|
FB
Claim:
RHI "would ..require
a countywide vote for even the most minor changes
in land within rural or agricultural
designations."
|
|
FACT:
False.
RHI
requires a vote only for a General
Plan amendment that would change
the land use designation or increase the number of
residences (density) in three ag designations -
LIA, LEA and Diverse Ag, as well as in Resource and
Rural Development.
|
|
FB
Claim: "If you
needed to sell a 5-acre parcel to pay for some new
equipment, the sale would require approval by a
majority of the voters in Sonoma
County.."
|
|
FACT:
False.
The agricultural
designations of the General Plan do not permit
parcels smaller than 10 acres in Diverse Ag; they
must be 20 acres or more in LIA, and 40 acres or
more in LEA. The Board of Supervisors has not
approved amendments to create five acre parcels.
Approval of such a sale is highly unlikely, with or
without Measure I.
|
|
FB
Claim: "The
owner of a small Alexander Valley winery, wanting
to open a tasting room to generate additional
income, would first have to have approval from
voters..."
|
|
FACT:
False.
The General Plan
permits tasting rooms and stands for the sale and
promotion of products grown or processed in the
County. No General Plan amendment or vote would be
required.
|
|
FB
Claim: "A farm
family, seeking to pass their business on to their
child, would be prohibited from building a second
home on their property to accommodate their adult
child's family without a countywide
vote."
|
|
FACT:
False.
General
Plan Ag. Resources Element 2.7 "Housing for
Farm Workers and Farm Family Members" provides in
Policy AR-7B: .."one additional dwelling unit in
addition to permitted density for members of farm
operator's immediate family".
In addition, farm worker
detached housing is permitted in two of the three
affected designations, and Granny units are also
permitted in some designations. There are numerous
ways to house adult children who want to stay and
work on the farm.
|
|
FB
Claim: "...they
refused to consult farmers or address our concerns
when they were writing it.."
|
|
FACT:
False.
The drafters of the
Rural Heritage Initiative consulted with members of
the agricultural community during preparation of
the initiative, but not with the Farm Bureau, which
opposed creation of Sonoma County's General Plan
and the Urban Growth Boundaries.
|
|
FB
Claim: RHI limits
farmers' ability to adjust to changing agriculture
markets.
|
|
FACT:
False.
The General Plan is
not changed. Farmers will have the same
privileges under Measure I as they do now.
Subdivision is permitted, providing existing
minimum parcel sizes are preserved. If a farm has
300 acres and is zoned 100 acre minimum, that farm
may be subdivided into three parcels without
amending the General Plan. Property rights
after approval of Measure I remain the same as they
are now.
|
|
FB Claim:
RHI "gives
corporations and developers an advantage over
family farmers and small vineyards, because big
companies can better afford the time and expense of
countywide campaigns.
|
|
FACT:
False.
In Napa County, where
a similar measure has been in effect since 1990,
the three large development projects whose
applicants waged expensive campaigns were rejected
by the voters.
|
|
FB Claim:
RHI "will lead
to urban sprawl and increased urban/agricultural
conflicts" in Rural Residential designations and
"accelerates growth pressures in
cities."
|
|
FACT:
Well...the Farm
Bureau can't have it both ways. Do they want no
growth at all? Do they want growth to be located on
agricultural and resources lands? Measure I directs
growth to the cities and unincorporated
communities, including RR designations. This is
consistent with the General Plan's policy of city
and community centered growth; it will result in
fewer total vehicle travel miles, fewer new roads
built in rural areas, etc., than sprawl onto
agricultural lands. Measure I saves agricultural
and resource lands from sprawl. The Farm Bureau
should support Measure I if it truly wants to
protect agricultural land in Sonoma
County.
|
|
FB Claim:
RHI "obstructs County
plans for new youth sports fields and family parks,
wasting limited funds on election campaigns instead
of creating parks."
|
|
FACT:
False.
First, the fact is
that the Farm Bureau has been an opponent of parks
for years. They were one of the only organizations
in the state to oppose Proposition 12, a bond
measure passed in March overwhelmingly by
California voters to fund parks in the state. The
Sierra Club, which has been fighting for the
creation of parks for over 100 years, strongly
supports Measure I. Who do you trust on parks
issues, the Sierra Club or the Farm
Bureau?
In addition, no current regional
park in Sonoma County would have triggered a vote
under Measure I. Measure I would trigger a vote for
a park only to redesignate agricultural or resource
lands to Public Quasi Public, except for "parks
restricted primarily to non-intrusive recreational
and outdoor uses such as hiking trails and nature
study." The Board of Supervisors has broad
authority under Measure I to create parks without a
vote of the people. Parks owned by cities, whether
in the city or unincorporated area, are not
affected by Measure I. No trails will be subject to
a vote.
|
|
FB
Claim: RHI
"encourages developers to avoid Environmental
Impact Reports and go directly to the ballot where
slick and expensive campaigns can buy
approval".
|
|
FACT:
False.
State
law does not apply CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) to initiatives. However, it is
virtually impossible to complete a project of any
significance without discretionary approvals by the
County. If a developer won a vote on an initiative
to change the General Plan, the project itself
would still require an EIR if warranted,
before the project could proceed.
|
