On June 13th 2000, your Board directed the County Administrator and County Counsel to prepare a report outlining the potential impacts of the Rural Heritage Initiative (RHI). Staff was also requested to respond to a list of questions to the extent possible recognizing the short timeframe and the lack of interpretive language of the RHI.  The conclusions reached in this report represent the best judgement and collective opinions of County staff as supported by County Counsel's legal analysis.  Staff has identified impacts related to public facilities, recreation and open space, agriculture, and land use development and planning, and elections and has estimated various costs and other fiscal impacts associated with the initiative.  Below is a general summary of these impacts, with detail contained in the County Counsel's analysis and the listing of questions and answers.  An appendixThe appendices to this report also includes any responses received from the cities, special districts, the Coastal Commission and the Sonoma County Office of Education in response to a County Administrator's Office inquiry about the initiative's impact upon these entities, as well as a copy of Napa County's Agricultural Lands Preservation Initiative (ALPI).
          In general, the Rural Heritage Initiative would apply to approximately 700,000 acres in Sonoma County (or approximately 2/3rds of the county) designated as Resources and Rural Development (RRD), Land Intensive Agriculture (LIA), Land Extensive Agriculture (LEA), and Diverse Agriculture (DA).  For a period of 30 years, lands in these categories could not be changed to another land use designation or their density increased unless approved by a majority vote of the people of Sonoma County, except under limited circumstances.

Public Facilities

          Fire stations, police stations and related public safety facilities are specifically exempted under this initiative.  Facilities to protect public health or safety are also exempted, but only under very stringent criteria.  Other public facilities sited on the affected lands, including, but not limited to, landfills and related facilities, government offices, community centers, libraries, museums, major wastewater treatment facilities, airports, hospitals and criminal justice facilities, would likely be subject to a vote of all the citizens in Sonoma County.  Minor public facilities proposed by the County, such as public roads, reservoirs, storage tanks, and pumping stations, would not be subject to the election requirement since they are allowable under the current General Plan designationsin any land use category.
          Because cities are might not be bound by the County's General Plan, public facilities proposed by any of the cities to be located within the unincorporated area (such as a landfill) would might not be subject to the election requirement.  Additionally, Water Agency projects for the production, generation, storage or transmission of water would not be affected by the voter requirements of RHI, since Government Code 65402 provides the Agency the authority to overrule a determination that its project is inconsistent with the General Plan.

Recreation and Open Space

          The RHI requires voter approval for any General Plan amendment to accommodate recreational facilities on the affected lands, except those facilities that have primarily non-intrusive recreational and educational uses such as hiking and nature study.  Therefore, voter approval could would be required for future acquisition of regional and community parks located in the affected lands with acreage dedicated primarily to more active recreational uses (such as swimming, boating, children's play areas, tennis and basketball courts, equestrian facilities, soccer/baseball/softball fields and other community facilities). and for multi-use trails (which may include horseback riding, biking and skating)assuming parks and trails are located within the affected land designations.
          Trails and bikeways built on public right-of-ways and shown on the General Plan Open Space Map have not required a General Plan land designation amendment in the past. and, therefore, would not require voter approval.   It is possiblearguable that, at a minimum, a future trail or bikeway with extensive ancillary facilities (e.g. parking areas, restrooms) could require a change in the General Plan land use designation, thus triggering the voter approval requirements of the RHI.
          The RHI may also impact the ability of the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District's ability to purchase lands for recreation purposes.  Potential time delays would affect willing sellers, property valuations, the appraisal process and the Open Space Authority's funding of such projects.

Agriculture

          Most agricultural production activities are allowed in all of the lands affected by the RHI.  Thus, the initiative is not likely to affect agricultural crop production or construction of new agricultural production or processing facilities.  However, certain agricultural support services (such as farm machinery repair) and farm family dwellings would not be allowed in approximately 430,000 acres with an RRD designation.  A General Plan amendment to change from RRD to one of the agricultural designations where these uses are allowed would require voter approval under the RHI.  The initiative would also require voter approval for a General Plan amendment to change the land use designations from one agricultural category to another, unless the Board determines that the change would "provide greater protection for natural resources than provided by the pre-existing designation." Current and future Williamson Act land conservation contracts would not be affected.

Land Use Planning and Development

          The initiative requires voter approval of any proposed changes to designations, uses, or densities in affected lands as a part of any General Plan updates undertaken in the next 30 years. Any approval of a subdivision, use permit, zone change, or other discretionary action that requires a General Plan amendment would also be subject to voter approval.  Any rezoning, specific plan, subdivision, use permit or other entitlement that also requires a General Plan amendment covered by the RHI could only be approved subject to voter approval.   RHI Section 1.a., b, and c. of LU-8e delineates certain exceptions to the voter approval requirement. Projects falling within these exceptions Allowable exemptions to the voter approval requirement for land designation and density changes would require an additional public hearing by the Board of Supervisors beyond that already required by law.  An exception exists for public facilities to protect public health and safety, but would require both the additional public hearing and a super-majority (4/5th) vote of the Board supported by numerous specified findings.
          The retroactivity provisions of the initiative could would require Board reversal of 13 4 projects approved since March 3, 2000 or currently in process, and would similarly affect 7 other matters if approved by the Board before November.  Two additional projects may be affected by RHI, dependent upon interpretation of some of the initiative's provisions..The RHI would limit the County's options in the upcoming General Plan update.  In addition, the initiative would require findings and interpretations of its own language, including terms such as "density" and "suitable land available."
          Because the RHI does not repeal existing requirements of local or State law, the current process for General Plan amendments would be followed to the point where an amendment is approved or disapproved by the Board of Supervisors.  If approved, the Board would place the amendment on the ballot, and the Board's approval would be contingent upon voter approval of the amendment.  A voter or group of voters may also circulate an initiative petition, and if sufficient signatures are obtained, the matter must be placed on the ballot in accordance with State law, bypassing the usual CEQA review procedure and approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.  If the particular General Plan amendment change is within the County's Local Coastal Program, State law requires certification by the California Coastal Commission.  Therefore, it is possible that a General Plan amendment pursuant to RHI may be approved by the voters, but denied by the California Coastal Commission.

Elections

          All voters of the County would be eligible to vote on the initiative, any future amendments to the initiative, and General Plan amendments pursuant to the initiative.  Unless a General Plan amendment is brought forward through the initiative process, the Board of Supervisors would have discretion as to when to call the election.  For an initiative, the Board of Supervisors would follow State law governing the timing of an election.

Fiscal Impacts

          The cost to place RHI on the November 7, 2000 ballot is estimated to be $110,000.  Individual election costs for any amendments submitted during regularly scheduled elections would be borne by the County and would range from approximately $50,000 - $75,000 per ballot measureamendment. If a special county-wide election is required, the cost would increase to approximately $375,000 - $500,000 for the initial measure, plus $50,000 - $75,000 for each additional measureamendment.   However, in the situation where an applicant follows the normal General Plan amendment process, receives approval from the Board and insists upon a county-wide special election rather than placement on the ballot during a Primary or General Election, the County might be able to charge the applicant for the costs of the special election.
          Most park acquisition/development and other County capital projects depend upon grant funding.  The voter approval requirement for these projects could make it impossible to meet grant application timelines in many situations.  Even in those circumstances where granting agency timelines are met, the delay and questionable outcome of the voter approval requirement create uncertainty regarding a project's potential completion and, therefore, adversely affect the County's ability to compete for funding.  As a result, County taxpayers may receive less return of State and Federal tax dollars for local facilities or projects.
          Other fiscal impacts associated with property value changes as a result of the initiative are impossible to estimate at this time.
          The Questions and Answers document also includes a comparison between the RHI and Napa County's Agricultural Lands Preservation Initiative (ALPI).  Since adoption of the ALPI in 1990, there have been six General Plan amendments submitted to the voters of Napa County.  Five of the six amendments were initiated by initiative, thereby bypassing any review under CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law.  Additionally, the document responds to questions about what amendments would be necessary to change certain aspects of the RHI.

County staff was requested to respond to a list of questions to the extent possible, recognizing the short time frame and the lack of interpretive language of the RHI.  The conclusions reached in this report represent the best judgment and collective opinions of County staff as supported by County Counsel's legal analysis.  The questions and answers below are placed into major categories simply for convenience of grouping similar or related questions.

Public Facilities

1.How will the RHI impact the County's ability to provide various types of public facilities (other than parks) including water and wastewater transmission lines, pump stations, new or expanded landfills, roads, etc.? Would these facilities require voter approval if located on LIA, LEA, DA or RRD lands?

The General Plan limits the type and scale of public facilities that can be constructed in the land use categories affected by the RHI (LIA, LEA, DA and RRD). If a proposed facility is not allowed within the limitations specified in the General Plan, a General Plan amendment is typically required to change the land use designation to "Public/Quasi-Public" (PQP). The RHI would require voter approval for such General Plan amendments unless they are covered under one of the exceptions provided in the initiative (see discussion below). The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance were reviewed to determine the types of public facilities that could be allowed in the affected land use categories without the need for a General Plan amendment. The Land Use Element of the General Plan (Sections 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3 and 2.8.1) does not specifically list public facilities in the "permitted uses" allowed in the affected land use categories. The permitted uses in the agricultural categories (LIA, LEA, DA) do allow "Other Uses: Community service facilities such as public and private schools, churches and granges." These uses are not listed in the RRD category. The Zoning Ordinance lists several public facility uses that can be allowed in the affected land use categories: Telecommunication facilities Public schools Cemeteries Application of municipal sewage sludge Minor public service uses or facilities In the agricultural zone districts, these uses must be consistent with General Plan Policy AR-4a, which states: "The primary use of any parcel within the three agricultural land use categories shall be agricultural production and related processing, support services, and visitor serving uses". Staff's interpretation is that the uses listed above, when consistent with AR-4a, could be undertaken by the County without the need for a General Plan amendment and, therefore, would not be subject to the voter approval requirements of the RHI. Consistency with AR-4a does not apply in RRD areas. The category of minor public service uses or facilities ("minor public facilities") deserves some additional discussion because it potentially encompasses a wide variety of uses. Minor public facilities are allowed in any land use category under the provisions of General Plan Policy PF-2s which states: "Allow consideration of minor facilities in any land use category where they are compatible with the neighborhood character and preservation of natural and scenic resources." The Zoning Ordinance provisions for LIA, LEA, DA and RRD state that minor public facilities "includ[e], but are not limited to reservoirs, storage tanks, pumping stations, transformer stations, fire and police stations and training centers, service yards and parking lots . . ." In practice, facilities such as these have been considered minor if they occupy a relatively small portion of the parcel. Interpretations as to whether a specific type of public facility is considered minor are ultimately up to the Board of Supervisors, based upon the specific project and setting. For example, the Board has recently approved a 14,000 square foot fire station occupying most of a 4 acre site near Sonoma and community sewage treatment and disposal facilities in Monte Rio as minor public facilities without amending the General Plan. These and any other minor public facilities would not be subject to the voter approval requirements of the RHI. Water supply and wastewater facilities also merit specific discussion. These facilities are typically provided by a special district (such as the Water Agency or a sanitation district), rather than by the County. The California Government Code (Section 65402) requires special districts to obtain a report from the County Planning Agency as to the consistency of their proposed facilities with the County General Plan. The County's practice has been to find transmission lines consistent with the General Plan in any land use category. Reservoirs, storage tanks and pumping stations can be found consistent as "minor public facilities" as discussed above. These facilities that are consistent with the General Plan would not be subject to the RHI voter approval requirements. However, it is likely that the Planning Agency would find that a major water supply or wastewater facility, such as a large treatment facility, is inconsistent with the General Plan and that an amendment to Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) is needed. Such an amendment, if undertaken in the LIA, LEA, DA or RRD areas, would require voter approval under the RHI. It should also be noted that special districts are not bound by the County's General Plan consistency determinations. Government Code Section 65402 allows these agencies to override the Planning Agency determination and proceed without amending the General Plan. Public road projects occur in all General Plan land use categories and would not require a General Plan amendment to change the land use category. Accordingly, road projects are not likely to be affected by the RHI. Public facilities that are not considered "minor" would require a General Plan amendment to the PQP land use designation. Examples of such facilities might include landfills (including public composting or recycling facilities), governmental offices, community centers, libraries, museums, major wastewater treatment facilities, criminal justice facilities (such as detention or probation camp facilities), airports, and hospitals. If these facilities were proposed in an area currently designated LIA, LEA, DA or RRD, the change in General Plan land use designation to PQP would likely require voter approval under the RHI (subject to the exceptions discussed below). For a County project that is not considered minor, the County would be required to prepare an environmental document to comply with CEQA. For a major facility, this could mean preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report. The environmental document would need to be based upon sufficient site planning and design work to provide a basis for meaningful environmental review. These design and environmental review efforts would be time consuming (up to several years for a major project like a new landfill) and costly. The requirement for voter approval would add considerable uncertainty to the County's public facilities planning process and would place the County's substantial investment in siting, design and environmental review at significant risk. As mentioned above, the initiative includes certain exceptions to the voter approval requirement for certain public facilities. These exceptions include the following: fire stations, police stations, and related public safety facilities such as those required for emergency telecommunications other public facilities needed to protect the public health or safety, provided that the Board, by 4/5 vote, first finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, both that the failure to provide such needed public facilities would have a specific, immediate, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without redesignating such lands The exception for facilities needed to protect the public health and safety appears to be very narrowly written and would have very limited application. In addition to the requirement for a super-majority (4/5th vote) approval, the Board would have to find that failure to provide the facility would result in an immediate adverse impact upon public health and safety. This provision would appear to inhibit the Board, without voter approval, from building public facilities to avoid health and safety impacts in the future (such as planning for a new landfill or wastewater treatment facility).  This may force the County to wait until there is an existing and immediate threat to health and safety before approving a needed facility, which in turn, could expose the County to penalties from the Regional Water Quality Control Board or regulatory agencies. This exception also raises the question of what would be considered "feasible" in terms of an alternative to redesignating lands in one of the affected categories. For example, if an EIR identified a site on LIA, LEA, DA or RRD land as "environmentally superior," it may be difficult for the Board to select that site (without voter approval) if another site was "feasible."

2. Would public projects, including landfills, undertaken by a city in the unincorporated area be subject to voter approval under the RHI?

A city undertaking a public project in the unincorporated area is required to obtain a report from the County Planning Agency as to the consistency of the project with the General Plan. However, the city might not be bound by the County's General Plan and could undertake its project without obtaining a General Plan amendment that would otherwise be required for the same project undertaken by the County. Therefore, public projects, including landfills, undertaken by a city would not be subject to voter approval under the RHI. Notwithstanding a city's immunity from the County's General Plan, the County has typically amended its plan at a later date to reflect the actual use of the property. These "clean-up" amendments to recognize the established municipal use would be subject to voter approval under the RHI in the affected land use categories.

3. How would the RHI affect the County's responsibilities under the Joint Powers Agreement with the cities regarding solid waste management? How would it affect the County's responsibilities under AB 939? 

The Joint Powers Agreement between the County and the nine cities created the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency to implement waste diversion, composting, household hazardous waste and educational programs. The County currently provides space for yard debris (and composting), wood, household hazardous waste, and building material recycling at the Central Landfill. These composting and recycling facilities are essential to the County's ability to meet its waste reduction requirements under AB 939. The composting and additional construction waste recycling facilities may need to be relocated within five years, with the most reasonable sites for a new location being in the unincorporated area. To the extent that the voter approval requirements of the RHI impede or perhaps even stop these efforts to locate a new site, the efforts of the Waste Management Agency to provide these facilities in Sonoma County could be blocked, with the result that these activities would need to take place outside of the County with associated additional cost and traffic impacts.

4. Would the County be required to own the land and complete an environmental document prior to voter approval of a new landfill in an agricultural zone?

A County sponsored landfill project in an agricultural zone would require environmental documents to be prepared prior to voter approval.  The County would not be required to own the land prior to voter approval. If, on the other hand, there was a privately sponsored landfill project in an agricultural zone, environmental documents would probably not have to be completed prior to a voter approval of the proposed General Plan amendment.  Citizen sponsored initiatives are exempt under CEQA.  DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 794; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378(b)(3).  Although a privately sponsored initiative that amends the General Plan for a  landfill project could be exempt from CEQA, environmental documents will be required prior to the issuance of any discretionary permits for the landfill project.  It is very unlikely that a private landfill project would not require some discretionary permit that would trigger the application of CEQA (e.g., Regional Water Quality Control Board permit; California Integrated Waste Management Board permit; air quality permit).

5. How would the RHI impact the Water Agency's ability to meet it's contractual water supply commitments?

Under State law, the Water Agency has the authority to overrule a determination that its project is inconsistent with the General Plan (Government Code section 65402). The Agency is exempt from the zoning ordinance for projects for production, generation, storage, or transmission of water (Government Code section 5309). Thus, although the RHI contains no express exception from the voter approval requirement applicable to water supply projects, the exceptions provided by general state law permit the Water Agency to meet its contractual water supply commitments unaffected by the County General Plan in its present form or as amended by the RHI.

Recreation and Open Space

6. What are the implications of the RHI on siting and developing new parks with both active and passive outdoor recreation facilities? 

Location of a new park requires a change in land use designation unless it is determined to be a "minor public facility", which can be located anywhere. The RHI would allow the Board to grant final approval of General Plan Land Use Map amendments in the LIA, LEA, DA and RRD land use categories only for parks that have "primarily nonintrusive recreational and educational uses, such as hiking and nature study." All other proposed parks in these affected areas would require voter approval.  The RHI would have a significant adverse  impact on future acquisition and development of community parks, and those regional parks where some of the acreage is dedicated to more intensive recreation facilities. Examples could include future park sites similar to Maxwell Farms, Spring Lake and Ragle Ranch Parks, where there are facilities for swimming, boating, children's play, tennis and basketball courts, equestrian facilities, soccer/baseball/softball fields and other community facilities. There are three park projects on which the Department is currently working, that may be affected by RHI's narrow definition of uses exempted from the voter approval provisions.  These include the expansion of Stillwater Cove Regional Park, the proposed Taylor Mountain Regional Park and the proposed South County Regional Park. The RHI would also have a significant adverse impact on the development of river access along the Russian River for boating, aquatic sports and camping. Many of these recreational needs are high priorities in the State of California's Outdoor Recreation Plan.

7. How does the RHI impact potential purchases for recreational purposes, both passive and active, by the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District? What would the impact be on willing sellers if they had to wait a couple of years for voter approval? Will this impact the appraisal process?

The RHI would have a negative impact on negotiations for the future purchases of properties for park purposes that do not fall within RHI's definition of "non-intrusive recreational and educational uses, such as hiking and nature study." Delays due to the voter approval requirement may affect a landowner's willingness and ability to pursue such a transaction, since timeliness is often important to landowners who may be selling property to resolve family estate, tax, and business problems. Delays may also impact property valuations, necessitating multiple appraisals in order to determine fair market value and complete a transaction. Currently, the District prepares an appraisal shortly after beginning its negotiations on a property. The appraisal determines the fair market value of the property and the District's proposed purchase price. Both the Open Space Authority and the Board of Directors agree on the purchase price before the District makes an offer to buy the property. Because a project is subject to election, another appraisal may be necessary to determine the value after voter approval. The Open Space Authority would also have to reconsider funding approval based on the most recent appraisal. Most importantly, the Open Space Authority might be reluctant to fund acquisitions because of delays and uncertainty of project approvals. The Authority strongly encourages the District to transfer such properties to park agencies as soon as possible.

8. Trails are presumably limited to the 14 specified in the General Plan.  What effects would this have on new trails not specified in the General Plan?  Does this mean that trails are exempt from the RHI, but parks are not?

The RHI does not directly address trails and bikeways, which the current General Plan and Draft Outdoor Recreation Plan propose for agriculture and resource land use categories. However, since these facilities may be on public rights-of-way, and do not generally use large areas of land, they are not depicted on the General Plan Land Use Map. Instead, trails and bikeways are shown on General Plan Open Space maps. The County's past practice has been not to require a General Plan Land Use Map amendment for trails and bikeways. However, it is possible that a future trail or bikeway with ancillary facilities (e.g. parking, restrooms, etc.) could require a change in land use designation, thus triggering the voter approval requirements of the RHI. Thus neither trails nor parks are exempt from the RHI voter approval requirement; voter approval will be required if a park or trail necessitates a change in land use designation.  To the extent that bicycling and equestrian activities are accommodated in regional parks, which require a change in land use designation, they would likely be subject to voter approval under the RHI.

9. What about multi-use trails?  Would this initiative restrict horseback riding or bicycle use on new trails in the specified land-use designations unless approved by the voters?

The RHI limits the type of park activity exempt from the voter approval process to "non-intrusive" activities "such as hiking and nature study." The County's practice has been to provide multi-use trails in parks.  These often include equestrian, biking and paved trails, some suitable for roller-skating uses. Because these uses are likely to be viewed as intrusive, voter approval would likely be required prior to developing future multi-use trails. This may impact almost all park projects proposed in the agricultural and rural resource land use designations, including Taylor Mountain Regional Park, Stillwater Cove Expansion.

Agriculture

10. Does the RHI restrict the ability of a land owner in one agricultural land use category from obtaining a General Plan amendment to a different agricultural land use category? Could such limitations impact the construction of new agricultural production or processing facilities or restrict the expansion of local agriculture (including any support facilities currently allowed) in other ways? 

The RHI requires voter approval for a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from one agricultural category to another, unless the Board determines that the amendment would "provide greater protection for natural resources than provided by the pre-existing designation."  The requirement for voter approval for such General Plan amendments would not likely impact the construction of new agricultural production or processing facilities on existing LIA, LEA, and DA lands. The agricultural production and processing uses allowed in the LIA, LEA and DA areas are identical. Therefore, there would be no need to change the General Plan to accommodate a new or changed agricultural use. [back to FB Letter] Agricultural support facilities are also allowed in all of the agricultural categories, so a General Plan amendment to allow such facilities would not be necessary. Facilities such as farm family dwellings, campgrounds and bed & breakfast inns are allowed in some, but not all, agricultural categories. A General Plan amendment to accommodate these uses would be subject to the voter approval requirements of the RHI. While agricultural production activities are allowed in RRD areas, uses such as agricultural support services and farm family dwellings are not allowed. The RHI would require voter approval for a General Plan amendment to change from RRD to any of the agricultural categories in order to allow these uses.

11. How would the RHI affect existing or future Williamson Act (Agricultural Preserve) contracts?

It does not appear that the RHI would affect current or future Williamson Act contracts. Since Williamson Act contracts can be established in any of the agricultural designations or in RRD areas, there would be no need for any General Plan amendment which could trigger the voter approval requirements of the RHI.

12. How will the RHI affect agricultural housing?

Three arguably inconsistent provisions of the RHI bear on this issue, one of which is contained in the initiative's purpose and findings section, one of which is contained in the initiative's textual changes to the General Plan, and one of which is contained in the initiative's implementation provisions.  Paragraph E of Section 1 of the RHI, which sets forth the purpose and findings related to housing needs, states that: "Nothing in the Initiative will impede the development of needed farm-worker housing."  However, the actual amendments to the General Plan made by Section 2 of the RHI require voter approval for an increase in density in the specified agricultural and rural resource land use categories.  Finally, Paragraph C of Section 3 of the RHI directs that the rest of the General Plan be amended to achieve consistency with the voter approval requirements of Section 2. Currently, farm worker and farm family housing, which consists of three types -- "permanent employee," "farm family," and "seasonal worker" --, is allowed in the LIA, LEA, DA, and RRD land use categories under the General Plan.  In the LIA, LEA, and DA categories, farm worker and farm family housing is expressly allowed in addition to the residential density otherwise specified in the General Plan.1 The question arises whether Section 2's voter approval requirements for density increases, when read together with Section 3's directive to make conforming changes throughout the General Plan, would require that these existing provisions of the General Plan be amended to permit such an increase in density only in accordance with the RHI's voter approval requirements.  A literal reading of the RHI could lead to this conclusion.  On balance, however, it would appear that these sections of the RHI could be harmonized with RHI's finding on "needed farm-worker housing" so as to preserve the current authority under the General Plan to increase density for farm worker and farm family housing, at least with respect to "permanent employee" and "seasonal worker" housing, without voter approval. However, it remains unclear whether this harmonized reading of the RHI would extend to all three types of housing, particularly "farm family" housing, since the RHI speaks only in terms of "farm-worker" housing.  The term "farm-worker housing" is not defined in the RHI. The Board of Supervisors would be responsible for implementation and interpretation of the RHI and the Board's interpretations would be entitled to great weight in any litigation arising from the RHI.  Staff believes that it would be well within the Board's authority to interpret the RHI in a manner that does not impede the development of any type of farm worker and farm family housing.  Under this interpretation, the County's practice of allowing all types of farm worker and farm family housing in addition to the residential density otherwise specified by the General Plan could continue unchanged.  However, absent a court decree, the RHI's affect on farm worker and farm family housing cannot be conclusively resolved. [back to FB Letter] Notwithstanding the preceding, any proposed General Plan amendment from the DA or RRD category to the LIA or LEA category for the purpose of adding a "farm family" unit would require voter approval. While the General Plan does not specifically limit the density of farm worker and farm family housing developments, the Zoning Ordinance does include a limit on the number of persons that can be housed in both "seasonal" and "year round" farmworker housing.  If the Zoning Ordinance was amended to increase the allowable farmworker housing per parcel, staff believes, under the harmonized reading of the RHI discussed above, that such an amendment would not be subject to voter approval under the RHI because no General Plan amendment is needed. Similarly, under the harmonized reading of the RHI discussed above, approval of a project to cluster additional farm worker and farm family housing units on a single parcel, as allowed under General Plan policy AR 7e (thus increasing the density allowed on that parcel), would not require voter approval under the RHI. On the other hand, a General Plan amendment to the RRD category to clarify that farm worker and farm family housing is allowed in addition to the density otherwise specified on the land use map may be subject to voter approval.

Land Use Planning and Development

13. How would the RHI impact the County's next comprehensive General Plan update?

As with individual project applications involving General Plan amendments, the effect of the RHI on a General Plan update would depend upon the scope of the proposed update.  If any part of the update were to include amendments which increased density or changed an applicable General Plan category in such a way as to require voter approval, then those parts of the update would not be approved unless and until the voter approval requirement was met. This restriction would either increase the time and cost of the update to accommodate the additional hearing and a ballot measure, or, if the scope of the update were limited in such a way as to avoid the voter approval requirement, it could limit the County's policy options in certain cases.  For instance, the County would be less likely to redesignate agricultural and resource lands to meet any State mandated affordable housing requirements.  Similarly, designations of many future proposed public uses, such as schools and parks, would not be as likely within the designated agricultural and resource land use categories.

14. How does the 30-year period in the RHI impact the typically shorter time horizon of the General Plan? 

The planning period for most General Plans is typically 10 to 20 years. The RHI would "freeze" certain General Plan land use categories for a 30 year period and, as discussed above, would limit the County's options in connection with its upcoming General Plan update. In addition, the limitations contained in the RHI would similarly restrict the County's options in any future General Plan updates undertaken during the 30-year period.

15. How would past General Plan amendments (i.e., from 1989 to present) have fared under the RHI?

From March 1989, when the General Plan was adopted, through 1999, the County has acted on 148 public and private projects that included General Plan amendments.  Below is a summary of the results of those actions, including an indication as to which General Plan amendments would have been affected by the RHI had it been in effect: 22 were denied 97 were approved, but would not have been affected by RHI 29 were approved and would have been subject to voter approval under the RHI. These approved projects include 7 public projects consisting of three parks, a bus yard, a water facility, a school and a wastewater facility.

16. Do area-specific General Plan policies that allow density flexibility have to be revised to be brought into conformance with the RHI?

The General Plan contains numerous "Planning Area Policies" which apply only to specific parcels.  These parcels are indicated with a "dot" on the Land Use Map.  Some of these policies modify the density or development potential on certain specified parcels.  In each case, however, the application of these policies does not require approval of a General Plan amendment as long as the density or development potential follows the applicable policy as set forth in the map and text of the Land Use Element.  As such, the RHI voter approval requirement would not be necessary. The General Plan also includes two policies in the Open Space Element which allow additional development in Community Separators (any type of development) and Scenic Landscape Units (residential only) subject to specified criteria.  Projects that meet the applicable criteria may be accomplished without a General Plan amendment.  Since these projects can be approved without an amendment, it appears that they would not be subject to the voter approval requirement in the RHI.  It should be noted, however, that it may be desirable in some cases to process concurrent or subsequent amendments so that the land use maps reflect the allowed use.  In these cases, this amendment might be subject to RHI. The RHI also "freezes" three specific policies pertaining to growth monitoring and biotic resources. These existing General Plan policies require establishment of a growth monitoring system (Policy LU 1d), ensuring that development occurs only where public services are available (Policy LU 4d) and ensuring that development is consistent with reservation of biotic resources and scenic features (Policy LU 9). These policies could not be altered during the update of the General Plan, except by voter approval. However, they are worded very generally and would likely be retained in any event.

17. Does anyone need to come before the Board of Supervisors if a General Plan amendment is required?  Can an applicant go straight to the voters?

The RHI seeks to amend the County General Plan primarily by adding a requirement that certain General Plan amendments must be approved by the voters. The RHI does not repeal existing requirements of local or State law. An applicant will have two choices: (1) An applicant may apply for a General Plan amendment following the current procedure. If the Board of Supervisors approves an amendment subject to RHI, the matter will be placed on the ballot for voter approval. If the Board does not approve the amendment, there is no requirement to conduct an election. (2) An applicant may circulate an initiative petition for a General Plan amendment. If sufficient signatures are obtained, the matter must be placed on the ballot, bypassing the usual procedure for CEQA review and approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

18. How does the RHI impact the County's ability to amend the General Plan four times per year?

The numerical limitation on the County's ability to amend the Land Use Element of its General Plan in a calendar year stems from state law, California Government Code section 65358(b).  Nothing in the RHI would change this limitation.  Therefore, General Plan amendments covered by the voter approval requirements of the RHI, all of which would involve the Land Use Element, are subject to and must be considered in light of this limitation. How and when to count a General Plan amendment requiring voter approval under the RHI is, however, open to interpretation.  Nothing in the RHI, statutory law or case law addresses this issue.  One could argue that such an amendment would not count toward the four amendments allowed by State law unless and until voter approval.  Alternatively, it could be argued that the time to count such an amendment is when the Board of Supervisors acts on the amendment, even though any Board approval would be conditioned upon voter ratification.  This argument relies on the conclusion that the RHI does not eliminate the procedural steps found in State law for approving a General Plan amendment, including a public hearing and decision by the Board of Supervisors. In either event, it appears that the Board could apply its settled practice of "batching" together several General Plan amendments in a single approving resolution, and include those covered by the RHI.  Such action would count as only one of the four amendments allowed each calendar year.  Nothing in the RHI purports to modify this Board practice.  Batching or combining all of the requested General Plan amendments together in a single ballot measure would, however, not appear appropriate since voters may wish to approve some, but not all, of the General Plan amendments placed before them.  Ultimately, it will be up to the Board of Supervisors to decide how to count RHI covered amendments toward the four General Plan amendments allowed per calendar year.  Any reasonable approach taken by the Board in this respect would likely be upheld by the courts since its interpretation of the RHI would be entitled to great weight.  It is unlikely that any court would count as two separate amendments a decision by the Board to approve an amendment subject to voter approval under the RHI and the subsequent ratification by the voters of that amendment. There are certain exceptions under State law to the numerical limitation on General Plan amendments.  Amendments subject to voter approval under the RHI would be subject to the same exceptions. The passage of the RHI itself counts as one of the four amendments to the General Plan allowed under State law.

19. In addition to requiring voter approval for certain General Plan amendments, the RHI contains language which requires any subdivision approval, rezoning, conditional use permit or other discretionary entitlement to be consistent with the new General Plan policies that are added by the initiative. What is the practical effect of these provisions on the County's land use decision making and regulatory processes? 

The RHI prohibits the granting of "any general plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, tentative or final subdivision map, conditional use permit, or any other discretionary entitlement which is inconsistent with" the policies enacted by the initiative.  The question presented by this language is whether the RHI merely restates the law requiring that tentative and final subdivision maps, conditional use permits, and other nonlegislative approvals be consistent with the General Plan designations, policies, and text enacted by the initiative, or whether the RHI instead purports to require that nonlegislative approvals comply with the procedures described in Policy LU-8e and Section 2.8.2, which would require voter approval.  It is well established that the powers of initiative and referendum extend only to legislative acts. Therefore, staff believes the correct interpretation of the language in question is that the RHI requires only that nonlegislative approvals be consistent with the General Plan as it is amended by the initiative.  This is particularly true given the language in Section 5 of the RHI that "This measure shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations."  However, absent a court decree, interpretation of the language in question cannot be conclusively resolved.  Based on the preceding, staff's interpretation of these provisions is that any rezoning, specific plan, subdivision, use permit, or other entitlement that also requires a General Plan amendment could not be approved until that General Plan amendment has been approved by the voters. However, if the entitlement did not require a General Plan amendment, it appears that the voter approval requirements of the RHI would not apply. The effect of the RHI on certain lot line adjustments is unclear. The County currently allows lot line adjustments between parcels in different General Plan land use categories as long as the overall development potential is not increased. Some lot line adjustments have the effect of increasing development on a parcel in one General Plan category, while decreasing on another in a different category. Under these circumstances, a General Plan amendment is typically required to conform to the land use map to the new parcel boundaries. The RHI may require voter approval of such General Plan amendments even though there is no increase in overall development potential.

20. What effect will the RHI have in the Coastal Zone?

General Plan amendments to change the land use designation or increase density on lands in the affected land use categories in the Coastal Zone would be subject to the voter approval requirements of the RHI in the same manner as non-coastal amendments. However, these amendments in the Coastal Zone would also constitute amendments to the County's Local Coastal Program (LCP), which under State law require certification by the California Coastal Commission before becoming effective. A local voter approval requirement cannot substitute for Coastal Commission approval. Thus, these amendments would be subject to preliminary approval by the Board of Supervisors, then submitted for voter approval, and then, if approved by the voters, submitted to the Coastal Commission for final approval. If denied by the Coastal Commission, the amendment would not become effective, despite voter approval. If the amendment is rejected by the voters, the matter would not be submitted to the Coastal Commission. The RHI also has potential implications for the County's 1999 LCP update, which is still awaiting action by the Coastal Commission. Since the Commission has not approved the update, it is not yet in effect. Portions of the LCP update that changed the land use designation on LIA, LEA, DA or RRD lands could be subject to the RHI provisions, which would apply the voter approval requirements to any General Plan amendment not in effect as of March 3, 2000.

21. How much land is currently in each of the land use categories specified in the RHI (LIA, LEA, DA & RRD)? How much land is in the Rural Residential (RR) designation that is not covered under the RHI? 

The acreage estimates for each of the agricultural, resources, and rural residential categories are as follows: LIA: 65,000 acres LEA: 150,000 acres DA: 60,000 acres RRD: 430,000 acres RR: 65,000 acres

22. How is the term "density" defined in the RHI?  What are the potential ramifications of the initiative's limitations on increasing density?

The RHI requires voter approval for any General Plan amendments that "amend the land use designation or increase the density" on lands designated as LIA, LEA, DA, and RRD.  The term "density" is not defined in the RHI.  As a result, it is not entirely clear what the initiative means by an "increase in density."  The General Plan uses "density" when referring to residential density, and the General Plan's Glossary defines "density" as follows: "As generally used in the land use element, the term refers to the number of dwelling units per acre or the number of acres per residential dwelling unit."  Moreover, the RHI states in Section 5 that its provisions "shall be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Initiative," and paragraph G of Section 1 states that the initiative's effect is to require voter approval for any General Plan amendment that "increases residential densities on agricultural or rural resource lands."  (Emphasis added)  Notwithstanding this, all of the paragraphs in Section 1 of the RHI, other than paragraph G, refer to a desire to restrict "sprawling development," conversion of agricultural land to "other uses," "urban and rural development," and other generic phrases that could apply just as easily to increases in non-residential development as increases in residential development.  The Board of Supervisors would be responsible for implementation and interpretation of the RHI and the Board's interpretations would be entitled to great weight in any litigation arising from the RHI.  Staff believes that it would be well within the Board's authority, and consistent with use of the term "density" elsewhere in the General Plan, to interpret "increase in density" in the RHI to mean increase in residential density.  However, absent a court decree, the meaning of term "density" cannot be conclusively resolved.  Based on the preceding, staff interprets the phrase "increase in density" to apply only to increases in residential density, since there is no other use of the term in the General Plan provisions relating to agricultural or rural resource areas. The RHI would clearly require voter approval for any General Plan amendment that increases the density specified on the land use map (such as going from 20 acres per dwelling to 10 acres). However, the initiative's effect on other types of density increases could be open to some debate. For example, some policies in the General Plan allow the Board to approve increased density under specific circumstances without amending the General Plan land use category or density (e.g., OS-1c, which allows the Board to approve additional development in a scenic landscape unit). While it appears that the RHI would not require voter approval for such a density increase in the absence of a General Plan amendment, the provisions of the RHI relating to land use decisions other than General Plan amendments leave the door open for challenge. Similarly, a General Plan amendment to increase the number of lots that can be clustered in a subdivision could be argued to be subject to voter approval even if it did not increase the overall density allowed under the Plan. Notwithstanding the RHI requirements for voter approval of any General Plan amendment that would change the land use designation or increase density in the affected land use categories, the initiative expressly allows the Board to approve, without voter approval, a General Plan amendment that would decrease density, subject to an additional hearing beyond that currently required under State law. This section of the initiative does not specify that the decrease in density must be within the same land use category (e.g. from LIA 20 acre density to LIA 40), which raises the question of whether the RHI would allow a change in land use category so long as the density was decreased. For example, commercial and industrial categories generally allow no more than one residential unit per parcel, regardless of parcel size. It could be argued that converting a parcel with an LIA land use designation to a commercial land use designation could be characterized as a decrease in density and, therefore, not subject to the RHI voter approval requirement.

23. What criteria would be used to determine that there are "no suitable land available in any designation other than LIA, LEA, DA or RRD" to accommodate housing development needed to comply with State housing laws? 

The RHI would allow the Board to amend the General Plan without voter approval in order to comply with State law regarding the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community. The initiative would require the Board to make certain findings in connection with any such approval, including a finding that: There is no suitable land available in any designation other than "Land Intensive Agriculture," "Land Extensive Agriculture," "Diverse Agriculture," or "Resources and Rural Development" to accommodate the proposed development. The initiative does not provide definitions for the terms "suitable" or "available," so these determinations would presumably be made by the Board on a case-by-case basis. These determinations could raise difficult policy questions. For example, would Rural Residential lands located in a community separator be considered "suitable"? Would lands in the PQP category occupied by a County-owned facility (such as a Sheriff's substation) be considered "suitable and available"? It should also be noted that the initiative's requirements for approval of a General Plan amendment for the purpose of meeting State housing law would also require the Board to find (among other things) that the land A"is unusable for agriculture due to its topography, drainage, flooding, adverse soil conditions or other physical reasons." This finding alone would probably prohibit most such amendments, since lands that are unusable for agriculture for these reasons would probably also be unsuitable for residential development, particularly development of housing for low- or very low-income persons.

24. Which projects approved since March 3, 2000, or currently in process, could be subject to reversal under the RHI?

The following projects, which have been either been approved since March 3rd or are currently in process, could be affected by the RHI: Approved Projects: (1) Monte Rio Pollution Control Project (although the proposed GPA from RRD to PQP for the Sheridan site was determined by the Board of Supervisors to be unnecessary, project opponents are considering litigation over the determination) (2) Shaw/Pruett (RRD 240 to LEA 100 to conform with new parcel boundaries, no increase in development potential) (3) Curtis & Associates/ St. Clair (LIA 20 to PQP, existing Alexander Valley Community Hall) (4) Barton (text amendment allowing additional density to relocate an historic dwelling to the property) Pending Applications (5) LaVigna lot line adjustment (adjust General Plan land use designations to correspond with approved lot line adjustment) (6) Ardalan subdivision (General Plan amendment from LIA to Rural Residential for 8 lot subdivision in Boyes Hot Springs area) (7) Vineyard Inn (General Plan amendment request to change from DA to Recreation and Visitor Serving Commercial to allow expansion of the Vineyard Inn) (8) PLP99-0055, Thomas (General Plan change from RRD to PQP to create a parcel around an historic schoolhouse, Mill Creek Rd., Healdsburg) (9) Shiloh Cemetery (General Plan change from DA to PQP to add land to the cemetery)  (10) PLP99-0093, Hunter (General Plan Amendment to realign land use designations  among 3 parcels as a result of a lot line adjustment  (11) PLP99-0004, Carlson (General Plan amendment from LEA to RRD to conform to new parcel boundaries, as a condition of an approved lot line adjustment) For the 2 projects listed below, it is currently unclear whether the project or application could be affected by the RHI:  (12) Sears Point Raceway (Approved Project - although this text amendment did not change the land use designation or increase residential density, it does allow additional raceway-related uses in the LEA category)  (13) White Oak Estates Subdivision (Pending Application - General Plan amendment to allow additional clustering to facilitate a 35 lot subdivision, LEA 60 acre density) In addition to the projects listed above, the RHI could also impact the County's 1999 Local Coastal Program amendments, as discussed in question #20 above.

25. Are private development proposals exempt from CEQA if they require a General Plan amendment, are in an ag zone and go to a vote of the people?

CEQA regulations contain an exemption for voter approved projects. There is no question that projects placed before the voters by initiative petition are exempt from CEQA. There is a question, currently pending review by the California Supreme Court, whether this exemption applies to projects placed before the voters by the governing body.

Elections 

26. Who is entitled to vote on the Rural Heritage Initiative?  On amendments to the General Plan?

The RHI is a county initiative measure, and as such, all voters of the county, including those who reside within city or town limits, are entitled to vote on the initiative, any future amendments to the initiative, and General Plan amendments pursuant to the initiative.

27. What is the process to place an amendment to the General Plan (which requires voter approval) on the ballot?  When would the election be held?  Can an applicant place an amendment to the General Plan on the ballot?  Also, if so, does the process for placing an amendment to the General Plan differ for an applicant and the County?

Measures may be placed on the ballot either by a governing body or by the voters via the initiative process.  The RHI does not address the procedure by which an amendment to the General Plan is placed on the ballot.  Therefore, the current process for General Plan amendments would be followed to the point where the amendment is approved or disapproved by the Board of Supervisors.  If approved, the Board would place the amendment on the ballot.  The Board's approval would be contingent upon voter approval of the amendment. The initiative is silent as to when an election would be held for a General Plan amendment.  State law provides that the Board may call an election to be held on any established election date (March, April and November of even-numbered years; March, June and November of odd-numbered years). The cost of placing a measure on a regular County election is significantly less than the cost of calling a special, stand-alone election. The initiative does not specify a procedure by which a voter may initiate an election to amend the General Plan.  However, State law provides that voters may place measures on the ballot through the initiative process.  If an individual voter or group of voters utilized the initiative process to amend either the General Plan or the initiative, the number of signatures of registered voters required would be greater than 16,000  for the question to appear on the ballot at the next statewide election and twice that number of signatures for a special election (not restricted to the dates set out above) to be called on the measure. As stated above, an applicant may follow the current process for General Plan amendments, and if approved by the Board of Supervisors, the issue would be placed on the ballot by the Board for voter consideration.  Or, the applicant may utilize the initiative process.  In order to place a General Plan amendment on the ballot for voter consideration, the County must comply with State law. The Board follows the Elections Code in terms of calling an election.

28. What information is printed on the Official Ballot (an amendment to the General Plan, or other measure)?  What information is included in the Voter Information Pamphlet?

In the event the full text of any measure exceeds 75 words, the measure is abbreviated on the Official Ballot, and generally, the full text of the measure is printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet.  This has historically been the practice in Sonoma County.  The elections official is authorized only to print the full text of the measure, including any exhibits; Counsel's Analysis; a Fiscal Analysis (if the County Auditor is so directed by the Board); Arguments in Favor and Against (1 each, if submitted); and, provided both an Argument for and Against were filed, Rebuttal Arguments (1 each, if submitted, unless the provision to allow Rebuttals is repealed by the Board at the time the election on the measure is called). In lieu of printing the full text in the Voter Pamphlet, the law provides that the full text may be printed and provided to any voter on request.  If this option is used, the following must be printed immediately below Counsel's analysis: "The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure ___.  If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the Election Official's office at __________ and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you."  There are serious workload ramifications and a greater probability of legal challenge if this option is employed.

29. Elaborate on the differences between a General Plan amendment reaching the voters by placement on the ballot versus the initiative process.

As stated previously, amendments to the General Plan which require voter approval may either be placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, or may be brought forward by the voters through the initiative process.  There are several differences between these two processes, one being the amount of time necessary to effect the placement of the measure on the ballot.  The Board of Supervisors may call an election 88 days prior to the date of an election, while an initiative generally requires several months lead time prior to the 88 day deadline.  In the case of a measure called by the Board, the Board retains control as to when the election would be held, and thus, the cost incurred.  In the case of an initiative measure, if the proponents secure the higher threshold of signatures and request in the petition that a special election be called on the measure, the County could be required to call a costly special election.  In either case, the County would bear the cost of the election.

30. Who decides the timing of the Election?

The RHI is silent as to when the election must be held. Unless the matter is an initiative, the Board of Supervisors would have discretion as to when to call the election.  For an initiative, the Board of Supervisors would follow State law governing the timing of the election.

Other

31. What amendments would the Board of Supervisors  need to place on the ballot to accomplish the following:

1. Exempt public facilities from RHI;
2. Remove the limitation on recreational land and parks;
3. Ensure that only those General Plan amendments that have been reviewed by the planning bodies and approved by the Board of Supervisors are eligible to go on the ballot;
4. Ensure that RHI applies to General Plan amendments only
5. Exempts General Plan amendments relating solely to historical preservation
6. Delete retroactivity

Due to the complex nature of the RHI, amending the initiative to address one or more of these issues would have to be done carefully to ensure that the amendments did not create new ambiguities or exacerbate existing ones in the initiative.  Staff believes another approach would be to start over with a new measure that could be drafted in a simple, straightforward, and easy to understand form.  However, staff also believes that the RHI could be amended as follows to address the issues identified in this question: a. + b. To exempt public facilities and remove the limitation on recreational land and parks in the RHI, subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of proposed Land Use Policy LU-8e and proposed Land Use Element Section 2.8.2 could be amended to delete everything in subparagraph a after the phrase "(iii) redesignate any such lands to 'Public/Quasi Public' land use designation."   c. To ensure that only those General Plan amendments that have been reviewed by the planning bodies and approved by the Board of Supervisors are eligible to go on the ballot, no amendment is required because staff believes that the initiative does not repeal existing review and approval requirements for general plans.  However, if the Board wishes to make this absolutely clear, clarifying language could be added as a subparagraph of paragraph 1 of proposed Land Use Policy LU-8e and proposed Land Use Element Section 2.8.2.   d. To ensure that the RHI applies to General Plan amendments only, paragraph 2 of proposed Land Use Policy LU-8e and proposed Land Use Element Section 2.8.2 could be amended to delete the first sentence in its entirety.   e. To exempt General Plan amendments relating solely to historical preservation, subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of proposed Land Use Policy LU-8e and proposed Land Use Element Section 2.8.2 could be amended to add this exception.   f. To delete retroactivity, at a minimum, paragraph A of Section 1, paragraphs A and D of Section 2, and paragraph B of Section 3 could be amended to delete the retroactive application language in those paragraphs.

32. How does the RHI affect cities?

With limited exceptions, the RHI requires voter approval for changes from agricultural land use designations to "Public/Quasi Public" designations. On its face, this would apply to a city. However, cities are exempt from county zoning laws, and a court of appeal concluded that cities are also immune from a county's general plan. This decision has been criticized in a 1999 law review article; and the California Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the issue. Thus, although the caselaw supports the view that cities are unaffected by the County General Plan, it may be questioned whether this view will prevail in the face of an initiative general plan amendment such as RHI.

33. Does the RHI affect proposed redevelopments such as the Russian River Redevelopment proposal?

The RHI expressly exempts some, but not all, redevelopment from its provisions.  The exemption applies only to an area covered by a redevelopment plan that, by law, is not subject to a local initiative.  Section  4 of the RHI states that this initiative shall not apply to "... any area contained within a Redevelopment Plan that, under California law, is beyond the power of the local voters to affect by the initiative power reserved to the people via the California Constitution." According to case law, a redevelopment plan is beyond the reach of the local electorate if it establishes a self-contained, autonomous set of land use controls designed to supercede any inconsistent local zoning and land use regulations.  Kehoe v. City of Berkeley (1977) 67 Cal. App. 3d 666.  Essentially, the courts view such plans as the equivalent of State law that cannot be modified by local initiative. Not all redevelopment plans serve as separate, autonomous land use documents.  Indeed, the Russian River Redevelopment Plan is not such a plan.  Rather it serves as a financing tool for implementing existing County land use policies by addressing blight and encouraging private reinvestment.  Such plans are subject to action by local voters.  Thus, the Russian River Redevelopment Plan, or any comparable plan, falls outside the RHI's limited redevelopment exemption because it is subject to the local initiative process. As applied to the Russian River Redevelopment Plan, however, the RHI would not require voter approval of the Plan itself or any of the four General Plan amendments proposed in connection with it.  The Plan is not an amendment to the General Plan, and therefore, not subject to the voter approval.  None of the four proposed General Plan amendments involves agricultural or rural resource lands affected by the RHI.

 34. What comparisons and contrasts can be made with the Napa County's Agricultural Lands Preservation Initiative (ALPI)?

Following is a summary of the similarities and differences between the RHI and the ALPI (a copy of the ALPI appears as Appendix B): The ALPI was adopted by the voters of Napa County in 1990.  Since its adoption, there have been six general plan amendments submitted to the voters of Napa County pursuant to the ALPI.  Five of the six amendments were initiated by initiative, thereby bypassing any review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the Planning and Zoning Law.  It appears that an unintended effect of the ALPI has been to encourage project applicants who are subject to the ALPI to use the initiative process to go directly to the voters for approval of their projects rather than subjecting the projects to review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the Planning and Zoning Law. The ALPI and the RHI both impose restrictions for 30-year terms and have retroactive application provisions.  The California Supreme Court in DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 763 held that it was permissible for the ALPI to remain in effect for 30 years.  However, the Court did not reach the legality of the ALPI's retroactive application provision because there were no interim-enacted general plan amendments that would have been affected by the provision. The ALPI requires voter approval of general plan amendments that change the Napa County General Plan's policies governing the intent and maximum building intensity for lands designated as "Agriculture, Watershed, and Open Space" or "Agricultural Resource," or that reduce the minimum parcel size for such lands.  The ALPI also requires, with limited exceptions, voter approval of general plan amendments to redesignate those lands.  The limited exceptions not requiring voter approval are (1) changes to reflect annexations to cities; (2) changes to permit solid waste disposal facilities involving waste generated solely within Napa County; (3) changes to redesignate land physically unusable for agriculture, provided specified findings are made; and (4) changes to avoid an unconstitutional taking of property. The RHI requires, with limited exceptions, voter approval of general plan amendments to redesignate lands designated as "Land Intensive Agriculture," "Land Extensive Agriculture," "Diverse Agriculture," or "Resources and Rural Development," or to increase the density for such lands.  The limited exceptions not requiring voter approval are (1) changes to decrease the permitted density for such lands; (2) changes from "Land Intensive Agriculture," "Land Extensive Agriculture," or "Diverse Agriculture" to "Resources and Rural Development"; (3) changes to Public/Quasi Public for (i) parks restricted primarily to non-intrusive recreational or educational uses such as hiking and nature study, (ii) fire stations, police stations, and related public safety facilities, or (iii) other public facilities needed to protect the public health or safety, provided specified findings are made by four-fifths vote of the Board2; (4) changes to avoid an unconstitutional taking of property; and (5) changes to comply with state law regarding the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community provided specified findings are made.3 As noted above, the ALPI includes an exception from voter approval for the siting of solid waste disposal facilities involving waste generated solely within Napa County.  The RHI does not include any type of exception from voter approval for the siting of solid waste facilities. As noted above, the RHI includes an exception from voter approval for the siting of parks for non-intrusive recreational or educational uses.  (All other parks would require voter approval.)  The ALPI does not affect the siting of parks in Napa County because parks are allowed in all land use categories, including "Agriculture, Watershed, and Open Space" and "Agricultural Resource." The RHI imposes a requirement that the Board of Supervisors hold at least one noticed public hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony and evidence on proposed general plan amendments subject to the RHI and any findings proposed in connection with such amendments.  This hearing would be in addition to the public hearings otherwise required by law for general plan amendments.  The ALPI does not include a requirement for any additional public hearings. The ALPI imposes a requirement that upon the insertion date of the ALPI into the Napa County General Plan, except for specified exempt projects, all general plan amendments, rezonings, specific plans, tentative or final subdivision maps, parcel maps, conditional use permits, building permits, or other ministerial or discretionary entitlements for use not yet approved or issued shall not be approved or issued unless consistent with the policies and provisions of the ALPI.  The ALPI specifies that, in particular, any land use provisions or actions, including but not limited to general plan amendments and zoning measures, pertaining to wineries or their accessory uses or structures located on lands designated as "Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space" or "Agricultural Resource" shall conform to the intent and purposes of the ALPI.  The RHI imposes a similar, yet different requirement in Subsection 2 of proposed Land Use Element Policy LU-8e and Subsection 2 of proposed Land Use Element Section 2.8.2, which provides that the County and its departments, boards, commissions, officers, and employees shall not grant any general plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, tentative or final subdivision map, conditional use permit, or any other discretionary entitlement which is inconsistent with Policy LU-8e or Section 2.8.2.  The placement and wording differences between these two provisions makes it difficult to compare and contrast them. The ALPI readopts certain Napa County General Plan policies and the portion of the Napa County General Plan Map identifying "Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space" and "Agricultural Resource" lands, thereby freezing those policies and maps in place absent a voter approved change.  Similarly, the RHI readopts certain existing General Plan policies regarding growth monitoring, new development siting, and biotic resources, thereby freezing those policies in place absent a voter approved change. The RHI requires the County to amend the General Plan, all specific plans, the zoning ordinance, and other ordinances and regulations affected by the initiative to achieve consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies enacted by the initiative. The ALPI includes a similar requirement.

Fiscal

35. What are the costs of placing a measure on the ballot?  Who is responsible for the cost of the elections?

The cost of adding a single county-wide measure, with text of average length, to a Primary or General Election ballot is generally estimated to be $.20 -$.30 per registered voter ($50,000 - $75,000).  The cost is determined to a great extent by the amount of text to be printed and distributed to the voters.  The estimated cost for a special county-wide election is $1.50 - $2.00 per registered voter ($375,000 - $500,000). State law provides that all expenses incurred in the preparation for and conduct of elections be paid from the County treasuries.  However, in the situation where an applicant follows the normal General Plan amendment process, receives approval from the Board, and insists upon a special county-wide election rather than placement on the ballot during a Primary or General Election, the County might be able to charge the applicant for the cost of the special election.

36. What is the estimated cost of placing the RHI on the November ballot?

Due to the extraordinary length of the full text of the Rural Heritage Initiative, including exhibits, the estimated cost of placing the initiative measure on the ballot is estimated to be $110,000.  While there were several options to consider, the Registrar of Voters Office has determined that the most efficient and cost-effective method of reproducing and distributing the full text of the measure is to produce the full text in a separate pamphlet and mail one copy to each "voter household" in the County.  The Analyses, Arguments and Rebuttals would be contained in the Sample Ballot/Voter Information Pamphlet, along with any other measures, and a statement directing voters to the separate pamphlet for the full text of the measure.  Other methods of distribution are either more costly, would increase workload to the point that the conduct of other elections on the ballot would be jeopardized, or would not comply with statute, thus increasing the possibility of litigation.

37. What impacts might the RHI have on the County's ability to secure State or federal grant funding for public projects?

Many of the County's capital projects, particularly those for Parks, Airport, and Transit facilities, rely heavily on grant funding.  In addition, the County has sought significant grant funding in the past for major public facilities such as replacement juvenile correctional facilities. The voter approval requirement for these projects could make it impossible to meet grant application timelines in many situations.  Even in those circumstances where granting agency timelines are met, the delay and questionable outcome of the voter approval requirement create uncertainty regarding a project's potential completion and, therefore, adversely affect the County's ability to compete for funding. As a result, County taxpayers may receive less return of State and Federal tax dollars for local facilities.

38. Can the RHI impact on future tax revenues be determined at this time?

Any potential RHI impacts upon future tax revenues can not be determined at this time.

        ²The findings required for this exception are so stringent that only facilities to correct an existing public health and safety risk would qualify. [back]

        ³The findings required for this exception are so stringent that they effectively render the exception illusory. the net effect of this exception could be to make it more difficult rather than less difficult to locate affordable housing on agricultural and rural resource lands. [back]