HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/1995, B-3 - GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT :?T'.' I r APPO`'0 GRANDE 305 4_ 07�E6 P.02
of PRRorp c 1 t-271N7A��IVO.
` Z Date rAction
� CGR/OY7 9
D
N MBMOR aMUM
Juv ie. nn a .
Cl019t
TO: MYORS AND CITY COIINCILS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
FROM: 14AYOR PETE DODGALL, CITY OF ARROYOI
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
RECOISbIDATIOH
It is recommended the Mayors and City Councils form a
subcommittee of three City Managers to initiate discussions
with County staff regarding the establishment of a consistent,
equitable Countywide policy on urban development.
DISCUSSION-
The Cities of San Luis Obispo Countv share a concern regarding
orderly development within the County. The Guidelines for
Orderly Development adopted by Ventura County are an
affirmation that urban-type development should take place
within City boundaries . The Guidelines strengthen a City' s
ability to control or review problems within its sphere of
influence. More importantly, the Guidelines establish 'a
partnership relationship among the Cities and County.
The attached documents more fully explain the Guidelines -
JV
JOINT RESOLUTION N0. 02-95
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILS OF
THE CITIES OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
INDICATING THEIR INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING WITH
THE COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the establishment of Guidelines for Orderly
Development would create an affirmation that urban-type
development should take place within city boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Guidelines strengthen a city's ability to
control or review problems with its sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, the Guidelines establish a partnership relationship
among the cities and County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councils of the
Cities of San Luis Obispo County, that a subcommittee of three
City Managers be formed to initiate discussion with County staff
regarding the establishment of Guidelines for Orderly Development
for San Luis Obispo County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Councils of the Cities of San
Luis Obispo County at a special joint meeting thereof held on the
27th day of September, 1995.
ATTEST:
MAYOR A.K. "PETE" DOUGALL
City of Arroyo Grande
ATTEST:
MAYOR GEORGE HIGHLAND
City of Atascadero
ATTEST:
MAYOR GENE GATES
City of Grover Beach
Joint Resolution No. 02-95
Page Two
ATTEST:
MAYOR WILLIAM YATES
City of Morro Bay
ATTEST:
MAYOR WALT MACKLIN
City of Paso Robles
ATTEST:
MAYOR PAUL BAILEY
City of Pismo Beach
ATTEST:
MAYOR ALLEN SETTLE
City of San Luis Obispo
T'' OF HPPi .'O OPANDE O`_ -:7- 7t b P.US
_ �-
. r"U NO, :'-
. f
A'. KV r / �.., .. ...
City o1 Arroyo Grande _ irw. ,
planning DPot. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
J U L 1 3 1995 MEMORANDUM
January 28, 1985
TO: City Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: VENTURA COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend adoption of the revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly
Development.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
At the meeting of January 16, 1985, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3:0,
with 2 absent, recommended that the City Council adopt the revised Ventura
County Guidelines for Orderly Development.
In 1969 the Board of Supervisors and LAFCO first adopted . guidelines for
growth. After considerable discussion and meetings with cities and other
agencies , a refined set of guidelines was developed and adopted by the cities ,
including Simi Valley, then by the Board of Supervisors and finally by LAFCO
in early 1976.
The major thrust of the existing Guidelines is an affirmation that urban-type
development should take place within incorporated municipalities that can
Provide a full ranoe of necessary services. Implementation of the guidelines
ensures the use of consistent development standards , orderly and
cost-effective extension of services, prevention of future developed county
islands within crowing cities, and prevention of the possible burden of such
islands developed at lesser standards requiring upgrading by the City if
annexation becomes necessary.
The revised Guidelines co one step further by sharply delineating
responsibility for growth control decisions and stating policies in stronger
statements. Some existing policy statements that suggest direction have been
changed to clear mandates by substitutina_ the word "shall" for "should." This
is very Progressive at the County level and accedes to the desires stated in
1976 by some of the outside agencies that reviewed the existing Guidelines .
Adoption of the revised Guidelines would have the positive effect of
strengthening the Ci`v' s ability to control or review projects within its
Sphere of Influence and Area of Interest respectively. This promotes greater
local autonomy between the City and the County.
T' ' OF HPPi O i]PANDE —_ J�Bb P.06
2
The revised Guidelines are as consistent with the General Plan policies and
goals as the existing Guidelines. The County's desire for fiscal conservation
which spurred the creation of the Guidelines goes hand in hand with the City's
desire for cost efficient development, local control and natural resource
conservation.
As of this writing, six of the ten cities in Ventura County have approved the
revised Guidelines: Camarillo, Ojai , Ventura, Moorpark, Santa Paula, and
Port Hueneme.
The Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development are general policy
statements made by the legislative body and as such are not considered a
"project" under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Guidelines are
therefore exempt from environmental review (Section 15378(b) of the California
Administrative Code).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend adoption of the revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly
.Development to the City Council .
This alternative strengthens the partnership arrangement that now exists
between the City and County of Ventura with a stronger stance on
jurisdictional responsibilities and a clearer statement on the policies
of growth and annexation.
Z. Recommend maintenance of the existing Ventura County Guidelines for
Orderly Development to the City Council .
This alternative suggests to the County of Ventura that the policy
statements recommended in the revised Guidelines are too strong and
inf-inae on the City' s autonomy. This alternative may have little or no
effect overall if most of the other cities and the County should approve
the revised Guidelines.
3. Recommend rescinding the existing Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly
Development.
This aiternative would be contrary to current City Council policies and
serve to promote disharmony between the City and Ventura County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the revised Ventura County Guidelines Tor Orderly
Development based on the findings that follow.
FINDINGS
?. The revised Ventura Countv Guidelines for Orderly Development are
consistent with the existing adopted Ventura County Guidelines for
Orderly Development.
2. The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development provide a
framework for cooperative intergovernmental relations.
T ' OF APPI YO GRANDE 0U86 P.0'
3
The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development allow for
urbanization in a manner that will accommodate the development goals of
the City of Simi Valley while conserving the resources of this community
and the Countv of Ventura.
4. The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development promote
efficient and effective delivery of community services.
5. The revised Ventura Countv Guidelines for Orderly Development identify,
in a manner understandable to the general public, the planning and
service responsibilities of providing urban services within Simi Valley
and the adjacent unincorporated County areas.
6. The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development have been
determined not to be a project under the California Environmental Quality
Act and are therefore exempt from environmental review.
ames L. Arnold, Director
Department of Community Development
INDEX
Staff Repor: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Page 1
City Council Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4
Planning Commission Staff Report . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 5
Existina Guidelines for Orderly Development . . . . 7
November 8, 1984 Ventura County letter .. . . .. . . . 10
Revised Guidelines for Orderly Development . . .. . 11
Planning Commission Resolution . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . 16
Submttted
Counc9 an
Res ft
Ord. No ,
Bef
6t:3t�s
-3-
T'' OF AP.Pu 0 GPANDE =t�= r7- J:� P.06
RESOURCE MANAGtb.rNT AGENCY 10
county
������� Planning Division
Cannta oasis.AicP
Mansper
November 8, 1986
James L. Arnold, Planning Director
City of Simi Valley
3855 D Alamo St.
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Subject: Guidelines for Orderly Development
Dear Jim:
Attached is the final version of the updated Guidelines for Orderly Development
as recommended by the City County Planning Association on October 26, 1984. we
request that you have your City Council adopt these Guidelines, by resolution, no
later than November 30, 1984, and transmit a copy of the resolution to us.
Once all cities within Ventura County have acted on these Guidelines, we will
forward the Guidelines to the Hoard of Supervisors and LAFCO for their adoption.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 656-2681.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE Y.ANAGEPiENT AGENCY
I
r
Dente s T. Davis. A[CP
Manager. Planning Division
DTD:BS:j/h27
800 Sr�tn Victoria Avenue..vdntura.CV 93009
•EP—_1-1? +c• i6: i13 !T`i' GF tiPPO'(0 GPANDE -I]` 7 P.09
11
VENTURA COUNTY 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 whecever practical.
The intent of these guidelines is to clarify the relationship between the cities
and the County with respect cc urban planning, serve to facilitate a better
understanding regarding development standards and fees, and identify the
appropriate governmental agency responsible for making determinations an land use
requests. These guidelines are a unique effort to encourage urban development to
occur within cities, and to enhance the regional responsiblity of County
government.
These guidelines facilitate the orderly planning and development of
Vcntura 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 plamaing
and service responsibilities of local governments providing urban services
within Ventura County.
November, ;984
H272/1
:c i'. 7'.' ijF HPPO'f0 GP,ArJDE =_i5 =6 P. 117
12
GENEP.A` L P_piICIES;
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 plana, 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, ultimate boundaries of cities and special districts, realizing that
spheres may be amended from time to time es 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.
S. Prior .co being developed for urban purposes or to receiving municipal
services, land should be annexed to the City.
J11..., 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.
g. Development standards and capital improvement requirements imposed by the
County for new or expanding developments, should not be less than chose that
would he imposed by the Pity.
POLICIES WITHIN AREAS OF INTEREST:
The following Policies apply within Areas of Intereac where a City cxiscs, but
outside the City's Sphere of Iafluenee (Areas of Interest arc created by LAFCO to
identify logical areas of common interest within -lhich there will be no more than
one city):
9. Applicacioes for land use permits or entitlements shall be referred to the
City for review and comment.
10. The County is primarily responsible for local land use planning, consistent
with the general land use goals and objectives of the City.
1.1. Urban development should be allowed only within existing communities as
designated on the County General Plan.
12. Unincorporated urbanized areas should financially support County-
administered urban scCVleea which are comparable to those urban services
' provided by Cities.
ES1pN272
11272/2
iF "PRI-1,13 i:rANDE _0477 DZE6 P. 11
13
VENTURA COUNTY'S GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
The following "Guidelines for Orderly Development" have been
adopted by [AFCO, the Board of Supervisors and the majority of
cities within Ventura County. These refine guidelines adopted
in 1969, maintaining the consistent theme chat urban development
should be located Within incorporated cities Whenever and wherever
practical.
The adoption of these in Kay 1976 culminated an effort during
the previous year by the County, LAFCO, local agencies and pri-
vace citizen groups to improve the clarity of relationships
between cities with respect cc urban development projects within
their respective spheres of interest. The Ventura LAFCO has
directed chat ics staff use the adopted Guidelines in evaluating
proposals.
Presently, a "task force" of CityCouncy, special district and
LA FCO representatives are developing methods and mechanisms for
implementing the Guidelines .
GUIDELINES
FOR
ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
In a cooperative effort to guide the future growth and
development of Ventura County, the cities, County and
Local Agency Formation Commission have participated in
the creation of the Guidelines for Orderly Development.
The adoption of these guidelines will allow and encourage
cities co exercise municipal responsibility within estab-
lished spheres of Lnteresc. These guidelines are neces-
sary co clarify the roles chat Local agencies will have
in the coming years.
These guidelines, which apply only to chose spheres of
interest in which a city exists, serve to facilitate a
better understanding concerning development standards
and fees, and further identify the appropriate govern-
mental entity responsible for making determinations on
urban land use requests within its sphere.
Finally, these guidelines are a unique effort cc encourage
urbanization projects to. occur utchin cities and to evolve
m
a regional approach co County governent.
T" i iF .;PPID 'p GFRANLE 3.:_ - _1-66 P. 17'
is
1. URBAN DEVELOPMENT should occur wic;ln incorporated
cities which exist cc provide a full range of
municipal services .
Z. To be timely, URBAN development in chose spheres
of inceresc within which a city exists should be
adjacent or Legally annexable to the city, and
should be developed only within the airy.
3. 4lchin a city's sphere of interest, land uses
which would be allowed by the County should be
equal cc or more restrictive than those land uses
allowed by the city.
4. Within acity's sphere of inceresc, development
standards and cases imposed by the County should
be not less than those required by the city.
S. A significant measure of the appropriateness of
a chane from a rural to an URBAN land use is
the existence of urban services.
6. Within spheres of interest where a city exists,
and within "urban" areas as exhibited on the
Open Space Element of the County General Plan,
applicants should be discouraged from making
application to the County for URBAN land uses
and be directed cc the appropriate city to achieve
their development objectives.
7. Properties within the unincorporated area which
receive cunicipal services from a city should be
included within the limits of chat city.
S. Annexation of unincorporated URBAN properties
within a city's sphere of interest should be
encouraged as a method of ensuring chat existing
UREPN land uses are located within municipal
boundaries, provided rhat proposals co anne.-
suc,, properties should include supportive docu-
ments and active encouragement from the city.
9. Existing unincorporated properties on the periph-
ery of cities, which lack and would 'benefit from
community sewers, should be encouraged and
assisted in gaining that service from such cities.
-2-
=-� J��b P.
F�—_1—i'?'?= -= -- 'T'' OF ARRO`ID GRANGE
is
10. Unincorporated URBAN areas should financially
support local• Councy-administered urban ser-
vices which are comparable to chose urban
services provided by cities.
11. Annexation to existing cities is preferable to
the formation of new, or the expansion of exist-
ing, County service areas.
May 26, 1976
-3-
T. UP APPO'i'U GRANDE = _ D,36 P. 14
31'
D "' `a
Z p ; D 1
CA
cn
1
PC
3 \ •.ti
Z �
..............
m
,
Z
r * crrj
sY d
b � � .;D r
00 - o
til C
� � CA
.atY q� Z T
1 -
7'1 T'i' I_F PPPO'i0 GP.fNGE ilk 3286 P. 1c
a3 S
- n O � � �`g" �'
<E 5a < 0O � omommm Qv<*00000 < 3 -
Cmoo �-4 m " - _ c CL -
.
moo3 ?op13m3com aOm
Wa0 < —.< CDC) ' c3 - mom 3
a + CO 0aoc°�,Q _c0CA O om = m�cnc° m3
ao3o < CT3 - a � om3 -'?'c me
rm 0 m` 0 0 o a 53 0 a
-000090,
�9 mr
Q a m N
O m Q m a' a > Q p G O Q 7
O- cp U0o s a � o� � nm m
N fmmt� ^m y
i 5 - WE �mm � - r Q
7'-< o0 � c°) ma-non00
� V7l� cHtm« CD 0C. ea
- - O-D 40
C N m m m 5_ 1
J V ^ m C O
omD � � om gco•��mlg ,< a
m m O O 0. 0 7 Q 3 a-< -<
�— m30mm9Om5
C � a0aaZ0om
cpm om = =3
M0' ;Mv m n m mo ,�a� ?ao
av Z = Z moomsmQ �
ml Z O 3Qmom � ffi
M D �' 500 C) mom
0 O -ze go rm
7 m m
T=i C =� MO m m = C 0 n�
7Q m LTi .�' ?y � > Q > > =S+
r) H m M oNmomao " o
-
M S 7�o ammo:;
mCL
00aoo' mm
tl� S ()� C) � � sD • m <m D � m m f amID m f tea ID o m f 0 3m f m. 0
n« mas� 3 = � mm � �7� fmc +�� 3 m 0 m -3 GOP
� c �m Z ' mm = 7� � s mvc m m no �CD
5 m i c nm my? �' 3 c m O
° 0 0 0 s SD I m o a�a T D o m m 3 o f m =
m � o � I 2b
° ac '° fir � mno.mm � oro a ° � m - a3 ; - mm _ > >n
m - 3 3 � 3 CL soam3g ? iv' momg 0Cz� m - 0e ewe
axtn _ c� m 0 3 0 0 0 3 c m o f m 3 m e _vv m a dpi m m m _m = m IDm o
0 m msi a ° ' e °+ 0.z� S."c
RZ �y m m 0 - mmZ m .�jmmZ � 7 m �� F �- o
S _ �C(n = a mF0 .03 amn
c ° a 1 O - 30 m - ? o
0- m m m 0 g
3 $ a eo? mmmm3i � IDmua ° m ° 3 m FEM c ma • M03Qm 3s
3 'CN � mommam � m _cdmom3 � mc� cg gm ° sov � IDa
s so �. m 0 Cp Doom 7 ° = Q :3a- a - gym= m 3o = O r
o s m n ((]] n > 3 a m $ m o a m o e S
C"= S n m G m O m S p m m E p m C m o u m 0 ID 0 7
r.a-f° smara3 ' o m a mo_ CL m ID' g o
O C7 m m m o m ? 0- 0
m ? c ° s ? C 7 c 0 n o C S m F m ° 3
1 � QF ° mo £ � m0m - 3Q -C FL
a � FL c7m s < g 3
ym - ° mm .. 0• a-: m Sm C, ? mr mmomm 3 m � � amo
o -C --- = 0C � io � m ° zwm -1 $ m-n = = � mm3c3S $ e
� _ m o m --gym m e n o
�m � m � m9.!. " ' m � : �: o <: ?� gym : : � amf � :g�
�C- 1-1:95 -�•-_ I MJF A4P i I O �P.ANDE =,�CF --3 :3766 P. 16
V L
A PAPER PRESENTED TO THE
1995-1996 VENTURA COUNTY GRAND JURY
THE ROLE of LAFCO IH
PRESERVING COMKUNITY LIVABILITY AND IDENTITY:
THE "SPHERES OF INFLUENCE" PROGRAM AND "GUIDELINES
FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT"
presented by
Stanley A. Eisner, MSCRPI AICF; AEP
Executive Officer, Ventura Local Agency Formation commission
BACKGROUND AND H-TSTORICAL M,5PEMrM
Rapid population growth in California, especially in the 1950's and
1960 's , created a situation that can only be described as
"annexation wars" between the cities of the state. These land
grabs, Which were unplanned, uncoordinated, and without any logic,
created situations where inadequate services and facilities Were
available for new city residents, open space and agricultural land
resources were dissipated without regard for any future beyond an
immediately profitable tomorrow, and the physical separation
between urban places disappeared. The boundary maps of many cities
looked like paper doilies.
In 1963 , the California state legislature passed the Knox-Nisbet
Act. This legislation created in each of California's counties a
regulatory body known as Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) ,
wit's authority to review and approve (or deny) annexations,
boundary changes , city incorporation and disincorporatien, and the
formation of special districts.
In 1972 , t-he law was amended to require LAFCO's to prepare so
called "Spheres of Influence" for each city and special district in
the county. A sphere of influence was defined as "a pian for the
probable ultimate physical boundary and service area of a local
governmental agency." In 1965 , the state law Was again greatly
revised and expanded and re-adopted as the Cortese/Knox
Governmental Reorganization Act of 1985 (Ch. 56000 of the
California Government Code) .
In defining LAFCO function and the role of the Sphere of Influence,
basic land use issues, as well as matters relating to
intergovernmental structure were to be taken into consideration in
the decision-making process. The legislative intent was clearly
stated as requiring LAFCO to plan for the development of vacant and
non-prime agricultural land within spheres, while preserving
existing open space, agricultural farmland resources, and important
environmental features outside of the spheres. LAFCD•s are
required to act in conjunction with the policies and objectives of
the California Environmental Quality Act (Ch. 21000 of the Public
Resources Code) , the California Coastal Act, and the Williamson
Act_
IT'.' OF HPP0 0 GRANDE P015 _:7Z 0326 P. 1^
GPHIC PERSPECTIVE'
Ventura County lies to the north and immediately adjacent -to Los
Angeles County - an area identified with unprecedented and unguided
growth in the post-war period. The Los Angeles basin has become
the living definition of the term "urban sprawl" , with more that so
individual cities running together, totally devoid of urban form or
identity. In the 1950•s, 1960's and 1970's the same fate overtook
the adjacent counties to the east and south - namely Orange, San
Bernardino and Riverside. Ventura County, geographically separated
from the Los Angeles basin by the Santa Monica mountains, was able
to maintain its Simi-rural atmosphere well into the 1970'x. The
establishment of Ventura LAFCO came at a time when fear of being
overrun by Los Angeles overflow urban sprawl, and the loss of major
agricultural/economic positions were high on the minds of both the
Board of Supervisors and the newly appointed L.A.F. Commissioners.
Spheres of Influence were viewed as tools for resolving the basic
issues that were confronting Ventura County. As such, they were
concerned with questions of both land use and urban form, as well
as local governmental relationships. The land use aspects concern
urban form, density and general planning concepts. The
governmental structure aspects concern organization of local
governments Which exist to provide public services and controls.
Although the specific requirements for the establishment of spheres
of influence were rooted in legislative mandates and
interpretations, the motivation for undertaking and completing a
comprehensive program rested with the Ventura Commission and their
sense of the fundamental issues of local government: encouraging
the efficient distribution and utilization of resources; promoting
equity and accountability in local decisions; establishing. clear
understanding between jurisdictions and resolving potential ,inter-
governmental conflicts; and the overwhelming fear that if something
were not done, Ventura would and up looking like Los Angeles!
THS SPECIPICS of THEySP1T M CD[TIiTY PRO6RMf:_
The L.A. F_ commission viewed the challenge as comprehensive in
nature. First, the Commission established 'Areas of Interest",
dividing the more accessible southern portion of the County into
planning districts. Each of these areas of interest has a city at
its core. While areas of interest had no State mandated definition
or criteria, they served Ventura County as the basic divisions for
purpose of starting the Sphere of Influence process.
The Spheres of Influence (already defined above) were further
refined to provide "Urban Service Areas", or 5-year annexation
lines, which would relate to capital improvement Frog=ams of the
cities and short-term population projections. These are viewed as
limited range planning tools to provide greater predictability to
decisions on individual annexation proposals.
_•EF-_1-?'?'?5 it :__ :T' OF HPP IO GP.HNLE =O -_ J1 ,6 P.16
The Ventura L.A.F. Commission has adopted two sets of policies that
are the pillars of the planning program - and the key factors in
making Ventura a livable environment: "The Factors Necessary to
Establish Spheres of Influence"; and, "The Guidelines For Urban
Development" .
TSE EA=RS NECESSARY TO BS AB isH spggjLrsS of EMMUElfCE
The State law (Section 156425 of the California Government code)
established four factors that must be considered by local LAF=s in
determining spheres of influence:
[ 11 The present and planned land use in the area, including
agricultural and open space.
[ 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 of
interest in the area if the commission determines that they
are relevant to the agency.
In developing its Spheres of Influence, Ventura County went beyond
these required considerations and adopted a more .detailed set of
criteria:
[ 1] The maximum possible service area of the agency based upon
present and possible service capacities of the agency.
[21 The range of services the agency is providing or could
provide_
[3 ] The projected future population growth of the area.
[a] The type of development occurring or planned for the area,
including, but not limited to, residential , commercial, and
industrial development.
[ 5 i The present and probable future service needs of the area.
[6] Local governmental agencies presently providing services
to such area and the present level, range and adequacy of
services provided by such existing local governmental
agencies.
[71 The existence of social and economic interdependence and
the interaction between the area within the boundaries of a
local governmental agency and the area which su -rounds it and
IDF HPPGOD GRANDE -,_ P. 19
which could be considered within the agency's sphere of
influence_
[8] The existence of agricultural preserves in the area Which
could be considered within an agency's sphere of influence and
the effect on maintaining the physical and economic integrity
of such preserves in the event that such preserves are within
the sphere of influence of a local governmental agency.
ZMFLMIF.R=OH TB MGH "GUI MUNK3 FOR ORDERLY flE1TBI1 F2Mff"
once in place, the spheres of influence program required an overall
implementation policy, and a commitment to the goals of a community
separation and identity preservation program, open space and
agricultural land preservation, and resource management. In order
to accomplish this, Ventura LAFCO designed, and the Board of
supervisors of the county and the city councils of the ten cities
adopted, a series of principals known as "The Guidelines For
Orderly Develooment" . . The adoption of these guidelines allowed and
encouraged cities to exercise municipal responsibility within
established spheres, and clarified the roles of local agencies in
extra-territorial land use planning.
The guidelines also served to facilitate a better understanding
between the cities and the County planning and land use regulation
programs . The County, in adopting the Guidelines as a part of the
General Plan agreed to protect the cities by not allowing any use
that was more intense, or at lower development standards , than the
identified city in the sphere.
Finally, the Guidelines have provided a unique approach to
encouraging urbanization projects to occur within cities and to
evolve a regional appraach to County government_
specifically, the "Guidelines For Orderly Development" state:
Urban development should occur within incorporated cities
which exist to provide a full range of municipal services.
To be timely, Urban development in those areas of interest
within which a city exists should be adjacent or legally
annexable to the city, and should be developed only within the
city..
Within a city's area of interest, land uses which would be
allowed by the County should be equal to or more restrictive
than those land uses allowed by the city.
Within a city's area of interest, development standards and
costs imposed by the County should be not less than those
required by the city.
A significant measure of the appropriateness of a change from
a rural to an urban land use is the existence of urban
'_CP-_1-1945 T',' I-IF r;PPu i'0 GPJ;r1: :C86 P.=0
services.
within an area of interest, and within urban areas as
delineated on the Open Space Element of the County General
Plan, property owners should be discouraged from making
application to the County for urban land uses and be directed
to the appropriate city to achieve their development
objectives.
Properties in the unincorporated area which receive municipal
services from a city should be annexed to that city.
Annexation of unincorporated urban properties Within a city's
Sphere of Influence should be encouraged as a method of
ensuring that existing urban land uses are located within
municipal boundaries, provided that proposals to annex such
properties should include supportive documents and active
encouragement from the city.
Existing unincorporated properties on the periphery of cities,
which lack and *could benefit from community sewers , should be
encouraged and assisted in gaining that service from such
cities.
Unincorporated urban areas should financially support local
County-administered urban services which are comparable to
those urban services provided by cities.
Annexation to existing cities is preferable to the formation
of new, or the expansion of existing, County service areas.
CONgLUNICHS AFTER TEN YEARS:
The Spheres of Influence system and the Guidelines for Orderly
Development appear to be working for Ventura County. With fev
exceptions, the Guidelines have been followed. by LAFCO, the Board
of. Supervisors of the County, and by the tan cities in the County.
The separation of the cities has been enhanced by the creation of
permanent agricultural greenbelts. Urban development has taken
place in existing cities, or has been annexed to existing cities
prior to conversion from rural to urban uses .
Probably the best measure of the success of the program is in
economic terms. Ventura County goverment is surprisingly strong
financially, since it is not obligated to provide urban levels of
service based on a county tax base (which by its nature in
California is rural-oriented) . The preservation of "prime
agricultural land" has also had an economic effect on the County.
Agriculture in Ventura County represents a billion Dollar industry,
employing thousands of people, and bringing millions of Dollars to
the local economy. Each acre of prime agricultural soil that is
last to urbanization represents a major step in the direction of
loosing this vital economic resource.
7'1-I'+' _= i T'r' OF APPi i','O I-RANDE G 477 0 66 P.=1
Most important to the process, the people of the County generally
support the efforts of LAFCO and recognize that the "life-style"
that brought them to this County could easily .be destroyed by greed
or inaction.
TOTAL P.21