HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0217 CC REG ITEM 10FBay c- 1
ITEM 10 •_
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
Of
ACTION:
CITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT �---~
BY:
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development
Prepared by: John Libiez, Principal Planne %
DATE: February 3, 1999 (For meeting of 2/17/99)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ISSUES RELATING TO COUNTY GREENBELT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AND COUNTY STUDY OF
AGRICULTURAL COMPATIBLE USES
BACKGROUND
In a letter dated August 17, 1998, directed to each city in the
County, comments and consideration were requested related to the
several adopted greenbelts, and issues related to greenbelt
formation and management. Staff provided City Council with an
agenda report which discussed the greenbelt issue (September 16,
1998 Staff Report). The thrust of the County request is
contained within the four questions reflected in the September
report and repeated later in this report. Council received
testimony from Rick Brecunier of Tierra Rejada Farms who
expressed concerns with further restrictions being placed on his
property. Council continued this item with direction to develop
a list of proposed allowable uses.
DISCUSSION
Staff provided Mr. Brecunier information regarding the greenbelt
issues and uses identified of potential concern, but did not
receive any additional input from him. Uses identified in the
September 16, 1998, staff report of potential concerns 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
000045
City Council Agenda Report
Greenbelt /Agricultural Uses
February 17, 1999
Page 2
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. Agricultural related facilities including greenhouses,
packing, storing, and processing buildings, wineries and other
structures and uses are also allowed in these zones. 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 of 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. Council may wish to consider if the uses
identified above should be referred to the County as potential
uses regarding which the City would have concerns, and if there
are any other uses listed in the permitted uses for OS (Open
Space)and AE (Agricultural Exclusive), as listed in Attachment 1
to the September 16, 1998 report, regarding which the City would
have concerns.
Since August 1998 County staff has continued to refine and
develop work programs related to greenbelts and implementation
of the recommendations of the Agricultural Policy Working Group.
The Board of Supervisors has considered several reports on these
work programs. Attached is the report considered by the Board
of Supervisors at its meeting of January 26, 1999.
County staff's findings related to greenbelt issues are
contained within the January County staff report (Attachment B) .
Items of particular interest to City include: 1) County staff
observations on the greenbelt implementation program found on
page 4 of the County staff report; 2) the County staff
recommendation regarding the greenbelt implementation program on
page 4 of attachment 1 to the county report; and, 3) a
discussion of the pros and cons of greenbelts contained on page
6 of attachment 2 to the County staff report.
Staff contacted County staff to determine the Board's action on
the agenda items contained in the January county staff report.
M:\ JLibiez \M \greenbeltstfrpt21799.doc
000UZ0
City Council Agenda Report
Greenbelt /Agricultural Uses
February 17, 1999
Page 3
The following items were approved as recommended by County
staff:
l.a) The greenbelt implementation program. This program
would seek to strengthen existing greenbelts and initiate
new ones where appropriate.
l.b) A -E /O -S Zones Compatibility Study. This continuing
study will look at permitted use categories for each zoning
district to define compatible uses.
2) Cease work on the Unincorporated Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) Study.
3 ) Create a sub - committee to study and report back to the
Board on the feasibility of creating an Agriculture
Conservation and Open space District Program. Supervisors
Flynn and Schillo were appointed as the Board level sub-
committee for the Agriculture Conservation and Open Space
District program. Meetings for this item are expected to
begin soon.
5) Staff to explore options to implement the Agriculture
and Land Use Public Education Program. This program was
one of the Agricultural Policy Working Group's core
recommendations upon completion of its studies last year.
6) Re- establishment of a Regional Programs Committee (RPC)
so a forum exists for information exchange and policy
formulation similar to the 1970s Regional Land Use Program
(RLUP) and the 1980s County -wide Planning Program (CPP).
The Board endorsed the need for the sphere of influence study
but felt it was inappropriate to fund it directly. This matter
was referred to LAFCO for consideration and coordination.
Addressing the four questions posed by County staff in August is
also still relevant if the City desires to provide input
regarding greenbelts. These are:
\ \MOR_PRI_SERV\ home_ folders\ JLibiez \M \greenbeltstfrpt21799.doc
000051
City Council Agenda Report
Greenbelt /Agricultural Uses
February 17, 1999
Page 4
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 0 -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?
Council may also want to provide direction on the potential
formation of other greenbelts to the north and west of the City
and to what extent staff should work on these issues, since
there is not an identified funding source and these areas are
now outside the urban growth boundaries established by the SOAR
measure. Ventura County LAFCO has generally viewed annexation as
a prelude to urbanization and therefore may question annexations
which are not intended for urbanization.
\ \MOR_PRI_SERV\ home_ folders\ JLibiez \M \greenbeltstfrpt21799.doc
000052
City Council Agenda Report
Greenbelt /Agricultural Uses
February 17, 1999
Page 5
STAFF RECOI-ZMNDATION
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS: A. September 16, 1998 Staff Report
B. Ventura County Staff Report January 26, 1999
\ \MOR_PRI_SERV\ home_ folders\ JLibiez \M \greenbeltstfrpt21799.doc
000053
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
�/� _
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Develop mec��
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 Rejada 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 (0 -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?
UUQU54
C.`,0FFICE\W?WMw?D0CS\CCRpj ATTACHMENT: A
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, o
pli. c�v levg
document?
b) Update or expand the provisions of the current greenbelt agreement
and adopt the greenbelt bti ord_ 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
to define the intended purposes and proposed zoning of such a greenbelt, since this unincorpor staff
area would contain significant hillside areas, mineral resource extraction activities, an ated
d 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
lands and designate where Cities have agreed not o annex and the County agreed to permit onl 1 uses 1
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
- 000055
C:I OFF ICeWFWIMWPDOCS',CCRPTSITJGRNBLT RPT
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.
000056
C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\VorPDOCS\CCELPTS\TIGRNBLT.RPT
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
000057
C:\ OFFI CE \WPWLN\WPDOCS \CQRPTS \TJGRNBLT RPT
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
county of vEntura
August 27 1998
Mayor Patrick Hunter and City Ccuncll Members
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Road
Moorpark, CA 93021
RE. Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt
Mayor Hunter /City Council Members.
At Supervisors Mikels' and Schlllo 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- lunsdictional agreement.
On August 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved and funded three work programs -s
including the, 1) Greenbelt Ordinance and Implementation Program, 2) a study of rnears
to reduce incompatibilities between allowed uses within the A -E and O -S zones ana
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 requinng 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 rescorc n
writing to the following questions.
Government Cer.ter, Hall V aom n strat on Building. L 91 000058
® 800 South Victoria Avenue. Vertura. CA 93009 305) 654 -2661 Fa ATTACHMENT: 1
From the City of Moorpark s perspective
1 What problems do you associate with the cur -ent Tierra Re;ada Valle
Agreement? y
2 What do you consider to be the positive features of the current
Greenbelt Agreement? ent T e. �a Re;aca Va, ;ey
3 If the`County revised the uses permitted within its A -E and 0 -S zones 'N
a) Should be allowed within the Tierra Re;ada Valley Greenbelt? nat uses
b) May be appropriate within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt under
conditions (i.e., require a discretionary permit)? certa,n
C) Should not be allowed within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt under n
circumstances? any
4 If a revised "agreement format" is developed for the Tierra Rejada Valle r
how do you propose the new document should be structured: y G eenbelt.
a) Update or expand the provisions of the current greenbelt agreement but r
the agreement as a multi - jurisdictional. olic -level document? eta in
b) Update or expand the provisions of the current greenbelt agreement an
adopt the greenbelt by ordinance instead of b d
c) Other methods? Y policy resolutlon�
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 654 -2661 or Gen
Kjellberg at 654 -2455. e
Sincerely,
Thomas Berg, Director
Attachments
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
Arnold Dowdy, LAFCO of Simi Valley
Mary Jane Lanz, Interim City Manager, City of Thousand Oaks
Gene Kjellberg, Planning Division
000053
?.?CSc5
_ _- aZ__3. :2Q
ec-2 -'-32r :3LjV @. ^.�SJaQeewaD�e 3. ^.�e.On�o'2 S'�.�-3e --° '._5 = ='.3 _S _ ='
ant e.nnanee env__enmenta: -..;a' _.y and :J -oewdG ' ^a_.ra_ _ @5�. =.25.
�r..ber of . °':Cur@ land :5Z J7L1Jn5 '.rhL:@ 3___'f�,
:Den .ands Ln :ne Cou y n - -_ nave teen 3r. 2-a25rJ_R� 3 C:.J
„an 3c.1vL- Lea. 2 3r-.y = y_r_ e3-_ 3 :0_x�
_E'_i2:
Sec. 3: :4 -1.2 - AcricQltUra. Exclusive (A --) + _ -
_o preserve and protect eommercLai a rL a `e 'ur=c5e =;
4 _._='oral .ands as a _2y
irreplaceable resource, to preserve and maintain agr :_ :1 :ire as 3 -a; L a._
_n Ventura County and to protect these areas from the entreatnmer.- cf n-n-__a
.uses which, by their nature, .�ouid have detrL:nenta-' effects - e -a :e,
_ndustry. 2._ects .:pen _ne
Sec. 3.04 -2 - RURAL RESIO-NT +AL ZONES
Sec. 8104 -2.1 - Rural Acriculturai (R -A) Zone -
provide for and maintain a rural setting her T' a p''rpcse of _ -_s z_ne
are permitted :lE ?v r. ^uncut q residenntLal land us&s are ^ro ected 1_ura: _92g
Sec. 3104 -2.2 iR__ Zonj - :he purpose of :h.3 zone _
provide for and mai.ntai�, u.r.l residential areas Ln -
horticultural activities, and ccr provide for a mLted rangev ;f ^se-•jn =e
li
_nstLtutional uses which aie compatible with and cemplementar%
resLdcntLal communities.
Sec. 8104 -2.3 - Sincle- Family Estate fR -Ot Zone - The purpose o.' this z-re L3
provide areas exclusively for single - family residential estates .,nare a
atmosphere is maintained by the allowing of a range of hortLCUlt:ra
as well as animals for recreational purposes. l ac_LlL:L23
Sec. 3104 -3 - RBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Sec. 8104 -3.1 - Single- Family Residential (R -11 Zor.e - 'he purccse _
Ls to provide for and maintain areas which are appropriate for single_faml,
dwellings on individual lots.
Sec. 8104 -3.2 - Two - Family Residential (R -2t Zone - The purpose of this zone Ls
to provide for and maintain residential areas allowing two single- !amLly dwei:ing
units or a two - family dwellinq unit on lots which meet =';e MLninum area
requirements of this zone.
Sec. 8104 -3.3 - Residential Planned Development (A P D1 Zone - :'he purpose of
this zone is to provide areas for communities which will be developed ut- "z1.:g
modern land planning and unified design techniques; this zone provides a f:exLb-e
regulatory procedure in order to encourage:
a. Coordinated neighborhood desic•n and compatibility witn exLstLnq =-
potential development of surrounding areas;
b. An efficient use of land particularly througn the cluste:Lnq Jf
dwelling units and the preservation of the natural features
sites;
28 v�VU�U
Sec : - 3 - .. 2 - 7 .nicer' and D,
—ese.-ve t--p
a 7o maintain t�j, oc, L�_ ?`'roses
sc '. _;..n
as to ensure a-m 0 "' n tne
:'-�zrent in= e
:�Azves:Ln; a,a--
e r,
7: disco-rage premat ^e
-roan
and :o:ses; nvers.:
n
7: -":sccurage the expansion c!-- .z an services
encourage Ivest.nent Lntz and; an_,
Sec. 81�4-7
expectation of harvest. ;..,I t;.�'ber'.ands based zeascnax-e
zones cr, (27--PLAY ZONES - :he purposo Of Overlay zones
existing base zones, thus establishing additio�,',,'-O super.L-nzcs. Part
reducing or extend ing permitted uses. regu_a -a r
Sec. 3104-7.1 - SCenL C Resour'=e Z-ote'.; SR t �-:"n 3 an-I e-z:-ev
this cverlay zone 1. L-�� _,eZLa zone - -*e
resources a to preserve, P —
rotect
through the regulation Of arid ennance the Co-u' Pur')cse zf
resources. '4303 that may tie nty's scer.iz
Sec. 8104-7.2 - Mineral Resources Protection Y affect t n e s e
of *_his zone are: Ovoria Zone - =he purposes
a. TO safeguard future access to an L-TIpOrtant resource.
b. To facilitate a
County. long term Supply Of mineral resources W.'thin :he
C. TO minimize land use conflicts.
To provide notice to landowners and che
presence of the resource, general public of :ne
e. The purpose Is not to obligate the
Coun
the development of the resources subject to th to approve use perml:s for
;ADD-ORD.3723-3/12/85; A6M. ORD. 3900-6/20/89) e M" Overlay Zone.
Sec. 8104-7.3 - Scgni-11 Hi H.
C (zhw&v Prot
this zone are: Protection
Overla Zone
The purposes of
a. To preserve and protect
b. highways. thd! visual quality along the Count scenic
To m'n"m'z* uses Of land which conflict with the V,
C.
highways.
value of scenic
h
TO provide notice to
location and value of landowners and the general, Public of the
significance
(AZO. the county and state. Scenic highways which are of s in
ORD-3797-12/09/86)
8-1.
;MI-Ln'U 30
(A)COGI
- -: C_.- 7
:S_5 3:
- 3 : :� -� - ?' :��CSa - Sec :_.. _5-
a=
are a_-= ed _a =ach -_ne _ '
- 2 - - 'a -X ` =rte =�e -
e7en_ rec - -rad _o es_ _
ac -sn a_ar.: _ar r and - nl. -ata - -e _ _e
:se nat zcne.
-._rb:.. a� a:ao : :
req- -ire atdit:ona l- cer.s +: _anc uses ce^i_ --
S:ate ^ -. t. Cal__, -••_a c_ Hired States govern -;erne ay ^enc :es- A-4 _ver
Sec. 3105 -1.1 - KEY TO KA7R:C S - 'except as cther-41 Drov:d
tspecific to the R -P -D zone the oLLow :n e 9 ed 'ect ' -
1 q Ymeo:s indicate t�.e :..s
0.4 permit required for uses allowed in each zone: ..
= Not Allowed
E Allowed, but exempt from obtaining a Zoning Clearance.
= Zoning Clearance, or other ministerially approved permit
Q unless specifically exempted.
. I) = Zoning Clearance or other ministerially approved per-,nit
With signed waivers.
C = Planning Director - approved Planned Development Permit
® = Planning Commission- approved Planned Development Permit
�I Board of Supervisors- approved Planned Development permit
1..; Planning Director- approved Conditional Use Permit
® = Planning Coauniso Lon- approved Conditional Use permit
U= Board of, Supervisors- approved Conditional Use Permit
(ADD ORD. 3749 - 1O/29/8S; AM. ORD. 4092 - 6/27/95)
Sec. 8105 -1.2 - Italicize notes appearinq 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 use is allowed unless expressly identified in Section 8105 -4
and 8105 -5 (Matrices) or determined to be equivalent in accordance with Sec_:on
8105 -2 or Section 8101 -4.10. Nrthermors, 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.
gN i.vrm 33 0000c2i
,aC::z -a? --'' - any :se re= :eared as an a-= essory :se
ac__r�ance�e. -� -ns 3,:,5 -4 and 3::5 -5 as a - - to _3
OR-3. ^373J - 5 tae -nd.cated requ_.er..ents _ :�_.,__-_ _3e 3,7 - =e _ -
2 i /35, A.M. ORO. 27,9 - :..23/35, et; .�_ 'a' -3e.
Se_. _JS -l.5 - --a abbrevia- ^ns
as s :
sed
`cllc;
. _n Sec -- -n9 -
- - - a_e _e
3yr1C. agriculture
gross fl =cr area
'S C - Californ_a Healta
and Sa.ety CCde
preliminary
^sq &I C. _ square feet
California Welfare and Ccde cns AL :nstitut- v�
5i5 /87; AM. ORD. 4092 - 6/27/95)
Sec. 3105 -1.7 - The following List of specif
informational puically proh :b :-ed uses
for rposes, and is not inten ccmpreher.sive;
a• Nuclear powerplants; dad to be
b. Public polo events;
c• Racetracks for horses or Motorized vehic
d. Stadiums; les;
e• ='he parking of motor vehicles on vacant :and containLn
use;
f. Retail sales from wheeled vehicles, except as .g no pr_nc :dal
Sections 8105 -4 and 8105 -5. Permitted ^.t _
(ADD ORD. 3810 pursue. ._
5/5/87; AM. ORD. 4092 - 6/27/95)
Sec. 8105 -2 - 7 2uivalent Uses Not Listwri
to this Article, the Planning Director shall hreviewPthe pro land use ,s net ider.t.f :ed
do so by letter and, based upon the characteristics of the use, use when re
ases listed in this Article, if any, is a determine .,hglcns�ed_^e
6/27/95) equivalent to that proposed. ( o� 3f: e
Sec• 8105 -2.1
Upon a written deteraination by the Planning Director t,ac
proposed unlisted use is equivalent in its nature and intensity '
Proposed use shall be treated in the nature
manner as the a
determining where it is allowed, what y to a Listed use,
affect its establishment. Permits are re -_sted :se .n
quired and what standards
Sec. 8105 -2.2 - Determinations that specific unlisted use.
fisted uses shall be recorded by the Planning Department are e
for incorporation into the Zoning Ordinance in the next scheduled a CQnsiirered
amendment. a^ = shall be considered
(A00.oRD .3749 - 10/29/85; AM- ORD.3810- 5/5/87)
Sec. 8105 -3 - ALLOFIED USES �xirl{pT FROta �r a,uuTy.. -
require a Planning 01VLf1on Issued entitlement if the uses meet and are ctaintained .n
accordance with the re Exempted uses do not
this Chapter. �ireioents °f SeCtion 8111- 1.1.lb and all other
3/5/87; AM. ORD.( 092 - 6/27/95) 5/7/851 AM. ORD. 3749 - 10/29 85• provisions of
/ � A.M. ORD. 3810 -
e -1
34
()UQU63
SEC. 8105 -4 - PeR1tI^:ED USES :Y OPEN SPACE AGRIC'JL:�-RU
RZESIDENT :AL AND SPEC:AL PURPOSE tON' S
aGRICLL-,LRE A.,,Ti �GR1CULTLR-kL OPERATIONS
I.`C'IAL HUS3A.vGRY
�7omesuc .Arumars Pcr art -
more erummls Ulan are pernurtsd ay ArT. 7 ;3)
Reduced Animal S<tbacts Per Table 2 (Sec. 8107. 2.5.1) t16)
as
Apiculture (. 15)
AqusculturVAquicuiture (15)
Insecunes for Pea Control (1, 6. 15)
`/ermteulture (16)
up to 5.000 sq. R. of opsa bads
over 5.000 sq. R. of open beds
Wild anima (16)
InherendY Dangerous ArutLals (16)
AGR1Cf:LT1RAL CONTRACTOR'S SERVICE AND STORAGE
YARDS AND 8UMD(NG3 (15)
CROP AND ORCHARD PRODUCTION (6, 12)
Psching, S[OMge Or PrslitairA y Procassing Involving No Unav m
Timber Growing And Harvesting, And Compatible Usm
protected tress -
Other uses
There are specific refuiuiOUS for this use, 3" ArL 7.
8 -1
1m,z-L A
OS kE RA RE R O R1 EZ RP p
i
E
I E
I E
E E
❑j❑
FT
Arncuca,re
IBM
❑;❑
mom
MUNN
(�4
�-J
❑
❑
❑ I
See
Princrpsl
Swctuns Relatsd to
I
I
()00064
IBM
mom
MUNN
nun
()00064
P—cipal Strucwres Reared To �Jncuuajm Grte :houses. ;,43t Hcuses.
Sercca,res For Prelun. Psciung, Storage And Preserveuoa Gf Produce 6c
S ruier Structures. Cjmuuuve GFA Per Lx). ex:ent Agn:u:t.:ru
Sh.s-Miu Scrucalres See Sec 3iO6-6 a 4 3107-:� X ; j)
oIer :G, =� sq. ft co to0.,)00 sq. R.
)ver 100.000 sq. ft. 15)
`Xnenes iinrlud,ng processing, bottling and storage) i5)
(.'p to 22.000 sq. ft. structure
Over ?.000 to ZO.OW sq. ft. structure
Over 20.000 sq. ft. structure
`Nth public tours or L&" =me
ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTLILU (15)
Form worker DweJing Vruu (15)
nor trreung standards esublished by See. 3107.26.1 (15)
Accessory StsvetuMs Related to Agmuhure and Awnwl Husbandry/Kiorptat
'e 8. &Ms. Storage Uddings, Sheds; Curnulauve GFA Per Lot)
up to 2,000 sq. ft. (15)
over 2.000 sq. ft. to 5.000 sq. ft. (1S)
over 5,0M sq. ft. to 20.000 sq. IL
over 20.000 sq. ft. to 100,000 sq. ft.
over 100.000 sq. ft.
exceeding height omits
0f5ees ('7)
up to 200 Aq.. ft. GFA Ftn .
over 200 sq. ft. GFA
There are Specific M9U1At10a3 for ttU3 ruse; see Art. 7.
8 -1
i I M 12-LnQ 26
OS kE R.k RE R 0 R 1 R+ RP D
vo
Emu
BOERNE
MNEMEM
I
i
HNIMMEM
mammon
vo
Emu
UMM
11MM
i
I Q
0000GS
BOERNE
MNEMEM
HNIMMEM
mammon
HMMMMM
UMM
11MM
i
I Q
0000GS
OS iE RA RE R O R1 R= RP D r
x
'131"cuirurnl Sales Fsc;iuy 15)
Small p to 51-'10 sq. 1.
not .reeting sunairaa esum stied tty Secuon S lC'-6 ..3
arse rs:,• ues :Ter 7:+i to :.Xo sq. 3
Aryc irctiiUes: over '.)00 to 5.000 W. R.
firth tours and,•or protnottoaal/ educauonaLentaruirtment acttvtues
I
Agncultuml ShadelLtist Struetum, 16)
uP to 1,900 sq. R.
over 1.900 sq. R. to 20,000 sq. R.
i
over 20.000 sq. ft. or 15 S of lot ama (vbtcbever is greaur)
over 15 S of ►« sna
Open Stomp Per A.A. 7 (6. 15)
Fuel Stun je (6)
Underjtvund Fuel Stomp Ptfmi=d By Other Coualy Ageoctes
A,%TMAL KEEPING. NON- fiL7nA -VDRY (6. 2. 15)
DOMESTIC ANIMALS PER ART, 7
KOre art MLIS {:lift tam ptmuaad by An 7 (15)
HORSES AND OrrM EQUINES PER ART. 7 (15)
MOM amumis than are PertrllUW by Arc 7 (15)
KF.NNELS/CAT ER.MS (1, 15)
EQU•F_STRIAN CENTFA (16)
WILD ANIMALS (15)
D HMENT'L.Y DANGEROUS ANWALS (16)
REDUCED ANUAA -L SETBACKS PMt TAILr 2 (SLrC. d107.2.J.1) (16
There ue specific regulAtOW for this tue; Sea Art. 7.
8 -1
:IHIZLn'41
Ica
a�2
Simamms
SWEN
EREBUS
noun
MEMO
ammang
anno
mummmumm
Simamms
EREBUS
ammang
mmmmmm
BERMUM
mammam
mummmm
mmmmmm
37 _
0
E
i E
0
E
D
ma
000066
i ��..c.»vKT STRL'CT =IFS
31JARDI`G HOLSES k',l) 8ED- A-\l)- 8REAKFAST I-
C aRE FACILITIES ,SEE iLSO H. f S. C. 4.�,D w.
I
D A Y C .ARE C E\7-ER
FaMp.Y DAY CARE HOME. SMALL
Z Y CARE HOME. LARGE*
(IS)
TE: CARE OF 7 OR MORE PERSONS (2)
L: Cars Of 5 Or Fever Persons
More Persons EE sEC. �1o7-tn (IS)
CREMATORIES. COLUMBARIA AND MAUSOLEUMS
CHURCHES, SYNAGOGLB'S AND OTEn 8LT1,D[hGS I SED FOR
RELIGIOt S WO(Sxlp
CL(BHOUM (NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES) (Z)
CON'VvMNICATIONS FACILITIES (SES SEC. $107.28) (1 S)
DWELLINGS
DWELLNGS, SLNGL &FAMAY a (p)
Mobs chocu, con inuini noneonfo" (15)
Lower =oawwr for unau brat Awnww 1p Am 16 (13)
DWELLINGS, rW0- FAMMY, OR TWO SW43L&pAMMY D
WELLWGS
Lower iacocsusanior units bale& pupzmdp r at AFL 16 (13)
SA
:� lt! C
ific ro 8u lstiocs for this use: we Art. 7.
8-1
H :'-n4j 38
OS kE RA
See A::es:
RE RO RI R: RP D
cry Str�.yts Retarec :o {dT.�..ut iV`
i
i
i
000067
ulm-
I
®r
, an
own
�■■
■■ems
000067
J"I tLLL`1GS. k.(L :LTt•F.,k.M:LY
OS aE R, A. RE R O R 1 R_
' R,P D �
4;
�r_up � art en
L,�yer ,nccme: seruor un:u �wu DurSCa3nt w �'• ; 5 :J1 i
I �
.4-11ca :xaorruruum :..r,,,rsons �f�R4a,( r0 1rt. ;9 i :)
1)'.4 -ELLL`4GS. ACCESSORY STRLXi^�RFS TO
For human havru(ton: 3)
temporary lweilrng �unng :cnstrueaon
,wt
second dwelling urut
vo( for human habitation or Agricultural and Annul Husbandry Keeping
Purposes: 'e g. garage, storage building, recreation room) r3. 15)
GFA including existing accessory structure 6)
up to 1.000 sq. R. per amcwrs (3, 6)
over 1.00 sq. R. per suucturs: or over 1.000 sq. R. per lot (3. 6. ; S)
Freestanding light fix:ume per Ste. 810&4.6
Recreational Facilities
NOnrnotortzed wheeled conveyances
within standards
Lbteh exceed surtdsrds
Antennas. g'r'ound•mountad (noncommercial)
below 40 R. in height (16)
Above 40 R. in height (6)
DWELLINGS. ACCESSORY USES To
Keeping of Attiatalsc wa husbandry
Equirns mod Donscstic Animals Per Art. 7
more aauruls Utah an pennuted by Air. 7 (3. 15)
a<
There tae specific reg"(10tu for this tie; see Art. 7.
vMo0p00ME
Nunn"
M
H
OWN-
MEN
MME
MlrMM
t0o
ffoo
O�0
O
i^
vMo0p00ME
Nunn"
M
H
OWN-
MEN
MME
MlrMM
vMo0p00ME
Nunn"
M
H
MEN
MME
Nunn"
M
H
MEN
MME
E E
i
8 -1 _ 6� /��i p
:,MI'-L V43 39 (100068
• .. ..u,,,r,a . a„r,n S4ndards )( art.
Sore sr,Srr .&,s :,ian art ?crn. r-,ed ?v 1rr. 3. ,, )
"'id I[LT115 ;I ::tj :ec 3, '• „j 1, :5,
TOfL i ld arL:rall _.an art ?emvaed .51
•• . ac�us ar,�rtalf
YOUrh Pmjccu 15 r
C-Dmnumial uses. nuner. for project resrdenu Isee See. 3109-! _.Si :4)
Osrogvyard Sales
X
Home oecupsuons 3)
5WraQe, open Per Art. 7
EnrCATtov A.-,-D TRALNI'1:rG
Coueres and uruvenuies
Schools, elevserrary and swonda
ry (boarding arsd nonbardiaw
ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES (3)
FENCES AND WALLS 6' HIGH OR LESS PER ART. 6
FESTiv
ALS AIND y;rvM.AR EVENTS. TENtP'URARY OUTDOOR
FOOD SERVICE VEHICLES
FILWNG ACTMTTES
PE MANF.Nr
TEMPORARY
i
OCCASIONAL FOR CURRENT NEWS PftOGAM4y
NONCOMMERCIAL PERSONAL USE
OCCASIONAL,
OCCASIONAL WMH WAZrMtj PER SZ C 8107.11.2
FIREWOOD OPERAnONS (3. 12)
There &M sPeiclfic
guluioaS for chi: usa; see Art. 7.
H -1
Nil•i�a.
40
OS
I
aE
R.A
RE
R 0
RI
R.= RP D —
E
E i
Noun
Q I
Q !
Q
0
E
E
'40t Per,Jc'•ed
Not Perntiamd
mmm
No
A
.
I .
A
�
Noun
i
E
E
E
I E
E
E
E
I E
E
Q I
0
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E I
E
E
I
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Cl
❑
❑
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Not Perntiamd
mmm
No
a
mmm-�--
11111111
Noun
1010
mmmlmmm�-
-Bmmm'mmm���
GRADING U PW4 GRADING PER IT .HAY ST7LL APPLY) r7i
wTT'HIN AN OVERLAY ZONE
HOSPITALS
LIBRARIES
NWNTENA.NCE. ROLTIN- ENGNOR REPAIRS TO BL'ILDI`GS, N'O
STR(;CTLitAL ALTERATIONS
MINERAL, RESOURCE DEVELOPM. LN-r (1)
MIMING AND ACCESSORY USES (1)
Leap Than 9 Months Ln Dursuon (1)
Public Works Maintenance (1)
OIL AND GAS 0CPLORATION AND PRODUCTION
DRLLZ40, TEMPORARY GEOLOGIC 7ESTIING ONLY)
*
MOBILEHOME PARKS
MODEL HOMEStOT SALES: 3 YEAJLS*
Moen than 2 rests
PATIOS. PAVING, DECKS LESS TSAN 300 AAOV'E FINISHED GRADE
PER ART. 6
PLAY STRLJCTL'tm OUTDOOR FZl1 mrjRE. $illmAx s'TRUCTLILES
EXERT FROM SETBACK REQCRRF AEM OP ART. i
PIPELINES/TRA,N&WMON LD(ES ABOVEGROUND*
There art gwlfic regulations for this use. see Art. 7.
8 -1
41
E E EIEIEjEIE
OS
kE
RA
RE
R O
R1 R=
G0VERNN'(EN7 8LZLDI G5 .;
TE
mmmmm���
E E I
E E E
E
E c
_�RREC'Ov+L�Si TONS
nm
ST 7c ,ti s
r-, I
r—
sun
L.V-4 ENFGRZLME`T Fay LT�S
munsm�
=
PL"BLIC WORKS PROJECTS NOT 01H0twUE :LSTED ,kS USES LN
T'riLS SECTION
E
E
E
CONSTRUCTED BY THE COUNTY OR RS
I
I
E I
E
E
E
E
C O `'TR.ACTO RS
GRADING U PW4 GRADING PER IT .HAY ST7LL APPLY) r7i
wTT'HIN AN OVERLAY ZONE
HOSPITALS
LIBRARIES
NWNTENA.NCE. ROLTIN- ENGNOR REPAIRS TO BL'ILDI`GS, N'O
STR(;CTLitAL ALTERATIONS
MINERAL, RESOURCE DEVELOPM. LN-r (1)
MIMING AND ACCESSORY USES (1)
Leap Than 9 Months Ln Dursuon (1)
Public Works Maintenance (1)
OIL AND GAS 0CPLORATION AND PRODUCTION
DRLLZ40, TEMPORARY GEOLOGIC 7ESTIING ONLY)
*
MOBILEHOME PARKS
MODEL HOMEStOT SALES: 3 YEAJLS*
Moen than 2 rests
PATIOS. PAVING, DECKS LESS TSAN 300 AAOV'E FINISHED GRADE
PER ART. 6
PLAY STRLJCTL'tm OUTDOOR FZl1 mrjRE. $illmAx s'TRUCTLILES
EXERT FROM SETBACK REQCRRF AEM OP ART. i
PIPELINES/TRA,N&WMON LD(ES ABOVEGROUND*
There art gwlfic regulations for this use. see Art. 7.
8 -1
41
E E EIEIEjEIE
E _
Punuant:o Mule 9
mmmmm-�—
TE
mmmmm���
E E I
E E E
E
E c
LALIUMM�m
mmmmm-�—
mmmmm���
mmummi
mamomm
mmummi
nm
�
sun
munsm�
=
mmmmmmm�
0000'70
U kE R-k RE R0 R1 R: RPD
PLBLIC LTILITY FACILITIES. EXCLUDING OFFICES �O �
tLRD� � I ®i ®Ia
;MkLL PCBL:C - 7a.:7Y STR(_CT'_jtES
E; E E E I E E
RECREA110"kL. :?C)RT -k \il , rut
rrr i
3
. m1'-Lamed
42
OOG -071
C. 104PCRGL'`'DS 8)
C O'vitit L'` TTY C'e •`�TERS
I
I
For Farm Worker, And Vonprorlt Farm Community
Orgaruuuoru
I
❑
'
®
®
i
Fi'ELDS. ATHLETIC (1)
I
❑
GEOTHERMAL SPAS i7)
®
1
GOLF COURSES A-401OR DRNiNG RANGES, E{CEPT.ti1L*l1An,�
GOLF
®
®
®
® ®
®
a
PARKS (6)
❑
O
G
O
O
W1tb RUJI&n�s
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®j
PERIODIC OUTDOOR Spoil EVENTS Cn
RECREATIONAL. VEHICLE PARKS *
®
j
®
®
i
RECREATION PR0IECTS. COUNTY-INITIATED (S)
Ca[ uktr Rccrv4u0nll Vehicle, Accessory (3)
RETREATS. WTTHOUT SLEEPING FACafI'1ES�(8)
❑
Cl
Cl
I
With SI eePirts Facilities (E)
SHOOTING IL NGES AND OUTDOOR GUN CLUBS (4)
SIGYS PER ARTICLE 10 UNLEM BXZMpr FRO,K ZONING CLLAA NC,
PER SEC. 8110 -3 m
SOIL AMjYD!►gYT O "RATIONS (16)
4
Q
Q
Q
Cl
❑
❑
STORAGE OF BLTLDLYG MATERIALS, 7 E4PORARY* O)
4
A
D
O
o
O
O
7here are specific regulations for this use; see Art. 7.
3
. m1'-Lamed
42
OOG -071
TREES ks -D ',.aT7�E VEGETATION: RLMOV.A1., RELOC.aTTON OR
rR�TE� ED DES ANO VEGe:.4,710N Lv 0%ERLAY 'ZONE
RER TREE L ., D '• EGET 1TION
LSES .A,-D STRLCTLIU -S. kCCESSORY iOTHER THA.S' TO AGRLC..
- Q,rAAL.S OR DWELLINGS)
FREESTANDING LIGHT FDZTL -RES PER SEC. d106 -4.6
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC TTSTLNG FOR WATER WELLS.
FOUNDATIONS. SEPTIC SYSTEM AND SNILAR CONSTRUCTION
SW'U,LMING. WADING. ORNAMENTAL POOLS LESS THAN l8'
DEEP.
OPEN STORAGE PER ART. 7
PARXING,STORAGE OF LARGE VEHICLES (PER REQUIRZVf.VTS OF
SEC. 81064-2.0) (16)
TO A USE REQUIRING A PO PERMIT OR CUP C)
Dwelling, :iceulcsr
VETERIYARY HOSPITALS FOR LARGE A.YLNIALS
WASTE TREAT%, N AND DISPOSAL
WASTEWATERJSEWAGE TREATN V FACILITIES
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
ON.SrrE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACMJTY
COWAUNTTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILMY
WATER PRODUCTION. STORAGE. TRANS aSSION. & DISTRLBL71ON
FACILITIES: (6)
A OR FEWER DOMESTIC SERVICE CONNECTIONS (PfUVATE.Y
OPERATED)
5 OR MORE DOMESTIC SERVICE CONNECTIONS (PRIVATELY
OPERATED)
FOR AGRICULTURAL, PURPOSES (PRNATELY OPERATED)
WELL DRILLING FOR USX ONLY ON LOT OF WELL LOCATION
There are spmific regulauoas for this use; see Art. 7,
OS kE RA RT: vn
Pursuaw to Alucla I i Sec. 3111.6.1
jumm
5innir
W==mmmm�
?:.M AN :J "::.:s -
lCd
E
ESE
E�E;Ei
i
�
3monmol
m
`J I
Q
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
E I
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
.
.
• I
•
I .
Pursuaw to Alucla I i Sec. 3111.6.1
jumm
5innir
W==mmmm�
ammumm:-
�
3monmol
m
ommummm=m
moommomm
8-1 43 000072
_37 a ZA a,VD CO'.SRAGE, SZ73ACKS,
Sec 53 ` ,. :: �:
:e'�e__ ^.e.^._ S_3n_ar13 ..ern. n are3L =dC -e _
__r.a1' _ .5.3'..25 '.2�Q 2XLeCL 5 - - '1e .L'25 5'E-- - ^_3C. 3..� =2_
--e -2- :errenLs are d _.._3
eve�opmen_ ^standards 3LC _ . Sec 8 "C—• --_.b
.30 -e _ 3 =e-__ _.nes.
Sec. -
7�i:Rz o _ T`e f� :_ J:..y Lao :escLnd -C �_ "1T 5"aN,AR7S -
_.;verage sLar.Cards_ wn ^ Zate the oL area, setoack, ne.._
Bch app1Y to _nd- Vid,_ai lots -ant and _
qua: L!; -ed tower _ :n Lne zones spec' f _ed
r :cm @/s @near !^OLis1. ^.q developments ^d R-�-7 2'n2s,'s2e
Sect Lon 8115- 3.2.:, far reduced miiL:num developm @nt scandarde
For qualLf :ed condcmLnLUm conversLon protects :n the R -2 and R -2-at -a! ..e a'a- _a__?•
3119 - 3.2.1. (AM.OFtD .3730 - 5/7/85; A.K.OR0.3759- 1/'4/86; AAi.CRD.3995 -3 es, see Se _.;-
4054 - 2/1/94) -
Sec. 8106 -1.1 - Development Standards for Uses and Str,jc -•gyres i^
Zones (ADD ORD. 3730 - 5/7/85; AM. ORD, 4054 - 2/1/94
AM. OR.D. 4092 - 6/27 ij)
Zone
`rGaimum
N1LSamua
Required '*UAimum Sotbac3�s(b)
L44 Au"ea(a)
Perte"*
%tsxunum
�-ca ture
Helot
of
9ui]d"
Frooc
Rear
Prtaapie
Fscapswas
seceLWry
Coverage
Into w
xrWMro
t'NU °
St.ruenue4r)
Conm
Suwrurv)
Lou,
Except
g&d*
RevrnO
Corner
O-S
10 acre•
Aa
20.
0
IS
25,
Detstrruned
Helot may
;5 .
A-E
40 acres
by the
be in.
ez:ept as
R•A
one sere
General
Plan or
5
: t=ried
above 25'
noted n
Sccuoa
10'
Applicable
,to mau-
5106 -'
R•E
10.000 sq. R.
.Area pLn
mum 35'1
: C eat q
R-0
20.000 sq. ft.
side yard
R -1
6.000 aq. R.
is at
teas 15'
20, td)
R -2
7,000 sq -
or as
Toctfled
R. i1)
by pemt
R-P-D I As spectfted
by FenTut (7) I I
-REGULATORY Sexuoa 1109-1 .2.1 I
35' Ai spectGcd by pertut
NOTES
(1) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 3,500 square feet,
(2) Minimum density; one dwelling unit per acre; maximum density; 30 dwelling units
per acre.
=DITORIAL VOTES:
(a) Zone suffix (Sec. 8103 -1) may require greater min.mua lot area. So* Sec.
8106 -2 for other exceptions.
(b) SO* Sections 8106 -5, 8106 -6, and 8107 -20 for exceptions. See Sec. 8106 -4.? °or
flag lot setbacks.
(c) SO• SOCtions 8106 -5, 8106 -7, and 8106 -8 for exceptions.
(d) See Sec. 8106 -5.11 for *swing driveway- exceptlon,
8 -1
Ht'-zsveo 56 00( ;073
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
county of ventura
DATE. August 17, 1998
TO Agnculturg Policy Working Group (APWG)
FROM: Gene Kjellber Planning Division
Planning D,vjsjon
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.
Worm will begin immediately on the Greenbelt and A -E/0 -S Compatible Use Programs.
However, 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 (SOl) study for the incorporated cities. The Board
agreed that the County's UGB study and LAFCO's Sol 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
(APOSO). 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 conceming the attached material, please contact me at 654-
2455.
Attachments
000074
® 800 South Victoria Avenue, L #1740, Ventura. CA 93009 (805) 654 -2481 ATTACHMENT: 2
Of-red on Recvc/ed Pe01r
,ugust a 1,998 Agenda)
Board of SupervIsorS
Page 2
FISCAUMANDATES IMPACTS:
',landatQry No
Source of Funeing General Fund
Impact or- -other Departments: None
The direct costs of this action are approximately $49.200 �n the current fiscal year 355.000 in Fiscal Year 1999 -2000. , a, c
DISCUSSION:
On June 9, 1998. your Board approved the Agriculture Policy Working Group (APWG) Final
Report and directed staff to prepare work programs and budgets for four APWG
recommended programs:
• Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Implementation Program
• Greenbelt Ordinance and Implementation Program
• Study of Agriculture - Compatible Uses within the A -E and 0 -S zones, and
• Development of a Comprehensive Agriculture Public Education Program,
On June 16, 1998, your Board directed staff to cornple�e work ;)rograms, budget proocsais,
and funding options for the first three programs and to return to the Board for furth
direction. er
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 (Sol) study.
These two studies share several common features; e.
projections, holding capacities of existing • Population and employment
conversion rates, etc. 9 general plans and farmland and open space land
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 Sol 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
000075
Attacnr -ent
AGRICULTURE POLICY WORKING GROUP (APWG)
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
GREENBELT PROGRAM
Work Pro ram and Scope-of-Work
PROPOSED PROGRAM
Examire and discuss the advantages /disadvantages of establishing greenbeits cy seoara.e
ordinances or using a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) or similar nter-
agreements. Adopt greenbelt ordinances (or implement JPAs if legally a�C r sc�c,' cra
acceptable to participating cities and the County) for the, 1 ) six existing greenbeit agreer-.e 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 INTERJURISOICTIONA
AGREEMENT OPTIONS IN OTHER CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS
• Gather background information on the
Powers agreements (JPA) used in other California Jurisdiction. res of ordinances and cent
Note advantages; disadvantages and legality of regulating land use by ' seoarate
ordinances or interjurisdictional agreements.
Make decision to utilize ordinance or ,;PA 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
!—AS—K2 — PREPARE A GREENBELT ORDINANCE OR JPA FRAMEWORK/
GUIDELINES FOR THE COUNTY AND THE CITIES
• Form a Technical Review Committee (TRC) compnsed 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 shail be
offset by adding an equal amount of "like kind" land to the greenbelt -
OOCO'76
WORK PRODUCTS: Final greenbelt ordinances or JPAs for the six existing
five proposed greenbelts g and
0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV
Court Counsel); participating cities (planning staff and city Counsel (Assistant
County ) P P 9 (P g
HOURS WORKED: 600 hours 05 staff weeks) attorneys) �FCO
J TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin May 1999 -- Complete September 1999
C4000 77
3
• Ceve!comert standards and crterna
• Perm!t findings
• Worming with the TRC. County piann. ng staff will analyze 're advantag s
cisadvantages of the procedural options es
• Anaiysis `ndings should take into consideration
• Effect veness in. protecting the �ong term viability of commercial agriculture
• Consistency with other APWG recommended programs including We Urban ^
Boundary and Greenbelt Programs �r v
• Consistency with County General Plan oals.
Program administration costs and staffing needs
l'c�es and programs
0 WORK PRODUCTS: Procedural options for reducing or eliminating uses that are
incompatible with commercial agriculture
0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner III /IV)
HOURS WORKED: 600 hours (15 staff weeks)
TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin September 1998 -- Complete December
1998
TA= -- PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SELECT THE
PROCEDURAL OPTION
• Submit TRC and staff findings and recommendations to the County Planning COmr- nissien
and Board of Supervisors for review and action.
0 WORK PRODUCTS: Selected procedural option
0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner IIIIIV)
0 HOURS WORKED: 120 hours (3 staff weeks)
0 TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin December 1998
1999 -- Complete January
TASK 4 — PREPARE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
• Using the Task 3 procedural option, prepare draft zoning 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 PRODUCT' : Recommended zoning ordinance amendments
0 STAFF ASSIGNED: Planning Division (Planner IIIIIV)
0 HOURS HARKED: 640 hours (16 staff weeks)
0 TIMELINE FOR C0VPu Kw oF TA x: Begin January 1999 —Complete May 1999
0003078
h
Attac ^r^ert '3'
AGRICULTURE POLICY WORKING GROUP (APWG)
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
Conceptual Urban Growth Boundary GB
Implementation P � � �
rogram far the
Unincorporated County
Work Pro ram and Sco a -of -Work
PROPOSED PROGRAM
Adopt an interim policy that prohibits changes to the external boundaries of Unincorpora,ec
Urban Centers (UUCs) and Existing Commurrties (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 Commisslcn s
(LAFCO) Sphere of Influence (SCI) Study The studies should share information �n
countywide demographic trends, a regional housing reeds assessment (RHNA), land use
inventories, general plan holding capacities, populationlem to ment
APWG-recom mended Land Use Report Card cntena. The information- sh tlanJngwouId ensure
that the County UGB Study and the SOI Study are not developed
will be based on comparable data and areapplying the Re rt C Icriteratconsistent h ctrer
po y
At the conclusion of the UGB Study, the revised boundarias for unincorporated commur,c es
will be submitted to the voters in a countywide
boundaries, they will become the UGBs for the UUCelection. nd ECs. t Proposals to prove rew
UGBs shall be submitted only every ten years and the proposals will be accompanied �e
findings that utilize the Report Card criteria. The County's voters will have final authority over
any proposed changes to the UGBs of unincorporated communities.
SCOPE OF WORK
LA-SK-1 — ENACT INTERIM POLICY GUIDELINES THAT PROHIBIT CHANGES TO
THE BOUNDARIES OF UNINCORPORATED URBAN CENTERS (UUC) AND
EXISTING COMMUNITIES (EC)
• The Planning Division will draft interim Policy
existing external boundaries of UUCs and ECs as defnled n the tCounty 'General Plano the
• Interim Policy Guidelines:
• Will terminate two years after its adoption, or when the County's voters a
for UUCs and ECs, whichever comes first. ty pprove UGBs
A map delineating the interim UGBs for the affected UUCs and ECs shall be prepared
and accompany the policy
• No changes to the external boundaries of the affected UUCs and ECs will be permittea
during the term of the policy
• Submit the interim policy guidelines to the Board of Supervisors for review and action.
7
OOG0 1- 5
• If :re Board agrees at the UGB arrerdments ^ave —er!t Plan rg C
County Counsel staff will work with Co�rty eiect,crs of`c als and crecare a J
amendment ballot measure
• Submit the UGB amendment ballot r7eas,.re to the voters .n a C,ountymCe e ec: -gin
• If ,re amended UGSs are accroved tie veers :rey .vial estab!lsn ^ew
coL.rcanes 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 appropnate, based on public input.
• Submit the UGB study to the County Planning Commission and the Board of Sucery scrs
for review and action.
0 WORK PRODUCTS: L3E 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 with 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 external boundaries 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 TIMEUNE FOR COMPLETION OF TASK: Begin August 1999 — Complete October 1999-
9 000080
7 " CTO RESOLUTION N0. 84 -143
Y S • V. RESOLUTION ','G . 84 -34
MOORPARK RESOLUTION ,17o. 84-110
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILS OF THE
'�'� Try VALLEY
CpUNTYv��y CITIES OF
' (D OAJ:S ,
A GREENBELT WITHIN THE TIERRA ,rr VENTURA ESTABLISHING
'�. -JADA VALLEY
WHEREAS, a greenbelt can be
en of pri
defined as an area
consisting
agricultural or other o se
P space land, as defined in Section 35046 and 65560 of
the Government Code, o
c�hich is preserved in agricultural or other er open space uses;
AREAS,
the area lying generally in
City of Simi Valley, the Tierra Rejada Valley west Of , north of the City of Thousand Oaks, and south of the City the
Moorpark is difficult for any of the Cities or the Count
water, police, fire and other municipal services; Y C0 service with sewers
WHEREAS, all the community and
Valley for a regional plans designate the Tierra Rejada
city spheres of
gricultural and open space uses and the area is excluded from
influence; and all
WHEREAS, the City Councils of
Thousand Oaks the Cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley and
and the Board of Su
that the lands described below are worthy the County of Ventura hereby find
open space uses Y retention in agricultural and other
for the overall best interests of the cities, the County and the
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
Council, Thousand Oaks City he Moorpark City Council, Simi Valle
hereby Council and Ventura Count Y Cit�-
Y establish this Y Board of Supervisors
greenbelt for the Tierra ?
policy of non- anne:tat n _'=da Valley and agree to a
Rejada Vallie
o and retention of o
the Tierra pen space uses for the properties in
Y as shown on
resolution and `'he map attached as Exhibit A of this
generall1 described as follows:
000082. C 4 9 5/ 1 ATTACHMENT: 3
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 - .rroyc 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 sha11 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.
TI[E CLERKS ARE DIRECTED to send a certi =ied copy of this resolution to the
Local Agency Formation Commission.
C49 S / 2 000082
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
PASSED and ADOPTED 'on Marc[T 26, 1984
ATTEST:
Linda Papk�orth. eputy City Clerk
City of Simi Valley, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J Torrance, City ttorney
C y of Simi Valley, California
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
M. L. oester, City anager
City of Simi Valley, California
A. epartment Arnold, Directo r r of Community Development
City of Simi Valley, California
tl tria GAL'LEGLY , M OR OF THE
CITY OF SIMI VALL Y, ALIFORNIA
000083
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
PASSED and ADOPTED on June 5t, 1984
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark G. Sellers, Acting City Attorney
City of Thousand Oaks, California
APPROVED AS TO ADMINISTRATION:'
Grant . Brim al y Manager
City of Thousand 0 , California
LEE'LAXDAL, MAYt1R IS, THE
CITY OF THOUSAND CALIFORNIA
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 . Brim al y Manager
City of Thousand 0 , California
LEE'LAXDAL, MAYt1R IS, THE
CITY OF THOUSAND CALIFORNIA
CITY OF MOORPARK
July 2
PASSED and ADOPTED on .,Be:�xmmNx 1984
ATTEST:
Doris D. Bankus, City Clerk
City of Moorpark, 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 7.1 , 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
o,, K
Chair, Board of Supervisors
- 000084
TIERRA REJADA VALLEY GREENBELT �;':,�' /�. :• ' = ••1•
A0.
(REVISED EXH181T A APRIL 1986
O Mlle 112
JIV
r �� lu lr ; ;,J\ f�� �� ►,� i 1 City of Si(i Va Ile
_ _ e /Ili'• r�.� `Cr` /' 0,:
.7. IIQr;�i/. "';� � 1•• ...�_:,•� +: .,;� � ��� � (`a 1, _11 .: '\ � j• r :' .' •,�)�i ,a
,� ` � • p `/; �1(l\fl�l`I`� (1/ -) ). 1� r 01!/!,
CIA
'�' ( ' `Z a � `�:' � /'� �14• �'� ' •III. .� ', - i�+:.��- -:.�
Moo park ,i : I ,, �� �vol ��- �i'� •;,��•��,
1 f`• NI • ✓/ �%� ,,,mot
l • ill ' 1.. r t' . rl law♦
cu
)
L
TIERRA REJAOA VALLEY GREENBELT
1 ��� � .....�,. ,•;_ , �
can
T i e r r a o Re a d a�
I I e y :,'..: +�'.�' c.• �° 1 �d�, �. �} /lug ; ( //, 1 / , -f �,, /il
Lo-
MIVOM
)I � -- ' , \I.1 O •�• .� %• �. •\ ��Il ` •err' +\ �.. 1, Y /f
AN - :i _ til toL Nar� - ^•I1. ,. `� \J I I/
City of Thousand Oaks :oL-J j,. ., I ►� r
.111 X, N ` ` `~'�' ��'• •� /�.•. '� ,,• .�I , '- -I ♦ ,
}
1
VENTURA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT AND REC0MMENDATIONS
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1996
Subject: Staff Presentation on Ventura q County s Greenbelts
?euest: This presentation is
Commission's request forn response to the Planning
status re background information and
port on the County's Greenbelts. a
request, Planning Division staff 'nave Compiled written and Per Your
graphic material that provides a historical
Perspective, general information
and proposed greenbelts and and of existing
concerning greenbelts. examines several - issues
BackQround/Histo
The concept for establishing
the County's Local Agency FormationeCommission AFCO
1965. This was originally Proposed by
(former a significant (heres f February
terminology), proposed to formally Spheres of
limits for the expansion Y establish service area consistent with the lion greenbel city services and facilities.
Of separate and distinct cit concept of maintainin g the This was
integrity
The first greenbelt
The Ventura /Santa PaulatuGreenbeltPaula), was initiated in 1967.
Provide interim policy protection far and subsequent
lands, thereb open space and agreenbelts,
areas that land will not be property owners located with n lthese
uses (e.g., urban Prematurely converted to ina
agreed not to )' Greenbelts also deli pPropriate
annex territory and the Coun ty has pledged to s have
only uses permitted in it Space" or "Agriculture"
Permit
Greenbelts zones.
shape V represent one of several jurisdictional tools that help
entura County's
include settlement
patterns. The other measures
the Guidelines for
jurisdictions' general Orderly Development, the
influence. Plans and zoning ordinances and eleven
spheres of
B. Greenbelt Features:
Currently, Ventura Count
greenbelt standards Y ] urisdictions have not adopted
Orderly Development. criteria similar to the P universal
agreements- Pment. However, individual Guidelines for
represents a hemselves, state or imply general plans and the
form of mutual regulatory P Y that a greenbelt agreement
jurisdictions concerning urb t control between two or more
Open space land, the future extension of urban se v of farmland and
and annexations- Other implied features include:
1. 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 m
into the greenbelts nor annex greenbelt landsP . al services
1• County agrees to allow only
the County General Plan's and on n s that are consistent with
and "Agriculture" designation Ordinance s "
conform to the minimum (e.g., new sub Open Space"
parcel sizes of those zones). must
Either participatin
proceedings for establishing a or the County may i
the greenbelt have greenbelt. When the terms of been agreed to, a joint resolution (or
ATTACHMENT: 4
000087
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"
ana,Lor "Open Space" in the County General Plan and-Zoning
Ordinance.
8. 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.
000088
Staff Report and Recommendations
Planning Commission
Meeting of September 19, 1996
Page 3
�• 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. Although 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 Be ween and Relationship to Other Re lato
M'— surer and-A regiments:
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
designating lands as greenbelts is based on non binding ylofor
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.
00GO85
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.
OnEc 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.
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.
000030
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 000091
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
resclution of the City Councils of Thousand Oaks and Simi
ValzLey 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)
000WASWA
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 territory designated ,acres of unincorporated
Y and is
Agriculture ", "Open Space" Agriculture", "Coastal
County General Plan. P �� and Coastal Open Space" in the
Pacific Right -of -Wa The greenbelt is bonded by the Southern
east, 5th Street to the Southorth, Victoria Avenue to the
west. Existin and Harbor Boulevard to the
citrus orchards and include row crops, specialty
greenbelt is located within Santa Clara River the Ventura and O crops,
Interest.
Oxnard rd Areas of
G. Related Greenbelt Issues
and Conce ts•
Other jurisdictions within California have adopted or endorsed
other techniques
management measures and agreements related
buffers between urban area farmland and maintaining tO growth
below: Some of these measures are Outlined
e
Urban Limit Lines - Some cities
established mutually agreeable urban 1 mitelin so around their
respective have
boundaries jurisdictions. Unlike
the urban limit lines represent Of a Influence
boundary designed to restrict further lateral ex permanent
City into farmland and /or open space areas. permanent
of a
These lines have been adopted by ordinance, and in a few
cases, by voter approved initiatives (rather than
resolution). An amendment of the limit line may
'super majority"
Hupp- voter-approved y" vote of the City Council y require a
modification. (e 9•, 4 /5th) or a
Community Separators
respects to This concept is similar
boundaries have been but in some cases in many
been established through the "separator"
Powers agreement" (JPA)•rather than g a formal
resolutions. by individual "joint
Modification of the JPA's boundaries or terms
require formal approval by all parties to the agreement
unilateral action by only one party would not be
- a
Permanent acceptable.
programs involving
vs. Policy Protection Several
open space lands are belnermanent conservation of farmland and
Some of these programs involve voter is parts of California.
financed open space and agricultural approved and
Permitted b preservation districts
include: y state law. Techniques used by these districts
1
Pli:11:1112chase of Develo ment Ri hts
"development rights" value of farmland Pro rams - The
land is purchased and a conservation easement open space
to the property limiting its future use to agricultural/
open space compatible uses.
2. Try.... c___ _
t rograms to ts TDR or Credits TDC rad nine Similar to a PDR pro ram g, selling and /or g , a TDR involves
rom "sendin Purchasing development credits
"er g propeties" and applying the credit to
receiving As with a PDR program, the com-
pensation received for the sending property limits its
future use to agricultural or open space compatible uses.
0000113
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,
-ommunity 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 thce rescinded or based on
modified at any time by any party
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
000094
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,
a
either through 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 4- Greenbelts represent a type of "public open space ".
Response: Greenbelts consist of
privately
and therefore serve a limited open space "pu owned properties
greenbelts are to remain in viable agricultu alpuse, 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.
Resp�e_ A greenbelt can be established with or without the
Permission of the affected landowners
boundary. within its proposed
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• Summarv�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
jurisdictions ons from lconverting protection
farmland/open ce and to participating
uses in the future. urban
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
greenbelt's intent. In with the
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:
000095
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 prei�ature conversion of
farmland /open space land to urban uses?
2. What uses are appropriate for greenbelts? Currently, there is
no inter - jurisdictional consensus regarding compatibility of
uses, within greenbelts.
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?
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•
RECEIVE and FILE the information in this greenbelt report.
Prepared by:
Gene Kjellb
Case Planner -
Reviewed by:
Tu ner
Planning Director -
Exhibits: Exhibit
"1" -
Countywide map showing 6 greenbelts
Exhibit
112"
- Ventura /Santa Paula Greenbelt Map
Exhibit
"3" -
Santa Paula /Fillmore Greenbelt Map
Exhibit
114" -
Camarillo /Oxnard Greenbelt Map
Exhibit
"5" -
Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt Map
Exhibit
"6" -
Santa Rosa Valley Greenbelt Map
Exhibit
"7" -
Ventura /Oxnard Greenbelt Map
Exhibit
"8" -
Greenbelt Features
Exhibit
"9" -
Greenbelt Limitations
Exhibit
1110"
- Greenbelt Myths and Responses
000096
' OJAI � I
Oakt l
Oak r . i .i ' _[
t View Phu
4 y i' r' !9/�nITA ILLMORE l
X141 PAULA
JtS 1 t l i ' I A
c'.,r ` 1'.. SANTA ILLMIjiiB ( 1
VEI . TURA% PAULA �' s
VENTURA t ..r'.7� �-
/ MOORPARK / _c
SIMI VALLEY
r {� 1i -
.'VENTURA
OXNARD - S�HRRA iiEJADA !
OXNARD
THOUSAND OAKS
m ARD
Cd RILL O BEL Forp + r
PORT l fl
HUENEME
GREENBELTS 0
South half of Ventura county
N
EXHIBIT `T'
C✓
"/u
MISSION ROCK ROAD
a
URBAN
CPER CRY GENERAL PLAN OR AREA PLAN)
:i URBAN RESERVE (OVERLAY)
__ - -J (GASHED LINE REPRESENTS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE SOUNOARY)
®EXISTING COMMUNITY
(PER AREA PLAN OR COMMUNITY MAP)
® RURAL
(1 ACRE +)
®AGRICULTURAL
(a0 ACRE +)
OPEN SPACE
(10 ACRE +)
® STATE /FEDERAL FACILITY
j — S Ac. MIN.
iVerr_racc -nty VENTURA / SANTA PAULA r =aooa
I= .asc,:rce GREENBELT
Mara;;,mant
. =;2ncy
( 8,340 ACRES)
EXHIBIT "T
00luos i
URBAN
(PER CfY GENERAL PUN OR AREA PUN)
i URBAN RESERVE (OVERLAY)
- - -- i (GASHED LINE REPRESENTS SPHERE OF
go EXISTING COMMUNITY
(PER AREA PLAN OR COMMUNRY MAP)
RURAL
no
(t ACRE +)
®AGRICULTURAL
(40 ACRE +)
OPEN SPACE
(10 ACREt)
STATE /FEDERAL FACILITY
kO,*9vVV At'rltz))
0000W)
Ve.,.:- raCounty pXNARD GREENBELT
Resource CAMARILLO /
Wanagement
Agency ( 27,000 ACRES)
iXHIBIT `4"
000100
V
0001.01.
.$3iD:::::'::: >::::::•. }:.:. Y�.�;:} :
{;::::::: <::: ?.;:::' •:..
�
s-
.URBAN
(PER
:i:
:S• . ,•� :,• :
CRY GENERAL PLAN OR AREA PUN
::ate
r
t
URBAN ( BAN RESER V E (OVERLAY)
R LAY
J WAsHED LINE REPRE
SENT S S PM
E O 1NINFLUENCE BC
' JNA
Q RY )
:z
•• ;• is �
::yam w�ai•;
EXISTING TI
G COMMUNITY
P AR U
R PUN OR C OMM
UNRY MAP ]
•+';''�••.•'e
RURAL
L
(I CR E +)
:}rrYk• a Y. .
AGRICULTURAL
1Y
: y: �::%'::? fr.<•. •ar•,•;;:..::`.; {::;:, ^t:• +•::: '� .n ^•;fii,.; • { }., t:
i`'T'F'r:':' {:: �':•: jr�i�rnN.•iii}•i:i is •: n} }}::{
(b ACREt)
_;
PEN S PACE
r!
:::JCA:<•' %< #f'sii >.'
VENT U > >
PARK
j i STATE /FEDERAL FACILITY
LOke ... ........ ........
i ,i .l ,
Sherwood
j — 5 AC. MIN.
I
` ✓en:
Hes o
Res u rcce a
TIERRA REJADA VALLEY
"'�a gn t
�
GREENBELT
e
Agncy
71
( 2,650 ACRES)
EXHIBIT
0001.01.
rmlool
I - 5 AC. MIN.
Ven:uraCounty SANTA ROSA VALLEY GREENBELT.
Resource
'Jcnag
Aggency ency (6,200 ACRES)
EXHIBIT l"
000102
URBAN
(PER
CITY GENERAL PUN OR AREA PLAN)
r
URBAN RESERVE (OVERLAY)
(DASHED LINE REPRESENTS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY)
®EXISTING
COMMUNITY
(PER AREA PUN OR COMMUNITY MAP)
®RURAL
(/ ACREiJ
AGRICULTURAL
(40 (40 ACRE +)
OPEN SPACE
(10 ACREt)
®
STATE /FEDERAL FACILITY
I - 5 AC. MIN.
Ven:uraCounty SANTA ROSA VALLEY GREENBELT.
Resource
'Jcnag
Aggency ency (6,200 ACRES)
EXHIBIT l"
000102
URBAN
(PER CITY GENERAL PLAN OR AREA PLAN)
r--- --
ORBDnI RESERVE O P (OVERLAY)
REPRESENTS OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY)
EXISTING COMMUNITY
(PER AREA PLAN OR COMMUNITY MAP)
EgMRURAL
(I ACRE +)
Y;�� AGRICULTURAL
Em
40 ACRE +)
OPEN SPACE
00 ACRE+)
STATE /FEDERAL FACILITY
NAVAL CONSTRUCTI
SAMLION CENTE
000103
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 INIITATE 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
LIMrMD TERM.
000104
EXHIBIT 9
GREENBELT LIMITATIONS
THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE PURPOSE, AUTHORITY AND ISSUES
GREENBELTS ADDRESS. FOR EXAMPLE: THAT
1 GREENBELTS DO NOT PROVIDE PERMANENT PROTECTION
AGRICULTURAL .AND /OR OPEN SPACE LANDS. FOR
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,-,
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
CONSENSUS OF WHAT LAND USES SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE GENERAL
WITHIN GREENBELTS. P
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
ESTABLISHMENT /AMENDMENT OF SPHERES OF INFLUENCE OR THE THE
ANNEXATION PROCESS.
0()010
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 JURISDICTIONS 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 GREE:N'BELTS HAVE BEEN
DEF I;ED 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 LD&TED OPEN SPACE "PUBLIC PURPOSE ". IF GREENBELTS ARE TO
REMAIN IN VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT 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 FARTNILAND, THE
LANDOWNERS HAVE COrv5gITED 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
000106
RESOURGEMANAGEMENTAGENCY
JAN 2 '999 THOMAS BER(
COUP Of viEntura
y
January 26, 1999 (Agenda)
Board of Supervisors
County of Ventura
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
- = -r �7)
JAN 2 5 1999
SUBJECT: Report-Back to Board on Technical and Legal Assessment of Measures A
and B and the Agriculture Policy Working Group's (APWG)
Recommendations
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. Direct staff to continue implementing the following Measure A Programs as approved
by your Board on August 4, 1998:
a. Greenbelt Implementation Program
b. Study of Agriculture- Compatible Uses within the Agriculture- Exclusive (A-
E) and Open Space (O-S) Zones
2. Direct staff to cease work on the following Measure A Program:
a. Unincorporated Area Urban Growth Boundary (UGS) Program
3. Create a Board Subcommittee to re- evaluate and report-back to your Board on the
level of effort, timing and the scope -of -work for the following Measure A Program:
a. Agriculture Conservation and Open Space District (ACOSD) Program
4. Conceptually approve County funding for a Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) initiated Sphere of Influence (SOQ Study and direct staff to report-back
by March 1999 with a scope of work and staffing and budget recommendations to
complete the Study.
S. Direct staff to explore options that would implement an Agriculture and Land Use
Public Education Program and bring back a draft work program, budget and grant
proposal to your Board for review and comment by March 1999.
6. Indicate Board support for re- establishing a regional framework that would allow
interested public and private entities to review and formulate recommendations on
countywide regional issues. Direct staff to explore options and report -back with
recommendations and a budget for creating and staffing a Regional Programs
Committee (RPC) of some sort, to possibly advise your Board and regional County
agencies including VCOG, LAFCO, VCTC and APCD.
Government Center, Hall of Administration Building, L #1700
® 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654 -2661 FAX (805) 654 -2630
Pnntsd on Recycled Paper �-
rj ATTACHE ffi lb7
1
January 26, 1999 (Agenda)
Board of Supervisors
Page 2
FISCALIMANDATES IMPACTS
Mandatory: No
Source of Funding: General Fund
Impact on Other Departments: None
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On December 15, 1998, your Board discussed alternative ways to implement Measures
A and B and how they related to the Agriculture Policy Working Group's (APWG)
recommendations. Several Board members felt it was important to clearly identify the
reasons for pursuing these follow -up programs in view of the electorate's approval of
Measure B (unincorporated County) and the various city urban growth boundary (UGB)
measures. Your Board directed staff to complete a post- election technical and legal
assessment of Measure A, the various SOAR measures and the APWG
recommendations and provide these findings to your Board.
To assist in the discussion of "SOAR', staff prepared a summary of Measure B (County
SOAR), the five city SOAR measures that were approved in November 1998 /January
1999 and the San Buenaventura SOAR measure that was approved in 1995
(Attachment 1, Table 1). As noted in the table, the seven SOAR measures are not
identical. The County's SOAR (Measure B) is the only one that does not explicitly
create urban growth boundaries (UGBs). Instead, it prohibits most changes to
Agriculture, Open Space and Rural General Plan designations in the unincorporated
area without an affirmative countywide vote until the year 2020.
The six city SOAR measures are similar in that each creates a City Urban Restriction
Boundary (CURB) — i.e., any development outside the CURB is prohibited without a vote
of the city electorate. The characteristics of the CURBs, however, vary considerably:
1. One city's CURB (Thousand Oaks) mirrors its existing LAFCO- adopted sphere line;
2. Three cities' CURBS (Camarillo, Oxnard and Simi Valley) allow city expansion
beyond the existing LAFCO- adopted sphere lines, without voter approval;
3. One city's SOAR (San Buenaventura) prohibits development on City - designated
Agricultural land not only within and in some cases outside existing LAFCO- adopted
sphere lines but also prohibits development of Agriculturally- designated lands within
the city limits, unless approved by the city's voters; and
4. One city's SOAR (Moorpark) prohibits development outside city limits and also a
development proposed for one area (Hidden Creek) located within the city limits,
unless approved by city voters.
0001,(;8
January 26, 1999 (Agenda)
Board of Supervisors
Page 3
Before preparing this assessment, staff also met with the city managers and/or planning
directors from nine of the ten cities, County agricultural leaders and representatives from
non -profit conservation organizations for purposes of discussing the implications of the
voter - approved Advisory Measure A, Measure B (County SOAR) and the six city SOAR
measures. Staff then prepared a matrix table that showed the relationship between the
APWG - recommended programs and the countywide agricultural and land use issues
identified by the APWG (Attachment 1, Table 2).
APWG - recommended programs identified by staff were:
1. Greenbelt Implementation Program
2. Agriculture - Exclusive (A -E) /Open -Space (O -S) Zones Compatibility Study
3. Unincorporated County Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Study
4. Agriculture Conservation and Open Space District (ACOSD) Feasibility Study
5. Countywide Sphere of Influence (SOI) Study
6. Agriculture and Land Use Public Education Program
The Greenbelt, Unincorporated County UGB and ACOSD Feasibility Study
programs were specifically identified in Advisory Measure A and the A-E/O -S
Compatibility and SOI Studies are directly related to the Greenbelt and UGB
programs, respectively. Although the Public Education proposal was not included in
Measure A, it was unanimously approved by the APWG and represented one of the
Working Group's 'core" recommendations.
Seven agriculture and land use problems and issues were identified during the APWG's
"Problem and Constraint Identification Phase".
1. Urban sprawl
2. Urban/farmland conflicts
3. Outdated and deficient data base
4. Public not informed on land use and agricultural issues
5. Landowner equity and compensation
6. Lack of comprehensive and balanced countywide plan
7. Land uselfiscal policies promote farmland conversion
Staff compared the APWG- recommended programs and SOAR measures to the seven
land use issues and an assessment was made conceming how effectively the APWG
programs and the SOAR measures could address or resolve the issues and problems.
ACTION ITEMS:
Staff concluded that five of the six APWG- recommended programs continue to be
relevant and should be pursued in some fashion by the County, the cities, LAFCO,
000163
January 26, 1999 (Agenda)
Board of Supervisors
Page 4
VCOG and /or other organizations. Staff feels there is no urgency to pursue the County
UGB Program at the present time.
1. Greenbelt Implementation Program — Greenbelts continue to be important
because the public recognizes and identifies with the terms "greenbelt° and
"community separator". Existing greenbelt agreements could be strengthened,
updated and refined, and in some cases, new greenbelts could be created.
Stronger greenbelts (or new greenbelts) are perhaps most urgently needed near
cities that do not have voter - approved Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs).
Strengthened greenbelts could be modeled after either an ordinance or Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) format depending on the preference of the local jurisdictions (see
Attachment 2). Most cities expressed interest in continuing with this Program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF FROM
INDIVIDUAL CITIES ON STRENGTHENING EXISTING GREENBELTS AND INITIATING NEW
GREENBELTS, WHERE APPROPRIATE.
2. A -E/0-S Zones Compatibility Study — Eliminating or reducing land uses that are
incompatible with commercial agriculture and open space remains a priority issue.
Measure B's emphasis on voter - approval of changes to Agricunure, Open Space and
Rural general plan designations also points out the need for more clearly defining
uses that are appropriate within Agriculture and Open Space zones (see Attachment
3). The SOAR initiatives do not address this issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE AGRICULTURE
POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (APAC) AND THE CITY /COUNTY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
(CCPA) ON THE A -E/O -S ZONES COMPATIBILITY STUDY.
3. Unincorporated County Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Study — Measure
B requires voter - approval of future changes to Agriculture, Open Space and Rural
general plan designations. Consequently, the voter - approved measure significantly
limits the potential expansion of Existing Communities and Unincorporated Urban
Centers and thus reduces the urgency for initiating a County UGB study at this time
(see Attachment 4).
Your Board also decided that a County UGB study should be carried out concurrently
with a LAFCO- initiated sphere of influence (SOI) study. As of this date, no
jurisdictions have offered any funding commitment for a countywide SOI study. The
SOI study would likely share many features of the County UGB study.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: STAFF CONCLUDES THERE IS NO URGENCY IN IMPLEMENTING
THE COUNTY UGB STUDY BECAUSE OF THE VOTER'S APPROVAL OF MEASURE B. THE
COUNTY'S UGB STUDY COULD PROCEED ON A SEPARATE AND PARALLEL TRACK WHEN
LAFCO OBTAINS FUNDING COMMITMENTS FOR THE COUNTYWIDE SOI STUDY.
000110
January 26, 1999 (Agenda)
Board of Supervisors
Page 5
4. Agriculture Conservation and Open S ace District ACOSD Feasibility
Study — A comprehensive ACOSD Feasibility Study might involve an extensive
commitment of staff and funds (see Attachment 5). For example, the staff - prepared
September 15, 1998 draft work program included possible public opinion surveys, a
comprehensive public education program and a commitment to changing existing
State enabling legislation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PRIOR TO INITIATING A MAJOR STUDY, FORM A BOARD
SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WOULD ASSESS THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF EFFORT AND TIMING FOR
CREATING THE ACOSD. THE SUBCOMMITTEE COULD BE DIRECTED TO REPORT -BACK ITS
FINDINGS WITHIN A TWO -MONTH PERIOD AND YOUR BOARD COULD THEN MAKE A DECISION
ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM.
5. Countywide Sphere of Influence (SDI) Study —Although several jurisdictions
within Ventura County now have voter - approved UGBs, these boundaries were not
based on public input and may not reflect future population, housing and employment
needs (see Attachment 4). In some cases, the city UGBs would actually allow more
development than the existing spheres of influence, if approved by LAFCO. A
comprehensive SOI study would:
a. More accurately reflect future demographic projections;
b. Consider numerous growth - related factors including vacant land inventory, the
monitoring of farmland conversion and other economic considerations; and
c. Provide a regional perspective that would balance individual city desires.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ENDORSE THE COUNTYWIDE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI)
STUDY CONCEPT AND CONCEPTUALLY APPROVE SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR A SENIOR -LEVEL
PLANNER POSITION FOR LAFCO AND DIRECT STAFF TO ASSIST LAFCO IN THE
PREPARATION OF A WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR A SOI STUDY.
6. Agriculture and Land Use Public Education Program — This proposal
represented one of the APWG's "core' recommendations and was intended to build
on the education and outreach efforts initiated by the 1998 APWG - sponsored Town
Hall Meetings (see Attachment 6). The program could also serve as a companion
educational program to the Regional Programs Committee proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THE COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH AGRICULTURE - RELATED AND
NON - PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, PLANNING PROFESSIONALS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES,
SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXPLORE AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE EDUCATION OPTIONS.
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD
PREPARE A WORK PROGRAM, BUDGET AND GRANT PROPOSAL AND BRING THIS BACK TO
YOUR BOARD FOR INFORMATION AND COMMENT BY MARCH 1999.
Although the following proposal was not a formal APWG recommendation, it is based on
the success of the APWG- sponsored town hall meetings and a staff review of Ventura
County's approach to countywide planning since the 1960's.
000111
January 26, 1999 (Agenda)
Board of Supervisors
Page 6
Countywide Public Forum (Regional Programs Committee fRPCI) — The
APWG's town hall meetings were well attended by the public. These meetings
provided the public with important information and also afforded an opportunity for
public input on important land use and public policy issues. Public education and the
opportunity to provide input on regional issues were some of the reasons cited for
the well attended meetings (see Attachment 7).
The 1970's Regional Land Use Program (RLUP) and the 1980's Countywide
Planning Program (CPP) provided forums for public input and discussion of local and
countywide planning issues. However, the CCP program was cut in the 1990's due
to budget considerations. By creating a countywide "Regional Programs Committee ",
your Board could take the lead in re- creating a regional public forum.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: REINSTATE A COUNTYWIDE "REGIONAL PUBLIC FORUM" OF
SOME SORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A PUBLIC FORUM (I.E., REGIONAL PROGRAMS
COMMITTEE (RPC]) PROPOSAL PERHAPS BASED ON THE RLUP AND CPP MODELS.
PERHAPS THE ACOSD BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE COULD ALSO BE CHARGED WITH REVIEW OF
THIS ISSUE.
Staff is working on an analysis of the 20 -year Land Conservation Act (LCA) Program
and will report-back to your Board on the details, implications and staffing needs of the
new program.
The Offices of the County Counsel and the Chief Administrative Officer have reviewed
this agenda item.
If you have any questions concerning this item, please contact me at 6542661, Gene
Kjellberg at 654 -2455 or Nancy Settle at 654 -2465.
Sincerely,
Thomas Berg, Director
cc: Agriculture Policy Working Group
000112
January 26, 1999 (Agenda)
Board of Supervisors
Page 7
Exhibits:
• Attachment 1: Staff analysis of APWG - recommended programs, agriculture and
land use related problems/issues — feedback from city, agricultural and non - profit
organization representatives.
• Attachment 2: Pros/Cons of Greenbelt Program
• Attachment 3: Pros/Cons of A -E and O -S Zones Compatibility Study
• Attachment 4: Pros /Cons of Urban Growth Boundary and Sphere of Influence
Studies
• Attachment 5: Pros/Cons of ACOSD Feasibility Study Proposal
• Attachment 6: Pros/Cons of Agriculture and Land Use Public Education Program
• Attachment 7: Pros/Cons of Regional Programs Committee Proposal
000113
Attachment " 1 "
STAFF ANALYSIS OF MEASURES A AND B, AGRICULTURE
POLICY WORKING GROUP (APWG) RECOMMENDED
PROGRAMS AND AGRICULTURE /LAND USE ISSUES
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Following your Board's December 15, 1998 meeting, staff met with officials from nine of
the ten cities and County agriculture and non -profit conservation organization officials
over a period of three weeks. The primary purpose of the meetings was to discuss and
evaluate future implications of the voter - approved Advisory Measure A, the six Save
Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) measures and the Agriculture Policy
Working Group's (APWG) recommendations.
Voter - Approved Growth Management Measures
TITLE • JURISDICTION
MEASURE AFFECTED INITIATED BY
URBArj RESTRICTION
GENERAL PLAN
BOUNDARY -:
DESIGNATIONS?
Measure A Cities and County of
Potentiaay
Potentially
(advisory Unincorporated Ventura
measure) County
Measure B
Unincorporated
SOAR
No
Yes -Open Space,
County
Proponents
Agdcultune, Rural
Measure C
City of Camarillo
SOAR
Yes; new voter-
No
Proponents
adopted CURB
Measure S
City of Moorpark
SOAR
Yes; CURB
No
Proponents
coterminous with old
sphere line
Measure K
City of Oxnard
City of Oxnard
Yes, new voter-
No
adopted CURB
Measure O
City of Simi
SOAR
Yes; new voter-
No
Valley
Proponents
adopted CURB
Measure P
City of Thousand
SOAR
Yes; CURB
No
Oaks
proponents
coterminous with
existing sphere line
County of Ventura Initiated Measures
Staff also prepared a table that compares in more detail the features of the County and
the cities' SOAR measures — see Table 1.
000114
CITY STAFF AGRICULTURE AND NON- PROFIT CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION
OBSERVATIONS:
Staff identified seven programs that were incorporated in Measure A, represented
APWG consensus recommendations and/or were derived from APWG public meeting
input. Staff then summarized the city staff, agriculture and non -profit organizations'
comments and observations for each of the seven programs.
1. Greenbelt Implementation Program — Most of the officials supported the greenbelt
program and felt there was a continued need for greenbelts even though the voters
had approved UGBs and restrictions on County general plan amendments. Although
many officials felt that greenbelt ordinances did not provide that much additional
"urban sprawl° protection than existing greenbelt agreements, they reasoned that
strengthened greenbelts would likely be supported by most of the city councils and
the agricultural community. Community preference would largely dictate whether the
strengthened greenbelts would take the form of individual ordinance -level
agreements or joint power agreements (J PA).
2. A -E/O-S Zones Compatibility Study — Most of the officials interviewed felt there
was a need to continue with this study because of continued conflicts between
farmland /open space lands, greenbelts and urban, recreational, institutional and
government uses. Some officials felt that Measure B (voter - approval needed for
changes to Agriculture, Open Space and Rural General Plan designations) had
placed even more emphasis on the need to resolve these land use conflicts.
Agricultural officials placed emphasis on resolving conflicts between urban uses and
legal farming operations (i.e., pesticidetherbicide spraying and schools). City
officials, on the other hand, primarily objected to government, institutional and
recreational uses (e.g., jails, landfills, golf courses, large -lot residential subdivisions)
being allowed within greenbelts.
3. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Program — Most of the officials felt that the voter -
approved urban growth boundary measures had defined enough land within and
adjacent to the citifies so as to accommodate urban growth needs through 2020.
Some felt that a downturn in the County's economy could lead to a reexamination of
the UGBs if it appeared that economic growth was being stifled by the growth
management measures. They reasoned that voters may then elect to expand the
boundaries so as to accommodate more urban growth.
4. Agriculture Conservation and Open Space District ( ACOSD) Feasibility Study —
Most of the officials felt there would be very little public support for a countywide
ACOSD and a companion revenue measure. Their observations were based on the
public's likely rejection of any tax or revenue measure that would be needed to
acquire conservation easements over farmland or open space land. Most officials
reasoned that the public would reject any ACOSD related revenue measure when an
equivalent level of farmland and open space land protection was being provided by
the voter - approved UGBs and County general plan amendment restrictions.
PA
000115
Some officials felt there was a need for a public land conservation agency that could
administer conservation easements, accept land donations and work with the local
non -profit land trusts. Some argued that a countywide land conservation agency
should be created by a joint power agreement (JPA) similar to the Conejo Valley's
Open Space and Conservation Authority (COSCA). A JPA would not require voter
approval and agency expenditures could possibly accrue from cost savings from
administrative economies -of- scale.
5. Sphere of Influence (SOI) Study — Most of the planning directors felt there was little
need for a countywide SOI study. This opinion was largely based on the belief that
many of the cities are close to their ultimate build -out and the voter - approval UGBs
will probably accommodate anticipated growth. Conversely, the agriculture officials
felt there was 'a need for a comprehensive SOI study because some of the cities'
existing SOI or UGB boundaries include large amounts of irrigated farmland that will
likely be converted to urban uses.
6. Agriculture and Land Use Public Education Program — Agriculture officials felt
that a comprehensive public education program is important and should be
supported by the County, the cities, non -profit organizations and other stakeholders.
Their observations were supported by the public's confusion over basic land use
planning concepts, economic and fiscal issues and the needs of the agricultural
industry. City officials were more ambivalent about the need for a public education
program. Some pointed out that any comprehensive public outreach effort will
require significant staff and funding commitments from public agencies and that it
should develop into an ongoing process in order to be effective.
7. Public Forum and Monitoring of Land Use Issues - Although Ventura County
currently lacks a public forum for the presentation and discussion of countywide land
use issues, there were mixed feelings about the need for a public forum institution or
committee. Some officials recalled that the 1970's and 1980's era Regional Land
Use Program (RLUP) and. Countywide Planning Program (CPP) provided
opportunities for public education and input on a wide range of planning and land use
issues. They reasoned that these programs should be used as models for a Year
2000 public forum program. Other officials pointed out that a public forum program
would be faced with the same staff and funding requirements of the above
referenced public education program.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff analyzed seven agriculture and land use issues and problems that were identified
during the APWG's "problem and constraint identification phase ". The issues/problems
ranged from "causal" issues, such as land use and fiscal policies, to issues that
represented an 'effect" such as urban sprawl.
1. Urban sprawl
2. Urbantfarmland conflicts
3. Outdated and deficient data base
4. Public not informed on land use and agricultural issues
3
000116
5. Landowner equity and compensation
6. Lack of comprehensive and balanced countywide plan
7. Land use /fiscal policies promote farmland conversion
Staff prepared a matrix table that featured the APWG-recom mended programs along the
"Y" axis and the countywide agricultural and land use issues along the "X" axis. Staff
then compared the APWG-recom mended programs and SOAR measures to the seven
land use issues and problems and assigned "Primary Correlation" and
"Secondary Correlation" values to the comparison table. The final assessment matrix
(see Table 2) illustrates staffs perceptions about how effectively the APWG programs
and the SOAR measures address or resolve the issues and problems identified in
Attachments 2 through 7.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the analysis in Table 2, and discussions with city planning directors,
agriculture and non - profit organization officials, staff concluded that five of the six
APWG - recommended programs and a sixth public forum program continue to be
relevant and should be pursued by the County, the cities, LAFCO and/or VCOG.
1. Greenbelt Implementation Program - DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
STAFF FROM INDIVIDUAL CITIES ON STRENGTHENING EXISTING GREENBELTS AND INITIATING
NEW GREENBELTS, WHERE APPROPRIATE.
2. A-E/O -S Zones Compatibility Study - DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
THE AGRICULTURE POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (APAC) AND THE CITY /COUNTY
PLANNING ASSOCIATION (CCPA) ON THE A -E/0 -S COMPATIBILITY STUDY.
3. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Study (County) — STAFF CONCLUDED THERE IS NO
URGENCY IN IMPLEMENTING THE COUNTY UGB STUDY BECAUSE OF THE VOTER'S
APPROVAL OF MEASURE B. WHEN LAFCO OBTAINS FUNDING FOR THE COUNTYWIDE SOI
STUDY, THE COUNTY'S UGB STUDY COULD PROCEED ON A SEPARATE AND PARALLEL
TRACK.
4. Agriculture Conservation and Open Space District (ACOSD) Feasibility Study
— THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD FORM AN "EXPLORATORY" STEERING COMMITTEE,
CHAIRED BY MEMBERS FROM YOUR BOARD, THAT WOULD ASSESS THE PUBLIC'S SUPPORT
FOR OR OPPOSITION TO AN ACOSD. THE COMMITTEE COULD BE DIRECTED TO REPORT
BACK ITS FINDINGS WITHIN A TWO -MONTH PERIOD AND YOUR BOARD COULD THEN MAKE A
DECISION ABOUT THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND A RELATED
PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM.
5. Countywide Sphere of Influence (SOI) Study - ENDORSE THE COUNTYWIDE
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) STUDY CONCEPT AND CONCEPTUALLY APPROVE SUFFICIENT
FUNDING FOR A SENIOR -LEVEL PLANNER POSITION FOR LAFCO AND DIRECT STAFF TO
ASSIST LAFCO IN THE PREPARATION OF A WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR A SOI
STUDY.
4
000117
6. Agriculture and Land Use Public Education Program - THE COUNTY, TOGETHER
WITH AGRICULTURE - RELATED AND NON- PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, PLANNING PROFESSIONALS
AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, SHOULD FURTHER EXPLORE AGRICULTURE/LANO USE
EDUCATION OPTIONS. REPRESENTATIVES FROM THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD PREPARE A WORK PROGRAM, BUDGET AND GRANT PROPOSAL AND
BRING THIS BACK TO YOUR BOARD FOR INFORMATION AND COMMENT BY MARCH 1999.
The 1998 APWG - sponsored town hall meetings were well attended by the public.
These meetings gave the public an opportunity to provide public input on a range of land
use and public policy issues — this was one of the reasons cited for the well attended
meetings.
The 1970's Regional Land Use Program (RLUP) and the 1980's Countywide Planning
Program (CPP) also provided forums for public input and discussion of local and
countywide planning studies. However, these programs achieved their original
objectives (RLUP) or were cut in the 1990's due to budget considerations (CPP).
1. Regional Programs Committee (RPC) - REINSTATE A COUNTYWIDE "REGIONAL
PUBLIC FORUM" OF SOME SORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A PUBLIC FORUM (I.E.,
REGIONAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE [RPC] PROPOSAL) PERHAPS BASED ON THE RLUP AND
CPP MODELS. PERHAPS THE ACOSD BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE COULD ALSO BE CHARGED
WITH REVIEW OF THIS ISSUE.
Attachments #2 through #7 represent pro and con opinions expressed by individuals and
organizations concerning each follow -up program and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of County staff.
sA
000118
Attachment "2"
GREENBELT PROGRAM PROS AND CONS
Revised: 1/21/99
REASONS GREENBELTS ARE NEEDED
• Viewed as "community separators" — prevent urban sprawl and help define compact
urban forms.
• Public recognizes and identifies with the term "greenbelt' — conversely, public's
understanding of more technical general plan and zoning ordinance terminology is
limited.
• The voter's approval of Advisory Measure A endorsed the concept of strengthened
greenbelts.
• Greenbelts are needed adjacent to cities and communities with no voter - approved
urban growth boundaries (UGBs) — i.e., City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB).
• Five proposed greenbelts should be established per Advisory Measure A, the County
General Plan and the Agriculture Policy Working Group's (APWG)
recommendations.
Measure B and city CURB measures have limited duration (10, 20 or 30 years).
• Voter - approved SOAR measures could be rescinded or weakened if they become a
scapegoat for a future weakened economy.
• Need to establish more standardized procedures for initiating and modifying
greenbelts.
• Need to better define what uses are acceptable/not acceptable in greenbelts — still
no consensus as to appropriate greenbelt uses.
REASONS GREENBELTS ARE NQT NEEDED
• Voter - approved Measure B and the City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB)
measures minimize or eliminate need for greenbelts because:
• Changes to the County General Plan's Agriculture, Open Space and Rural
designations must be approved by the voters.
• CURBs (spheres of influence) may not be expanded or modified without voter
approval.
• Voter - approved CURB measures serve as the 4functional equivalent' of greenbelts.
• Changing current "gentlemen's agreement' format to an ordinance format would
accomplish little because ordinances could still be rescinded or modified at any time.
• Practical and political shortcomings of greenbelt joint powers agreements (JPAs)
would likely negate any advantages.
00011-9
Attachment "3"
A -E /O -S ZONES COMPATIBILITY STUDY
PROS AND CONS
Revised: 1/21/99
REASONS COMPATIBILITY STUDY IS NEEDED
• Adjacent jurisdictions do not agree on what uses are appropriate within the
Agriculture and Open Space zones and greenbelts.
• The County and the cities do not agree on what uses are appropriate within the
Agriculture and Open Space zones and greenbelts.
• Farmers are sometimes caught in the middle of agriculturelurban conflicts — the
conflicts are exacerbated by a lack of consensus about appropriate uses within the
Agriculture and Open Space zones.
• Farmers need more certainty that adjoining uses will be compatible with legal
agricultural operations such as spraying with pesticides and herbicides, use of
fertilizers; movement of farm equipment, dust and noise.
• Cities need more certainty that "inappropriate uses" will not be sited within greenbelts
— e.g., jails, mining activities, landfills, airports, libraries, golf courses, large lot
residential subdivisions.
• The public's approval of Advisory Measure A indirectly endorsed an Agriculture and
Open Space Zones Compatibility Study.
• Voter - approved SOAR measures do not resolve questions about incompatible uses
within Agriculture and Open Space zones.
REASONS COMPATIBILITY STUDY IS NOT NEEDED
• Considerable efforts have already been made to ensure that uses allowed within
Agriculture and Open Space zones are compatible with the purpose and intent of
greenbelts, the agricultural industry and open space lands.
• So- called "NIMBY" (Not In My Backyard) uses must be located somewhere in the
County — e.g., local sand and gravel mining is influenced by State law that mandates
access to sufficient aggregate resources within the County.
• Other "NIMBY' uses (e.g., jails, landfills and airports) are also necessary to
contemporary societies and are not appropriate within or adjacent to urban areas — in
most cases, these uses must be located within Agriculture and Open Space zones
and greenbelts.
7
000120
Attachment "4"
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB) AND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) STUDIES
PROS AND CONS
Revised: 1/21/99
REASONS UGB /SOI STUDIES ARE NEEDED
• SOAR - related UGBs are limited in duration (10, 20, 30 years) and primarily reflect
existing sphere of influence (SOI) boundaries.
• SOAR related UGBs are outmoded (i.e., based on the 1970's Regional Land Use
Program [RLUP]), were drawn without any public input or analytical considerations
and may not reflect year 2020 population, housing and employment needs.
• UGBs should be based on a comprehensive, countywide SOI study — this would
provide more permanent protection for farmland and open space lands.
• "SOI study based UGBs" would more accurately reflect future population, housing
and employment projections and needs.
• "SOI study based UGBs" would also consider other growth related factors including
vacant land inventory, the monitoring of farmland conversion, economic
considerations, etc.
• UGB study would recognize the function of the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) and would factor in LAFCO's decision- making role with respect to SOls.
REASONS UGB /SOI STUDIES ARE NOT NEEDED
• Many Ventura County cities are approaching build -out — vacant land inventories
remaining within existing city limits and the new City Urban Restriction Boundaries
(CURB) should be sufficient to meet growth needs to the year 2020.
• UGB study is not necessary because Ventura County voters have already expressed
their desire for slower, more orderly growth that does not adversely impact irrigated
farmland and open space lands.
• Some cities that are requesting expansions of their existing SOls have already
completed the functional equiva lent of a SOI study (e.g., Santa Paula) — very little
incentive to revisit growth related issues again.
• Some cities growth is limited by the boundaries of other cities (e.g., Port Hueneme)
or some cities have no desire to growth beyond their existing boundaries (e.g., Ojai)
— again, these cities have no incentive to take part in a SOI study.
• UGB study not necessary because the CURB measures have established growth
boundaries that will protect farmland and open space — not necessary to spend
public revenues for a redundant UGB study.
8
000121
Attachment "5"
AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION AND OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT (ACOSD) PROS AND CONS
Revised: 1/21/99
REASONS ACOSD IS NEEDED
• SOAR measures are limited in duration — ACOSD would provide more permanent
protection for farmland and open space lands.
• SOAR measures may have reduced the "development rights" value of farmland and
open space lands — this provides an opportunity to acquire the remaining
development rights value at a reduced cost to the public.
• ACOSD and purchase of development (PDR) programs would provide limited "equity
value" compensation to farmers without the landowner having to sell to developers.
• "Development rights" value could be used to finance farm upgrades such as
improvements to irrigation equipment, better drainage facilities and improved nursery
stock (e.g., more frost tolerant or more productive varieties). Upgrades would
improve a farm's viability and competitiveness.
• ACOSD concept could be expanded to include other "quality of life" programs
including parks, recreation, habitat protection, etc.
• Land acquisition priorities could be established based on farmland/urban conflicts,
water availability, extension of urban infrastructure, etc.
REASONS ACOSD IS NOT NEEDED
• The SOAR measures are protecting farmland and open space at no monetary cost to
the public — land acquisition costs associated with an ACOSD and related PDR
programs may be a tough sell.
• Could be viewed as another government bureaucracy that may not be responsive to
the public's land conservation objectives.
• Revenues derived from ACOSD fees may be diverted to programs that have nothing
to do with land conservation — accountability could be a problem.
• Spending limited public revenues to acquire "development rights' may be viewed as
legitimizing land speculation and subsidizing wealthy landowners.
• Public revenues accruing from a tax or fee proposal would be better used for other
more critical societal needs such as education, health care and affordable housing.
N
0001.22
Attachment "6"
AGRICULTURE /LAND USE PUBLIC
EDUCATION PROGRAM PROS AND CONS
Revised: 1/21/99
REASONS PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM IS NEEDED
• The public is confused about basic land use and agricultural concepts and terms —
distortions and untrue statements made during the November 1998 election also
exacerbated the problem.
• The public greatly expanded its influence over land use decisions as a result of the
November 1998 elections — this greater influence requires that the public be more
informed about the tradeoffs of making complex land use decisions.
• Land use decision- making seldom involves black and white issues — there are many
subtleties accompanying land use issues and all of these factors should be taken into
account during the decision- making process — public education is necessary.
• Rapid changes in technology and the urban economy and changes in State and
Federal laws require different land use solutions — if the public is going to be a major
player in land use decisions, they must continue to be informed about these
changes.
• The County's agriculture industry continues to adapt to new challenges from
emerging producers and markets and other technological innovations — the public
needs to stay informed about these changes and education is the key.
REASONS PUBLIC ED C TI N PROGRAM IS NOT NEEDED
• Most of the public is apathetic about political issues and are not interested in
information about land use matters — public education programs will not be useful to
this segment of the population.
• Public education programs that feature workshops, conferences and public meetings
are expensive and reach only a limited segment of the population — limited public
funds would be better spent on mass media advertising such as newspaper ads,
television 'spots' and Web Site "education pages'.
• Some people view public education as an opportunity to manipulate public opinion —
differentiating between "legitimate' educational programs and distorted "education
efforts" may be difficult for the public to distinguish.
• Many people already have their minds made up on an issue and selectively expose
themselves to only verbal or printed material that reinforces their existing views on a
subject — legitimate public education efforts will be lost on this segment of the
population.
10
0001,23
Attachment 7°
REGIONAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
PROS AND CONS
Revised: 1/21/99
REASONS REGIONAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE PROGRAM IS NEEDED
• Currently, there is no public forum available for the discussion of local and
countywide land use and public policy issues.
• The 1970's Regional Land Use Program (RLUP) provided an opportunity for citizen
input on countywide issues and consolidating regional demographic projections,
plans and action programs for LAFCO, VCAG (precursor to VCOG), APCD, the
County, the cities and the Waste Water Management agency.
• The 1980's Countywide Planning Program (CPP) inherited the remaining RLUP
programs and also provided a forum for the discussion of countywide issues and
problems and the formulation of regional policy recommendations.
• The public is confused about basic land use and growth management concepts and
terms - distortions and untrue statements made during the November 1998 election
also exacerbated the problem.
• The public significantly expanded its influence over land use decisions as a result of
the November 1998 elections - this greater influence suggests that more
opportunities are needed for public comment and dialogue on a range of issues
including tradeoffs involved in complex land use decisions.
REASONS REGIONAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE PROGRAM IS NOT NEEDED
• Committees that are effective need staff support and adequate funding - the County
should not establish new committees if there is the possibility that budget cuts will not
permit any long tern funding commitment.
• Legislative bodies, including city councils, the Board of Supervisors and special
purpose districts provide ample opportunities for public input on local and countywide
land use and public policy issues.
• Most of the public is apathetic about land use and "quality of life' issues and are not
interested in a Regional Programs Committee Program (RPC) - local or regional
public forums will not be useful to this segment of the population.
• Existing public service and professional organizations, such as the League of
Women Voters, Kiwanis Club, American Planning Association and the Ventura
County Economic Development Association sponsor workshops that provide
opportunities for public comment on a wide range of land use issues.
11
000U4
G'1
Table "1"
COMPARISON OF S.O.A.R. MEASURES WITHIN VENTURA COUNTY
(Revised: January 21, 1999)
JURISDICTION
AREA COVERtD RY
ACRLAGL ADDED
SUNSET
VOTMAM"VAL
VOTMAtl1107AL
Vordt
Mt)1R11-
DO LROM ATM
Alit UG1M DAM ON
S.O.&AL
S.O.A.1L MEASURES
To Sol By
DATE
Nscaf "IT TO
ItDCROLwtt Tb
APPWVJLL
APPObVDp UGM
Mft tts RETAIN
A COMPROM111111144
Mf.AKMM
9.0.&IL
WrANKM VG1W
CeAftbe IItIItALr
Illy *0
VM LA"
C'0lf MOL 011
Comm me,
ARRAYED
MEAtlI1RtB
An lty17= lb®
AMEnDa41111lrls
AtJlttCULTutt &
11111M tl i
AftKV*t (L'Jf3..
1J►tID U8t
LA1fC04NrrtAr9D
D1MlMl0vtD DY
OrM 11hrACt
Mft TWW
fft
weuen
SM OMYT
varms
rumm ?
DMMATMW
AfflftUTW*1
UCe SOUNDARY!
City of
SOI plus farmland near 1)
Measure C: about
Year
Yes; theoretically,
Not applicable
No
No
Yes
No
Voters approved
Camarillo
Central Ave/US 101
450 acres (irrigated
2020
voters could amend
Measure C on
interchange; and 2)
farmland)
UGBs annually
Pleasant Valley/Pancho
11/3!98
Roads intersection."
City of
Moorpark
1) Measure F- former
SOI plus HiAkn (reek
Measure F: 4,200
acrd (hillside
Year
2009
Yes; theoretigdy.
Not "Me"
No
No
Yes
No; completed l4I8!
Voters approved
PlanrnrWArea , 2)
lands). Measure S
voters could amend
UGBs annually
APWG-w=mmended
Measure S on
Meaarre S - former SOI.
-0- acres.
SOI study components
9
1/121"*
Cily of
Oxnard
SOI plus Aigwwt,
Nordniev and Nrrrth.sMrre
About 465 acres
(irrigated farmland
Year
2020
Yes theoretically,
Not applicable
No
No
Yes
No; completed so
Voters apRroved
Planning Areas ""
and some open
voters could amend
UGBs annually
APWG - recommended
Measure K on
)
SOI stud, components
11/3198
City of San
Buenaventura
SOI plus City's adjoining
1995 "Planning Area"
Mixed- added
Open Space;
Year
2030
Yd; theoretically.
Yes; AV*wlnw
No
No
No; Voters must
No
Voters Dpereytd
-
voters could amend
Comprehensive plan
approve dunces to
Meaaatre I on
Cily of Santa
1) Aleasnrre Al SOI plus
removed
Measure M 2,324
Year
UGBa
Yd; theoretically,
Not applicable
No
No
Jlrme desi
II 1!/!!6
Paula
Fagan Canyon and
acres (hillside lands
2020
voters could amend
Yes
No; completed so
Voters
farmland east of City; 2)
and irrigated
UGB3 annually
APWG- recommended
disapproved both
Aleasure N - City
farmland) Meaa ue
SOI stud) components
Measures Mand N
boundary as oft /I/98
N. -0 -acrd
oat 1 /3/98
City or Simi
SOI plus open space lards
About 175 acrd
Year
Yd; thecreli ally,
Not applicable
No
NO
Yes
No
Valley
north and south of City
(hillside lands)
2020
voters could amend
Voten Dppreyed
bound "
UGBa
asur
Mere O on
( "ity of
Thousand
Coterminous with SOI
0- acres
Year
Yes; theoretically,
Not applicable
No
No
Yes
No
Voters
Oaks
2030
voters could amend
Me re Pon
UGBs annually
11
11/3/98
County of
Ventura
Countywide; (Meanrre R
applies only to
Not applicable
Year
Yee; theoretically
Yes; Agricw/fare,
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Voter approved
unincorporated lands)
2020
voters could amend
ARrical., 0.& A Rural
Open,*— and
Rural general plan
Measure R on
designations annual)
designations
t [!3/98
BBREVLSTtONS
SOI - Sphere of Influence,
UGB - Urban Growth
Boundary
I.ACrn - I __I A.._ --..
15--y -y rummilun %.ummmssmon; ArwC, - Agriculture Policy Working Group, *Voters approval of Measure Son January 12, 1999
•sand ed the November 3. 19914 approval of Measure F. **Implementation of the Cities' Measures C and 0 was contingent on the approval of the Countywide SOAR (Measure R); "'Assumes that lands proposed for annexation
e located within existing voter - approved UGBS, " "Includes City Buffer Boundary (CBB)
O
Q
j6A
N
C`3
Table "2"
AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE PROBLEMS THAT ARE
ADDRESSED BY VARIOUS IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Revised: 1/21/99
X - Primary Ccxralalien J - Secondary Correlation
PROGRAM ORIGIN AND IMPLEMENTATION
AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE APWG
PROGRAMS /STUDIES
ORIGIN OF PROGRAMS
IMPLEMENTATION
URBAN
URBANIFARMLAND
OUTDATED AND
PUBLIC NOT
L/ oowNER
LACK OF
LAND USE/FISCAL
PROGRAMS AND
SPRAWL
CONFLICTS
DEFICIENT DATA
INFORMED ON
EQUITY AND
COMPREHENSIVE/
POLICIES PROMOTE
STUDIES
BASE
LAND USE AND
COMPENSATION
BALANCED
FARMLAND:
AGRICULTURAL
COUNTYWIDE
CONVERSION
ISSUES
PLAN
Countywide Sphere of
X
J
X
X
Influence (SOI) Study
• Report Card
J
J
J
J
J
x
AGRICULTURE
' Urban Infill Study
J
J
X
J
x
POLICY
Urban Growth
X
J
J
X
J
Boundary (UGB) Study
WORKING
• County UGB
x
J
f
J
• City UGBs
x
J
J
J
GROUP
Greenbelt
X
J
Ordinance
(APWC)
A -E/O -S Zones
x
Com bilky Study
RECOMMENDATIONS
Agriculture and Open
X
J
J
X
J
J
Space District
Public Education
x
Program
VOTER INITIATIVES
Voter - Approved SOAR
X
Measures