Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AGENDA REPORT 1998 0916 CC REG ITEM 10I
Ila . 3 (9� (A) ITEM 10 • Z. AGENDA REPORT C11 Y OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA CITY OF MOORPARK City Council Meeting of 4 • I& •9g - ACTION: Di rec E eol Sfaff +c, meet TO: The Honorable City Council W iK in Feresfej fAr+-ieS $ 4 �' evelc a Ij'5} Of 54k2je5jeCj FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme t. o ' DATE: September 4,1998 (For the City Council Meeting of ,1998) SUBJECT: Consider Issues Relating to the Tierra Rejada Greenbelt BACKGROUND Staff recently participated in a meeting regarding the Tierra Rej ada Greenbelt at the Reagan Library. Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and County planning staffs were represented, as well as Supervisor Mikels' office. It was agreed that the County staff would send out information regarding existing zoning, permitted uses and zoning standards in this area for the cities to solicit input from the respective City Councils about their concerns. The County suggested this be part of the work program which the Board authorized as part of the Agricultural Policy Working Group recommendations regarding greenbelts Countywide. Various options for the greenbelt were discussed including the potential for some mechanism that might restrict or limit the uses within the greenbelt, since various uses seem to generate the most controversy. County staff has generated a letter (Attachment 1), which was recently distributed to Councilmembers with some questions to focus the discussion of some potential alternatives. Also attached to the letter are the list of permitted uses and development standards for the Agriculture - Exclusive (A -E) and Open Space (O -S) zones which are generally the zoning designations within the greenbelt. County staff has requested a written response from each City to the questions contained in their letter, which are also listed below: 1. What problems do you associate with the current Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt Agreement? 2. What do you consider to be the positive features of the current Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt Agreement? 3. If the County revised the uses permitted within its A -E and O -S zones, what uses a) Should be allowed within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt? b) May be appropriate within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt under certain conditions (i.e., require a discretionary permit)? C) Should not be allowed within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt under any circumstances? C:\OFFICE\WPVaMWPDOCS\CCRPTS\TJGRNBLT.RPT UOOZ'78 Tierra Rejada Greenbelt September 16, 1998 Page 2 4. If a revised "agreement format" is developed for the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt, how do you propose the new document should be structured: a) Update or expand the provisions of the current greenbelt agreement but retain the agreement as a multi jurisdictional, polio document? b) Update or expand the provisions of the current greenbelt agreement and adopt the greenbelt by ordinance instead of by policy resolution? C) Other methods? On August 4, 1998, when the Board of Supervisors approved a work program for a Greenbelt Implementation Program, they also approved several other tasks for County staff, which are described in the letter dated August 17, 1998 (Attachment 2). One issue which has been discussed is the potential expansion of greenbelts. One potential new greenbelt has been suggested to be along the existing northern boundaries of Moorpark and Simi Valley. City staff has asked County staff to define the intended purposes and proposed zoning of such a greenbelt, since this unincorporated area would contain significant hillside areas, mineral resource extraction activities, and generally seem to be different in character from other greenbelt areas in the County. DISCUSSION A presentation was made to the County Planning Commission regarding greenbelts on September 16, 1996, from which a copy of the County staff report is attached (Attachment 4). In that report, it was indicated that greenbelts provide interim policy protection for open space and agricultural lands and designate where Cities have agreed not to annex and the County agreed to permit only uses permitted in "Open Space" and "Agriculture" zones. The report also provides a summary of each greenbelt in the County, perceptions ( "myths "), and issues for the future of greenbelts. The same zoning districts are used in greenbelts as in other areas of the County. The City has previously expressed concerns about uses in the greenbelt area, including the proposed driving ranges on Tierra Rejada Road, with night lighting, the subsequent golf course proposed adjacent to the greenbelt, and outdoor storage (such as at the southwest corner of the 23 Freeway and Tierra Rejada Road). Expansion of agricultural related uses has also lead to some County enforcement actions, although the County has been examining allowing more latitude for accessory uses for agricultural related uses. Based upon past City concerns, the problems associated with the greenbelts would appear to be the general perception that greenbelts should be natural open space lands, or agricultural uses involving growing of crops or grazing lands, which would then provide a "green" buffer between more C:\ OFFICE \WP W IN\WPDOCS \CCRPTS \TJGRNBLT.RPT 000 ;:79 Tierra Rejada Greenbelt September 16, 1998 Page 3 urbanized cities. However, the County allows a wide variety of uses, especially agricultural related uses, and other uses to provide property owners reasonable use of the land and avoid potential concerns regarding takings issues. These uses include greenhouses and shade structures for growing of crops; growing of nursery materials in containers; agricultural distribution facilities, such as are found on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue, beyond the western City limits (opposite American Products); other accessory buildings, including agricultural sales; storage of farm equipment and supplies (such as irrigation equipment), offices; and farm worker dwellings. Other uses allowed in the open space and agricultural zones include airfields; kennels and equestrian centers (including lighted facilities such as currently exist in the greenbelt), colleges and universities; residential care facilities; government buildings, including correctional institutions; mineral resource extraction; recreational uses including campgrounds, geothermal spas, recreational vehicle parks, retreats, golf courses and driving ranges, shooting ranges and gun clubs; soil amendment operations; veterinary hospitals; and water and waste water treatment facilities. Many of these uses do not coincide with the general perception of natural open space or growing of crops. However, as has been discussed during the Agricultural Policy Working Group (APWG) meetings and other places, with respect to the agricultural industry, there are a variety and situations and needed support facilities to remain viable as a major industry in the County. Due to the terrain in the eastern portion of the Tierra Rejada Greenbelt, agricultural uses are less prevalent and the County has concerns to provide for other reasonable uses of private property. SUMMARY AND RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS Relative to the questions posed by County staff, the most significant problems are probably the range of uses allowed within the greenbelt areas, including some of those identified above, which may be at variance with the general perception of greenbelts. As a positive feature, the Tierra Rejada greenbelt does define an area targeted to be a buffer between the cities and avoids some jurisdictional issues through non - annexation agreements. City Council may wish to review the list of uses and indicate which uses the Council feels should be allowed, which uses may be appropriate under certain conditions, and which uses should not be allowed. An ordinance, rather than a policy document, more specifically defining these issues with some mechanism to limit some uses may provide for greater clarity and mutual agreement. However, this would involve a significant undertaking, with notification of affected property owners and public hearings on any changes in zoning designations. Property owners may have significant concerns and disagreements with proposed changes. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff as deemed appropriate. C:\ OFFICE\ WPWIMWPDOCS \CCRPTS \TJGRNBLT.RPT 000280 Tierra Rejada Greenbelt September 16, 1998 Page 4 Attachments: 1. Letter dated August 27, 1998 regarding Tierra Rejada Greenbelt 2. Letter dated August 17, 1998 regarding APWG Recommended Programs 3. Tierra Rejada Greenbelt Agreement 4. County Staff Report on Greenbelts, dated September 19, 1996 C:\OFFICEXWPVIMWPDOCS\CCRPTSXTJGRNBLT.RPT 000 ?Ri RESOURCEMANAGEMENTAGENCY county of ventura August 27 1998 Mayor Patrick Hunter and City Council Members City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Road Moorpark, CA 93021 RE. Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt Mayor Hunter /City Council Members. �J At Supervisors Mikels' and Schillo's direction, staff representing the Cities of Moorpark Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks and the County recently met to discuss issues relating to the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt. The discussions primarily touched on ways of clarifying and strengthening this multi- junsdictional agreement. On August 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved and funded three work progra^ -s including the, 1) Greenbelt Ordinance and Implementation Program, 2) a study of mears to reduce incompatibilities between allowed uses within the A -E and 0 -S zones and commercial agriculture, and 3) the Urban Growth Boundary Program (unincorporated area). These countywide work programs directly relate to the review of existing greenbelt agreements and the County intends to work with Moorpark, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley to reexamine the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt. The city staff representatives requested information regarding the types of uses that are permitted by the County's Agriculture - Exclusive (A -E) and Open Space (O -S) zones The attached matrix lists the type of permit required (e.g., no permit. zoning clearance, conditional use permit, planned development permit), and the decision - making body responsible for permit review (i.e., Planning Director, Planning Commission. Board of Supervisors). It is important to note that all allowed uses listed in a given zone are permitted by right except for uses requiring a conditional use permit. The A -E and 0 -S zones are the only zones currently represented within the greenbelts. Before County and city staff can proceed, we need a better understanding of the issues and problems that the participating jurisdictions have with the current greenbelt. For example, it would be helpful if you developed a comprehensive description of a model reenbelt based on your City's vision. To assist you in this process, please respond in writing to the following questions. Government Center, Hall of Administration Building. L *1700 ® 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura. CA 93009 X805) 654 -2661 FAX 805) 654 -2500 p -inrec On AecYClec Pace/ r C . c �.wLc.,.,�,r�.e.�.- �'�a�,� Cl� � �� CA ,� � ATTACHMENT 1 , (1f1(`1lR2 From the City of Moorpark's perspective 1 What problems do you associate with the current Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt Agreement? 2. What do you consider to be the positive features of the current Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt Agreement? 3 If the County revised the uses permitted within its A -E and O -S zones what uses a) Should be allowed within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt? b) May be appropriate within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt under certain conditions (i.e.. require a discretionary permit)? c) Should not be allowed within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt under any circumstances? 4. If a revised `agreement format" is developed for the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt. how do you propose the new document should be structured: a) Update or expand the provisions of the current greenbelt agreement but retain the agreement as a multi - jurisdictional, policy -level document? b) Update or expand the provisions of the current greenbelt agreement and adopt the greenbelt by ordinance instead of by policy resolution? C) Other methods? If you have any questions or comments Kjellberg at 654 -2455. Sincerely, /ki—oe� Thomas Berg, Director Attachments Please contact me at 654 -2661 or Gene cc: Board of Supervisors Lin Koester, Chief Administrative Officer Mayor Greg Stratton and Councilmembers, City of Simi Valley Mayor Michael Markey and Councilmembers, City of Thousand Oaks Mike Sedell, City Manager, City of Simi Valley Mary Jan6 Lazz, Interim City Manager, City of Thousand Oaks Arnold Dowdy, LAFCO Gene Kjellberg, Planning Division 000283 P: ? ?CS= - The _ategcr_es and -cses -f _ are 2Sti __s,'.eQ as :�ws• - - -3. 82 =ec. 31 :4 -: - ?_N S ?.a 'C:N, S Sec. - 3oen Scace 0 -51 Zone - -ne =u =se __` r the riser :at_cn of renewable and nonrer.ewaa.e n3- and en. ^.ance env..onmental iLla._ty and t0 roV -de _ Jr __,e3_etenz._ n 7 ', Cnber of f';ture -.and '1se Opt.Ons while a..Cw., a -' - open .ands t. _ n� r2a5C. ^.3C_2 _n ^.e county 'd, ^. - -. :13Ve ..,... Oee!1 3�_3re'C .:^,an activities. -� .. Sec. 31 '14 -1.2 - Aor.cultura• Exc'usi•✓e fA - to preserve and protect commercial agr.c. - oral 'ne =�- = ° =e _; _ :and s as a -_ .rreplaceable resource, to preserve and maintain agr.cu_t';re as a -^a'C _1 .n Ventura County and to protect these areas from the encrcach:r.ent of n nre_a-ad ,ises which, by their nature, would have detr. ^enta. effects �per. _ a agr.ou_ -e ndustry. - - Sec. 3104 -2 - RURAL RESIDENT'AL ZONES Sec. 3104 -2.1 - Rural Aoricultural (R -A) zone - The purpose of tn_s zone provide for and maintain a rural setting .here a wide range of agr._:1t.ra: _ses are permitted «;:lt ?v•rn unOLnq residential :and uses art protected' Sec. 9104 -2.2 - Rural Exc :_tie {i�_ on - The purpose cf _h.s zone t provide for anti mai.nta+�� u�r.l residential areas .n -- - - -_on - horticultural activities, and ccr provide for a limited range v �f ;erv._e -a-.= institutional uses which ale compatible with and complementary residential communities. Sec. 8104 -2.3 - Sinale- Family, Estate (R -01 Zone - The purpose of this zcre .s provide areas exclusively for single- family residential estates .+nere a r.�a atmosphere is maintained by the allowing of a range of hort.Lculturai activiti as well as animals for recreational purposes. es Sec. 3104 -3 - 29AN RESIDENTIAL ZONES Sec. 9104 -3.1 - Sincle- Family, Resldential (R -1) Zone - The purpose of t ^ .s zone .s to provide for and maintain areas which are appropr.ate for s.ngla- _fam.:' dwellings on individual lots. Sec. 8104 -3.2 - Two - Family Residential (R -21 Zone - The purpose of this zone is to provide for and maintain residential areas allowing two single - family dwei:.nq units or a two - family dwelling unit on lots which meet t:,e minimum area requirements of this zone. Sec. 8104 -3.3 - Residential Planned Development (R P D) Zone - The purcose of this zone is to provide areas for communities which will be developed ut.i.zing :iodern land planning and unified design techniques; this zone provides a flexible regulatory procedure in order to enrourage: a. Coordinated neighborhood desir•n and compatibility with existing or potential development of surrounding areas; b. An efficient use of land particularly through the clustering of dwelling units and the preservation of the natural features of sites; 8 -1 28 Hi7- 9'-172 _ c - 1 UUU284 Sec. 31.4 -5.2 - ;-mner :and ?reserve -21 -e - 'tee pur - _ are. poses _ns -? -_- a . To maintain the cetirum amount Of :fte :_...ted supply ^� - so as to ensure _ts cur -e. and ^ ;ed - -- -e- _a,z yrcw.ng and narvestinq of - -ncer, 3r.d^ _c npat_c1 a , --Y -. -e e uses; - : discourage premature cr unnecessary con.versicn cf _rman and otter :ses; -- =• To 3�.scourage the expansion of urban serv.ces into t- :nzer.ar.d; and d. To encourage investment in timberlands based on reasonable expectation of harvest. Sec. 3104 -7 - OTMERLAY ZONES - The purpose of overlay zones .s to super,Tccse part_c�_ar _ones on existing base zones, thus establishing additional requ :at�._r.s and reducing or extending permitted uses. Sec. 3104 -7.1 - Scenic Resource ?rotect'on (SRP) Overlay Zone - The purpose Of this cverlay zone is to preserve, protect and enhance the County's scer.-,c resources through the regulation of uses that may adversely affect these resources. Sec. 8104 -7.2 - Mineral Resources Protection (MAP) Overlay Zone - The purposes of this zone are: a. To safeguard future access to an important resource. b. To facilitate a long term supply of mineral resources within the County. C. To minimize land use conflicts. d. To provide notice to landowners and the general public of :he presence of the resource. e. The purpose is not to obligate the County to approve use permits for the development of the resources subject to the MAP Overlay Zone. ADD.ORD.3723- 3/:2/85; AM- ORD.3900- 6/20/89) Sec. 8104 -7.3 - Scenic Highway Protection (SHP) Overlav Zone - The purposes Of this zone are: a. To preserve and protect the visual quality along the County's scenic highways. b. To minimise uses of land which conflict with the value of scenic highways. c. To provide notice to landowners and the general, public of the location and value of scenic highways which are of significance in the county and state. (ADD- ORD.3797- 12/09/86) 8 -1 ,MI2-Z, U 30 3C -1 000285 Sec. 3115 - I'.4tC5z - Sect_cn 3':5 -4 and 3115 t-at are a__twed _n each -cne, ^,der _s Chapter, and ^:3 �aLr_x °cr-, tae :and _szs ent - :e:7ent ".:-red :o es_aDl_sn a car- cu_ar _se �n __at aLe _. ^.e :an: .Se _ zone. :.and :se! 2ert� :t:ea -.ere:r. �.av a_so require addit_onal :- cens.ngj - State cf ca:_=cr.._a ited pe ^nit_ -ag rom ,thee ;ent�ra - =r �:n States government agencies. A-4. C ,C32 _ 01:- . Sec. 3 1„5 -: - S_ OF `SATR :C='S Sec. 3105 -1.1 - KEY TO KA7 1C=S - Except as -the raise provided _ 1.2.1.0, (specific to the R -P -0 zone), the oilowin s 9 ymao:s end :pate the t,te of permit required for uses allowed in each zone: = Not Allowed = Allowed, but exempt From obtaining a Zoning Clearance. = Zoning Clearance, or other ministerially approved zermit unless specifically exempted. = Zoning Clearance or other ministerially approved permit with signed waivers. = Planning Director- approved Planned Development Permit = Planning commission - approved Planned Development Permit = Board of Supervisors- approved Planned Deselopment Permit = Planning Director - approved Conditional Use Permit = Planning Commission- approved Conditional Use Permit JI ■ I' = Board of Supervisors - approved Conditional Use Permit (ADD ORD. 3749 - 10/29/85; Am. ORD. 4092 - 6/27/95) Sec. 8105 -1.2 - Italicize notes appearing in this Zoning Ordinance are editorial in nature and are not a part of the Ordinance or its regulatory scheme. Sec. 8105 -1.3 - No usO is allowed unless expressly identified in Section 8105 -4 and 8105 -S (Matrices) or determined to be equivalent in accordance with Section 8105 -2 or Section 8101 -4.10. Furthermore, prior to the commencement of any use listed in the matrices, the entitlement identified as required for the use shall be obtained. Each use is subject to all of the provisions of this chapter even if it is exempt from a Zoning Clearance. Sec. 8105 -1.4 - For the purposes of this Article, changing type style indicates where language is indented. Any use listed in matrix form which is indented shall be construed as a subheading of the heading under which it is indented. 8 -1 Hi�s4tm 33 OC -i Sec. 3_35 -:.3 - Any .se r&T�Qsted -a =__x a= Sec___ns 3..,5 -4 and 3.35 as an accessory .se n_=.. _3 __a =ez - - aczcrdance wLt :n ^tne �nd_cated qu. 5 as a _`�..c�pa: .se 3na__ =e alt. ORD. ^3733 - 7; 3 =e rements _ _,e p _ _ • _ a= x;2','95 S; M. On. 3'49 - .3/23/95, A_4. CR'J� - 5ra 3- �e.a.�. Y L Sec. it :5 -1.5 - The atbreviations :sed _.._er_ -eted as fpl :„mss: _n Sec: -ins 9 ::5 -4 and 3-.5 are za 3gric. - agriculture - gross flccr area &S•=• - California Health and Safety Code el -�• - preliminary square feet w. &I.C. - California welfare and Institutions code .Zp CyD 3313 _ 5,'5/87; AM. ORD. 4092 - 6/27/95) Sec. 3105 -1.7 - The following list of specifically prohibited uses _s rrp._�e- for informatienal purposes, and is not intended to be comprehensive: a. Nuclear powerplants; b. Public polo events; c• Racetracks for horses or motorized vehicles; d. Stadiums; e. ':he parking of motor vehicles on vacant land containing no principal I f. Retail sales from wheeled vehicles, except as permitted Pursuant Sections 8105 -4 and 8105-S. Pursuant -a (ADD ORD. 3810 - 5/5/87; AM. ORD. 4092 - 6/27/95) Sec. 8105 -2 - reuivalent Use Not Listed - Where a proposed land use is not identified in this Article, the Planning Not shall review the proposed use when requested to do so by letter and, based upon the characteristics of the use, determine which of ne .ises listed in this Article, if any, is equivalent to that proposed. p,H, Off. �,9I _ 6/27/9S) Sec. 8105 -2.1 - U , pon a written determination by the Planning Director that a proposed unlisted use is equivalent in its nature and intensity to a listed use, the proposed use shall be treated in the same manner as the 1:9ted 's se .n determining where it is allowed, what permits are required and wh affect its establishment. at standards Sec. 8105 -2.2 - Determinations that specific unlisted use•+ '_ fi are equivalent to hall be considered sted uses shall be recorded by the Planning Department, an: s for incorporation into the Zoning Ordinance in the next scheduled ordinance amendment. sc (ADD.ORD. 3749 - 10/29/85; AM.ORD.3810- 5/5/87) Sec. 8105 -3 - ALLOWED USES EXL►MPT FROM PLANNING gNTI EMEN S, require a Planning Division issued entitlement if the uses meet and eare maintained lot accordance with the requiremnts of Section 8111- 1.1.1b and all other provisions of this Chapter. (AM. ORD. 3730 - 5/7/85; AM. ORD. 3749 - 10/29/85; AM. ORD. 3810 - 5/5/87; AM. ORD. 4092 - 6/27/9S) 81 HI 2.- " 34 OC -1 000287 SEC. 8105 -4 - PEPmj7,E0 USES :N OPEN SPACE ACRIC'JL"' ,-z RZAIDENTIAL AND SPEC :AL PURPOSE CONES �, �f ILGRICUL 7URE A.`Ti %GR.1CL- LTt1LAL OPERATTONS L%IkL H L'S 8AN0RY Domesuc .Arumais Per kA " more animals Lhan are Perrrunad oy Art. 7 (3) Reduced Animal Setbacks Per Table 2 (See. 8107.2.5.1)116) >tc Apiculture ('2, 15) Aquaeulture/Aqutcuttum (l5) Insectaries for Pea Conuol (3, 6. 15) Verrruculmn (16) uP Lo 5.000 eq. R. of open beds aver 5,000 sq. R. of open beds As Wild animala (16) Inhertindy Dangerous Animals (16) AGRICCLTURAL, CONTRACTOR'S SERVICE AND STORAGE YARDS AND BL"ImNGS (15) CROP AND ORCHARD PRODUCTION (6,12) Paclung, Storage Or Preiimutary Prtxeari W Imolviag No Stgwuuea Timber Growing And Harvesting, And ComipetAIO Usa protected trees other tress There are specific reffulsti0cs for this use: see Art. 7. 8 -1 t H, 2.2.nw 35 OS AE RA RE RO R1 R: RPD T-p Pumas to Articles 7 and 9 E E E E 000288 A E I E E OC -i E E E E *EE i � C17 Pumas to Articles 7 and 9 E E E E 000288 A E I E E OC -i E ONE son � annnmmm Pumas to Articles 7 and 9 E E E E 000288 A E I E E OC -i E P^nc psi Structures Re:sted To Agnculture Greersttousss. Hot Houses, Structures For Prelim. Picking. Storage And Preservation 0 ( Produce is S rruiar Structures: (:urnuiauve GFA Per Lx). Except Agra ;rursl 3f.aJa Mist St.ruc.,Lms See Sec. 3 ;06-6 a 4 3!J'•:Gi * is) .p to i -s:0 ;a A. 5) J,er :.)C0 sq 3 __` XA) sq. 3. ;51 o"er 2G.C40 sq. ft :o l00,�00 sq. ft. 7ver 100.000 sq. ft. '6) W-inenes imcludina nmea"m. hnrtrin. —4 nn..... ,1 , c\ OS AE RA RE RO R1 RZ RPD ;? Up to _.000 sq, ft, strucmn Over '_.000 to 20.000 sq. A. structure ❑ ❑ ® I I Over 20.000 sq. ft. structure WWI public tours or ustrat room@ 17 1 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES (15) :Ia Farm Wortar Dwelling Units (15) e e e not ewsunt standards established by Sec. 6107.26.1 (15) ❑ ❑ ❑ I _ Accessory SUUCTUras Related to Agriculture and Amain HusbmWryiXmpias e.g. Bares. Storage Buddints. Sheds: Cumulative GFA Per La) up to 2.000 sq. ft. (15) G over 2.000 sq. A. to 5.000 sq. R (IS) e e ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � C over 3 .000 sq. ft. to 20.000 sq. ft. e e over 20.000 sq. ft. to 100.000 sq. ft. ❑ ❑ over 100.000 sq. A. exceeding height limit/ ❑ ❑ ❑ OP6ees R) up to 200 sq. A. GFk (15) over 200 sq. ft. GFA ❑ ❑ ❑ There are specific regulations for this use; we Art. 7. 8 -1 i INILI/LO 36 Q%:— 1. 000289 8Hty2 vu•t 37 OC —. 000290 OS AE R.A RE -1 ❑ ® 0 O � ❑ 0 � ❑ ❑ U E E E E E E E E RO I E❑ R 1 R_ . RP I E D !E �E E M �,gncuitvnl Sales Fsc:hty 15) Small rs.uiucr :p to 5 4 not meeting ;randards established by Section a107_6.zj arge tic., ties er i �) :o :. XA sq. 3 arge iac:iiues: over :.700 to 5.000 sq. ft. Lath tours andvor promotional /educsuonaUenterummentactivities s Agncuitural Shadul4ist Structures 16) Lip to 1.000 sq. ft. over 1.000 sq. ft. to 20.000 sq. ft. ' over 20,000 sq. ft. or 15 Si of la stns (vhrebever is greater) � over 15 S of la area Open Storsgs Per Art. 7 (6.15) Fuel Stings (6) Underground Fuel Stooge Parmittad By Other Couasy Agendas ANIMAL KEEPING. NON- MiL3BANDRY (6. 2, 15) DOMESTIC ANIMALS PER ART .7 -Mors srumals Nan are permtstsd by An 7 (15) ❑ E ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C E C HORSES AND OT'Hn EQUINES PFD AlrT. 7 (15) E FE ❑ E -tore uuaWs than are "MUW by Alt 7 (15) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ KENNELS /CATTER ES a 15) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EQUES KLAN CLYM (16) ❑ -7 WILD ANZAALS (15) 0 0 0 [ 0 C] L7 Q'11'tE]tENT[.Y DANGEROUS ANAAALS (16) ♦ ♦ REDUCED ANIAAAL SETBACKS PZR TAJU 2 (SLC. 8107•:.1.1) (16) ♦ ♦ ♦ There im specific regulations for this use; sea Art. 7. 8Hty2 vu•t 37 OC —. 000290 OS kE R.A RE RO RI R. RP D I a�;,caJURY STRICT =RF.S kIRFIELDS A_%,D L.a.',-D[`G PADS A.N-D STRIPS, PRIVATE BOARDING HOLSFS .4',-D BED- A.',I)- BREAKFAb —r 1 \iS ,:) C aRE FACILITIES iSE£ tLSO H. 4 S. C. .4-%'D W. do 1. C.i DAY CARE CENTER F.A.MILY DAY CARE HOME. SMALL (1. 5. f5) FAMILY DAY CARE HOME. LARGE (15) D ERMEDIATE: CARE OF 7 OR MORE PERSONS (22) I RESMENCIAL: Care Of 5 Or Fewer Persons j Care Of 7 Or more Persons k-j I I CEN11TERIES (SEE SEC. 8107.17) (I5) ACCESSORY CREMATORIES, COLUMBARIA AND MAUSOLEUMS CHURCHES, SYNAGOGLES A.ND OTHER BUILDINGS USED FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP CLLBHOUSES (NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES) cZ) COvMUNTCATIONS FACILITIES (SEE SEC. 8107.18) (15) DWELLI.NGS DWELLINGS. SLNGL&FAMILY (P) Mobtlehoms, continuing nonconfomWW (15) Lower incovrisennor uoiu bnaa pauTuwu I* Art 16 (13) DWELLINGS. Two - FAMILY, OR TWO SINGLTi.FAMELY DWELLINGS Lower'=ouWseaar units bwk Pasrou so Art 16 (13) At There are SW'fic MU1460= for this use: see Art. 7. 8 -1 ,.Mlzzvvz 38 0C —: See A::GSxr-v SIr"';Z e! RGIataC 1�0 a ;r„ - ir H�soandry Kac7:r.; . _ . yz Inc E E E E E E E i E I Co cl Co C33 Cm Cm Cl cl D O O O Cl :1 ❑ 8 -1 ,.Mlzzvvz 38 0C —: ELLLNGS, ML'LTI- F.kM:LY t Fier l.Aoor Gr^up , %anen L:,wer ,ncome: seruor uruts guru ,urruam ro 1rr. :6 13) ,�autied :ordonuruum _omers ans?ursuanr ra in 49 1 4) DWELLtiGS, .ACCESSORY STR CTLI LES TO For human hao union: 3) OS -�B R-A' RE RO RI R-1 Ran u:mporary dwelling during :onstruct,on I t1 Q G M second dwelling urut ?, 11, 15) `ion for hurnAn habitation or Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Keeping 0 a, Purposes: 'e g. garage, storage budding, recreation room) r3, i5) G eeeeeee�e GFA including existing accessory vjwcu a '6) UP to 1,000 sq. ft. per structum (3, 6) O O (D G p over 1,000 sq. ft. per structure: or over 2,000 sq. ft. per lot (3, 6, 15) O O O Freestanding light fixtwes per See. 8106 -8.6 O O O rtccRauOnil raCUlUp I^lonsnnotor>zed wheeled cottveyaoees within wandards I watch exceed standards I Antennas, ground - mounted (noncommercial) beiOw 40 11. in height (16) above 40 ft. in height (6) DWELLINGS, ACCESSORY L;SES TO Kesptng of Aninuls; nag busbaadry Equines and Doc eux Animtsls Per Art. 7 more animals than tee Permiaad by Air. 7 (3, 15) rlc There are specific regulattons for this use; see Art, 7. 8 -1 : HI:- 2,?S43 34 s QQ �d ao�pOpp� 0 a, A G eeeeeee�e O O O (D `—) ao�pOpp� eeeeeee�e D 71� OC -1 000292 I i — anima :n 44z,)Man<e +i{n standards if kn. 'sore Sruma,s .tan are pemined 7v 1n. «IId snrmars as :ccs Sec. ? :G;7._ 1 1, 15i 'nor* 4:iJ an:...ais :han are perm acd i5) Inherenuv Sar.gerous arumals x Youth P-v)ecu 15) Gmmerclal uses, "unor. for pro)ect resident see See. d109 1._.Si ;4) varage+Ysrd Sales x Home occupsuons 3) Storage. open Per An. 7 i i EDUCATION A.ND TRALNING Colleges and unrverstties Schools. elevsenta" and secondary (boarding arsd nonbardino ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM RENEWABLE SOLRCES (3) FENCES AND WALLS 6' HIGH OR LESS PER ART. 6 I FESTIVALS A.*r'D SM-4R EVENTS. TV.QORARY OLTDOOR I FOOD SERVICE VEHICLES FTLwxG ACTMTiFS (z. 15) PF3Lti1ANENf TIINPORARY OCCASIONAL FOR CURRENT NEWS PROGRAMS,/ VONCOMMERCIAL PERSONAL US8 OCCASIONAL OCCASIONAL WTTH W*MW PFJ StG 8107 -11.1 FIREWOOD OPERATIONS t3. 12) There ate specific regWzt'O= for this Use; see Art. 7. OS kE RA RE RO R1 R: -73 ' RP D E I E i E E G I i O a I o I o n o J J : 7 U — N'oa Per- r,jced 8 -1 H 12.29'Lr 40 OC-1 000293 D 8 -1 H 12.29'Lr 40 OC-1 000293 OS kE RA RE RO R1 R. RPD IGOVERNN(ENT BLTLDINGS ,_) 8 -1 41 H12•LM43 OC -1 000294 X5=7 -17ONS I ® I ® I � I a FDtE ST4T;Gh5 I ❑ I _ ❑ � ® 1 LA' ,4' EvFCRCa1E`T raCZ?iFS T"HtS SE=CN CCOw�TRUCTED 8Y THE COUNTY OR RS `S� � CONTRACTORS E I E E E E E i E I E E E E E E - GRADING (A PW{ GRAD /NG PEXWT .4rAy STILL APPL}) f� 1-41THU4 AN OVERLAY ZONE Pursuant :o Aricle 9 i � HOSPITALS LIBRARIES i %RTAL ALONQNOR REPAIRS TO BLTLD[NGS. NO LCTLM LTERAT E E E E E E E E E -%U ERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPN NT (1) MUCNG AND ACCESSORY USES (1) Lea Than 9 Mootbe 1n Durauon (1) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i I Public Works Meimenanre (1) OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DRILLING, TEMPORARY GEOLOGIC (TE7MG ONLY) MOSILEHOME PARKS MODEL HOMESILOT SALES: 2 YEARS* 0 0 0 o n o Mots than 2 yeah ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PATIOS. PAVING. DECKS LEM THAN ape ABOVE FINISH= GRADL PER ART. 6 £ E E E E E E e� � A� R [ mvcTL Xo SMc OF ART. E E E E E E E E E PIPELINES/TRANgi USSION LNES ABOVEGROLND* There are specifIC regUlaaoaS for this USe; see Art. 7. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 -1 41 H12•LM43 OC -1 000294 OS AE R.A RE R O R1 R-1 RP D PUBLIC LTILITY FACILITIES. EXCLL -DING OFFICES A-NU SERI,ICE SM-ALLL PL BLIC '_III TTY STRL'CRRES E j E i E I E E E E E RECREATIONAL. SPORT A-M) ATHLETIC FACILITIES I CAMPS iI GOLF COURSES AND /OR DRIVING RANGES, EXCEPT tit GOLF INIATLRE ® ® ® ® M C.ALMPGRCL:NDS 8) f ® ® I I PARKS (6) Q ❑ p CONLM NTTY CENTERS D D o7 With Buildings For Farm workers And Nonprofit Farm Commututy Or;arursuonS r-^ L...i ❑ ❑ ❑ PERIODIC OUTDOOR SPORTING EVENTS (7) FIELDS, ATHLETIC 1) _ GEOTHE MAL SPAS I-�) GOLF COURSES AND /OR DRIVING RANGES, EXCEPT tit GOLF INIATLRE ® ® ® ® f ® ® a I PARKS (6) Q ❑ p © D D o7 With Buildings ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ PERIODIC OUTDOOR SPORTING EVENTS (7) ❑ i j I RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS RECREATION PROJECTS, COUNTY-INITIATED (S) Caretaker Recreational Vehicle, Accewory (S) e o o s o 0 0 0 RETREATS. WITHOU? SLEEPING FACIIXTM g) ❑ ❑ ❑ with Sleeping Facilities (8) ® ❑ ❑ SHOOTING RANGES AND OUTDOOR GUN CLUBS (4) ■ SIGNS PER ARTICLE 10 UNLESS BXEmpr FROJi/ ZONING CIBARMrCE PER SEC. 811&3 (1) Q 0 Q 0 G SOIL AMEWhgNT OPERATIONS (1d) ❑ Cl ❑ STORAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS. TE4PORARY *,1) TTA& O O O T3ere are specific regulations for this use; see Art. 7. 8 -1 42 OoO%95 TREES .AND NATIVE VEGETATION: R— N10V.A. RELOCATION OR PRUNING PROTECTED "ZEES asD vEGET.4,71G.N LV C,ERLAY '_ONE HER TREES a` D ': EGETATTON USES kND STRL'CTCRFS. ACCEaSORY .OTHER THAN TO AGRIC.. -%N1:NI,ALS OR DWELLINGS) FREESTANDING LIGHT FDCTL-tF.S PER SEC. 3106 -d.6 i SOIL. AND GEOLOGIC TESTL`1G FOR WATER WELLS, FOCSDATTONS. SEPTIC SYSTEM AND SIMILAR CONSTRI:CTTO!v SWVVIMING. WADING, ORNAMENTAL POOLS LESS THAN 18' DEEP. OPEN STORAGE PER ART. 7 PARKING STORAGE OF LARGE vEHICLES (PER REQUI)MVEAM OF SEC. 81(,64-2.3) (16) TO A USE REQCDLING 4, PD PERMIT OR CUP Dwelling, caretaker VETERINARY HOSPITALS FOR LARGE AND4ALS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL WASTEWATER/SEWAGE TREATN@VT FACILITIES INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYS'TFMS ON -SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COMMU.NM WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY WATER PRODUCTION, STORAGE. TRAN94WON, & DISTRIBLTION FACILITIES: (6) 4 OR FEWER DOMESTIC SERVICE CONNECTIONS (PRIVATELY OPERATED) 5 OR MORE DOMESTIC SERVICE CONNECTIONS (PRIVATELY OPERATED) FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES (PRIVATELY OPERATED) WELL DRIIJ.ING FOR USE ONLY ON LOT OF WELL LOCATION There are specific regulations for this use; see Art. 7. 8 -1 1mi:•19V41 43 OS aE RA RE R O R1 R: RP D rp !'."11 1111 :0 i.:::.a ' !rd i IE'E E!E�EIE�E! E E I E ♦ I E E ♦ E I E ♦ I E E E E E E i MCI E E E E E E E E E E E E ♦ ♦ ♦ Pursuant :0 Article I I Ssc. 3111 4.1 0 ME nn vo MCI se 313130EE��� OC -1 00029s MCI se OC -1 00029s AA j' _ - -- A A-RZA AND CO'IER,AcE, 5_73ACKS, -H- aa� _ . ;S Sec. 9i0= -. - ? :' ?SOS ;eye- ' - -Le - - �, ^e^t_ eta. ^.dard3 are-ac' to set .=:":n s_e_ a :er :a-, n _::s :antes 4nere `ores s; E- __.ea, a::3 to :e._�aa- excect_cns :o t -Q re:�i_ • -ement -n matr_x ___-t zpec_f__ development standards apo___s are al_c:ed. Sec. 3106 -. : , cae�e -�- to spec_f -c _ones. Sec. 81:6-_ S`_ -_ -. _ F S ?EC:F :C - EVr_,_0p °:VT STANTAR -s 3Y -C -E , - c: :R�TO _ Tie �_ . J- -,g - wi. .overage standards t =Y: -- indicate _ne of "' _ _p- _its area, setnacx, which e _ apply to _ndividtai lots -gnt and guaiLfLed lower :ne zones ;ceC� : :edy .nccme /senior!:ousirg developments Section 3115 - 3.1.1, for reduced and R_ ? -� Far qualified condeminium min.mum deveiopment1 tandards�_2 zones, sae conversion 'nay oe 3''3 :-3c -' pro) .n the R- P-0 3119- 3.2.1. ects 2 and R -2 -D zones, see Se --,z -. (AM.ORD. 3730 - 5/7/85; A.K.ORD.3759- 1/14/86; •3054 - 2/1/94) AM- ORD.3995- 3.24/32; Sec. 8106 -1.1 - D v o meet Standards for Uses and Structures L Zones (ADD ORD. 3730 - 5/7/85; AM. OS ORD- 4054 - 2/1/94; - and Zone W"Limum Namotttin Required ',Unimum Seibacks(b) Lot Ara (o) pen"* "fAx:mttm -�uvcrure He4ju of BU From Side Rear Principle E:ceptsom A"essory Coverage StnKnLre buvcttue(c) Interior dm Rover" saw") Corner Corner Lou. Lou: Except Street Smile Reverse Corner O-S 10 acres As .0' 101 20' 13 Determined =s Height may I :5', A -E 40 acres by dis be io- except as Gsrverw R•A One acm crsased noted n Plan or 5' 10, above :5' Secuoa Applicable ,to luau- 3106-' 4 R E 10.000 sq. R. Ava pro rmwtn 35'1 if each R-0 20.000 Sq. R. side yard Sq. R. Is at .0'(d) :ens 15' 1 sq. or u specified LR b y pertrucufied --T rmut f3) Sam 3seuon 6109 -1.2.3 2EGULATORY NOTES: 33 A. specified by permut (1) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 3,500 square feet. (2) Minimum density; one dwelling unit par acre; m"=Um density; 30 dwelling units per acre. EDZTORZAL VOTES: (a) Zone suffix (Sec. 8103 -1) may require greater minimua lot arts. See sac. 8I06 -2 for other exceptions. (b) See Sections 8206 -5, 8106 -6, and 8107 -20 for exceptions. flag lot setbacks. see Sec. 8106 -4.3 for (c) See Sections 8106 -5, 8106 -7, and 8I06 -8 for exc (d) See Sec. 8106 -5.11 for •swing dri eptions. veway exception. 8 -1 M1:.: -gym 56 JC -1 000097 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY county of venture DATE: August 17, 1998 TO: Agnculture Policy Working Group (APWG) FROM- Gene Kjellbe Planning Division Planning Division AUG 1 9 199 1 SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors Action on August 4, 1998 and Update on other APWG- Recommended Programs I am attaching a copy of the Board's August 4 staff report and attachments for your information and review. On a 4 -0 vote (Supervisor Flynn was on vacation), the Board supported the staff - recommended work programs and budgets for the Greenbelt, Study of Compatible Uses in the A -E and 0 -S Zones and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Programs. As you will recall, these programs were included in the APWG's core recommendations. Work will begin immediately on the Greenbelt and A -E/O -S Compatible Use Programs. Hcwever, most of the work on the UGB program (unincorporated County) will be delayed (with the exception of Task 1), until there is a commitment to proceed w!th a LAFCO- initiated sphere of influence (SOI) study for the incorporated cities. The Board agreed that the County's UGB study and LAFCO's SOI study would share data and many other characteristics, and these programs should not be developed in isolation of each other. On two occasions, the City Managers/CAO Committee has discussed funding options for the SOI study but they have not provided any recommendations to date. County staff will return to the Board on September 15 or 22, 1998 with a work program and budget for studying a countywide Agriculture Preservation and Open Space District (APOSD). Per the Board's directive, staff is also preparing an interim policy for the Board's consideration that is related to the UGB Work Program's Task 1. The policy would limit the expansion of the existing boundaries of Unincorporated Urban Centers (UUC) and Existing Communities (EC) for a two year period (see Attachment 3, UGB Work Program). If you have any questions concerning the attached material, please contact me at 654- 2455. Attachments AUG 2 0 1998 ® 800 South Victoria Avenue, L #1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654 -2481 FAX (805 654 -25C9 Printed on Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT 2 - - - - � � _ - ' •u_a . vJ � �� i�.-t _ ..: _ _ ��.. � ;, ' �. ,rte August 4 1998 Agenda) Board of Supervisors Page 2 FISCALIMANDATES IMPACTS: Mandatory No Source of Funding: General Fund Impact on other Departments: None The direct costs of this action are approximately $49,200 in the current fiscal year and $55,000 in Fiscal Year 1999 -2000. DISCUSSION: On June 9, 1998, your Board approved the Agriculture Policy Working Group (APING) F,ral Report and directed staff to prepare work programs and budgets for four AP��1G recommended programs: • Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Implementation Program • Greenbelt Ordinance and Implementation Program • Study of Agriculture - Compatible Uses within the A -E and O -S zones, and • Development of a Comprehensive Agriculture Public Education Program. On June 16, 1998, your Board directed staff to cotnple�e work ,)rograms, budget proposals, and funding options for the first three programs and to return to the Board for further direction. It is recommended that work on the Greenbelt and A -E/0 -S Compatible Use Programs begin immediately (see Attachments 1" and "2 "). However, staff recommends the County s UGB Program (see Attachment "3 ") be delayed until it can be carried out concurrently with the proposed Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) Sphere of Influence (SOI) study. These two studies share several common features; e.g. population and employment projections, holding capacities of existing general plans and farmland and open space land conversion rates, etc. Included within your Board's June 16, 1998 action was direction to the Chief Administrative Office to return to the Board regarding recommendations of the City Managers ICAO Committee for developing a shared funding formula for a Countywide LAFCO SOI study. On July 23, 1998, the Managers Committee continued their discussions of a shared formula for funding the SOI study. The Managers declined to offer specific funding recommendations at this time until further direction is provided on, 1) the need for jurisdictional participation in 000299 Attacnr -ent -1 ' AGRICULTURE POLICY WORKING GROUP (APWG) RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS GREENBELT PROGRAM Work Program and Scope -of -Work PROPOSED PROGRAM Examine and discuss the advantages /disadvantages of establishing greerbeits -y secaraoe ordinances or using a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) or similar rater -,unsd c� cra! agreements. Adopt greenbelt ordinances (or implement JPAs if legally and pCl t,ca. y acceptable to participating cities and the County) for the, 1) six existing greenbelt agreerrer-s and 2) the five new greenbelts as proposed in the Ventura County General Plan. SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 — REVIEW AND ANALYZE ORDINANCE AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT OPTIONS IN OTHER CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS • Gather background information on the purpose and features of ordinances and oint powers agreements (JPA) used in other California jurisdiction. • Note advantages; disadvantages and legality of regulating land use by * separate ordinances or interjurisdictional agreements. • Make decision to utilize ordinance or JPA option. 0 WORK PRODUCTS: Examples of ordinances and interjurisdictional agreements in other California jurisdictions 0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV), County Counsel (Asst. County Counsel), participating cities (planning staff and city attorneys), LAFCO 0 HOURS WORKED: 320 hours (8 staff weeks) 0 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin August 1998 -- Complete October 1998 TASK 2 — PREPARE A GREENBELT ORDINANCE OR JPA FRAMEWORK/ GUIDELINES FOR THE COUNTY AND THE CITIES • Form a Technical Review Committee (TRC) comprised of County, cities and LAFCO representatives from the City /County Planning Association. • Discuss and establish comparable features that should be included in all or selected greenbelts: • Agreement's time frame (indefinite, fixed term, etc.) • Property owner notification procedures • Criteria for expanding or reducing the size of greenbelts • A greenbelt "zero sum" requirement -- i.e., any reduction of greenbelt acreage shad be offset by adding an equal amount of "like kind" land to the greenbelt 0003U0 i WORK PRODUCTS: Final greenbelt ordinances or JPAs for the six existing and five proposed greenbelts STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV), County Counsel (Assistant County Counsel); participating cities (planning staff and city attorneys), LAFCO HOURS WORKED: 600 hours (15 staff weeks) ,J TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin May 1999 --Complete September 1999 3 000301L • Deve!ocrrmert standards and crtena • Permit firdirgs • Working with the TRC. County p anring staff will disadvantages of the procedural cpt�ons analyze ;he advantages ���: • Aralysis `ndings should take into corsideration • Effectiveness in protecting the long term viability of commercial agriculture • Consistency with other APWG recommended programs including the Urban Boundary and Greenbelt Programs Growtn • Consistency with County General Plan oals, Policies and programs Program administration costs and staffing needs WORK PRODUCTS: Procedural options for reducing or eliminating uses that are incompatible with commercial agriculture STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV) HOURS WORKED: 600 hours (15 staff weeks) 0 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin September 1998 -- Complete December 1998 TASK 3 -- PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SELECT T PROCEDURAL OPTION HE • Submit TRC and staff findings and recommendations to the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for review and action. 0 WORK PRODUCTS: Selectrsd procedural option 0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III/IV) 0 HOURS WORKED: 120 hours (3 staff weeks) 0 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin December 1998 1999 -- Complete January TASK — PREPARE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS • Using the Task 3 procedural option, prepare draft zoni • ng ordinance amendments. Circulate the draft zoning ordinance amendments to affected cities, farmers, LAFCO. VCOG, public service organizations, etc. for review and comment. • Incorporate public input to the extent feasible into the draft recommendations. • Finalize zoning ordinance amendments. 0 WORK PRODUCTS: Recommended z0n4ng ordyn&M* arnendr l 0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV) 0 HOURS WORKED: 840 hours (16 staff weeks) 0 TIMELINE FOR COIItpLET.lOiN OF TASK: Begin January 1999 — Complete May 1999 5 000302 Attachment '3' AGRICULTURE POLICY WORKING GROUP (APWG) RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS Conceptual Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Implementation Program for the Unincorporated County Work Program and Scope -of -Work PROPOSED PROGRAM Adopt an interim policy that prohibits changes to the external boundaries of Unincomorared Urban Centers (UUCs) and Existing Communities (ECs) as defined in the County Gererai Plan. While the policy is in effect. the County will complete a UGB Study for the UUCs and ECs. The County's study should be coordinated with the Local Agency Formation Commission s (LAFCO) Sphere of Influence (SOI) Study. The studies should share information on countywide demographic trends, a regional housing needs assessment (RHNA), land use inventories, general plan holding capacities, population /employment projections and ,re APWG-recom mended Land Use Report Card criteria. The information- sharing would ensure that the County UGB Study and the SOI Study are not developed in isolation of each other will be based on comparable data and are applying the Report Card cntena consistently At the conclusion of the UGB Study, the revised boundari-s for unincorporated commurit es will be submitted to the voters in a countywide election. 1..- the voters approve rew boundaries, they will become the UGBs for the UUCs and ECs. Proposals to amend 'he UGBs shall be submitted only every ten years and the proposals will be accompanied Cy findings that utilize the Report Carr! criteria. The County's voters will have final authority over any proposed changes to the UGBs of unincorporated communities. SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 — ENACT INTERIM POLICY GUIDELINES THAT PROHIBIT CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARIES OF UNINCORPORATED URBAN CENTERS (UUC) AND EXISTING COMMUNI T IES (EC) • The Planning Division will draft interim policy guidelines that prohibit changes to the existing external boundaries of UUCs and ECs as defined in the County General Plan. • Interim Policy Guidelines: • Will terminate two years after its adoption, or when the County's voters approve UGBs for UUCs and ECs, whichever comes first. • A map delineating the interim UGBs for the affected UUCs and ECs shall be prepared and accompany the policy • No changes to the extemal boundaries of the.affected UUCs and ECs will be permitted during the term of the policy • Submit the interim policy guidelines to the Board of Supervisors for review and action. 7 0003()3 If ire Bcard agrees that the UGB amerdments rave —er!t. P'anr rg C. , s.c-- - Ccunty Counsel staff will work ry th County elect.crs cf c,als and crecare a amendment ballot measure Submit the UGB amendment ballot measure to the voters in a countywide e,ect cr • If tre amended UGBs are approved by the voters ;hey Nill estabiisn new ccurClanes for UUCs and ECs. WORK PRODUCTS: UGB Study that consists of: 1) a regional population, housing and employment allocation framework for unincorporated areas; 2) general plan amendments that accommodate population, housing and job growth in unincorporated areas; 3) agriculture and open space preservation criteria; 4) Land Use Report Card criteria; and 5) UGB amendment screening guidelines STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV), LAFCO and VCOG (Director) HOURS WORKED: 800 hours (20 staff weeks) 0 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin December 1998 --Complete May 1999 TASK 3 — PUBLIC REVIEW OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY STUDY • Provide the public with an opportunity to review the UGB Study -- hold several technical workshops countywide that highlight the UGB Study s findings and recommendations. • Revise the study, as appropriate, based on public input. • Submit the UGB study to the County Planning Commission and the Board of Sucerviscrs for review and action. 0 WORK PRODUCTS: is SE study; UGB study workshops; Planning Commission /Board staff reports 0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV) 0 HOURS WORKED: 480 hours (12 staff weeks) 0 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin May 1999 — Complete August 1999 TASK 4 — ESTABLISHING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES (UGB) • If the Board agrees with the recommendations of the UGB study, the Planning Division and County Counsel will work vwth County elections officials and prepare a UGB ballot measure for the Fall 1999 election. • Submit the UGB ballot measure to the voters in a countywide election. • If the UGBs are approved by the voters, they will establish the extemal boundanes for UUCs and ECs. 0 WORK PRODUCTS:; UGB ballot measure; voter - approved UGBs for UUCs and ECs 0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV), County Counsel (Asst County Counsel), County Clerk (Elections Division) 0 HOURS WORKED: 320 hours (8 staff weeks) 0 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin August 1999 — Complete October 1999- E 000304 CTO RESOLUTION N0. 84 -143 . - S.V. RESOLUTION N0. 84 -34 MOORPARK RESOLUTION NO. 84-110 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILS OF THE CITIES OF MOORPARK, SIMI VALLEY AND THOUSAND OAKS, AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF VENTURA ESTABLISHING A GREENBELT WITHIN THE TIERRA REJADA VALLEY WHEREAS, a greenbelt can be defined as an area consisting of prime agricultural or other open space land, as defined in Section 35046 and 65560 of the Government Code, which is preserved in agricultural or other open space uses; and WHEREAS, the area lying generally in the Tierra Rejada Valley west of the City of Simi Valley, north of the City of Thousand Oaks, and south of the City of Moorpark is difficult for any of the Cities or the County to service with sewers, water, police, fire and other municipal services; AREAS, all the corrununity and regional plans designate the Tierra Rejada Valley for agricultural and open space uses and the area is excluded from all City spheres of influence; and WHEREAS, the City Councils of the Cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Ventura hereby find that the lands described below are worthy of retention in agricultural and other open space uses for the overall best interests of the cities, the County and the State. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Moorpark City Council, Simi Valley City Council, Thousand Oaks City Council and Ventura County Board of Supervisors hereby establish this greenbelt for the Tierra Rejada Valley and agree to a Policy of non - annexation and retention of open space uses for the properties in the Tierra Rejada Valley as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A of this resolution and generally described as follows: C495/1 ATTACHMENT 3 000305 Bordered on the north by the City of Moorpark, Moorpark Road, the Tierra Rejada Valley Watershed, and the City of Simi Valley; on the east by the City of Simi Valley; on the south by the City of Thousand Oaks and on the west by the Arroyo Santa Rosa and the Las Posas Hills. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following implementation measures be established: At such time as the provisions of the greenbelt agreement are abrogated by the County with regard to any of the remaining area within the boundaries of Waterworks District No. 8, LAFCO shall automatically reconsider the proper location of the City of Simi Valley's Sphere of Influence boundary in this area, subject only to the City amending its General Plan to include such area. Should the City of Moorpark propose to annex any portion of the territory in the Tierra Rejada Valley Located within Waterworks District No. 8, LAFCO shall automatically reconsider the proper location of the City of Simi Valley's Sphere of Influence boundary in this area, subject only to the City amending its General Plan to include such area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Local Agency Formation Commission is requested to endorse the greenbelt and to continue to act in a manner consistent with the preservation of the aforementioned lands for agricultural and other open space purposes. THE CLERKS ARE DIRECTED to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Local Agency Formation Commission. C495 /2 000306 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY PASSED and ADOPTED on March 26, 1984 ATTEST: Linda Papyor•th, eput City Clerk City of Simi Valley, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nvi V- J Torrance, City Attorney C y of Simi Valley, California APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: M. L. Koester, City Manager City of Simi Valley, California J h eSL. Arnold, Director epartment of Community Development City of Simi Valley, California Etll�N GALLEGLY, MZOR OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALL CALIFORNIA 000307 PASSED and ADOPTED on CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS June 5,1 1984 LEECLAXDAL, MAC? CITY OF THOUSAND ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark G. Sellers, Acting City Attorney City of Thousand Oaks, California APPROVED AS TO ADMINISTRATION: Grant Brimhal y Manager City of Thousand 0 California THE S, CALIFORNIA 000308 Nan y A illon, City Clerk City of Thousand Oaks, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark G. Sellers, Acting City Attorney City of Thousand Oaks, California APPROVED AS TO ADMINISTRATION: Grant Brimhal y Manager City of Thousand 0 California THE S, CALIFORNIA 000308 CITY OF MOORPARK July 2 PASSED and ADOPTED on �8ehxomyx 1984 ATTEST: Doris D. Bankus, City Clerk City of Moorpark, California 6 LETA I Y -SUT MAYOR OF THE CITY OF M ORPARK, CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Ventura, California on February ;Z I , 1984. Attest: RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk County of Ventura, State of California and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors thereof. By Deputy C495/5 Chair, Board of Supervisors 1 l - • •• r e r� -.- TIERRA REJADA VALLEY GREENBELT (' "`"••• ` (REVISED E 71 ~� XHIBIT A APRIL 1986 ' `�%" ' "` `' I `- O Mile 1/2 iF ►,� 1 City of Simi Valle c. . ):;,.,11"' -�!! ' ' •� \ � •\1 - , , ✓f�sl•••, •• IL��.1.,� J`�1. ♦1 �II°j�,•1/ `\��tl�\ ; i,'' /' ^/1 Iil •` � �� -J`: �'�i f�'•„�.. I. w dw" 1 n� - C\ (• 1, I WI( `4 ..._ �•� � vy'�• � '''N . �j ��4•'��.�• :i14. �f....`..J`�.�,� Mni1 _ J• �_- Moorpark �r ' �� �F� �1J1 - IL \ )' ,t. I. ;� ; • _WLr (moo►' ��.�' .; ..�+� :.1 , `;!� i �i - " Res 7. �..:!/..., ^� ;K( _�1 -- I,p W !'Jo 'see �:.: _ s,•,�1 `:.�. ., TIERRA REJADA VALLEY GREENBELT ,�� :�;;�• ;?,_I > �1�' �.� Pa "ell I well _ _ :v ilq •,':. T I e r r a o RejadaJ (l , :-�•'� J / ��i �/• 1 1 _ I _ �)�( '/ Ni ��'? • 01.9�1�1�L�— •-_:'J� i,(� (' 1 \ / ,11' /„� • _ J. ' --fin � ,,,� � I �'. •' l.,W.n+ f ..IJ y�l .•,Uri ��� /// + / � / ,Iti �� I - •r 'LrG:.e, i, J n ^�\ C` /1'� �r,if tj' �: '• / S �� _/' ( '� an _ i ,ll 11 I) O �. /• � � :C j (� .`V ... /mil, :' , +, `•\� %yO^ •-'� /� � � r r.�.� r .� �r �.�. �: � •ram s� �� �r �� �� �� �� �� rr±� � n 1 � -� , ' �--. Jj,.. City of Thousand Oaks VENTURA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 RECEIVED i City or Moorpa a CommuNly Develo ?mart C ,a ine Subject: Staff Presentation on Ventura County's Greenbelts Request: This presentation is in response to the Planning Commission's request for background information and a status report on the County's Greenbelts. Per your request, Planning Division staff have compiled both written and graphic material that provides a historical perspective, general information, overview of existing and proposed greenbelts and examines several - issues concerning greenbelts. A. Back round Histo The concept for establishing greenbelts was originally proposed by the County's Local Agency Formation 'Commission (LAFCO) in February 1965. This was a significant step because Spheres of Interest (former terminology), proposed to formally establish service area limits for the expansion of city services and facilities. This was consistent with the greenbelt concept of maintaining the integrity of separate and distinct cities. The first greenbelt (Ventura /Santa Paula), was initiated in 1967. The Ventura /Santa Paula Greenbelt, and subsequent greenbelts, provide interim policy protection for open space and agricultural lands, thereby reassuring property owners located within these areas that land will not be prematurely converted to inappropriate uses (e.g., urban). Greenbelts also designate where cities have agreed not to annex territory and the County has pledged to permit only uses permitted in "Open Space" or "Agriculture" zones. Greenbelts represent one of several jurisdictional tools that help shape Ventura County's settlement patterns. The other measures include the Guidelines for Orderly Development, the eleven jurisdictions' general plans and zoning ordinances and spheres of influence. B. Greenbelt Features: Currently, Ventura County jurisdictions have not adopted universal greenbelt standards or criteria similar to the Guidelines for Orderly Development. However, individual general plans and the agreements themselves, state or imply that a greenbelt agreement represents a form of mutual regulatory control between two or more jurisdictions concerning urban form, the protection of farmland and open space land, the future extension of urban services /facilities and annexations. Other implied features include: 1• The greenbelt's mapped boundaries are an important visual representation of written policies. 2. Function as "community separators" or "buffers" between two or more jurisdictions. 3. Participating cities agree to not extend municipal services into the greenbelts nor annex greenbelt lands. 4. County agrees to allow only land uses that are consistent with the County General Plan's and Zoning Ordinance's "Open Space" and "Agriculture" designations (e.g., new subdivisions must conform to the minimum parcel sizes of those zones). 5. Either participating cities or the County may initiate proceedings for establishing a greenbelt. When the terms of the greenbelt have been agreed to, a joint resolution (or ATTACHMENT 4 000311 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 2 separate, but similarly worded resolutions), is then adopted by the respective city council(s), and if the County is a party to it, the Board of Supervisors. 6. To be effective, it is important that all parties agree to the same or very similar greenbelt policy language. 7. PotQntial greenbelt lands should be designated "Agriculture" and./or "Open Space" in the County General Plan and -Zoning Ordinance. Duration of greenbelt agreements - the term of greenbelts are usually for an indefinite time period although there is one limited term exception (5 years with understanding that agreement is automatically extended at the end of the term for another 5 years unless one of the parties to the agreement objects). C. Greenbelt Limitations: Although greenbelts serve several functions, there are limitations on the purpose, authority, scope and issues they address. For example: 1. Greenbelts do not provide permanent protection for agriculture and /or open space lands. 2. They are not required by state or federal statute - rather, they represent local jurisdiction policy initiatives that began with the first greenbelt in 1967. 3. Greenbelt agreements have no binding legal authority to regulate land uses in unincorporated areas - rather, this authority is found in general plans and zoning ordinances. 4. Although greenbelt policies and resolutions are referred to as "agreements ", they are not formal "joint power agreements" in the sense of binding inter - jurisdictional contracts (any party[ies] to a greenbelt may elect to terminate their participation in the policy agreement at any time). 5. Establishing a greenbelt does not require the consent of the affected landowners. Also, greenbelts do not compel landowners within greenbelts to sign contracts that require interim or permanent restrictions on the future use of their farmland to only agricultural uses. 6. Participating jurisdictions have not reached a general consensus of what specific land uses should or should not be permitted within greenbelts. Generally, any uses permitted by the County Zoning Ordinance's "Open Space" and "Agriculture Exclusive" designations (either through a ministerial or discretionary permit), are acceptable. For example: a. Ventura /Oxnard Greenbelt - City of Oxnard included a prohibition on the expansion of landfills within this greenbelt - the City of Ventura and Ventura County did not include such a statement in their resolutions. b. Oxnard /Camarillo Greenbelt - The greenbelt area north of US 101 (Del Norte Unit) made no provision for any major institutional use - however, the State recently purchased about 270 acres of land within the Greenbelt for a new California State University Campus. 000312 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 3 7. Greenbelt lands generally are not located within a city's sphere of influence or incorporated boundaries. 8. Permitted uses on lands within greenbelt boundaries are no more restrictive than similarly designated land (e.g., Agriculture), outside greenbelts. 9. Alth6ugh LAFCO has endorsed the formation of all six greenbelts within Ventura County, the LAFCO has not been a signatory to any greenbelt agreements nor does it have the authority to enforce the policy statements within the various agreements. 10. Greenbelt agreements exert no regulatory authority over the annexation process or the establishment /amendment of spheres of influence boundaries. However, prior to extending sphere of influence boundaries into, or annexing lands within greenbelts, the agreements are amended so as to remove the affected lands from the greenbelt. D. Status of Greenbelts: Adopted Greenbelts: Six greenbelts have been adopted by participating city councils and the Board of Supervisors: 1. Between the Cities of Ventura and Santa Paula; 2. Between the Cities of Santa Paula and Fillmore; 3. Between the Cities of Camarillo and Oxnard; 4. East of the City of Camarillo (westerly portion of the Santa Rosa Valley); 5. Tierra Rejada Valley (between the Cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks); and 6. Between the Cities of Ventura and Oxnard. Recommended Greenbelts: The County General Plan includes several unincorporated areas that should be considered for greenbelt designations: 1. Las Posas Valley; 2. Between City of Fillmore and the Los Angeles County line (excluding community of Piru); 3. Hidden Valley; 4. Upper Ojai Valley; 5. Between Moorpark and Simi Valley north of SR 118; and 6. Westerly of Oxnard to Harbor Boulevard. E. Distinctions Between and RelationshiP to Other. Recmlatory Measures and Agreements: Greenbelt agreements by themselves have no regulatory authority over the use of land. This is because the agreements are adopted by resolution (rather than ordinance) and the authority for designating lands as greenbelts is based on non - binding local Policy initiatives rather than mandatory state or federal statutes. General Plans - Section 65300 of the Government Code requires each of the ten cities, and the-County, to adopt a general (comprehensive) plan that provides a long range guide for future growth and urban development. General plan designations determine the appropriate land use within greenbelts. Generally, only land uses consistent with the "Open Space" and "Agriculture" designations are appropriate within a greenbelt. 000313 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 4 Zoning Ordinances - Similar to general plans, each of the ten cities, and the County, are required by state law to have zoning ordinances. State law also requires that zoning ordinance designations must be consistent at all times with general plan designations. Zoning functions as the implementation mechanism for the general plan and includes specific land use and building standards and conditions. Only land uses permitted within the "Open Space ", "Coastal Open Space ", "Agriculture Exclusive" and "Coastal Agriculture" zoning designations are consistent with the intent of a greenbelt designation. This could include such diverse uses as a farm (irrigated row crops or orchards), cattle ranch, golf driving range, jail, landfill, school and library/ museum. Spheres of Influence.. Spheres of Influence are regulated by Section 56425 of the Government Code. State law also mandates the establishment of Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) within each county and gives LAFCO's the authority to establish and amend sphere of influence lines and regulate annexations. Spheres represent the probable urban boundary of a city within a 20 year time horizon (e.g., each of Ventura County's ten cities include sphere lines). They are not static boundaries (e.g., urban limit lines), but can be amended to accommodate a city's lateral growth. Spheres are most instrumental in determining long range growth patterns, logical annexation expansions and urban service extensions (e.g., sewer and water lines), for a city. There are examples in the State and the County, however, where "step -out" and leapfrog land development was not controlled by sphere boundaries. Although land uses within spheres are technically controlled by the County (prior to annexations), all requests for land use changes are also referred to the affected city. The extension of urban services would only be permitted within Sphere boundaries. Because the territory within Spheres is intended for eventual annexation to cities, Greenbelts usually lie outside Sphere lines. Areas of Interest - Unlike Spheres of Influence, Areas of Interest are not mandated by state or federal law but rather represent locally initiated areas reflective of community and planning identity. There are 14 "Areas" within Ventura County. Although there will be no more than one city within each Area, there will not necessarily be a city in every Area (e.g., neither the Las Posas Valley or Piru Areas of Interest includes a city). Although land uses within Areas are regulated by the County, requests for changes in land use are referred to the city within the Area for information and consultation. Greenbelts are always located within one or more Areas of Interest. F. Overview of Six Greenbelt Agreements The six greenbelt agreements adopted through 1994 total approximately 83,300 acres of agricultural and open space lands. Although the various agreements share much commonality, each agreement represents a unique set of circumstances that apply to only their geographic areas. The agreements are listed in chronological order beginning with the first agreement (Ventura/ Santa Paula) in 1967. ( W3 14 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 5 Ventura -Santa Paula Greenbelt - The agreement was formally established by joint resolution of the City Councils of Ventura and Santa Paula on December 11 and December 18, 1967, respectively. The Ventura City Council reaffirmed its support for the greenbelt on August 27, 1973 and the Santa Paula City Council reaffirmed its support for the greenbelt on September 4, 1973 and May 2, 1989. The County Board of Supervisors and the L-AFCO endorsed the agreement on September 11 and September 26;_1973,. respectively. The agreement covers about 8,340 acres of unincorporated County :territory .-and is designated "Agriculture" and "Open Space" in the County General Plan. It is bounded by the Franklin Barranca to the west and the Adams Barranca to the east and generally defines the common sphere of influence between the two Cities. It is the only greenbelt that has no formal boundaries to the north or the south. Existing uses include citrus groves, specialty crops, row crops, avocado orchards and grazing lands. The greenbelt is located within the Ventura and Santa Paula Areas of Interest. Santa Paula - Fillmore Greenbelt - This agreement was established by joint resolution of the City Councils of Santa Paula and Fillmore on January 5, 1980. On July 3, 1989, the Santa Paula City Council reaffirmed its support for the greenbelt. The County Board of Supervisors and LAFCO endorsed the greenbelt on January 29 and February 13, 1980, respectively. The agreement covers about 34,200 acres of unincorporated territory and is designated "Agriculture" and "Open Space" in the County General Plan. It is the largest of the County's six greenbelts. The greenbelt is bounded by Santa Paula Creek, the Santa Paula Conservation Line and 12th Street to the west, the Los Padres National Forest to the north, Sespe Creek, the Santa Clara River and SR 23 to the east and the ridge line of South Mountain and Oak Ridge to the south. Existing uses include citrus crops, row crops and grazing lands. The greenbelt is located within the Santa Paula and Fillmore Areas of Interest. Camarillo- Oxnard Greenbelt - The greenbelt was originally established by joint resolution of the City Councils of Camarillo and Oxnard on June 9 and July 27, 1982, respectively. The County Board of Supervisors endorsed the greenbelt on October 5, 1982. It was subsequently expanded to include the Del Norte Area (north of US 101) and this amendment was agreed to by the Cities of Camarillo and Oxnard on January 11 and February 7, 1984 and the County Board of Supervisors on February 1984. LAFCO endorsed both the original agreement in 1982 and the expanded agreement in July 11, 1984. Subsequent adjustments to the greenbelt's boundary were made in 1988 and 1990. The greenbelt covers about 27,300 acres of unincorporated territory and is designated "Agriculture" and "Open Space" in the County General Plan. The greenbelt's boundaries include lands lying generally northeast, east and southeast of the City of Oxnard and northwest, west and south of the City of Camarillo. It includes most of the Oxnard Plain and through a combination of soils, drainage, water and climate, comprises some of the most productive farmland in Ventura County. Uses include row crops, citrus orchards and specialty crops including a major share of the County's strawberry production. The greenbelt is located within the Oxnard and Camarillo Areas 00031 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 6 of Interest. Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt - This is the only greenbelt agreement in Ventura County that includes four jurisdictions. The concept for establishing a greenbelt in this area was originally proposed by the City of Thousand Oaks on March 3, 1981._ The agreement was formally established by joint resallution of the City Councils of Thousand Oaks and Simi VaUey on. July 27 and December 20, 1982 and the County Board of Supervisors on January 4, 1983. The LAFCO endorsed the agreement on March 1983. After the City of Moorpark incorporated in 1983, a revised agreement was jointly adopted by the County Board of Supervisors on February 21, 1984 and the City Councils of Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks and Moorpark on March 26, June 5 and July 2, 1984, respectively. The modification was subsequently endorsed by the LAFCO on July 11, 1984. In 1987, a minor adjustment to the greenbelt map was approved by the three cities and the County. The agreement covers about 2,650 acres of unincorporated County territory and is designated "Open Space" on the County General Plan. It is the smallest of the County's six green- belts. The greenbelt is bounded by the City of Moorpark, Moorpark Road, the Tierra Rejada Valley Watershed and the City of Simi Valley to the north, the City of Simi Valley to the east, the City of Thousand Oaks to the south and the Arroyo Santa Rosa and the Las Posas Hills to the west. Although it is the only greenbelt that does not include an "Agriculture" general plan designation, there is "Agriculture Exclusive" zoning and existing uses include row and specialty crops, grazing lands and citrus. The greenbelt is located within the Moorpark Area of Interest. Santa Rosa Valley Greenbelt - This agreement was established through a joint resolution of the Camarillo City Council and the County Board of Supervisors on January 23 and January 22, 1985, respectively. It was subsequently endorsed by LAFCO on February 13, 1995. It is the only agreement that involves only one city and the County. The agreement covers about 6,200 acres of unincorporated territory and is designated "Open Space" and "Agriculture" in the County general plan. The greenbelt is located north and east of the City of Camarillo and separates the City from the Santa Rosa Valley "Existing Community" (general plan designation). Existing uses include row crops, citrus orchards, greenhouses and grazing lands. The greenbelt is located within the Camarillo and Las Posas Areas of Interest. Ventura - Oxnard Greenbelt - This is the only agreement with three separately worded resolutions adopted by the City Councils of Ventura and Oxnard on July 12 and November 16, 1993, respectively, and the County Board of Supervisors on February 1, 1994. LAFCO subsequently endorsed the agreement in February 16, 1994. It is the only greenbelt partially located within the Coastal Zone boundary. Although the three resolutions include mostly identical language, there are several differences regarding: 1. The term period of the greenbelt (5 year period, Cities of Ventura and Oxnard - indefinite period, County) 000316 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 7 2. Permitted uses (no expansion of or new institutional uses, City of Oxnard - silent on this issue, City of Ventura and County of Ventura). The greenbelt covers about 4,600 acres of unincorporated territory and is designated "Agriculture ", "Coastal Agriculture ", "Open Space" and "Coastal Open Space" in the County General Plan. The greenbelt is bounded by the Southern Pacific Right -of -Way to the north, Victoria Avenue to the east, 5th Street to the south and Harbor Boulevard to the west. Existing uses include row crops, specialty crops, citrus orchards and the Santa Clara River Floodway. The greenbelt is located within the Ventura and Oxnard Areas of Interest. G. Related Greenbelt 70-3 g and Concepts Other jurisdictions within California have adopted or endorsed other techniques, measures and agreements related to growth management, conservation of farmland and maintaining open space buffers between urban areas. Some of these measures are outlined below: Urban Limit Lines - Some cities, and their counties, have respective established mutually agreeable urban limit lines around their jurisdictions. Unlike Sphere of Influence boundaries, the urban limit lines represent a permanent boundary designed to restrict further lateral expansion of a city into farmland and /or open space areas. These lines have been adopted by ordinance, and in a few cases, by voter approved initiatives (rather than a resolution). An amendment of the limit line may require a "super majority" vote of the City Council (e.g., 4 /5th) or a voter - approved modification. Community Separators - This concept is similar in many respects to "greenbelts ", but in some cases the "separator" boundaries have been established through a formal "joint powers agreement" (JPA) rather than by individual or joint resolutions. Modification of the JPA's boundaries or terms require formal approval by all parties to the agreement - a unilateral action by only one party would not be acceptable. Permanent Conservation vs. Policy Protection Several programs involving the permanent conservation of farmland and open space lands are being implemented in parts of California. Some of these programs involve voter approved and publicly financed open space and agricultural preservation districts permitted by state law. Techniques used by these districts include: 1. Purchase of Develo ment Rights (PD R Pro rams - The "development rights" value of farmland and /or open space land is purchased and a conservation easement is applied to the property limiting its future use to agricultural/ open space compatible uses. 2• Transfer of Develo ment Ri hts TDR or Credits Programs - Similar TDC to a PDR program, a TDR involves trading, selling and /or purchasing development credits from "sending properties" and applying the credit to "receiving properties ". As with a PDR program, the com- pensation received for the sending property limits its future use to agricultural or open space compatible uses. W(K,17 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 8 Farmland /Open Space Preservation Ordinances - Some cities in California have adopted farmland mitigation ordinances designed to implement farmland protection policies in their general plans. Generally, these ordinances require that any conversion of farmland /open space within a greenbelt, community separator or buffer area be compensated by: 1._- Paying an in -lieu fee (equal to the amount of the "development rights" value of the property); or 2. Purchasing the development rights on lands of equal or greater quality to the lands being converted. The above programs are in contrast to Ventura County's current greenbelt agreements. The latter represents mutual policy statements between two or more jurisdictions that provide "policy level" protection for farmland and open space lands. Currently, these policy resolutions can be rescinded or modified at any time by any party to the agreements based on a majority vote of the local legislative body. H. Greenbelt Perceptions: The County's greenbelt program has been in place for about 29 years. Although greenbelts have a long history, have been supported by numerous interest groups and are the subject of occasional newspaper articles, -there are several misconceptions about what a greenbelt is and what it is not. Myth #1: Greenbelts afford permanent protection of the land. Response: Greenbelts do not permanently protect farmland or open space land. They represent "policy level" agreements between several jurisdictions that provide interim "protection" for greenbelt lands. These agreements can be canceled at any time by a majority vote of a city council and /or the Board of Supervisors. Myth #2: General Plan /Zoning Ordinance designations on greenbelt lands are more restrictive. Response: The "Agriculture ", "Agriculture Exclusive" and "Open Space" designations in the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide the same level of performance standards, permitted uses, "footprint" requirements, etc. for similarly designated non - greenbelt and greenbelt lands. The designation of "greenbelt" does not, in itself, have any regulatory authority over the use of the land. Land use regulation is determined by the general plan and zoning ordinance designations and these apply equally to all lands within Ventura County. Myth #3: Land uses appropriate within Greenbelts have been defined through the individual agreements. Response: Currently, there are no mutually accepted definitions for appropriate uses within a greenbelt. In recent years, there have been some disagreements between the cities and the County concerning the siting of both institutional and non - institutional uses. These disagreements have involved landfills, libraries /museums, jails, residential subdivisions, schools and parks. The primary basis for determining greenbelt /land use consistency is the County's Zoning Ordinance matrix. The evQ318 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 9 "Agriculture Exclusive" and "Open Space" designations list a number of uses that are compatible with the designation, either through a ministerial permit (e.g., zone clearance) or a discretionary permit (e.g., conditional use permit). Some of these uses are not acceptable to various interest groups. Myth--#4: Greenbelts represent a type of "public open space ". Reabonse: Greenbelts consist of privately owned properties and therefore serve a limited open space "public purpose ". If greenbelts are to remain in viable agricultural use, for example,, it is important that farmers remain profitable because farms are primarily businesses - not public open space. Remaining profitable is difficult, particularly for new farming operations in Ventura County. The cost of farmland is high (particularly near cities), because of speculative value built into the land's price. The high priced land, together with other costs (e.g., water), can increase the expense of farming operations to levels that limit profitability. Myth #5: Prior to establishing a greenbelt, all landowners within its proposed boundaries have agreed to the greenbelt designation and in the case of farmland, the landowners have committed to retaining their lands in agricultural use. Response: A greenbelt can be established with or without the permission of the affected landowners within its proposed boundary. Also, the Greenbelts are sometimes confused with the State's Land Conservation Act (LCA) program. There is no greenbelt "prerequisite" that requires affected landowners to participate in the LCA Program (e.g., landowners have not signed agreements that require interim or permanent restrictions on the future use of their farmland to only agricultural uses). I. Summary /Future of Greenbelts: Greenbelts, together with other jurisdictional tools (Guidelines for Orderly Development, Spheres of Influence, General Plans, LCA program, etc.), have functioned as a deterrent to the premature development of farmland and open space lands. Greenbelts, however, do not provide permanent conservation of open space lands because their "policy level" protection does not prohibit participating jurisdictions from converting farmland /open space land to urban uses in the future. Although the number of greenbelts have grown from one in 1967 to six in 1994, some of the greenbelt boundaries have been amended and several major controversial land uses have been located within some greenbelts that both decrease their acreage and also cause various interest groups to question issues of compatibility with the greenbelt's intent. In summary, a greenbelt is in essence an agreement for cities not to pursue annexation and for the County to only permit uses allowed by the "Agriculture Exclusive" and "Open Space" zoning designations, within fixed boundaries. Several greenbelt topics have been raised by various individuals/ groups over time and could be examined in a subsequent forum which would facilitate discussions of, and which could produce some consensus on, these questions /issues: 000319 Staff Report and Recommendations Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, 1996 Page 10 1. Should there be any change to the existing system of establishing and administering greenbelts - i.e., is the current system adequate for its stated purpose of maintaining separate cities and preventing the premature conversion of farmland /open space land to urban uses? 2. GIhat uses are appropriate for greenbelts? Currently, there is no inter - jurisdictional consensus regarding compatibility of uses. within greenbelts. 3. Should greenbelt agreements be more than statements of inter - jurisdictional policy intent? For example, should the agreements become f6rmal contracts (JPA's) that bind future city councils /Boards of Supervisors to maintaining existing and /or expanding future greenbelt boundaries? 4. Related to #3 above, should greenbelts and spheres of influence boundaries- achieve the status of ordinance level "urban limit lines" that could be amended only by a voter referendum or through a "super majority" vote of the local legislative body? 5. Consider instituting a "zero sum" requirement - e.g., if there is a reduction in a greenbelt's acreage due to a general plan amendment, should there be a requirement that additional land of equal or greater value be added to the greenbelt? 6. If greenbelt lands are accorded permanent protection from non- agricultural /open space uses, should there be some form of compensation paid to landowners (e.g., PDR program)? RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. RECEIVE and FILE the information in this greenbelt report. Prepared by:, Gene Kjellb Case Planner - Reviewed by: 1: �51 Tu ner Planning Director Exhibits: Exhibit 111" - Countywide map showing 6 greenbelts Exhibit "2" - Ventura /Santa Paula Greenbelt Map Exhibit 113" - Santa Paula /Fillmore Greenbelt Map Exhibit "4" - Camarillo /Oxnard Greenbelt Map Exhibit "5" - Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt Map Exhibit 116" - Santa Rosa Valley Greenbelt Map Exhibit "7" - Ventura /Oxnard Greenbelt Map Exhibit "8" - Greenbelt Features Exhibit 119" - Greenbelt Limitations Exhibit "10" - Greenbelt Myths and Responses 000320 C 0 W 2`+ OJAI Mainers Oaks View' - .-------- '' � � Pirul 8 14 _ PAULA Y ' 1 ILLM�IE I i Vk'aTURAI _ .Lich. .I '1 SANTA PAULA •� —• .r•• i0 + / TAI, . -� _ + ` • VENTURA T: ; MOORPARK r I SIMI VALLEY 'R� ^..� rVENTURA •..b,ri- _.. _.�... ..•,. *°• -- ,�`{' "•`e ` �`[ OXNARD - TIP- RE'JADA ,_ ! tAMARILLo OXNARD ; -- - —� l :< 31NARD THOUSAND OAKS ` l t..- O � gA A_ {+{D¢ VALLdif+ cAMAMIL, Oak O 1313 Park PORTl •••• .. . HUENEME -�• l _. GREENBELTS South half of Ventura county .Y EXHIBIT "1" C 0 W 2`+ Z m �k�& SATICOY COUNTRY CLUB, oil ROCK ROAD s OnURBAN PLAN) (PER CRY GENERAL PLAN OR AREA r URBAN RESERVE (OVERLAY) `____•� (DASHED LINE REPRESENTS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY) EXISTING COMMUNITY (PER AREA PLAN OR COMMUNITY MAP) ®RURAL (1 ACREi) ®AGRICULTURAL (40 ACRE +) OPEN SPACE ((0 ACRE +) ® STATE /FEDERAL FACILITY 1 — 5 Ac. MIN. IVentzaCounty VENTURA / SANTA PAULA r' =8000° i Resource GREENBELT Management Agency ( 8,340 ACRES) EXHIBIT " 2" 000322 TSION ROCK ROAD URBAN (PER CITY GENERAL PLAN OR AREA PLAN) i URBAN RESERVE (OVERLAY) - -- i (DASHED LINE REPRESENTS SPHERE OF EXISTING COMMUNITY (PER AREA PLAN OR COMMUNRY MAP) ®RURAL 0 ACRE +) ®AGRICULTURAL (60 ACRE+) OPEN SPACE (10 ACRE+) ® STATE /FEDERAL FACILITY Ventura County SANTA PAULA / FILLMORE Resource Management GREENBELT Agency ( 34,000 ACRES) EXHIBIT `°3n 000323 Ventura County r =a000 Resource CAMARILLO / OXNARD GREENBELT Management Agency ( 27,000 ACRES) EXHIBIT "4n 000324 v 1 R <•::;::•:::•::::..::f:t }:: •.' .:' :..;; s �: URBAN �.:: r. • \` ? +- ti: y.'{, (PER CRY GENERAL PLAN OR AREA PLAN ) :'�::: �:t :i'i: � '•Yr"dS• fir.; ? %� • s' . •'x #:C :,: �• } +r . �:f: y .. I :::•, UR BAN + RE sf >.:•. I E OVERLAY) E r.S:i•+ R LAY ) D —_ ( A + r'' __ SHE J ED LWE {'� REPR ES NT E S ';:;ti %::`':: {�i #;:;:S: >,+a•, :• E OF INFLUENCE .• �•. :.,., . BOUNDARY ..4:.4•L :. ... „: •- <e..'3 :.::<.} :. }:• }• EXISTING COMMUNITY '-: {.tx. ?.y{.,• # #:':;,••:':.:.:.:. ?.��`.- :.. #S . �' S: S }:•; <•: •'•:;::x: (PER AREA PLAN OR COMMUNITY MAP) . {• }�:s :� RURAL ::N O •n}:y: .+�s s: {.�S,.•� �. +•�' }, k '•� AGRICULTURAL �4�:i':.•,�,.;?":'Y•.f,' •:;;,r.:/S.Y,i`:�`#;; ,a},t..:: �{� •:.,�: ® (40 ACREt) :.<a >«': s:;•- OPEN SPACE ;: }.. s..:...... .. .:,.::.: <:.;.:. .: ::::. .:.. },.. .. ...... :.. r.: (70 ACRE t) VENTU ?... � STATE /FEDERAL FACILITY PARK �;3`3.r's,•. %::s �:>: }:s: <::5: >r�:':::Ss > <i: ^:f4£::: Sherwood • }. {'', .;_,:1A•;r } ;: � — 5 Ac. MIN. Ventura County TIERRA REJADA VALLEY Resource Management -GREENBELT Agency .( 2,650 ACRES) EXHIBIT "5" 0 00325 I MEN,! I ky .URBAN .f•< f, , (P { ER CITY GENERAL PLAN OR AREA PLAN) '' URBAN RESERVE (OVERLAY) (DASHED LINE REPRESENTS SPHERE OF INFUiENCE BOUNDARY) <€ EXISTING COMMUNITY • t:;:•+ +' :. + : :;;i.;f :;.2;v,';$; :;:' :;t •'•. %..: (PER AREA PLAN OR COMMUNITY MAP) ,..; :: :x :..•.;Jx•� ® RURAL HOSPITAL•`yy`'c { >< -'` AGRICULTURAL y'2: r # }. i• i. (40 ACRE +) OPEN SPACE POT RERO •:.' 7.�.:!:•.;;, . ,; ... ` e; :;r• R0. $' (10 ACRE+) ®STATE/FEDERAL FACILITY SAC. MIN. ,._.. Ventura County SANTA ROSA VALLEY GREENBELT. Resource t,'anagemsnt (6,200 ACRES) Agency EXHIBIT "6" 000326 ve ,;uraCc my Resource SAN BUENAVENTURA / ana Agency men A OXNARD GRIEENBELT ( 4,600 ACRES) EXHIBIT `7" 000327 EXHIBIT 8 GREENBELT FEATURES THE GREENBELTS REPRESENT MUTUAL POLICY STATEMENTS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE JURISDICTIONS CONCERNING URBAN FORM AND THE PROTECTION OF FARMLAND AND OPEN SPACE LAND. OTHER FEATURES INCLUDE: 1. GREENBELT'S MAPPED BOUNDARIES ARE AN IMPORTANT VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF WRITTEN POLICIES. 2. FUNCTION AS "COMMUNITY SEPARATORS" BETWEEN TWO OR MORE JURISDICTIONS. 3. POTENTIAL GREENBELT LANDS SHOULD BE DESIGNATED "AGRICULTURE" AND /OR "OPEN SPACE" IN THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE. 4. COUNTY AGREES TO ALLOW ONLY LAND USES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE "OPEN SPACE" AND "AGRICULTURE" DESIGNATIONS. 5. PARTICIPATING CITIES AGREE TO NOT EXTEND MUNICIPAL SERVICES INTO NOR ANNEX GREENBELT LANDS. 6. PARTICIPATING CITIES OR THE COUNTY MAY INITIATE A GREENBELT. WHEN THE TERMS OF THE GREENBELT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO, A JOINT RESOLUTION, OR SEPARATE, BUT SIMILARLY WORDED RESOLUTIONS, ARE THEN ADOPTED. 7. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL PARTIES AGREE TO THE SAME OR VERY SIMILAR GREENBELT POLICY LANGUAGE. 8. DURATION OF GREENBELT COULD BE FOR INDEFINITE TIME PERIOD OR A LIMITED TERM. __9- 1.96/1 0 oo� %8 -A EXHIBIT 9 GREENBELT LIARTAMNS THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE PURPOSE, AUTHORITY AND ISSUES THAT GREENBELTS ADDRESS. FOR EXAMPLE: 1. GREENBELTS DO NOT PROVIDE PERMANENT PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL AND /OR OPEN SPACE LANDS. 2. NOT REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE - RATHER, THEY REPRESENT LOCAL POLICY INITIATIVES. 3. GREENBELTS HAVE NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LAND USES - THIS AUTHORITY IS FOUND IN GENERAL PLANS AND ZONING ORDINANCES. 4. ALTHOUGH GREENBELTS ARE REFERRED TO AS "AGREEMENTS," THEY ARE NOT FORMAL 'JOINT POWER AGREEMENTS" IN THE SENSE OF BINDING INTER- JURISDICTIONAL CONTRACTS. 5. ESTABLISHING A GREENBELT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONSENT OF THE AFFECTED LANDOWNERS. 6. PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS HAVE NOT REACHED A GENERAL CONSENSUS OF WHAT LAND USES SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN GREENBELTS. 7. GREENBELTS GENERALLY ARE NOT LOCATED WITHIN A CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OR INCORPORATED BOUNDARIES. 8. PERMITTED USES ON LANDS WITHIN GREENBELTS ARE NO MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN SIMILARLY DESIGNATED LAND OUTSIDE GREENBELTS. 9. ALTHOUGH LAFCO HAS ENDORSED THE FORMATION OF ALL GREENBELTS, IT HAS NOT BEEN A SIGNATORY TO ANY GREENBELT AGREEMENTS NOR DOES IT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE POLICIES. 10. GREENBELTS HAVE NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER THE ESTABLISHMENT /AMENDMENT OF SPHERES OF INFLUENCE OR THE ANNEXATION PROCESS. _.9b/2 000,323 EXHIBIT 10 GREENBELT MYTHS AND RESPONSES ALTHOUGH GREENBELTS HAVE A LONG HISTORY, THERE ARE SEVERAL MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT WHAT A GREENBELT IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT. MYTH #1: GREENBELTS AFFORD PERMANENT PROTECTION OF LAND. RESPONSE: GREENBELTS DO NOT PERMANENTLY PROTECT FARMLAND OR OPEN SPACE LAND. THEY REPRESENT POLICY LEVEL" AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SEVERAL JURISDIC'T'IONS THUS PROVIDING INTERIM PROTECTION. MYTH #2: GENERAL PLAN /ZONING ORDINANCE DESIGNATIONS ON GREENBELT LANDS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE. RESPONSE: "AGRICULTURE ". AND "OPEN SPACE" DESIGNATIONS PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, PERMITTED USES, ETC., FOR SIMILARLY DESIGNATED NON - GREENBELT AND GREENBELT LANDS MYTH #3: LAND USES APPROPRIATE WITHIN GREENBELTS HAVE BEEN DEFINED THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS. RESPONSE: THERE ARE NO MUTUALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS FOR APPROPRIATE USES WITHIN A GREENBELT. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY CONCERNING THE SITING OF BOTH INSTITUTIONAL AND NON - INSTITUTIONAL USES MYTH #4: GREENBELTS REPRESENT A TYPE OF "PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ". RESPONSE: GREENBELTS CONSIST OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTIES THAT SERVE A LIMITED OPEN SPACE "PUBLIC PURPOSE ". IF GREENBELTS ARE TO REMAIN IN VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE, FOR EXAMPLE, TT IS IMPORTANT THAT FARMERS REMAIN PROFITABLE. MYTH #5: ALL LANDOWNERS WITHIN A GREENBELT'S PROPOSED BOUNDARIES HAVE AGREED TO THE DESIGNATION, AND IN THE CASE OF FARMLAND, THE LANDOWNERS HAVE COMMITTED TO RETAINING THEIR . LANDS IN AGRICULTURAL USE. RESPONSE: A GREENBELT CAN BE ESTABLISHED WITH OR WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE AFFECTED LANDOWNERS, THERE IS NO GREENBELT "PREREQUISITE" THAT REQUIRES AFFECTED LANDOWNERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COUNTY'S LCA PROGRAM. ,-9-1.96/3 000330