Loading...
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