Planning Commission Staff Report Hearing of September 7, 2017

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Staff Report Hearing of September 7, 2017 County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Planning Division 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA (805) vcrma.org/planning Subject: Public Hearing to Consider County-Initiated Amendments to the Zoning Maps in Article 18 of the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance for the Purpose of Establishing Consistency with the General Plan (PL ), and Amendments to the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt Ordinance No (PL ). A. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Applicant: County of Ventura, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California, Location: The proposed amendments to the zoning maps of the Ventura County Non- Coastal Zoning Ordinance (NCZO) would change the zoning classifications of 153 parcels located within the non-coastal areas of unincorporated Ventura County. These parcels are located within four geographic regions of the county, as described below: a. Oak Park Community (132 parcels, comprised of 93 assessor parcels and 39 common area parcels as shown in Exhibit 5-2) b. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory site bounded by the City of Simi Valley to its west, Los Angeles County to its east and the County s Bell Canyon Existing Community to its south. (7 assessor parcels as shown in Exhibit 6-1) c. Thomas Aquinas College located at Ojai Rd, Santa Paula, CA 93060, to the north of the City of Santa Paula (two legal lots comprised of 9 assessor parcels as shown in Exhibit 7-2) d. Parcels in unincorporated Camarillo, located along Valley Vista Drive, bordering the County s Las Posas Estates Existing Community (5 assessor parcels as shown in Exhibit 8). Additionally, the proposed amendments to County Ordinance No regarding the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt likewise pertain to the above-referenced Thomas Aquinas College property. 3. Request: The Planning Division staff requests that your Commission review this staff report and its attachments and adopt a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors (Board) adopt the staff recommended actions stated in Section F of this report as summarized below:

2 Page 2 of 23 Adopt the proposed ordinance amending the zoning maps included in Article 18 of the NCZO (Exhibit 3), and find that the County s approval of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Adopt the proposed ordinance amending the text and map of County Ordinance No regarding the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt (Exhibit 4) to reflect the removal of the Thomas Aquinas College property from the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt as a result of the property s General Plan redesignation from Open Space to Existing Community by recent voter-approved initiative ordinance. 4. Review/Decision-Making Authority: Under the NCZO and State law, the Planning Commission is required to review, conduct a public hearing on, consider and make recommendations to the Board regarding the proposed ordinance amending the NCZO zoning maps. Additionally, because the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 4) amending the Santa Ordinance No regarding the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt (Exhibit 7-4) pertains to a General Plan land use designation issue, the best practice is for the Planning Commission to review, conduct a public hearing on, consider and make recommendations to the Board regarding the proposed ordinance. The Board, at a subsequent public hearing, will consider your Commission s recommendations and decide whether to adopt, not adopt or adopt with modifications the proposed ordinances. 5. History and Background: Three major documents in the County govern development and are required by State law to be internally consistent with one another; the General Plan, Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan represents the County s view of its future and expresses its overarching development goals, whereas the Area Plans provide more specificity for communities in certain geographic areas. Each of these documents assigns land use designations and a set of goals and policies which guides future development. The Zoning Ordinances then implement the policies within the General Plan (and any applicable Area Plans), by assigning zoning classifications to each parcel. The zoning assigned to a parcel identifies both the allowable uses and structures and specifies the applicable development standards. Every parcel in the County has a General Plan designation and a related zoning classification. In some cases, the parcel may also have an Area Plan designation. For example, a parcel located in Oak Park may have a General

3 Page 3 of 23 Plan designation of Urban, a related and more specific Area Plan designation of Residential 4-6 du/ac and a compatible zoning classification of RPD (4 units per acre maximum). The General Plan and all Area Plans include a zoning compatibility matrix which aligns all applicable zoning classifications with the appropriate land use designations. The hierarchy of all three documents is represented in the flowchart below: General Plan An overarching policy document, which provides a comprehensive long-term plan for the physical development of the County, and includes goals, policies and programs, and identifies land uses countywide (such as agriculture, open space, rural, urban etc.) Area Plans Developed for 9 different geographic areas in the County (e.g., Oak Park, Ojai Valley, Saticoy, North Ventura Avenue, etc.), each Area Plan provides more specificity for the land uses defined in the General Plan, and is specifically tailored to each unique community by identifying another set of goals, policies and programs. Zoning Ordinance A regulatory document that includes a set of laws defining how properties with certain zoning classifications can be used. These include development regulations such as whether a parcel can be used for residential or commercial purposes, minimum lot size, placement and height of structures, as well as more specific standards based on each use. The County of Ventura adopted separate zoning ordinances for geographic areas comprising the coastal and the non-coastal zones. In the 1980s, amendments to the General Plan were adopted (e.g., the addition of the Agricultural land use designation) that resulted in inconsistencies between zoning and the General Plan (or Area Plan) land use designations. As stated above, California Government Code section et. seq. requires that the zoning classifications for any jurisdiction be consistent with the General Plan land

4 Page 4 of 23 use designations. In November 2015, the Planning Division initiated this project to research and resolve zoning inconsistencies in the County. Upon conducting an initial analysis, Planning Division staff discovered several hundred parcels where the zone classification was inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation based on a comparison with Figure 3.2b, the Zoning Compatibility Matrix in the General Plan s Goals Policies and Programs (Exhibit 2). In the first phase of the project, staff identified approximately 416 parcels that were incorrectly designated (or zoned) due to mapping errors that occurred when the County transitioned from paper to digital maps in the 1990s and early 2000s. Most of these were located in Lockwood Valley and, due to the nature of the errors, they were corrected administratively with approval from the Planning Director. The corrections were relatively minor and included updates to the County s GIS layers such as misalignments between the General Plan designation and zoning, and prior annexations which were not updated. These administrative corrections were reported to the Board in the 2016 and 2017 General Plan Annual Report, respectively. Several zoning inconsistencies could not be corrected administratively such as parcels which have zoning classifications that are not compatible with the General Plan/Area Plan land use designations. Therefore, the proposed project before your Commission seeks to legislatively amend the zoning classifications of 153 parcels. These 153 parcels are located in four geographic areas of the unincorporated county, as listed in Section A(2), above. Remaining potential areas of inconsistency identified by Planning staff will require further research. These will be evaluated for rezoning (or redesignation) as part of the comprehensive General Plan Update or other future long-range planning projects. Multiple data resources were utilized while conducting background research and preparing recommendations for this project. These included historical County maps; historical records of General Plan Amendments, Area Plans and Zoning Ordinances; records from the Clerk of the Board; recorded logs from the County s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data for applicable Ordinances; records from the County Surveyor s office; and correspondence with landowners. While Sections A(6) and A(7) of this staff report include a summarized version of each zoning inconsistency issue and a recommendation for each of the four geographic areas, a more detailed analysis of each subarea and supporting documentation is included in Exhibits 5 through 7 of this staff report.

5 Page 5 of Project Description: As mentioned above, a total of 153 parcels were analyzed as part of this project to amend the NCZO s zoning maps to achieve consistency with General Plan designations. Staff assigned index numbers to each parcel to provide an easier reference for each parcel, including those that are common lots with no assessor parcel number assigned. (These index numbers are included in various maps and tables included in Exhibits 3 through 9 of this staff report.) The 153 parcels identified are located in the following four geographic areas: Reference No. Location Number of Parcels a. Oak Park Community* 132 b. Santa Susana Field Laboratory 7 c. Thomas Aquinas College 9 d. Parcels in unincorporated Camarillo 5 Total number of parcels in Project 153 * The 132 parcels in Oak Park include 93 assessor parcels, and 39 common area parcels A detailed description of the history of each of the areas, along with their unique zoning inconsistency issues is described below. a. Oak Park Community (132 parcels, comprising 93 assessor parcels and 39 common area parcels) History and Background of the Oak Park Community: A majority of the Oak Park community, as it exists today, was developed from 1974 to 1991, when the County approved development plans for four major development areas within the extent of the current Area Plan boundary (then referred to as Planning Zones in the Oak Park Community Plan). At the time, the entire community was designated Urban, and every parcel was assigned a zoning classification of Planned Community No. 2 (or PC2 ). This PC2 zone served as a holding zone until landowners developed residential areas tract-by-tract. As development occurred, land was rezoned to the appropriate Residential Planned Development (RPD) zones. All four Oak Park Planning Zones include urban development (residential, commercial and institutional), distinctly separated by areas with large topographic contours, most of which encompass the open space areas and parks owned by Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks District. In 1988, the Oak Park Area Plan was established as part of a comprehensive update to the General Plan. During the update, the open space areas separating the four Planning Zones were redesignated to an Open Space

6 Page 6 of 23 land use designation. Later, in 1992, the PC2 zone was renamed in the NCZO as the Specific Plan (SP) zone. This revision to the NCZO resulted in the removal of the PC2 zone from the ordinance, but the County s maps retained 57 parcels with this PC2 zoning classification in the Oak Park area. The PC2 zone does not have any development standards in the current NCZO, and the zone s compatibility with current General Plan land use designations is not clear. More information on the transition of the PC2 zone to SP zone is included in Exhibit 5-3. Zoning Inconsistency Issue: Planning staff identified 132 parcels in Oak Park which were placed in two major categories in Table 1 below parcels where the zoning was inconsistent with the General Plan, and parcels where the consistency with the General Plan was not clear. These 132 parcels include 93 parcels which have assigned assessor parcel numbers, and an additional 39 common area parcels which are typically located around residential tracts, owned by Homeowner s Associations (HOAs), and do not have assigned assessor parcel numbers. Exhibit 5-2 includes a location map of all 132 parcels indicating their current zoning, as well as the adjacent zoning patterns in Oak Park. Table 1: Summary of Zoning Inconsistencies in Oak Park Category Type of Zoning Inconsistency Number of Parcels TOTAL A. Parcels with zoning inconsistent with the General Plan 88 1 Parcels zoned Residential with an Open Space (or split) General Plan land use designation 2 Parcels with split Zoning Classifications 14 B. Parcels with zoning where the consistency is unknown 44 3 Parcels zoned PC2 with an Open Space or Urban Designation 44 Total number of parcels that require a zone change 132* * The total of 132 parcels includes 93 assessor parcels, and 39 common area parcels (typically located around HOAs) 74 Ownership Breakdown: Of the 132 parcels, 66 percent are owned by public agencies (87 parcels), which constitutes approximately 93 percent of the land in Oak Park with inconsistent zoning. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the inconsistently zoned parcels by ownership.

7 Page 7 of 23 The public agencies include Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District, Triunfo Sanitation District, Oak Park Unified School District, Southern California Edison, and the County of Ventura. Most of these parcels (with the exception of most parcels owned by the Oak Park Unified School District) have a General Plan land use designation of Open Space. Table 2: Number of Inconsistently Zoned Parcels in Oak Park, by Ownership Ownership Number of Parcels Public Agency Ownership (87 parcels) Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Acreage (Inconsistent Portion) (1) Total Acreage of Parcel Percentage of Total Acres (2) % Triunfo Sanitation District % Oak Park Unified School District % Southern California Edison % County of Ventura % Total (Public Agency) , % Private Ownership (45 parcels) Pardee Construction % Alper Development Inc % Church of the Epiphany % Oak Park Lot ZZ % Common areas (HOAs) (1) % Other Common areas (1) % Total (Private Ownership) % Total of all parcels % (1) The GIS database was used to calculate the acreages for parcels which did not have an assessor parcel number (i.e., the common areas) and for parcels where only a portion of the parcel was identified as inconsistent. For all other acreages, the Assessor s database was utilized. (2) Total Acres refers to the total number of acres in Oak Park with zoning that is inconsistent with the General Plan. From the remaining privately-owned parcels, 39 parcels (included in Category A in Table 1) are undevelopable common area parcels. These parcels do not have an assigned assessor parcel number and are typically the common open space or landscape areas identified on County-approved residential tract maps. There are 37 residential common open space areas, owned and maintained by the HOAs for each tract, all of which were contacted for this project.

8 Page 8 of 23 See Section A(7)(a) below for a summary of recommended zone changes for all 132 parcels in Oak Park. b. Santa Susana Field Laboratory (7 assessor parcels) History and Background of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory site The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) site was granted a Countyapproved Special Use Permit (SUP-0248) for expansion of the fuel testing site and establishment of additional testing facilities for propellant and fuel materials in The permit includes a recommendation that, in the event this use is discontinued in the future, the land be rezoned to be consistent with the zoning patterns around it, so that it can be optimally used in the future. When the Special Use Permit was issued in 1954, the use was allowed by the existing A-I (All-Inclusive) zone. Thereafter, the site and the adjacent area underwent multiple amendments to the County s General Plan and Zoning Ordinances, last zoned to Rural Agricultural in 1965, resulting in a longstanding legal, non-conforming use on the site. Research conducted by Planning staff revealed that a proposed zone change to Open Space for the SSFL site had been a long-standing recommendation by the Planning Division, beginning as early as 1988, and the same recommendation is being brought forward by staff today. Zoning Inconsistency Issue and Ownership The entire SSFL site has an Open Space General Plan land use designation, wherein seven of its parcels (or a portion thereof) are zoned Rural Agriculture (RA-5 ac). The RA zoning classification is not consistent with the General Plan s Open Space designation (see Exhibit 2). The zoning for the remainder of the SSFL site and the adjacent area is OS-160 ac. Exhibit 6-1 includes a location map showing all seven parcels with the current zoning and the zoning in the adjacent area. Seven parcels comprise approximately 1,500 acres within the SSFL site (Areas I, II, III and IV). Four of the seven parcels are owned by the Boeing Company, and the remaining three are owned by the U.S. Government (NASA). Table 3, below, provides a breakdown of the seven parcels by ownership and acreage.

9 Page 9 of 23 Table 3: Inconsistently Zoned Parcels in SSFL, by Ownership Index Nos.* Assessor Parcel No. General Plan Designation Parcels owned by the U.S. Government/NASA (3 parcels) Current Zone Total Acreage Open Space RA-5 ac RA-5 ac RA-5 ac Parcels owned by Boeing North American Inc. (4 parcels) Open Space RA-5 ac RA-5 ac RA-5 ac OS-160 ac/ra-5 ac parcels TOTAL * These index numbers denote the reference number given to the parcel for the purposes of this project, included within all the maps and tables See Section A(7)(b) below for a summary of the proposed zone changes for seven parcels in the SSFL area. c. Thomas Aquinas College Existing Community (9 assessor parcels) History and Background of the Thomas Aquinas College area The Thomas Aquinas College (TAC) has an active, long-standing conditional use permit effectuated June 2, TAC has operated for 40 years without any violations of the NCZO. The existing permit was extended in 2002 with modifications (CUP ), which included an approved map identifying the maximum lot coverage for the college campus at full buildout. On March 2, 2010, the Board amended the NCZO (Ordinance No. 4411) to disallow assembly uses allowed in the OS zones, rendering TAC a legal, nonconforming use. Thereafter, the Board approved another extension of the permit for TAC in September 2013 (PL ), extending the legal nonconforming use to a maximum period of 55 years from the date of permit approval (it is currently set to expire on September 19, 2068). In order to rectify TAC s non-conforming status, an amendment to the General Plan land use designation from Open Space to another designation compatible with the existing college use was required. Due to TAC s location within the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) boundary established by voter-approved initiative ordinance in 1998, amending the property s General Plan designation to allow a higher-density, collegecompatible use required countywide voter approval. This occurred in the

10 Page 10 of 23 November 8, 2016 general election, when Ventura County voters approved the SOAR Measure C Initiative, which, in part, redesignated the TAC property from Open Space to Existing Community. Zoning Inconsistency Issue While the TAC s new General Plan land use designation of Existing Community is now consistent with the existing college use, this new designation is not consistent with the property s existing zoning. TAC s two legal lots are currently zoned Open Space (OS-160 ac) (Exhibit 2). All adjacent parcels around the TAC area are zoned OS-160 ac. Exhibit 7-2 includes a location map of the nine parcels and the adjacent context area. Table 4 below, provides a breakdown of the legal lots, assessor parcels and acreage. Table 4: Number of Inconsistently Zoned Parcels in TAC, by Ownership General Plan Designation Existing Community Current Zone OS-160 ac Legal Lot (1) Assessor Parcel Nos. Parcel A , , , , , , , Number of Parcels Total Acreage Parcel B TOTAL (1) Lot Line Adjustment # (approved September 2003) Inconsistency with the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt Ordinance No The TAC property is currently identified as being part of the Santa Paula- Fillmore Greenbelt. This Greenbelt is recognized in County Ordinance No. 4415, which was adopted by the Board on June 22, The aforementioned voter-approved change to the TAC property s General Plan designation from Open Space to Existing Community effectively resulted in the TAC property s removal from the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt, because, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4415, the Greenbelt can only consist of property that is designated as Agriculture, Open Space or Rural under the General Plan. Therefore, an amendment to County s Ordinance No is

11 Page 11 of 23 required to formally remove the TAC property from the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt. See Section A(7)(c) below for a summary of the recommended NCZO zone changes, and amendments to County Ordinance No. 4415, regarding the TAC property. d. Parcels in unincorporated Camarillo (5 assessor parcels) History and Background of the Rural Designation in the County General Plan In 1995, the minimum lot size for parcels with a Rural General Plan land use designation was changed from 1 to 2 acres. In order to achieve consistency between the Rural General Plan designation and zoning, all parcels with this land use designation would need to be zoned Rural Agriculture (RA), Rural Exclusive (RE) or Single-Family Estate (RO) with a minimum 2-acre parcel size (See Exhibit 2). Zoning Inconsistency Issue Five contiguous parcels located along Valley Vista Drive, north of the City of Camarillo in the unincorporated area, have a Rural-Urban Reserve (2-acre min) General Plan land use designation but are zoned Rural Exclusive (RE-1 ac). One parcel is owned by the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Parks District, while the remaining four parcels are privately owned and developed with single-family residences. Exhibit 8 includes a location map of all five parcels and the adjacent context area. Table 5 below provides a breakdown of the five assessor parcels and their acreage. Table 5: Number of Inconsistently Zoned Parcels in unincorporated Camarillo General Plan Designation Rural Urban Reserve (2 ac min) Current Zone Assessor Parcel No. Ownership Acreage RE-1 ac Single-family Residence Single-family Residence Single-family Residence Single-family Residence Pleasant Valley Recreation and Parks District 0.04 Total Acreage for 5 parcels 5.11 The Zoning Compatibility Matrix in the General Plan (Exhibit 2) requires these Rural designated parcels to have a minimum 2-acre parcel size, not 1-acre. Therefore, with a zoning of RE-1 acre, all five parcels are not consistent with the General Plan.

12 Page 12 of 23 See Section A(7)(d) below for a summary of recommended zone changes for all 5 parcels. 7. Proposed Zone Changes and Greenbelt Ordinance Amendments: As directed by the Board and required by State Law, the intent of this project is to bring the zoning classifications into compliance with the General Plan land use designations. Section of the NCZO states that the NCZO may be amended whenever good zoning practice, and consistency with the General Plan would justify such action. Therefore, while preparing recommendations for each area, the following methodology was considered by Planning Division staff: consistency with the General Plan (and if applicable, Area Plan) land use designation(s); recognition of ownership and the existing use of the site; and, zoning patterns of the surrounding area and adjacent parcels. Additionally, recommendations to resolve the inconsistency with the Santa Paula- Fillmore Greenbelt Ordinance are listed in the subsection 7(c) for the Thomas Aquinas College area below. More detail on the proposed recommendations for each geographic area is available in Exhibits 5 through 7. a. Oak Park Community While developing recommendations for zone changes in Oak Park, the methodology described above was considered. In this case, the recommendations considered compatibility of the zones with both the General Plan land use designations (Exhibit 2), as well as the Area Plan land use designations (Exhibit 5-1, Oak Park Area Plan Zoning Compatibility Matrix). If adopted, the proposed rezoning would result in a consistent zoning pattern in Oak Park by transitioning the Urban designated land (which is zoned Residential and Commercial) to Open Space designated land (with OS-10 ac or OS-40 ac zoning). In addition, the minimum parcel size was determined based on a review of the adjacent zoning patterns. Generally speaking, rezoned OS parcels which are surrounded by smaller parcels with Residential zoning (R1 or RPD) will have a minimum parcel size of 10 acres, whereas rezoned OS parcels which are surrounded by larger parcels with Open Space zoning will have a minimum parcel size of 40 acres. Typically, parcels with OS-40 zoning are located along or near the outer boundaries of the Area Plan. A summary of the recommended zoning for all 132 parcels, split by the two categories listed in Table 1 is listed below:

13 Page 13 of 23 Category A: Parcels with zoning inconsistent with the General Plan 1) Parcels zoned Residential with an Open Space Designation: The 74 parcels identified with inconsistent zoning have the following combination of land use designations and zoning: General designation of Open Space; Area Plan designation of Public Open Space, Community Facilities, or Residential (4-6 du/ac or 8-12 du/ac); Residential (R1 or RPD) zoning classification (not consistent) Recommendation: Rezone all parcels to Open Space (OS), consistent with both the General Plan and the Oak Park Area Plan. The minimum parcel size of 10 acres or 40 acres for the parcels rezoned to OS is based on the existing parcel size, the parcel location, and adjacent zoning patterns. An exception to this recommendation is Assessor Parcel Number (Index #699), which has split land use designations of Open Space and Urban in the General Plan, and split land use designations of Public Open Space and Residential 1-2 du/ac in the Area Plan. It is currently zoned RPD-2 du/ac, which is inconsistent with the Open Space designated portion of the parcel. In this case, Planning staff recommends that the Open Space designated portion be rezoned to OS-10 ac, leaving the parcel with a split zone of RPD-2 du/ac and OS, aligned with the General Plan and Area Plan designations. This recommendation would maintain the current use of the parcel (a church) as a conforming use in the Urban designated portion, while rezoning the graded landscaped portion of the parcel to Open Space, consistent with the Open Space land use designation. 2) Parcels with split Zoning Classifications: Fourteen parcels have split zoning classifications, where zoning for all (or a portion of) the parcels is inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation. Please note that a portion of 13 of these parcels have PC2 zoning (see Category B(3) below). Recommendation: Rezone all parcels to Open Space (OS) consistent with both General Plan and Area Plan land use designations. The minimum parcel size of 10 acres or 40 acres for the parcels rezoned to OS is based on the existing parcel size, the parcel location, and adjacent zoning patterns.

14 Page 14 of 23 Category B: Parcels with zoning where the consistency is unknown 3) Parcels zoned PC2: As explained in Section A(6)(a) above, the consistency of the Planned Community No. 2 (PC2) zone with General Plan land use designations is unknown as the PC2 zone is no longer included in the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan Zoning Compatibility Matrix. In Oak Park, 44 parcels have the following combination of land use designations and zoning: General Plan designation of Open Space or Urban; Area Plan designation of Public Open Space, Community Facilities, or Residential; and PC2 zoning classification (consistency not known) An additional 13 parcels have split zoning classifications, where a portion of the parcel is zoned PC2, and those parcels are included in Category A, above. Recommendation: The recommended zone for parcels zoned PC2 with an Open Space land use designation in the General Plan, and an Area Plan designation of Public Open Space is Open Space (OS). The minimum parcel size of 10 acres or 40 acres for the parcels rezoned to OS is based on the existing parcel size, the parcel location, and adjacent zoning patterns. The recommended zone for parcels zoned PC2 with an Urban land use designation in the General Plan is either Open Space (OS) or Residential Planned Development (RPD). The recommended RPD zone is based on existing zoning patterns, consistency with the Area Plan land use designation, as well as ownership. This includes a total of 8 parcels owned by the Oak Park Unified School District, Southern California Edison, County of Ventura, and Pardee Construction. A summary of these recommended rezones, showing the breakup of parcels is included in Table 6 below. A comprehensive list of all recommended zone changes for all 132 parcels, as well as a map indicating the proposed zoning patterns in the Oak Park Community is included in Exhibit 3. More details regarding the recommendations for the Oak Park Community are included in Exhibit 5.

15 Page 15 of 23 Table 6: Summary of All Recommended Zone Changes in Oak Park Current Zone Recommended Zone OS-10 ac OS-40 ac RPD RPD/ OS-10 ac PC PC2/OS-40 ac PC2/RPD R1-6,000 sft RPD OS-10 ac/rpd 1 1 Total number of parcels Total b. Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) The recommended zoning for the seven parcels identified with inconsistent zoning in the SSFL area is Open Space (OS-160 ac), based on the following factors: The proposed OS zoning is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Open Space. While the Agricultural Exclusive (AE) zone is also consistent with the General Plan designation, that zone is not appropriate in this location, as the property is not characterized as agricultural land listed on the Important Farmland Inventory. In addition, the prior use of this site for missile testing makes it a poor candidate for agricultural use. The proposed OS zoning with the 160-acre parcel size is consistent with the surrounding zoning patterns, which are also OS-160 ac. Additionally, with the limited access to this area, most of which is graded and remote like other open space areas in the county, and with the biological and cultural resources on the site, the recommended OS-160 ac zoning is most appropriate for these parcels. Existing uses on the property will continue to be governed by the Special Use Permit (SUP-0248) issued on April 20, It s important to note that all uses on the SSFL site will remain non-conforming with or without the recommended rezone. A comprehensive list of all recommended zone changes for all seven parcels, as well as a map indicating the proposed zoning patterns of the SSFL site is included in Exhibit 3. More details regarding the recommendations for the SSFL area are included in Exhibit 6.

16 Page 16 of 23 c. Thomas Aquinas College Existing Community Recommendation to resolve zoning inconsistency Planning staff recommends that both legal lots (which are assigned nine separate assessor parcel numbers) comprising the TAC Existing Community property be rezoned to Rural Agriculture with a 160-acre minimum lot size (RA-160 ac). The recommended Rural Agriculture (RA) zone is most appropriate considering the existing use of the site as a college, a use which is only allowed in RA, CO and CPD zones. Upon rezoning the two legal lots to RA-160 ac, the existing college use would become legal and conforming. This proposed zone change would not increase the development potential of the TAC property. By retaining the 160-acre minimum lot size requirement, the subdivision potential of the two legal lots would remain the same. Planning staff recommends that the rezone be conditioned so that each of the two legal lots retain their existing five (5) percent maximum building lot coverage under the new RA-160 zoning classification. Without this condition, the maximum building coverage of the two legal lots would increase to 25 percent based on the new RA zoning classification. Planning staff discussed the proposed rezone with conditions with TAC representatives, who are in agreement with the recommendation (See Exhibit 9-4). According to TAC representatives and under the approved CUP , its current campus buildout plans are consistent with the proposed five (5) percent maximum building lot coverage condition. A comprehensive list of all recommended zone changes, as well as a map indicating the proposed zoning patterns of the TAC area is included in Exhibit 3. Amendment to the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt Ordinance Staff recommends the following amendments (Exhibit 4) to the County s Ordinance No regarding the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt: An amendment to section 2 reducing the total acreage within the Greenbelt boundary to account for the removal of the TAC property from the Greenbelt; and, An amendment to the Ordinance s attached map reflecting the removal of the TAC property from the Greenbelt. The County s Ordinance No calls for the creation of the Santa Paula- Fillmore Greenbelt Technical Review Committee consisting of representatives from the County of Ventura, City of Santa Paula, City of Fillmore and LAFCo. Pursuant to sections 5 and 8 of Ordinance No (Exhibit 7-4), members of the Technical Review Committee are tasked with reviewing proposed amendments to the Ordinance in the interest of reaching an agreement before presenting them to the respective entities decision-makers for

17 Page 17 of 23 consideration. In August 2017, Planning staff sent letters to the Planning Directors of both Santa Paula and Fillmore, as well as the Executive Director of LAFCo, explaining the reason for the proposed amendments to the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt. Specifically, the letter states that the proposed Ordinance amendments merely reflect the results of the voter-approved initiative which redesignated the TAC property as Existing Community, thereby effectively removing it from the Greenbelt. The three representatives agreed that the County should initiate this action, to be followed by subsequent Greenbelt Ordinance updates by the Fillmore and Santa Paula City Councils to reflect this change. More details regarding the above-mentioned recommendations for the two legal lots (comprising of the nine assessor parcels) in the TAC Existing Community are included in Exhibit 7. d. Parcels in unincorporated Camarillo Planning staff recommends that all five parcels along Valley Vista Drive, located north of the City of Camarillo in the unincorporated area of the County be rezoned from RE-1 ac to RE-2 ac, based on the following criteria: The proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan, which requires Rural designated parcels to be zoned with a minimum 2-acre parcel size. All five parcels are contiguous and are surrounded by other Rural designated parcels zoned RE-5 ac, and the zone change would be consistent with adjacent zoning patterns. The four privately owned parcels have a single-family residential dwelling use, which would remain conforming after the zone change. The parcel owned by the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Parks District is undeveloped, and the zone change would not change any allowable uses for the parcel. A comprehensive list of all recommended zone changes, as well as a map indicating the proposed zoning patterns of the above-mentioned parcels in unincorporated Camarillo is included in Exhibit 3. B. CEQA COMPLIANCE AND EXEMPTION DETERMINATION Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Division ), and State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, ), the proposed project was evaluated for its potential to create a significant impact to the environment. Planning Division staff has determined, and recommends that the Board of Supervisors find, that the adoption of the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 3) is exempt

18 Page 18 of 23 from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because there is no possibility that adoption of the map amendment may have a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of the proposed map amendment is not associated with any specific development proposal and does not increase development potential of any parcels being rezoned. Thus, its adoption will not impact the physical environment. The proposed amendment to Greenbelt Ordinance No (Exhibit 4) does not meet the definition of a project under CEQA section 15378(b)(5) [administrative activities that will not physically change the environment are not a project under CEQA].) It does not does not change, authorize, or implement land use regulations or policies, or designations. Nor does the ordinance amendment modify or grant land use entitlements in the County. It is, therefore, not subject to CEQA review. C. NCZO AMENDMENT FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE The Ventura County NCZO (Section et seq.) authorizes the Board of Supervisors to change or amend the zoning ordinance (which includes zone changes) whenever the public health, safety, or general welfare, good zoning practice, and consistency with the General Plan justify such action... Pursuant to NCZO Section , the Board of Supervisors must make certain findings in order to amend the NCZO. The Board of Supervisor s ability to make these required findings is evaluated below for your Commission's consideration in making its recommendations to the Board. 1. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare: The proposed amendment to the maps in Section 8118 of the NCZO was conducted so that the zoning classifications in the County are consistent with the General Plan designation, as required by State Law (Government Code et. seq). Moreover, the proposed map amendment is not associated with any specific development proposal and thus its adoption will not have any effect on the environment, nor will it be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Based on the above discussion, this finding can be made. 2. The proposed amendment represents good zoning practice: The proposed amendment to the maps in Section 8118 of the NCZO includes zone changes for 153 parcels, conducted to establish consistency with the General Plan and Area Plan designations. An analysis of adjacent zoning patterns was one of the major factors used to determine the appropriate zoning classification. Thoughtful transitions of consistent zoning classifications from Urban to Open Space designations were developed in the Oak Park area where

19 Page 19 of 23 the previous zoning classification did not have any development standards. Zoning patterns and minimum parcel sizes were recommended such that they would not create any significant impacts. This amendment ensures that all recommended zones would not create any spot zones, and following adoption of the proposed ordinance, this amendment is consistent with good zoning practice because it promotes thoughtful, deliberative decision-making. Based on the above discussion, this finding can be made. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Ventura County General Plan: The proposed NCZO map amendment includes zone changes conducted for consistency with the Ventura County General Plan and for compliance with State Law. This amendment resolves existing zoning inconsistencies and makes no substantive change to the County s existing NCZO, which will continue to provide the necessary standards for future development. Additionally, the Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs sets forth factors that must be considered when determining the appropriate zone and sub-zone for a parcel (Policy ). These factors include: (1) Recognizing the desirability of retaining existing uses and densities on the subject land; (2) Recognizing the desirability of accommodating anticipated uses on the subject land; (3) Maintaining continuity with neighboring zoning, land uses and parcel sizes; and, (4) Recognizing and addressing the presence and significance of resources and hazards. These factors have been thoughtfully evaluated and applied with the proposed map amendment. Thus, based on the above discussion, this finding can be made. D. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS Planning Division staff sent letters to each of the affected property owners within all four geographic areas, outlining the intent of the project and the recommended zone changes. Additionally, maps were provided which identified the common area parcels with their associated index numbers in Oak Park. Where requested, Planning Division staff also met in person with property owners to discuss the project. The following represents a list of landowners and interested parties who sent responses to the County Planning Division (or the Planning Commission):

20 1. Oak Park Page 20 of 23 Triunfo Sanitation District (Exhibit 9-1) Regency Hills HOA (Exhibit 9-2) 2. Santa Susana Field Laboratory Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-LA), Committee to Bridge the Gap, the Rocketdyne Cleanup Coalition, and the Southern California Federation of Scientists (SCFS) (Exhibit 9-3) 3. Thomas Aquinas College (Exhibit 9-4) On July 25, 2017, Planning Division staff presented a summary of the recommendations for the 132 parcels in Oak Park to the Oak Park Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), and responded to questions during the meeting. The Oak Park MAC voted 3-0 to recommend approval of the proposed zone changes. E. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTICE AND COMMENTS The Planning Division provided public notice regarding the Planning Commission hearing in accordance with Government Code section 65091, and Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance Section The Planning Division mailed a notice to all property owners of parcels proposed to be rezoned, as well as the representatives of the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt Technical Review Committee and the affected property owners proposed to be removed from the greenbelt. The Planning Division also ed notices to interested parties, and placed a legal ad providing notice of this public hearing in the Ventura County Star. F. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Based upon the analysis and information provided above, Planning Division staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. CERTIFY that your Commission has reviewed and considered this staff report and all exhibits hereto, and has considered all comments received during the public comment process; 2. ADOPT a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions regarding the proposed map amendments to the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance: a. CERTIFY that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Board letter, the Planning Commission staff report and all exhibits thereto and has considered all comments received during the public comment process;

21 Page 21 of 23 b. FIND on the basis of the entire record and as set forth in Section B of this Planning Commission staff report that the adoption of the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 3) amending the zoning maps contained in Article 18 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because there is no possibility it may have a significant effect on the environment; c. FIND, based on the substantial evidence set forth in Sections A, B, C and D of the Planning Commission staff report, the public testimony received and the entire record, that the proposed ordinance amending the zoning maps contained in Article 18 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit 3) is consistent with the Goals, Policies and Programs of the Ventura County General Plan and good planning practices and is in the interest of public health, safety or general welfare; d. ADOPT the proposed ordinance amending the zoning maps contained in Article 18 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit 3); e. SPECIFY the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA as the custodian and location of the documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which these decisions are based; and, 3. ADOPT a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions regarding the proposed amendment to Ventura County Ordinance No Regarding the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt: a. CERTIFY that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Board letter, the Planning Commission staff report and all exhibits thereto; and b. ADOPT the proposed ordinance amending Ventura County Ordinance No. (Exhibit 4). This staff report has been reviewed by County Counsel. The Board of Supervisors hearing to consider the proposed amendments is tentatively scheduled for November 7, 2017 in the Board of Supervisor s Hearing Room. If you have any questions concerning the information presented above, please contact Tricia Maier, Manager, Long-Range Planning Section at (805) or by at Tricia.Maier@ventura.org. You may also contact Ruchita Kadakia, Project Planner, at (805) or by at Ruchita.Kadakia@ventura.org.

22 Case Nos. PL and PLlT-0111 Planning Commíssion Hearing on September 7,2017 Page22 of 23 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Ruchita, Project Planner Long Range Planning Section RMA/Planning Division a aier, Manager Long Range Planning Section RMA/Planning Division Reviewed by: r Ki rt, Pla irector RMA/Planning Divísion EXHIBITS Exhibit 2 Figure 3.2a. Zoning Compatibility Matrix from the Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs (last amended ) Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Proposed Ordinance Amending the Zoning Classifications and Zoning Maps in the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance Exhibit A List of recommended zone changes for all 153 parcels Exhibit B Proposed Zoning maps for all 153 parcels (Amendment to Section of the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance) 1. Oak Park Community 2. Santa Susana Field Laboratory area 3. Thomas Aquinas College Existing Community 4. Parcels in unincorporated Camarillo Proposed Ordinance Amending the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt Ordinance No.4415, including the Proposed Map Attachment for the Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt. Exhibit 4-1 Proposed text amendments to Ordinance No (Legislative format) Parcels within the Oak Park Community (132 parcels) Exhibit 5-1 Figure 6, Zoning Compatibility Matrix; Oak Park Area Plan (last amended ) Exhibit 5-2 Current zoning map for 132 inconsistently zoned parcels in the Oak Park Community, showing adjacent zoning patterns in Oak Park. Exhibit 5-3 History of the Oak Park area and the PC2 zone.

23 Page 23 of 23 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Parcels within the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) area (7 parcels) Exhibit 6-1 Current zoning map for seven inconsistently zoned parcels within the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) area, showing adjacent zoning patterns. Parcels within the Thomas Aquinas College Existing Community (9 parcels) Exhibit 7-1 Voter-approved SOAR Measure C Initiative, adopted December 13, 2016 Exhibit 7-2 Current zoning map of nine inconsistently zoned parcels within the Thomas Aquinas College Existing Community, showing adjacent zoning patterns Exhibit 7-3 Record of LLA # (approved September 2003) Exhibit 7-4 Santa Paula-Fillmore Greenbelt Ordinance No (adopted 6/22/2010), including the current Greenbelt Map attachment (amended 1/28/2011) Current zoning map for five inconsistently zoned parcels in unincorporated Camarillo, showing adjacent zoning patterns Comment letters received: Exhibit 9-1 Triunfo Sanitation District (Oak Park) Exhibit 9-2 Regency Hills Homeowners Association (Oak Park) Exhibit 9-3 Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-LA), Committee to Bridge the Gap, the Rocketdyne Cleanup Coalition, and the Southern California Federation of Scientists (SCFS) (SSFL) Exhibit 9-4 Thomas Aquinas College (TAC)