Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 0918 CC REG ITEM 10GAGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community (5:7,y -. r p ..4a °I: Developme DATE: September 11, 1996 (CC Meeting of September 18, 1996) SUBJECT: Consider Revisions to Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development BACKGROUND Attached is a copy of the Final Recommendations from the Special Task Force to the Board of Supervisors regarding proposed revisions to the County Guidelines for Orderly Development. Also attached is a letter from Thomas Berg, Manager of the County Resource Management Agency which has a copy of the proposed revisions in legislative format, a summary of the changes, and a proposed resolution with the proposed Revised Guidelines. DISCUSSION The primary area of concern relating to the revised guidelines is the definitions of urban development which have been added. The present guidelines do not contain definitions and therefore would rely on the definitions in the County General Plan. The current County General Plan defines ourbans as any development which would result in the creation of residential lots less than one acre in area. The proposed definition also references establishment of new community sewer systems or the significant expansion of existing. However, concentrated residential development of two acre lots is fairly intense and may be considered urban in character. For example most of the lots in Home Acres area are about two acres in size. The City has subdivisions ranging up to five acres in size, which comprise neighborhoods within the City. Concentrated areas of even five acre lots generate demands for other municipal services, including water, police, fire, and emergency services, schools, parks, and libraries. Impacts on other municipal services need to be considered, in addition to sewers. San Bernardino County has experienced problems with demands for these municipal services where they have communities of several thousand people comprised of two and a half acre lots. These impacts are somewhat diminished with a larger threshold. C : \OFF 2 C E \WPW 2 N \WPDOC S \ CCRPT °u \ CiU S DORDV - WVO .10 Guidelines for Orderly Development September 18, 1996 Page 2 Council member Wozniak represented Moorpark on the special Task Force and had indicated a preference to the Task Force for ten acre lots as the threshold. In the Summary of Changes, the County has indicated establishment of a uniform criteria throughout the County. At present at least one area of the County has a different criterion. Different criteria for different areas of the County may be an alternative, even though the County may prefer a uniform criterion. Options for the Council to consider regarding the proposed Guidelines include the following (in descending order of preference): 1. In the definition of urban development use as a threshold, creation of residential lots of less than ten acres in area. 2. If a threshold of ten acres is not an acceptable criterion throughout the County, then utilize this threshold within the Moorpark Area of Interest. 3. In the definition of urban development use as a threshold, creation of residential lots of less than five acres in area. 4. If a threshold of five acres is not an acceptable criterion throughout the County, then utilize this threshold within the Moorpark Area of Interest. A draft resolution which summarizes and consolidates these options is attached for Council consideration. RECON KENDATION Direct staff as deemed appropriate. C t \ OFFSCE \1AP4J2N \WPDOC3 \CCRPTS \6USDORDV _ LJPD 4x1)143 I t ` -C) F VP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF VENTURA GOVERNMENT CENTER HALL OF ADMINISTRATION. L 91880 800 SOUTH VICTORIA AVENUE. VENTURA CALIFORNIA 93009 July 9,'1996 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 "EMBERS CF 'F+E BOARD FRANK SCHILLO Ct-air SUSAN K LACEY 0AGG E _RICKSCN KILC_E -)UC'.'V MIKELS MAGGIE ERICKSON KILOEE c- 3C5 =aX 8C5 _Sy TOLL FREE NUMBERS: a11aR L_ _A NCrIT 1 3 - CAI C5 -_ �CCC cX' ' -22 -- aLL :,7HER ArEpS 3C'- ':a'1 EXT Subject: Final Recommendations from Task Force on Guidelines for Orderly Development On October 17, 1995, at the request of the Ventura Council of Governments and the Ventura County Association of Cities, your Board of Supervisors formed a Task Force to review and evaluate the County Guidelines for Orderly Development. The purpose of this transmittal is to present you with the final report and recommendation of that Task Force. The Task Force was comprised of one representative invited from each city council, two members of the Board of Supervisors, and one representative from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The representatives were follows *: Linda Brewster (Filore) Tom Buford/Ray DiGuilio (San Buenaventura) Maggie Kildee (Board of Supervisors, District 3) - Dean Maulhardt (Oxnard) Janis McCormick (LAFCO) Bob McKinney (Ojai) Judy Mikels (Board of Supervisors, District 4) David Smith (Camarillo) - Task Force Co -Chair Robert Turner (Port Hueneme) Al Urias (Santa Paula) John Wozniak (Moorpark) Jaime Zukowski (Thousand Oaks) Task Force Co -Chair *The City of Simi Valley chose not to send a representative. a Board of Supervisors Task Force Report on Guidelines for Orderly Development July 9, 19% Page 2 The Task Force met four times: November 8, 1995 December 14, 1995 January 17, 1996 February 15, 1996 As a background to its discussions, the Task Force reviewed the process by which the Guidelines first came to be adopted by the local jurisdictions and LAFCO, the historical changes to the Guidelines, and ways in which they are currently used. Copies of the agendas, background reports, and staff reports on all policy change proposals were mailed to all Task Force members, city managers, the LAFCO Director, planning directors, and interested citizens prior to each of the four meetings. It was agreed that the current Guidelines are working well, but would benefit by several refinements and clarifications. The Task Force is recommending that the Guidelines be amended in three principal ways: 1. Revising policies for Areas of Interest where a city exists; Adding policies for the first time for Areas of Interest where a city does not exist; and 3• Adding definitions for "urban development," "Existing Communities," and "Unincorporated Urban Centers." For reference purposes, a copy of the proposed revisions to the Guidelines, in legislative format, is included as Attachment 1, and a technical discussion of the proposed changes, prepared by County staff, is included as Attachment 2. One of the recommendations for changes to the Guidelines was not adopted by consensus: the lot size threshold which distinguishes "urban" from "non - urban" development. Seven Task Force members supported a 2 -acre threshold (this is the recommended threshold). One member, John Wozniak of the City of Moorpark, preferred a 10 -acre threshold. Two members, Janis McCormick of LAFCO and Jaime Zukowski of the City of Thousand Oaks, preferred a 5 -acre threshold. One other member, Linda Brewster of the City of Fillmore, was not present at the meeting, but submitted a letter stating that she could not support a threshold lower than 5 acres nor higher than 10 acres. In addition to the above recommendations, there has been some confusion about whether the Task Force included a policy in the proposed Guidelines regarding rural residential development. Based on tape recordings of the final meeting, it is not conclusive whether the Task Force took explicit action. As the Co- chairs, we sent a letter to all Task Force members asking whether they thought an agreement had been reached, and as whether they wished to reconvene the Task Force to discuss the matter further. t a L% Board of Sapervisors Task Force Report on Gaidellraes for Orderly Development July 9, 19% Page 3 The Task Force members were divided on whether they thought an action had been taken on this issue. However, they all responded that they did not think an additional meeting would be necessary. They preferred to have their overall recommendation taken directly to the Board of Supervisors, accompanied by a report that there was disagreement on whether a policy statement regarding rural residential development had been included in their recommendation. A full discussion on this issue is provided in Section G of the Technical Discussion attached to this transmittal letter (Attachment 2). The Task Force is recommending that the Board of Supervisors give conceptual approval to the attached draft Guidelines changes. Following your review, the Guidelines will then go out to each city and to LAFCO for adoption, and lastly back to your Board for final adoption. As co- chairs, we wish to extend our deepest thanks to the members of the Task Force who participated in this process and who gave their vital input on a very complex set of policies. We believe the concerns and issues which were raised are among the most important facing this County and its cities over the next two decades, and the recommended policy changes will enable us to continue to address those concerns with a sense -of mutual cooperation and a willingness to seek to achieve common goals. Sincerely, Maggie Kildee, Supervisor District 3 Attachments cc: Task Force Members City Managers LAFCO Director Planning Directors David Smith, Mayor City of Camarillo 0MIA7 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Of V87W THOMAS BERG couft 729 Agency Director 4(1 July 16, 1996 Bill little, City Manager City of Camarillo P.O. Box 248 Camarillo, CA 93011 Subject: Guidelines for Orderly Development On July 9, 1996, the County Board of Supervisors gave conceptual approval to revisions to the County Guidelines for Orderly Development, which had been developed and recommended by a special Task Force of elected officials. As you know, the Board of Supervisors convened this Task Force, composed of representatives from each city council, from the Local Agency Formation Commission, and from the Board of Supervisors, to review the Guidelines and, if necessary, to recommend revisions to those Guidelines. The Task Force held four meetings between November 1995 and February 1996. The major revisions which were recommended by the Task Force and conceptually approved by the Board are as follows: 1. Adoption of a definition for "urban development," which would apply to developments which would require the establishment of new or major expansion of existing community sewer systems, the creation of residential lots less than 2 acres in area, or the establishment of commercial or industrial land uses which are neither agriculturally- related nor related to the production of mineral resources; 2. Adoption of definitions for "Existing Communities" and "Unincorporated Urban Centers "; and 3. Adoption of policies for Areas of Interest where no city exists, such as requiring the adoption of an Area Plan prior to any urban development in an Unincorporated Urban Center. We have included the final version of the updated Guidelines for Orderly Development as conceptually approved by the County Board of Supervisors on July 9, 1996, in legislative format. We have also enclosed a brief technical discussion of the revisions and the new set of Guidelines in final form. We request that you have your city council act on these Guidelines revisions by resolution within the next two months and transmit a copy of the resolution to us. Once all cities within the County and the Local Agency Formation Commission have acted on these Guidelines, we will forward the Guidelines to the Board of Supervisors for action on their adoption. RECEIVED Government Center, Hall of Administration Building, L #1700 --- -t 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654 -2661 FAX (805) 654 -263QU U 2 2' 19� ® Printed on' Recycled Paper ��jJ - City of Moorpark Community Development Department Thmmittal on Guidelines for Orderly Development Page 2 County Planning Division staff would be available to attend the city council meeting you schedule and to answer any questions that may arise regarding the proposed revisions. If you wish our staff to attend, or if you need further information, please contact me or Keith Turner, Planning Director, at 6542661 or 6542481 respectively. Sincerely, Thomas Berg, Manager Resource Management Agency Attachments cc: Board of Supervisors Attachment I 1985 1996 Guidelines for Orderly Development (Draft) Preface: In a cooperative effort to guide future growth and development, the cities, County and Local Agency Formation Commission have participated in the creation of these "Guidelines for Orderly Development." The following guidelines are a continuation of the guidelines which were originally adopted in 1969, and maintain the theme that urban development should be located within incorporated cities whenever or wherever practical. The intent of these guidelines is to clarify the relationship between the cities and the County with respect to urban planning, serve to facilitate a better understanding regarding development standards and fees, and identify the appropriate governmental agency responsible for making determinations on land use requests. These guidelines are a unique effort to encourage urban development to occur within cities, and to enhance the regional responsibility of County government. - These guidelines facilitate the orderly planning and development of Ventura County by: o Providing a framework for cooperative intergovernmental relations. o Allowing for urbanization in a manner that will accommodate the development goals of the individual communities, while conserving the resources of Ventura County. o Promoting efficient and effective delivery of community services for existing and future residents. o Identifying in a manner understandable to the general public the planning and service responsibilities of local governments providing urban services within Ventura County. General Policies: I. Urban development should occur, whenever and wherever practical, within incorporated cities which exist to provide a full range of municipal services and are responsible for urban land use planning. 2. The cities and the County should strive to produce general plans, ordinances and policies which will fulfill these guidelines. Dom? 1996 Guidelines Page 2 Policies Within Spheres of Influence: The following policies shall apply within City Spheres of Influence (Spheres of Influence are created by LAFCO, as required by State law, to identify the probable boundaries of cities and special districts, realizing that spheres may be amended from time to time as conditions warrant): 3. Applicants for land use permits or entitlements for urban uses shall be encouraged to apply to the City to achieve their development goals and discouraged from applying to the County. 4. The City is primarily responsible for local land use planning and for providing municipal services. 5. Prior to being developed for urban purposes or to receiving municipal services, land should be annexed to the City. 6. Annexation to the City is preferable to the formation of new or expansion of existing County service areas. 7. Land uses which are allowed by the County without annexation should be equal to or more restrictive than land uses allowed by the City. & Development standards and capital improvement requirements imposed by the County for new or expanding developments should not be less than those that would be imposed by the City. Policies Within Areas of Interest Where a City Exists: The following policies apply within Areas of Interest where a City exists, but outside the City's Sphere of Influence (Areas of Interest are created by LAFCO to identify logical areas of common interest within which there will be no more than one City): 9. Applications for discretionary land use permits or entitlements shall be referred to the City for review and comment. The County shall respond to all comments received from the City. 10. The County is primarily responsible for local land use planning, consistent with the general land use goals and objectives of the City. 11. Urban development should be allowed only within aExisting'ecpmmunities as designated on the County General Plan. Drqft 1996 Guidelines Page 3 12. Existing Communities as desi®ated on the County General Plan should financially support County - administered urban services which are comparable to those urban services provided by Cities. Policies Within Areas of Interest Where No City Exists: 13. The County is resRonsible for local land use planning and for providing municipal services. 14. Urban development should only be allowed in Unincorporated Urban Centers or Existing Communities as designated in the County General Plan. 15. Urban development in Unincorporated Urban Centers should only be allowed when an Area Plan has been adopted by the County, to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Guidelines. Definitions fo„ r Implementing Guidelines for Orderly Development "Urban Development ": Development shall be considered urban if it meets any of the following criteria: o It would require the establishment of new communit y sewers stems or the significant expansion of existing community sewer systems, o It would result in the creation of residential lots less than two (2) acres in area; or o It would result in the establishment of commercial or industrial uses which are neither agriculturally-related nor related to the production of mineral resources. m Draft 1996 Guidelines Page 4 "Existing Communi , ": Existing Community is a land use designation of the County General Plan which identifies existing urban residential, commercial, or industrial enclaves located outside Urban designated areas (i.e., cities or Unincorporated Urban Centers). An Existing Community may include uses, densities, building intensitim and zoning designations which are normally limited to Urban designated„ areas but do not qualify as Unincorporated Urban Centers. This designation has been established to recognize existing land uses in unincorporated areas which have been developed with urban building intensities and urban land uses; to contain these enclaves within specific areas so as to prevent further expansion; and to limit the building intensity and land use to previously established levels. "Unincorporated Urban Center": Unincorporated Urban Center is a term of the County General Plan which refers to an existing or planned urban community which is located in an Area of Interest where no city exists. The Unincorporated Urban Center represents the focal center for community and planning activities within the Area of Interest, and may be a candidate for future incorporation. Attachment 2 Summary of Proposed Changes to the Guidelines for Orderly Development A. Proposed changes within Areas of Interest where a city exists: Areas of Interest are geographic areas created by LAFCO to identify logical areas of common interest within which there will be no more than one city. An Area of Interest map is provided at the end of this summary. Three changes are proposed for this section of the Guidelines: 1. Clarification of section title -The section title would be amended to more clearly indicate that the policies included in this section only apply within Areas of Interest where a city exists. A separate set of new policies would be adopted for Areas of Interest where no city exists (see Section B). 2. Intergovernmental cooperation - Policy 9 would be amended to require the County to provide a response to comments received from cities on projects in unincorporated areas. This policy is already being followed by the County. 3. Clarification of policies - Policy 12 would be amended to clarify that the "unincorporated urbanized areas" referred to in this policy are "Existing Communities" as identified in the County General Plan. The proposed amendment to Policy 12 would simply provide consistency of language with Policy 11. Policy 11, which only allows urban development within Existing Communities as designated on the County General Plan, would not be changed. However, a definition of Existing Communities would be added to further clarify the intent of Policy 11 and to ensure that the County General Plan policies on Existing Communities are incorporated into the Guidelines (see Section D). B. Proposed new policies in Areas of Interest where no city exists: In addition to Areas of Interest where a city exists, there are also Areas of Interest where no city exists. Such areas have been identified by LAFCO as logical areas of common interest where a city could exist. Currently, there are four such areas: Piru, Oak Park, Ahmanson/Bell Canyon, and the Las Posas Valley (see map at end of this summary). GaWiw Cb=r SrMy AW 2 The proposed new policies would be as follows: 1. Jur acdonal responsibility - Policy 13 would indicate that the County is responsible for local land use planning and for providing municipal services. This policy is the counterpart to Policy 4, which indicates that inside city Spheres of Influence, cities are responsible for local land use planning and for providing municipal services. 2. Restrictions on urban development - Policy 14 would only allow urban development in Unincorporated Urban Centers or Existing Communities. These two geographic areas would be defined in the proposed revisions (see Sections D and E). Unincorporated Urban Centers exist (or have been approved) in the Piru, Oak Park, and AhmansoW`Bell Ranch Areas of Interest, but not in the Las Posas Valley. The Guidelines would not require that an Unincorporated Urban Center be located in each of these Areas of Interest, they would simply allow no more than one such center per Area of Interest. 3. Requirement for Area Plan - Before urban development can occur in Unincorporated Urban Centers, Policy 15 would require that an Area Plan be adopted by the County. Area Plans have been adopted in the Piru, Oak Park, and Ahmanson/Bell Ranch Areas of Interest, but not in the Las Posas Valley. C. Proposed definition of "urban development" The current Guidelines do not define urban development. The proposed Guidelines would include a new definition, based on three criteria (if any of these criteria are met, the definition would apply): 1. The development would require the establishment of new community sewer systems or the significant expansion of existing community sewer systems. By classifying projects which require new or significantly expanded community sewer service systems as "urban," the definition would encourage such projects to develop within cities, Unincorporated Urban Centers, or Existing Communities, where treatment plant facilities and a pipeline network are (or should be) available. The intent of this criterion is to direct development which requires urban - type services to locate in urban areas, which in turn promotes the efficient and effective delivery of community services. This is one of the objectives included in the Preface to the Guidelines. c re wm chop s ma y Pars 2. The development would result in the creation of residential lots less than two (2) acres in area The current County General Plan defines "urban" as any development which would result in the creation of residential lots less than one acre in area (except in areas governed by the Ojai Valley Area Plan, where the threshold is 2 acres). The proposed Guidelines criterion would establish a uniform 2 -acre threshold throughout unincorporated areas of the County. If this 2 -acre threshold is adopted, any new development in unincorporated areas which would result in the creation of lots smaller than the threshold (i.e., smaller than 2 acres) would have to be located in an Unincorporated Urban Center or an Existing Community. 3. The development would result in the establishment of commercial or industrial uses which are neither agriculturally - related nor related to the production of mineral resources. This criterion is self - explanatory and is consistent with the current County General Plan. D. Proposed definition of "Existing Communities" The proposed definition is reflective of the definition currently contained in the County General Plan. The definition would restrict urban development to existing developed areas, in order to prevent the creation of new Existing Communities. It would also prevent the further expansion of Existing Communities which have already been established by limiting building intensities and land uses to previously- established levels. The inclusion of this definition would, within the Guidelines, clarify and reinforce policies already being followed by the County. E. Proposed definition of "Unincorporated Urban Centers" The proposed definition is reflective of the definition now contained in the County General Plan. The inclusion of this definition would, within the Guidelines, clarify and reinforce policies already being followed by the County. i t si :.•' - . ............................... •i ll�s S4 . O JA i t �• F1 MOR P ............. E IRU • S AN TA PAULA i 4. j" i t' • ' ' VENTURA E y L • LAS PQSAS .� OXNARD " • THOUSAND OAKS OAK CAMARLLO PAR AHMANSON/ PORT BELL .• • ... '• CANYON I HUENEME •- • - AREA OF INTEREST BOUNDARY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY i qU CITY LIMITS N A. 7 -18 -95 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ADOPTING VENTURA COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the proposed revisions to the County Guidelines as approved conceptually by the County Board of Supervisors on July 9,1996; SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the proposed revisions clarify the application of the Guidelines and are consistent with the basic Intent of the existing Guidelines; and SECTION 3: The City Council hereby endorses the proposed revisions to the County Guidelines for Orderly Development and recommends adoption of the same by the County Board of Supervisors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 11996. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1996 Guidelines for Orderly Development Preface: In a cooperative effort to guide future growth and development, the cities, County and Local Agency Formation Commission have participated in the creation of these "Guidelines for Orderly Development." The following guidelines are a continuation of the guidelines which were originally adopted in 1969, and maintain the theme that urban development should be located within incorporated cities whenever or wherever practical. The intent of these guidelines is to clarify the relationship between the cities and the County with respect to urban planning, serve to facilitate a better understanding regarding development standards and fees, and identify the appropriate governmental agency responsible for making determinations on land use requests. These guidelines are a unique effort to encourage urban development to occur within cities, and to enhance the regional responsibility of County government. These guidelines facilitate the orderly planning and development of Ventura County by: o Providing a framework for cooperative intergovernmental relations. o Allowing for urbanization in a manner that will accommodate the development goals of the individual communities, while conserving the resources of Ventura County. o Promoting efficient and effective delivery of community services for existing and future residents. o Identifying in a manner understandable to the general public the planning and service responsibilities of local governments providing urban services within Ventura County. General Policies: 1. Urban development should occur, whenever and wherever practical, within incorporated cities which exist to provide a full range of municipal services and are responsible for urban land use planning. 2. The cities and the County should strive to produce general plans, ordinances and policies which will fulfill these guidelines. Policies Within Spheres of Influence: The following policies shall apply within City Spheres of Influence (Spheres of Influence are created by LAFCO, as required by State law, to identify the probable boundaries of cities and special districts, realizing that spheres may be amended from time to time as conditions warrant): 3. Applicants for land use permits or entitlements for urban uses shall be encouraged to apply to the City to achieve their development goals and discouraged from applying to the County. 000W 1996 GukWines for Orderly Development Page 2 4. The City is primarily responsible for local land use planning and for providing municipal services. 5. Prior to being developed for urban purposes or to receiving municipal services, land should be annexed to the City. 6. Annexation to the City is preferable to the formation of new or expansion of existing County service areas. 7. Land uses which are allowed by the County without annexation should be equal to or more restrictive than land uses allowed by the City. 8. Development standards and capital improvement requirements imposed by the County for new or expanding developments should not be less than those that would be imposed by the City. Policies Within Areas of Interest Where a City Exists: The following policies apply within Areas of Interest where a City exists, but outside the City's Sphere of Influence (Areas of Interest are created by LAFCO to identify logical areas of common interest within which there will be no more than one City): 9. Applications for discretionary land use permits or entitlements shall be referred to the City for review and comment. The County shall respond to all comments received from the City. 10. The County is primarily responsible for local land use planning, consistent with the general land use goals and objectives of the City. 11. Urban development should be allowed only within Existing Communities as designated on the County General Plan. 12. Existing Communities as designated on the County General Plan should financially support County- administered urban services which are comparable to those urban services provided by Cities. Policies Within Areas of Interest Where No City Exists: 13. The County is responsible for local land use planning and for providing municipal services. 14. Urban development should only be allowed in Unincorporated Urban Centers or Existing Communities as designated in the County General Plan. 15. Urban development in Unincorporated Urban Centers should only be allowed when an Area Plan has been adopted by the County, to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Guidelines. OOOILG O M GuideJiaas for Orderly Deve4wnt Page 3 Definitions for Implementing Guidelines for Orderly Development: "Urban Development ": Development shall be considered urban if it meets any of the following criteria: o It would require the establishment of new community sewer systems or the significant expansion of existing community sewer systems; o It would result in the creation of residential lots less than two (2) acres in area; or o It would result in the establishment of commercial or industrial uses which are neither agriculturally - related nor related to the production of mineral resources. "Existing Community Existing Community is a land use designation of the County General Plan which identifies existing urban residential, commercial, or industrial enclaves located outside Urban designated areas (i.e., cities or Unincorporated Urban Centers). An Existing Community may include uses, densities, building intensities, and zoning designations which are normally limited to Urban designated areas but do not qualify as Unincorporated Urban Centers. This designation has been established to recognize existing land uses in unincorporated areas which have been developed with urban building intensities and urban land uses; to contain these enclaves within specific areas so as to prevent further expansion; and to limit the building intensity and land use to previously established levels. "Unincorporated Urban Center": Unincorporated Urban Center is a term of the County General Plan which refers to an existing or planned urban community which is located in an Area of Interest where no city exists. The Unincorporated Urban Center represents the focal center for community and planning activities within the Area of Interest, and may be a candidate for future incorporation. 000161 September 12, 1996 RECEIVED V OF SEP 16 1996 rV CITY OF MOORPARK v OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Steve Kueny, City Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Sir: Enclosed for your records is a copy of Resolution No. 11,126, adopted by the Oxnard City Council at its regular meeting held on September 10, 1996. Sincerely, oy" J'- Tal-f� Amelia Pacheco Acting Assistant City Clerk ,17 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD RESOLUTION NO. 11,126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY OF VENTURA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, on January 9, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10,997 reaffirming its support of the intent and policies of the Guidelines for Orderly Development ( "Guidelines "); and WHEREAS, other cities have expressed concerns about additional demands being placed on their services from proposed urban developments that could occur just beyond their boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors convened a special Task Force of elected officials to review the Guidelines and recommend any appropriate amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the Board of Supervisors gave conceptual approval to a proposed amendment to the Guidelines and referred the amendment to each city for review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, the principal amendment to the Guidelines as set forth in the draft 1996 Guidelines for Orderly Development is the adoption of definitions for the terms "Urban Development," "Existing Community," "Unincorporated Urban Center," and the adoption of policies pertaining to areas of interest where no city exists; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the proposed amendment to the Guidelines as approved conceptually by the Board of Supervisors on July 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Oxnard resolves to recommend that the County of Ventura Board of Supervisors approve the amendment to the Guidelines proposed by the Task Force. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the Board of Supervisors or Local Agency Formation Commission adopts any amendment to the Guidelines, in addition to the amendment proposed by the Task Force and forwarded to the cities for review and recommendation, that the City Council reserves the right to review the additional amendment and reconsider this resolution. Resolution No. 11,126 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall send copies of this resolution to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors and Local Agency Formation Commission, and to each City Council in Ventura County. vote: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10 th day of September ,1996, by the following AYES: Gouncilmembers: Lopez, Maulhardt, Pinkard, Herrera and Holden. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Dr. Manuel M. Lopez, Mayor ATTEST: Daniel Martinez, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: js'6d� 4n-- Gary L. Gillig, City Attorney 256H8.1A