County launches rewrite of outdoor-events rules after years of enforcement gaps

The Ventura County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 16 directed county staff to return with revisions to the county’s outdoor-events rules after code enforcement officials said the current rules are difficult to and often impossible to enforce.

County code enforcement described dozens of properties holding repeated large outdoor events without conditional use permits (CUPs) and said the current exemptions (events under certain attendance thresholds on parcels of certain sizes) create perverse incentives: properties can host compensated events repeatedly while avoiding the safety and operational standards that CUP holders must meet.

Resource Management Agency staff and Code Compliance Director Doug Leeper told the board the rules adopted after litigation in the 2010s left a “hole” in the ordinance that allows commercial event advertising and multiple large gatherings without prior notice to the county. Leeper and other staff said investigators commonly learn about events only after they occur,so evidence for enforcement is difficult to collect; the county currently lacks weekend enforcement coverage, and fines for transient violations are too small to deter operators.

The changes the board asked staff to pursue include: raising administrative penalties for repeat violations to levels that would be a financial deterrent; developing a ministerial temporary-use-permit (TUP) pathway for occasional events that would include basic safety checks (fire marshal review, traffic/egress checks) but not require full discretionary review; continuing to streamline the full CUP process and consider longer initial terms and longer renewals for compliant CUP holders; and improving enforcement tools (including better web monitoring of advertisements and discussion of investigatory tools such as drone overflight for documenting attendance).

Leeper said the county currently tracks roughly 17 permitted event venues and identified as many as 35 additional venues operating without permits across the unincorporated county, with a range of compliance and safety conditions. He outlined that small, exempt events (e.g., up to 75 attendees depending on parcel size) can be held with no county registration, and larger exempt events may be held multiple times per year on larger parcels — a structure that code compliance staff say is being used by some operators to build effectively commercial, weekend event businesses without the operational safeguards applied to CUP holders.

Supervisors repeatedly emphasized they wanted to protect public safety, preserve working agricultural lands and avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy for small, private events. Board members asked staff to study county practices in other places (San Luis Obispo, Riverside and several ag counties were cited) and to develop options that make it easier for bona fide venues to get CUPs while adding real consequences for bad actors.

The board unanimously approved the staff recommendation to receive the report and directed staff to incorporate the supervisors’ guidance — particularly on enforcement improvements, TUPs, CUP-term extensions and incentives for compliance — into a formal ordinance amendment package for return to the board. Staff said they will also bring forward proposed changes to administrative penalty amounts and a plan for stepped enforcement that begins with education and notification and escalates fines for repeat violations.

Speakers at the meeting included multiple owners and operators of existing permitted venues and representatives of agricultural groups who warned against overly broad rules that would impede occasional family events on working ranches. Several permitted venue owners urged the county to shorten CUP renewal steps and costs and to keep ministerial options available for lower‑scale events. Code enforcement and county counsel said many of the operational exceptions and the need to show “compensation” in investigations make enforcement difficult without stronger authority and better real‑time monitoring tools.

Board direction emphasized three priorities: (1) strengthen public‑safety review for larger events (temporary permits and CUPs) so roads, fire access and sanitation can be validated before an event occurs; (2) level the playing field by discouraging commercial advertising and repeated compensated events without a CUP; and (3) calibrate enforcement tools (including higher civil penalties, targeted weekend inspections and internet monitoring) so rules are actually enforceable.

Staff said they will return with an ordinance package and recommended code language and will coordinate with Public Works (traffic), the Fire Department and the Sheriff’s Office on operational standards and enforcement protocols. The board also asked staff to bring back examples and model language used by other counties, together with an analysis of how any proposed approach would interact with existing land‑use protections (for example, the county’s Noncoastal Zoning Ordinance) and agricultural activities.

The board action was procedural: motion to receive the report and provide direction, which passed 5‑0.