HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0312 CC SPC ITEM 03AAGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
rllx. 2,
C A I
ITEM
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme t Dp MOORp ARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
DATE: March 7, 1997 (For the Special City Council Meeting 81 March 12, 1997) Z 199
SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence Study
ACTION: •
BY:
BACKGROUND
City Council has recently discussed a Sphere of Influence at the Council meeting of February 5,
1997, and at the Town Hall Meeting on February 8, 1997. In addition the Community Development
Committee discussed a Sphere of Influence at the meeting of January 29, 1997. Copies of reports
from these agendas is attached to assist the City Council in their discussions. Also attached is a brief
excerpt from the Planning Commissioner "s Handbook (prepared by the League of California Cities)
which briefly describes LAFCO and Spheres of Influence.
Staff has contacted Arnold Dowdy, Executive Director of Ventura County LAFCO to attend the
meeting on March 12, as well as a representative from County Planning staff.
As has been mentioned, the primary purpose of a Sphere is to define the areas that will ultimately
become a part of the City. The Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development do reference
different procedures for projects proposed within the County in the Sphere of Influence. However,
this only affects certain types of projects and is dependent upon the City's ability to actually annex
proposed projects. Keith Turner, County Planning Director did send some additional information
regarding discussions that occurred during the Task Force Meetings on the revised Guidelines, which
is also attached.
Council may wish to consider which properties they feel may be appropriate to consider to be
annexed to the City within the planning horizon of the City's General Plan. This horizon is between
five to fifteen years. An issue that is likely to generate significant discussion is the inclusion and
potential development of lands designated prime agriculture lands by the State. Also attached is a
an excerpt from a map showing Prime agricultural lands designated with a "P".
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachments: Memorandum to Community Development Committee, Dated January 24, 1997
Report to City Council, Dated January 29, 1997
Excerpt from Planning Commissioners Handbook
Memorandum from Keith Turner, Dated February 24, 1997
Map Showing Important Farmland
C:\ OFFICE \WPWIN\WPDOCS \CCP Ste}] =.
CITY OF MOORPARK
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Development Committee
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme
DATE: January 24, 1997 (For Committee Meeting of January 29, 1997)
SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence Study
When the last Comprehensive Update of the General Plan was prepared in 1992, areas outside the
City were included in the draft to address a Sphere of Influence for the City. Except for the area of
Specific Plan 8, for which the Messenger Specific Plan was in process these areas were not included
in the adopted General Plan Revision. Page 35 of the Land Use Element is attached which includes
the language adopted in the General Plan relating to these areas.
Also attached are excerpts from the draft General Plan Update, which include a map and text
describing proposed Specific Plan areas 4, 5 ,6 and 7, areas outside the City limits.
To prepare a Proposed Sphere of Influence Study now, would require a new General Plan
Amendment and environmental document, probably and Environmental Impact Report. After
adoption by the City, it would need to be presented to the County Local Agency Formation
Commission ( LAFCO) for review and approval. As part of LAFCO review, support of property
owners in the area is typically considered in granting approval. A Sphere of Influence Study has not
been included in the current budget or work program and a funding source would need to be
identified. Considering current staffing levels and existing development projects alreadysubmitted,
additional staff would probably be needed even to manage a consultant to prepare such a study,
required environmental documents, and LAFCO application. There are also application fees for the
LAFCO submittal.
C:\OFFICE\WPWIMWPDOCS\COMMRPTS\SPHEREST.WPD
• i N T
Y_.
REGIONAL `�• OPEN SdACE''
:?fOS 2)' I•".��1 -
1 ),
_ 1
SP #7 SP #8
SPECIFIC PLAN 7 SPECIFIC PLAN B r
19 LAND USE WX I. LAND USE MIX
_ •f
•`•� .. 1 10,.1 ,CwFf •.wE K ,
' '.i/ (M[LLfq WTi IO }pU,Kp W/C ]1fW ,S,q/r,t:
WMI1wG[ Wa A,t] UKi1F • AfE Y,[ AAq )14ACw[ tf]LLEwI'l]
. . ) 1 {d1 Yu1R[ AOIECIXMLL tool {ow v1 [ 1.CIX]UIIY 1,]a)
N... � ]E1q�OM1000 C01A1l110LL } K 1l,fMM110W C(NfE[AC1AL ) K
• ••. -/. -I ,u1[ fwKr ,fw1CU,U11t ,>•AC .
_ _ .` _ _ _ _ -• _ �' p(w f{A(X ••[C UI[w t/A[E ,.w, K ..
LAS POSAS REGIONAL
AREA OF —11:x* Su,—AL o..°[t[ ..EA pAF1K 4 +^ �•f,1, ,0 ,. o�
o[r[wr.as
INTEREST `{
�5yPECF7C PLAN 6,
I
LA[0 -USE wX
f -
r` 4
!L Cr� =+ i- 1Clwll.
SPECIFIC PLAN 4
de
LAND USE Wll N..E..iff. • '0 1
- 11]✓✓✓ J Mo uEC wx F �: - If
OPEN
E.t...a :'°" (B
.1...1--µ ,
)>eK - ;, • ' AEA ,�.Et,fw..... •;� `1
[1,EUCry]n,U,gw°1 10 fe v[tlArff!0 E. �•�_ •� IM.C/MTrtY,g1Yl ,U! wtarfio �� �`�(� 5•
1
SP 1#5
,SI? #4 "'mss Lyti 1
w.
a OPEN - SPA6E" l(,
Planning Area Land Use Plan (Unincorporated Area)
CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN
EXHBIT 8
�Irr'
-'--~-------'-- - `'~'
.....^....~.....~...~^—~..—............~....,~
'^^.--.--
^.... ~--' �
.~^. '--
~�_--~
..............
'~~
'--- ^'--^~—
! —~
/
L.__.
\ h �
DISTRICT WATERWORKS
SERVICE BOUNDARY
1990 COUNTY OF
ANALYSIS ZONE
vmtu,n County Waterworks oistrm
Wastewater Treatment Plant Master
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme t l�`—
DATE: January 29, 1997 (For the City Council Meeting of February 5, 1997)
SUBJECT: Benefits of a Sphere of Influence Study
At the meeting of January 15, 1997, Mayor Hunter requested an item to be agendized regarding
discussion of the benefits of a Sphere of Influence Study. The 1996/97 goals and objectives included
a goal relating to the development of an analysis to consider establishment of a Sphere of Influence
for the City. Such a study was also suggested by Supervisor Mikels at a recent Board of Supervisors
hearing regarding projects within the City's Area of Interest.
Under the revised Ventura County 1996 Guidelines for Orderly Development (see Exhibit 1),
policies are different for projects within a Sphere of Influence and within an Area of Interest. The
Guidelines indicate that applicants for land use permits or entitlements for urban uses within a
Sphere of Influence would be encouraged to apply to the City, rather than the County.
The City's present Sphere of Influence is the same as the City present boundaries. When the last
comprehensive update of the City's General Plan was prepared in 1992, areas outside the City were
included in the draft to begin addressing a Sphere of Influence for the City. Except for the area for
which the Messenger Specific Plan was proposed, the areas outside the City Limits were not
included in the adopted General Plan. To date, no expansion of the Sphere of Influence has been
initiated for the Messenger Specific Plan (specific Plan S) area.
Attached (see Exhibit 2) is an excerpt from the Ventura County Local Agency Formation
Commission ( LAFCO) Operations Guidelines relating to Spheres of Influence. An application
would need to be submitted and approved by LAFCO in order to expand the City's Sphere of
Influence. The essential elements of such an application are outlined in this excerpt. An application
would need to include proposed General Plan designations for the area, an environmental document
and proposed Plan of Services, along with considerable statistical and other relevant information.
Application fees to LAFCO would also be required. For an application of more than twenty acres,
a deposit is required and all actual costs are charged by LAFCO for processing the application.
C:\ OFFI CE \WPWIMWPDOCS \CCRPTS�SPRRSTUD. WPD
000005
Sphere of Influence Study
City Council Meeting of February 5, 1997
Page 2
As previously stated there is an established objective relating to an analysis to consider establishment
of a Sphere of Influence, however, it only contemplated preliminary work which would be
completed by City Staff. The current workload would not allow other than preliminary work to be
done by City Staff. Preliminary work to obtain information from LAFCO, prepare maps suggested
by the Community Development Committee, outline general alternatives, and prepare a report for
City Council direction could easily take sixteen to twenty hours of staff time (costs = approximately
$1500). To proceed with an application to LAFCO, to prepare a scope of work, request for
proposals, selection of consultants, preparation, review, and processing of studies and required
environmental documents, submittal and processing of LAFCO applications and fees would involve
several hundred hours of staff time and several tens of thousands of dollars of consultant costs and
fees to LAFCO.
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachments: Exhibit 1: 1996 Guidelines for Orderly Development
Exhibit 2: LAFCO Administrative Supplement Relating to Spheres
C. \OFFICE\ W P WIN\ WPDOCS \CCRPTS\SPHRSTUD. W PD
im
1996 Guidelines for Orderly Development
Preface:
EXHIBIT 1
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.
OtJ0001'+'
1996 Guidelines 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
or expanding developments should not be less than those that woul be imposed b y he Cityw.
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.
_ 000008
1996 Guidelines for G -deri
Page 3 y Development
-
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 Iess 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 (Le., 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.
....... .... (!Lafc4
VEnt local agEncy formation commission
hall of administration. L YiflBSo
800 south victoria avenue vcntura. ca 93009
(SOS) 654.2576 fax (805) 654 -SI06
EXHIBIT Z m� EX FIORE
JOHN K FLYNN
LARRY ROSE -
MARIA E. VANDERKOLK
DORILL B WRIGHT
alternatE mcmbErs
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT VICKY HOWARD
JANIS MCCORMICK
ROBERT N, MCKINNEY
TO
Executive officer
STANLEY A. EISNER
CORTESE /KNOX GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1985
relating to
AMENDMENT OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
adopted by
County of Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission
November 18, 1992
eReece %C Pape.
VV i -GJ- 0 WCU 1C • Ju f �I �. , vi ;,,�,n , - _r, uric+ nn irv, UQJ
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
The Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission has adopted
and criteria relating to the amendment of SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Ventura Count policies
spheres of Influence e i sa found i in Chapter establishing t amend i n
Cortese /Knox Government Reorganization Act Hof Section 1985: 56425 mending
of the
"In determining the sphere of influence of each local
the commission shall consider and prepare a written statement
Of its determinations with respect to each of the followin
9
(1) The present and planned land use in the area, including
agricultural and open -space lands.
(2) The. Present and probable need for public facilities and
services in the area.
(3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of
Public services which the agency provides or is
authorized to provide.
(4) The existence of any social or economic communities
interest in the area if the commission determines of
they are relevant to the agency." that
In order to assure that the Commission can
request for amendment to a sphere of influence,ly the
nfol lowa ng
information MUST BE PROVIDED AS A PART OF ALL SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
APPLICATION MATERIALS:
A. The maximum possible service area of the agency based
upon present and possible service capabilities of the
adoption) y
agency. (Please cite specific plans b title and date of
B• The range of services the agency is providing or could
provide. (Please submit "Plan for Providing Service
Within the Affected Territory" as required by Government
Code section 56653)
C. The projected population growth of the area. (Please cite
specific sections of the agency's General Plan Land Use
and Housing elements, as well as any other population -
based planning documents.)
0- The type of development occurring or planned for the
area. (Please include citation(s) of adopted general
that Plan, wi l l specific i�l 1 ustprla e the agency, s e intent - ) n
g documents
1
O(MILIL
N
UUI -CJ -yo NCI) IL -if rit V: i t yr onirin i nvLr vULV rnn rrv. UVJ .;L,r UVVU i V,t
E. The present and probable future service needs of the
area.
F• Local governmental agencies presently providing services
to the area and the present level, range and adequacy of
services provided by such existing local governmental
agencies. (Please be as specific and quantitative as
Possible)
G. The existence of social and economic interdependence and
the interaction between the areas within the present
sphere boundary and the area subject to inclusion with
amendment of the sphere line.
H. The existence of Prime Agricultural Land, designated open
space and /or land of Statewide importance. (please use
specific Soil Conservation Service definitions and
classifications for soil designations; County General
Plan Open Space /Conservation elements for open space and
other designations.)
I. The existence of agricultural preserves in the area which,
is proposed to be within the agency's sphere of
influence, and the effect on maintaining the physical and
economic integrity of such preserves if added to the
agency's sphere of influence.
J, Map designations the location of the proposed new sphere
l i n e , of topography, natural boundaries, and d r a i n a g e
courses, and any other physical features of significance. ('
The following quantitative information must also be provided
updated (if necessary) if previously submitted-to LAFCO): (or
K. How many acres are within the agency boundaries?
L. How many acres are in urban use? Percent of total?
M. How many acres of unused land are within the agency
boundaries? Percent of total?
N. How many acres of unused land within the agency
boundaries are suitable /available for development?
Percent of total?
0. How many acres are within the agency's sphere of
influence (not including that portion within agency
boundaries)?
P. How many acres are in urban use? Percent of total sphere
exclusive of agency area?
0. How many acres are suitable /available for development?
Percent of total sphere exclusive of agency area?
2
WOUNZ
rI I v ; Cf Vf Jrm I t1 �rlUL;1 UUCV rMA Hu. OUJ JCJ oODU
• r, u�
f-
VENTURA LAFCO DEFINITIONS AND POLICY
RE SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission makes a distinction
between "Minor" sphere amendments and "Ma'or'i
Minor amendments are defined as being ten 1 p en
Major amendments are larger than ei acres. 1 sphere amendments.
( ) acres Commission 1 ess , whi l e
a request for sphere amendment of less than Tt n (1 0 ) acres may "
if the area under consideration contains Prime y deem
or other agricu7turalMa�Or
.geographic /topographic significance. soils
It is the policy of Ventura LAFCO to limit amendments to
agency sphere of influence to three (3) per calendar any single
amendments may be 'grouped' and submitted as a single amendment
long as the total acreage of the combined minor amendments does nor
exceed thin � so
Y (30) acres and the territories are not adjacent s not
one - another. �acent to
It is the policy of Ventura LAFCO that Major amendments tp of influence will only be considered after a comprehensive review
of the entire sphere, which may include a complete en i a Sphere
analysis (EIR /focused EIR), examination using the criteria se
forth in section 56425 of the Government Code
policies /criteria established by. the CommissionSee above and any
set
Any area to be considered for inclusion in an amended sphere
influence must be a part of the requesting agency's adopted ere of
plan, and /or adopted specific area plan. p general
references must include P General /specific plan
(7) mandated elements, as policy identification in all of the seven
Government Code. HOWEVER y Title T, Chapter 65000 of the
DOES NOT GUARANTEE APPROVAL FOR A SPHERE OFHINFLUE CE AMENOME NT T sy
LAFCO.
BY
First and foremost, it is the policy of Ventura LAFCO to implement
the provisions of section 56377 (a) and (b) of the Government Code,
which state:
"(a) Development or use of land for other than open space uses
shall be *guided away from existing prime, agricultural
lands in open space use toward areas containing non -prime
agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote
the planned, orderly, efficient development of the area;
(b) Development of existing vacant or non -prime agricultural
lands for urban uses within the existing jurisdiction of
the local agency or within the sphere of influence of a
local agency should be encouraged before an
approved which would allow for or 1 e'ad to the development
Of existing open space lands for non -open -space uses
which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the
local agency or outside of the existing sphere of
influence of the local agency."
It is the policy of Ventura LAFCO, as adopted in the Guidelines for
Orderly Development, that urban development will occur within
000013
VV' LJ .JV WLU 1L'JU I II V 1 VI VIIR 111 I Flu LCI VUL V
incorporated cities, and only When
range of municipal services exists,
1 lift I1V1 V VJ J<_J V V V V I V V
the ability to provide a fu 1'I '
It is also the policy of Ventura LAFCO, in
Guidelines for Orderly as adopted
Development, that land consider the in a sphere of influence be adjacent or 1egal1 ed y annexaf e
to the city.
It is the policy of Ventura LAFCO, as adopted in the Guidelines for
Orderly Development, to encourage and support County Planning
Zoning in requiring that land uses which would be allowed within
sphere of influence be equal to or more restrictive than those land
uses allowed by the city, development a and imposed by the county be not dless ttanthose required rby the costs
It is the y'
policy of Ventura LAFCO, as adopted in the.Guidelines for
Orderly Development, to include unincorporated areas receiving
municipal services from a city within that city,s sphere
influence, and to encourage and support annexation to the city influence, earliest opportunity.
It is the policy of Ventura LAFCO, as adopted in the Guidelines for
Orderly Development, that annexation to existing cities is
preferable to the formation of new, or the expansion of existing,
County service areas.
It is the policy of the Ventura LAFCO to encourage early discussion
of any proposed sphere of influence amendments with the Commission
so that the Commission can provide direction to applicants which
will assist in the amendment process.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION IN REVIEWING REQUESTS FOR
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT
At the conclusion of its proceedings, the Commission may take any
of the following actions:
* Approve the Sphere amendment, as submitted.
* Conditionally approve the Sphere amendment
requested with conditions which may include detachment of
other areas from the existing sphere of Influence.
* Approve only a portion of the requested Sphere amendment.
Disapprove the requested Sphere amendment.
a
000014
CO OF YE
XESOZTRCE Mr AGE�ENT
AGENCY
PLANNING DZYISZON
1VIEM40XtANDTTM
Date: February 24, 1997
TO: Nelson Miller, Community velopment Director
City of Moorpark
FROM: Keith Turner, Dire or
SUBJECT: Guidelines to Or ivy Development Policies Regarding Expansion to
Sphere of Influence Boundaries
You may not be aware that the City of Camarillo raised the subject issue during the first
meeting of the Task Force on the Guidelines for Orderly Development. For the second
Task Force meeting, County staff_prepared a written discussion which was included in
the background report to the Task Force.
I am faxing a copy of the minutes of the first Task Force meeting when this issue was
raised, plus the portion of the written discussion in the,background report which pertains
to this issue. I hope the information is of use to you as you pursue the issue.
If you need complete copies of any of the materials which were sent to the Task Force,
let me know. In addition, if you wish to discuss this very difficult issue, I encourage you
to call me at 654 -2481.
Good Luck.
Attachments:
PLN DI R. B979. KT1pg
RECEIVED
FEB 2 51997
City of Moorpark
Community Development Department
o(MV-11
Guidelines Task Force
Summary of Meeting of November 8, 1995
Page 4
about what is "urban ". He said Ventura County's Guidelines are highly coveted in other
counties. He said perhaps city and County General Plans need as much attention as the
Guidelines.
Supervisor Mikels said she was looking for ways the Task Force could develop interpretations
that could be agreed to by consensus. She said the Guidelines are not an agricultural
preservation tool; the County General Plan has agricultural land use policies that perform this
function.
Randall Searcy of Save Our Somis said the Guidelines are implicitly a land use document
which define the character of the County.
Bill Little, City Manager of Camarillo, said Camarillo is surrounded by four Existing
(unincorporated) Communities. He said the city fought the Caston Trust battle (in the Santa
Rosa Valley), and now has to fight a battle in Somis.
Mr. Little said that despite the County General Plan definition of Existing Communities, he
believes they are being expanded. He said LAFCO made a mistake when it did not extend the
Spheres of Influence for each city beyond the city limits. He said he would like the cities's
ability to influence what the County does outside the Spheres of Influence'to be redefined He
said he was concerned that, under the current Guidelines, the area around Somis is totally
unprotected.
Rex Laird of the Farm Bureau said there were 23,000'acres of undeveloped land inside city
Spheres of Influence when they were first established. If they were expanded, they would
bump up against each other. The City of Oxnard is not up against its Sphere limit yet.
Mary Wiesbrock of Save Open Space said the Guidelines stop "step -out" development. She
said that if the County were to allow 200 homes to be built in an unincorporated area at one
acre each, that would represent "step -out" development. She said the City of Thousand Oaks
has consistently opposed "step-out" development, on the grounds that it is growth- inducing and
is inconsistent with the Guidelines.
Mark Burley of PRESERVE! said the Guidelines can't be discussed without discussing the
preservation of agricultural land. He said he was glad to see the discussion of greenbelts
included in the discussion of the Guidelines. He said part of the problem is the interpretation
of what "urban" is and what "rural" is.
Mr. Burley said the Santa Rosa Valley is an experiment in what is happening in the Las Posas
Valley. Mr. Burley presented a board mounted with pictures of the homes now being built on
one -acre lots in the Santa Rosa Valley. He said that, based on those pictures, he did not
believe the Santa Rosa Valley developments fit most commonly- accepted interpretations of
"rural ".
Mr. Burley said the cities should have veto power and that the County shouldn't have total
discretion over what is approved in unincorporated areas. He said the Board should not
00W:.b
Guidelines Task Force
Meeting #2 - Discussion on Issues
Page 6
Under this approach, total square footage of the residence would be
to the parcel size (the threshold would provide a maximum ratio of
footage to parcel size).
Question Five: Should Guidelines policies be amended to injildde additional
policies which provide for orderly development outside c' pheres of
Influence? If so, what policies should be considered?
What is the current purpose of Sphere boundaries 9
According to the current Guidelines, Spheres Influence "are created by
LAFCO, as required by State law, to identi the probable, ultimate boundaries
of cities and special districts."
Because the current Sphere
boundaries of cities, they:
- Clarify which j
proposal.
Establish the
by each city.
the probable ultimate
responsible for processing a development
service area for the provision of urban services
Indicate to pr erty owners whether their properties are suitable for
urban devel ment and whether city or County development standards
and capita provement requirements will be imposed.
Establi definite, logical boundaries on which properties are suitable
for n development and annexation.
In to the cities and County which areas are suitable for inclusion
Greenbelt agreements.
- 0 Encourage infill development and compact urban form.
Discoura a remature urban develo went in utlyin s.
Question Six: Should the city Sphere of Influence boundaries be expanded?
Current Guidelines policies within Areas of Interest where a city exists (and
outside Spheres) require the County to refer applications to the appropriate city
for review and comment. Under these current policies, the County has ultimate
authority to determine what land uses should be allowed and what development
000017
Guidelines Task Force
Meeting #2 . Discussion on Issues
Page 7
standards should be imposed. With Sphere boundaries, there are tighter and
more explicit limits on County decision making.
Some have suggested expanding the Spheres, so the cities would have more
authority to influence development policies in surrounding areas. By
expanding the Sphere line, all of the current Guidelines Policies 3 through 8
(the policies which apply within Spheres of Influence) would apply to included
territories.
For example, Guidelines Policy 7 would enable cities to control development
by requiring that land uses which are allowed by the County without
annexation should be equal to or more restrictive than land uses allowed by the
city.
In addition, Guidelines Policy 4 would make the City primarily responsible for
local land use planning and for providing municipal services.
However, the proposed expansion of the Sphere boundaries would also have a
significant negative effect on their current purposes:
Because Spheres represent the probable ultimate boundaries of cities,
expansion of the Sphere boundaries would either result in the
urbanization of a greater portion of the County or in the discontinued
use of the Spheres as the probable ultimate boundaries of cities.
- LAFCO would either no longer be able to use Sphere boundaries as a
reference line in determining which areas should be annexed or be
required to approve annexations of more territories.
- There would either be less certainty on whether (or how far) to extend
urban services beyond current city boundaries, or there would be a
tendency to extend urban services over a wider geographic area.
- There would be less certainty for property owners on whether their
properties would be suitable for urbanization and whether city or
County development standards would be applied.
- There would be less -certainty about jurisdictional responsibilities.
The ability to use the Sphere lines as a tool for encouraging compact
urban form and infill development would be impaired.
000018
Guidelines Task Force
Meeting 82 - Discussion on Issues
Page 8
Suggested Action:
It is assumed that the Task Force does not wish to substantially change the
current purposes of the Guidelines. If so, and if the Task Force agrees that the
proposal to expand the Sphere boundaries would in fact substantially impair the
purposes the boundaries serve, the proposed action to expand the Sphere
boundaries is not recommended.
Question Seven: Are there alternative actions w is Me
same objective as expanding the Sphere boundaries? What about adding 9ev
policies in Areas of Interest where a city exists ?`t¢
Unlike Spheres of Influence, Areas of Interest do not identify the,,probable,
ultimate boundaries of cities. Instead, Areas of Interest "idenoO logical areas
of common interest within which there will be no more thou one City." The
boundaries for each Area of Interest are much more broadly drawn, and
generally indicate where the interests of one city leaveoff and those of another
begin. �`
The current policies which apply in Areas of ,Merest where a city exists are
Guidelines Policies 9 through 12. The Gui clines currently require the County
to refer all applications for land use perTits entitlements outside the
Spheres to the appropriate city for rev' and comment;. The County has
ultimate authority to approve or den and use applications and to impose
development standards.
The only urban uses the G
Interest where a city exists
date has not indicated wh
policies for Existing Co
included in the Back unc
8].
;fallows outside the Sphere lines (in Areas of
e in Existing Communities. The Task Force to
ier they are seeking changes to current County
inities [a definition of Existing Communities was
Report distributed to the Task Force on November
The current Co General Plan policies allow infill development to occur in
Existing Co ities, so long as the outside boundaries of such identified
areas are no eing expanded, and so long as the intensity of the new
developm does not exceed previously - established levels. The Task Force
could di s whether this policy (and/or the implementation of this policy)
should a changed.
On a other hand, the cities may wish
sting Communities. If so, the Task
09 being sought by the cities and direct .
to have greater say over projects in
Force needs direction on what authority
on on what policy changes might be
006(&%1
l
11 -D Local Borders 1
ADJUSTING LOCAL BORDERS
LAFCO
The Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Govern-
ment Code §§ 56100 et seq.) consolidated the three major laws previously used
by California's local governments for boundary changes into a single, unified
law. The three prior laws governing changes in boundaries were (1) the Knox -
Nisbet Act of 1963, which established Local Agency Formation Commissions
(LAFCOs) and gave them regulatory authority over local agency boundary
changes; (2) the District Reorganization Act of 1965, which combined the
separate laws governing special district boundaries into a single statute; and (3)
the Municipal Organization Act of 1977, which consolidated various laws on city
incorporation and annexation into one law.
The California Assembly Local Government Committee has prepared a
guidebook which contains an annotated version of the Act, a cross - reference
table which illustrates the origin of the new sections of the law, and sample
LAFCO forms. The guidebook is available from the Assembly Committee on
Local Government, or from the California Association of LAFCOs.
The Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act provides that there
be in every county a Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO). A LAFCO
usually consists of five members: two representing the county, appointed by the
board of supervisors from its membership; two representing cities in the county,
who are city officials appointed by a committee consisting of the mayors of all
cities in the county; and one representing the general public, appointed by the
other four commissioners. LAFCOs in counties with fewer than two cities, in Los
Angeles County, Santa Clara County and San Diego County have specific
membership requirements. The day -to -day business of LAFCO is conducted by
a specially appointed executive officer or by the county clerk. LAFCO facilities
and operating funds are provided by the county.
LAFCO's are generally charged with the duty to discourage urban sprawl
and encourage the orderly formation and development of local agencies, based
on local conditions and circumstances, and planned, well- ordered, efficient
urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open
space lands.
LAFCO has the power and duty to review and approve, disapprove, or
conditionally approve proposals for incorporation and disincorporation of cities,
annexation of territory to and exclusion of territory from cities, consolidation of
two or more cities, development of new communities under the redevelopment
law, and formation of special districts. If a LAFCO wholly disapproves a proposal,
no similar proposal involving the same territory may be initiated for one year,
unless the LAFCO makes a finding that this limitation is detrimental to the public
interest (Government Code § 56855).
A LAFCO holds public hearings and follows other specified procedures.
Members may not be disqualified from acting on proposals affecting the city they
represent, except in the case of annexations and when such disqualification was
provided for at the time of their appointment. LAFCO approvals may require an
Environmental Impact Report under CEOA. Bozung v. LAFCO, 13 Cal.3d 263
(1975). Among the factors which a LAFCO must consider are a proposal's effect
on open space and prime agricultural lands and its conformity to applicable
general and specific plans and spheres of influence.
0MUZU
2 11 -D Local Borders
Spheres of Influence
The "Sphere of Influence" is a plan for the probable ultimate physical
boundaries and service area of a local governmental agency. Each LAFCO is
required to determine the sphere of influence of each local agency within the
county and to periodically review and update adopted spheres.
Spheres of influence must be adopted no later than 1985. Before a LAFCO
may approve a proposal within its jurisdiction, it must determine the sphere of
influence of each local agency which may include the subject territory in its
sphere. Resource Defense Fund v. LAFCO, 138 Cal. App. 3d 987 (1983).
In determining spheres of influence, the LAFCO must consider and make
written findings on the present and possible service capabilities of the agency;
its range of services; projected future population growth; type of development
occurring in or planned for the area; present and probable future service needs
of the area; adequacy of existing services and who provides them; social and
economic interdependence and interaction between the agency and the area
surrounding it; and the effect on agricultural preserves.
Spheres of influence are adopted and amended after public hearing.
Amendment or revision of an adopted sphere of influence may be initiated by
local agency request.
Annexation
The extension of the boundaries of a city by attachment of unincorporated
territory is known as annexation. Territory may be annexed to a city only if it is
located in the same county and contiguous to the city at the time proceedings are
initiated. An exception is made for territory owned by the annexing city, used for
municipal purposes and 300 acres or less in area. "Island" annexations (resulting
in an unincorporated area completely surrounded by the annexing city on one or
more sides and the Pacific Ocean on remaining sides) are prohibited, except
where LAFCO finds that such a prohibition is detrimental to orderly development
of the community and that the island is so located that it cannot reasonably be
annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city.
Annexations are initiated by submission to LAFCO of either (a) a petition from
five percent of the resident voters, or five percent of the number of owners of land
within the territory to be annexed who also own five percent of the assessed value
of the land within the territory to be annexed, or (b) by a resolution of the-annexing
city or the county board of supervisors. Such a resolution must be accompanied
by a plan for providing services within the affected territory including the services
to be extended, their level and range, and when they can feasibly be extended;
any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or
other conditions the city would impose or require; how the services will be
financed; and any additional information required by LAFCO.
All annexation proposals are reviewed by the LAFCO, and it is required to
consider certain factors: population density; land use; assessed valuations;
natural conditions; proximity to other populated areas; projected growth of the
area; needs, cost and adequacy of governmental services; the effect of the
proposal on adjacent areas and local governmental structure within the county;
conformity with adopted LAFCO policies on orderly development; effect on
agricultural preserves and open space uses; boundary lines; conformity with city
and county general and specific plans; and the sphere of influence of any local
agency which may be applicable to the proposal. In reviewing proposals that
could lead to conversion of existing open space to other uses, the LAFCO must
also consider policies and priorities favoring prime agricultural lands. Proposals
are reviewed according to the adopted plans and policies of the annexing city
UW-02 -
�J
in instances where development purposes have not been made known.
A LAFCO can approve or disapprove annexation proposals, with or without
amendment, wholly, partially or conditionally. However, it may not impose
conditions which directly regulate land use, property development or subdivi-
sion requirements. A LAFCO may require that a city prezone the territory to be
annexed, but may not specify how or in what manner it is to be prezoned. A
LAFCO may condition annexation of an area substantially surrounded by the
annexing city on inclusion of the entire island or territory. A LAFCO may not
disapprove a resolution of application for annexation of an "island" that is
substantially developed or developing or located within an urban service area,
is not prime agricultural land, and is designated for urban growth by the general
plan of the annexing city.
Annexation procedures are governed by detailed statutory provisions. The
LAFCO first holds a noticed public hearing. If it approves the proposal, the
council of the annexing city takes a series of actions prescribed by law. Failure
to do so may result in the county board of supervisors assuming jurisdiction. For
inhabited annexations (12 or more registered voter residents), the proceeding
may be terminated or approved by the council, or an election may be held,
depending on the number of written protests filed by residents and landowners.
At an election, votes are cast only by residents of the territory to be annexed,
unless the assessed value or number of registered voters residing in the
annexed area make up one -half or more of the city. For uninhabited annexations,
the city council will approve or disapprove the proposal depending upon the
number of written protests filed by owners of land within the territory to be
annexed. Where all of the owners of land within the territory to be annexed
consented to be annexation at the time of LAFCO review, no notice and hearing
by the city may be required. After the city council's adoption of the resolution
approving the annexation a LAFCO executes and records a certificate of
compliance in the county in which the annexed territory is located.
On the effective date of annexation, its residents have the same rights and
duties as if they were part of the city since its incorporation.
Prezoning
A city may prezone adjoining unincorporated territory for the purpose of
determining the zoning that will apply in the event of subsequent annexation. The
procedure for prezoning is the same as for zoning within the city, except that
published notice must be in a newspaper circulated in the area to be prezoned.
Prezoning takes effect when the annexation becomes effective. If a city has not
prezoned territory which is annexed, it may adopt an interim urgency zoning
ordinance (Government Code §§ 65854, 65858).
The fact that a property owner agreed to annexation upon condition that the
city apply certain requested zoning to the annexed property does not prevent the
city from exercising its discretion to rezone the property. Carty v. City of Ojai, 77
Cal. App. 3d 329 (1978).
However, a city may enter into a binding annexation agreement in which, for
example, a property owner agrees to annex to the city, install utilities and
improvements, and pay fees and charges, and the city agrees to prezone to a
certain designation and provide utility services and capacity. Morrison Homes
Corp. v. City of Pleasanton, 58 Cal. App. 3d 724 (1976).
11 -D Local Borders 3
0%, 01;�;d
�a
VENTURA COUNTY
IMPORTANT FAAkLANiD 1994
PRIME FARMLAND
Land with the best combination of physical and chemica
the production of bgricultural crops.
FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPOI
Land with a good combination of physical and chemical
the production of agricultural crops.
UNIQUE FARMLAND
Land-of lesser quality soils used for the production of the
leading agricultural cash crops.
FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTAN
ELI Soils that are listed as Prime or Statewide that are not in
growing dryland crops -- beans, grain, dryland walnuts or
GRAZING LAND
Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the gr
of 1}vestock
aURBAN AND BUILT -UP LAND
Land occupied by structures or infrastructure to accomo
building density of at least one unit to one and one -half
or approximately six structures to ten acres.
FX]
E
OTHER LAND
Land which does not meet the criteria of any other cote
WATER
Water bodies of 40 or more acres in size.
d
`JV
4
G
ri
1 �
�,4.
rA
P' g 1 G' #iti1 1i
u or
f S
Oaks P
lo
`' ' . '� - -. - fife►+ r 1.°:
1x3 '. a`_ 7 / 'jy� .✓
h u