Columns-editorials-op eds-etc.
|
Yes on I: Vote to stop sprawl Sonoma County is at a crossroads. Over the next several decades, the county will face unprecedented pressures to grow, fueled by a booming Bay Area economy and an estimated increase of 116,000 new residents by 2020. While future growth may be inevitable, the way that we grow is subject to our control. Sonoma County does not need to follow the path bulldozed by San Jose, Contra Costa County and other communities that have let sprawl destroy agriculturally rich areas with ill-considered development. Sonoma County voters have the opportunity on Nov. 7 to vote yes on Measure I to stop sprawl before it is too late and to preserve our farmlands and open space. Measure I, the Rural Heritage Inititative, is a simple measure that reaffirms the county's strong general plan and serves as a perfect complement to the urban growth boundaries (UGBs) that have passed with large majorities in seven Sonoma County cities. All that Measure I does is give final say to the voters over growth-inducing projects that deviate from the general plan, just like our UGBs. Sonoma County's general plan, our blueprint for growth and development, was formulated in the late 1980's over several years, and with input from over 1,000 Sonoma County residents. The plan offers sensible solutions for managing the expected growth coming to the county, focusing development into the already existing cities and protecting the county's precious agricultural and natural resources. Measure I is an idea that works, patterned after a successful initiative passed by Napa County voters in 1990. Voter control over growth in Napa County has preserved agricultural land and successfully held rampant overdevelopment in check. Since voters passed Measure J a decade ago, Napa County has lost a scant 462 acres of farmland and has seen its total agricultural land value skyrocket 94%. This stands in stark contrast to Contra Costa County, whose voters in 1990 rejected a measure similar to Sonoma County's Measure I and Napa County's Measure J. Since that vote, Contra Costa County has lost over 11,000 acres of farmland and is choking on pollution, traffic and gridlock. Voter control over land-use decisions can prevent sprawl. Contrary to what some opponents of Measure I say, the initiative will not mean the end of farming in Sonoma County. The reality is that many family farmers support Measure I because it will protect agricultural land. According to Sonoma County staff and the state Legislative Counsel, Measure I will allow farmers to continue all practices currently allowed and will encourage them to stay in farming. They can continue to build farm family housing and farm worker housing, change crops and build structures for their farm operations, just as they can now. Measure I is good for agriculture. Measure I is also good for parks. The Sierra Club, which has been fighting for parks for over 100 years, is a strong supporter of Measure I, as are many other leading parks and trails advocates. The Sonoma County Farm Bureau, one of the leading opponents of Measure I, has a long history of opposing parks, including opposing Proposition 12, the statewide ballot initiative recently passed by California voters to fund parks throughout California. As you make your decision on how to vote on Measure I, ask yourself who do you trust on parks, the Sierra Club or an organization that has consistently opposed parks. Measure I is supported by a broad coalition of farmers, parks and trails advocates, and elected officials, including Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin, Supervisor Mike Reilly, 17 members of Sonoma county city councils and the City of Sebastopol itself. It is also endorsed by every major environmental organization in the county. This coalition is united in its belief that Measure I is a critical step, along with the general plan and UGBs, for stemming the tide of sprawl before it reaches Sonoma County. If you want to stop sprawl, vote Yes on Measure I. If you want to give voters, not politicians and big developers, the power to make critical decisions on growth and development, vote Yes on Measure I. More importantly, if you want to preserve the beauty of Sonoma's agricultural land and natural heritage, vote Yes on Measure I. Because once it's gone, it's gone forever. Caryl Hart is a member of the CA State Parks and Recreation Commission; Paula Hawkes is a grape grower; Margaret Pennington is political co-chair of the Sierra Club's Sonoma Group. |
|
Preserving the Farm for the Kids Opponents of the Rural Heritage Initiative have made a campaign centerpiece out of the claim that Measure I represents a threat to that most sacred agricultural tradition, passing the farm on to the children. In advertising, letters to the editor and roadside signs that urge voters to ``Save Our Farms,'' the opposition campaign pleads to our sense of fairness. How could anyone support an initiative that ``could even keep a son or daughter from building a home on their family farm, undermining parents' ability to pass on their farm to the next generation''? That's a direct quote from the ``No on I'' campaign's literature. And while it's not exactly false, it's not the whole story. Take the second part of it first. Measure I says nothing about transferring ownership of farmland. If a farmer wants to give the spread to his son or daughter, there's nothing in the initiative to prevent him from doing so. He can do it before he dies, leave it in his will, put it in trust for the grand kids. ``Undermining'' relates back to the first part of the message, says Eric Koenigshofer, spokesman for the opposition. If a farmer can't build a house for his kids, they might move away, leaving no one on the land ready to take over as the parents get old and die. That's a possibility. But a close look at both the initiative and the Sonoma County general plan shows why opponents were careful to qualify this language with the word ``could.'' Sonoma County recognizes three types of agricultural housing in addition to the ``main house'' on a farm. ``Permanent employee'' housing and ``seasonal worker'' housing -- which are just what their names imply -- are allowed in all land-use zones that would be affected by Measure I. And that wouldn't change if the initiative passes. However, ``farm-family'' housing -- one additional house to be used by members of the landowner's family -- is expressly allowed only in the land-use categories called ``land-intensive agriculture'' and ``land-extensive agriculture.'' The current general plan does not allow farm-family housing in the zones ``diverse agriculture,'' a designation that includes a variety of uses in which farming is not the main activity, and ``resources and rural development,'' which includes extensive wild lands, grazing land and active farms. The DA and RRD zones comprise about two-thirds of the 700,000 acres that would be affected by the initiative. If passed, Measure I would freeze the general plan for 30 years on lands in all four categories. Any changes, which now can be made with a general plan amendment approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors, would have to be approved by a majority of county voters. In other words, if a landowner in the DA or RRD zones wanted to change zoning to allow a ``farm family'' house, he'd need to take the issue to the electorate. ``It's being peddled as a way to stop sprawl, but in fact it interferes with farming in ways that are not even related to sprawl,'' Koenigshofer says. Proponents counter that Measure I does nothing to take away farmers' existing rights. Farmers on land zoned LIA and LEA who today can get a permit to build a second home for a family member would be able to do the same thing if Measure I is approved. In its July analysis of Measure I, the county staff concluded that while some impacts of the measure ``remain unclear,'' staffers believe ``it would be well within the (Board of Supervisors') authority to interpret the initiative in a manner that does not impede the development of any type of farm worker and farm-family housing.'' Meanwhile, a spokesman for the county's Permit and Resource Management Department says he can't recall ever handling a request for a general plan amendment for the purpose of creating farm family housing. ``It just doesn't happen,'' he said. So, is the restriction on family housing in certain rural zones a threat to the future of agriculture that exposes a fatal flaw in Measure I? Voters will decide on Nov. 7. Chris Coursey is a staff writer on the Press Democrat. |
|
RHI will relieve pressure Wasn't it Will Rogers who once said: "Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it."? The Rural Heritage Initiative is an opportunity for people to do something about the future of our county. RHI sets inclusive policy that requires a vote of the people before our elected officials set out to amend the General Plan. The General Plan is an extremely important document that spells out policy that translates into how we chose to evolve. The plan addresses how we will develop and where specific uses are encouraged. Sounds reasonable. RHI sets out to protect the predictability of our future growth. In other words, it tries to ensure that consistency and order will prevail regarding our quality of life, both personal and on a larger scale. I believe we are entitled to that, aren't we? Nothing is more disappointing to me as a representative, as when lives are disrupted by new projects that are conspicuously inconsistent with contiguous land-use and inconsistent with the General Plan, as well. These inconsistencies are invited when too much discretionary power is accorded too few people. Some may allege that RHI sets out to usurp power from our elected officials. I would rather translate its impact as relieving the enormous political pressure that is exerted upon them, in deference to an inclusive process that allows Sonoma County residents to participate in major planning issues. Does RHI affect annexations? No. Does RHI affect zoning law? No. Does RHI strive toward more accountability? Of course. The passage of RHI will give a resounding message to present and future public officials. A message that we defer to responsible growth, consistent with ability to provide ample infrastructure, and that future generations will be reminded that we are trying to keep Sonoma County "The Chosen Spot on the Face of the Earth." I urge your support of The Rural Heritage Initiative. (William Roventini is a Sebastopol City Councilman.) |
|
Down on the Farm... Bureau Not long after Greg and I moved to Sonoma County 20 or so years ago, Measure C appeared on the ballot. It was a relatively simple measure that would have made it more difficult, but not impossible, for developers to turn agriculture land into shopping centers, parking lots,and wall-to-wall housing. The Sonoma County Farm Bureau's first response was to start squealing like the object of attention at a greased pig race. Next they mounted a very successful campaign based on the theme "Save This Farm, Vote No on C!" For a time it seemed as if every fence post in the county, especially around the then-unincorporated area of Windsor, displayed a bright blue sign with those red letters on it. It worked. The ballot measure lost and those farms were saved...for warehouse stores, pavement, and wall-to-wall housing. Not long after that, the California Clean Water Act hit the statewide ballot, and Farm Bureau's howls raised a ruckus like setting up a siren in a thousand hound pound. It would mean "the end of farming as we know it" in California. Fortunately, Golden State voters took the bureau, which I think of as the NRA of Agriculture, only as seriously as it deserved to be taken and the measure passed, hugely, and farming, as we know it, continued unabated. A half-dozen years or so ago, 5th District Supervisor Ernie Carpenter -- in an atypically apolitical move -- attempted to persuade the Board of Supervisors to pass an ordinance to help protect and replace the glorious blue, valley, and live oaks that soften, shape, and enrich our landscape and our lives. Fat chance. Summa them oaks were on farm land and the Farm Bureau set up a shriek that, while it didn't quite shatter windows as far away as Frisco, sure as Helena shattered Ernie's hopes for his modest proposal. I think you probably know where we're headed here, but hang on. The ride might be worth it. More recently, with the indisputable evidence of topsoil-filled ditches and silt-saturated Russian River water, the SonoCo Board of Supervisors reluctantly took up the issue of proper hillside tilling. Vineyard developers in particular (but not exclusively) were planting any hillside that registered less that plumb vertical with rows of vines that not only didn't slow topsoil runoff and aggressive erosion, they speeded up the process. Napa County, with a an intelligence and foresightedness I'd love to make light of but can't, had already enacted a hillside erosion ordinance that combines flood control, soil and water conservation, and good farming practice. With Napa's enormously comprehensive manual as their guide, the SonoCo Supervisors created a committee to "adapt" an appropriate version for us. Participation of both conservationists and "the farming community" (read Farm Bureau) was mandated and the result was a complete collapse of conservation ethic in the face of a attack that I think of as the Farm Bureau Chainsaw Massacre. The ordinance is worse than nothing since it gives legal sanction to embarrassingly bad (but mechanistically profitable) farming practice. For once the Farm Bureau was grinning, but it was hard to see under that metaphorical hockey mask. Which brings us, as you knew it would, to the Rural Heritage Initiative. I grew up in a farming family, a Farm Bureau family, in southern Illinois (I'm still, in fact, a one-sixth owner in my family's working farm). I know how hard it is to be a farmer and how important farms and farming are -- particularly to the Sonoma County I moved here to be part of. The first newspaper feature I ever got paid for, a dozen or so years ago, was on Farm Trails, encouraging locals to get out and buy from their local farmer. It's a passion that has never wavered, never diminished, never slipped. It's showed up in every aspect of my work -- as a columnist, as a feature writer, and as a news reporter. All of which gives me, I think, the right to express an opinion. My opinion is that while I'd far rather go to a stall-cleaning with my farmer friends than to a gourmet dinner with many of the people who developed and promoted the initiative, the RHI is a right and rational response to the suburban sprawl we got when Proposition C went down in flames a couple of decades ago. It is, at the moment, the only recipe we have for avoiding the Santa Clara tsunami of high-cost housing that threatens to sweep up and across every single hill and valley not producing a rich harvest of cash crop each and every year. (Larry McDonald is a columnist for the Sonoma West Times & News publishers.) |
|
RHI is Good Government Policy The Rural Heritage Initiative, Measure I on the November ballot, offers the citizens of Sonoma County a critical opportunity to preserve what is left of our "rural heritage" -- lands outside current city limits which are vulnerable to rezoning and inclusion into cities -- the rolling hills, forests and farmland collectively referred to as "countryside." While Urban Growth Boundaries have precluded cities from expanding beyond voter-approved limits, lands outside city boundaries do not have that kind of protection. Lands in the unincorporated area are under the jurisdiction of the county General Plan which can be amended four times a year by a three-to-two vote by the Board of Supervisors. The Rural Heritage Initiative will insure that current or future supervisors do not yield to the financial contribution pressures of special interest groups. Leading the opposition to the Rural Heritage Initiative is the Sonoma county Farm Bureau, which would have us believe that the Farm Bureau is the voice of farmers and represents the best interests of agriculture. In reality, it speaks mainly for agribusiness, with a substantial portion of its membership having no interest in agriculture whatever. Established in 1919, the American Farm Bureau Federation, of which the Sonoma County Farm Bureau is a branch member, declared its purpose during its first convention with the words: This institution must not degenerate into a social or educational institution. It must be made the most powerful business institution in the country." Unlike the Grange, whose purpose was "the advancement of agriculture," the Farm Bureau's expressed aim was "managing the affairs of agriculture in a broad business manner." Unfortunately, this aim degenerated into the "get big or get out" maxim of former Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz and championed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, has resulted in the eradication of millions of small family farms while promoting the best interests of the largest farm operations. The agribusiness or corporate approach to farming relies heavily upon chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc. and the American Farm Bureau Federation has resisted legislation restricting their use, just as it lobbies against most environmental regulations. A recent "60 Minutes" television segment focused on Farm Bureau abuses in Iowa. At present there are over 200 organizations petitioning for a Congressional investigation of the Farm Bureau. It is not surprising that the Farm Bureau was not asked to participate in the drafting of a ballot initiative which is necessary, in part, because of certain Farm Bureau policies. The issue that best defines the Farm Bureau in Sonoma County, as elsewhere, is "property rights." Certainly, the US Constitution guarantees certain rights pertaining to the ownership of property, but the extreme application of those rights, especially with regard to land use, often results in a "public be damned" attitude. Farm Bureau attorneys know that the Sonoma County General Plan permits all kinds of appropriate land use, and that farmers and other rural property owners continue to exercise their property rights within the framework of the current General Plan. The Rural Heritage Initiative does not take away any of those rights. The other major opposition to the Rural Heritage Initiative comes from the Sonoma County Alliance, a business coalition which fuels the county growth machine. The "Membership Directory, Sonoma County Alliance 2000" states that the first priority of its mission is "to protect private property rights." Of the 217 firms listed in the "Business Category" of membership, at least 109 (50%) are directly or indirectly involved with the building industry. It is worth noting that the Sonoma County Farm Bureau is a member of the Alliance. Formed in 1975, the Sonoma county Alliance has wide-reaching influence. An Alliance member has served on the daily newspaper's political candidate endorsement committee. This same newspaper has never sought dialogue with the so-called "environmentalists." Too often, even moderate voices attempting to address land-use issues are simply ignored, or have their positions misrepresented. The Rural Heritage Initiative petition drive was completed in record time with a record number of signatures. Many who signed the petition said, "It's already too late." This may be our last chance to save what's left of our rural heritage -- a heritage which is not exclusively owned by the Farm Bureau nor should be controlled by any other special interest organization. The opportunity for voters to have a say in how growth is to be managed in Sonoma County is what validates the initiative process. The passage of the Rural Heritage Initiative (Measure I) will insure government "of the People, for the People, and by the People." (Charles Richard and his wife Nancy founded Bellerose Vineyard, a small family-owned and -operated vineyard and winery located in Dry Creek Valley. Active in the Dry Creek Valley Farm Bureau for several years, he served for 16 years on the board of the Dry Creek Valley Association. Now retired, he and his family live in Windsor.) |
|
Parks
Plan Caught Up in
Politics I don't read minds. Still, I have to think the majority of our Sonoma County supervisors are being a bit ingenuous when they claim politics wasn't driving their decision this week to halt work on a $100 million parks plan until after voters decide on the Rural Heritage Initiative in November. Politics not only was behind the wheel, it provided the fuel. The supervisors, after all, are politicians. They are engaged in a political campaign. Those who voted to back-burner the park plan also oppose the Rural Heritage Initiative, which would strip them of much of their power to make land-use decisions. The park plan, meanwhile, occupies a special place in the hearts of the environmental groups that bring the RHI to the November ballot. This is about as raw as politics gets. I don't begrudge a politician being political. But please, Supervisors Cale, Kelley and Smith, don't insult us by passing off political moves as prudent governance. The veneer is too thin. Let's take a look at the background. Environmental groups and individuals for the past few years have reveled in firing broadsides at the supervisors from a variety of angles. The board has been scorched as pro-development, insensitive to concerns about the Russian River and, most vociferously, "in the pocket " of the wine industry. Supervisors - not without some reason- feel the attacks are unfair. Attacks, though, can be shrugged off. All three supervisors who faced reelections this year won easily in the March primary. But the stakes changed with the introduction of the RHI. Environmentalists mobilized a signature-gathering campaign that forced supervisors to place on the November ballot a measure that requires a countywide vote of the people in order to change land use in rural areas. Essentially, the initiative says the Board of Supervisors can no longer be trusted with land use decisions. Now the supervisors are not shrugging. Board members - particularly Mike Cale and Tim Smith - have lashed out at the measure at every opportunity. Cale has been disdainful of not just the RHI, but its framers, and at times his public remarks have come accompanied by red-faced rage. Smith has been slightly more temperate, but still hasn't hidden his anger at the measure. The board opponents of the RHI - Paul Kelly and Mike Kerns round out the majority - immediately seized on the portion of the measure that deals with parks. While supporters highlight that the initiative is designed to prevent residential sprawl into agricultural areas, it also apparently requires elections to create parks in such areas, unless those parks are limited to "nonintrusive recreational or educational uses, such as hiking or nature study." Supervisors have complained that language favors parks for greenies and nature lovers, while parks for soccer players or roller bladers are relegated to the same status as subdivisions and sewer plants. RHI backers, on the other hand, argue that the county rarely develops high-intensity parks in agricultural areas, so the impact on parks will be minimal. If a good park does fall under the initiative, the public will vote for it, proponents say. Still, the lone supervisor who supports RHI, Mike Reilly, last month attempted to defuse the park issue. He suggested that his colleagues place a companion measure on the ballot that would exempt new parks from the provisions of RHI. The idea went nowhere. Why not? if the board majority really wanted to move ahead with the park plan, wouldn't it make sense to try to fix any potential problems posed by the RHI? Would good governance indicate the wisdom of adding a non-threatening companion measure to protect parks alongside what likely will be a victorious RHI? Or, does it better serve the political purposes to hang ambiguous parks language around the RHI in an effort to highlight its shortcomings? You don't have to be a mind reader to answer those questions. (Chris Coursey is a staff writer on the Press Democrat.) |
|
Farm initiative's
true
goal According to a May 24 Press Democrat editorial, ``Almost everyone agrees with the stated purpose of the Rural Heritage Initiative (RHI). Protection of farmland from urban development is fundamental to the preservation of natural resources and the beauty of the region.'' Farm Bureau spokesperson Judy James echoed that sentiment: ``Conceptually, we agree with the measure's stated purpose. We all want the same thing, which is for farming to be viable in the long run.'' Considering the breadth of shared sentiments, it's unfortunate that concern for how the Rural Heritage Initiative was created is overshadowing what it does. We are confident the fear of unintended consequences will diminish once people see RHI affects only the process for changing the general plan. RHI does not alter the general plan. It does not limit existing development rights. It will not prevent farmers from changing, adjusting or expanding their operations, as permitted by applicable zoning and use permits. RHI would not prohibit, for instance, a dairy from expanding to add an ice cream or cheese-making facility. RHI could not block new vineyards, water reuse projects for agriculture, churches or schools. Existing provisions allowing division of farmland for family or for sale as country home sites would be unchanged. It does not affect Santa Rosa's wastewater pipeline to the Geysers. City property is not subject to county land-use regulations. RHI does say that, for the next 30 years, any amendment to the Sonoma County General Plan that would convert agricultural and resources land to housing tracts or business parks or would increase densities on those lands must be approved by a vote of the people. (As defined by the general plan, increasing density means reducing the number of acres required per dwelling unit.) RHI would require a vote to approve a new county park on agricultural land in unincorporated area if it were intensively developed like Maxwell Park in Boyes Springs, but not if it were primarily natural as are the half dozen largest parks including Shiloh Ranch and Sonoma Valley Regional Park. New refuse disposal areas not owned by a city would require a vote. Lawsuits resulting from RHI are unlikely. None have been filed in the two years since Ventura County voters adopted a similar measure. Napa County's Measure J has not been challenged since it was upheld by the California Supreme Court in 1995. The Rural Heritage Initiative did not spring out of thin air. It is patterned on Measure J, supported by the Farm Bureau in Napa County, and the SOAR Initiative in Ventura County. It is a logical complement to the urban growth boundaries (UGBs) that have already been adopted by six of nine Sonoma County cities. UGBs include enough land for more than 20 years of projected population and job growth. We can maintain strong economic performance in agriculture, tourism and technology without sacrificing our quality of life. RHI allows the voters to decide whether urban development will occupy the nearly 80 percent of Sonoma County's land in unincorporated areas outside city UGBs. This is time to act because the same pressures that eliminated the orchards in northern Santa Clara County are bearing down on Sonoma County now. Our general plan is the product of input from the farming and wine industries, the environmental and business communities and private citizens, after many meetings and over many months. The blueprint for land use created by careful community process shouldn't be vulnerable to a 3-2 vote by a future Board of Supervisors. RHI is a modest proposal. It upholds Sonoma County General Plan and gives voters a say in the stewardship of the place where we live. If development pressures will potentially double the population, the people deserve to vote. For a complete text of the initiative and more information, we encourage readers to visit www.ruralheritage.net. (Peter Ashcroft is Steering Committee
chair of Citizens for Sonoma County's Future.) |
|
RHI
Gives Power to the Voters The more than 200 volunteers who collected the signatures to put the Rural Heritage Initiative on the ballot were hailed as heroes by most signers. We remain convinced that when the majority of citizens in the county are clear on the need for this initiative, and understand that RHI secures the General Plan, reason will prevail and the initiative will pass handily in November. And that's what will pass it, a simple majority. First: What is the General Plan? The Sonoma County General Plan is the document that contains the basic conditions we have established for the ways land may be used - a kind of constitution. The County General Plan was formalized after many months of meetings, attended by people in agriculture and business, environmentalists and private citizens. It is by the people and for the people. All of us. Second: RHI won't change the General Plan at all. It will protect the General Plan from unwise changes by giving the voters, instead of five supervisors, the right to approve certain changes to four of the land use categories of the General Plan. They are Land Intensive, Land Extensive, Diversified Agriculture and Resource and Rural Development lands. Third: Will the Supervisors still be able to make some changes? Sure. Except for amending these land use categories or increasing the density in these four categories, the authority of the Board remains unchanged. Will RHI prevent use permits from being issued? Not if they don't violate the County General Plan provisions affected. Fourth: What is density as referred to in RHI? Density is clearly defined in the County General Plan as "the number of acres per residential dwelling unit." It's just that simple, no matter how many doubters want to cloud the issue. Under the County General Plan, farm family and farm labor housing are not included when counting dwelling units, so RHI won't affect construction of these facilities where they are allowed under the current County General Plan. Fifth: The Supervisors so far haven't allowed much growth. Why do we need RHI now? The creeping sprawl that began in Northern California in Santa Clara County has spread to the Central Valley. Many of the people who live in Tracy and Modesto commute to work in the Bay Area. Tracy's rate of population growth, according to a feature story in the local daily newspaper, ranked second among all cities of more than 50,000, trailing only Cupertino, in the Santa Clara Valley. In the past few years, Petaluma Valley has become Telecom Valley, frighteningly similar to Silicon Valley. That alone should awaken Sonoma County citizens to what will happen to our wide open spaces if we are not smart enough, strong enough and fast enough to stop it. Sixth: Can't we trust our Supervisors to do the right thing? Past and present BOS have, in most cases, performed well. The climate has abruptly changed and will continue to change even more rapidly and drastically. Northern California is one of the most active and prosperous segments of the burgeoning telecommunications industry and Sonoma County is in the forefront of that flood of development. Pressures will be applied to this and succeeding BOS to spread housing and campus-like business parks out into our open space and ag lands will be excruciating. RHI relieves the Board, consisting of five people, from making decisions that will affect every one who lives here now and who will live here in the next 30 years. It transfers from the Board the responsibility and authority to make changes that will, literally, change the landscape we all cherish. If such changes are to be made, let the people make them, after open debate, over time, with all the stake holders weighing in on the issues. Seventh: Will RHI stop growth in Sonoma County? Will it prevent affordable housing from being built? No and No. RHI will direct housing to the cities and rural residential areas surrounding the cities, where schools, sewers, water delivery systems and roads already exist. It will prevent subdivision of our agricultural land and land supporting natural resources. A farmer's worst nightmare is a residential subdivision on an adjoining parcel; this triggers complaints about the smells, sounds, lighting and machinery essential to the operation of farming. RHI is about where we grow, and how we grow. Eighth: Are we alone in this? No. Napa County's Measure J has been in place for ten years. Six elections have been held under the ordinance. Three passed, three didn't. The people of Napa County made their decisions. Ventura County has had a like ordinance since 1998. Signed a few days ago on June 28, in an agreement being hailed as a national model, the Environmental Protection Agency, the states of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia tightened the Chesapeake Bay restoration agreement to affect a 30 percent drop in watershed land lost to suburban sprawl. It was hailed by federal and state officials it as an environmental model for the nation, covering 64,000 miles and 15 million people. Ninth: RHI isn't a new idea. It complements the Urban Growth Boundary Initiatives adopted by a majority of cities in the County. RHI builds on similar community separator measures placed on the ballot by the BOS and approved overwhelmingly by the voters in 1996 and 1998. Let Sonoma County lead the way in Northern California as an enlightened electorate who recognize the need for protecting our land constitution, our County General Plan, the only tool that stands in the way of development that will otherwise fracture our prosperous, green, bountiful community. To learn more about it - www.ruralheritage.net. Let's talk. (Helen Shane has been a City of Sebastopol Planning Commissioner for 8 years, and is the campaign manager for RHI.) |
|
The facts about
RHI These are the facts. It's about the land. The Rural Heritage Initiative is about the land. And the mandate of the Ag and Open Space District is about the land. Neither of these ordinances are about saving farmers. It follows, however, that if farmlands are saved, farmers who farm now and want to continue to farm reap the benefits of both measures. The Rural Heritage Initiative will not prevent farmers from changing their operations if those changes are allowed under the General Plan and zoning consistent with the GP. It will prevent anyone from converting farmland to more dense residential uses, i.e. subdivisions, without a vote of the citizenry. That's the long and the short of it. Under RHI, if the farmer is desirous of some change which will require a General Plan amendment, the farmer can make application to the Sonoma County Planning Department, which will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which can then put the issue on the next ballot for a vote by the citizenry, which decides the matter with a majority vote (not 2/3rds, as has been erroneously reported). But it's not all about farming and farmers. There are safeguards in RHI which cover a number of concerns for all of the families who live, work and play here. Let's address the matter of active recreation. RHI does not restrict the creation of trails in open space and ag land. It does maintain that active recreation would be a change in the General Plan that would require a vote of the people. That is because the placing of soccer and baseball fields and skate parks and the like draw heavy concentrations of users and spectators who drive and park cars. So each such facility must be accessed by cars; parking must be provided for the cars. These active recreation parks should be sited near city centers, not where infrastructures must be created to support them. That is why RHI calls for a vote of the people -- because such active recreation in the unincorporated areas runs counter to the General Plan policy of city centered growth. There are many people who live and work in Sonoma County, in addition to farmers. Take a moment right now. As you read this, think of yourself not in terms of what you do for a living or even where in the County you live. Just live in your skin for a moment as a citizen of the State of California who lives in Sonoma County, one of the most beautiful and diverse counties in the U.S. Easy day trips take you from the Pacific Ocean to San Francisco Bay to nearby hills, through open spaces, past vineyards and farmlands. You spend a day at the beach. You walk the trails in a regional park. You watch a baseball game, or your kid's basketball or soccer game. What do you want for your children and their children? The answer is that you wish to pass on to future generations the joys of living here. You wish to ensure that Sonoma County does not become suburbia. People left that life in Southern California and the San Francisco peninsula and the East Bay to come to Sonoma County's beauty and bounty. Let us not look back thirty years from now and realize we lost forever this precious, rare community. The Rural Heritage Initiative goes a long way to secure this land and this way of life now, and for the next 30 years. (Helen Shane serves on the City of Sebastopol's Planning Commission.) |
|
RHI
- The Sprawl Stops
Here! Sonoma County residents called for limits on suburban sprawl and overdevelopment on Monday [May 22], at a press conference in support of the Rural Heritage Initiative. Volunteers carried over 26,500 signatures into the Registrar of Voters office, guaranteeing the Initiative a place in November's ballot. "The people of Sonoma County have shown their commitment to curbing sprawl with their overwhelming support of the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB's) established in most of our cities now. The Rural Heritage Initiative picks up where the UGB's leave off - by giving the voters a choice: Do we want to become the next San Jose, or do we want to protect the undeveloped lands which are so essential to our quality of life?" said Sonoma County Supervisor Mike Reilly. Helen Shane, a volunteer coordinator for the campaign, indicated the answer is clear: "The incredible response we had on the street is a clear indication that the voters value Sonoma County's rural heritage. Over two hundred volunteers have been working hard for the past ten weeks to reach the voters; our call was 'do you want to save Sonoma County from sprawl?' 80% of the time response was: 'Where do I sign!?' Some wanted to know more, and then almost all signed - and added: 'Thank you for doing this!' "Now that Forbes magazine has ranked Sonoma County as the nation's third most dynamic economic region, there is an urgent need to secure our General plan to prevent us form becoming Santa Clara County North." "Passage of the Rural Heritage Initiative will tell big money interests that, although we welcome technology growth, we are determined to preserve our $3 billion dollar agricultural industry and our $1 billion dollar tourism industry," said John Blayney, retired planner and spokesperson for Citizens for Sonoma County's Future. (Unsigned editorial.) |
|
The
green
against the
gray I stood on the side of the mountain, facing the valley below. To the south, on my left, was my home town. I had lived there 19 years, and watched it sprawl across the flat farmlands. It had once been an ag town, but now was far along in the transition to something else. North, to my right, was the big city, the county seat. It too had once been a small farm town, but now had spread wide, and into the hills. The land below me was still green, dotted with ranch houses and barns. But the gray blob from the north was clearly advancing, by subdivision and strip mall, toward this last patch of open space. It was 1970, in the hills above Coyote, Calif., midpoint between Gilroy and San Jose. I wish the people of Santa Clara Valley had done more, sooner, to maintain the agricultural productivity and rural character of the land around their towns. Today, it's almost one big city. I've heard some people tire of comparisons between Sonoma and Santa Clara counties. I will too when they cease to be relevant. Until sustainability is fully engrained into our culture and economic system, and money interests do not exercise undue influence on the political process, the gray blob will keep surging out over green lands. While we have urban growth boundaries (UGBs) around most of our Sonoma County cities, and a complementary county ordinance supporting community separators, there is still risk of sprawl in the surrounding county lands. This is especially true as the technology industry, overflowing other Bay Area locations, looks to our county for future expansion. Fortunately, Sonoma County voters have another opportunity to further ensure the preservation of local agriculture and open space. Volunteers are now circulating petitions to put the Rural Heritage Initiative (RHI) on the November ballot. The RHI would protect 80 percent of Sonoma County, putting teeth in the "city and community-centered growth" policy of the General Plan. It does this by requiring, over the next 30 years, voter approval of changes to the Agricultural, Resources and Rural Development land use designations in the Sonoma County General Plan. Like the UGBs, the RHI works proactively by sending a message to real estate developers that big ag-buster developments are politically risky. By putting the brakes on greenfield speculation, it allows developers, elected officials, and county and city planners to focus on projects which make creative, ecologically sound use of land within the range of existing infrastructure. The RHI grants reasonable flexibility. It allows the Board of Supervisors to approve changes necessary to meet state affordable housing requirements, for limited public uses, to avoid an unconstitutional taking of property, or to provide greater protection for natural resources. Other proposals for changing these land use designations can be placed on the ballot by the board or by petition. Experience in other counties bears this out. Voters in Napa and Ventura counties have approved measures virtually identical to the Rural Heritage Initiative. The Napa measure has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Since 1990, when Napa's ordinance took effect, they have voted on six exemptions, and approved three. Those rejected were considered to have too great a net negative impact on quality of life. The RHI complements UGBs, effectively putting development of county lands in the hands of city voters. RHI doesn't prevent the voters of a UGB city, when they agree more land should be opened for building, from expanding their UGB, and annexing the county land for development. In addition, with the RHI in place, we will be better assured that transportation improvements won't result in unwanted suburban growth. Another benefit: with greater protection for county lands, the Open Space District will be able to devote more funds to acquisition of lands for recreational use. The RHI campaign is relying on grassroots support, not mercenary petition circulators, to get on the ballot. They need 22,000 signatures by May 22. If you want Sonoma County green, not gray, support the RHI. Call Chris Sheeter at 773-0308 or visit www.ruralheritage.net. (Bruce Hagen is a program manager at a Petaluma telecommunications company. He's vice chairman of the Petaluma Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, serves on the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee, and is a member of the Sustainable Petaluma Network and Citizens for Lafferty Ranch.) |