is due primarily to the lack of remaining developable vacant land.
91 330
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-27
Figure H-3 Housing Unit Growth (2000–2020)
SOURCE: Department of Finance (DOF) Population and Housing Estimates, 2000-2020.

The mix of housing types in the City has changed little between 2010 and 2020. Detached and attached single-family dwellings and mobile homes comprised approximately 82 percent of Simi Valley’s housing stock while multi-family dwellings accounted for the remaining 18 percent (Table H-18). The most noticeable changes between 2010 and 2020 occurred among attached single-family units (6.7 percent increase) and larger multi-family structures with five or more units (4.7 percent increase).

Table H-18 Housing Unit Type
Housing Unit Type
2010 2020 Percent Change
2010–2020 Units Percent Units Percent
Single-Family Homes 34,301 80.7% 34,921 80.3% 1.8%
Detached 31,054 73.1% 31,455 72.4% 1.3%
Attached 3,247 7.6% 3,466 8.0% 6.7%
Multi-family Homes 7,444 17.5% 7,787 17.9% 4.6%
2–4 units 1,960 4.6% 2,044 4.7% 4.3%
5+ units 5,484 12.9% 5,743 13.2% 4.7%
Mobile Homes/Other 761 1.8% 761 1.8% 0.00%
Total 42,506 100.0% 43,469 100.0% 2.3%
Vacancy Rate 3.00 3.60 20.0%
SOURCE: DOF E-5: Population and Housing Estimates, 2010-2020.

14.0%

17.1%

14.4%

18.1%

4.9%

10.6%

11.9%

2.3%

8.1%

5.8% 6.3%

3.4%

1.4%

3.4%
Simi Valley Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark Santa Paula Thousand Oaks Ventura County 2000-2010 Percent Change 2010-2020 Percent Change
92 331

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-28

HOUSING AGE AND CONDITION
Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work and other repairs. In Simi Valley, approximately 75 percent of the housing stock may potentially require some improvements based solely on the age o f the structure (Table H-19). Furthermore, approximately 34 percent of the City’s housing units are 50 years of age or older, indicating a greater potential need for major rehabilitation. Based on the characteristics of the City’s housing stock, Simi Valley has a need for continued code enforcement, property maintenance, and housing rehabilitat ion programs to stem housing deterioration.

However, given the moderate to higher incomes of its residents, deferred maintenance is not a pressing issue in the City. Property owners typically take pride in maintaining their homes and many have the financial means to do so.

Table H-19 Housing Age
Year Structure Built Number Percent of Total
2014 or later 86 0.2%
2010 to 2013 299 0.7%
2000 to 2009 5,326 12.3%
1990 to 1999 5,253 12.1%
1980 to 1989 9,186 21.2%
1970 to 1979 8,457 19.5%
1960 to 1969 12,366 28.6%
1950 to 1959 1,739 4.0%
1940 to 1949 243 0.6%
1939 or earlier 317 0.7%
Total 43,272 100.0%
SOURCE: 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

The City has been working diligently to improve the housing con ditions through its various housing rehabilitation programs, assisting lower income households to make the necessary improvements. Overall, the City estimates that approximately 20 units in the City require substantial rehabili tation, and five (5) units potentially require replacement. This estimate was based on an average of the annual number of home rehabilitation assistance loans (14) that the City has provided to low-income households between 2014-2019. The program is active and there is considerable interest from households in pursuit of loans. City Staff in the Housing Section of the Planning Division have indicated that the actual number of households in need of assistance is greater than the number of loans that can be provided, due to limited budget and staffing for the program. Therefore, a multiplication factor of 75 percent was used to estimate the total number of units in need of assistance. 93 332
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-29

HOUSING TENURE
The tenure distribution of a community’s housing stock (owner versus renter) can be an indicator of several aspects of the housing market, including the affordability of units, ho usehold stability and res idential mobility among others. In most communities, tenure distribution generally correlates with household income, composition, and age of the householder.

In 2018, 70 percent of the housing units in Simi Valley were owner-occupied, while 27 percent were renter-occupied (Table H-20). This represents a slight decrease in the homeownership rate from 2010.

Table H-20 Housing Tenure
Tenure
2010 2018
# % # %
Owner-Occupied 30,560 71.9% 30,311 70.0%
Renter Occupied 10,677 25.1% 11,718 27.1%
Vacant 1,269 3.0% 1,243 2.9%
Total 42,506 100.0% 43,272 100.0%
SOURCE: Bureau of the Census, 2010; 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates.

According to the American Community Survey (ACS) (Table H-21), owner-occupied households had a slightly higher average household size than renters. Approximately 56 percent of rental units were occupied by one- or two-person households; in comparison, 51 percent of the owner units were o ccupied by households with one- or two-person households.

Table H-21 Tenure by Household Size
Households
% of Total
Owner-Occupied Units
% of Total
Renter-Occupied Units
1-Person 17.2% 28.9%
2-Person 34.3% 27.0%
3-Person 19.4% 16.0%
4-Person 17.4% 16.2%
5+ Persons 11.7% 11.9%
Average Household Size 3.02 2.88
NOTE: Overall average household size is 2.98.

SOURCE: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). 2014-2018 ACS data approved by HCD, but not available for household size by tenure. 94 333

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-30

HOUSING VACANCY
A vacancy rate is often a good indicator of how effectively for-sale and rental units are meeting the current demand for housing in a community. Vacancy rates of five to six percen t for rental housing and one to two percent for ownership housing are generally considered optimum because they indicate there is a balance between the demand and supply for housing. A higher vacancy rate may indicate an excess supply of units and price depreciation, while a low vacancy rate may indicate a shortage of units and price inflation.

According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the overall vacancy rate in Simi Valley was three percent (Table H-22). The rental vacancy rate for available units was approximately one percent while the ownership vacancy rate for available units was under one percent. Overall, vacancy rates in the City were below optimal, indicating a fairly tight housing market.

Table H-22 Vacancy Status
Number Percent of Total Percent of Vacant
Total Housing Units 43,272 100.0% –
Total Occupied Units 42,029 97.1% –
Total Vacant Units 1,243 2.9% –
Vacant (Available)
For Rent 376 0.9% 30.2%
For Sale 239 0.6% 19.2%
Vacant (Unavailable)
Rented or Sold 132 0.3% 10.6%
Seasonal 216 0.5% 17.4%
Other 280 0.6% 22.5%
SOURCE: 2014-2018 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Housing Costs and Affordability
The cost of housing is directly related to housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high compared to household income, housing cost burden and overcrowd ing occur. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of housing to Simi Valley residents.

HOMEOWNERSHIP MARKET
Median home prices in cities within Ventura County ranged from $397,500 (Port Hueneme) to $1,000,000 (Ojai) in 2021 (Figure H-4). Simi Valley’s median home price fell in the middle of that range at $650,000, equal to the median home price Countywide. Since 2020, median home prices in the City have increased by 10 percent, consistent with the increase throughout the County (+10.4 percent).
95 334
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-31

Figure H-4 Median Home Prices in Ventura County
SOURCE: Corelogic.com California Home Sale Activity by City, January 2021.

RENTAL HOUSING
Table H 23 summarizes current (2019) market rate rents for apartments in Simi Valley, based on the Ventura County Apartment Market Renta l Survey conducted by Dyer Sheehan Group. T h e a ve r a g e r e n t i n t h e C i t y r a n g e d f r o m $1,803 for a one-bedroom unit to $2,300 for a three-bedroom unit. The average rent for all surveyed units in Simi Valley was $1,960, a 0.3 percent increase since 2018.

Table H-23 Average Apartment Rents—2019
Unit Size Units Surveyed Average Rent
Studio – –
1 BR 1,330 $1,803
2 BR 1,812 $2,017
3 BR 308 $2,300
Total 3,450 $1,960
% Change 0.3%
SOURCE: Dyer Sheehan Group, Inc. Ventura County Apartment Market Rental Survey, January 2019.

NOTE: Percent change since January 2018.

In addition to apartments, some single-family homes are also us ed as rentals. Single-family homes in Simi Valley generally command higher rents than apartments due to the larger unit sizes and availability of private open space.

Rental rates for homes are summarized in Table H-24.
$710,000
$564,000
$755,000
$1,000,000
$535,000
$397,500
$563,250
$650,000
$756,000
$623,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark Ojai Oxnard Port
Hueneme
Santa Paula Simi Valley Thousand
Oaks
Ventura
96 335

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-32
Table H-24 Private Homes for Rent
Size # of Units Listed Average Rent
One Bedroom 1 $1,800
Two Bedrooms 1 $2,400
Three Bedrooms 6 $3,011
Four Bedrooms 8 $3,298
Five Bedrooms 4 $6,275
SOURCE: Zillow.com Listings, March 15, 2021.

Rooms for rent are another low-cost housing option. As of March 2021, there were 21 listings on Craigslist.com for rooms for rent in Simi Valley. These rooms ranged in rent from $650 to $1,300 a month. The average price for a room for rent in Simi Valley is $845, and the median price is $800. Room rentals offer an affordable and reasonable alternative to single and two-person extremely low- and very low-income households.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY BY INCOME
Housing affordability is an important indicator of quality of life. Households that spend a substantial portion of their income on housing costs may be at risk of becoming homeless in the event of unexpected circumstances such as illness or loss of employment. Based on the State Department of Housing and Community Develop ment ’ s 2020 income limits for Ventura County2 and current real estate prices, homeownership in Simi Valley is beyond the reach of most lower, median, and moderate-income households, which is shown in Table H-25. Some low-income and most median and moderate-income households can afford the marke t rents for apartments in Simi Valley. Most low-income households and some median and moderate-income households cannot afford average rents for single- family homes or townhomes. Most low-income households can afford room rentals.

2 The income limits published by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) are slightly different than income units published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Specifically, HUD-funded programs have a maximum income limit established at 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), while many state-funded programs may also benefit households with 120 percent of the AMI. Since the Housing Element is a state requirement, this report and the Housing Element of the General Plan must conform to the income limits published by the state. Specific housing program eligibility, however, is determined by the funding program requirements. 97 336
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-33
Table H-25 Affordable Housing Cost
Annual Income
Affordable
Housing Cost
Utilities, Taxes, and Insurance Affordable Price
Utilities
Taxes/Ins./HOA
(Ownership) Rent Sale
Extremely Low-income (30% of Area Median Income)
1-Person $23,700 $593 $175 $207 $418 $55,377
2-Person $27,100 $678 $181 $237 $497 $68,357
3-Person $30,500 $763 $203 $267 $560 $77,119
4-Person $33,850 $846 $223 $296 $623 $86,195
5-Person $36,600 $915 $248 $320 $667 $91,384
Very Low-income (50% of Area Median Income)
1-Person $39,550 $989 $175 $346 $814 $123,256
2-Person $45,200 $1,130 $181 $396 $949 $145,871
3-Person $50,850 $1,271 $203 $445 $1,068 $164,270
4-Person $56,450 $1,411 $223 $494 $1,188 $182,982
5-Person $61,000 $1,525 $248 $534 $1,277 $195,879
Low-income (80% of Area Median Income)
1-Person $63,250 $1,581 $175 $553 $1,406 $224,753
2-Person $72,300 $1,808 $181 $633 $1,627 $261,930
3-Person $81,350 $2,034 $203 $712 $1,831 $294,889
4-Person $90,350 $2,259 $223 $791 $2,036 $328,161
5-Person $97,600 $2,440 $248 $854 $2,192 $352,622
Median Income (100% of Area Median Income)
1-Person $68,450 $1,711 $175 $599 $1,536 $247,023
2-Person $78,250 $1,956 $181 $685 $1,775 $287,411
3-Person $88,000 $2,200 $203 $770 $1,997 $323,368
4-Person $97,800 $2,445 $223 $856 $2,222 $360,067
5-Person $105,600 $2,640 $248 $924 $2,392 $386,882 Moderate Income (120% of Area Median Income)
1-Person $82,150 $2,054 $175 $719 $1,879 $305,694
2-Person $93,900 $2,348 $181 $822 $2,167 $354,433
3-Person $105,600 $2,640 $203 $924 $2,437 $398,742 4-Person $117,350 $2,934 $223 $1,027 $2,711 $443,791 5-Person $126,750 $3,169 $248 $1,109 $2,921 $477,459 Assumptions: 2020 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 35% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 3% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Ventura County Utility Allowance, 2020.

SOURCES: California Department of Housing and Community Development 2020; Veronica Tam and Associates. 98 337

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-34
Project-Based Rental Housing Assistance
State law requires the City to identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve housing units that are currently restricted to low-income housing use and that will become unrestricted and possibly be lost as low-income housing.

Specifically, state law requires the following:
■ An inventory of restricted lower income housing projects in the City and their potential for conversion; ■ An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing the units “at risk” and a comparison of these costs; ■ An analysis of the organizational and financial resources available for preserving and/or replacing the units “at risk”; and
■ Programs for preserving the “at risk” units.

TENANT BASED REN TAL ASSISTANCE
The Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura reports tha t 678 Simi Valley households or individuals were receiving Section 8 vouchers in June 2020 (Table H-26). Elderly households make up 50 percent of Section 8 recipients, 36 percent are householders with disabilities, and approximately 13 percent are family households.

Table H-26 Rental Assi stance in Simi Valley
Household Type Households Currently Receiving Section 8 Vouchers Family 91
Elderly 340
Disabled 247
Total 678
SOURCE: Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura, 2020.

INVENTORY OF AFFORDABLE HOU SING AND AT-RISK STATUS
The City maintains programs to provide quality housing affordab le to different income groups for a healthy and sustainable community. One of the primary means of providing af fordable housing is through negotiation with developers to incorporate affordable units within new residenti al development projects. The City offers density bonuses and financial incentives to encourage developers to designate a portion of the units in their development as affordable to very low- and low-income households. The City currently has 19 affordable rental developments, which collectively contain 795 affordable units.

UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERTING TO MARKET-RATE HOUSING State Housing Element law requires the analysis of housing that is government subsidized or otherwise deed restricted (through government programs and policies) that may change from lower-income housing to market- rate housing during the next ten years. The period of analysis for this Housing Element is October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2031. There is a total of 795 affordable units in Simi Valley. None of the affordable units are at risk of converting to market-rate before 2031. Table H-27 lists the assisted rental housing projects in the City. 99 338
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-35
Table H-27 Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing
Project Name
Total
Units
Bedrooms
Funding Program
Earliest Date
of Conversion 1 2 3 4
Plaza del Sol Apartments
4231 Alamo Street
34 6 6 18 4 LIHTC, Tax Exempt Bond,
CDA Loan
8/15/2060
Casa de Paz Apartments
1010 Ashland Avenue
14 14 Section 811, CDA Loan 11/30/2051
2029 Avendia Refugio #1 1 1 CDA 8/15/2057
2035 Avendia Vista Del Monte #1 1 1 CDA 8/15/2057
2074 Calle La Sombra #2 1 1 CDA 8/15/2057
2089 Calle La Sombra #3 1 1 CDA 8/15/2057
Ashlee Manor Senior Apartments
4583 Cochran Street
68 60 8 Density Bonus, Tax Exempt
Bond, CDA Grant
6/28/2033
Sorrento Villas Apartments
415 Country Club Drive
72 60 12 Density Bonus, HOME, CDA
Loan, LIHTC, Tax Exempt
Bond
8/1/2054
Hidden Valley Apartments
5065 Hidden Park Court
81 45 30 6 Density Bonus, Tax Exempt
Bond, CDA Grant
8/9/2060
Pepper Tree Court Apartments
1415 Patricia Avenue
35 35 Density Bonus, CDA Grant TBD
Seasons Senior Apartments
1662 Rory Lane
68 55 13 Density Bonus, LIHTC, CDA
Loan
1/1/2055
Harmony Terrace Senior Apartments
905 Sunset Garden Lane
67 55 12 Density Bonus, LIHTC, CDA
Loan
12/8/2048
The Haven Seniors Apartments
2245 Tapo Street
35 18 17 LIHTC 10/17/2063
Vintage Paseo Senior Apartments
2960-2980 Tapo Canyon Road
86 45 41 Density Bonus, Tax Exempt
Bond, LIHTC, CDA Grant
12/27/2044
Heywood Gardens Apartments
1770 Heywood Street
74 74 CDA, Section 202 11/30/2033
Las Serenas Senior Apartments
2090 Yosemite Avenue
107 96 11 Density Bonus, LIHTC, CDA
Loan and Grant, Tax Exempt
Bond
9/30/2051
La Rahada Apartments
1036 Ashland Avenue
8 7 1 MHSA, MHP, CDA Loan 6/18/2064
Peppertree Apartments
4214 E. Los Angeles Avenue
12 3 7 2 Mental Health Services 9/7/2069
Camino Esperanza Apartments
1384 Katherine Road
30 30 LIHTC Aug. 2067
Total Units 795 603 162 26 4
SOURCE: City of Simi Valley, 2021
100
339

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-36
Estimated Housing Needs
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different type s of households (owners versus renters, elderly households, and large and small households) in Simi Valley. Det ailed CHAS data based on the 2013-2017 ACS is displayed in Table H-28. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
■ Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); ■ Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); ■ Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or ■ Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

However, the CHAS data does not provide separate accounting of overcrowding or substandard housing conditions.

These are included in the overall category of households with housing problems, and a household can have multiple housing problems.

The types of problems vary according to household income, type, and tenure. Overall, 40 percent of all households in the City experienced some housing problems. However, housing problems were more prevalent among extremely low and very low-income households, especially among large families. Within the low-income group, housing cost burden impacted a larger proportion of renters than owners, indicating the relative affordability of the ownership housing stock to low-income households, compared to rental housing. 101
340
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-37
Table H-28 Estimated Housing Needs
Household Income by Type, Income
and Housing Problem
Renters Owners
Total
Households Elderly
Large
Families
Total
Renters1 Elderly
Large
Families
Total
Owners1
Extremely Low Income: 0-30% HAMFI2 1,105 50 2,085 875 80 1,620 3,705 % with any housing problems 68.3% 100.0% 73.9% 71.4% 100.0% 75.3% 74.5% % with cost burden >30% 68.3% 100.0% 73.4% 68.0% 100.0% 72.2% 72.9% % with cost burden >50% 55.7% 100.0% 63.1% 55.4% 93.8% 61.4% 62.3% Very Low Income: 31-50% HAMFI2 660 245 1,940 1,195 155 2,125 4,065 % with any housing problems 88.6% 89.8% 91.8% 49.8% 93.5% 63.1% 76.8% % with cost burden >30% 88.6% 89.8% 91.8% 49.4% 90.3% 62.1% 76.3% % with cost burden >50% 68.2% 73.5% 68.0% 32.6% 48.4% 45.4% 56.2% Low Income: 51-80% HAMFI2 435 185 2,155 1,455 405 3,685 5,840 % with any housing problems 64.4% 100.0% 80.0% 45.0% 81.5% 63.2% 69.4% % with cost burden >30% 64.4% 100.0% 77.3% 41.6% 79.0% 61.6% 67.4% % with cost burden >50% 41.4% 18.9% 27.1% 22.3% 37.0% 30.4% 29.2% Moderate/Above Moderate Income:
>80% HAMFI2 585 665 5,685 4,655 2,625 22,725 28,410
% with any housing problems 34.2% 60.9% 33.8% 16.9% 27.0% 21.7% 24.1% % with cost burden >30% 34.2% 20.3% 25.3% 16.4% 18.3% 20.2% 21.2% % with cost burden >50% 4.3% 0.0% 9.7% 3.5% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% Total Households 2,785 1,145 11,865 8,180 3,265 30,160 42,025 % with any housing problems 65.4% 75.1% 58.7% 32.5% 38.7% 32.6% 40.0% % with cost burden >30% 65.4% 52.0% 54.1% 31.2% 31.4% 31.0% 37.5% % with cost burden >50% 45.6% 23.1% 28.3% 16.7% 11.5% 12.4% 16.9% 1 Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample ACS data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100 percent count due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers. Totals for renters, owners and households will not add up within the table because some subcategories are not presented in the table, however, all totals are accurate. 2 HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
SOURCE: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on 2013-2017 ACS. 102
341

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-38

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Although the City of Simi Valley strives to ensure the provision of adequate and affordable housing to meet the needs of the community, many factors can constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing.

These include market mechanisms, government regulations and pol icies, and infrastructure and environmental constraints. This section addresses these potential constraints that may affect the supply and cost of housing in Simi Valley.

Non-Governmental Constraints
Locally and regionally, there are several constraints that hinder the City’s ability to accommodate the community’s housing needs. The high cost of land, rising development costs, and neighborhood opposition make it expensive for developers to build affordable ho using. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low and moderate-income households or may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers.

HOUSING MAINTENANCE
The City has no regulations and policies that would constrain housing maintenance. The City has adopted a Property Maintenance Ordinance, which establishes minimum standards for the maintenance of residential properties.

These requirements are enforced by the City’s Code Enforcement and Building and Safety Divisions and help maintain the City’s housing stock.

The major constraint to housing maintenance is funding related. Often, a homeowner carries a first mortgage for the home already and making substantial improvements to the home may require obtaining a second mortgage or refinancing to take equity from the home. Such financing arrangements may be challenging to lower and moderate- income households whose debt-to-income ratio may be too high to qualify for additional financing for home improvements. To assist lower and moderate-income households in making the necessary improvements, the City offers rehabilitation assistance to income-qualified households.

LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
High development costs in the region stifle potential affordabl e housing developments. Construction costs for residential units have increased rapidly over the last decade, particularly the land costs. Furthermore, neighborhood resistance to some developments lengthens development time, dri ving up costs for holding the property. The difficulty of developing small, infill sites can also constrain housing development in communities such as Simi Valley.

One cost factor associated with residential building is the cost of building materials, which can comprise a significant portion of the sales price of a home. An indicator of construct ion costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by th e ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data is national and does not consider regional differences and does not include the price of the land upon which the building is built. The national average for development costs per square foot for apartments an d single-family homes in August 2021 are as follows:
103
342
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-39
■ Type I or II, Multi-Family: $157.74 to $179.04 per sq. ft. ■ Type V Wood Frame, Multi-Family: $120.47 to $125.18 per sq. ft. ■ Type V Wood Frame, One- and Two-Family Dwelling: $130.58 to $138.79 per sq. ft.

The unit costs for residential care facilities generally range between $152.25 and $211.58 per square foot. These costs are exclusive of the costs of land and soft costs, such a s entitlements, financing, etc. Reduction in amenities and the quality of building materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) could lower costs and associated sales prices or rents. In addition, prefabricated factory-built housing may provide for lower priced housing by reducing construction and labor cos ts. Another factor related to construction costs is development density. As the number of units increases, overall costs generally decrease due to economies of scale.

The City's ability to mitigate high construction costs is limited without direct subsidies.

While the City of Simi Valley is extensively developed, the pri ce of raw land and any necessary improvements is a key component of the total cost of housing. The City’s supply of vacant residential land is limited. A survey of listings on Realtor.com in April 2021 found 17 vacant parcels in Simi Valley, priced at an average of approximately $375,500 per acre. Properties that have received entitlement permits, however, are typically more expensive.

The State density bonus law offers increased density over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning district to developers who provide affordable housing as part of their projects.

Developers of affordable housing are also entitled to receive incentives on a sliding scale according to the amount of affordable housing units provided. Density bonuses, together with the incentives and/or concessions, result in a lower average cost of land per dwelling unit (as more units can be built on the property), thereby making the provision of affordable housing more feasible.

AVAILABILITY OF MORTGAGE FINANCING
Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and ra ce of loan applicants. The data for Simi Valley was compiled by census tract and aggregated to the area that genera lly approximates the City boundaries. The HMDA information in Table H-29 is a summary of loan applications sub mitted in 2019 3, the most recent year for which data are available as of the writing of this Housing Element.

3 2020 HMDA data will not be available until the end of 2021. 104
343

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-40
Table H-29 Disposition of Home Purchase, Refinance, and Improvement Loans—2019 Loan Type
Total Applications Originated
Approved
Not Accepted Denied
Withdrawn/
Incomplete
# % # % # % # % # %
Purchase –
Conventional
2,009 27.5% 1,492 74.3% 62 3.1% 173 8.6% 282 14.0%
Purchase –
Governmental
510 7.0% 395 77.5% 12 2.4% 26 5.1% 77 15.1%
Home Improvement 468 6.4% 273 58.3% 7 1.5% 112 23.9% 76 16.2% Refinance 4,330 59.2% 2,465 56.9% 146 3.4% 678 15.7% 1,041 24.0% Total 7,317 100.0% 4,625 63.2% 227 3.1% 989 13.5% 1,476 20.2% “Approved Not Accepted” are those applications approved by the lenders but not accepted by the applicants.

SOURCE: www.LendingPatterns.comTM, 2019.

Conventional home mortgages in Simi Valley accounted for 27.5 percent of all loan applications in the City in 2019.

The largest proportion of applications was for refinancing (59. 2 percent). Approximately 63 percent of all applications were originated. 4 Government backed loans followed by conventional loans had the highest rate of origination. The highest denial rate was in home improvement loans due probably to the high debt-to-income ratio when taking the mortgage loan into consideration. However, home improvement loans accounted approximately

6.4 percent of all applications.

There were 510 government-backed loan applications in Simi Valley in 2019, accounting for approximately 7 percent o f a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s . G o v e r n m e n t - b a c k e d l o a n s a r e p r o v i d e d t h r o ugh private lenders and are guaranteed by the federal government (the Federal Housing Administration). In Ventura County the mortgage limit for an FHA loan is $739,450 for a single-family home. There are no income limits o n who can obtain an FHA loan, and FHA loans do offer some flexibility in credit scores and down payment requirements. However, applicants must still qualify for a loan through the traditional methods of income verification and a reputable credit history. While FHA loans are an important option in the mortgage market, they do not make homeo wnership more attainable for lower-income households because the households must still be earning an adeq uate income to support monthly mortgage payments.

TIMING AND DENSITY
Market can also constrain the timing between project approval a nd requests for building permits. In most cases, this may be due to developers’ inability to secure financing fo r construction or timely response to the needed corrections to construction documents. In Simi Valley, the average time between project approval and request for building permit is typically six (6) to 12 months, but varies by type of project. Single-family homes usually experience the least delay (four to six mon t h s ) . M u l t i - f a m i l y h o u s i n g c o n struction tends to be more complex and usually requires more time between entitlement and building permit issuance (six to 12 months).

As described in the Housing Resources section of this Housing E lement, projects do not always develop to the maximum available density. This is due primarily to developer decisions and responding to market preference. This

4 An originated loan is one that is approved by the lender and accepted by the applicant. 105
344
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-41
reduction in density may create a hindrance on construction of the City’s share of the regional housing needs .

Therefore, the City will implement Housing Element Program 7 to m o n i t o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f v a c a n t a n d nonvacant sites in the sites inventory and ensure that adequate sites are available to meet the remaining RHNA by income category, pursuant to SB 166.

Governmental Constraints
City development standards and policies can have an impact on the price and availability of housing in Simi Valley.

Land use controls, site improvement requirements, building code s, fees, and other local programs to improve the overall quality of housing may serve as constraints to housing development. The following can affect overall housing availability, adequacy, and affordability. The following discusses the constraints:

LAND USE CONTROLS

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The Simi Valley General Plan and Development Code provide for a range of land use designations/zones that accommodate residential units:

Open Space (OS): 1 unit per 40 Acres
It is intended that land use patterns in Open Space areas will be dominated by recreational uses, agricultural uses, grazing and very large lot estate or farm homes. To encourage the keeping of areas designated as Open Space in a largely undeveloped state, allowable dwelling units (i.e., 1 dw elling unit/40 acres) may be transferred to portions of the subject parcel which are not designated Open Space.

Residential Estate (RE): 0–1 unit per acre; 1-acre minimum lot size This designation is intended to create a residential environment typified by lots of 1 acre and over and houses of an individual design. Residential Estate lots should be grouped an d be of such a number so as to form an identifiable neighborhood and image.

Residential Very Low Density (RVL): 0–2 units per acre; 20,000 square feet minimum lot size
This designation is intended to create a single-family resident ial environment typified by half-acre or larger sized lots that are not clustered. It is intended that this designation be used in areas proposed for animal keeping and similar semi-rural uses.

Residential Low Density (RL): 2.1–3.5 units per acre
This designation is intended to encourage a single-family subur ban and rural residential environment with a wide range of lot sizes but a low overall density. Clustering of smaller lots in order to achieve both affordable housing and to minimize hillside grading is intended, especially within larger developments and outlying canyon areas. The Low Density designation is intended for use in the peripheral a reas of the valley floor as well as in the outlying canyon areas, which are under 20 percent slope.
106
345

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-42
Residential Medium Density (RM): 3.6–5.0 units per acre This designation is intended to encourage a predominantly single-family residential environment with a wide range of lot sizes, but an overall density similar to the bulk of single-family developments on the valley floor. 8,000 sf min. lot sizes are intended in this classification. The Medium Densi ty designation is intended for use on the valley floor as well as in the outlying canyon areas which are under 20 percent slope.

Residential Moderate Density (RMod): 5.1–10.0 units per acre This designation is intended to create residential areas composed primarily of detached, single-family dwelling units on small lots. The Moderate Density designation is intended for use mainly on the central portion of the valley floor with limited use in outlying canyon areas.

Residential High Density (RH): 10.1–20 units per acre
This designation is intended to encourage a residential environ ment typified by higher density townhouses, low- density garden apartments and other multiple unit developments. This designation is intended for use in the more central areas near shopping, transit and on arterial or collector streets.

Residential Very High (RVH): 20.1–35 units per acre
This designation is intended to provide for a relatively high density residential environment. Very High Density areas are intended to result in garden apartments or similar structures, usually of two stories in height. It is intended that this designation will be limited in its use to only the central portion of the valley floor, on arterial streets, and near shopping, transit, and other public facilities.

Mobile Home (MH): 0–8 units per acre
This designation is intended to provide areas set aside specifi cally for mobile home subdivisions or parks. It is intended that this designation will result in well-designed mobile home projects at densities typical of most recent mobile home developments.

Mixed-Use (MU) Overlay District
This designation accommodates mixed-use of general commercial or office commercial development with residential uses. A maximum density of 35 units per acre for residential is provided.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELO PMENT STANDARDS
The City’s Development Code contains development standards for each zoning district consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan. Residential development stand ards can sometimes unnecessarily constrain the development of housing and therefore must be analyzed as part of the Housing Element process. When standards are too restrictive, they can limit the number of units to be achieved on site or present challenges in site planning.

The Simi Valley Development Code establishes residential development standards for each zone to ensure quality development in the community. De velopment criteria, as specified in the Development Code, are presented in Table H-30. Overall, the City’s residential development standards are typical to suburban developments in Ventura County. The City adopted development standards to implement the mixed-use designations created as part of a previous General Plan update. In addition, in 2012, the City increased the allowable densities in a number of its 107
346
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-43
residential zones in order to maintain consistency with the upd ated General Plan and State law regarding density bonuses.

MIXED-USE (MU) OVERLAY DISTRICT
As part of the previous General Plan update, the City created a Mixed-Use Overlay designation. To implement this land use designation, the City adopted a Mixed-Use (MU) Overlay district. The Mixed-Use Overlay allows properties to be developed with commercial retail or offices uses on the g round floor and housing on the second floor or above; a mix of differing land us es distributed horizontally on a site; or a single land use, as designated on the Community Subareas and Districts Maps. Single-use developments, however, must meet development standards prescribed for that land use type (i.e., commercial retail deve lopment must meet all required commercial development standards). The MU Overlay district provides an opportunity to increase the variety of housing types and to revitalize deteriorating commercial areas by integrating infill residential uses. The specific development standards for the MU Overlay district are described below:
■ Residential Density: 20.1 to 35 units per acre.
■ Percentage of Project as Residential Uses: A mi n i m u m of 50 p e r c e n t of t h e p r oj e c t ' s f l oor a r e a mu s t b e developed and maintained as residential uses.
■ Percentage of Project as Commercial Uses: A minimum of 25 percent of the project's floor area must be developed and maintained as commercial uses.
■ Setbacks: Setback requirements are the same as for developments in the RVH zone.

108
347

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-44
Table H-30 Basic Residential Development Standards
Development Standard
Zoning Designation
OS RE RVL RL RM RMod RH RVH MH MU Overlay
Minimum Net Lot Area 40 acres 1 acre 20,000 sf 10,000 sf 8,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 2 acres – Density Maximum (du/acre) 1/40 acres 1.0 2.0 2.1-3.5 3.6-5.0 5.1-10.0 10.1-20.0 20.1-35.0 0.0-8.0 20.1-35.0 Minimum Lot Width – 125 ft. 100 ft. 80 ft. 40 ft.

Minimum Setbacks (feet)
Fronta
Side
Rear

50 50
50 20
10 20

20 6 to 10
20 20
15 20

20 10
20 20
none
20 20
10 20
Maximum Height 2 stories/30 feet 3 stories/
40 feet 25 feet 4 stories/
55 feet
sf = square feet
a Front setback in the RH and RVH zones is 20 ft. plus an additional 1 ft. for each 1 ft. portion of building over 15 ft. in height.

SOURCE: City of Simi Valley, 2021.

109
348
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-45

HEIGHT LIMITS
The City’s Development Code currently limits building heights in the Very High Density Residential zone to three stories or 40 feet. The Land Use Element indicates that buildin g heights for Very High Density development (up to 50 units per acre with a density bonus) are intended for structures of three or more stories. The expectation is that affordable housing projects over three stories or 40 feet in height can request a concession from the Development Code requirement to exceed the height limit of three stories or 40 feet. Also, the Development Code allows the height limit to be exceeded subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS
All residential uses are required to provide the number of park ing spaces specified in Table H-31. In 2013, the City amended the Municipal Code to establish new parking requirements for multi-family housing. The City now varies parking requirements for multi-family housing by the number of bedrooms in a unit (instead of by unit size) to accommodate a lower parking requirement for projects intended to serve smaller households including seniors and persons with disabilities. Furthermore, only one space is required to be covered.

Developers of affordable housing who are eligible for a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Sections 65919–65918 may receive a reduction in required parking. The Ci t y h a s a d o p t e d a d e n s i t y b o n u s o r d i n a n c e t o inform prospective developers about incentives that are availab le to qualifying affordable and/or senior housing projects.

Parking requirements can be a potential constraint when combined with high land development value and housing market conditions, which often inhibits projects from meeting maximum allowable density potential. As part of Housing Program 12 and 13, the City will review development standards for residential parking and possibly remove constraints such as covered and guest parking requirements. Par king standards for developments that meet the State Density Bonus law will require a ratio of no more than 0. 5 parking space per unit for affordable and senior housing development and no more than 0.3 parking space per unit f o r s p e c i a l n e e d s h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t . I n addition, the City may add incentives for developers to provide bicycle and car or ride share parking in lieu of meeting per-unit parking standards.
110
349

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-46
Table H-31 Simi Valley Parking Requirements
Use Parking Requirement
Single-Family 2 car enclosed garage per unit.

Multi-Family, Condominiums or
attached dwelling units
Studio: 1 space per unit
One-Bedroom: 1.5 spaces per unit
Two-Bedroom: 2 spaces per unit
Three or More Bedrooms: 2.5 spaces per unit
Plus 0.5 guest spaces per unit
A minimum of one space per unit must be covered.

Accessory Dwelling Units 1 parking space is required per ADU with the following exceptions:
a) The proposed ADU is a studio unit;
b) If the ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit 1; c) When the ADU is within the footprint of the proposed or existing primary residence; d) When an ADU is created by the conversion of a garage, carport or covered parking structure;
e) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU; or f) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No additional parking required Mobile Home Parks 2 spaces per unit, which may be in tandem, 1 of which shall be covered; 1 space per 5 mobile homes as a guest space; and
1 space per 5 mobile homes as a recreational vehicle storage space.

Senior Citizen Dwelling Units 1 covered space per unit
Boarding Houses, Dormitories,
and Rooming Houses

1.5 spaces per sleeping room or 1 space per 100 sf of gross floor area, whichever is greater. (This parking requirement does not apply to transitional or supportive housing that is developed as regular housing.)
Mixed-Use Development 1 space per unit for studios and seniors-only units;

1.5 spaces per unit for one-bedroom units;
2 spaces per unit for two-bedroom units; and

2.5 spaces per unit for units with three or more bedrooms.

A minimum of one guest parking space shall be provided for every 5 units, regardless of unit type. A minimum of one guest parking space shall be provided for complexes with fewer than five units.

SOURCE: City of Simi Valley Municipal Code, 2021

PROVISION FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES
State Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the d evelopment of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-famil y housing, multi-family housing, factory-built or manufactured housing, emergency shelters, and transitional hous ing among others. Table H-32 summarizes the housing types permitted and conditionally permitted under the Development Code. 111
350
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-47
Table H-32 Use Regulations for Residential Districts
Uses OS RE RVL RL RM RMod RH RVH MH MU
Single-Family Dwellings P P P P P P – – – –
Multi-Family Dwellings – – – – – P P P – P
Mobile Home Parks – CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP PD –
Manufactured Housing P P P P P P – – – –
Residential Care Facility (6 or less)
Residential Care Facility (7 or more)
P
–
P
–
P
–
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
–
P
–
P
CUP
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P P
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P P
P = Permitted; CUP = Conditional Use Permit required; — = Not permitted SOURCE: City of Simi Valley Development Code, 2021.

SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
Single-family homes are permitted in the OS, RE, RVL, RL, RM and RMod zones. All of these zones (except the RMod zone) are designed for single-family dwellings of various size and density. The RMod zone is for single-family and multi-family dwellings. The Simi Valley Development Code define s a single-family dwelling as a building designed for and/or occupied exclusively b y one family. This includes fa ctory-built, modular housing units, constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, and mobile homes/manufactured housing units that comply with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, places on permanent foundations.

Therefore, manufactured housing units or mobile homes on a perm anent foundation are permitted where single- family housing units are permitted by right.

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS
As of January, 2020, multi-family housing units constituted approximately 18 percent of Simi Valley’s housing stock.

The Development Code provides for multi-family developments in the RMod, RH, RVH, and MU Overlay zones. The maximum density for the RVH zone is 35 units per acre. Density bonuses are permitted in zones permitting multi- family housing. Therefore, the allowable densities in Simi Vall ey are sufficient to allow for the development of affordable housing. Multi-family projects with fewer than 4 units can be approved by staff.

MOBILE HOME PARKS
Mobile homes offer an affordable housing option to many low and moderate-income households. According to the California Department of Finance, there are 892 mobile homes in the City. Mobile Home Parks require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in most residential districts and a Planned Development Permit (PD) in the MH district.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING
Factory-built, modular homes constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and mobile homes/manufactured housing units that comply with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, placed on permanent foundations, are included in the Simi Valley Municipal Code definition 112
351

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-48
of single-family dwellings and only subject to the same standards that a conventional (stick-built structure) single- family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject to with the exception of architectural requirements for roof overhang, roof material, and siding material, in compliance with Government Code Section 65852.3.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a dwelling unit with comple te independent living facilities for one or more persons and has a few variations:
■ Detached: The unit is separated from the primary structure. ■ Attached: The unit is attached to the primary structure. ■ Converted Existing Space: Space (e.g., master bedroom, attached garage, storage area, or similar use, or an accessory structure) on the lot of the primary residence that is converted into an independent living unit. ■ Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A specific type of conve rsion of existing space that is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family residence.

ADUs are permitted in the following residential and open space zoning districts: OS, RE, RVL, RL, RM, RMod, RH, RVH, and MH and in the MU overlay provided all of the following conditions are met:
■ Where an ADU or JADU is proposed with the construction of a new single family dwelling, the proposed single-family dwelling must be certified for occupancy before an ADU or JADU is certified for occupancy. ■ ADUs and JADUs are subject to the California Building Code and California Residential Code. ■ One ADU or JADU is permitted per parcel with an existing or proposed single family dwelling in single family zones. In multi-family zones, a one attached unit with a maximum of 25 percent of the existing multifamily units or a maximum of two detached ADUs are permitted.
■ Rental duration must be minimum of 30 days.
■ Units shall have separate entrances that do not face the street unless infeasible pursuant to the California Building Code.

The maximum size for JADUs is 500 square feet. The maximum size of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the size of the existing residence, up to 1,000 square feet. ADUs must be limited to a single story and are not permitted on a second story or above a garage unless determined otherwise by the Director.

In addition, ADUs and JADUs do not subtract from available allocation grants under the provisions of the Residential Building Permit Allocation System described in the City: Managed-Growth Plan discussion below.

In Government Code Section 65852.150, the California Legislatur e found and declared that, among other things, allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in zones that allow single-family and multifamily uses provides additional rental housing, and is an essential component in addressing California’s housing needs. Over the years, ADU law has been revised to improve its effectiveness at creating more housing units. Changes to ADU laws effective January 1, 2021, further reduce barriers, better streamline app roval processes, and expand capacity to accommodate the development of ADUs and JADUs. The City adopted Ordinance No. 1316 on November 2, 2020 to comply with state ADU laws. No new Development Code updates are required to comply with State law. 113
352
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-49

RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
Residential care facilities can be described as any family home, group care facility or similar facility, including some transitional housing facilities, for 24-hour non-medical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily liv ing. In accordance with state law (Lanterman Developmental Disability Services Act, AB 846, compiled of divisions 4.1, 4.5 and 4.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 14 of the Government Code), Simi Valley allows residential care facilities within all residential zones and the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone.

GROUP HOMES
The Simi Valley Development Code defines a group home as a dwelling licensed or supervised by any federal, state, or local health/welfare agency which provides 24-hour non-medic al care of unrelated persons who are not handicapped but are in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual in a family-like environment. This includes children's homes; rehabilitation centers; and self-help group homes. Convalescent homes, nursing homes and similar facilities providing medical care are included under the definition of "Medical Services—Extended Care." Group homes of six or fewer residents are permitted by right in all residential zo nes and the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. Groups Homes for seven or more residents are treated as residential care facilities and are permitted with CUP in the RL, RM, RMod and RH zones.

The Development Code differentiates between group homes and res idential care homes, which are defined as a single-dwelling unit or multiple-unit facility licensed or supe rvised by any federal, state, or local health/welfare agency that provides 24-hour non-medical care of unrelated persons who are handicapped and in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining t he activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual in a family-like environment. State law includes group homes in the definition of residential care homes.

The City also includes group homes in the “residential care fac ility” definition. Therefore, this use is treated the same as residential care facilities for zoning purposes.

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
Transitional housing is a type of housing used to facilitate th e movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. Transitional housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and multi-family apartments, and typically offers case management and support services to return people to independent living (usually between six and 24 months).

California Government Code Section 65582 (f)(g) defines “transi tional housing” and “transitional housing development” as buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance.

Transitional housing will be permitted in the same manner as ot her residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone per the Development Code and applicable State law. The Simi Valley Development Code was amended on January 13, 2014 to specifically define transitional housing. Transitional housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65582 (h) is permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone per the Development Code and applicable State law.
114
353

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-50

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
State law requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for supportive housing. California Government Code Section 65582 (h) defines “supportive housing” as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite s ervice that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing will be permitted in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone per the Development Code and State law. The Simi Valley Development Code was amended on January 13, 2014 to specifically define supportive h ousing. Supportive housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65582 (h) is permitted in the same mann er as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone per the Development Code and applicable State law.

However, the recently passed AB 2162 requires supportive housing projects of 50 units or fewer to be permitted by right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted, when the development meets certain conditions. The City may choose to allow larger supportive hous ing projects by right in these zones. The bill also prohibits minimum parking requirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of a public transit stop. This Housing Element includes a program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clarify where supportive housing developments are permitted by right, and that th ere are no minimum parking requi rements for supportive housing within ½ mile of public transit.

EMERGENCY SHELTER
An emergency shelter is defined in the Development Code as “Limited, short-term housing provided by a non-profit organization, such as a church, public agency, or quasi-public agency, for homeless individuals and/or groups with occupancy limited to six months or less. These accommodations m ay include temporary lodging, meals, laundry facilities, bathing, counseling, and other basic support servic es.” As described in the Homeless Persons discussion in the Housing Needs Assessment of this Housing Element document, there were approximately 150 unsheltered homeless persons in the City of Simi Valley in 2020. The Development Code permits emergency shelters by right in the CO, CC, CPD, BP, LI , and GI zones, and with approval of a conditional use permit in the OS, RE, RVL, RL, RM, RMod, RH, RVH, MH, and MU zones.

Pursuant to Government Code § 65583(a)(4), the Housing Element must demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the identified housing need for emergency shelters. There are approximately 2,332 acres of land within the districts that allow by-right approval of emergency shelters. The 125 parcels within these districts range in size between 0.5 and 63 acres, (inclusive of up to approximately 342 acres of vacant land). These properties are located along transportation corridors such as Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Canyon Road, and the locations provide easy access to public transportation. Assuming there are approximately 150 homeless persons within the city during any given year, five emergency shelters (maximum occupancy of 3 0 beds per facility) would address the needs of the homeless population. The City assumes that the estimated acreage of land and number of parcels within these zoning districts would offer adequate capacity for at least one year-round emergency shelter as required by law.

Although emergency shelters are also conditionally permitted in all residential zones, no emergency shelters are currently located within Simi Valley.

Pursuant to recent changes in state law, Government Code Sections 65582, 65583, 65589.5, and Chapter 614 of the Government Code, local jurisdictions must make provisions in the zoning code to permit emergency shelters by 115
354
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-51
right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity i s available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. The Development Code includes the following development standards for emergency shelters:
■ Overnight occupancy shall be limited to one bed per 70 square f eet of sleeping area, with maximum occupancy of 30 beds per facility.
■ The length of stay for any emergency shelter resident shall not exceed 180 days. ■ Off-street parking must be provided at one space per staff person during the largest shift plus 1/5 of a parking space for each resident.
■ On-site management shall be provided at all times while the shelter remains open, consisting of a minimum of one staff person per 15 clients.
■ No emergency shelter shall be located within 300 feet of another emergency shelter.

Additionally, AB 139 was passed in 2019 establishing new criteria for evaluating the needs of the homeless population. The analysis must assess the capacity to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count by comparing that to the number of shelter beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of beds that go unused on an average monthly basis, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing. The bill also established new parking standa rds for emergency shelters by providing parking based on the number of staff rather than beds. SB 2 (2007), th e original bill that obligates jurisdictions to plan for emergency shelters for the homeless permits a separation of no more or up to 300 feet between two shelters.

Under Program 13 of th e Cycle 6 Housin g Element, the city will review the low barrier navigation centers and emergency shelter provisions to comply with sta te law and amend the zoning ordinance and other documents as necessary to comply and show sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters.

LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER
AB 101 requires cities to allow a Low Barrier Navigation Center development by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. A “Low Barrier Navigation Center” is defined as “a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelt er, and housing.” Low Barrier shelters may include options such as allowing pets, permitting partners to share living space, and providing storage for residents’ possessions. AB 101 also sets a timeline for jurisdictions to a ct on applications for Low Barrier Navigation Center developments. The requirements of this bill are effective through the end of 2026, at which point they are repealed.

This Housing Element includes a program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses.

SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY
With high housing costs, many communities in California are exploring the use of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units to fulfill the affordable housing needs of certain segmen ts of the community, such as seniors, students, and single workers. An SRO unit is small, usually 200 to 350 sf, and consists of one habitable room in a structure of other SRO units, also known as a residential hotel. Residents typical ly share bathrooms and/or kitchens while some SRO units include kitchenettes, bathrooms or half-baths. The City r ecently amended the Development Code to permit SROs in the MU and CPD zones via a CUP. Conditions for approval will relate to the performance of the facility, such as parking, security, and management. The amendment was adopted on January 13, 2014. On July 26, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1323 amending the SRO Ordinance to require SRO units to have private 116
355
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-52

HOUSING CONST RAINT S
bathrooms and kitchens,
add required parking and loading zones with shared parking options, establish size standards, and require common indoor and/or outdoor recreation space, among other new standards.

EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Under California Health and Safety Code 17021.5, any employee housing providing accommodation for six or fewer employees must be considered a single-family structure as a residential land use. The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not currently address employee housing. Program 13: Zonin g Ordinance Amendments will address this requirement.

AGRICULTURAL WORKER HOUSING
Under California Health and Safety Code 17021.6, farmworker housing up to 12 units or 36 beds must be considered an agricultural use and permitted in any zone that permits agri cultural uses. In addition, employee housing for six or fewer employees are to be treated as a single family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. While the City has no agriculturally designate d land uses, all residential zones allow agricultural use by right, while the OS (Open Space) designation is intended for agricultural uses. As discussed in the paragraph on farmworkers in the Housing Needs Assessment of Persons with Special Housing Needs, the City estimates that farmworkers constitute less than 1 percent of the City population. This is likely due to a very limited agricultural industrial within City limits an d within proximity to the City. Most of the agricultural industry is located in the coastal plains within and in close p roximity to Oxnard – approximately 30 miles west of Simi Valley. Nevertheless, the City is committed to reducing ba rriers to the permitting of supportive housing such as farmworker housing within zones that allow agricultural use. Any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be deemed an agricultural use and permitted in the same manner as agricul tural uses within the Residential and Open Space zones. In addition, California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6 precludes a local governmental from requiring a conditional use permit, zoning variance, and/or other zoning clearance for certain agricultural employee housing.

Therefore, Program 13: Zoning Ordinance Amendments will address the provision of agricultural worker housing.

BUILDING CODES
The City enforces the 2019 Edition, Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, in accordance with Chapter 11 of the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code. The following portions of the California Building Code, or the appendices thereto, are not approved or adopted or incorporated, and shall not be deemed to be part of the building code of the City of Simi Valley:
■ Appendix A, Employee Qualifications.
■ Appendix B, Board of Appeals.
■ Appendix D, Fire Districts.
■ Appendix F, Rodent Proofing.
■ Appendix H, Signs.
■ Chapter 1 Division II, Administration.

The omission of these portions of the Title 24 is not anticipated to require expensive materials and/or methods that would pose a significant constraint to housing development or maintenance. 117
356
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-53
In addition, several local amendments have been made to account for local geological and topographic conditions.

These amendments require modifications to wall and foundation construction standards to clarify special needs of walls and foundations in addressing seismic forces and local so il conditions. The City determined that these amendments are reasonably necessary to prevent failure of structures during seismic, landslide, fire, flood, and high wind events. The enforcement of these amendments addresses safety issues that protect the residents of a variety of housing types and should not be considered constraints as a result of any impacts they may have upon housing supply and affordability. The modified construction standards for walls and foundations are not expected to require expensive materials and/or methods that would pose a significan t constraint to housing development or maintenance.

The Building Code is enforced by the Building Official and the Division of Building and Safety. The Building Official and the Fire Marshall of the Ventura County Fire Protection District have the powers of a law enforcement officer, with respect to the Building Code. The Building Official has the power to render interpretations of the Building Code in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Code. The Building Official has the authority to inspect a structure (where reasonable suspicion of substandard or unsafe conditions exist), enforce a stop work order, condemn occupancy of structures and use of building service equipment, and disconnect utilities. The Building Official also has the authority to grant modifications to methods of construc tion. The Building Official’s application and interpretation of the Code may be appealed to a designated Appe als Board, appointed by the City Council. The Appeals Board has the authority to render a decision which allows modified design solutions, based on substantial evidence that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the Code and that the proposed design meets the requirements of Title 24.

In compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17 980(b)(2), if the Building Official requires that a substandard building be vacated or repaired (as necessary), the Building Official has the authority (under Building Code Section 8-3.05) to give preference to the repair of the bu ilding whenever it is economically feasible to do so without having to repair more than 75 percent of the dwelling.

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Both the federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The City conducted an analysis of the Development Code, permitt ing procedures, development standards, and building codes to identify potent ial constraints for housing fo r persons with disabilities. The City’s policies and regulations regarding housing for persons with disabilities are described below.

ZONING AND LAND USE
Restrictive land use policies and zoning provisions can constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Under the state Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services A ct (compiled of divisions 4.1, 4.5 and 4.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 14 of the Government Code), small licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons must be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts; Simi 118
357

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-54
Valley is compliant with the Lanterman Act. The Land Use Element and Development Code provide for the development of multi-family housing in the RMod, RH and RVH zon es. The City’s land use policies and zoning provisions do not constrain the development of such housing.

Furthermore, the Development Code will be amended to address the provision of transitional, supportive, and single-room occupancy housing – housing types that are suitable for occupancy by persons with disabilities (see discussions on the provision of a variety of housing types earlier).

DEFINITION OF FAMILY
Local governments may restrict access to housing for households failing to qualify as a “family” by the definition specified in the Development Code. A restrictive definition of “family” can illegally limit the development and siting of group homes for persons with disabilities. The City of Simi Valley Development Code was amended in 2014, to remove the definition of family.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
It may also be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Development Code to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The City adopted a reasonable accommodations ordinance in Febru ary 2009 that allows for reasonable accommodation requests to be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Environmental Services Department in most cases. The ordinance provides a procedure for residents to follow to ensure that all reasonable accommodations can be adequately met. Reasonable accommodation will be granted if:
■ The request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make s pecific housing available to an individual with a disability.
■ Be in full compliance with the City Development Code and Municipal Code. ■ Be consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, programs, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

However, requiring full complian ce with City Development Code a nd Municipal Code does not offer adequate accommodation to persons with disabilities. For example, in or der to construct a handicap ramp, a property may have to remove an oak tree, or to construct accessible bedroom and bathroom on the main floor, a property might not be able to meet setback requirements or may have to exceed the lot coverage requirement. These may be considered reasonable flexibility to the Development Code and Municipal Code to accommodate the housing needs of a person with disabilities. The City will amend the Develop ment Code to revise the criteria for granting reasonable accommodations as part of Program 13: Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

BUILDING CODES
The City enforces the 2019 Edition, Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations that regulates the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. Government Code Section 12955.1 requires that 10 percent of the total dwelling units in multi-family bui ldings without elevators consisting of three or more rental units or four or more condominium units are subject to t he following building standards for persons with disabilities:
119
358
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-55
■ The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests.
■ At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the pr imary entry level served by an accessible route.
■ All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route. Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this c hapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms, or hallways. ■ Common use areas shall be accessible.
■ If common tenant parking is provided, accessible parking is required.

The City has not adopted unique restrictions that would constra in the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is assessed and enforced by the Building and Safety Division of the Environmental Services Department as a part of the building permit submittal.

CONCLUSION
In 2014, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate and encourage the provision of transitional housing, supportive housing, and SRO units consistent with state law, Go vernment Code Sections 65582, 65583, 65589.5, and Chapter 614 of the Government Code. The City will be amending the Zoning Ordinance further to address new changes to state law as they pertain to other special needs pop ulation, which may also benefit persons with disabilities.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES
The City charges a variety of fees and exactions to cover the c ost of processing permits and providing necessary services and facilities for new development. In general, these fees can be a constraint on housing development and compromise market-rate affordabil ity because the additional cost borne by developers contributes to overall increased housing unit cost. However, the fees are necessary to maintain adequate planning services and other public services and facilities in the City. The City’s fee sche dule for a typical residential project is displayed in Table H-33.

While Table H-33 shows typical planning fees in Simi Valley, Ta ble H-34 compares the Simi Valley planning fees to those of surrounding communities. Simi Valley’s planning fees are mid-range when compared to those in Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, Santa Paula and Fillmore. In general Simi Valley’s fees are towards the lower end. The City has not raised its planning fees since 2008.
120
359

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-56
Table H-33 Schedule of Typical R esidential Development Processing Fees Action Fee
Plan Check and Site Inspection $395 (minor) to $2,950 (major) Landscape Architect Plan Review 1.5% of landscape materials, $1000 (minimum) + 10% of consultant contract Pre-Application/Preliminary Review $2,815
Conditional Use Permit
Administrative
Planning Commission

$2,510
$4,105
Development Agreement $15,000 deposit
General Plan Amendment
Prescreening
Stand Alone
With Another Discretionary Application

$4,975
$7,680
$3,480
Subdivisions
Lot Line Adjustment
Parcel Map
Tentative Tract Map

Vesting Tentative Tract Map

$2,120
$3,185 (stand-alone) $2,750 (with another discretionary app.) $2,750 (5-50 lots) + $46 per lot over 5 lots
$4,815 (51+ lots) + $18 per lot over 50 lots
$1,755
Planned Development Permit
Attached Residential
Detached Residential
Non-Residential (Commercial/Industrial)

$6,510 + 87 per unit over 5 units
$8,480 + $87 per unit over 5 units
$9,265 + $20 per 1,000 sq. ft. over 50,000 sq. ft.

Affordable/ Senior Housing Agreement $4,260 (application) $1,950 (amendment) $845 (transfer) Zone Change $8,125 (stand-alone) to $3,480 (with another discretionary app.) Specific Pan $25,000 deposit
Variance $5,530 (standard) and $2,080 (administrative)
CEQA Exemption $395
Initial Environmental Study $1,685 (minor) and $6,010 major) + any State or County fees Environmental Impact Report Review 15,000 deposit + 10% of contract cost SOURCE: City of Simi Valley, Department of Environmental Services, Adopted 2020 fees.

121
360
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-57
Table H-34 Comparison of Planning Fees
Simi Valley Camarillo Thousand Oaks Santa Paula Fillmore Minor CUP $2,5101 $6,629 $1,127 - $9,220 $4,161 (Deposit) $970+FAHR Major CUP – $19,784 $15,000 (Deposit) $10,000 (Deposit) $5,350+FAHR General Plan
Amendment
$3,480 - $7,680 $18,244 - $37,613 $6,500 (Deposit) $12,000 (Deposit) $6,860+FAHR Variance – Minor $2,080 - $5,530 $6,442 $4,009 - $6,680 $4,000 (Deposit) $1,580+FAHR Variance – Major $2,080 - $5,530 $6,422 $4,009 - $6,680 $6,000 (Deposit) $4,030+FAHR Zone Change $3,480 – $8,125 $13,589 - $36,489 $2,060 – $9,780 $8,000 (Deposit) $9,900+FAHR Parcel Map $2,750 - $3,185 $13,8153 $2,1904 $4,500 (Deposit) +FAHR2
$5,375+FAHR
Tract Map $2,750 - $4,815 $30,808 - $75,895 $12,000 (Deposit) $6,000 (Deposit) +FAHR
$9,900+FAHR
1 Administrative Conditional Use Permit is shown for Simi Valley. No minor or major listed. 2 FAHR: Fully Allocated Hourly Rates for staff time spent on applications. 3 Up to 5 lots.
4 Fee for Parcel Map Waiver
SOURCE: Cities of Simi Valley (2020), Camarillo (2021), Thousand Oaks (2019), Santa Paula (2017), and Fillmore (2020).

Development impact fees are established for mitigating various development impacts based on the specific existing conditions of and projected needs for infrastructure and public facilities. Fees for public improvements (streets, sidewalks, storm drains, grading, etc.) can vary significantly even within the City depending upon the characteristics o f t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . T h e C i t y o f S i m i V a l l e y ’ s i m p a c t f e e s t r u cture considers the extent to which the developer constructs off-site improvements (discussed below). Off-site improvement fees are assessed on a case-by-case basis and are intended to offset impacts to drainage and sewer facili ties, schools, parkland, watershed protection, and other public facilities. A summary of estimated impact fees for typical residential types is included in Table H-35.

While these fees add to the cost of housing development, they are established to cover the costs of providing public infrastructure, facilities and improvements to serve the develo pment. Since impact fees are subject to the requirements of state law for ensuring reasonableness and a pro portionate share of responsibility, these fees are considered necessary to ensure quality of life for existing and future residents. 122
361

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-58
Table H-35 Development Impact Fees (Typical Projects)
Fee Type
Single-Family Multi-Family Senior
Market Affordable Market Affordable Market Affordable
Parks and
Recreation
$2,986 to
$3,890/unit
$880 to
$1,385/unit
$1,732 to
$3,967/unit
$468 to
$2,060/unit
$1,571 to
$2,141/unit
$379 to
$919/unit
Traffic $83 per trip $83 per trip $83 per trip $83 per trip $83 per trip $83 per trip Water $3,714/unit $3,714/unit $7,428 +
$2,603/unit
$7,428 +
$2,603/unit

Sewer $4,374/unit $4,374/unit $3,281/unit $3,281/unit $2,624/unit $2,624/unit Fire $232/unit $232/unit $341/unit $341/unit
Schools $3.20/ sq ft. $3.20/ sq ft. $3.20/ sq ft. $3.20/ sq ft. $3.20 / sq. ft. $3.20 / sq. ft.

Flood Control $600/unit $600/unit $2,400/acre $2,400/acre School impact fees are collected for the school district and flood control fees are collected for the County. Fire fees are variable based on square footage and other factors. The Fire fees in the table are averages. Flood Control fees are variable based on acreage, but do not exceed the maximum single family residence tract lot fee of $600.

SOURCE: City of Simi Valley Estimated Construction Fees, 2020.

Table H-36 provides the actual development fees for two recent development projects in Simi Valley. The 1260 Patricia Avenue Project is a 54-unit multi-family development while the 3050 Kadota Street Project was a development of 48 single-family homes. The City does not curren tly have any completed mixed-use development projects therefore, no fees were added. Table H-36 shows the br e a k d o w n o f a l l f e e s f r o m p l a n n i n g t o o f f s i t e improvements to public safety and impact fees. The total fees are moderate and represent only a small portion of total development costs (less than 10 percent) and do not constrain housing development in the City. 123
362
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-59
Table H-36 Actual Development Fees for Recent Projects
Fee Type
Multi-Family
Project
(Spanish
Villas)
Single-Family
Project
(Los Arboles)
Mixed Use
Project
(The
Marketplace)
Low Income Senior MF
(Vintage at Sycamore Senior
Apartments)
Market Rate MF (Landing at
Arroyo-Market Rate
Apartments)
Planning and
Housing $24,140 $58,457 $43,879 $24,872 $59,126
Building and
Safety $103,365 $168,020 $239,978** $266,178 $545,490
Public Works $50,370 $85,844 $150,445 $62,900 $151,380
Water and
Sewer $227,910 $188,082*** $357,712 $259,820 $672,100
City Traffic
Fees $6,272 $13,596 $6,747 $19,339 $79,846
County Traffic
Fees $811 $1,681 $4,496 $1,230 $5,079
Flood Control $6,240 $25,800 $13,200 $9,495 $22,800
Calleguas $96,486 $96,105 $41,908 $0 $0
Fire
Department $19,950 $45,150 $56,700 $12,385 $52,500
Police $66 $66 $66 $0 $0
Schools $128,954 $160,551 $349,281 $30,141 $648,651
Parks $137,082 $152,104 $304,776 $90,981 $579,214
Total Fees $801,646 $995,456 $1,569,188 $777,341 $2,816,186 Units 38 43 108 99 212
Cost per Unit $20,921 $23,150 $14,530 $7,852 $13,284
SOURCE: City of Simi Valley, 2021.
124
363

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-60

ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Requirements for on- and off-site improvements vary depending on the presence of existing improvements, as well as the size and nature of the proposed development. Most residential areas are already served with infrastructure; however, some single-family areas of the City will require infr astructure improvements. Infrastructure is already established in multi-family areas. The City has established specific standards for improvements and facilities to serve new development, including concrete curbs, gutters, asphalt concrete street pavement, sidewalks and streetlights.

Developers are responsible for all on-site improvements, including parking, landscaping, open space development, walkways, and all utility connections.

The City adopted the American Public Works Association Standards. Public street widths are specified in County of Ventura Public Works Agency Road Standards. This document estab lishes street standards for various types of streets. For typical residential streets, the standard is 60 feet right of way (ROW) and 40 feet curb-to-curb. Private streets must be wide enough to meet standards established in th e California Fire Code for Fire Department equipment needs.

The City of Simi Valley’s fee structure includes some on- and o ff-site improvements, which are described in the section above. Off-site improvement fees include drainage and sewer facility fees, school fees, park land fees, and public facility fees, among others. Overall, the City’s fees are lower than those of most surrounding communities.

Chapter 9-64 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code requires multipl e design standards be met for proposed subdivisions, including access easements and rights-of-way, off site drain improvements and drainage easements, sanitary sewer service, utility easements, water service, among other standards. In addition, fees for bridges and thoroughfares may be required to defray the costs of constructing such infrastructure deemed necessary by the Mobility Element, other elements of the General Plan, or any applicable Specific Plan.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS

REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Regional growth management plans, which regulate population gro wth, have been adopted by the Board of Supervisors as well as most of the incorporated cities in Ventu ra County. Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 2015 (CAAA), the Ventura County 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) presents Ventura County’s strategy to attain the federal 8-hour ozone standard, attainment demonstration for the federal 8-hour ozone standard; reasonable further progress demonstration for t he federal 8-hour ozone standard; and transportation conformity emissions budget for federal transpor tation conformity purposes. The City uses the population limits in the AQMP to establish a limit on the number of dwelling units that could be built in the City, using upon an assumed number of persons per unit, consistent with Census information. If future housing demand surpasses the limits established by the countywide growth management policies, the cost of housing in the City of Simi Valley will be affected, because limited supply in conjunc tion with increasing demand creates a marketplace susceptible to high unit prices.

REGIONAL: SAVE OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) and City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURBs) resulted from several voter-approved ballot initiatives in the unincorporated areas of Ventura County and eight of the County’s ten cities, including Simi Valley. The County SOAR initiative was adopted in 1998 and requires voter approval in the 125
364
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-61
affected jurisdictions before specified General Plan land use designations, such as agriculture and open space, can be up-zoned to urban designations. The CURB initiatives define a boundary around the affected jurisdictions and require voter approval before urban development can occur outside the CURB lines. The SOAR and CURB measures work together to direct urban growth to within existing city bo undaries, thereby restricting urban sprawl, encouraging infill and higher density development, and protecti ng agricultural, open space, and natural lands in Ventura County. The current term for the County SOAR ends in 2050.

CITY: MANAGED-GROWTH PLAN
The City of Simi Valley has adopted a Managed Growth Plan to en sure that the rate of residential development is metered in an effort to control the rate of ozone generated within the City. Simi Valley is a non-attainment area for meeting the 2015 Federal Clean Air Act ozone standards and mana ging the rate of growth will assist in attaining these standards.

The City’s Managed Growth Plan, initially adopted by a popular vote in 1986 and amended at the ballot in 1996, 2004, and 2012, has been implemented to encourage orderly devel opment within the City while reducing air pollution, protecting the hillsides and promoting affordable housing. In March 2013, the City adopted a replacement implementation ordinance for the Managed Growth Plan that will ensure that the City is able to meet its Regional Housing Need Allocation. The purpose of the Managed-Growth Plan is to reduce air pollution generated by development to a level below that which would occur in the abse nce of the Plan, to promote affordable housing, and to protect the hillsides from over-development. The Allocation System manages population by limiting the number of residential building permits that may be issued on an annual basis, balanced against local housing needs as determined by applicable State and Federal guidelines. The current Managed-Growth Plan covers the period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2022. Current State law SB 330 and the subsequent Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 8) prohibit the adoption or impl ementation of growth management programs that set a cap on the number of housing units that can be permitted until January 1, 2030. The City has not been implementing the Managed-Growth Plan due to the existing and pending housing laws and the large surplus of units under the current system.

The primary implementing tool for the Managed Growth Plan is th e Residential Building Permit Allocation System (codified in Ordinance No. 1209), also referred to as the RBPAS . The RBPAS manages population by limiting the number of residential building permits that may be issued on an annual basis. This limitation is balanced against local housing needs. The RBPAS currently provides 292 EDUs per year, which is more than sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA. The RBPAS provides two exemptions:
■ Class 1 Exemption: These projects are not subtracted from the allocation grants and are immediately eligible and able to be awarded residential building permits:
> Rehabilitation or remodeling of an existing dwelling, or conver sion of apartments to condominiums in compliance with Government Code Section 66427.1 and Simi Valley Municipal Code Section 9- 24.070, so long as no additional dwelling units are created. Replacement o f existing single-family or multi-family structures that have been damaged or destroyed through accident, fire, flood, or other “act of God.” > Construction of a second dwelling unit in compliance with Gover nment Code Section 65852.2(a)(1)(C), and Simi Valley Municipal Code Sections 9-44.160 (Accessory Dwelling Units). > Replacement of existing single-family or multiple-family struct ures on a one-for-one basis on the same site.
126
365

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-62
■ Class 2 Exemption: Residential development of one residence on a lot that is not part of an approved but unbuilt Planned Development or Cluster Development Permit is im mediately eligible to be awarded an allocation grant. This Class 2 exemption shall apply only to tw o such projects per developer, or his or her agent, per calendar year, provided such developments are not on adjacent sites. When allocation grants from Class 2 exemptions are awarded, their number shall be subtracte d from the available grants before grants are awarded to any residential projects in the allocation system.

Other types of projects have been placed in a queue upon approval by the City. Annually, approximately 292 grants have entered the system. Projects were awarded grants on a firs t-come, first-served basis. Unused grants rolled over and were added to the next year’s allotment. A single-fami ly residence or condominium was considered one residential allocation grant (1.0 EDU), which is equivalent to 1.4 apartment units and 1.9 senior units.

All new dwelling units required allocation grants. Projects tha t have been placed into the allocation system may receive up to one-half of the available grants during that calendar year. If a project required more allocation grants, the project would maintain its place in the allocation system and would be eligible to receive up to one-half of the available grants for each subsequent calendar year until all al location grants required for the project have been issued. All allocation grants are valid for four years. The four-year period would commence when a project, or phase of a project, receives its last grant. If a developer fails to establish vested rights within four years, the allocation grants would be returned to the allocation system for distribution. If the project’s Planned Development or Cluster Development Permit has not expired, the project would be placed at the end of the list of projects awaiting allocation grants.

As of April 2021, the City has a balance of 1,060 residential allocation grants. Due to low demand for residential development in the last several years, there has been little or no competition for residential allocation grants.

Furthermore, SB 330 prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, o r moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. In compliance with SB 330, the City will continue to accept and approve proposed residential projects that comply with applicable City land use plans, policies and ordinances.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURES
Development review and permit procedures are necessary steps to ensure that residential construction proceeds in an orderly manner. The following discussion and Figure H-5 below outline the level of review required for various permits and timelines associated with those reviews. The timelines provided are estimates; actual processing time may vary due to the volume of applications and the size and complexity of the projects.

The City works to assist the public in understanding the plan review process by outlining the timelines for different projects and offering guidelines to assist in the type of infor mation that is needed to conduct a plan review. The extent of the review required to issue permits for a project depends on the use or occupancy type of the structure, its location and the impact of its construction on the environment. The applicant’s responsiveness to comments or questions from staff and outside agencies can also have a significant effect on project timeframes. 127
366
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-63

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
The Planned Development Permit (PD) facilitates development of land as a single unit by taking advantage of modern site planning techniques, resulting in a more efficient use of land and a better living environment. It is also a method whereby land may be designed and developed to ensure high standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, and the intent, goals, policies, programs, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The Planned Development Permit is required for all residential development projects with two or more dwelling units, and for all commercial and industri al development projects, unless a Conditional Use Permit is required. For projects requiring a Planned Developme nt Permit, no Building or Grading Permit shall be issued until the Planned Development Permit has been approved. In approving a Planned Development Permit, the applicable review authority may impose conditions deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City’s General Plan and Development Code. Please refer to SVMC Section 9-52.050 for further information on Planned Development Permits.

A Cluster Development Permit is a similar process that encourag es the preservation of natural terrain and open space, especially on hillsides, by exploring design alternatives than is otherwise possible through strict application of the setback and parcel width standards. The process encoura ges a variety of dwelling types, sizes, and site designs. Please refer to SVMC Section 9-52.040 for further information on Cluster Development Permits.

Preliminary Review
The Preliminary Review process is a means for a developer to gauge impacts and issues that a proposed project may have on the City’s infrastructure, allowing preliminary analysi s on a project’s compatibility with the General Plan, Development Code, and Citywide Design Guidelines. Preliminary p lans are reviewed by a Development Advisory C o mmi t te e ( DA C ) , a n d t h e C i t y p r ovi d e s w r i t t en c om me n t s t o t h e d e ve lop e r , w h i c h ma y a s s i s t i n a d e c i s i o n t o proceed with the Formal Application process.

Formal Application
A Formal Application is required for subdivisions and all land developments, excluding construction of one single- family home. Formal Application processing procedures and approximate timelines for typical single-family and multi-family development projects proposed in Simi Valley are summarized in Table H-37 and the narrative below.

Table H-37 Approvals and Processing Times for Typical Developme nts

Single-
Family
Single-Family
(2–4 units)
Single-Family
(5+ units)
Multi-Family
(2–4 units)
Multi-Family
(5+ units)
Mixed-Use
Approvals
Required
Zoning
Clearance and
Building Permit
Planned
Development
Permit
Planned
Development
Permit
Planned
Development
Permit
Planned
Development
Permit
Planned
Development
Permit
Processing
Time
2–3 months 4–6 months 6–12 months 4–6 months 6–12 months 6–12 months Senior or affordable housing requires approval by the City Council. 128
367

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-64
Planned Development Review and Approval
All PD applications are reviewed by the Director to ensure comp letion of the application, and a staff report and recommendation will be created and provided to the approval bod y. In the case of an Administrative PD, a public hearing is not required unless the Director determines that the proposed project could potentially affect the property rights of others. If a Commission action is required, the Commission will conduct a public hearing to decide approval or disapproval of the permit. The Commission will approve a PD based on the following four findings:
■ The proposed project must be consistent with the purpose, inten t, goals, policies, programs and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; ■ The project must be in full compliance with the City of Simi Valley Development Code and Municipal Code; ■ The project must be consistent with applicable design guidelines (for residential development, the applicable design guidelines are the City’s Residential Design Guidelines and Landscape Design Guidelines); and ■ Ensure that the proper standards and conditions have been imposed which protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

In approving a PD Permit, the applicable review authority may i mpose conditions (e.g., buffers, environmental protection, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, public infrastructure improvements, time limits, etc.) deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the approval would be in compliance with the findings required above. These findings are objective and based on established City policies, regulations, and guidelines, and therefore offer clear direction for developers and property owners.

Based on a review of PD permits approved in recent years, typical conditions are summarized below:
■ For an affordable housing project, the project must maintain af fordability for a duration set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement.
■ For a senior housing project, the project must meet the handica p accessibility requirements set forth in the California Building Code, and the required path of travel must have a slip-resistant surface. The property owner must also allow for the conversion of the unit into a handicap accessible unit at the tenant’s expense. ■ Other project requirements include: payment of required impact a n d p e r m i t f e e s ; s e c u r i n g o f r e q u i r e d permits (grading, NPDES); proof of adequate water and sewer ser vices; replacement/relocation of mature trees; landscaping and maintenance plans; stormwater and erosion control plans; and public improvements and infrastructure plans.

These conditions are typical performance-based conditions. Only in very rare occasions had the City denied a PD permit.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
As with Planned Development Permits, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is a method whereby land may be designed and developed to ensure high standards of environmental quality , public health and safety, and the intent, goals, policies, programs, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

A Conditional Use Permit allows for activities and land uses th at may be desirable in the applicable zoning district and compatible with adjoining land uses, but whose effect on a site and its surroundings cannot be determined before being proposed for a particular location. Conditional U se Permit procedures provide for the review of the configuration, design, location, and potential impacts of the p roposed use, the compatibility of the proposed use 129
368
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-65
with surrounding uses, and the suitability of the use to the si te. A Conditional Use Permit is required to authorize those proposed land uses, and activities as identified in SVMC Section 9-26.030 as being allowable in the applicable zoning district. Depending on the gross square footage of your project or business that is located within an existing development, the level of review varies as follows:
■ For projects 3,000 square feet or less, the proposal is reviewed as an Administrative Action ■ For projects between 3,000 and 10,000 square feet, an Administrative Conditional Use Permit is required ■ For projects 10,000 square feet or more, the proposal is reviewed by the Planning Commission The Director of Environmental Services (Director) reviews all C UP applications for consistency and appropriate requirements. After giving proper notice, the Planning Commissi on will hold a public hearing and decide whether to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the applicatio n . I n o r d e r t o a p p r o v e a C U P , t h e P l a n n i n g Commission must make the following findings:
■ The proposed use is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit withi n the zoning district and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code;
■ The proposed use is consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, programs and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
■ The proposed site plan and design would ensure consistency with applicable design guidelines; and ■ The design, location, operating characteristics and size of the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity, in terms of aesthetics, character, scale and view protection.

For projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit, no Building Permit or Grading Permit, if applicable, shall be issued until the Conditional Use Permit has been approved. In approving a Conditional Use Permit, the applicable review authority may impose conditions deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City’s General Plan and Development Code. Refer to SVMC Section 9-52.070 for further information on Conditional Use Permits.

TENTATIVE PARCEL AND TRACT MAPS
A subdivision is any division of contiguous land into separate parcels for sale, lease, or financing. Any land transaction that legally separates property into distinct ownership units in which long-term ownership rights can be vested is a subdivision. In most cases, a Parcel Map is the division of a parcel into two to four lots, and a Tract Map is the division of a parcel into five or more lots. A Tentative Parcel Map is reviewed administratively; a Tentative Tract Map is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, the approval of the Tentative Parcel or Tract Map is subject to conditions from the various City departments and outside agencies that review the project.

Requirements may include preparation of Conditions, Convents, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), a Common Area Maintenance (CAM) Agreement, and/or property deed restrictions related to required access easements. The conditions are required to be addressed prior or concurrent to the recording of the Map.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
In 2012, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan. The General Plan is the foundation for local land use planning. It creates a vision fo r the foreseeable planning horizon and translates the vision into objectives, goals, policies, and implementation pro grams for the physical development of the community. The General Plan covers all the land within the Cit y and within its Sphere of Influence. All proposed 130
369

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-66
land uses must be consistent with the General Plan. Four times a year, the City Council may consider amendments to the General Plan including land use changes. These initial public hearings are referred to as the General Plan Prescreening meeting. Please contact the Planning Division for the City Council meeting dates and the application deadlines.

During the City review of the project, the application and exhi bits are distributed to applicable City departments and outside agencies for their comments and concerns. Once the application is complete, the item is formally scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. At tha t time, the City Council reviews the request and considers if the change in land use might be appropriate. This level of review is not an approval but only an initial decision to proceed or not process with formal application for a General Plan Amendment and associated Zone Change and other appropriate entitlements requests.

SPECIFIC PLANS
Specific Plans are a flexible planning tool often used for larger areas, to encourage comprehensive planning. Specific Plans are adopted by ordinance and may focus on a particular planning or development issue, and provide detailed direction as to the type, location, intensity or design, financ ing, or infrastructure needed for development. Refer to SVMC Chapter 9-56 for the intent and applicability of Specific Plans. Specific Plans must be consistent with the City’s General Plan. Typically, a Specific Plan is submitted wi th other entitlement applications, such as a Planned Development Permit and Tentative Tract Map. These requests are processed concurrently with the Specific Plan.

This level of review requires a Public Hearing before the City’ s Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to the Public Hearing, the City will mail notifications to the surroun ding property owners to inform them of the proposal and to receive any public comments.

ZONE CHANGES
Zoning is the separation of a community into districts or zones that regulate land uses and the intensity of development. A zoning designation is assigned to every legally defined parcel within a zone in the community. There is an accompanying map and text that describes the boundaries of each zone; uses are permitted within the zone; and the standards that apply to the specific uses within the zo ne. The goal of zoning is to assure that neighboring land uses are compatible. Typically, a Zone Change is submitted with other entitlement applications, such as a Planned Development Permit and Tentative Tract Map. These requests are processed concurrently with the Zone Change.

This level of review requires a Public Hearing before the City’s Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to the Public Hearing, the City will mail notifications to the surroun ding property owners to inform them of the proposal and to receive any public comments.

VARIANCES
A Variance is a limited waiver of zoning standards for a use th at is already permitted within a zone. Variances are considered only in extraordinary circumstances where the physical characteristics of a property, such as size, shape, topography, location, surroundings, or its use pose a unique hardship to the property owner. A Variance can only be granted in special cases where the strict application of zon ing regulations deprives the owner of a use enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone. Economic hardship alone is an insufficient justification to approve a 131
370
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-67
variance. A Variance may not be used to permit a land use that is not otherwise allowed in a zone, such as a commercial use within a residential zone, as this would require a Zone Change.

DESIGN GUIDELINES
The City’s Residential Design Guidelines are intended to promote excellence in the design and development of new residential projects in the City of Simi Valley. The Guidelines do not seek to impose a particular architectural theme, color palette, or particular style. Rather, they seek to promote positive quality-based design that will have enduring appeal. The Guidelines complement mandatory development standards by providing examples of design solutions and design interpretations of various mandatory regulations. These Guidelines, however, are less quantitative than mandatory development standards and may be interpreted with some flexibility for specific applications.

Specific design guidelines vary depending on the type of residential development, but generally cover the following the topics:
■ Lot design and arrangement.
■ Streets and circulation.
■ Common areas and amenities.
■ Walls and fences.
■ Trash receptacles, utilities, and equipment screening. ■ Façades.
■ Roof design.
■ Garages and accessory buildings.

Design review for projects up to 4 units is performed at the st aff level. Any residential project requiring a discretionary permit application is subject to the City’s Resid ential Design Guidelines. The design review process runs concurrently with the discretionary permit application process and will not increase overall processing time.

CEQA COMPLIANCE
The California Environmental Qua lity Act (CEQA) compliance proc ess determines the timeframes for approval of m a n y d i s c r e t i o n a r y p r o j e c t s . M o s t p r o j e c t s a r e e i t h e r C a t e g o r i cally Exempt or handled through the negative declaration process, which is processed concurrently with other discretionary approval processes. However, if an Environmental Impact Report is required a minimum of six months is added to the approval process. The EIR process requires additional time depending on the number and variety of impacts or the level of controversy around a project. Large and complex residential projects with a variety of potentially significant impacts may take a year or more to complete the CEQA review process.

BUILDING PERMITS
The goal of the Building and Safety Division of the Environmental Services Department usually completes residential plan reviews within 20 working days for initial reviews and 20 working days for re-submittals. Small residential additions and minor initial improvements of commercial space may be reviewed, and permits issued in one visit (over-the-counter plan review). The availability of over-the-co unter plan reviews depends on the current daily workload of the Plans Examiner.
132
371

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-68
A Building Permit is written permission from a local jurisdicti o n s u c h a s t h e C i t y , f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , r e p a i r , alteration or addition to a structure. The issuance of building permits helps the City of Simi Valley enforce the duly adopted California Building and Fire Codes and thus ensures that those standards of health and safety are followed.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
A project that is in the approval process or has been approved but not yet built may be subject to new regulations and fees as they are adopted. Developers generally do not have an assured (or "vested") right to develop until they obtain a building permit and have performed substantial work in reliance on that permit. Until then, there is no guarantee that the local land use policies and regulations will remain the same. The advantage of Development Agreement for developers is that they can "lock in" their entitlements and the local regulations that are in effect at the time the agreement is approved, allowing them to obtain financing and get the project underway. For the City, the advantage is that there may be an agreement to additional conditions, such as extra parkland, school facilities, affordable housing, and other public improvements. This is beyond what the City could require through the normal development process.

TRANSPARENCY IN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
To increase transparency in the development process, the City’s website publishes resources that would help developers and homeowners navigate the development and home improvement processes. Specifically, the Planning Division ( https://www.simivalley.org/departments/environmental-services/planning-division) webpage provides guidance on topics such as home improvements and land development. The Municipal Code, plan review procedures, and forms and handouts, among other documents are a vailable online. The City also has an Online Permit Submittal system. Although the information regarding fee s, zoning, and development standards exists on the City’s website, there is no website interface for parcel-specific inquiry. The City will evaluate its compliance with the new transparency requirements in AB 1483 as part of Program 12 for Development Standards and Review Process and develop a new consolidated website interface if necessary.

CONCLUSION
All projects with 5 units or more require the processing of a P lanned Development Permit and review by the Planning Commission. To assist developers to navigate the devel opment application and review process, the City developed an application package that clearly outlines the requ ired information and procedures required for various types of applications. The City’s goal is to schedule the proposed project before the decision makers within 45–60 days for environmentally exempt projects and 75–90 days f or those with a Negative Declaration. The timeframe for projects that require Council approval (projects with affordable agreements, zone change, and/or General Plan amendment) is extended by approximately three week s. Those with Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) must have the EIR prepared first. The flow chart on the Figure H-5 is provided to outline the processing steps for development projects. This timeframe is typical and is comp liant with the Permit Processing and Streamlining Act from date when the application is deemed complete. The City complies with requirements under the State’s Streamlining Review Act (Government Code Section 65913.4) and makes all attempts to expedite permit processing. 133
372
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-69

Figure H-5 Development Review Process
134
373

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-70
Infrastructure and Public Service Constraints
Another factor adding to the cost of new home construction is t he cost of providing adequate infrastructure such as streets, curbs, gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer lines, an d street lighting. The cost of these additions or improvements is borne by developers and then, to the extent pos sible, added to the cost of new housing units, impacting affordability.

WATER SERVICE
Each year, approximately 26,000 acre-feet of water is provided to residents of the City of Simi Valley by the Southern California Water Company and Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8. These two agencies receive their water from the California Aqueduct System through the Calleguas Munic ipal Water District. These two water purveyors have determined that although water is relatively scarce, adequ ate supply is available to serve the buildout population under the General Plan. The City Council adopted the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) on May 17, 2021. The UWMP analyzed several factors including the C ity’s water supply and future demand. Facilities also exist to deliver Colorado River water in the event service is disrupted from the California Aqueduct System.

Approximately 33 million gallons of water is kept in 43 water s torage reservoirs within the City of Simi Valley area for operational purposes, fire protection, or other emergency services. Bard Reservoir, which serves the eastern portion of Ventura County, including the City of Simi Valley, has a total storage capacity of 11,000 acre-feet and is also intended to be an emergency water supply for this area.

The 2006 Senate Bill 1087 (Chapter 727, amended Government Code Section 65589.7 and Water Code Section 10631.1) requires that water providers develop written policies that grant priority to proposed development that includes housing affordable to lower income households. The leg islation also prohibits water providers from denying or conditioning the approval of development that includes housing affordable to lower income households unless specific written findings are made. The City will provide a copy of the adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element to applicable water supply agencies and purveyors within 30 day s of adoption. The City will also continue to coordinate with these agencies to ensure affordable housing developments receive priority water service provision if and when development is restricted by water shortages within the region.

WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
The Department of Public Works operates the City’s sanitary sew er system and Water Quality Control Plant. The treatment plant is located in the Public Services Center at the west end of the City adjacent to the Arroyo Simi. The treatment plant was expanded in 1990 and upgraded in 2005. The capacity of the treatment plant is 12.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and currently treats approximately 8 MGD a day.

Senate Bill 1087 described above also mandates priority wastewa ter collection and treatment service to housing developments providing units aff ordable to lower income househo lds. The City will continue to ensure priority service provision to affordable housing developments.
135
374
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-71

DRY UTILITIES
Gas, electricity, and telephone services are provided by Southe rn California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, and Verizon Communications (telephone) respectively. Al l systems are adequate and are upgraded as demand increases. Supplies of natural resources, such as water and gas, currently appear adequate.

STORM WATER DRAINAGE
Storm water runoff is handled by a flood control system maintained by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District. Surface drainage utilizes streets and gutters until i t reaches catch basins. Individual projects are required to extend local storm drains or participate in reimbursement di stricts to defray installation costs for trunk lines.

Downstream capacity is limited due to lack of funding for capit al improvements and maintenance by the County Watershed Protection District. An existing shortfall between District costs and revenues will likely expand into the future and downstream capacity will remain limited 5. The City is also required to implement the current Ventura County Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This is required to address water quality and quantity runoff from construction act ivities and for post-construction runoff from all types of development, including residential projects. All projects must meet the current Permit requirements to retain 95 percent of the water quality storm using Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as infiltration, reuse, or evapotranspiration measures or retention measures. Such infrastructure requirements may add to the cost of development. The stormwater quality permit requirements offer a lternative compliance for low income housing projects.

SCHOOLS AND PARKS
The school districts (Pleasant Valley Elementary School Distric t, Somis School District, Mesa Union School District, and Oxnard Union High School District) charge school fees to he lp pay for buildings and facilities. Parks are developed and maintained by the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District using fees or land dedication that is required by the City’s Municipal Code Park Dedication Ordinance . The objective of the General Plan is to provide five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The City has been unable to meet this objective due to lack of funds and land area for recreation. Actual development of parks occurs after the construction of dwellings.

Environmental Constraints
The unique character of Simi Valley and many aspects of quality of lif e in the communit y are influenced by the substantial amount of hillside areas, canyons, open space and r ural and agricultural lands that surround the community. Maintaining a balance between the natural resources of the community and the residential needs can be challenging. In addition to the constraints of developing wi thin a biologically diverse area, the City also faces natural hazards due to soils and other geological factors.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Simi Valley planning area contains significant natural feat ures such as hillsides, canyons and valleys, which contain a variety of ecosystems ranging from wildlife corridors to wetlands. Predominant vegetation types include

5 Ventura County Watershed Protection District Report on Benefit Assessment Program Fiscal Year 2019/2020. 136
375

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-72
coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and non-native grassland and chaparral vegetation types. Additional vegetation is present inside the Planning Area including oak woodland, southern riparian scrub, mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub, and saltgrass. Open areas of vegetation are predominantly restricted to the outer portions of the Planning Area, especially the northern and southern regions.

Wildlife within the City is diverse with a special abundance in undeveloped high-quality habitats, including populations of native mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. Sensitive habitats within the City also include endangered and protected species. The City enforces an Urban Re striction Boundary and Tree Preservation Ordinance to ensure the continued viability of protected and endangered species.

SOIL AND SLOPE CONSTRAINTS
Various soil associations exist within the City, and much of the planning area consists of steep slopes and hillsides, creating potential constraints for the development of housing i n Simi Valley. Soil associations prevalent in the planning area include the Pico-Anacapa-Salinas, Soper-Chesterto n-Rincon, San Benito-Castaic-Calleguas, Sespe- Lodo-Malibu, Badland-Calleguas-Lithic-Xerorthents and Hambright-Lithic-Xerothents-Rock Outcrop associations.

Development within hillside areas is regulated by the City’s Hillside Performance Standards, found in Chapter 9 32 of the Simi Valley Development Code. Design guidelines related to slope design and ridgeline development are provided, as well as requirements for geologic and soils engineering reports for any area proposed for development within the jurisdiction of the performance standards. According to provisions set forth in Chapter 9 32, development within designated slope categories are restricted to a maximum number of residential dwelling units per acre, according to Table H-38.

Table H-38 Sl ope and Density
Slope Maximum Density
0–10% Underlying General Plan designation at target density or 7 units per acre, whichever is less 10–15% 2 units per acre or target density, whichever is less 15–20% 1 unit per 4 acres (0.25 units per acre)
20+% 1 unit per 40 acres (0.025 unit per acre)
All slopes 1 unit per 40 acres (0.025 unit per acre)
SOURCE: Chapter 9-32 of the Simi Valley Development Code, 2009.

GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
Simi Valley is located in the seismically active Los Angeles Basin where numerous active and potentially active faults have been identified. The City is located in proximity to several major regional faults systems, including the San Andreas and Santa Susana Faults. The Simi-Santa Rosa fault is a local active fault. It is the only known active fault within the Simi Valley Planning Area; therefore, it is the only fault that poses a seismic hazard related to surface rupture. The state has designated the Simi-Santa Rosa fault as an Earthquake Fault Zone, thereby prohibiting structures on fault traces. Structures located on or near this fault zone have the greatest potential to experience future ground water displacement. Several critical facilities ( which include police and fire stations; hospitals, electrical, water and communication facilities; schools and transportation structures) are currently located within a one-half mile radius of the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault. The potential for strong ground shaking in Simi Valley, as a result 137
376
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-73
of seismic activity, is high. The northern portion of the City is more likely to experience stronger ground shaking than the southern portion.

FLOODING
A 100-year flood is a flood so great in size that is has a 1 percent chance of happening in any single year. Major flood events are conveyed in and through Simi Valley by a system of flood control facilities located in the Arroyo Simi and its tributaries. Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) facilities currently provide substantial flood protection at a regional level, establishing an effective base- level system upon which to develop future planned local facilities. However, many of these facilities provide less than VCWPD standard 50-year protection.

There are currently four dams that would have the potential to result in significant flooding impacts in the community of Simi Valley; Wood Ranch, Sycamore Canyon, Las Llaj as, and Runkle Canyon. According to the City’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) Sinaloa Lake is too small t o result in a significant flooding impact. The City Council considers the development of residential uses that might be impacted by dams on a case-by-case basis, and mitigation is required as part of the City’s Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP).

WILDFIRES
Generally, there are three major factors that sustain wildfires and allow for predictions of a given area’s potential to burn. These factors include fuel, topography and weather. In a d d i t i o n , o t h e r f a c t o r s c o m p l i c a t e t h e i s s u e s , including the wild land/urban interface, diversified responsibi lity for wild land vegetation management, and destructive insects and diseases.

Cities such as Simi Valley are considered to have the wild land/urban interface because they are built within and adjacent to mountainous areas and have increased the number of people living near heavily vegetated areas where wild lands meet urban development. A fire along the wild land/urban interface can result in major losses of property and structures unless adequate protection measures have been pr ovided. Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC) and Chapter R337 of t he California Residential Code (CRC) contain standards associated with the construction of buildings in wildfire prone areas. City of Simi Valley recognizes and refers to both the CBC and CRC in the design and approval process for housing developments.

Fuel, topography and weather also impact fire risks in Simi Valley. Chamise Chaparral is a plant that is common on the south flank of the City and has the most significant fire fuel potential in the area. Coastal sage scrub is the most common vegetation found in Simi Valley and is a lesser fire haz ard than Chamise Chaparral, however, it is still a substantial hazard. Simi Valley’s hilly topography has led to h omes built on mountainsides and in canyons. Homes built in steep, narrow canyons and at canyon rims face an incre ased fire risk. The Santa Ana winds are a frequent occurrence in Southern California and create a particularly hig h risk. Because they are heated by compression as they flow down to Southern California from Utah, they can rapidly spread what might otherwise be a small fire. 138
377

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-74

HOUSING RESOURCES
The extent of housing needs in a community often far exceeds the resources available. The City of Simi Valley must pull together limited resources and use them efficiently to address the current and projected housing needs of Simi Valley residents. This section of the Housing Element provides an overview of resources available to the City.

Residential Development Potential

REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
Pursuant to state law, every jurisdiction in the state has a re sponsibility to accommodate a share of the projected housing needs in its region. Jur isdictions must provide suffici ent land to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. The p rocess of allocating regional housing needs to individual jurisdictions is called the Regional Housing Needs A ssessment (RHNA). The RHNA for jurisdictions in Ventura County was developed by the Southern California Associa tion of Governments (SCAG). In this capacity, SCAG developed a RHNA that determines each jurisdiction’s “fair share” of the region’s projected housing need through the year 2029, based on factors such as recent growth t rends, income distribution, access to transit, employment, and capacity for future growth. Jurisdictions within the SCAG region are in the sixth cycle of Housing Element updates. SCAG is responsible for allocating this housin g need to the six counties and 191 cities and six counties within the region. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) projected a need for 1,341,827 new housing units in the Southern California regi on for the 8-year projection period between June 30, 2021 and October 15, 2029. Units developed after June 30, 2021 will count towards the sixth cycle RHNA.

The RHNA is distributed by income category. For the 2021–2029 Housing Element cycle, the City of Simi Valley has been assigned a RHNA of 2,793 units. Table H-39 is divided into the following income categories (AMI = Area Median Income).

Table H-39 Housing Needs for 2021-2029
Income Category (% of County AMI) Number of Units Percent Extremely Low (30% or less)1 374 13%
Very Low (31% to 50%) 375 13%
Low (51 to 80%) 493 18%
Moderate (81% to 120%) 518 18%
Above Moderate (Over 120%) 1,033 37%
Total 2,793 100%
1 State law requires that local jurisdictions also plan for the housing needs of extremely low-income households (up to 30 percent AMI). The City has a RHNA allocation of 749 very low-income units (inclusive of extremely low-income units). Pursuant to state law (AB2634), the City must use one of two methods to project the number of extremely low-income housing needs. The first method is based on Census income distribution and the second method assumes 50 percent of the very low-income units as extremely low. Using the 2012-2016 CHAS data developed by HUD, the first methodology indicates that approximately nine percent of City households earned incomes below 30 percent (extremely low), approximately half of the very low income households Therefore, the City of Simi Valley has a future housing need of 374 extremely low-income units and 375 very low-income units.

SOURCE: SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, 3/22/21. 139
378
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-75
While the Housing Element covers the planning period of October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029, the RHNA planning period is slightly different – June 30, 2021 through O ctober 15, 2029 (i.e., 2021-2029 RHNA). To comply with State law, the City must identify adequate sites to accomm odate this RHNA at appropriate densities and development standards.

PENDING PROJECTS AND APPLICATIONS
While the Housing Element is an eight-year planning period (202 1-2029), progress towards meeting the RHNA includes housing units constructed or under construction as of July 1, 2020, and all projects currently entitled that have not begun construction. Applications for a number of new projects have been approved and/or are currently pending in Simi Valley, as shown in Table H-40 and Figure H-6. These projects have been credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA, as shown in Table H-41. These projects are expected to add a total of 1,939 units to the City’s housing stock, a portion of which (401 units) will be affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.

Table H-40 Pending, Approved, a nd Under Construction Residential Projects Project Name/
Application Number
Very
Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Market
Rate Project Description

1. Vantage
Apartments/
PD-S-1067
0 4 50 0 A 54-unit apartment project that includes an affordable housing agreement for four low-income households.

Project is approved and under construction.

2. Masihi/PD-S-1057 0 0 3 22 A 25-unit multi-family project that includes an affordable housing agreement for three moderate-
income households. Development application in plan
check.

3. River House/
PD-S-1046
0 3 25 0 A 28-unit senior apartment project that includes an affordable housing agreement for three low-income
households. Development application is in plan check.

4. Forefront Homes/
PD-S-1061
0 0 0 10 A ten-unit single family project. Project is under construction.

5. Nikhoo Apartments/
PD-S-1065
0 0 6 0 A six-unit apartment project. Project is approved and not yet constructed.

6. River Run/
PD-S-1046
0 0 0 40 A 40-unit townhouse project. Development application is in plan check.

7. Sycamore Landing/
PD-S-1053
0 99 0 212 A 311-unit apartment project that includes an affordable housing agreement for 99 senior low-income
households. Project is under construction.

8. The Enclave/
PD-S-1063
0 0 0 164 A 164-unit mixed-use project that includes 58 townhomes, 106 single family units and 6,000 square
feet of commercial space. Development application is
in plan check.

9. Emerald Avenue
Homes/PD-S-1042
0 0 0 3 A three-unit single family project. Project is approved and not yet constructed.

10. Runkle Canyon/
PD-S-0930
0 0 0 191 A 436-unit project that includes 138 senior townhomes 25 custom lots, and 28 single family units remaining to be built. Development application for senior
townhomes is in plan check and single family units are
under construction.
140
379

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-76
Table H-40 Pending, Approved, a nd Under Construction Residential Projects Project Name/
Application Number
Very
Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Market
Rate Project Description

11. Sueno Apartments/
PD-S-1050
0 1 9 0 A ten-unit apartment project that includes an affordable housing agreement for one unit. Project is approved
and not yet constructed

12. Tapo District Lofts/
PD-S-1062
0 0 60 0 A 60-unit single room occupancy project. Project is approved and not yet constructed

13. Alamo/Tapo Mixed-
Use/PD-S-1045
8 76 0 194 A 278-unit mixed-use project that includes a 30% affordable unit housing agreement for eight very low-
income households and 76 low-income households,
and 194 market rate units. Project is approved and not
yet constructed

14. Fountainwood
Estates/PD-S-1041
0 0 0 23 A 13-unit single family project with 10 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Development application is in
plan check.

15. Ralston Meadows/
PD-S-1071
0 0 0 6 A six-unit single family project. Development
application under review and awaiting additional
information.

16. Stow Villas/
PD-S-0964
0 0 3 13 A 13-unit townhome project that includes an affordable housing agreement for three moderate-income
households. Development application is in plan check.

17. Nehoray
Townhomes/
PD-S-1052
0 0 0 8 An eight-unit townhome project. Development
application is in plan check.

18. Pinehurst/
PD-S-1030
0 0 0 24 A 24-unit single family project. Project is under construction.

Total 8 183 156 910 Total Overall 1,257
Pending Approval 0 0 0 6 Total Pending Approval 6
Approved/Not Yet
Constructed
8 80 106 605 Total Approved and Unbuilt 799
Under Construction1 0 103 50 299 Total Under Construction 452 1 Units under construction will not be finaled or issued Certificates of Occupancy and reported to the State Department of Finance before October 15, 2021.

SOURCE: City of Simi Valley, May 2021.
141
380
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-77

Figure H-6 Pending, Approved, a nd Under Construction Residential Projects

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)
An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is an additional dwelling unit that could provide affordable housing options for family members, friends, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others. An ADU can be located on residentially zoned property that has an exis ting single-family or multi-family residence. State legislation in 2017 made it easier to build and permit ADUs on single-family and multi-family zoned property. The City elected to evaluate recent trends (starting in 2018) in the construction of ADUs as a method of projecting the number of ADUs that might be developed over the Cycle 6 Housing Element plan period. Recent trends indicate an average of 50 ADUs were built and occupied per year since 2018. There were 48 units built and occupied in 2018, 48 units built and occupied in 2019, and 45 units built and occ upied in 2020. Conservatively assuming that 2020 trends will hold, and that annual Certificates of Occupancy wil l average 50 units per year, it can be assumed that 400 ADUs will be occupied between 2021 and 2029. California Gov ernment Code section 65583.1 details how jurisdictions may consider alternative means of meeting RHNA be yond vacancy and underutilized sites. The first alterative includes counting units which are pending/approved/u nder construction. Projected development of ADUs can also help a jurisdiction to meet its required RHNA units. SCAG conducted an ADU affordability analysis to provide local jurisdictions with assumptions for distribution o f the projected total number of ADUs among 142
381

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-78
household income levels for the 6th Cycle Housing Element plan period. The analysis examined the current market rents for reasonably comparable rental properties, using platforms such as Craigslist, Zillow, and Westside Rentals and key words to identify units that appear to be ADUs . Based on SCAG’s analysis for Ventura County, it can be assumed that 15 percent of ADUs will be developed to accommodate extremely low-income households, 0 percent will be developed to accommodate very low-income households, 31 percent will be developed to accommodate low-income households, 43 percent will be developed to accommod ate moderate-income households, and 12 percent will be developed to accommodate above moderate-income households. Using these percentages, 60 ADUs would be projected as extremely low- or very low-income (these two categories can be combined), 124 would be projected as low-income, 170 would be moderate-income, and 46 would be above-moderate income.

REMAINING RHNA
After accounting for pending and approved units and units under construction as of June 30, 2020 and anticipated ADUs, there is a remaining need of 863 lower-income household u nits and 257 moderate- to above-moderate income household units, as shown in Table H-41. This total includes 1,120 units plus a recommended 20 percent buffer of 224 units. The buffer was added to address Senate Bill 166 (SB 166), otherwise known as “no net loss”. SB 166 was passed to ensure that cities and counties “identify and make available” additional adequate sites if a housing project is approved at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than what is identified in the Housing Element. Therefore, the City of Simi Valley must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that can facilitate and encour age the development of the remaining needed 1,344 lower-income units.

Table H-41 RHNA Credits from Pending and Approved Units and Units Under Construction and ADUs

Very Low Income
(<50% AMI)
Low Income
(51-80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(81-120% AMI)
Market Rate
(>120% AMI)
Total Potential
Housing Units
RHNA 749 493 518 1,033 2,793
Pending 0 0 3 28 31
Approved/Not Yet Built 8 88 153 629 878
Under Construction 0 99 0 265 364
Projected ADUs 60 124 170 46 400
Credits Available 68 311 326 968 1,673
Unit Difference -681 -182 -192 -65 Not Applicable
Combined -8631 -257 Not Applicable
Units Needed 1,1202
1 Very low- and low-income units can be combined.
2 California Housing and Community Development recommends an additional 15-30% “buffer” of units. 1,120 x 20% = 224 --> 1,120 + 224 = 1,344 143
382
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-79
Availability of Land Suitable for Residential Development This section provides an inventory of land supply in Simi Valley. Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(a), the Housing Element must provide a parcel specific inventory (i .e., a Sites Inventory) suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and underutilized sites that have potential for redevelopment within the eight- year timeframe of the housing element planning period, and an a nalysis of the relationship of zoning, public facilities, and services to those sites.

Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires, as part of the ana lysis of available sites, a local government to demonstrate that the projected residential development capacity of the sites identified in the housing element can realistically be achieved and must identify which RHNA income c ategory that each site is anticipated to accommodate. The anticipated affordability level of units for each site identified in the Sites Inventory is calculated by apportioning units based on the percentage of each household income category within the units needed to accommodate the remaining need (unit difference plus 20 percent buffer) in Table H-41. Each site is apportioned to accommodate 60.8 percent very low-income units, 16.3 percent low-income units, 17.1 percent moderate- income units, and 5.8 percent above moderate-income units. The apportions are included in the Notes column of Tables H-3-2 and H-3-3 in Appendix H-3 Sites Inventory. Reasona ble capacity is calculated for each site based on site categories, existing or proposed General Plan and zoning d esignations (and associated allowed density), environmental constraints, site size, and infrastructure availa bility. Relative to capacity, a key factor in reaching a reasonable capacity assessment is the city’s use of minimum den sities. Excluding physical site constraints, and except under limited circumstances, the city does not allow projects to be submitted at a density below that stated in the General Plan Land Use. The methodology used in calculating reasonable capacities is based on average density assumptions that are included in Appendix H3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2, a default density of 20 units per acre is adequate for lower income housing for a No n-Metropolitan county such as Ventura County, unless the population is over 100,000, in which case the defaul t density is 30 units per acre. Therefore, for Simi Valley, General Plan designations of Very High Density Residential and Mixed-Use (both with ranges of 20.1-35 units per acre) are appropriate designations for sites.

OPPORTUNITY AREAS/SITES INVENTORY
Several areas have been identified by the City as areas that could potentially change in the future (Figure H-7). These portions of the City include areas that are vacant, those that offer opportunities for infill and intensification, and those with economically or physically obsolete development. These Opportunity Areas were identified by the City through an extensive community outreach process. These areas were initially identified by City staff in the Planning Division and presented to the public through hearings before the City Planning Commission and City Council. Staff evaluated the various areas for existing conditions, past trend s (including approved projects and development proposals), and how these areas align with the overall vision f or the City. In addition, Planning Division Staff considered factors such as: proximity to transit, access to hig h performing schools and jobs, access to amenities such as parks and services, access to health care facilities an d grocery stores, proximity to available infrastructure and utilities, avoidance of environmental mitigation for projec ts, and presence of development streamlining processes, environmental exemptions and other development incen tives. Field surveys were conducted to verify the status of individual parcels, and the appropriateness of including these parcels into the Opportunity Areas/Sites Inventory. Staff presented the areas to the Planning Commission a n d s o l i c i t e d c o m m u n i t y i n p u t t o e s t a b l i s h a desired mix of land uses for each Opportunity Area. The final boundaries of the Opportunity Areas were confirmed 144
383

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-80
in a public hearing before the City Council, where each individual area was evaluated again based on existing uses, compatibility with surrounding uses, and potential for change. The resulting Sites Inventory contains 24 properties that could accommodate lower-income household units in areas tha t a r e c u r r e n t l y z o n e d a s V e r y H i g h D e n s i t y Residential and Mixed-Use, 42 properties that could accommodate lower-income household units in areas that will be rezoned to Very High Density Residential and Mixed-Use, and 69 properties that could accommodate moderate- to above moderate-income household units in areas that will be rezoned to higher density potential on a site- specific basis.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)(A), (B), and (C), some of the selected parcels may be too small (in acreage) to provide a feasible site for development of lowe r-income household units. Therefore, the Cycle 5 Housing Element lot consolidation program will be continued and expanded to include incentives for development corporations (including those listed in Table H-46, or other ho mebuilders such as City Ventures Residences) to develop targeted property acquisition outreach to owners of the smaller-sized selected sites (see notes column in Table H3-2 of Appendix H3 for associated grouping of smaller-si zed sites). In addition, a recent example of lot consolidation (the Tapo/Alamo Mixed-Use project) is provided in the Trends of Recycling discussion of this section and in the Estimating Capacity in Opportunity Areas section. This example demonstrates feasibility for development of lower-income household units on smaller sites.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)(A), (B), and (C), parcels over 10 acres may be considered inadequate to accommodate housing affordable to lower income households. Although two parcels over 10 acres were included in the Sites Inventory to accommodate lower-income housing within the Mountain Gate Plaza Area, a conservative approach was taken in estimating realistic capac ities. In this approach, lower residential development capacities were applied to account for the existing (and potentially new) commercial development on these sites, as specified in the Notes column under Table H-3-1 of Appendix H-3. In addition, the City will prepare specific plans or form-based dodes for the Mountain Gate Plaza Area as part of Housing Element Program 11: Mixed Use.

The City also identified additional areas that could be included in a General Plan Update. The General Plan Update would create more uniformity in areas where there would be inco nsistent patterns of land use designations associated with the rezones to be implemented in the Housing Element. Through General Plan updates and Zoning Amendments, properties adjacent to the Housing Element Sites would be redesignated to provide consistent land use patterns. This Update could also provide more “missing midd le” housing units in the moderate-income household range. These areas will not be required to address RHNA needs. Therefore, they have not been included in the Sites Inventory. Detailed maps and tables containing a list of parcels that address RHNA needs are provided in Appendix H3.

It is anticipated that the City will significantly expand the p otential for lower-income household units by recycling sites to higher intensity uses in these areas. This recycling is focused on redesignating sites as Mixed-Use and Very High Density residential for lower-income household units. Both of these designations allow residential development from 20.1 units per acre up to 35 units per acre. Such changes in land use designations would typically result in increases in land value and enhance the feasibility o f private redevelopment of properties. The areas are described in more detail below.
145
384
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-81
Figure H-7 Opportunity Areas

MOUNTAIN GATE PLAZA AREA
The predominant land use within the Mountain Gate Plaza Area is retail commercial. More recently, the Mountain Gate Plaza has experienced several commercial vacancies and und erutilized businesses. This area also contains a limited amount of light industrial and office commercial proper ties located along First Street, north of East Los Angeles Avenue. Most properties were developed in the 1950s, 19 60s, and 1970s and have antiquated configurations and amenities that cannot accommodate updated co mmercial/retail activities without significant improvements. The lots contain large parking areas, making the properties significantly underutilized and conducive to redevelopment. Given the underutilized character (small structures and large parking areas), redevelopment of properties does not necessarily require the demolition of existing uses. A large residential development project can be designed to incorporate some of the existing viable uses.

The City has limited vacant land zoned for new development. The underutilized lots in this area offer the potential for providing additional development within the City. Furthermore, a potential transit station/stop could be located within the area at some future date, offering an opportunity to create a transit-oriented village within the area. The opportunity for mixed-use development and a transit-station com plement the existing services and employment 146
385

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-82
centers located within the nearby West End Industrial Area, providing new housing opportunities and transit access.

This area is currently zoned as Mixed Use and can accommodate densities that are compatible with the development of lower-income household units. Therefore, no rezones are necessary.

LOS ANGELES AVENUE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND

INDUSTRIAL AREA AND LEEDS STREET
The Los Angeles Avenue Transit-Oriented Development and Industrial Area is located along and north of Los Angeles Avenue to East Cochran Street, between Tapo Street to the west and Stearns Street to the east. Existing land uses include industrial and business park uses related to the Tapo Canyon Business Park (located southwest of the site), vacant land, a commercial shopping center at the northwest corn er of East Los Angeles and Stearns Street. An underutilized residential area is located in the area between C ochran Street and Leeds Street. This area contains single family detached units on lots designated as Very Low Density Residential (up to two units per acre) along Leeds Street, single family detached units on lots designated a s Moderate Density Residential (up to 10 units per acre) at the southwest corner of East Cochran Street and Stearn s Street, and churches on lots designated as Very Low Density (up to two units per acre) along the south side of East Cochran Street. The City has received requests to create opportunities for “Missing Middle”/Moderate-income ho usehold units (as well as Above Moderate- income household units) during public outreach efforts. Program 7 will rezone sites to higher densities to provide for both lower-income and moderate- and above moderate-income household units.

Existing land uses include the Metrolink rail line and Metrolin k station at the southwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Hidden Ranch Drive and Commercial with Mixed Use straddling Ralston Avenue. Mixed Use is allowed in both of these areas and no rezones would be necessary to accommodate densities that are compatible with the development of lower-income household units. The Metrolink Station is the community’s only rail transit hub, and it provides a unique opportunity to target higher density resid ential and mixed-use development near transit use.

The two Metrolink parcels are owned by the City of Simi Valley. Therefore, Pursuant to Chapter 664, Statutes of 2019 (AB 1486), at Government Code section 65583.2(b)(3), if a site included in the inventory is owned by the city or county, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning peri od and h ow the jurisdicti on will c omply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5. The City will entertain either ground leasing or selling the properties to a developer that can demonstrate viability of a proposed project that meets the objectives of Housing Element Program 6: Affordable Housing Development.

TAPO STREET CORRIDOR
The existing land uses in this area consist of a mixture of res idential uses, commercial, office, and industrial uses.

Development north of the SR-118 Freeway is a mixture of office, lower-density single-family homes, and small lots of vacant land. Development south of the freeway is characterized by one- to two-story strip commercial buildings along the Tapo Street corridor with larger commercial centers l ocated at key intersections including the Santa Susana Plaza shopping center at the southeast corner of Cochran and Tapo Streets.

In 2018, the City worked with Colton Lee Communities, LLC to pr ocess and approve a 60-unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) project referred to as the Tapo District Lofts, located on vacant lots at the northwest corner of Tapo Street and Eileen Street. T his development could demonstra te the neighborhood’s feasibility for affordable housing development in a format that is new to the City of Simi Valley. The City is working on approving an SRO 147
386
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-83
ordinance that will create an avenue for developers to propose and provide affordable housing stock in this new format. During the public meetings conducted for the Housing Element, many residents commented in support of this type of housing in Simi Valley.

No other lots in the Tapo Street Corridor are vacant. Underutilized properties are developed with older and smaller single-family homes and commercial uses that have seen increased vacancies and recycling to other uses. Along with the changing economic conditions, this area has seen some c h a n g e s i n l a n d u s e s ( s u c h a s c l o s e d g a s o l i n e service stations being converted to other uses or left vacant, and single-family homes being used as offices). Also, some commercial tenants have left the area, leaving spaces vacant for lease.

Parts of the Tapo Street Corridor already allowed for mixed-use development under the City’s zoning and general plan policies prior to the General Plan 2030 update as the City saw development interests and opportunities in this area. Selected lots with underutilized commercial development in this area could be redeveloped with residential, which would increase the utilization and could provide developers the additional incentive of potentially increasing profit margins.

There are two vacant and/or underutilized properties at the nor thwest corner of Tapo Street and Alamo Street, north of the SR-118 Freeway. There are also two underutilized properties at a shopping area known as the Charleston Center. These sites would not require rezoning and c ould accommodate densities that are compatible with the development of lower-income household units.

OLD TOWN
Old Town Simi Valley is located within the west-central portion of the City, south of Los Angeles Avenue and west of First Street. The area includes a group of blocks bordered by California Avenue and the Arroyo Simi to the north, First Street to the east, Ventura Avenue to the south, and Sina loa Road to the west. The large lots and subdivision pattern in this area contribute to the semi-rural character of Old Town, which dates back to the late 1800s, when the City was originally settled.

Infill housing development can be expected in this area. The existing residential uses within Old Town range from older single-family homes (built more than 50 years ago and include some homes of historical significance) to newer multi-family subdivisions on small parcels. Some of the older h omes have maintenance issues and marginal landscaping. New development in this area will need to be sensitively designed to maintain the unique historic character of this area and to assure compatibility and cohesive ness of the neighborhood character. Potential development types could include duplex, triplex, and ADU development. Sites could accommodate "missing middle" or Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income households. The sites ar e also near shopping center areas. Therefore, Program 16 will increase the allowable density from Residential High Density to Residential Very High Density to provide for consistent land use pattern in the blocks between Ashland and Ventura Avenues and 1 st and 3rd Streets.

In addition, Program 7 will rezone areas of Residential High Density to Residential Very High Density (up to 35 units per acre). Program 11 will add Mixed Use Overlay (up to 35 units per acre) to areas of General Commercial. As the City has substantially reached buildout, opportunities for addi tional housing to accommodate growth will likely result from infill development on vacant and/or underutilized sites such as those within the Old Town area. Program 14 will include incentives for lot consolidation to allow for more cohesive, better-designed projects. 148
387

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-84

PATRICIA AVENUE/HEYWOOD STREET AREA
This neighborhood, located in the west-central portion of Simi Valley, is generally bounded by Patricia Avenue to the north (extending north approximately half a block), Erringer Road to the east, the Arroyo Simi to the south, and just east of First Street to the west. Existing uses within this subarea consist primarily of single-family detached and multi-family residential uses along Patricia Avenue and Heywood Street, including several senior apartment projects.

Most homes in this area were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s . This area has been undergoing significant changes. For the past thirty years, the residential portion of this area, historically characterized as a semi-rural area of single-family homes, large lots, and the keeping of farm ani mals, has been changing to a more urbanized area with multi-family housing. Much of the remaining multi-family zoned property is likely to develop in the near term based on a current demand for housing, and the limited available supply. Several townhome and apartment projects have been approved and built in this area in recent years, resu lting in the redevelopment of single-family homes into multi-family housing. These projects demonstrate the feasi bility and interest of recycling existing properties into very high-density housing developments and most approved projects achieved close to the maximum density permitted, including projects that are on small lots.

Program 7 will rezone areas of Residential High Density to Residential Very High Density (up to 35 units per acre); offering a diversity of housing choices for Simi Valley’s resid ents that complement adjacent proposed mixed-use development and the existing Arroyo Simi. Program 13 will include incentives for lot consolidation to allow for more cohesive, better-designed projects. Program 15 will rezone areas to provide for consistent land use patterns in the blocks between Williams Street and Erringer Road, and from the northern side of Patricia Avenue to the Arroyo Simi.

CHURCHES ON ROYAL AVENUE
The existing land uses in this area consist of mostly Residenti al Medium Density, with pockets of General Commercial, Office Commercial, Residential High Density and Residential Low Density. The Medium Density areas contain mostly detached single family units, with a couple of C hurches on larger lots. Program 7 will rezone the eastern site from Residential Medium Density to Residential Hig h Density (up to 20 units per acre) and accommodate moderate- to above moderate-income household units. The parcel located on the northeast corner of Erringer Road and Royal Avenue contains a church and is designated as Office Commercial. Program 10 will add Mixed Use Overlay (up to 35 units per acre) to the Office Comme rcial site and accommodate lower-income household units.

HEYNEMAN LANE
This site contains an existing single family unit on a lot desi gnated as Open Space (maximum 1 unit per 40 acres) with a small portion of Low Density Residential (up to 3.5 units per acre) covering a smaller lot to the south and on the southern portion of the larger lot. These lots are surrounded by the Hillside Middle School on a lot designated as Medium Density Residential to the north, vacant Open Space to the east Low Density Residential with single family to the south, and duplexes with common areas/recreationa l facilities in an area designated as Moderate Density Residential to the West. Program 7 will rezone this are a of Low Density Residential to Medium Density 149
388
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-85
Residential (up to 5 units per acre). These parcels are include d i n t h e S i t e s I n v e n t o r y t o a d d r e s s t h e n e e d f o r moderate- to above moderate–income household units under RHNA.

WALNUT HILLS
These sites are vacant and designated as Low Density Residential. These sites are surrounded by vacant lots designated as Open Space (maximum 1 unit per 40 acres) and Low Density Residential (up to 3.5 units per acre) to the north, single family Low Density Residential to the east, Medium Density detached single family to the south, and Low Density detached single family to the west. Program 7 will rezone this area to Medium Density Residential (up to five units per acre). One of these identified parcels is owned by the City of Simi Valley Waterworks District #8. The City will entertain either ground leasing or selling the properties to a developer that can demonstrate viability of a proposed project that meets the objectives of Housing Element Program 6:

Affordable Housing Development. These parcels are included in the Sites Inventory to address the need for moderate- to above moderate-income household units under RHNA. Development of these sites would require extension of roads and utilities/infrastructure. In accordance with Government Code Section 65583.2.b.5.b., the City would require the developer to finance any associated extensions of all infrastructure. The City will initiate and complete the rezoning and associated General Plan Land Use Update of these parcels. This will streamline the process and alleviate property owners and/or developers of the responsibility of filing applications and paying for the permitting fees and expenses associated with increasing the allowable density of the sites listed in the Sites Inventory.

APRICOT ROAD
This area includes a smaller western grouping of Residential Moderate Density (up to 10 units per acre) surrounded by General Commercial to the west, Residential Medium and Moder ate Density (up to 5 and 10 units per acre, respectively) to the north, Residential Medium Density to the e ast, and Residential Medium Density to the south.

The area also includes a larger grouping of lots to the east de signated as mostly Residential Very Low Density (up to 2 units per acre) in the central portion, Residential Modera te Density (up to 10 units per acre) to the east, and Residential High Density (up to 20 units per acre) to the west. The eastern grouping is surrounded by the 118 Freeway to the north, Residential Moderate Density to the east, Residential Medium Density and Mixed-Use to the south, and General Commercial to the west. Program 15 will rezone areas to provide for consistent land use patterns in the blocks between the areas between Tapo Canyon Road and Fi g Street and Cochran Street to Highway 118 to provide for moderate-income household units. Program 7 will rezone areas of Residential High Density to Residential Very High Density (up to 35 units per acre) in the eastern grouping of Residential High Density and accommodate lower-income household units. Program 13 would incl ude incentives for lot consolidation to allow for more cohesive, better-designed projects.

OAK ROAD
The site contains two vacant lots bisected by the Arroyo Simi G reenway. The northern parcel is designated as Residential Medium Density (up to 5 units per acre) and the southern parcel is designated as Residential Moderate Density (up to 10 units per acre). The northern parcel is surrounded by Residential Medium Density with detached single-family units to the north, Mobile Home units and recreat ional vehicle storage to the east, the Arroyo Simi Greenway to the south, and Residential Very High Density /Oak T ree Apartments (up to 35 units per acre) to the west. The southern parcel is surrounded by the Arroyo Simi Greenway to the north and west, Mobile Home (up to 150
389

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-86
eight units per acre) to the east, and Residential Moderate Den sity (up to 10 units per acre) with detached single- family units to the south. Under Program 7, both sites would be rezoned from Residential Medium Density to Residential Moderate Density (up to 10 units per acre). These parcels are included in the Sites Inventory to address the need for moderate- to above moderate – income household units under RHNA.

TRENDS OF RECYCLING
Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(g)(2), the City must provide substantial evidence that existing uses on nonvacant sites will not be an impediment to additional resi dential development during the Cycle 6 planning period, if the Cycle 6 Housing Element relies upon nonvacant si tes to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households.

As the City becomes increasingly built out, recent developments in the City have also involved the recycling of existing underutilized single family and underutilized and non-performing commercial uses. The following recycling activities are representative of the conditions within the Opportunity Areas. ■ Within the Tapo Street corridor area, the former Belwood Center at the northeast corner of Tapo Street and Alamo Street, referred to as Tapo/Alamo Mixed-Use (a total of 2 71 units [114% of allowable density], including eight units under affo rdable agreement s for very low- income households and 76 units under affordable agreements for low-in come households), was approved on properties that were previously developed with retail and commercial uses. This project consolidated six parcels to create two lots and achieved an overall density of approximately 40 units per acre. ■ Within the Patricia Avenue and Heywood Street area and Apricot Road area, apartment, townhomes, and senior apartments were approved or built on several lots contai ning single family units. The Vantage Apartments at 1260 Patricia Avenue provides a total of 53 units (180% of allowable density) with affordable housing agreements for three low- and three moderate-income hou seholds. The Mountain View Senior Apartments at 4862 Cochran Street (near Apricot Road) provides a total of 50 units (77% of allowable density) w i t h a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g a g r e e m e n ts for five very low-income hou seholds. These projects have accommodated residential densities similar to the densities assumed for sites listed in the Sites Inventory in Appendix H-3; and the properties have size and existing development characteristics similar to the sites listed in the Sites Inventory. Several similar projects are listed in Table H-40. In addition, City Planning Division staff have indicated that a number of property owners in these areas have inquired about proposing higher density development on lots with existing single family development in 2020 and 2021. ■ Sycamore Landing Apartments are under construction on several l ots that contained the Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks District Headquarters. This project includ es 99 units under Affordable Housing Agreements for senior households.

The City has been contacted by a developer to propose a residential project on a 4.5-acre site that is zoned Commercial Office and previously developed as the Simi Valley Hospital. The Hospital was vacated and demolished in 2008. If the project is submitted with a residential component and approved, potentially up to 100 or more new residential units could be developed under a very high-density scenario. 151
390
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-87
Availability of Infrastructure and Services
Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(b)(5)(B), the City shall determine if parcels included in the inventory have sufficient water, sewer, an d dry utilities available and a ccessible to support housing development, or otherwise include an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development on the site in time to make housing development rea listic during the planning period. Dry utilities include, at minimum, a reliable energy source that supports ful l functionality of the home and could also include access to natural gas, telephone and/or cellular service, cable or satellite television systems, and internet or Wi-Fi service.

Waterworks Services in Simi Valley are currently provided throu gh two suppliers of water: Golden State Water Company and City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works Waterworks District No.8 (District). Approximately 60 percent of the City is served by the District, which is managed by the City with the City Council serving as its Board of Directors. The Golden State Water Company is a private compa ny that provides water service to the other 40 percent of the City.

The District serves water to a portion of the City of Simi Vall ey and adjacent unincorporated areas southeast and north of the City Boundary. The main source of water for the District is through Calleguas Municipal Water District.

The District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 2020 was adopte d by City Council on May 17, 2021. In consultation with the City Planning Division, the District used the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan RTP) to forecast population growth for the UWMP planning period from 2020-2045. The eight-year schedule of the Cycle 6 Housing Element aligns with the mandated four-year upda te schedule of the RTP. The RTP population estimates are cited in Table H-11 and the Cycle 6 Housing Element RHNA is based on the RTP population estimates.

Therefore, the UWMP and the Cycle 6 Housing Element population estimates are aligned. The fundamental findings of the UWMP indicated that the District anticipates having adeq uate supplies, even during dry periods, to meet projected customer demand until 2045. In accordance with Senate Bill 1087 (SB 1087), the UWMP includes the projected water use for single-family and multi-family resident ial housing for lower-income households. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7 and in accordance with the U WMP, the District (WWD8) will not deny or condition approval of water services, or reduce the amount of services applied for by a proposed development that includes housing units affordable to lower-income households unless one of the following occurs:
■ WWD8 specifically finds that it does not have sufficient water supply; ■ WWD8 I subject to a compliance order issued by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water that prohibits new water connections; or
■ The applicant has failed to agree to reasonable terms and conditions relating to the provision of services.

Golden State Water provides service to approximately 13,300 local customers in Simi Valley. The Simi Valley system delivers treated surface water purchased from the Calleguas Municipal Water District, which obtains its supply from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The primary water supply is also supplemented with groundwater from the Simi Valley Groundwater Basin.

The City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works Sanitation Division Collections and Treatment Sections provide sewer service to City residents. The Collections Section operat es, maintains, and monitors the sewer system to 152
391

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-88
safely and properly convey sewage from lateral connections to the City’s Water Quality Control Plant 6. The Treatment Section operates, maintains, and monitors the Water Q uality Control Plant. The City’s 2019 Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) includes the identification of short and long-term Capital Improvement Projects as part of the “Sewer Collection System Asset Evaluation and Rehabilitation Plan”, which is a condition-based Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP includes a schedule which ensures that rehabilitation will be made at prioritized intervals up to and beyond 20 years (2039). One of the key comp onents of the SSMP is capacity assurance.

Therefore, the Sewer Collection System Asset Evaluation and Reh abilitation Plan ensures that adequate sewer treatment capacity is available over the Cycle 6 Housing Element planning period.

In communications with Public Works Staff, Planning Division St aff have confirmed that all of the proposed Opportunity Areas, with the exception of the Rovner/Walnut Hill s area, are located in developed areas which are served with adequate infrastructure and services, including water provision by the City of Simi Valley Waterworks District #8 and Golden State Water Company, and sanitary sewer provision by the Department of Public Works Sanitation Division Collections and Treatment. However, as inte nsification of these areas occurs as envisioned in the General Plan, improvements and/or expansion to the existing infrastructure and services will be required. As discussed in the Availability of Land Suitable for Residential Development, the Developer in the Rovner/Walnut Hills area (identified in the sites inventory for moderate and above moderate income housing) would be required to finance and provide adequate infrastructure as part of the proposed project. In addition, the City ensures that all projects pay their fair share for new project-related demands by charging per-unit development fees to provide for new and/or existing parks and recreation facilities, fire servi c e s , f l o o d c o n t r o l f a c i l i t i e s , t r a f f i c i m p r o v e m e n t s , schools, and water and sewer facilities. Also, adequate water and sewer services are available to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7, the City will deliver a copy of the Final Cycle 6 Housing Element to the above-mentioned water and sewer providers within 30 days of adoption. The providers must review the Final Cycle 6 Housing Element and establish special procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. The City will also continue to coordinate with these service providers to ensure compliance with SB 1087. Pursuant to Govern ment Code Section 65589.7, the City will work with Golden State Water and the Public Works Sanitation Divisio n to ensure that these organizations do not deny or condition approval of services, or reduce the amount of serv ices applied for by a proposed development that includes housing units affordable to lower-income households as part of Program 17.

Environmental Constraint s and Site Suitability
Two of the areas identified in the discussion in the Availability of Land Suitable for Residential Development section of this Cycle 6 Housing Element contain known environmental con straints. These areas are Heyneman Lane and Walnut Hills. Both areas potentially contain archaeological, paleontological, biological resources, very high fire hazard, and topographical constraints (slopes greater than 20 percent). Therefore, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared with mitigation measures to ensure that any potential impacts associated with proposed residential development under the Cycl e 6 Housing Element would be less than

6 City of Simi Valley Department of Public Works Sanitation Services web page. https://www.simivalley.org/departments/public- works/sanitation-services/operations-collection-
treatment#:~:text=The%20Water%20Quality%20Control%20Plant%20%28Treatment%20Plant%29%20is,treated%20water%20is%2 0discharged%20to%20the%20Arroyo%20Simi. Accessed September 2, 2021. 153
392
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-89
significant. As a conservative measure, the estimated potential residential development capacities of both sites were reduced to account for adherence to General Plan Goals regarding topography/slope and Geologic and Seismic Hazards, Chapter 9-32 Hillside Performance Standards of the Simi Valley Municipal Code, and the California Building Code. In addition, both sites have been analyzed in CEQA docume nts for previously proposed residential development. The Heyneman site was analyzed in the Certified En vironmental Impact Report for the Cycle 5 Housing Element. The Walnut Hill s site was analyzed in an unado pted IS/MND for a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA-92) and proposed Planned Development (PD-S-1025). Therefore, the existence of environmental constraints on these sites will not preclude development of the sites at the projected residential densities/capacities, as specified in the Sites Inventory in Table H-3-3 of Appendix H-3.

Capacity for Emergency Shelters
As described in the Emergency Shelter discussion under the Provision for a Variety of Housing Types portion of the Housing Constraints section of t his Housing Element document, t he Housing Element must demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the identified housin g need for emergency shelters. pursuant to Government Code § 65583(a)(4). Approximately five emergency shelters would address the needs of the estimated 150 homeless persons within the c ity during any given year. Although there are no emergency shelters currently located within the City of Simi Valley, the City estimates ther e are ample opportunities in the zoning districts in which emergency shelters are permitted by-right (CO, CC, CPD, BP, LI, and GI). There are approximately 2,332 acres of land within these districts, inclusive of up to approximatel y 342 acres of vacant land. There are approximately 125 parcels, ranging from 0.5 to 63 acres, within these districts.

Estimating Capacity in Opportunity Areas
In estimating development capacity in these Opportunity Areas, the City developed a set of guiding assumptions for the distribution of various land uses in these areas. These assumptions are summarized in Error! Reference source not found. . These land use assumptions were developed based on recommenda tions from City Planning Division Staff and the California Department of Housing and Com munity Development Division of Housing Policy Development Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2. 154
393

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-90
Table H-42 Development Potential – Summary of Sites That Do Not Require a Rezone Acres Potential Units
Objective Area
Maximum
Density
Potential
Density
(at 70%
max)
Vacant
Sites
(V)
Under-
utilized
Sites
(UU)
Total V
and UU
Sites
Lower-
Income
Moderate-
or Above
Moderate-
Income
Total
Units
Mountain Gate Shopping Center
Area
35 15.757 0.0 47.31 47.31 552 0 552
Los Angeles Avenue Metrolink Area 35 17.5 0.0 11.01 11.01 229 0 229 Northwest corner of Tapo St and
Alamo St and Charleston Center
35 17.5 0.18 3.10 3.28 79 0 79
Total NA NA 0.18 61.42 61.6 860 0 860
Shortfall After Credits NA 863 257 NA
Shortfall With Sites That Do Not
Require a Rezone
NA 4 257 NA
Vacant and underutilized sites were then identified utilizing the data from the Ventura County Assessor’s Office and selection of these sites was refined with site visits and staff knowledge. Specifically, underutilized properties are defined as those with improvements older than 30 years of age, underutilized floor area ratios and improvement- to-land value less than one (improvements are worth less than t he land). This improvement-to-land value ratio is frequently used by economists and real estate professionals to identify potential sites for development. See the Notes columns in the Sites Inventory Tables in Appendix H-3 for site-specific details on underutilization. As described in the discussion on Trends of Recycling in the section on Availability of Land Suitable for Residential Development, recently-approved residential and mixed use developments in the City have demonstrated a trend for redeveloping sites with older development improvements and lower improvement-to-land values.

Average development density is generally assumed at 70 percent of the maximum density identified for Residential Very High Density development and Mixed Use (Table H-43 and the Sites Inventory Table in Appendix H3). Densities and developable acreages were adjusted on a few sites that are either larger than 10 acres or are partially vacant and could be developed as infill, as detailed in the notes column of the Sites Inventory Table.

As described in the discussion on Trends of Recycling in the se ction on Availability of Land Suitable for Residential Development, existing and approved residential developments hav e demonstrated that over 100 percent of the default allowable maximum density can be achieved on projects with lower-income components in Residential Very High (RVH) and Mixed Use (MU) zones. One example is the Tapo/Alamo Mixed Use project, which was approved by City Council in 2020. The project would redevelop a 77,000-square foot shopping center into a mixed use site; and six lots would be consolidated into two lots. The project achie ved an overall density of 40 dwelling units per acres in a MU zone with a default allowable maximum density of 35 dwe lling units per acre. The project would provide 84 affordable (76 low-income and 8 very low-income) apartment units under an affordable housing agreement with

7 Assumption was a more conservative estimate because potential new development might include commercial components.

Therefore, potential density on large parcels in this area was reduced by an additional 25% (70% - 25% = 45%). Additional assumptions were that existing retail buildings would remain and new units would be developed on vacant areas and portions of parking areas. See Sites Inventory Table H3-1 for details. 155
394
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-91
density bonus development concessions and waivers. A second example is the Vantage Apartments project, which was approved by City Council in 2020. The project is under construction and will provide a total of 54 dwelling units in a Residential High Density zone with a maximum of 20 dwellin g units per acre. The project will provide 54 units under an affordable housing agreement with density bonus development concessions and waivers; with four units reserved for very low-income households and 50 units reserved for moderate-income households. A third example is the Sycamore Landing Apartments project, which was approved by City Council in 2018. The project is under construction and will achieve a density of 26 dwelling units in a Residential Very High Density zone with a maximum of 35 dwelling units per acre. The project achieved approximately 74 percent of the allowable density. The project will provide 311 apartment units with 98 senior affordable unit s (low-income households) under an affordable housing agreement with development concessions and a loan agreement.

A conservative estimate is necessary to avoid accumulation of fractional units that could misrepresent the feasibility of a larger total of units. Therefore, potential capacity calculations were rounded down for each site or consolidated parcel group.

The total number of units in each area is capped by the total n umber of units that can be developed in the area either on a parcel-by-parcel basis, or by consolidating parcels less than 0.5 acre; not by multiplying the aggregated acreage with the average density. Sites were required to accomm odate a minimum of 16 units and consist of no more than 3 parcels when consolidating to be viable for lower-i ncome household unit development. Refer to the detailed Notes column in the Sites Inventory Tables in Appendix H3 for grouped potential capacity estimates.

The Mixed-Use Overlay zoning regulates development based on sev eral standards, including setbacks and height limits. It does not require a mini mum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) fo r the nonresidential component in a mixed-use development. Therefore, inclusion of commercial/retail uses in a development would not preclude the project from achieving the maximum allowable density of 35 units per acre. T he actual density achievable for each project can vary depending on the mix of unit sizes, the treatment of parking, and the level of amenities offered, among other factors. As described in the discussion on Trends of Recycling in this section above, the Tapo/Alamo Mixed Use project demonstrated the potential for development to include r esidential densities at or above the default allowable maximum residential density in the Mixed-Use overlay zone, even though the performance standards would allow up to 50 percent non-residential development. In ad dition, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced employers to allow and/or require work from home in many workfo rce industries. There is no guarantee that workers will return to company-owned, company-leased, agency-owned or agency-leased facilities in areas zoned for commercial, office, or mixed uses. It is reasonable to expe ct that this potentially devastating impact of COVID- 19 on the market for commercial and office spaces may create a trend for the development of more residential uses in areas zoned for mixed use. Therefore, the City assumes it is possible that a portion of sites with Mixed Use zoning will be developed at or above the default maximum allowable density for residential. The City will continue to monitor the implementation of the Mixed-Use Overlay zoning and make appropriate changes as necessary to facilitate the development of high-density residential and mixe d-use developments as envisioned by the General Plan. In addition, the City will create streamlining opportunit ies in Program 12, such as the provision of pre- approved plans that facilitate non-discretionary permitting.

Because the Opportunity Areas are comprised of contiguous parce ls that exhibit similar conditions of underutilization, lot consolidation is feasible and encouraged. By creating the Mixed-Use Overlay on the commercial properties within the Opportunity Areas, contiguous parcels can take advantage of the density increase, reduced parking, and other flexible development standards offered by th e Mixed-Use Overlay standards. The Mixed-Use 156
395

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-92
Overlay District Parcel Consolidation Program allows two of thr ee available incentives as part of entitlement for a project, including: graduated density (10 percent increase over maximum allowable density), allowance of up to 75 percent of the project’s floor area to be developed as nonresidential uses, and allowing a reduction of up to two of the optional residential development standards.

Among the opportunity zones identified by the City, a few areas contain vacant and underutilized sites that do not require a rezone to be developed at the default density. These sites are designated as Mixed Use and include the Mountain Gate Shopping Center Area, Los Angeles Avenue Metrolin k Area, the Charleston Center on Tapo Street and the northwest corner of Tapo Street and Alamo Street. Error! Reference source not found. lists the areas and estimated capacities of sites that will not be rezoned. These sites would yield approximately 860 units. As discussed previously, there would be a remaining RHNA 8 need of 863 lower-income household units and 257 moderate- to above moderate-income household units after exhausting the alte rnative means of using credits for pending and approved projects, projects under construction, and projected A DU development. The City proposes to apply the 860 units from these sites that do not require a rezone toward the remaining need of 863 lower-income units. There would be a shortfall of 3 lower-income household units after applying the sites that do not require a rezone, and a shortfall of 257 moderate- to above moderate-income units. The City does not have adequate capacity to fulfill the remaining need under RHNA without a rezoning program. Therefore , the City will implement Program 7 for rezoning, and the City will also take a conservative approach by implementing Program 16 to rezone additional sites in the Opportunity Areas to ensure consistent land use designation patterns and to allow more opportunity for the development of Moderate- and Above Moderate- Income household u nits. These additional sites are within the identified opportunity areas of the Patricia Avenue/Heywood Str eet residential neighborhood, the Church site on Royal Avenue, the Heyneman Lane area, the Walnut Hill Area, the Apricot Lane Area, the Leeds Street Area, and the Oak Road area. Table H-43 summarizes the rezoned area acreages and potential unit development capacities required to meet the Lower-, Moderate-, and Above Moderate-Income Household Unit RHNA shortfalls.

8 Includes recommended 20% additional buffer of units.
157
396
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-93
Table H-43 Development Potential – Sites That Require a Rezone to Accommodate Lower-Income Household Units

Maximum
Density
Potential
Density Acres
Apportioning V &
UU Sites by
Anticipated Land
Use Distribution
V & UU Sites
Redeveloped as
Residential or Mixed
Use*
Objective Area
Current General
Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Designation MFR MU
At
70%
Max
MFR
At
70%
Max
MU
Vacant
(V)
Sites
Under-
utilized
(UU) Sites
Total V
and UU
Sites
Residential
Acres
MU
Acres
Res.

Units
MU
Units
Total
Units
Old Town General
Commercial Mixed Use – 35 – 24.5 1.59 0 1.59 0 1.59 0 38 38 Old Town High Density Very High Density 35 – 17.59 – 0 9.97 9.97 9.97 0 174 0 174 Old Town Medium Density Very High Density 35 -- 17.58 -- 0.19 0.93 1.12 1.12 0 27 0 27 Patricia
Ave./Heywood St. High Density Very High Density 35 – 24.5 – 0 17.05 17.05 17.05 0 411 0 411 Church on Royal Office Commercial Mixed Use – 35 – 17.58 0 2.40 2.40 0 2.40 0 42 42 Apricot Road High Density Very High Density 35 – 24.5 – 0 2.84 2.84 2.84 0 69 0 69 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.78 33.19 34.97 30.98 3.99 681 80 761 The total number of units in each area is capped by the total number of units that can be developed in the area either on a parcel-by-parcel basis, or by consolidating parcels less than 0.5 acre; not by multiplying the aggregated acreage with the average density. Refer to the detailed sites inventory in the appendix for parcel-by-parcel estimate. *Potential capacity was calculated differently for sites larger than 10 acres or with infill potential (i.e. vacant portion to be developed).

9 Assumption reduced to 50% for residential infill on vacant and parking areas. 158
397

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-94
Table H-44 Development Pote ntial – Sites That Require a Rezone to Accommodate Moderate- to Above Moderate- Income RHNA Needs
Objective Area
Current General
Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Designation
Maximum
Density
Potential
Density At
70% Max*
Vacant
(V)
Site Units
Under-
utilized
(UU) Site Units
Total V
and UU Site Units
Apricot Road Very Low Density High Density 20 14 0 272 272 Heyneman Lane Open Space Medium Density 5 1.25* 4 25 29 Leeds Street Very Low Density Moderate Density 10 7 27 35 62 Leeds Street Very Low Density High Density 20 14 0 183 183 Oak Road Medium Density Moderate Density 10 7 26 0 26
Patricia Ave High Density Very High Density 35 24.5 0 92 92 Royal Ave Medium Density High Density 20 10* 0 38 38
Walnut Hills Low Density Medium Density 5 2.5* 69 0 69
Total NA NA NA NA 126 645 771
*Potential capacity was calculated differently for some sites (see notes for individual records). 159
398
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-95

RHNA REQUIREMENT
As discussed previously, the City has a RHNA of 2,793 units. The City has determined that it cannot accommodate the Lower-Income RHNA remaining need by applying credits from p ending and approved residential projects, projects under construction, and projected ADU development. The City has identified specific existing vacant and underutilized sites that can potentially accommodate 860 Lower- Income units under the General Plan within the 2021–2029 Housing Element period. The total of credits (379 units) and existing sites (860 units) within the Lower- Income categories leaves a shortfall of 3 units. In addition, there is a shortfall of 192 moderate income units and 65 above moderate-income units. Therefore, the City has determined that the shortfall in RHNA can be accommodated on properties to be rezoned under Program 7 (Table H-45). As a conservative measure, the City proposes to rezone additional sites to accommodate lower-density housing and provide opportunities for “The Missing Middle” under Program 16. These lower-density areas will be rezoned up to the next highest density and provide opportunities for moderate- and above-moderate income households, but these sites have not been included in the Sites Inventory because the RHNA needs have been met by applying credits from pending and approved residential projects, projects under construction, and projected ADU development, and implementing Program 7.

These areas for future residential/mixed-use developments have been identified as part of the City’s Housing Element through extensive community outreach and consultation w ith planning and development professionals.

The capacity for future development presented in this Housing E lement and General Plan has already taken into account environmental constraints such as topography. No other significant environmental constraints are present to preclude redevelopment of these sites.

Table H-45 Adequacy of Sites in Meeting RHNA
Extremely
Low/
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
RHNA 749 493 518 1,033 2,793
Residential Sites Inventory
Approved and Pending Projects 195 156 922 1273
ADU Projections 184 170 46 400
Total Credits 379 326 968 1,673
Remaining RHNA Need -863 -192 -65 -1,120
Additional 20% Buffer -173 -51 -224
RHNA Need Plus Buffer -1,036 -308 -1,344
Multi-Family (35 du/ac) 0 0 0
Multi-Family (35 du/ac) Rezone 480 771 1,251
Mixed Use (35 du/ac) 860 0 860
Mixed Use (35 du/ac) Rezone 281 0 281
Unit Difference +56510 +46311 +1,028
10 Very Low- and Low-Income Units can be combined.
11 Moderate- and Above Moderate Units were combined.
160
399

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-96
Financial Resources
A variety of existing and potential funding sources are availab le for affordable housing activities in Simi Valley.

Sources of funding include federal Community Development Block Grant program funds, HOME Program, and other State and federal funds.

SB2/LEAP GRANTS
In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it included the Building Hom es and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), which establishes a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply o f affordable homes in Ca lifornia. Because the number of real estate transactions recorded in each county will vary from year to year, the revenues collected will fluctuate.

The first year of SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions. The City of Simi Valley received $310,000 for planning efforts to facilitate housing production. For the second year and onward, 70 percent of the funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes (titled Permanent Local Housing Allocation or PLHA). A large por tion of year two allocations wi ll be distributed using the same formula used to allocate federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The City of Simi Valley has been awarded $290,357 from the 2020 PLHA funds. The City applied for the funding for the purposes of assisting persons who are experiencing or At-risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid re-housing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new cons truction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent supportive housing.

Another source of funding to help local jurisdictions to update their planning documents and implement process improvements that will facilitate housing construction is the L ocal Early Action Planning (LEAP) grants. The City received $500,000 in LEAP grants in 2020. However, this is a one-time-only program.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLO CK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS
The City of Simi Valley receives an annual allocation of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The CDBG progra m allows the City to use federal funds to address local housing and community development needs. Specific ally, CDBG funds can be used for a range of activities, including the following:
■ Public services benefiting lower-income residents and those with special needs; ■ Residential or commercial rehabilitation; or
■ Public improvements and facilities benefiting lower-income neighborhoods or lower-income residents.

Annually, the City receives an Entitlement Grant of approximately $640,000. 161
400
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-97

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME)
The HOME Program was created under Title II of the Cranston-Gon zales National Affordable Housing Act enacted on November 28, 1990. The City of Simi Valley is not eligible to receive HOME funds directly from HUD. Instead, the City participates through the Ventura County HOME Consortium. E ligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, construction, and rental assistance. In additio n, the Program provides for eligible local “matches” such as cash contributions from non-federal sources, from state and local governments and private agencies, organizations, and individuals.

SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS
The federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program provides rental assistance to very low-income households in need of affordable housing. The Section 8 program assists a very low-income household by paying the difference b e t w e e n 3 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e g r o s s h o u s e h o l d i n c o m e a n d t h e c o s t of rent. Section 8 assistance is structured as vouchers; this allows the voucher recipients to choose housing that may cost above the fair market rent as long as the recipients pay for the additional cost. The City contracts with the Housing Authority of the County of Ventura to administer its share of the Section 8 program. During the 2019-2020 program year, 676 Simi Valley households received Section 8 Rental Assistance.

Administrative Resources

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Planning Division of the Environmental Services Department provides information, technical assistance, and project review of development proposals. The Division’s General Plan Section prepares updates and amendments to the General Plan, which serves as the “blueprint” and City’s vision for future development of the community.

This section is also responsible for researching and analyzing population/growth forecasts. The Division's Environmental Planning Section conducts environmental reviews o f all development activities within the City and prepares environmental documents for General Plan implementatio n measures and other City-initiated projects.

The Division's Current Planning S ection processes applications for residential, commercial, and industrial development through a formal review and public hearing process.

The Housing Division works with property developers to assist i n bringing affordable housing to the City. The Housing Division also creates and monitors various programs suc h as: the Home Rehabilitation Program and the Fair Housing Outreach and Counseling Program. In addition, the Division administers the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG).

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF VENTURA
The Housing Authority of County of Ventura administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program for the City of Simi Valley. Participants of the HCVP may also participate in the County’s Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program. The objective of the FSS program is to reduce or elimi nate the dependency of low-income families on welfare assistance and on Section 8, public assistance, or any federal, state, or local rent subsidy program or homeownership program.
162
401

HOUSING RESOURCES
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-98

HOUSING DEVELOPERS
The City of Simi Valley works with both non-profit and for-profit developers to produce quality affordable housing in the City. Table H-46 shows the different developers the City has partnered with or attempted to partner with to develop affordable housing.

Table H-46 Housing Developers
Developer Housing Development Type of Housing
Many Mansions Casa de Paz Apartments
La Rahada Apartments
Peppertree Apartments
Cabrillo Economic Development
Corporation
Kuehner Homes Ownership Housing
Apricot Ranch Ownership Housing
Plaza del Sol Apartments
Habitat for Humanity Royal Avenue and Sequoia Ownership Housing LINC Housing MCA Housing
Partners; MW Development
Harmony Terrace Senior Apartments
Seasons/ Haven at Tapo St. Senior Apartments
Christian Senior Housing
Foundation
Heywood Gardens Senior Apartments
The Olsen Company Proposed affordable project, later withdrawn Essex Property Trust, Inc. Meadowood Apartments Apartments (affordability has expired) Hidden Valley Apartments Apartments
Leff Development LLC Paseo de las Flores Senior Apartments Casden Properties LLC L.A. Madera Village
Creekside Apartments
Ownership Housing (unbuilt)
Apartments
Indian Oaks Apartments Apartments
Jefferson Properties Jefferson Apartments aka Archstone Apartments Apartments USA Properties Fund Las Serenas Senior Apartments
Vintage Paseo Apartments Senior Apartments
Carlito Construction Patricia Village Senior Apartments Pattywood Apartments
Hillview Apartments
Corporation for Better Housing Wood Ranch Senior Condominiums Senior for Sale AMCAL Sorrento Villas Senior Apartments
163
402
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-99
Opportunities for Energy Conservation

COMMUNITY DESIGN
General Plan 2030 guides developm ent decisions through 2030 and beyond. Sustainability is a key theme of the Simi Valley General Plan 2030, and the goals and policies are d esigned to locate housing, jobs, and services closer to one another to reduce automobile traffic, congestion, pollution, and resource consumption, while increasing the viability of businesses and social interaction, energy efficiency, water conservation, and recycling. Simi Valley's plans for future growth and development are guided by a commitment to protect the natural environment and to maintain and enhance the quality of life for all people in Simi Valley.

SUSTAINABLE SIMI VALLEY
The Sustainable Simi Valley Committee was formed in December of 2007 to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council on sustainability matters in the City. One of the Commi ttee's main duties is to develop policies and regulations "to provide a framework that can be used to create a healthy living environment, to manage the efficient use and conservation of natural and economic resources, and to preserve the unique way of life in our community for present and future generations." In 2012, the City approved energy efficiency policies designed to monitor the City’s electricity and natural gas use, and assist contractors and homeowners increase energy efficiency in their homes and businesses.

The Sustainable Simi Valley Committee includes many different c ommunity members, including City Council and Planning Commission officials, members of the Chamber of Commer ce and the Building Industry Association, representatives from Simi Valley Unified School District, Ranch o Simi Recreation and Park District, Southern California Edison, Southern Cali fornia Gas, Waste Management, Calleguas Municipal Water District, and two at- large members from the public.

Since its formation, the Sustainable Simi Valley Committee has developed the City’s Green Building Ordinance and the Green Community Action Plan, adopted in August 2010, and contributed to the creation of the City’s Live Green webpage. The Live Green webpage contains information on energy efficiency, water resources, green building, recycling, alternative transportation, etc.
164
403

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-100

HOUSING PLAN
Goals and Policies
GOAL HE 1
Balanced Community. A balanced community with services and housing opportunities is created for all.

POLICIES
HE 1.1 Variety of Housing Types. Provide a wide choice of new housing featuring a range of styl es, types, densities, and amenities to accommodate the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community.

HE 1.2 Workforce and Executive Housing. Coordinate residential development strategies with economic development efforts to provide housing not only for the general workforce but also to executives and business owners who could be instrumental in creating and retaining jobs in the community.

HE 1.3 Housing on Underutilized Sites. Encourage the addition of new dwelling units (multifamily housi ng) on existing parcels in underutilized areas of the City, especially near transit centers.

HE 1.4 Lot Consolidation. Promote good site planning techniques by encouraging lot consol idations in areas where small and/or narrow parcels constrain development.

HE 1.5 Review Building Guidelines. Periodically reexamine local building design requirements, in light of technological advances and changing public attitudes, for possi ble amendments to reduce housing construction costs without sacrificing basic health and safety considerations.

HE 1.6 Private-Public Partnerships. Continue to work with other public agencies and private enterprises, which provide human service or housing within the City.

HE 1.7 Incentives for Lower-Income Housing. Continue to offer financial and regulatory incentives to developers of lower-income housing projects as funding permits.

HE 1.8 Expedited Processin g for Affordable Housing. Continue to expedite the processing of residential development proposals and permits and granting priority queuing to permit applications for affordable housing projects.

GOAL HE 2
Existing Housing Stock. The existing residential housing stock is maintained and improved where necessary.

POLICIES
HE 2.1 Code Enforcement. Utilize the City’s code enforcement capabilities to ensure that landlords renting unsanitary and unsafe housing units correct identified code violations.

HE 2.2 Housing Maintenance. Encourage continued maintenance of currently sound housing thro ugh a local information and assistance program.

HE 2.3 Preserve Existing Affordable Housing. Continue to implement programs that preserve the City’s existing affordable housing stock.
165
404
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-101
HE 2.4 Home Rehabilitation. Continue to offer home rehabilitation programs to lower and mod erate-income homeowners to maintain and improve existing neighborhoods.

HE 2.5 Rehab of Substandard Units. Encourage the rehabilitation of substandard dwelling units inst ead of requiring their demolition, whenever possible, to preserve the existing affordable housing stock.

HE 2.6 Energy Conservation in New Housing. Encourage the use of energy conserving techniques in the siting and design of new housing.

HE 2.7 Enforce Energy Conservation Laws. Actively enforce all state energy conservation requirements for new residential construction.

HE 2.8 Promote Solar Power. Encourage and promote the maximum use of passive solar heating and cooling opportunities in housing units throughout the City.

GOAL HE 3
Affordable Housing. A wide range of housing types and an adequate supply of affordable housing is provided while maintaining the quality of life for all residents.

POLICIES
HE 3.1 Density Bonuses. Make necessary density bonuses or other incentives available consistent with state law to promote affordable housing for lower income households and special needs populations.

H E 3 . 2 A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g A g r e e m e n t s . Require developers to enter into affordable housing agreements to ensure the continuation of afford ability of units in those proj ects that have received density bonuses, regulatory incentives, and/or financial assistance for the provision of affordable housing.

HE 3.3 Affordable Housing Design. Encourage attractive and functional designs for affordable hous ing during the development review process through:
■ Designs that blend harmoniously with the surrounding neighborhood; ■ Exterior treatment that is compatible with market rate housing; ■ Project designs that minimize safety and maintenance problems; and ■ Provision of amenities such as recreational facilities or enriched landscaping.

HE 3.4 Inclusive Affordable Housing. Continue to review the design of all housing developments to ensure that units designed to be affordable complement the character of the surrounding neighborhood and do not separate lower-income families from the community. The City may allow unit clustering for purposes of facilitating the development of affordable ownership units and senior housing.

HE 3.5 Incentives for Specia l Needs Affordable Housing. Provide incentives to developers of affordable housing to construct affordable housing for groups with special needs in relationship to the amount of affordable units provided whenever possible.

HE 3.6 Flexibility in Housing Design. Continue to utilize the planned or cluster development permit p rocess to provide for flexibility in housing design.

HE 3.7 Quality Affordable Housing. To the extent feasible, require affordable units to be provided in the same quality and design as other units in the development and to be evenly distributed throughout the development.
166
405

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-102
GOAL HE 4
Special Needs Groups. Programs to meet the special needs of target groups are available.

POLICIES
HE 4.1 Equitable Special Needs Housing. Work to provide housing for special household groups in an equitable and balanced manner including the provision of Universal Design improvements in new construction and in rehabilitation projects where feasible.

HE 4.2 Housing for Low-income Seniors. Encourage housing programs, which address the special financial needs of lower-income senior citizens.

HE 4.3 Senior Community Housing. Encourage the construction of specialized housing for senior citizens in the community, including planned senior communities.

HE 4.4 Transit Accessible Senior Housing. Encourage the placement of senior housing on public transit rou tes and within a short walking distance of daily shopping facilities and near medical facilities.

HE 4.5 Accessory Dwelling Units. Promote the development of accessory dwelling units on existin g residential lots, in accordance with state law, in order to increase the su pply of housing affordable to lower and moderate income households.

HE 4.6 Low-Income Housing for Large Households. Encourage the construction of lower-income housing units of three bedrooms or more for large households.

HE 4.7 Handicap Accessible Housing. Review developments receiving financial incentives to ensure th at a reasonable number of units are designed and equipped for handicapped persons.

HE 4.8 Housing Designed for Disabled. Encourage construction of affordable housing units which meet the design needs of the disabled (including those with developmental disabilities).

HE 4.9 Emergency Shelter Sites. Encourage the development of emergency shelters by identifying the appropriate potential sites for such development.

HE 4.10 Housing for all Household Sizes. Promote the provision of both purchase and rental housing to meet the needs of families of all sizes.

GOAL HE 5
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Programs to ensure all residents have equal housing opportuniti es, regardless of their special characteristics as protected under State and Federal fair housing laws.

HE 5.1 Fair Housing. Affirmatively further fair housing and promote equal housing opportunities for persons of all socioeconomic segments of the community.

HE 5.2 Eliminate Housing Discrimination. Continue fair housing outreach efforts to eliminate housing discrimination based on race, color, creed, national origin, age, handicap, sex, or marital status.

HE 5.3 Investigate Discrimination Complaints. Utilize local fair housing agencies to promptly investigate complaints involving housing discrimination.

HE 5.4 Tenant-Landlord Relations. Promote greater awareness of tenant and landlord rights.

HE 5.5 Funding for Homeless Housing. Continue to assist and support local social service agencies in their applications for federal funds to provide emergency shelters for homeless individuals and families. 167
406
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-103
HE 5.6 Monitor Lending Institutions. Monitor, through the City’s fair housing service provider, the performance of local lending institutions in regard to meeting the credit n eeds of all economic segments of the community.

Housing Programs
PROGRAM 1: HOME REHABILITATION PROGRAM
The Home Rehabilitation Program offers low interest deferred loans to low income homeowners. Qualified owners of detached single-family residences are eligible for a deferre d 2 percent loan of up to $50,000 with no monthly payments. Full repayment is required when the property is sold, refinanced, or leased, or when the property changes title.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Continue to provide loans to qualified low income homeowners. ■ Disseminate information to homeowners regarding rehabilitation standards and the Home Rehabilitation Program and continue to provide this information on the City we bsite (https://www.simivalley.org/departments/environmental-services/housing-section-planning- division/home-rehabilitation-program).
■ Provide technical assistance and personal appointments to resid ents to help review their rehabilitation needs.
■ Annually monitor and report on the implementation of the Home Rehabilitation Program. ■ Improve 10 housing units annually.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Housing & Special Projects Division Funding Sources
HOME (program income); Local Housing Fund; CalHome; Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant Relevant Policies
HE-2.3, HE-2.4, HE-2.5, and HE-4.2.

PROGRAM 2: CODE ENFORCEMENT
The City of Simi Valley has adopted municipal codes to enhance the quality of life for its residents and provide equitable standards for the business community. The City enforces municipal ordinances and permit compliance by promoting voluntary compliance t hrough working in partnership w ith the citizens and businesses of Simi Valley.

This is accomplished through administering programs, responding to citizen questions and concerns, and enforcing regulations that preserve, protect and enhance the livability, appearance, and the social and economic conditions of the community. Eligible households are referred to the City’s Home Rehabilitation Program for assistance. 168
407

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-104

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
Continue code enforcement activities and connect households in need of City rehabilitation programs.

Responsible Agency
Community Services Department
Funding Sources
General Fund
Relevant Policies
HE-2.1, HE-2.2, and HE-2.5
PROGRAM 3: PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City has an inventory of approximately 800 affordable housing units and continues to work with nonprofit housing developers and the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura to expand and preserve affordable housing opportunities in the City. During this Housing Element planning period, no affordable housing projects in the City are considered at risk of converting to market rate. Nevertheless, the City will continue to monitor the status of affordable projects to ensure their long-term availability as to lower income households.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Annually monitor the status of affordable housing projects by maintaining contact with property owners and pursue extension of affordability covenants in exchange of incentives, if feasible. ■ Support applications for funding for the improvement of existing affordable housing project.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Housing & Special Projects Division Funding Sources
Local Housing Fund; State At-Risk Housing Preservation funds; CDBG Relevant Policies
HE-2.3
PROGRAM 4: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS
The Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura administers the Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) for Simi Valley residents. The Housing Choice Voucher program extends rental su bsidies to very low income households (50 percent AMI), including families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. The HCV program requires a very low income renter to pay up to 40 percent of their gross monthly income towards rent and picks up the balance on the renter’s behalf.
169
408
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-105

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Continue to participate in the federally sponsored Housing Choice Voucher program. ■ Disseminate information to the public regarding the program and promote participation by rental property owners.
■ Promote programs to extremely low income households.
■ Work with the Housing Authority to promote acceptance of HCVs through outreach and education to renters, and rental property owners and managers. Specifically, outreach and education will include the following:
> California legislature passed SB 329, which redefines source of income as “lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state or local public assistance, and federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including, but not limited to, federal housing assistance vouch ers issues under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.” SB 222 passed in 2019 also extends the same protection to VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) voucher recipients.

Continue to provide Section 8 Vouchers to approximately 700 households annually.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Housing & Special Projects Division Funding Sources
HUD Section 8 funds
Relevant Policies
HE-4.1 and HE-4.2
PROGRAM 5: ENERGY CONSER VATION/GREEN BUILDING
The City has taken a strong stand for energy efficiency in new construction. On December 7, 2009, the City Council adopted the California Green Building Standards Code with local amendments that include energy efficiency performance standards for all new residential construction and residential remodeling over 500 sf to exceed current Title 24 energy code requirements by 5 and 10 percent respectiv ely. Most recently, the City adopted the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code with a local amendment r e q u i r i n g a m i n i m u m o f 7 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e nonhazardous construction and demolition debris be recycled and or salvaged for reuse, compared to 65 percent required by the California Green Building Code. The City strongly encourages applicants for publicly subsidized home rehabilitation projects to prior itize energy efficiency improve ments, including windows, water heaters, cooling system repairs or upgrades, weatherization, and other measures that will save money and energy.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Offer education and provide outreach to residents and developer s regarding energy efficiency and green building requirements (ongoing).
■ Increase long-term affordability of housing by improving energy efficiency (ongoing).

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Housing & Special Projects Division 170
409

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-106
Funding Sources
Federal and Utilities
Relevant Policies
HE-2.6, HE-2.7, and HE-2.8
PROGRAM 6: AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Through Affordable Housing Agree ments, the City negotiates with developers for the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments. The City has been successful in ac hieving hundreds of affordable rental and ownership housing units for lower-income households using this mechanism. In addition, the City utilizes a variety of funding sources to assist in the development of affordable housing. To further address affordable housing needs, the City is exploring the preparation of an inclusionary housing ordinance.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Continue to facilitate affordable housing using density bonus incentives and regulatory concessions. ■ Annually explore funding availability at the state and federal levels and pursue funding as appropriate. ■ Annually outreach to non-profits and affordable housing develop ers to explore affordable housing opportunities.
■ Facilitate the development of 200 units affordable to lower-inc ome households (with a portion being targeted for extremely low-income households).
■ As funding permits, prioritize affordable housing funds for pro jects that set aside a portion of the units for extremely low income households and persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. ■ Consider revising the Development Code to incorporate an inclusionary housing ordinance.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources
HOME funds and HOME (program income); Local Housing Fund Relevant Policies
HE 1.1, HE 1.3, HE 1.4, HE 1.6, HE 1.8, HE 1.9, HE 2.6, HE 2.7, HE 2.8, HE 3.1, HE 3.2, HE 3.3, HE 3.4, HE 3.5, HE 3.7, HE 4.1, HE 4.2, HE 4.3, HE 4.4, HE 4.6, and HE 4.8
PROGRAM 7: ADEQUATE SITES FOR RHNA AND MONITORING OF

NO NET LOSS
The City has a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 2,79 3 units, including 749 extremely low/very low- income, 493 low-income, 518 moderate-income, and 1,033 above mo derate-income units for the period of 2021 through 2029.
171
410
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-107
Accounting for entitled/pipeline projects and projected Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City has a remaining RHNA of 1,136 units (681 very low, 186 low, 192 moderate, and 77 above moderate income units). Up to 859 units can be accommodated on sites that are appropriated zoned for development. However, the City has a shortfall of 8 units (very low- and low-income units).

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ The City has a remaining shortfall RHNA for 4 lower-income units, 192 moderate-income units, and 65 above moderate-income units. To accommodate the RHNA, the City will r ezone 24.39 acres to Very High Density Residential and a Mixed-Use overlay would be added to 3.99 acres, permitting up to 35 units per acre to allow multi-family by right (without discretionary action) and sufficient to accommodate the shortfall of 4 units for lower income unit, 192 moderate income, and 65 above moderate income units. The rezoned sites will meet the requirements of Government Code 65583.2, including, but not limited to a minimum density of 20.1 units per acre, minimum site size to permit at least 16 units on site , and allow ownership and rental housing by right in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. The City will initiate and complete the rezoning and associated General Plan Land Use Update of these parcels. This will streamline the process and alleviate property owners and/or developers of the responsibility of filing applications and paying for the permitting fees and expenses associated with inc reasing the allowable density of the sites listed in the Sites Inventory.

Table H-47 Rezoning for RHNA
Current Zone Proposed Zone Acreage Parcels
CO CO(MU) 2.40 1
CPD(LAAPO) CPD(LAAPO)(MU) 1.59 4
RVL RMod 9.21 4
RVL RH 32.33 31
RL RM 53.94 8
RM RMod 3.78 2
RM RH 4.63 2
RM RVH 11.09 4
RMod RH 5.48 5
RH RVH 24.39 50
■ Develop a procedure in 2022 to monitor the development of vacant and nonvacant sites in the sites inventory and ensure that adequate sites are available to meet the remain ing RHNA by income category, pursuant to SB 166.
■ Pursuant to State law (AB 1397), amend the Zoning Ordinance in 2022 to require the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of a n y d e v e l o p m e n t o n a n o n v a c a n t s i t e consistent with those requirements set forth in the State Density Bonus Law.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
172
411

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-108
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Relevant Policies
HE 1.2, HE-1.3, HE-1.6, and HE-3.6
PROGRAM 8: BY-RIGHT APPROV AL FOR PROJECTS WITH 20

PERCENT AFFORDABLE UNITS
Pursuant to AB 1397 passed in 2017, the following categories of sites identified in the Housing Element for meeting the City’s RHNA are subject to by-right approval of housing dev elopment that includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower income households:
■ Reused sites previously identified in the 4th and 5th cycles Housing Element (see Appendix H3). ■ Sites identified for rezone after the statutory deadline of the 6th cycle Housing Element (see Appendix H3).

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Amend the Zoning Ordinance in 2022 to provide for the by-right approval consistent with AB 1397.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Relevant Policies
HE 1.2, HE-1.3, HE-1.6, and HE-3.6
Example below
PROGRAM 9: REPLACEMENT HOUSING
Development on nonvacant sites with existing residential units is subject to replacement requirement, pursuant to AB 1397. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to require the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a nonvacant site consistent with those requirements set forth in the State Density Bonus Law.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Amend the Zoning Ordinance in 2022 to address the replacement requirement consistent with AB 1397.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
173
412
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-109
Relevant Policies
HE 1.2, HE-1.3, HE-1.6, and HE-3.6
PROGRAM 10: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
ADU is an important alternative resource for affordable housing . To facilitate ADU development, the City will increase outreach and technical assistance to interested homeow ners. The City will also explore other options to further encourage the construction of ADUs in the community. Options to explore may include technical/resources guides online and pre-approved plans, among others.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Explore best practice approaches used by other communities to f acilitate ADU development in 2022 and establish specific incentives, tools, and resources that will b e o f f e r e d b y t h e C i t y b y t h e e n d o f 2 0 2 3 .

Complement the tools and incentives with a marketing program (C ity newsletter, website, newsletter, etc.) to promote ADUs in the City. Implement the marketing program at least annually. ■ Facilitate the construction of 400 ADUs during the planning period. ■ Monitor the City’s ADU trend annually through the Housing Eleme nt Annual Progress report to ensure the City is on track with meeting its ADU projected goal. If the t rend falls short of the assumption used in this Housing Element, the City will develop and/or adjust incentives and tools to encourage ADU construction.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Relevant Policies
HE-4.5
PROGRAM 11: MIXED-USE
Mixed-use developments incorporate a variety of commercial uses in close proximity to residential units. The City recognizes that because vacant land within the City is limited, future housing growth will need to include a significant amount of multi-family, attached and mixed-use deve lopment. The City’s Metrolink station also offers opportunities for transit-oriented uses, including mixed-use de velopment, new commercial/entertainment uses, and new housing. The City will work to focus higher density developments and mixed-use projects in areas adjacent to transit stations, along transit corridors and commercial cor ridors, near job centers, the western corridor of Los Angeles Avenue (between Sinaloa Road and Erringer Road), the Tapo Street corridor (south of the 118 Freeway and extending toward the Metrolink Station/High Quality Transit Area) and in other appropriate areas throughout the City. To facilitate mixed use development, the City will revisi t its mixed use development standards as part of its SB2 and LEAP grants activities.
174
413

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-110

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ By the end of 2022, establish appropriate mixed use development standards and incentives to encourage mixed-use development along transit corridors and other appropriate areas through the following compared to commercial development:
> Shared parking.
> Reduced parking requirements.
> increased height limits.
> Reduced setbacks.
■ In 2023 convene a developer’s workshop to promote opportunities for mixed use development. ■ Maintain a list of interested developers and property owners; t o facilitate lot consolidation and to identify opportunities for development as properties become available on the market. ■ By the end of 2023, the City will develop Specific Plans for hi g h i m p a c t d e v e l o p m e n t a r e a s , s u c h a s t h e western corridor of Los Angeles Avenue and the Tapo Street corridor.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Relevant Policies
HE 1.1, HE 1.2, HE 1.3, HE 1.4, HE 1.6, HE 2.6, HE 2.7, HE 2.8, HE 3.1, HE 3.4, HE 3.6, HE 4.1, HE 4.7, and HE 4.14 PROGRAM 12: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REVIEW PROCESS
The City continues to monitor its development standards and dev elopment review/approval process. To facilitate development within the community, the City has established a Permit Processing Review Committee. The objective of the Committee is to review and recommend changes to the City’s Development Code in order to streamline the review process and remove constraints to development. The City will review parking residential parking requirements to determine if any changes are necessary to furth er facilitate housing development. The City will pursue SB 2 and LEAP grants to create streamlining opportunities, such as marketing incentives (increased density, modified development standards, etc.) to developers in exchange for affordable housing components, and providing pre-approved plans that that facilitate non-discretionary permitting. The City will evaluate compliance with the new transparency requirements in AB 1483.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
ƒ Continue to review and improve the City’s development standards and review process, including potential revision of the residential parking and height limit requiremen ts and allowance of alternative parking standards (such as provision of bicycle and car/ride share in l ieu of required per-unit parking space) by December 2024.
ƒ Streamlining efforts will be completed no later than December 3 1, 2023, in accordance with the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the LEAP Program.
175
414
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-111
ƒ Monitor the implementation of the Mixed Use Overlay to ensure the adopted standards facilitate residential and mixed use developments at the maximum allowable density. ƒ Evaluate compliance with AB 1483 and provide tools on its website to provide transparency of fees and zoning and development standards on a parcel-specific basis by December 2026.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division, Permit Processing Review Committee Funding Sources
Departmental Budget, LEAP, SB 2
Relevant Policies
HE 1.1 and HE-1.3
PROGRAM 13: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
R e c e n t c h a n g e s t o S t a t e l a w r e g a r d i n g h o u s i n g f o r t h e h o m e l e s s and persons with special needs also warrant amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. These include:
■ Low Barrier Navigation Centers (AB 101): AB 101 requires cities to allow a Low Barrier Navigation Center development by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresid ential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. A “Low Barrier Navigation Center” is defined as “a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanen t housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Low Barrier shelters ma y include options such as allowing pets, permitting partners to share living space, and providing storage for residents’ possessions. ■ Emergency and Transitional Housing (AB 139 and SB 2): Pursuant to AB 139, local governments may include parking requirements for emergency shelters specifying that adequate parking must be provided for shelter staff, but overall parking requirements for shelters may not ex ceed the requirements for residential and commercial uses in the same zone. SB 2 also allows separation of no more than 300 feet between two shelters.
■ Supportive Housing (AB 2162): AB 2162 requires supportive housing projects of 50 units or fewer to be permitted by right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use de velopments are permitted, when the development meets certain conditions. The City may choose to al low larger supportive housing projects by right in these zones. The bill also prohibits minimum parking r equirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of a public transit stop.
■ Employee Housing: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to address the provision of employee housing pursuant to Safety Code Sections 17021.5.
■ Housing for Agricultural Employees: Amend the Zoning ordinance to adjust definitions and allowances of uses for agricultural employee housing to be consistent with Ca lifornia Law, including but not limited to Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6.
■ Density Bonus: Recent Changes to State Density Bonus law warrant amendments t o the Zoning Ordinance, including the percentage of density increase, incentives to reduce parking requirements, and allow increases in structure height.
176
415

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-112
■ Reasonable Accommodation: Amend the criteria for granting reasonable accommodation. Spe cifically, reasonable accommodation should consider flexibility to the City’s Development Code and Municipal Code. ■ Residential Care Facilities for Seven or More Persons: Evaluate the City’s provision for large residential care facilities (for seven or more persons) to remove constraints to development, such as conditionally allowing such uses in other zones where residential uses are allowed and ensuring the conditions for approval relate to objective performance standards.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Amend Zoning Ordinance in 2022 to comply with SB 2, AB 101, AB 139, AB 2162, and Health and Safety Code sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, among others.
■ Amend Zoning Ordinance Chapter 9-31 to comply with State Density Bonus law by 2023.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Relevant Policies
HE 1.1, HE 4.1, HE 4.3, HE 4.7, HE 4.8, HE 4.9, and HE 4.14 PROGRAM 14: LOT CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM
Future residential development in the City will likely occur as infill housing and mixed-use developments in opportunity areas. The City adopted a Lot Consolidation incentive and the Revitalization of Obsolete and Underused Properties policy in June 2012, and City staff will continue to implement these policies. Section 9-44.105.H of the Simi Valley Municipal Code encourages the consolidation of seve ral smaller, contiguous parcels into one, larger project, to provide for additional design flexibility within Mi xed-Use zones. Consolidation of one or more parcels entitles two of the following incentives: (1) Graduated Density : Allow a 10% increase in the number of dwelling units per acre over the maximum density for mixed-use Planned Developments, (2) Allow up to 75% of the project’s floor area to be developed as nonresidential uses, (3) Allow a reduction of a maximum of two of the optional residential development standards required per Section 9-24.060.D for all types of residential projects in a mixed- use project. Expanded incentives could include: reduced development fees, decreased parking ratio requirements, reduced setbacks, and increased height allowance.

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Continue to implement adopted lot consolidation and revitalizat ion policies during the Housing Element planning period.
■ Promote policies through information at public counters and on City website and provide technical assistance to property owners and interested developers.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
177
416
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-113
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Relevant Policies
HE 1.1, HE 1.2, HE 1.3, HE 1.4, HE 1.5, HE 4.2, and HE 4.14 PROGRAM 15: AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
Appendix C, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), of th is Housing Element provides an analysis of fair housing issues and trends in Simi Valley, including:
ƒ Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
ƒ Integration and Segregation
ƒ Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ƒ Access to Opportunity
ƒ Disproportionate Housing Needs
Based on the analyses included in Appendix C, a matrix was crea ted below to identify fair housing issues, contributing factors, and meaningful actions that the City will take during the Cycle 6 Housing Element period (2021- 2029) to help overcome the identified issues.

Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Action
Enforcement and Outreach Insufficient and inaccessible outreach and enforcement
− Lack of accessible fair housing
information and variety of in
puts
media
− Lack of marketing fair housing events
such as fair housing conferences,
resource meetings, and community
meetings
Continue the contracting with HRC to
provide fair housing services to Simi Valley
residents.

− Continue offering to host fair housing
workshops in Simi Valley annually,
including the landlord-tenant
workshop and the homebuyer’s
education workshop h
osted by HRC.
− Increase outreach related to fair
housing educat
ion and workshop,
specifically the .block group on the
western side o
f the City where many
sites used to meet the City’s RHNA are
located and in low resource tracts on
the western end of the City.
− Offer fair housing outreach and
education in Spanish and English.

New Housing Choices in Areas of High
Opportunity Place
-Based Strategies to
Encourage Community Revitalization
Concentration of special needs groups
− Lack of private investment
− Location and type of affordable
housing
− Lack of sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, and other i
nfrastructure
− Substandard Housing Conditions
− Age of housing stock
− Commit to one public improvement
project annually.
− Implement the minor streets
rehabilitation project which consists
primarily of asphalt resurfacing or
slurry sealing of the full width of
various residen
tial streets throughout
the City based on pavement
conditions and ranking identified on
178
417

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-114
− Cost of repairs and rehabilitation the City’s street paving priority list within the City’s LMI areas
− Support nonprofits in pursuing funding
for acquisition/rehabilitation of
housing through the City’s HOME
program.
− Continue the City’s rehabilitation
program and target home
rehabilitation in tracts with a higher
concentration of aging housing units,
generally located in the center of the
City
Protect Existing Residents from
Displacement

Displacement risk of low income residents
due to economic
pressures
− Unaffordable rents
− Concentration of poverty in some
tracts
− Availability of affordable housing
Through SB 2 and LEAP grants already
acquired by Simi Valley, develop the
following Specific Plans for high impact
development areas to ensure continuity,
economic vibrancy, and increase housing
diversity. It will designate and rezone
under
-utilized opportunity areas for
additional housing capacity or preparing
specific plans or form based codes that
include zoning and development standards
and plan
-level environmental analysis that
can be used to streamline future housing
projects and facilitate affordability

− Tapo Street Corridor: Between Hwy
118 and Los Angeles Avenue with
mixed-use and housing opportunities,
and extending eastward toward
Stearns Street to include the
Metrolink Station (TOD/HQTA)
− Los Angeles Avenue Corridor:

Between Sinaloa Road and Erringer
Road, to identify opportunities along
the commercial retail corridor and the
Mountain Gate shopping center with
mixed-use opportunities
Continue providing the following
assistance to small businesses that may be
displaced due to the rezoning proposed by
this Housing Element:

− Community Development Block Grant
COVID-19 (CDBG-CV) Small Business
Grant Program for FY2020-
21: Provide
financial assistance, through CDBG
grants, to small businesses that have
been impacted by COVID-19.

Applicants eligible to receive up to
$5,000 in the form of a grant that will
not require repayment.
− Business Location Assistance: The
City’s Economic Development Office
provides several resources to assist
business owners in finding an
appropriate location for their
business. The City is a subscriber to
proprietary software, which gives
179
418
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-115
staff the ability to provide custom
reports of available properties and
vacant spaces. These services include
lists of building and tenant spaces
available for lease or for sale; asking
rents and sales prices; comparable
data for lease rates; demographic
data; analytical property data;
property ownership information;
ideas and introductions to brokers
and property managers.
− Agency Partners: The City of Simi
Valley has also established
partnerships with the Economic
Development Collaborative of
Ventura County (EDC-VC) and Small
Business Development Center (SBDC)
to promote job growth, maintain
economic vitality, and provide
management assistance to small
business owners.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Housing & Special Projects Division Funding Sources
CDBG; General Fund
Relevant Policies
HE 5.1, HE 5.2, HE 5.3, HE 5.4, HE 5.5; and HE-5.6
PROGRAM 16: REZONE LOWER DENSITY AREAS TO NEXT HIGHEST

DENSITY TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MODERATE-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS (“MISSING MIDDLE”) AND ABOVE-MODERATE

INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ To maintain adequate sites for all income groups throughout the eight-year planning period, and to foster additional residential growth in the City, the City has identif ied candidate sites for rezone up to 144.7 acres (443 parcels):
> 1.1 acres to be rezoned from Residential Estate (1 dwelling unit/lot) to Residential Low Density (2.1 - 3.5 dwelling units per acre [du/ac])
> 51.1 acre to be rezoned from Residential Very Low Density (1 dw elling unit per lot) to Residential Low Density (2.1 - 3.5 du/ac)
> 23.1 acres to be rezoned from Residential Medium Density to Residential Moderate Density (5.1-10 du/ac) > 30.9 acres to be rezoned from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density > 4.3 acres to be rezoned from Residential Moderate Density to Residential High Density (10.1 - 20 du/ac) 180
419

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-116
> 34.2 acres to be rezoned from Residential High Density (10.1 – 20 du/ac) to Residential Very High Density (20.1 – 35 du/ac).

Rezone additional sites as outlined above by October 2023 to pr ovide additional opportunities for residential development. However, this rezoning is not necessary to accommodate the City’s RHNA; the rezoning is proposed to offer additional opportunities for housing in the community.

Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Relevant Policies
HE 1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, and HE-5.1
PROGRAM 17: CONSULT WITH WATER AND SEWER SERVICE

PROVIDERS TO ENSURE THAT THE Y DO NOT DENY OR CONDITION

APPROVAL OF SERVICES, OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SERVICES

APPLIED FOR BY A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES

HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

OBJECTIVES AND TIMEFRAME
■ Pursuant to Chapter 727, Statutes of 2005 (SB 1087) and Governm ent Code Section 65589.7, the City will immediately deliver the adopted Cycle 6 Housing Element and any amendments to water and sewer providers, including:
> City of Simi Valley Public Works Waterworks District No.8 (WWD8 > Golden State Waterworks
> City of Simi Valley Public Works Sanitation Division Collections and Treatment Sections ■ Future updates or amendments to the Housing Element should be sent within a month after adoption. ■ Summaries/quantifications of the RHNA assigned to the City of Simi Valley should be included with all Housing Element copies and amendments or updates.
■ The City should consult with water and sewer providers during the development and update of the Housing Element.
■ The City should work with water and sewer providers to help the m adopt written policies and procedures that grant priority to proposed development that includes housi ng affordable to lower-income households in a manner consistent with SB 1087.
■ The City should work with water and sewer providers to ensure that the providers do not deny or condition the approval or reduce the amount of service for an application f o r d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t i n c l u d e s h o u s i n g affordable to lower-income households, unless specific written findings are made. 181
420
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-117
Responsible Agency
Environmental Services Department/Planning Division
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Relevant Policies
HE 1.6, HE-1.8, and HE-5.1
Summary of Objectives
Table H-48 summarizes the quantifiable objectives presented for each program earlier. Objectives are categorized as units to be constructed, rehabilitated, or preserved by income level.

Table H-48 Quantified Objectives

Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
RHNA 374 375 493 518 1,033
Construction 50 50 100 500 1,500
ADU 0 60 124 170 46
Rehabilitation (Home Rehabilitation Program) 10 30 50 0 0 Conservation/Preservation (Affordable Housing Preservation) 195 200 400 0 0 Housing Assistance (Housing Choice Vouchers) 350 350 0 0 0

182
421

HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN4-118
This page intentionally left blank.
183
422
Appendix H1
Review of Past Accomplishments
184
423
185
424
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-1
Table H1-1 Review of P ast Accomplishments
2013-2021 Housing Element Programs Objectives Accomplishment Continued Appropriateness Program 1: Home Rehabilitation Program
The Home Rehabilitation Program offers low
interest deferred loans to low- and median-
income homeowners.

Continue to provide loans to qualified low-
income homeowners.

Disseminate information to homeowners
regarding rehabilitation standards and the
Home Rehabilitation Program.

Improve 15 housing units annually.

Overall, 70 housing units were rehabilitated
from January 2014 to December 2019. All
households assisted were low income.

Modify and include
Program 2: Code Enforcement
The City enforces municipal ordinances and
permit compliance by promoting voluntary
compliance through working i
n partnership with
the citizens and businesses of Simi Valley.

Continue code enforcement activities and
connect households in need of City
rehabilitation programs.

Between 2014 and 2019, the City addressed
and obtained compliance on 3,782 property
maintenance violations.

Program 3: Preservation of At-Risk Units
Nine affordable housing projects in the City –
Indian Oaks, Shadow Ridge, Courtyard,
Baywood, Regency, Patricia Village, Westgate
,
Heywood Place, and Pepper Tree Court – are
considered at risk of converting to market-rate
housing during the planning period of this at-
risk analysis (October 15, 2013 through
October 15, 2023). Combined, these nine
projects offer 251 units affordable to very low-
and low-income households. Two of these
projects were financed with tax exempt bonds
and the seven other projects set aside
affordable units in exchange for a density
bonus from the City. No more than 20 percent
of the units among these projects are
affordable.

Annually monitor the status of at-risk units by
maintaining contact with property owners and
pursue extension of affordability covenants in
exchange of incentives, if feasible.

Work with property owners intending to opt out
of the affordability covenants to ensure tenants
receive adequate notice.

Support and assist property owners in applying
for state and federal at-risk housing
preservation funds.

Provide technical assistance to tenants to
access other affordable housing resources,
such as assistance to tenants of at-risk
affordable housing developments by referring
them to the Area Housing Authority of the
County of Ventura; the Affordable Housing
Guide, which contains a list of affordable
apartments in the City; and Community Action
of Ventura County, which administers the City’s
Eviction Prevention and Security Deposit
Assistance programs.

As of the end of 2019, five (5) out of the nine
(9) at-risk affordable housing projects have
been converted to market rate totaling 207
units converted (143 very low income and
64 low income). As of January 2021, 44 at-
risk units were preserved (20 very low
income and 24 low income).

Another housing project, Pepper Tree Court
was purchased by the Area Housing
Authority of Ventura County in 2017. This
will preserve at least 22 units for low-income
seniors. The converted properties were
required to maintain affordable units in
exchange for the density bonus granted by
the City with the original project approval.

No public funding was involved in the
converted projects. Preservation of at-risk
units is difficult as onl
y a small percentage of
the units in each project is reserved as
affordable housing. The majority of the units
in the at-risk projects were market-rate units
to begin with. Preservation of the affordable
units by way of acquiring the entire project is
Modify and include
186
425
APPENDIX H1
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-2
Table H1-1 Review of P ast Accomplishments
2013-2021 Housing Element Programs Objectives Accomplishment Continued Appropriateness financially infeasible due the loss of
redevelopment funds.

The City’s strategy is to continue to
replenish the affordable housing inventory
by offering regulatory incentives to new
projects. The City continues to pursue
partnership with housing purveyors,
developers, and property owners to
replenish affordable housing stock.

Program 4: Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers
The Area Housing Authority of the County of
Ventura administers the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program for Simi Valley
residents on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Section 8
requires a very low-
income renter to pay up to
30 percent of their gross monthly income
towards rent and picks up the balance on the
renter’s behalf.

Continue to participate in the federally
sponsored Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
program.

Disseminate information to the public regarding
the Section 8 Program and promote
participation by rental property owners.

Promote programs to extremely low-income
households.

Continue to provide Section 8 Vouchers to
approximately 800 households annually.

As of the end of 2020, 678 households in
the City were receiving housing rental
assistance through the Section 8 Program.

The City has continued to actively support
the Area Housing Authority's Section 8
Program and has submitted letters of
support for additional funding when
requested: The. City is represented by two
volunteers appointed by the City Council
who serve on the 15-member
Area Housing
Authority Board of Directors.

Expand to include outreach
and education on new
Source of Income protection
under SB 329 and SB 322
that recognize public
assistance, including HCV
as a legitimate source of
income for rent payments.

Program 5: Foreclosure Prevention
Assistance
In 2008, the NeighborWorks® Home
Ownership Center (HOC) team launched its “A
New Way Home” campaign in conjunction with
its sister agency, the Ventura County
Community Development Corporation
(VCCDC), to increase awareness of its
foreclosure prevention assistance. Under the
program, HOC counselors assist local
homeowners with one-on-one counseling,
leading to action plans to avoid foreclosure or
offer alternatives to foreclosure if
homeownership cannot be maintained. The
HOC also offers workshops to educate
people
about the dangers of abusive real estate and
Disseminate information to the public regarding
foreclosure prevention assistance
Provide assistance to 30 households annually.

The Foreclosure Prevention Assistance
Program has assisted 153 households since
2008. However, the program expired in
November of 2012. Nevertheless, the City
continues to disseminate information, to the
public and respond to homeowners with
properties that are at risk of being fo
reclosed
and help direct them to various nonprofit
agencies for one-on-one foreclosure
counseling.

Remove as a housing
program for the 2021-2029
Housing Element.

This program has been
suspended indefinitely due
to a lack of funding.

However, this type of
assistance is offered through
other means with Ventura
County.
187
426
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-3
Table H1-1 Review of P ast Accomplishments
2013-2021 Housing Element Programs Objectives Accomplishment Continued Appropriateness lending practices and steps to avoid the
foreclosure process.

Program 6: Energy Conservation/Green
Building
The City strongly encourages applicants for
publicly subsidized home rehabilitation projects
to prioritize energy efficiency improvements,
including windows, water heaters, cooling
system repairs or upgrades, weatherization,
and other measures that will save money and
energy.

Offer education and provide outreach to
residents and developers regarding energy
efficiency and green building requirements
(ongoing).

Increase long-term affordability of housing by
improving energy efficiency (ongoing).

Participate in Energy Leader Partnership
Program with SCE and participation in first
Green Communities Challenge by the Institute
for Local Government.

The City’s website includes the “Live Green”
and “Save Green” pages promoting energy
efficiency and green building practices.

City-sponsored events, and the City’s
hosting of workshops, provide
education and
outreach to the community. City is working
with local and regional groups to establish
plug-in electric vehicle charging stations.

Additionally, the City Council adopted the
2017 California Green Building Code
(CALGreen), with local amendments that
require the recycling of materials in
demolished structures and encourage
energy efficient design of new buildings.

This program is not included
in the 2021-2029 Housing
Element as a specific
housing program.

Program 7: Affordable Housing
Development
Through Affordable Housing Agreements, the
City negotiates with developers for the
inclusion of affordable housing in new
developments. In addition, the City utilizes a
variety of funding sources to assist in the
development of affordable housing.

Continue to facilitate affordable housing using
financial and regulatory incentives.

Continue to offer nonprofit housing developers
up to two rounds of review by the Affordable
Housing Subcommittee at no fee.

Annually explore funding availability at the state
and federal levels and pursue funding as
appropriate.

Facilitate the development of 100 units
affordable to lower-income households (with a
portion being targeted for extremely low-
income households).

As funding permits, prioritize affordable
housing funds for projects that set aside a
portion of the units for extremely low-income
households and persons with disabilities,
including developmental disabilities.

Through the collaboration of the City,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Area Housing Authority of
County of Ventura, and Many Mansions (a
non-profit developer with its focus on limited
-
income families and homeless individuals
disabled by mental illness), the 12-unit
Peppertree Apartments was completely
rehabilitated and rented-up by November
2014.

On December 31, 2015 Cabrillo Economic
Development Corporation, with the City's
assistance, successfully closed escrow and
procured all necessary loans and plan
approval to construct Camino Esperanza,
the 31-unit senior affordable apartments
loc
ated at 1384 Katherine Road South. This
project is not the usual 100% affordable
project serving very-low income seniors; it
also serves developmentally disabled
Modify and include.
188
427
APPENDIX H1
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-4
Table H1-1 Review of P ast Accomplishments
2013-2021 Housing Element Programs Objectives Accomplishment Continued Appropriateness seniors with income 25% of the area median
income, which is lower than HUD’s lowest
income category. The City’s $500,000
development loan approved by City Council
on December 7, 2015, is subordinated to
two primary loans; a $7 million construction
loan from Bank of the West and the State
Department of Housing and Community
Development’s Multifamily Housing Program
(MHP) and Home Investment Partnership
Program (HOME) loans of approximately
$4.5 million. The Ventura Housing Trust
fund also approved $500,000 toward the
development.

In 2016, Seasons Simi Valley AR, L.P.
successfully transferred ownership of and
refinanced the 69-unit Seasons Senior
Apartments project fr
om Rory Lane Seniors,
L.P. Seasons purchased the project utilizing
bond financing and tax credit equity. Result
of the transfer include the apartment
complex receiving a $2,3 million renov
ation
program plus a renegotiated affordability
term with the City, adding 10 years to the
existing term, extending to March 23, 2065.

In 2017, the City Council approved
agreements for two projects that resulted in
3 apartments for low-income seniors and 1
apartment for low-income workforce.

In 2018, the City Council approved
agreements for two projects that resulted in
98 apartments for low-income seniors and 5
apartments for low-income workforce.

In 2019, four very low-income units were
entitled.
189
428
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-5
Table H1-1 Review of P ast Accomplishments
2013-2021 Housing Element Programs Objectives Accomplishment Continued Appropriateness Program 8: Adequate Sites Inventory
The City has a Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) of 1,256 units, including
310 extremely low/very low-income, 208 low-
income, 229 moderate-
income, and 509 above
moderate-income units for the period of 2013
through 2021. The City will ensure that an
adequate supply of vacant and underutilized
sites at appropriate densities and development
standards to accommodate the remaining
RHNA is available by maintaining an inventory
of vacant and underutilized sites.

Monitor the development trends in the City,
particularly on the sites identified in this
Housing Element to ensure continued ability to
accommodate the RHNA.

Assist in the identification of sites with potential
for lot consolidation and housing development.

The City continues to identify potential
vacant or underdeveloped sites suitable for
the construction of a variety of housing types
and densities.

The 2021-2029 Housing
Element will include an
expanded adequate sites
program that include:
■ Monitoring for no net
loss (SB 166)
■ By-right approval of
sites reused from
previous cycles and
for sites rezoned for
RHNA after the
statutory deadline.
■ Rezone program to
meet RHNA
Program 9: Mixed-Use
During the implementation of General Plan
2030, the City will work to focus higher density
developments and mixed-use projects in areas
adjacent to transit stations, along transit
corridors and commercial corridors, near job
centers, and in other appropriate areas
throughout the City.

Encourage mixed-use development along
transit corridors and other appropriate areas
through the following incentives:
■ Shared Parking
■ Reduced parking requirements – The
City revised the Development Code to
provide reduced parking for mixed-
use
developments.
■ Height limits – The City revised the
Development Code to provide for a
building height limit of 55 feet and four
stories (compared to 48 feet and three
stories in commercial zones)
■ Reduced setbacks – The City revised
the Development Code to reduce
setbacks for mixed-use developments.

The Mixed-Use Overlay Zoning District was
adopted concurrently with the General Plan
Update in June 2012. In 2017, the City
added a new mixed-use designation to a 43-
acre site at 400 national Way to allow for
development of a hotel and residential uses
in an area formerly designated for Business
Park uses. In 2019, the City approved a
Specific Plan for a 13-acre commercially
zoned site to allow for mixed-use
development, which includes approval of
164 new residential units, located along a
major commercial thoroughfare and
adjacent to the 118 freeway. In addition,
several high
density housing developments
were approved or constructed on vacant and
underdeveloped properties located along or
within a short walking distance
(approximately 500 ft) of a major commercial
and transit corridor.

This program is combined
with the Adequate Sites
Inventory program.
190
429
APPENDIX H1
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-6
Table H1-1 Review of P ast Accomplishments
2013-2021 Housing Element Programs Objectives Accomplishment Continued Appropriateness Program 10: Development Standards and
Review Process
The City continues to monitor its development
standards and development review/approval
process. To facilitate development within the
community, the City has established a Permit
Processing Review Committee. The objective
of the Committee is to review and recommend
changes to the City’s Development Code in
order to streamline the review process and
remove constraints to development. The
Committee has recommended the revision of
the City’s residential parking requirements to
be consistent with neighboring jurisdictions,
establishing the parking requirements based
on the number of bedrooms per unit.

Continue to review and improve the City’s
development standards and review process.

Monitor the implementation of the Mixed-Use
Overlay to ensure the adopted standards
facilitate residential and mixed-use
developments at the maximum allowable
density.

City fees are re-evaluated every two years.

Park District fees for very low- and low-
income units are substantially reduced.

School fees are substantially reduced for
new senior housing projects.

The City continues to expedite the
development review process for affordable
housing projects. The City recently amended
the Development Code to address the
extremely low-income and special needs
housing.

Modify and include.

Program 11: Zoning Ordinance
Extremely low-income households and
households with special needs have limited
housing options. Housing t
ypes appropriate for
these groups include emergency shelters,
transitional housing, supportive housing, and
single-room occupancy (SRO) units. The City
of Simi Valley recently amended its
Development Code to specifically address the
provision of transitional housing, supportive
housing, and SRO housing. The City will
continue to monitor the Development Code for
potential constraints and amend the Code as
necessary to address any potential issues.

Continue to monitor the Development Code for
potential constraints and amend the Code as
necessary to address any potential issues.

Annually review state and federal regulations to
ensure the Development Code complies with
current regulations.

The City amended its Development Code to
specifically address the provision of
transitional housing, supportive housing, and
single-room occupancy (SRO) units to
address households with special needs
(such as extreme low-income households)
who are limited in housing options.

Modify to include zoning
ordinance amendments
needed to comply with
recent changes to State law
– LBNC (AB101),
emergency shelters (AB
139), supportive housing
(SB 2162), etc.
191
430
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-7
Table H1-1 Review of P ast Accomplishments
2013-2021 Housing Element Programs Objectives Accomplishment Continued Appropriateness Program 12: Lot Consolidation Program
Future residential development in the City will
likely occur as infill housing and mixed-use
developments in opportunity areas. The City
adopted a Lot Consolidation incentive and the
Revitalization of Obsolete and Underused
Properties policy in June 2012, and City staff
will continue to implement these policies.

Continue to implement adopted lot
consolidation and revitalization policies during
the 2013-2021 planning period.

Promote policies through information at public
counters and on City website and provide
technical assistance to property owners and
interested developers.

The Lot Consolidation Incentive and the
Revitalization of Obsolete and Underused
Properties policies were adopted with the
General Plan Update in June 2012.The
Tapo/Alamo Mixed Use project was an
example of a successful lot consolidation
which included an affordable housing
component.

Continue
Program 20: Fair Housing
The City contracts with the Southern California
Housing Rights Center (HRC) to actively
inform residents, landlords of residential
property, and others involved in the insurance,
construction, sale or lease of residential
property of the laws pertaining
to fair housing.

The HRC provides a wide array of programs
and services to its clients free of charge,
including:
■ Landlord-Tenant Counseling
■ Predatory Lending Information &
Referrals
■ Housing Discrimination Investigation
■ Enforcement & Advocacy
■ Outreach & Education
Continue to contract with the Southern
California Housing Rights Center (HRC) to
provide fair housing services to residents.

Disseminate information to the public on the
array of fair housing programs and services
provided by HRC.

Refer complaints
and inquiries to the Southern
California Housing Rights Center.

Place fair housing brochures at City counters
and community locations.

Provide a link to the Southern California
Housing Rights Center on the City’s website.

Include public presentations with different
community groups in annual fair housing
service contracts.

The City maintains a contract with the
Housing Rights Center to provide fair
housing counseling and referral services to
local residents. The Housing Rights Center
periodically conducts informational
workshops in the community and provides
literature to those who attend the
workshops. The City also provides fair
housing brochures at the public information
counter, incorporates the fair housing logo
on its housing program brochures, and
requires affordable housing developers to
provide fair housing information to individual
clients.

Expand to address
impediments identified in the
Ventura County Regional
Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice.
192
431
APPENDIX H1
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-8
Summary of Accomplishments

SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Table H1-2 below summarizes the quantifiable achievements over the past eight years.

Table H1-2 Summary of Accomplishment (2013-2020)

Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Objectives
Construction 155 155 208 229 509 1256
Rehabilitation (Home Rehabilitation Program) 0 0 60 0 0 60 Conservation/Preservation (At-Risk Housing
Preservation) 0 163 88 0 0 251
Housing Assistance (Housing Choice
Vouchers) 400 400 0 0 0 800
Accomplishments
Construction 0 30 1 26 291 348
Rehabilitation (Home Rehabilitation Program) 0 0 70 0 0 70 Conservation/Preservation (At-Risk Housing
Preservation)
0 20 24 0 0 44
Housing Assistance 1 (Housing Choice
Vouchers)
661 15 0 0 0 678
1 Based on the June 30, 2020 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura “Details of Assistance by Community.” Report identified presents assisted by families, elderly, and disabled categories. Elderly and disabled households were considered extremely low incomes. Family households were split by income level into extremely low and very low income households based on income level breakdown as provided by HUD’s 2019 “Picture of Subsidized Household” for the Housing Authority of the County of Ventura.

SOURCE: City of Simi Valley, 2020.

EFFECTIVENESS IN ADDRE SSING SPECIAL NEEDS
During the fifth cycle Housing Element, the City provided rehabilitation assistance to 70 homeowners, including senior homeowners.

The City was also able to facilitate the development and preservation of affordable housing development for special needs populations. Specifically:
■ 2015 - Camino Esperanza, a 31-unit senior affordable housing project located at 1384 Katherine Road South.

This project is not the usual 100 percent affordable project se rving very low income seniors; it also serves developmentally disabled seniors with income 25 percent of the area median income, which is lower than HUD’s lowest income category.
■ 20 16 - S e a s on s S i mi V a l l e y L . P. p u r c h a s e d a nd r e f i n a n c e d t h e 69-unit Seasons Senior Apartments project utilizing bond financing and tax credit equity. Result of the transfer include the apartment complex receiving a $2,3 million renovation program plus a renegotiated affordability term with the City, adding 10 years to the existing term, extending to March 23, 2065.
193
432
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-9
■ 2017 - Pepper Tree Court Apartments - The Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura purchased and extended affordability of Pepper Tree Court Apartments in Simi Valley. This project is reserved for senior households.
■ In 2017, the City Council approved agreement for a project that resulted in 3 apartments for low income seniors.
■ In 2018, the City Council approved agreement for a project that resulted in 98 apartments for low income seniors.

The City will continue to encourage the development of special needs housing and provide supportive services for special needs population.

194
433
APPENDIX H1
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H1-10

This page intentionally left blank.

195
434
Appendix H2
Public Participation
196
435
197
436
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H2-1
APPENDIX H2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Meetings
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City conducted multiple meetings to solicit input from the community and stakeholders:
■ P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n ( F e b r u a r y 3 , 2 0 2 1 ) t o p r o v i d e a n o v e r v i e w of the Housing Element requirements, update process, and challenges that should be addressed ■ Homeless Task Force (February 11, 2021) to provide an overview of the Housing Element update and discuss housing needs in the community
■ City Council (April 19, 2021) to provide an overview of the Housing Element update ■ P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n ( M a r c h 1 7 a n d A p r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 1 ) t o d i s c u s s p otential strategies on how to best accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) ■ Planning Commission (June 9, 2021) to review the Draft Housing Element Outreach
Outreach for the meetings were conducted via the following:
■ Social Media Posts: FaceBook, Instagram, LinkedIn
■ Local Television Stations: Simi Valley Television Channels 10 and 99, Community Bulletin Board ■ News Paper Press Releases: Ventura County Star
■ News Paper Ads: Simi Valley Acorn (with Quick Response Codes) ■ Online Video Platform: YouTube
■ City Website Posts: City Home Page – Latest News/Events, Housing Element Webpage, Community Calendar ■ Email Notifications
■ Direct Mailers: Postcards (with Quick Response Codes) ■ City Hall: Community Bulletin Boards
■ Simi Valley Public Library
Through these outreach methods, email address and Quick Respons e Codes are provided to residents seeking additional information including special accommodations. A phone number is also provided for residents who wish to speak to a staff/live voice.

Availability of Draft Housing Element for Public Review The Draft Housing Element was available for public review on June 1, 2021, prior to the June 9 meeting before the Planning Commission meeting to review the Draft document. 198
437
APPENDIX H2
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H2-2
Comments Received
Diverse comments were received during the various stages of the Housing Element update. In most cases, Simi Valley residents, community stakeholders, and affordable housing advocates in the region expressed the need for affordable housing and c ommended the Cit y‘s eff ort s in expanding housing opportunities beyond the minimum RHNA requirements. There were also comments from some Simi Val ley residents, voicing concerns over the proposal to rezone properties to increased density. The City a lso received comments from residents and representatives from the Carpenters Union requesting the City t o adopt a local hire requirement for housing construction projects.

The City continued to refine the potential sites for rezoning t hroughout the Housing Element update process, directly responding to input from the public. Program 16, identifying additional parcels to rezone to bridge the gap of “missing middle” housing also responds to community input regarding increased housing choices and enhanced affordability.

Upon the release of the Draft Housing Element for public review on June 1, 2021, the City received written comments from over 20 residents and stakeholders. The written comments generally follow the split in opinions similar to those who spoke at the June 9, 2021 Planning Commiss ion meeting. A total of 17 people spoke at the meeting. Eight speakers were either residents or representative s from th e Car penters Uni on, urging the City t o adopt policy requiring developers to hire local trade for housing construction projects. The City responded that the City has no authority to mandate private developers’ hiring practice. Seven spoke in support of the Draft Housing Element for expanding housing opportunities. Two spoke against t h e H o u s i n g E l e m e n t d u e t o c o n c e r n s o v e r increased density.

There were also comments to expand the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis. This Housing Element provides a partial analysis. However, because the City w a s a d j u s t i n g t h e s i t e s i n v e n t o r y t o e n s u r e i t responds to community comments, the AFFH analysis relating to t he sites inventory would have to be completed at a later date.

199
438
Appendix H3
Sites Inventory
200
439
201
440
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-1
APPENDIX H3 SITES INVENTORY
Methodology

LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
Vacant and underutilized parcels were identified utilizing the data from the Ventura County Assessor’s Office and refined with site visits and staff knowledge. Specifically, und erutilized properties are defined as those with improvements older than 30 years of age and improvement-to-land value less than one (improvements are worth less than the land). This improvement-to-land value ratio is fr equently used by economists and real estate professionals to identify potential sites for development. This inventory was then refined with site visits and staff input. The majority of the properties identified in this sites inventory are at least 50 years of age, with low-intensity development on larger lots. Many properties have antiquated configuration and facilities that cannot accommodate modern urban uses. Retrofitting some of these properties can often be cost-prohibitive given the low intensity uses on site. Many properties are also impacted by deferred maintenance.

The distribution of mixed-use and multi-family units is based on the land use percentage times the number of unit capacity, not based on the aggregated total acr eage time s the density. This method also included the rounding down of partial units for each site and represents a conservative method of estimating capacity.

AVERAGE DENSITY ASSUMPTION AND AFFORDABLE UNIT

DISTRIBUTION
Assumptions for adequate sites a re based on the General Program outlined in HCD’s memorandum on Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, Government Code Section 65583 .2. The apportioning of realistic capacity to accommodate lower-income household units is based on the number of units totaled from individual parcels with acreages of 0.5 or more, or on groupings of parcels (sites) that total 0.5 acres or more. As specified in the discussion Availability of Land Suitable for Residential Development in the Housing Resources section of this Housing Element document, each proposed rezone site is apportioned to accommoda te 60.8 percent very low-income units, 16.3 percent low-income units, 17.1 percent moderate-income units, a nd 5.8 percent above moderate-income units.

T h e a p p or t i on s a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e N ot e s c ol u mn of T a b l e s H- 3- 2 a n d H - 3- 3 i n A p p e n d i x H- 3 S i t e s I n v e n t or y . A number of selected sites contain either existing commercial dev elopment with parking or churches with parking.

Owners of these properties had expressed interest in the develo pment of housing to City Staff. Based on owner conversations with City Staff, it was assumed that these sites would either be redeveloped with a 50 percent residential mixed use component; or in other cases, the site is approximately 50 percent vacant and/or contains over-parked area that could accommodate infill housing developm ent. A number of the selected sites contain parcels that are t oo s mall and ma y n ot suppor t the number of units necessary to be competitive and to access scarce funding resources. Therefore, some of these parcels were grouped together in anticipation of consolidation into one site. Although the default density assumptions were co nservative and generalized to be 70 percent of maximum density in areas designated as residential-only and areas designated or rezoned to apply the Mixed Use Overlay, a description of recently-approved project densities a nd affordable unit distribution is provided here for purposes of comparing approved versus assumptions for allocation of units to affordable housing. 202
441
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-2
The residential acreage approved for the Tapo/Alamo Mixed Use p roject (PD-S-1045) at the northeast corner of Tapo and Alamo Streets. The site is zoned Commercial Planned De velopment with a Mixed Use Overlay District (CPD[MU]). Approximately 5.87 acres of the 6.89 acre-site would be developed as residential, while 1.02 would be developed as commercial. The project was approved for 278 apartments with a minimum of 30 percent affordable units. The proposed project includes a density bonus, concessio ns on development standards, and waivers. The affordable housing agreement requires eight very-low income household units and 76 low-income units. Therefore, a maximum density of 47 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) can reasonably be achieved under this development scenario, with 70 percent of the units designated for moderate- income households, 27 percent of the units designated for low-income households and three percent designated for very-low income households.

Recently approved number of units for senior housing, apartments, and townhomes in residential-only districts are described below:

Under the senior housing development scenario, the River House project site at 1424 Patricia Avenue (PD-S-1046) was zoned Residential High with 1.17 acres of residential devel opment approved for 28 units and an affordable housing agreement for three of the 28 units. The project was ap proved with a 16.7 percent density bonus.

Therefore, a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre could reasonably be achieved under this development scenario, with 10 percent of the units designated for low-incom e households and the remaining 90 percent designated for moderate-income households.

Under the apartment scenario, th e Sycamore Landing project (PD- S-1053) at 1692 Sycamore Drive was zoned Residential Very High with 13.04 acres of residential development approved for 311 units and an affordable housing agreement for 99 units. Therefore, a maximum density of 23 dwelling units per acre could reasonably be achieved for this development scenario, with 31 percent of the units des ignated for low-income households and the remaining 69 percent designated for moderate-income households.

Under the townhome scenario, the Good People USA project (PD-S- 1001) at 1270 Patricia was zoned Residential High with 0.84 acres of residential development approved for 26, 3-story townhome units and an affordable housing agreement for four units. Concessions included reduced front setback and required parking spaces. Therefore, a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre could reasonably be achieved for this development scenario, with 15 percent of the units designated for low-income households and the remaining 85 percent designated for above moderate-income households.

203
442
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-3
Table H3-1 Sites Inventory Are as Where No Rezone is Proposed

APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
Areas Where No Rezone is Proposed
Mountain Gate Area (No rezone proposed)
632032064 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
2090 First St. 35 17.04 149 Shopping center with large, underutilized surface parking lot. Land Value =
$13,260,222; Improvement Value =
$21,343,500. FAR = 33%. Density
assumption was reduced to 25% as a
conservative measure that accounts for the
possibility that new development would be
infill and might include commercial
components and, existing commercial
buildings would remain. Therefore, the
maximum density assumption was 8.75
units/ac. Used in Cycle 5.
204
443
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-4
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
632032046 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1317 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 14.36 125 Parcel with smaller stores with underutilized parking lots and interior parcels. Land Value
= $3,295,112; Improvement Value =
$11,414,703. FAR = 13%. Interior parcels
have nearly 100% existing building lot
coverages and were listed under separate
site records. Density assumption was
calculated at 25% as a conservative
measure that accounts for the po
ssibility that
new development would be infill and might
include commercial components and,
existing commercial buildings would remain.

Therefore, the maximum density assumption
was 8.75 units/ac. Used in Cycle 5.

205
444
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-5
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
632032045 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1457 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 0.78 19 Former movie theater. Land Value = $1,761,433; Improvement Value =
1,325,535. FAR = 100%. Owner expressed
interest in housing development. Density
assumption 70%. Enti
re site would be Mixed
Use redevelopment. Used in Cycle 5.

632032010 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1445 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 2.15 37 Bank. Land Value = $3,076,966; Improvement Value = $1.428.590. FAR =
37%. Density assumption 50%. Entire site
would be Mixed Use redevelopment. Used
in Cycle 5.

206
445
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-6
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
632032057 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
2090 First St. 35 1.01 17 Small strip mall. 5 restaurants/retail uses w/parking. Land Value = $1,122,000;
Improvement Value = $392,700. FAR =
16%. Density assumption 50%. Used in
Cycle 5.

632032058 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
2050 First St. 35 1.18 20 Restaurant/retail. Land Value = $1,310,700; Improvement Value =
$2,193,000. FAR = 26%. Density
Assumption 50%. Entire site would be Mixed
Use redevelopment. Used in Cycle 5.

207
446
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-7
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
632032059 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
2022 First St. 35 1.00 17 Restaurant/retail w/parking. Recurring vacancies. Land Value = $1,111,900;
Improvement Value = $2,340,900. FAR =
21%. Density assumption 50%. Used in
Cycle 5.

632032060 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1197 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 1.44 25 Restaurant/retail w/parking. Land Value = $1,407,600; Improvement Value =
$2,300,100. FAR = 23%. Density
assumption 50%.

208
447
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-8
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
632032061 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1203 E. Los Angeles 35 1.00 17 Retail w/parking. Land Value = $1,111,800; Improvement Value = $561,000. FAR =
25%. Density assumption 50%. Entire site
would be mixed use redevelopment. Used in
Cycle 5.

632032062 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1239 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 1.09 19 Retail w/parking. Land Value = $1,208,700; Improvement Value = $418,200. FAR =
13%. Entire site would be mixed use
redevelopment. Used in Cycle 5.

209
448
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-9
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
632032005 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1307 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 1.03 18 Bank. Land Value = $1,229,702; Improvement Value = $456,735. FAR =
23%. Density assumption 50%. Entire site
would be mixed use redelopment. Used in
Cycle 5.

632032063 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1301 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 1.01 17 Armed Forces Career Center/liquor store.

Land Value = $1,122,000; Improvement
Value = $943,500. FAR = 25%. Density
assumption 50%. Entire site would be
mixed
use redevelopment. Used in Cycle 5.

210
449
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-10
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
632032043 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1357 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 2.62 45 Gym and grocery store. Land Value = $5,775,032; Improvement Value =
7,277,572. FAR = 96%. Owner expressed
interest in housing development. Density
assumption 50%. Entire site would be mixed
use redevelopment. Used in Cycle 5.

211
450
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-11
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
632032028 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1463 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 0.59 27 MGACPDMU-1. Office and Bank. Office Land Value = $$337,562; Office
Improvement Value = $376,511. Office FAR
= 24%. Bank Land Value = $$1,558,020;
Bank Improvement Value = $1,168,510.

Bank FAR = 30%.

Density assumption 50%.

Entire site would be mixed use
redevelopment. Used in Cycle 5.

632032024 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(LAAPO)
1475 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 1.01
Subtotal Mountain Gate Plaza Area 47.31 552552
212
451
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-12
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
Los Angeles Ave/Metrolink Area (No rezone proposed)
644021007 Mixed-Use LI(MU) 5000 E Los Angeles Ave 35 2.73 66 City-owned parking lot adjacent to Amtrak/Metrolink transit station. Entire site
would be converted to TOD mixed use.

Used in Cycle 5.
644021006 Mixed-Use LI(MU) 5000 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 3.55 86 City owned parking lot adjacent to Amtrak/Metrolink transit station Entire site
would be converted to TOD mixed use.

Used in Cycle 5.
213
452
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-13
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
644007052 Mixed-Use CPD(MU) 4785 E. Los Angeles Ave. 35 1.06 25 Underutilized landscaping company. Land Value = $1,098,915; Improvement Value =
$244,507. FAR = 22%. Entire site would be
converted to mixed use.
644009132 Mixed-Use CPD(MU) 4809 E Los Angeles Ave. 35 0.98 24 Underutilized restaurant/retail. Land Value = $107,449; Improvement Value = $179,768.

FAR = 14%.

Entire site would be converted
to mixed use.
214
453
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-14
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
644009121 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)/
RVL(A)
4845 E Los Angeles Ave. 35 2.69 28 Unterutilized small restaurant/retail. Land Value = $451,720; Improvement Value =
75,270. FAR = 9%. Parcel split zoning:

Approximately 1.2 acres Mixed use (45% of
parcel). Density assumption 30%). Entire
site would be converted to mixed use.

Subtotal of Los Angeles Ave
/Metrolink Area

11.01 229
215
454
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-15
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
Tapo St. (No rezone proposed)
616016029 Mixed-Use CPD(MU) 4379 Alamo St. 35 0.18 16 Group TAACPD(MU)-1. Gasoline station (4387 Alamo) converted into an auto repair
shop (Tapo Transmission) adjacent to a
vacant lot (4379 Alamo).Both lots bounded
by multi-family residential
on west and north.

Land Value = $306,443; Improvement Value
= 69,532. FAR = 9%. Entire site would be
converted to mixed use

616016030 Mixed-Use CPD(MU) 4387 Alamo St. 35 0.47
618016014 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(TAPO)
2267 Tapo St. 35 1.58 38 Tapo Charleston Center. Underutilized site consisting of small retail commercial building
and surface parking. Land Value =
$1,531,330; Improvement Value = $693,605
.

FAR = 21%. Entire site would be converted
to mixed use.

216
455
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-16
APN General Plan Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity Notes/Photos
618016012 Mixed-Use CPD(MU)
(TAPO)
2295 Tapo St. 35 1.05 25 Tapo Charleston Center. Underutilized site consisting of small retail commercial building
and surface parking. Land Value =
$1,071,929; Improvement Value = $
347,274. FAR = 17%. Entire site would be
converted to mixed use.

Subtotal
Tapo St.

2.63 79 NA
Subtotal of Areas Where No Rezone Is Proposed 61.60 860 NA

217
456
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-17
Table H3-2 Sites Inven tory Areas Where Rezone is Proposed and Site Meets Very Low and Low-Income Criteria

APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
Old Town Area (Rezone Proposed)
Old Town
631010108 General Commercial
/General Commercial

CPD(LAAPO)
/CPD(LAAPO)
(MU)
E. Los Angeles Ave. & 3rd 35 1.33 38 Group OTBGCMU-1. Vacant commercial land with minimal improvements, listed in
the previous cycle's inventory; however no
development has occurred. It is adjacent to
an area of stagnant SFR development. APN
631010114 (southernmost parcel) owned by
Cabrillo Economic Development
Corporation. 24VL, 6L, 6M, 2AM
631010104 General Commercial
/General Commercial

CPD(LAAPO)
/CPD(LAAPO)
(MU)
E. Los Angeles Ave. & 3rd 35 0.11
631010112 General Commercial
/General Commercial

CPD(LAAPO)
/CPD(LAAPO)
(MU)
E. Los Angeles Ave. & 3rd 35 0.09
631010114 General Commercial
/General Commercial
RM
/CPD(LAAPO)
(MU)
E. Los Angeles Ave. & 3rd 35 0.06
218
457
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-18
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
631011403 Medium Density/
Very High Density
RM/RVH - 35 0.19 27 Group OTBRVH-1. Vacant/Built 1930/1957.

Common Owner.Lot Coverage = 18%.
17VL, 4L, 4M, 2AM

631011402 Medium Density/
Very High Density
RM/RVH 1087 Pacific Ave 35 0.29
631011409 Medium Density/
Very High Density
RM/RVH 1868 Second St. 35 0.64
631014010 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1636 Sinaloa Rd. 35 9.97 174 Calvary Chapel of Simi Valley & Simi Valley Seventh Day Adventist, both associated with
this site. FAR = 12%. Owner expressed
interest in housing development. Site has
capacity for church-related multi-family
housing (parishioner or elderly).

Assumption
50% maximum density for residential infill on
vacant and parking areas. 106VL, 28L, 30M,
10AM

Subtotal of Old Town Areas That Meet Low-Income Criteria 12.68 239 147VL, 38L, 40M, 14AM 219
458
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-19
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
Patricia Ave/Heywood St Area:
632035170 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1280 Patricia Ave. 35 0.23 16 Group PHBRVH-1. 1280 Patricia Ave. Land Value = $ 304, 317; Improvement Value =
163,863. Lot coverage ranges from 11-16%.

Single Family Residential development on
an underutilized site. Built in 1964, 1956,
1955. 10VL, 3L, 2M,1AM.
632035171 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1292 Patricia Ave. 35 0.24
632035172 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1296 Patricia Ave. 35 0.22
220
459
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-20
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
632002023 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1335 Patricia Ave. 35 0.54 26 PBRVH-2. Single Family Residential development on an underutilized site. Built
in 1953. 1355 Patricia Ave. Land Value
=$593,538; Improvement Value = $118,699.

Lot coverage ranges from 6-9%. 16VL, 4L,
4M, 2AM.
632002022 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1355 Patricia Ave. 35 0.54
632002019 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1377 Patricia Ave. 35 0.21 17 Group PHBRVH-3. Lot coverage ranges from 7-8%. Single Family Residential
development on an underutilized site. Built
in 1954, 1951. 10VL, 3L, 3M, 1AM. 632002017 High Density/Very High Density
RH(CZ) /RVH 1391 Patricia Ave. 35 0.53
221
460
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-21
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
632008001 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(SP)/RVH 1312 Patricia Ave. 35 1.24 46 PHBRVH-4. Lot coverage ranges from 4- 6%. Single Family Residential underutilized.

Built in 1953, 1958. 28VL, 7L, 8M, 3AM. 632008014 High Density/Very High Density
RH(CZ)/ RVH 1336 Patricia Ave. 35 0.67
632002013 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/ RVH 1453 Patricia Ave. 35 0.49 35 Group PHBRVH-5. 1453 Patricia Ave. Lot Value = $338,130; Improvement Value =
$182,070. Lot coverage ranges from 4-9%.

Single Family Residential development on
an underutilized site. Built in 1951, 1952,
1957. 21VL, 6L, 6M, 2AM.
632002012 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ) /RVH 1467 Patricia Ave. 35 0.49
632002011 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ) /RVH 1479 Patricia Ave. 35 0.45
222
461
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-22
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
632003067 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1511 Patricia Ave. 35 0.74 24 Group PHBRVH-6. 1874 Hubbard St. Lot Value = $ 297,885; Improvement Value =
$160,400. Lot coverage ranges from 3-8%.

Single Family Residential development on
an underutilized site. Built in 1951, 1950.
14VL, 4L, 4M, 2AM.

632003066 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1874 Hubbard St. 35 0.24
632003047 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1541 Patricia Ave. 35 1.04 25 Masonic Lodge in an area largely consisting of Single Family Residential development on
underutilized sites. Lot Coverage 12%.
15VL, 4L, 4M, 2AM.

223
462
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-23
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
632003028 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1579 Patricia Ave. 35 0.53 19 Group PHBRVH-7. Lot coverage ranges from 6-24%. Single Family Residential on
underutilized sites. Built in 1949, 1957,
1949. 12VL, 3L, 3M, 1AM. 632003027 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ) /RVH 1593 Patricia Ave. 35 0.13
632003055 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ) /RVH 1841 Duncan St. 35 0.15
224
463
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-24
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
632006001 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1624 Patricia Ave. 35 0.40 Group PHBRVH-8. 1624 Patricia Ave. Lot Value = $414,225; Improvement Value =
$121,075. 1746 Duncan St. Lot Value =
$281,492; Improvement Value = $104,867.

Lot coverage ranges from 6-11%. Single
Family Residential development on
underutilized site. Built in 1955, 1962, 1965.
15VL, 4L, 4M, 2AM.

632006026 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1746 Duncan St. 35 0.32
632006025 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1623 Heywood St. 35 0.32
225
464
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-25
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
632006029 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1680 Patricia Ave. 35 0.56 24 Group PHBRVH-9. 1680 Patricia Ave. Lot Value = $634,918; Improvement Value =
$230,872. Lot coverage ranges from 6-19%.
"Tiny Tot Preschool & Kindergarten" at 1680
Patricia in an area largely consisting of
Single Family Residential development.

Single Family Residential development on
an underutilized site. Built in 1945, 1955.
14VL, 4L, 4M, 2AM.
632006004 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1715 Galt St. 35 0.44
226
465
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-26
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
632006058 Very High
Density/Very High
Density
RH(CZ) /RVH 1724 Heywood St. 35 0.75 18 Single Family Residential on underutilized site adjacent to MFR. Lot coverage = 5%.

Built in 1980. 11VL, 3L, 3M, 1AM.
632006005 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1710 Patricia Ave. 35 0.62 30 Group PHBRVH-10. Lot coverage ranges from 4-9%. Single Family Residential
development on underutilized sites. Built in
1918, 1982. 18VL, 5L, 5M, 2AM.
632006022 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 1730 Patricia Ave. 35 0.62
227
466
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-27
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
632005039 High Density/Very
High Density
RH/RVH 35 4.35 106 Mostly-vacant site with dilapidated parking lots. adjacent multi-family residential and
community park. 65VL, 17L, 18M, 6AM.

Subtotal of Patricia Ave/Heywood St. Area Sites That Meet Low-Income Criteria NA 17.05 411 249VL, 67L, 68M, 27AM

228
467
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH3-28
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
Church on Royal Avenue Area (Rezone Proposed)
638031005 Office Commercial/
Mixed-Use
CO/CO(MU) 1925 Royal Ave. 35 2.40 42 Underutilized religious use with parking. Lot Value = $1,176,650; Improvement Value =
1,076,437. FAR = 12%. Owner expressed
interest in development of church-related
multi-family housing. Assumption 50%
maximum density for residential infill on
vacant and parking areas. 26VL, 6L, 7M,
3AM.

Subtotal of Church on Royal Ave Area That Meets Low-Income Criteria NA 2.40 42 26VL, 6L, 7M, 3AM 229
468
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-29
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
Apricot Road Area (Rezone Proposed)
625022024 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(FC)
/RVH(FC)
4476 Apricot Rd. 35 0.54 32 Group APBRVH-1. 4462 Apricot Rd. Land Value = $377,145; Improvement Value =
$202,878. Lot coverage ranges from 4-14%.

Underutilized Single Family Residential.

Built in 1950, 1947. 21VL, 6L, 6M, 2AM.

625008105 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(FC)
/RVH(FC)
4462 Apricot Rd. 35 0.53
625008106 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(FC)
/RVH(FC)
4464 Apricot Rd. 35 0.26
625008119 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(FC)
/RVH(FC)
4483 Cochran St. 35 0.24 37 Group APBRVH-2. Lot coverage ranges from 5-8%. Underutilized Single Family
Residential. Built in 1957, 1947, 1947. 22VL,
6L, 6M, 2AM.

625008118 High Density/Very
High Density
RH(FC)
/RVH(FC)
4491 Cochran St. 35 0.24
625008117 Very High
Density/Very High
Density
RH(FC)
/RVH(FC)
4497 Cochran St. 35 1.03
Subtotal of Apricot Road Area That Meets Low-Income Criteria NA 2.84 69 43VL, 11L, 11M, 4AM 230
469
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-30
APN
Existing General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
/Proposed
Zoning Address
Maximum
Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes/Photos
“VL”= very low-income, “L”= low-income,
“M”= moderate-income, “AM”= above
moderate-income
Subtotal of Areas to be Rezoned to Meet Low-Income Criteria 34.97 761 465VL, 122L,126M, 48AM Total of All Areas That Meet Low-Income Criteria NA 95.67 1,621 NA

231
470
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-31
Table H3-3 Sites Inven tory Areas Where Rezone is Proposed for Sites to Accommodate Moderate-Income and Above Moderate Income Households
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
Apricot Road Area
625008111 Very Low
Density/Very
High Density
RH(FC)/RVH(FC) 4558 Apricot Rd 35 0.53 12 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1957. 7VL, 2L, 2M,
1AM.
618008069

Moderate
Density/High
Density
RMod(FC)/RH(FC) Cochran St 20 0.78 10 Vacant. 6VL, 1L, 2M, 1AM.
618008066 Moderate
Density/High
Density
RMod(FC)/RH(FC) 4071 Cochran St 20 0.78 10 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1958. 6VL, 1L, 2M,
1AM.
618008072 Moderate
Density/High
Density
RMod(FC)/RH(FC) 4091 Cochran St 20 0.78 10 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1954. 6VL, 1L, 2M,
1AM.
618008073 Moderate
Density/High
Density
RMod(FC)/RH(FC) 4107 Cochran St 20 0.78 10 3 duplexes on an underutilized site.
6VL, 1L, 2M, 1AM.
232
471
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-32
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
618008065 Moderate
Density/High
Density
RMod(FC)/RH(FC) 20 2.36 33 Church Lutheran
Shepherd-Vally.

Owner interested in
development of
church-related multi-
family housing.

Assumption 50% infill
on vacant and parking
areas. 20VL, 5L, 6M,
2AM.
618007017 Moderate
Density/High
Density
RM(FC)/RH(FC) 4221 Cochran St 20 0.78 10 Kids ‘N Things Preschool. 6VL, 1L,
2M, 1AM.
625007506 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4613 Apricot Rd 20 0.54 7 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1980. 4VL, 1L,
1M.1AM.
625006208 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4481 Apricot Rd 20 0.57 7 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1950. 4VL, 1L,
1M.1AM.
625006209 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4511 Apricot Rd 20 0.55 7 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1949. 4VL, 1L,
1M.1AM.
233
472
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-33
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
625006210 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4535 Apricot Rd 20 0.57 7 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site.
4VL, 1L, 1M.1AM.
625006211 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4551 Apricot Rd 20 0.28 3 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1962. 1L, 1M, 1AM.
625006212 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4555 Apricot Rd 20 0.28 3 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1962. 1L, 1M, 1AM.
625006214 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4571 Apricot Rd 20 0.56 7 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1960. 4VL, 1L,
1M.1AM.
625006215 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4591 Apricot Rd 20 0.55 7 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1960. 4VL, 1L,
1M.1AM.
625006207 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4473 Apricot Rd 20 0.57 7 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1954. 4VL, 1L,
1M.1AM.
625007505 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4639 Apricot Rd 20 0.53 7 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
234
473
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-34
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
in 1978. 4VL, 1L,
1M.1AM.
625007503 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4653 Apricot Rd 20 0.27 3 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1950. 1L, 1M, 1AM.
625007504 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4681 Apricot Rd 20 0.81 11 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site.
7VL, 1L, 2M, 1AM.
625009119 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4613 Cochran St 20 0.69 9 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1977. 5VL, 1L, 2M,
1AM.
625009120 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4639 Cochran St 20 0.77 10 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1979. 6VL, 1L, 2M,
1AM.
625008112 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4570 Apricot Rd 20 0.80 11 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1960. 7VL, 1L, 2M,
1AM.
625008113 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4590 Apricot Rd 20 0.40 5 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1961. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
235
474
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-35
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
625008114 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4592 Apricot Rd 20 0.40 5 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1962. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
625009101 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4608 Apricot Rd 20 0.40 5 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1955. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
625009105 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4688 Apricot Rd 20 1.61 22 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1943. 14VL, 3L,
4M, 1AM.
625009111 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4620 Apricot Rd 20 0.39 5 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1955. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
625009116 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4630 Apricot Rd 20 0.39 5 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1979. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
625009117 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4640 Apricot Rd 20 0.39 5 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1979. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
625009114 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4663 Cochran St 20 0.77 10 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1979. 6VL, 1L, 2M,
1AM.
236
475
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-36
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
625009106 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 2439 Fig St 20 0.29 4 Single Family
Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1927. 1VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
625009107 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 2427 Fig St 20 0.18 2 Single Family
Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1949. 1M, 1AM.
625009121 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(A)(FC)/RH(FC) 4669 Cochran St 20 0.27 3 Single Family Residential on an
underutilized site. Built
in 1981. 1L, 1M, 1AM.

Subtotal of
Apricot Area

20.62 272 153VL, 39L, 52M,
28AM.

Heyneman Lane
639001075 Low
Density/Medium
Density
RL(CZ)/RM 5 1.23 4 Group HBRM-1.

Vacant. 1VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
639001076 Open
Space/Medium
Density
RL(CZ)/RM 5 25.16 25 Group HBRM-1.

Vacant. 15VL, 4L, 4M,
2AM.

Subtotal of
Heyneman Lane

26.39 29 16VL, 5L, 5M, 3AM.

Leeds Street Area
644008019 Very Low
Density/Moderat
e Density
RVL(A)/RMod 5121 Leeds St 10 3.94 27 Vacant. 16VL, 4L, 5M, 2AM.
237
476
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-37
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
644008017 Very Low
Density/Moderat
e Density
RVL(A)/RMod 5157 Leeds St 10 1.72 12 Single Family
Residential
underutilized site.
7VL, 2L, 2M, 1AM
644008018 Very Low
Density/Moderat
e Density
RVL(A)/RMod 5135 Leeds St 10 0.99 6 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site.
3VL, 1L, 1M, 1AM.
644008018 Very Low
Density/Moderat
e Density
RVL(SP)/RMod 2245 Stearns St 10 2.56 17 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1956. 10VL, 3L,
3M, 1AM.
644008085 Very Low
Density/High
Density

RVL(CZ)(SP)/RH(CZ)(SP
)/
RH(SP)
4832 Cochran St 20 5.15 51 Church Presbyterian
Santa Barbara. Owner
interested in
development of
church-related multi-
family housing. Split
zoning RVL to be
upzoned to RH.

Density Assumption
50% infill on parking
and vacant areas.
31VL, 8L, 9M, 3AM.
238
477
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-38
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
644008042 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(SP)/RH(SP) 4910 Cochran St 20 5.31 53 Church Lighthouse Bible of Simi. Owner
interested in
development of
church-related multi-
family housing.

Density assumption
50% infill on parking
and vacant areas.
32VL, 9L, 9M, 3AM.
644008084 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(SP)/RH(SP) 4868 Cochran St 20 2.58 25 Church Korean Baptist. Owner
interested in
development of
church-related multi-
family housing.

Density assumption
50% infill on parking
and vacant areas.
15VL, 4L, 4M, 2AM.
644008046 Very Low
Density/High
Density
RVL(SP)/RH(SP) 5028 Cochran St 20 4.02 40 Church Jesus Christ LDS. Owner
interested in
development of
church-related multi-
family housing.

Density assumption
50% infill on parking
and vacant areas.
24VL, 7L, 7M, 2AM.
239
478
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-39
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
644008050 Very Low
Density/ High
Density
RVL(SP)/RH(SP) Cochran 20 1.44 14 Church Jesus Christ
LDS. Owner
interested in
development of
church-related multi-
family housing.

Density assumption
50% infill on parking
and vacant areas.
9VL, 2L, 2M, 1AM.

Subtotal Leeds
Street Area

27.71 245 147VL, 40L, 42M,
16AM.

Oak Road Area
637014015 Medium Density/
Moderate
Density
RM/RMod 1761 Oak Rd 10 3.05 21 Vacant. Phoenix
Ranch School. 13VL,
3L, 4M, 1AM.
637014032 Moderate
Density/
Moderate
Density
RM/RMod Oak Rd 10 0.73 5 Vacant. Phoenix
Ranch School. 3VL,
1L, 1M.

Subtotal Oak
Road Area

3.78 26 16VL, 4L, 5M, 1AM
Patricia/Heywood
Area

632003060 Very High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1876 Duncan St 35 0.21 5 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1960. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
240
479
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-40
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
632003068 Very High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1887 Galt St 35 0.22 5 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1951. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
632003056 Very High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1850 Duncan St 35 0.13 3 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1955. 1L, 1M, 1AM.
632002021 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1367 Patricia Av 35 0.25 6 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1954. 3VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
632002020 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1363 Patricia Av 35 0.25 6 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1954. 3VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
632008018 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1364 Patricia Av 35 0.57 13 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1949. 8Vl, 2L, 2M,
1AM.
632002014 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1439 Patricia Av 35 0.57 13 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1951. 8Vl, 2L, 2M,
1AM.
241
480
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-41
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
632006023 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1644 Patricia Av 35 0.25 6 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1960. 3VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
632003070 Very High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1859 Galt St 35 0.19 4 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1960. 2VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
632003018 Very High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1611 Patricia Av 35 0.21 5 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1961. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
632003017 Very High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1621 Patricia Av 35 0.21 5 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1961. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
632002018 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1381 Patricia Av 35 0.28 7 Group PHBRVH-14.

Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1954. 4VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
632002025 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 35 0.01
632003048 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1855 E. Duncan St 35 0.20 4 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1977. 1VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
242
481
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-42
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
632003024 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1881 Duncan St 35 0.22 5 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1950. 3VL, 1L, 1M.
632003051 High
Density/Very
High Density
RH(CZ)/RVH 1867 Duncan St 35 0.21 5 Single Family
Residential on
underutilized site. Built
in 1951. 3VL, 1L, 1M.

Subtotal
Patricia/Heywood
Area

3.97 92 49VL, 17L, 17M, 9AM
Royal Avenue
Area

638003034 Medium
Density/High
Density
RM/RH 2369 Royal Ave 20 3.85 38 Church Centerpoint of
Simi Valley. Owner
interested in
development of
church-related multi-
family housing.

Density assumption
50% infill on parking
and vacant areas.
23VL, 6L, 7M, 2AM.

Subtotal Royal
Avenue Area

3.85 38 23VL, 6L, 7M, 2AM
Walnut Hills Area
611037007 Low
Density/Medium
Density
RL/RM Chelmas Court 5 2.57 8 City-Owned. Ventura
Count Waterworks #8
(Surplus Land).
243
482
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-43
APN
Existing
General
Plan/Proposed
General Plan
Existing
Zoning/Proposed
Zoning Address Maximum Density Acreage
Potential
Capacity
Notes
“VL”= very low-
income, “L”= low-
income, “M”=
moderate-income,
“AM”= above
moderate-income
Vacant. 5VL, 1L, 1M,
1AM.
614001026 Low
Density/Medium
Density
RL(CZ)/RM 3799 Walnut Ave 5 12.55 31 Group WHBRM-1.

Vacant. Site
Constraints:
topography, seismic.

Assumed density
50%. 19VL, 5L, 5M,
2AM.
614001022 Low
Density/Medium
Density
RL(CZ)/RM Walnut Ave 5 0.08
614001021 Low
Density/Medium
Density
RL(CZ)/RM 5 12.07 30 Group WHBRM-2.

Vacant. Site
Constraints:
topography, seismic.

Assumed density
50%. 18VL, 5L, 5M,
2AM.
614001024 Low
Density/Medium
Density
RL(CZ)/RM 5 0.12
614001025 Low
Density/Medium
Density
RL(CZ)/RM 5 0.16
Subtotal Walnut
Hills Area

27.55 69 42VL, 11L, 11M,
5AM.

Subtotal Areas that Could Accommodate Moderate-Income and Above-Moderate Income Households. 113.87 771 446VL, 122L, 139M, 64AM

244
483
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-44

Figure H3-1
245
484
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-45

Figure H3-2
246
485
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-46

Figure H3-3
247
486
CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-47

Figure H3-4
248
487
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-48

Figure H3-5
249
488
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-49

Figure H3-6
250
489
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-50

Figure H3-7
251
490
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-51

Figure H3-8

252
491
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-52

Figure H3-9
253
492
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-53

Figure H3-10
254
493
APPENDIX H3
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H3-54

Figure H3-11
255
494

Appendix H4
Fair Housing Assessment

256
495
257
496
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-1
APPENDIX H4 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT/

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Introduction and Overview of AB 686
I n 2 0 1 7 , A s s e m b l y B i l l 6 8 6 ( A B 6 8 6 ) i n t r o d u c e d a n o b l i g a t i o n t o affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fai r housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of se gregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Ho using Element which includes the following components:
■ A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity;
■ An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access t o opportunities, and disproportionate housing needs;
■ An assessment of contributing factors; and
■ An identification of fair housing goals and actions.

Analysis of the fair housing issues in this section summarizes analysis and conclusions from the 2020 Ventura County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), and supple ments with additional data as available and appropriate.

Assessment of Fair Housing Issues

FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH
The City of Simi Valley contracts with the Housing Rights Center (HRC) for fair housing services. Between 2017 and the first half of 2019, 35 housing discrimination cases were op ened in Ventura County, 26 percent of which were closed or withdrawn. Approximately 31 percent of the discrimina tion complaints filed Countywide were in Simi Valley, the most in the County. Most of the complaints (57 perc ent) were successfully conciliated by HRC. Among the 35 cases opened, physical disability (66 percent) and mental disability (20 percent) represented the majority of the protected classification.

In 2018, 10 fair housing tests were conducted in Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks by HRC. Three testing sites in Simi Valley found evidence of discrimination, where White testers received preferential treatment over Black or African American testers.

Annually, HRC conducts outreach and education throughout the County, including in Simi Valley. Typical activities include Public Service Announcements/media publicity/ads; community presentations, literature distribution, and management trainings.
258
497
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-2

Figure H4-1: Public Housing Buildings, FHEO Cases by City, and HCVs by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2021), 2021.
259
498
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-3

INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzin g housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. The r acial and ethnic composition of Simi Valley and the Ventura County region is determined using the American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban D e v e l o p m e n t ( H U D ) d i s s i m i l a r i t y i n d e x t r e n d s , a n d t h e C a l i f o r n ia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.

Local Trend
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, approximately 40 percent of the Simi Valley population belong to a racial or ethnic minority group compared to only 35 percent during the 2006-2010 ACS. Nearly 60 percent of the Simi Valley population is White, 26.3 percent is Hispanic or Latino, and 9.7 percent is Asian. HUD defines Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) as census tracts with a non-White population over 50 percent and with 40 percent or three times the overall poverty rate. Currently, there are no R/ECAPs located in the City. R/ECAPs are discussed further in the following section, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty.

Racial and ethnic dissimilarity t rends for Simi Valley and the Ventura County Region are shown in Table H4-1.

Dissimilarity indices measure how even two groups are distribut ed within a jurisdiction. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
■ <40: Low Segregation
■ 40-54: Moderate Segregation
■ >55: High Segregation
Dissimilarity between racial or ethnic minorities and White com munities in Simi Valley has worsened since 1990.

However, segregation in the City remains low. Dissimilarity in Simi Valley is significantly lower than in the County.

Countywide, Non-White/White and B lack/White communities are mod erately segregated, while Hispanic/White communities are highly segregated.
260
499
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-4
Table H4-1: Racial or Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
Dissimilarity Index 1990 2000 2010 2020
Simi Valley
Non-White/White 10.63 14.4 16.22 17.83
Black/White 10.17 14.26 13.43 21.41
Hispanic/White 15.36 20.92 22.67 24.11
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 11.29 10.49 14.87 19.70 Ventura County Region
Non-White/White 46.24 49.11 47.27 50.49
Black/White 47.82 45.42 36.6 41.99
Hispanic/White 52.19 56.14 54.55 56.75
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 29.93 28.93 28.61 34.03 SOURCE: HUD AFFH data, 2021.

Figure H4-2 shows racial/ethnic concentrated block groups from 2010 to 2018. Consistent with the increase Citywide, most block groups in Simi Valley have seen an increase in racial/ethnic minority populations since 2010.

Block groups located around the centerline of the City continue to have the highest minority populations (41 to 80 percent in 2018).

Regional Trend
Ventura County has a larger population of racial/ethnic minorities compared to Simi Valley. Over half of the County population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group, including 42.4 percent Latino or Hispanic, 7.1 percent Asian,

2.5 percent two or more races, and 1.6 percent Black or African American.12 As presented in Table H4-1 above, Ventura has dissimilarity index scores exceeding scores for Sim i Valley. Non-White and White populations are considered moderately segregated. Black and White communities a re moderately segregated and Hispanic and White communities are highly segregated, while segregation betw een Asian or Pacific Islander and White communities is considered low.

Figure H4-3 shows racial/ethnic minority concentrations in the Simi Valley region, including Ventura and Los Angeles County. Racial/ethnic minority groups are most concentrated in the cities of Oxnard, Santa Paula, Fillmore, San Fernando, Winnetka, Culver City and the surrounding areas. Simi Valley has fewer block groups with high racial/ethnic minority populations compared to these cities, but more than jurisdictions south of the City such as Agoura Hills, Calabasas, and Malibu.

Sites Inventory
Figure H4-2(B) also shows the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA. Sites are generally clustered in the central western and central eastern areas of Simi Valley. More than half (55.6 percent) of lower income RHNA units are in block groups where racial/ethnic minorities make u p 61-80 percent of the population (Table H4-2). In comparison, 47.2 percent of moderate income units and 44.6 percent of above moderate income units are located in block groups with the same racial/ethnic minority populations. Only 4.4 percent of lower income RHNA sites are in block groups with 21-40% racial/ethnic minority populations, compared to 7.1 percent of above moderate income

12 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. 261
500
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-5
units.

Table H4-2: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration Racial/Ethnic Minority
Concentration (Block Group)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
21-40% 4.4% 6.0% 7.1% 4.7%
41-60% 40.0% 46.8% 48.2% 41.2%
61-80% 55.6% 47.2% 44.6% 54.1%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
262
501
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-6

Figure H4-2: (A) Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2010) 263
502
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-7

(B) Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group and Sites Inventory (2018) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010 & 2018 data), 2021
264
503
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-8

Figure H4-3: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
265
504
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-9

DISABILITY
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of their fixed income, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability.

Local Trend
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, 11.2 percent of Simi Valley res idents experience a disability, comparable to 10.9 percent Countywide. Disabilities are more common amongst the elderly population; 24.7 percent of the population aged 65 to 74 and 50 percent of the population 75 and older experiences a disability. The most common disabilities in Simi Valley are ambulatory difficulties (5.9 percent of the population) and cognitive difficulties (5.1 percent of the population).

Census tracts with a higher number of persons with disabilities are generally not concentrated in specific areas of the City. All tracts in the City have disabled populations belo w 20 percent. The concentration of persons with disabilities by Census tract is shown in Figure H4-4.

Regional Trend
As discussed above, 10.9 percent of the Ventura County populati on experiences a disability. Approximately 35 percent of adults aged 65 and older experience a disability compared to only 9.6 percent of the population aged 35 to 64 and 5.2 percent of the population aged 18 to 34. Ambulatory (6 percent) and independent living (5.6 percent) difficulties are the most common disabilities countywide.

Figure H4-5 shows the concentration of persons with disabilities for the region. Jurisdictions adjacent to Simi Valley have similar concentrations of persons with disabilities. There are two tracts in Ventura County with slightly higher concentrations of persons with disabilities. Tracts with the highest concentration of disabled persons are located in Los Angeles County.

Sites Inventory
Figure H4-4 also shows the sites inventory used to meet the City’s RHNA. Most of the sites are in tracts where the disabled population makes up less than 20 percent of the population. Table H4-3 presents a breakdown of the sites inventory by income level and disabled population. Approximately 78 percent of lower income units, 77 percent of moderate income units, and 79.5 percent of above moderate income units are in tracts with a disabled population below 20 percent. Only 22 percent of all units, including 22 percent of lower income units, 23 percent of moderate income units, and 20.5 percent of above moderate income units, are in tracts where disabled persons makes up 10- 20 percent of the population.

Table H4-3: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Disabled Population Disabled Population (Census
Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
<10% 77.9% 77.0% 79.5% 77.8%
10-20% 22.1% 23.0% 20.5% 22.2%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
266
505
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-10

Figure H4-4: Concentrations of Persons with Disabilities by Tract and Sites Inventory Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
267
506
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-11

Figure H4-5: Regional Concentration of Persons with Disabilities by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
268
507
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-12

FAMILIAL STATUS
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the martial status of the head of househ olds. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific lo cation are also fair housing concerns. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Female-heade d households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Local Trend
Nearly a third (31.1 percent) of Simi Valley households are fam ilies with children. The City’s share of families with children is the same as the County and similar to neighboring c ities including Camarillo (26.3 percent), Moorpark (34.3 percent), and Thousand Oaks (28.5 percent). Of the families with children in Simi Valley, 7 percent are single- parent households. Simi Valley has seen a decrease in families with children since 38.3 percent during the 2006- 2010 ACS.

As shown in Figure H4-6, in all but one tract in Simi Valley, over 60% of children live in married couple households.

The tract with the smallest share of children in married couple households (between 40 percent and 60 percent) is located in the northwest section of the City. Nearly 5 percent of households in the Simi Valley are single female- headed households with children. There are six tracts in Simi Valley where the percent of children in female-headed households exceeds 20 percent; fewer than 20 percent of children live in female-headed households in a majority of tracts (Figure H4-7). Most of the tracts with more children living in female-headed households are located along Los Angeles Avenue.

Regional Trend
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, V entura County, 31 percent of households are families with children, including

23.4 percent married couple households, 2.2 percent single-pare nt male-headed, and 5.5 percent single-parent female-headed. The County has a slightly larger share of single-parent and single-parent female-headed households than Simi Valley.

Figure H4-8 and Figure H4-9 show concentrations of children liv ing in married couple households and female- headed households by tract in the Ventura County region. In mos t tracts, more than 60 percent of children live in married couple households. There is one tract in Oxnard and several tracts in Los Angeles County where more than 40 percent of children live in female-headed households.

Sites Inventory
Table H4-4 and Table H4-5 show the sites inventory breakdown by household type. Most RHNA units, including 87.1 percent of lower income units, 78.9 percent of moderate income units and 80.4 percent of above moderate income units are in tracts where 60-80 percent of children live in married couple households. A larger proportion of lower income units are in tracts more than 20 percent of children live in female-headed households. 269
508
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-13
Table H4-4: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Children in Married Couple Households Children in Married Couple
Households (Census Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
40-60% 9.2% 15.1% 12.5% 10.0%
60-80% 87.1% 78.9% 80.4% 85.9%
>80% 3.7% 6.0% 7.1% 4.1%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391

Table H4-5: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Children in Female-Headed Households Children in Female-Headed
Households (Census Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
<20% 45.1% 66.0% 67.0% 48.4%
20-40% 54.9% 34.0% 33.0% 51.6%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
270
509
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-14

Figure H4-6: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract and Sites Inventory Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
271
510
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-15

Figure H4-7: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract and Sites Inventory Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
272
511
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-16

Figure H4-8: Regional Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
273
512
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-17

Figure H4-9: Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
274
513
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-18
INCOME
Identifying low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies and indiv iduals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI.

Local Trend
HUD’s 2013-2017 CHAS data (Table H4-6) shows that 32.4 percent of Simi Valley households earn 80 percent or less than the area median family income and are considered lower income, compared to 40 percent Countywide.

According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the median household income in Simi Valley is $95,543, higher than $84,017 for the County.

Table H4-6: Income Distribution
Income Category Simi Valley Ventura County
Total Percent Total Percent
<30% HAMFI 3,705 8.8% 31,100 11.5%
31-50% HAMFI 4,065 9.7% 31,720 11.7%
51-80% HAMFI 5,840 13.9% 45,325 16.8%
81-100% HAMFI 4,380 10.4% 26,540 9.8%
>100% HAMFI 24,030 57.2% 135,355 50.1%
Total 42,025 100.0% 270,045 100.0%
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.

Figure H4-10 shows the Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) areas in the City by tract and the sites inventory used to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA. Tracts along the centerline of the City, south of State Route 118, tend to have larger LMI populations. There is only one tract where more than 50 percent of households are LMI, located in the central eastern section of the City along Los Angeles Avenue.

Regional Trend
As discussed above, 40 percent of households in the County are in the low or moderate income category. Figure H4-11 shows the concentration of LMI households for the region. Simi Valley and the jurisdictions immediately adjacent, including Moorpark, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Agoura Hills, and Calabasas, generally have lower concentrations of LMI households compared to other Ventura and Los Angeles County jurisdictions in the region.

The cities of Oxnard, Santa Paula, Fillmore, San Fernando, Glendale, and West Hollywood and the surrounding areas have larger concentrations of LMI households.

Sites Inventory
Half of lower income RHNA units are in tracts where LMI households make up 25-50 percent of the population, compared to 62 percent of moderate income units and 61 percent of above moderate income units (Table H4-7).

Nearly half (46.4 percent) of lower income units are in the tract with LMI populations exceeding 50 percent. Fewer moderate (32 percent) and above moderate (32 percent) are located within this tract. 275
514
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-19
Table H4-7: Sites Inventory Breakdown by LMI Population LMI Population (Census Tract) Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
<25% 3.7% 6.0% 7.1% 4.1%
25-50% 50.0% 61.9% 60.7% 51.8%
50-75% 46.4% 32.1% 32.1% 44.1%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
276
515
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-20

Figure H4-10: Low/Moderate Income (LMI) Concentrations by Tract and Sites Inventory Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020), 2021.
277
516
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-21

Figure H4-11: Regional LMI Concentrations by Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020), 2021.
278
517
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-22

RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY

RACIALLY /E THNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY
In an effort to identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) with a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. According to HUD’s 2020 R/ECAP mapping tool based on the 2009-2013 ACS, there are currently four R/ECAPs in Ventura County; two are located in Oxnard, one is located in Port Hueneme, and one is located in Santa Paula (Figure H4-12). There are no R/ECAPs in Simi Valley.

Figure H4-12: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) 279
518
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-23

RACIALLY /E THNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE
While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R /ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. A HUD Policy Paper defines racially concentrated areas of affluence as affluent, White communities.13 According to this report, Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and “in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with conce ntrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.” RCAAs have not been studied extensively nor has a standard defi nition been published by HCD or HUD, this fair housing assessment uses the percent non-Hispanic White population and median household income as proxies to identify potential areas of affluence. As shown in Figure H4-13 and Figure H4-14, Census tracts with a higher White population and highest median income are located on the outskirts of the City, specifically the northern, southern, and eastern sides.

13 Goetz, Edward G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.’ Published by the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research (21,1, 99-123).
280
519
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-24

Figure H4-13: White, non-Hispanic Concentrated Areas
281
520
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-25

Figure H4-14: Median Income by Census Tract
282
521
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-26

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
HUD developed an index for assessing fair housing by informing communities about disparities in access to opportunity based on race/ethnic ity and poverty status. Table H 4 - 8 s h o w s i n d e x s c o r e s f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g opportunity indicator indices (values range from 0 to 100):
■ Low Poverty Index: The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. ■ School Proficiency Index: The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. ■ Labor Market Engagement Index: The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
■ Transit Trips Index: The higher the trips transit index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
■ Low Transportation Cost Index: T h e h i g h e r t h e i n d e x , t h e l o w e r t h e c o s t o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n that neighborhood.
■ Jobs Proximity Index: The higher the index value, the better access to employment op portunities for residents in a neighborhood.
■ Environmental Health Index: The higher the value, the better environmental quality of a neighborhood.

Table H4-8: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity

Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Simi Valley
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 64.20 66.09 59.39 73.16 83.77 63.51 48.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 55.66 65.60 48.76 72.58 85.35 62.97 46.58 Hispanic 53.01 62.40 48.35 70.60 84.42 63.90 49.41
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.94 68.32 55.07 75.31 84.50 61.55 44.42 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 58.14 63.88 54.11 71.95 84.44 64.26 48.81
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 56.09 60.05 53.38 70.85 84.51 67.06 53.40 Black, Non-Hispanic 48.79 54.13 38.11 63.37 85.78 76.88 59.54 Hispanic 44.91 55.70 44.40 68.32 84.56 69.80 57.68
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.91 55.71 45.66 72.48 87.66 74.73 57.07 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 39.03 50.80 48.64 60.81 83.33 66.64 65.45
Ventura County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.62 61.67 64.10 70.38 78.93 51.75 44.78 Black, Non-Hispanic 60.76 39.71 52.75 75.08 82.03 49.13 39.34 283
522
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-27
Table H4-8: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity

Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Hispanic 47.82 30.11 43.25 73.84 82.15 46.29 38.13
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.26 52.50 61.22 73.62 80.08 50.94 40.16 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 59.70 48.02 52.92 70.89 80.82 47.55 44.05
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 64.14 53.76 58.07 70.25 81.19 53.93 46.60 Black, Non-Hispanic 50.45 23.14 45.88 79.07 84.78 46.30 38.52 Hispanic 38.60 23.80 37.91 75.16 83.64 45.04 37.83
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 60.63 40.17 50.36 75.36 80.57 44.36 40.53 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 31.63 13.42 35.08 81.40 86.51 33.15 37.49
SOURCE: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T), 2020.

To assist in this analysis, the Department of Housing and Commu nity Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened in the California F air Housing Task Force (Task Force) to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (a s defined by HCD).” The Task force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table H4-9 shows the full list of indicators.

Table H4-9: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Poverty and Racial Segregation
Poverty: tracts with at least 30% of population under federal poverty line Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County SOURCE: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020. 284
523
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-28
Local Trend
In Simi Valley, Hispanic residents were most likely to be impac ted by poverty and low labor market participation based on HUD’s Opportunity Indicators. Hispanic residents also had the least access to higher quality school systems in both Simi Valley and Ventura County. White residents in Simi Valley and throughout the County were least likely to be exposed to poverty. White residents also had the most exposure to higher quality school systems and had the highest labor market participation. Asian and Pacific Islander communities had the lowest score for environmental health in the City. Simi Valley residents, regardless of race o r ethnicity, had better access to higher quality school systems and jobs than residents Countywide. Simi Valley residents also had lower transportation costs and experienced higher environmental quality than the regional average.

The following opportunity map scores are for the census tracts that make up Simi Valley. There are no areas of high segregation and poverty in the City. Approximately 43 percent ( 12 tracts) of the Census tracts in the City are designated as High Resource, 39 percent (11 tracts) are Moderate Resource, 11 percent (3 tracts) are Highest Resource, and 7 percent (2 tracts) are Low Resource. Neither of the low resource Census tracts (tracts 77 and 75.14) have substantially high populations of racial/ethnic minorities , persons with disabilities, LMI households, or households with children (Figure H4-2 through Figure H4-10). Opportunity map scores by Census tract and the sites inventory are presented in Figure H4-15. Economic, environmenta l, and education scores for the City are further detailed below.

285
524
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-29
Table H4-10: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization
Census Tract Economic
Domain Score
Environmental
Domain Score
Education
Domain Score
Composite
Index Score Final Category
6111007505 0.567 0.517 0.562 0.173 High Resource
6111007506 0.809 0.272 0.556 0.246 High Resource
6111007507 0.958 0.624 0.767 0.608 Highest Resource
6111007512 0.944 0.003 0.508 -0.133 Moderate Resource
6111007513 0.93 0.52 0.562 0.407 High Resource
6111007514 0.801 0.236 0.014 -0.438 Low Resource
6111007700 0.539 0.138 0.014 -0.668 Low Resource
6111007800 0.514 0.39 0.41 -0.076 Moderate Resource
6111007901 0.52 0.219 0.368 -0.19 Moderate Resource
6111007903 0.846 0.177 0.713 0.317 High Resource
6111007904 0.581 0.171 0.708 0.158 Moderate Resource
6111008001 0.424 0.244 0.542 -0.002 Moderate Resource
6111008002 0.629 0.258 0.593 0.162 Moderate Resource
6111008004 0.708 0.329 0.374 -0.028 Moderate Resource
6111008005 0.494 0.548 0.463 0.021 Moderate Resource
6111008101 0.691 0.166 0.837 0.302 High Resource
6111008201 0.711 0.185 0.534 0.106 Moderate Resource
6111008202 0.584 0.183 0.497 -0.003 Moderate Resource
6111008302 0.871 0.152 0.604 0.246 High Resource
6111008303 0.705 0.371 0.604 0.244 High Resource
6111008304 0.938 0.205 0.604 0.329 High Resource
6111008305 0.98 0.118 0.758 0.49 Highest Resource
6111008306 0.893 0.191 0.511 0.224 High Resource
6111008401 0.438 0.197 0.671 0.06 Moderate Resource
6111008402 0.674 0.306 0.671 0.263 High Resource
6111008500 0.772 0.112 0.75 0.287 High Resource
SOURCE: California Fair Housing Task Force, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, 2021 Statewide Summary Table. December 2020.

Regional Trend
As discussed previously, White residents countywide had the highest HUD opportunity indicator scores for low poverty, school proficiency, labor market participation, jobs proximity, and environmental health indices. Hispanic communities received the lowest scores in the same indices. Black residents were most likely to use transit and Hispanic residents had the lowest transportation costs.

Figure H4-16 shows the TCAC opportunity map for the Simi Valley region. Jurisdictions south of Simi Valley, including Calabasas, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village, Malibu, Beverly Hill s, and West Hollywood, are mainly comprised of highest resource tracts. Oxnard, Santa Paula, Fillmore, San Fer nando, Sun Valley areas are concentrated with low resource tracts. There are also areas of high segregation and poverty in the Oxnard, Canoga Park, Winnetka, Northridge, Reseda, and Panorama City areas.
286
525
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-30
Table H4-11: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity

Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Simi Valley
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 64.20 66.09 59.39 73.16 83.77 63.51 48.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 55.66 65.60 48.76 72.58 85.35 62.97 46.58 Hispanic 53.01 62.40 48.35 70.60 84.42 63.90 49.41
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.94 68.32 55.07 75.31 84.50 61.55 44.42 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 58.14 63.88 54.11 71.95 84.44 64.26 48.81
Ventura County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.62 61.67 64.10 70.38 78.93 51.75 44.78 Black, Non-Hispanic 60.76 39.71 52.75 75.08 82.03 49.13 39.34 Hispanic 47.82 30.11 43.25 73.84 82.15 46.29 38.13
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.26 52.50 61.22 73.62 80.08 50.94 40.16 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 59.70 48.02 52.92 70.89 80.82 47.55 44.05
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 64.14 53.76 58.07 70.25 81.19 53.93 46.60 Black, Non-Hispanic 50.45 23.14 45.88 79.07 84.78 46.30 38.52 Hispanic 38.60 23.80 37.91 75.16 83.64 45.04 37.83
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 60.63 40.17 50.36 75.36 80.57 44.36 40.53 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 31.63 13.42 35.08 81.40 86.51 33.15 37.49
SOURCE: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T), 2020.

Sites Inventory
As shown in Figure H4-15, most of the sites used to meet the City’s RHNA are in the center of the City in moderate resource tracts; 78.6 percent of lower income units, 77 percent of moderate income units, and 79.5 percent of above moderate income units are in moderate resource tracts. A larger share of moderate and above moderate income units is in low income resource areas than lower income units.

287
526
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-31
Table H4-12: Sites Inventory Breakdown by TCAC Opportunity Area Score TCAC Opportunity Area (Census
Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
High Resource 12.2% 7.9% 8.0% 11.5%
Moderate Resource 78.6% 77.0% 79.5% 78.5%
Low Resource 9.2% 15.1% 12.5% 10.0%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
288
527
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-32

Figure H4-15: TCAC Opportunity Area Map and Sites Inventory SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas, 2021. 289
528
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-33

Figure H4-16: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Map
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas, 2021. 290
529
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-34

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
As described previously, the Fair Housing Task Force calculates economic scores based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. Refer to Table H4-9 for the full list of TCAC opportunity area indicators.

Local Trend
According to the 2021 TCAC maps presented in Figure H4-17, ther e are three Census tracts in Simi Valley with exceptionally low economic scores; one located in the central eastern area of the City north of State Route 118, and two in the central area of the City south of Los Angeles Avenue. In general, the centerline of the City, south of State Route 118, has lower economic scores compared tracts along the City boundaries. This area of the City also has higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities, children in female-headed households, and LMI households (see Figure H4-3, Figure H4-7, and Figure H4-10).

Regional Trend
TCAC opportunity area economic scores in Simi Valley are genera lly consistent with the neighboring cities of Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Moorpark, and Camarillo (Figur e H4-18). In Ventura County, the cities of Santa Paula and Oxnard have the highest concentration of tracts with economic scores in the lowest quartile. The Los Angeles County cities of Canoga Park, Reseda, and San Fernando Valley also have tracts with lower economic scores.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
As described above, the Fair Housing Task Force determines educ ation scores based on math and reading proficiency, high school gradu ation rates, and student poverty rates. Refer to Table H4-9 for the full list of TCAC opportunity area indicators.

Local Trend
Areas with lower education scores, shown in Figure H4-19 are generally located in the center and western sections of the City. Most tracts in Simi Valley have education scores between 0.50 and 0.75. The tracts in the northwestern corner of City with the lowest education scores, scoring in the lowest quartile. These tracts are considered low resource areas (see Figure H4-15).

Regional Trend
Figure H4-20 shows TCAC opportunity area education scores by tract for the r egion. The coastal areas from Point Mugu to the Los Angeles County Pacific Palisades neighborhood h ave the highest education scores regionally. In Ventura County, Camarillo ad Thousand Oaks have the highest concentration of tracts with high education scores, while Oxnard has the highest concentration of tracts scoring in the lowest quartile.

291
530
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-35

Figure H4-17: TCAC Opportunity Area Economic Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Economic Score, 2021. 292
531
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-36

Figure H4-18: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Economic Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Economic Score, 2021. 293
532
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-37

Figure H4-19: TCAC Opportunity Area Education Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Education Score, 2021. 294
533
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-38

Figure H4-20: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Education Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Education Score, 2021. 295
534
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-39

TRANSPORTATION
Local Trend
In 2017, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) co nducted a Fare Equity Survey of public transportation passengers.14 According to the VCTC survey of the East County route (includes Simi Valley, Moorpark, and Thousand Oaks), 61.2 percent of riders belonged to a racial or ethnic minority group, a majority of which were Hispanic or Latino (39.3 percent of all riders), 60.8 percent h ad household incomes of less than $35,000, and 23.1 percent lived in large households of five or more people.

Availability of efficient, affordable transportation can be used to measure fair housing and access to opportunities.15 S C A G d e ve l op e d a ma p p i n g t o ol f or H i g h Q u a li t y T r a n s i t A r e a s ( HQTA) as part of the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy ( R TP/SCS). SCA G defines HQTA s as are as within one-half mile from a major transit stop and a high-quality tran sit corridor.16 Figure H4-21 shows that there is one HQTA located in Simi Valley. This HQTA encompasses one block group with a larger racial/ethnic minority population, two tracts with higher populations of disabled persons, one tract with higher a concentration of families with children, and two LMI area block groups (see Figure H4-2 through Figure H4-10).

HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index can be used to show transportation need geographically. Block groups with lower jobs proximity indices are located further from employment opportuni ties and have a higher need for transportation.

As shown in Figure H4-21, Census block groups in the northweste rn section of the City have higher jobs proximity indices (>40). Census block groups in the central, southern, an d eastern sections of the City had the lowest job proximity indices. Some of the block groups with lower jobs pro ximity indices overlapped with areas with high concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities, disabled persons, families with children, and LMI households. However, areas with less access to employment opportunities are not isol ated to tracts or block groups with higher populations of special needs groups.

Regional Trend
Figure H4-22 shows jobs proximity index scores and HQTAs regionally. The areas around Simi Valley, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, and Fillmore have the highest concentrations of bl ock groups with the lowest jobs proximity index scores (<20). Several jurisdictions in the San Fernando Valley areas of Los Angeles County also have high concentrations of low scoring block groups. There are few areas in Ventura County that are considered HQTAs. The largest HQTA in the County is in the cities of Ventura and Oxnard.

14 Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). 2018. Title VI Fair Equality Suvey. 15 TransForm. 2019. Pricing Roads, Advancing Equity: A Report and Toolkit to Help Communities Advance a More Equitable and Affordable Transportation System.
16 Major transit stop: A site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (CA Public Resource Code Section 21064.3). It also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation.

High-quality transit corridor: A corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. 296
535
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-40

Figure H4-21: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group and HQTAs SOURCE: SCAG, High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) 2045 – SCAG Region, 2021; HCD AFFH Data Viewer, HUD AFFH – Jobs Proximity Index (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020. 297
536
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-41

Figure H4-22: Regional Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group and HQTAs SOURCE: SCAG, High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) 2045 – SCAG Region, 2021; HCD AFFH Data Viewer, HUD AFFH – Jobs Proximity Index (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2021. 298
537
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-42

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Environmental health scores are determined by the Fair Housing Task Force based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. Refer to Table H4-9 for the full list of TCAC opportunity area indicators. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to considering (1) environmental factors such as pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure and (2) sensitive receptors, including seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants, CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. This section also uses data from the February 2021 update to the CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroScreen 4.0).

Local Trend
Four tracts on the western side of the City have environmental scores exceeding 0.50 (Figure H4-23). The rest of the City scored below 0.50 for environmental health. Tracts in the northern half of the City received environmental scores in the lowest quartile. Many of these tracts have higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households (see Figure H4-2 and Figure H4-10). Figure H4-24 shows CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores by Simi Valley tract and the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores are based on percentiles. Lower scores indicate better environmental conditions. All tracts scored in the 60th percentile or below.

T r a c t s a l o n g t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f t h e C i t y , s p e c i f i c a l l y o n t h e w estern and eastern sides, have the poorest environmental health conditions in Simi Valley, with scores ranging from the 51st to 60th percentile. Tracts along the northern and southern City boundaries tend to have better CalEnviroScreen scores.

Regional Trend
TCAC opportunity area environmental scores for the region are p resented in Figure H4-25. A majority of Ventura County is comprised of tracts with environmental scores in the lowest quartile. Malibu, Agoura Hills, and the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles County have the highest concentrations of tracts with better environmental scores. There are very few tracts in Ventura County with enviro nmental scores in the highest quartile. Tracts with environmental scores exceeding 0.75 are located in the Ojai, City of Ventura, and Thousand Oaks areas.

Sites Inventory
The City’s sites inventory is inc luded in Figure H4-24. Many of the sites are located in tracts scoring in the 40th percentile or above. Table H4-13 shows that approximately 50 pe rcent of RHNA units are in tracts with CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores between the 31 st and 40 th percentile and 40 percent of units are in tracts with scores between the 51 st a n d 6 0th percentile. A larger share of moderate and above moderate unit s is in 51 st t o 6 0th percentile-scoring tracts compared to lower income units. There are more lower units in tracts in the 30th percentile or below.
299
538
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-43
Table H4-13: Sites Inventory Breakdown by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile
(Census Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
1-10% 1.0% 1.9% 2.7% 1.2%
11-20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
21-30% 8.5% 1.9% 0.9% 7.4%
31-40% 52.0% 41.5% 41.1% 50.4%
41-50% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
51-60% 37.6% 54.7% 55.4% 40.4%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
300
539
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-44
Figure H4-23: TCAC Opportunity Area Environmental Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score, 2021. 301
540
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-45
Figure H4-24: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores by Tract and Sites Inventory SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021. 302
541
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-46
Figure H4-25: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Environmental Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score, 2021. 303
542
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-47

DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS

COST BURDEN
Housing problems for Simi Valley were calculated using HUD’s 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the 2013-2017 ACS. The following conditions are considered housing problems:
■ Substandard Housing (incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities) ■ Overcrowding (more than 1 person per room)
■ Cost burden (housing costs greater than 30 percent)
Local Trend
Table H4-14 breaks down households by race and ethnicity and presence of housing problems including cost burden for Simi Valley households. In Simi Valley, 40 percent of house holds had one or more housing problem, including

37.5 percent with a cost burden. The City had a slightly lower proportion of households with a housing problem compared to the County, where 42.8 percent of households had a housing problem including 39 percent with a cost burden. In Simi Valley, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and other r aces have the highest instance of housing problems including cost burden in the City. Approximately 57 percent of Pacific Islander households and 49 percent of Hispanic households experience one or more housing problems, co mpared to only 38 p ercent of White, non- Hispanic households.

Cost burden by tenure based on HUD CHAS data is shown in Table H4-15. Approximately 54.1 percent of all renter households are cost burdened and 28.3 percent are severely cost burdened. In comparison, only 31 percent of owner households are cost burdened and 12.4 percent are severely cost burdened.

Figure H4-26 compares overpayment by tenure over time using the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS. Overpayment for homeowners has increased in the southeastern section of the City, while overpayment for renter households has increased in the northern and western sections of the City. Overpayment for owner and renter households throughout the rest of the City has remained constant or gone down since the 2010-2014 ACS. 304
543
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-48
Table H4-14: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Cost Burden
With 1 or More Housing
Problem Total
Households Total Percent Total Percent
White, non-Hispanic 10,760 36.9% 11,185 38.3% 29,190
Black/African American, non-
Hispanic 184 33.5% 185 33.6% 550
Asian, non-Hispanic 1,145 31.5% 1,240 34.1% 3,635
American Indian/Alaska
Native, non-Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 65
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 20 57.1% 20 57.1% 35
Hispanic, any race 3,350 42.7% 3,835 48.9% 7,845
Other (including two or more
races), non-Hispanic 310 43.7% 324 45.6% 710
Total 15,760 37.5% 16,800 40.0% 42,025
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.
305
544
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-49
Table H4-15: Cost Burden by Tenure and Income Level
Income Level Owner-Occupied
Households
Renter-Occupied
Households Total Households
0-30% HAMFI 1,620 2,085 3,705
% w/ cost burden >30% 72.2% 73.4% 72.9%
%w/ cost burden >50% 61.4% 63.1% 62.3%
31-50% HAMFI 2,125 1,940 4,065
% w/ cost burden >30% 62.1% 91.8% 76.3%
%w/ cost burden >50% 45.4% 68.0% 56.2%
51-80% HAMFI 3,685 2,155 5,840
% w/ cost burden >30% 61.6% 77.3% 67.4%
%w/ cost burden >50% 30.4% 27.1% 29.2%
81-100% HAMFI 2,615 1,765 4,380
% w/ cost burden >30% 50.5% 56.4% 52.7%
%w/ cost burden >50% 14.7% 6.8% 11.5%
>100% HAMFI 20,110 3,920 24,030
% w/ cost burden >30% 16.3% 11.4% 15.5%
%w/ cost burden >50% 1.4% 0.5% 1.2%
Total 30,160 11,865 42,025
% w/ cost burden >30% 31.0% 54.1% 37.5%
%w/ cost burden >50% 12.4% 28.3% 16.9%
NOTE: HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.
306
545
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-50
Figure H4-26: (A)
Overpayment – Owner Households (2010-2014)
307
546
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-51
(B) Overpayment – Owner Households (2015-2019)
308
547
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-52
(C) Overpayment – Renter Households (2010-2014)
309
548
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-53
(D) Overpayment – Renter Households (2015-2019)
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates), 2021. 310
549
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-54

OVERCROWDING
As shown in Table H4-14, approximately 40 percent of Simi Valley residents experienced a housing problem such as cost burden, incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, or over crowding. Table H4-16, below, shows that approximately 3 percent of households in Simi Valley are overcrowded, including 0.8 percent severely overcrowded households. Overcrowding was not more common amongst lower inco me households. Only 1.5 percent of households earning less than 30 percent of the area median income were overcrowded, compared to 6.1 percent of 80-100 percent AMI households and 2.5 percent of the households earning over 100 percent of the AMI.

Census tracts 78 and 85.04 both have concentrations of overcrowded households exceeding the County average of

8.2 percent. Tract 78 has higher concentrations of racial/ethni c minorities, families with children, female-headed households with children, and LMI households. Tract 80.04 also has a higher percentage of families with children and contains block groups with higher racial/ethnic minority co ncentrations (see Figure H4-6 and Figure H4-3).

Census tracts by concentration of overcrowded households are shown in Figure H4-27.

Table H4-16: Overcrowding by Income Level
Income Level
>1 Person per Room
(Overcrowded)
>1.5 Persons per Room (Severely
overcrowded)
Total Households Number Percent Number Percent
0-30% HAMFI 55 1.5% 55 1.5% 3,705
31-50% HAMFI 120 3.0% 0 0.0% 4,065
51-80% HAMFI 255 4.4% 90 1.5% 5,840
81-100% HAMFI 269 6.1% 64 1.5% 4,380
>100% HAMFI 600 2.5% 115 0.5% 24,030
Total 1299 3.1% 324 0.8% 42,025
NOTE: HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.
311
550
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLANH4-55
Figure H4-27: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, HUD CHAS data (2011-2015 ACS), 2021

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. In Simi Valley, only 0.4% of households lacked complete plumbing facilities and 0.5% of households lacked complete kitchen facilities (Table H4-17). Ventura County had a similar percentage of households lacking complete plumbing facilities, but more units lacking complete kitchen facilities.

Table H4-17: Substandard Housing Conditions
Income Level
Lacking complete plumbing
facilities
Lacking complete kitchen
facilities
Total Occupied
Units
Number Percent
Simi Valley 153 0.4% 222 0.5% 42,029
Ventura County 844 0.3% 2,725 1.0% 271,226
SOURCE: ACS 2014-2018 (5-Year Estimates).
78 80.04
312
551
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-56
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. Homes may begin to require major repairs or rehabilitation at 30 to 40 years of age. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, approximately

53.4 percent of the housing stock in Simi Valley was built prio r to 1980 and may be susceptible to deterioration, compared to 59 percent Countywide.

As shown in Table H4-18, households that earn less than 120 percent of the area median income are more likely to live in older homes that may be in need of rehabilitation compared to households making 120 percent or more than the area median income. Approximately 58 percent of households earning 0 to 50 percent of the area median income, 59 percent of households earning 51 to 80 percent of th e area median income, and 57 percent of households earning 81 to 120 percent of the area median income lived in housing built prior to 1980. Only 47.5 percent of households earning over 120 percent the area median income lived in housing built prior to 1980.

Figure H4-28 shows the median age of housing units by Simi Vall ey census tract. Older housing units are generally concentrated in the center of the City. The median year built for these tracts is 1965 to 1969. Most tracts along the Simi Valley city boundaries have a higher concentration of newer housing built in 1982 or later. Many of the tracts with aging housing units also have higher concentrations of ove rpaying owners and renters, children living in female-headed households, and racial/ethnic minorities (see Figure H4-26 Figure H4-7, andFigure H4-3).