The Merced County counsel has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
A Proposal to Establish a Requirement that Redesignation of
Agricultural and Open Space Lands to Residential Use be Approved by a Vote of the Public
This proposal would amend the County General Plan, which sets forth broad, long-range parameters for the uses of designated areas of land within Merced County. The amendment would apply to lands that are currently designated for either agricultural or open space use. These lands could not be converted to residential use without a vote of the public.
Currently, land use designations can be changed by public officials, after various opportunities for the public to give input. No vote of the electorate is required. The amendment requiring a vote of the public for such changes would remain in effect until December 31, 2040.
The ordinance includes findings stating that agricultural and open space lands are of critical importance to the residents of the County, that encroachment of other uses threatens the public health, safety, and welfare, that agriculture and open space help give the County its unique character, and that citizen participation in these decisions builds upon existing General Plan Policies.
The County’s General Plan contains, among other things, twelve goals. The proposal would add a thirteenth goal, to provide for direct citizen participation in land use decisions involving expansion of residential uses into agriculture and open space areas. Under the proposal, such a redesignation would first come before the County Board of Supervisors, as it does currently. If the Board approved that decision would then be placed before the voters. This new public vote requirement would extend to cases where land was designated as agricultural or open space on the date of this amendment, but was later changed to another designation such as commercial or industrial, and then thereafter proposed for further redesignation as residential.
The amendment would further require that such redesignations would always be treated as a “project,” requiring analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act when the Board of Supervisors considered the redesignation.
The threshold between agricultural and open space designations, on one hand, and residential, on the other hand, would be set at ten acres per dwelling unit. Farms and other agricultural parcels of over ten acres would be considered agricultural even though they included a dwelling. Parcels of less than ten acres would be considered residential even if they were used for agricultural purposes. Caretaker and farm worker housing would not count as dwellings.
There would be an exemption from the public vote requirement if the law required a residential designation to meet the County’s “fair share housing” obligation, and no other land was available to meet that requirement. If more than ten acres per year were exempted for fair share housing, the excess would be required to remain permanently affordable to moderate, low, and very low income families. Also exempted would be any land with a vested right to redesignation, under state law, as of the date of the amendment, and any development involving only farm worker housing.
Applicants for redesignation would bear the cost of any resulting elections. The elections would be consolidated with other elections, whenever feasible.
