HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1204 CC REG ITEM 10MAGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council �
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme `
L. J �-.
".�". /O•
DATE: November 21, 1996 (For the City Council Meeting of December 4,
SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding the Draft Revised County Guidelines for Orderl ' ' f
Development
BACKGROUNI2
At the meeting of September 18,1996, City Council recommended that the Draft Revised Guidelines
for orderly Development be further considered or be modified in the Moorpark Area of Interest (see
attached staff report and Council Resolution). City Council recommended to the Board of
Supervisors that the definition of Urban Development be changed such that the creation of lots of
five acres or less be considered urban, rather than two acres as recommended in the Draft Guidelines.
If this revised definition could not be considered County wide, the it be considered for the Moorpark
Area of Interest. Moorpark was the only City in the County to raise objections to the draft
Guidelines.
DI,SCUSSI.OL�I
The Draft Revised Guidelines for Orderly Development are scheduled for hearing before the Board
of Supervisors on December 10, 1996, probably for the afternoon session, beginning at 1:30 pm.
Subsequent to action by the City Council, the County staff has indicated their interpretation that the
references to commercial and industrial uses in the definition of "urban development" on page 3 of
the Draft 1996 Guidelines should only apply to commercial and industrial zoning not uses. This
issue was addressed as part of the hearings on the proposed driving ranges in the Tierra Rejada
Valley. If the definition of "urban development "and the policies within Areas of Interest in the
Draft 1996 Guidelines were applied then it appears the driving ranges would not be consistent with
the Guidelines. However, County staff does not agree with this interpretation.
City Council may wish to appoint a representative of the Council to appear before the County Board
of Supervisors to further express the City's views.
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
(':',OFFICE \WPWIN \W PDOCS \CCRP'1'S \GDLNSBS. WPD
RESOLUTION NO. 96-1227
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C0�7NCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPA.RK,
COU11IT'r OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
REVISIONS TO THE VENTURA COUNTY DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR
ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Ci ry r'Ouncil of
follows: the Cit} Moorpark, as
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered
the proposed revisions to t
conceptually by the County Board of Slupero sore ne JulJ approved
9
Y 1996;
SECTION 2. The City Council recommends that the definition
of Urban Development be changed such that the creation of lots of
five (5) acres or less be considered Urban Development within the
Moorpark Area of Interest;
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby further recommends that
since a consensus was not reached by the Special Task Force on the
issue of lot size, that lot size recommendations be further
considered, or if this definition is not to be used Countywide,
then the creation of residential lots of five (5) acres or less be
considered Urban, at least, within the Moorpark Area of Interest.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th
_ _ day of SEPTEMBER 1996.
Mayor Paul w. Lawrason J
ATTEST:
Lillian / Hare, ,PK
City Clerk oPP �9z l
F
v n,
4 �
ITC
(M�33
GUIDE RES
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
The Honorable City Council
Nelson hiller, Director of Community
IT
�Sa �ttc_a.oa
Develo
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 surbanx 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.
Cx WV0
000IL34 W014Z
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
C! : \OFF 2 CS \WPW 2 N \WPDOC S \CCR ?TS\ 6V2 DORDV . WP 0
1��35
<� -og`VF
l ' ��
`) L G
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF VENTURA
GOVERNMENT CENTER HALL OF ADMINISTRATION. L at880
300 SOUTH VICTORIA AVENUE. VENTURA CALIFORNIA 9009
July 9,1996 (Agenda)
Board of Supervisors
County of Ventura
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
"EMBERS CF THE BOARD
FRANK SCHILLO
C.' al'
SUSAN K LACEV
MAGGiE ERICKSON KILC__
.UCw tiIKELS
MAGGIE ERICKSON KILDEE
PC C-
3C5
'Ax 3C5 .51 TOLL FREE FREE NUMBERS:
CA,IAA;L--- LA _CNCrITa C,AI BC5 cX'
-- -
aL: �T: ER AP:pS 3C
C
EYT ,j1zC =
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 (Fiore)
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.
101
W "136
Board of Saperviaun
Task Force deport oa Guidelines for Orderly Development
July 9, 19%
Page 1
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, plattniing 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
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 not higher than 10 acres.
[n 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 asking whether they wished
to reconvene the Task Force to discuss the matter further.
UW13'7
Board of Saperviwes
Task Force Report on Caide0aft 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 beck 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 Kikiee, Supervisor
District 3
Attachments
cc: Task Force Members
City Managers
LAFCO Director
Planning Directors
Ia
art.
David Smith, Mayor
City of Camarillo
o0 013 ,
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY```
V8 i . ; THOMAS BERG
coaft MM :r,i,,E Agency Director
799 N-'� :
i
July 16, 1996 ( ' • J c]
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 Form and conceptually approved by the
Board am as follows:
1. Adoption of a definition for "urban developmen;" 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 amts in arty, 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
neat 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, .,
Boo South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654.2661 FAX (805) 654 -263 JUL' 2 2 X996
Printed on Recycled Paper
City of Moorpark
000135Cnmmunity Devewment DeOartrnent
Tcaasmittal on Guidelines for Orderly Development
Page 2
County Planning Division staff would be ava&ble 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,
--If" 6-4
'somas Be rg. Manager O
g
Resource Management Agency
Attachments
cc: Board of Supervisors
U ()(440
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 contimtation 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.
000141
Draft 19% Guideknes
Page 2
Policies Within Spheres of Influence:
The following policies shall apply within City Spheres of Influence (Spheres of Influence are
created by LA CO, 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 LAF'CO 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 o xisting eCommunities as
designated on the County General Plan.
(jW1AZ
Drat 19% GuMefims
Page 3
12, Existing Communities as desi®ated on the County
Genera_lan 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. 't'h! is responsible for local land use planning and for Providing municipal
services.
,14. Urban development should only be allowed in Unincorporated Urban Centers or
F..xistine Communities as desianated 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.
t _s �TMA0 1 s
/ .o
"Urban Develonrri' ent
velooment shall be considered urban if it meets any of the following criteria:
o It would require the establishment of new cOMMI t}ity 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;
2E
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.
W0Z443
Dro t 1996 GuMe ims
Page 4
Txisrting Communi , ":
Existing Community Is a land use duh mdon of the County General Plan which
identifies existing urbaa residential. commercial. a industrial enclaves located outside
Urban designated areas fie.. cities or Unfnaomarated Urban Centersl. An Existing
Community may include uses. densities. building inieoaitim and zoning designations
which are normally limited to Urban dMjjWW areas but do not aualify 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.a. precept further _expansion; and to limit the building intensitv and land use to
reviously established levels.
177 I r1_1 7 177 10I
Unincorpomted 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 Intense when a city exists:
Areas of Interest are geographic areas created by LAFM 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. Ckv(Acadon of section tide - 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. Cl voftation 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 when no city exists:
In addition to Areas of Interest where a city cxists, there arc 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).
-- — — --A
GaMWIMr Cb~ Sri-7
r'ar+ _
The proposed new policies would be as follows:
1. Juristgedond reapoxsib 1&y - 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. Re&Wcdons on Wban devgk4v sst - 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 Ahman wlkll Ranch Areas of
Interest, but not in the Las Poses 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. itequbv meat 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 Piro, Oak
Park, and Ahmanson/Bell Ranch Areas of Interest, but not in the Las Poses
Valley.
C. Proposed defcnition of "urban development"
The current Guidelines do not define urban development. The proposed
Guidelines would include a new definition, based on three criteria (W any of these
criteria are met, the definition would apply):
1. The dsyck p pent would require the eatablis meat of new Community
sewer systems or the significant expansion of existing communfty 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.
OW1.46
p4r3
2. The development would resutt 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 leas 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
industrld uses which are neither agricdtwdly- 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 "EaeiWng CommunWes"
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.
OW:14-7.
... $
OJAI
............. .......
FI MORE
PIRUJ
... -.
. � ....
SANTA PAULA
.�.s'
VENTURA 1, M' O�tPARK SIMI VAI��EY
i f
•��,J-1 LAS PQSAS
` � Lyric ...s it � _. •. •..�:
......__ OX
�.._....._... _..— THOU8AND OAKS
_ OAK•
! Y •` CAMAKLO PAR
i
_ AHMANSON/
link :.
PORT is •• ... BELL CANYON
HUE•NEME
C�
....... kll
r i
•- • • AREA OF INTEREST BOUNDARY
a— SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY
CITY LIMITS
A. 7 -18-95