In our review of the initiative, we concluded that there are two (2) possible costs incurred to the County as a result of passage of the initiative. They are as follows:

Election Costs - Voter approval by way of an election would be necessary to make amendments to the County General Plan. Election costs would be borne by the County and would range from approximately $50,000 to $75,000 per amendment. If a special Countywide election were required at a time when there is no regularly scheduled election, the cost would increase to approximately $375,000 to $500,000. During the last ten (10) years, twenty-nine (29) General Plan amendments were approved and under this initiative would have required voter approval.

The number of General Plan amendments that will be proposed in the future cannot be accurately estimated at this time, and, therefore, future costs for election costs can not be estimated. Any election costs would reduce the money available for other County provided services such as public safety and health, unless an applicant for the amendment voluntarily offers to pay the election expense.

Litigation Costs - In County Counsel's impartial analysis of the initiative, there are references to sections of the initiative that will require legal interpretation and court decree. The legal costs would be directly related to the number of challenges to decisions made by the County as to which General Plan amendments require or didn't require voter approval. At this time, it is not possible to estimate the number of challenges and the future litigation. Again, additional litigation costs would reduce the funds available for County government services.

In accordance with the Elections Code, the scope of this fiscal impact analysis has been limited to the measure's effect on County government's revenues and expenditures. It does not address larger countywide fiscal issues such as the measure's effect on the overall County economy.

s/ Rod Dole, Sonoma County Auditor-Controller

Existing state law provides that General Plan amendments must be publicly reviewed by the Sonoma County Planning Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors before they become effective. Measure I proposes an additional layer of approval - voter ratification - for General Plan amendments affecting agricultural and rural resource lands in the County, except under limited circumstances.

Measure I would require voter approval for most General Plan amendments to change the land use designation or increase the density on lands designated as Land Intensive Agriculture, Land Extensive Agriculture, Diverse Agriculture, or Resources and Rural Development (i.e., agricultural and rural resource lands). Limited exceptions to the voter approval requirement exist for amendments covering the following public facilities: (i) fire and police stations and related public safety facilities; and (ii) parks restricted "primarily" to "non-intrusive" recreational or educational uses, such as hiking and nature study (amendments allowing parks primarily for active recreational uses, such as swimming or boating facilities, and ball fields, would require voter approval). Amendments to allow major public health or safety facilities such as major sanitation facilities would require voter approval, unless the Board, by 4/5ths vote, finds that there is no feasible alternative to avoid an immediate health or safety threat. Additional exceptions exist for amendments to (i) decrease the density of agricultural or rural resource lands, (ii) provide greater natural resource protection, including redesignating agricultural lands to rural resource lands, but not vice versa, (iii) avoid an unconstitutional taking, and (iv) comply with state housing requirements, if the Board makes numerous findings. Amendments covered by these exceptions would require an additional Board hearing.

Certain city, district, and local agency projects would be unaffected by Measure I's voter approval requirement because they do not require General Plan amendments under existing state law.

Measure I also would require voter approval to change certain existing General Plan policies regarding growth monitoring, new development siting, and biotic resources.

Measure I contains undefined terms, including "primarily" and "non-intrusive," and other provisions requiring interpretation. The Board has discretion to interpret Measure I consistent with its purpose, and its interpretation is entitled to great weight.

Measure I purports to apply retroactively to any covered General Plan amendments approved between March 3, 2000 and its effective date, except those involving a vested right or certain redevelopment projects. There is a question whether this provision is legally enforceable.

If approved by a majority vote, Measure I would remain in effect for thirty years and could not be repealed or changed without voter approval.

STEVEN M. WOODSIDE, County Counsel
By: s/ Rosemary H. Morgan, Chief Deputy County Counsel

Rebroadcasts of 10/25 RHI debate

Cable Channel 72: Sat. 11/4 1:00pm to 2:30 AND 7:00pm to 8:30pm
KRCB TV: Sun. 11/5, 11:00am to 12:30pm

Measure I requires a vote of the people to change the County General Plan to increase residential densities on land set aside for agriculture and rural resource uses. Why? Because once our open spaces and farmland are gone, they're gone forever.

The people should decide what we pave over and what we leave for our children. Our General Plan was developed over two long years of public meetings and comment. It reflects a consensus on where and how Sonoma County should grow and was designed to manage growth responsibly.

But too often, developers push through amendments to the General Plan that allow more sprawl. It's time to let the people decide if we want more sprawl, more traffic, and more congestion. If we don't, we are in danger of letting Sonoma County turn into another San Jose.

Thirty years ago, San Jose was surrounded by orchards, farms, and ranches. Today it is practically unrecognizable. Traffic is gridlocked, housing costs are out of control, open space is scarce, and the farms are nearly gone. That's what happens when politicians and developers are not accountable for decisions about growth and development.

We all know growth is coming to Sonoma County. The question is: do we limit growth to that which has been carefully planned through our General Plan, or do we allow politicians and developers to throw out the General Plan protections at will.

Measure I takes a conservative approach. It simply protects our laws and lets the people decide.

The future of our farmland and open spaces is too important to leave to the politicians and developers. Let the voters decide. Vote Yes on Measure I.

s/ Virginia Strom-Martin, Assemblymember, California State Legislature
s/ Hampton Bynum, Vice President, Davis Bynum Winery
s/ Mike Reilly, Sonoma County Supervisor
s/ Michael Topolos, Vintner, Topolos/Russian River Vineyards
s/ SIERRA CLUB, SONOMA CHAPTER, by Peter Ashcroft, Chair

None of us want unplanned growth destroying our hills and fields. But Sonoma County voters already have the right, under existing law, to reject developments that threaten our farmland and open space.

Nobody likes what happened around San Jose. But in the 50's and 60's, they didn't have a General Plan and Urban Growth Boundaries to prevent sprawl, or Environmental Impact requirements, or an Agriculture/Open Space District like Sonoma County has today.

We all support our 1989 General Plan. But locking-in every detail for 41 years ignores farmers' needs to adjust to changing agricultural markets.

Farmers don't want urban sprawl eating up dairies, ranches and vineyards that provide their livelihoods and their families' homes. But they oppose Measure I because it threatens their ability to stay in business and pass their land on to their children.

Why should a dairy farmer with 300 acres be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a countywide campaign just to sell 100 acres to another farmer to grow vegetables or to pass the farm on to his children? By undermining the economic viability of agriculture, Measure I threatens Sonoma County's rural heritage.

Measure I is bad for agriculture, wastes hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on unnecessary elections, and pointlessly restricts new parks. Viable agriculture and new parks are not sprawl. Please vote "No" on Measure I.

SONOMA COUNTY FARMLANDS GROUP
s/ Scot Stegeman, Exec. Director
s/ Troy L. Bucher, Bucher Family Dairy
s/ Bob Stone, Director, Vly of Moon Boys & Girls Club
SONOMA COUNTY FARM BUREAU,
s/ Judy James, Executive Director
SONOMA COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION,
s/ Yancey Forest-Knowles, Advisory Commissioner

Measure I locks-in existing uses for 30 years, limiting farmers' ability to adjust to changing agricultural markets, threatening their long-term survival. It 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.

It increases growth pressures on 65,000 acres designated Rural Residential, which are exempt from Measure I. This will lead to more urban sprawl and increased urban/agriculture conflicts, threatening the future of farming. It also accelerates growth pressures in existing cities, leading to more crowding and traffic congestion.

Measure I takes local decision-making away from rural communities and gives corporations and developers an advantage over family farms and small vineyards by shifting power to special interests that can afford the expense of countywide campaigns. Measure I also encourages developers to avoid Environmental Impact Reports and go directly to election campaigns where their money can buy approvals.

Measure I obstructs county plans for new youth sports fields and family parks, wasting limited funds on election campaigns instead of creating parks.

Unlike Napa's Measure J, where farmers and growth-control advocates worked together, Measure I was written behind closed doors by a small group that refused to consider concerns of farmers and ranchers. The result is a poorly written measure that threatens the continued survival of agriculture in Sonoma County, and could lead to more sprawl and traffic congestion, not less.

That's why the major agricultural organizations in Sonoma County - including the Farm Bureau, Farmlands Group, North Bay Woolgrowers, Western United Dairymen, Sonoma County Horse Council, Cattlemen's Association, United Winegrowers, Wineries Association, Sonoma Valley Vintners and Growers, and Russian River Valley Winegrowers - all urge you to vote No on I!

SONOMA COUNTY FARM BUREAU,
s/ Richard J. Olufs, President
s/ Julianna Martinelli, President, Martinelli Winery, Inc.
RUSSIAN RIVER VALLEY WINEGROWERS,
s/ Lee Ann Cameron Reuter, Secretary
s/ Eric Koenigshofer, Environmental Attorney
SONOMA COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION,
s/ Spencer Flournoy, President

The only farmers affected by Measure I would be those who want to sell out to developers.

The opposition to Measure I is driven by corporate agribusiness and developers, disguising their pro-development agenda with misleading claims that Measure I will hurt farmers. They have long opposed our County General Plan's restrictions because they want to leave the door open for more growth and development.

Measure I stands in the way of their plans to turn Sonoma County into "San Jose North," and they will spend whatever it takes to mislead voters and defeat Measure I. When the campaign ads start running, ask yourself, could family farmers afford this kind of campaign?

The truth about Measure I is simple. It simply lets voters decide whether to approve major new development on Sonoma County's farmlands. It will not hurt farmers; it is supported by parks and trails advocates. The people get to decide whether to approve development that brings more traffic and sprawl to Sonoma County or to preserve farmland and open spaces.

Don't let the opponents of Measure I confuse you. Once our farmland and open spaces are gone, they're gone forever. Vote Yes on Measure I.

s/ Caryl Hart, Member, Calif. State Parks & Rec. Commission
s/ Paula S. Hawkes, Owner, Chalk Hill Vineyard
s/ George R. Davis, Owner, Porter Creek Vineyards
s/ Scott Mathieson, Owner, Laguna Farm, C.S.A.
s/ Marsha Vas Dupre, Member, Santa Rosa City Council

Section 1. Purpose and Findings.

A. Purpose: The purpose of this Initiative is to protect Sonoma County's rural heritage, including its forest, woodland, agricultural, open space, scenic, and biotic resources, and to ensure that resource lands are not prematurely or unnecessarily converted to other uses. The initiative amends the Sonoma County General Plan, as adopted on March 23, 1989 and amended through March 3, 2000 ("General Plan"), to restrict sprawling development on such lands.

B. Preservation of Open Space: The unique quality of Sonoma County results in large part from the attractiveness and diversity of its landscape. From its world-renowned and highly varied coastline, to the scenic beauty and agricultural richness of the Alexander, Dry Creek, Russian River, and Sonoma Valleys, to the Sonoma Mountains and rolling hillsides across large areas of the County, Sonoma County's open space and natural resources provide vital contributions to the County's identity, quality of life, and economy. The recreation and tourism industries, which contribute nearly $1 billion per year to the County's economy, depend heavily on these areas. Farmers also depend upon the County's open space and scenic attributes for marketing their agricultural products. Moreover, unlike many parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, Sonoma County has avoided corridor-style urbanization and has maintained separate, identifiable cities and communities.

C. Threat of Sprawling Development: Sprawling or "leapfrog" development poses an immediate and long-term threat to Sonoma County's future. Specifically, uncontrolled urban and rural development into agricultural land and open space areas threatens the public health, safety, and welfare by causing increased traffic congestion, air and water pollution, depletion of water resources, and increased conflicts between urban and rural land uses. Sprawling development also undercuts the viability of existing agriculture, and, according to the General Plan, generally results in more costly services than compact, community-centered growth. The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District estimates that 60% of land in the County is at risk from urban sprawl. Growth pressures could overwhelm Sonoma County within the next 30 years. Northern Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley) is virtually built-out, leaving Sonoma County, with its huge supply of flat agricultural land, next in line for technology-driven growth.

D. Sonoma County's Agricultural Heritage: The protection of existing agricultural lands is critically important to current and future residents of Sonoma County. Agriculture occupies nearly half of the County's land area and contributes $3 billion annually to Sonoma County's $15 billion economy. The annual production value of the County's approximately 1,300 full-time farms is the largest of the nine Bay Area counties. Sonoma County also retains an exceptional diversity of agricultural crops, including vineyards, orchards, dairies, forage crop, specialty crops, and livestock. These crops--many of which depend upon the County's unique combination of climate, topography, hydrology, and soils--create employment for thousands of people, both directly and indirectly, and generate substantial tax revenues to the County.

E. Accommodating Housing Needs: It is undisputed that Sonoma County's population will continue to grow steadily, with the resulting demand for housing. The General Plan recognizes the need for the County, as required by state law, to accommodate its fair share of future growth and has adopted goals, among other things, to: (1) locate future growth within the cities and unincorporated urban service areas in a compact manner, using vacant "infill" parcels and lands next to existing development at the edge of these areas; and (2) accommodate the major share of future growth within the existing cities and their expansion areas and within selected unincorporated communities which are planned to have adequate water and sewer capacities. This Initiative allows the County to continue to meet its housing needs for all economic segments of the population. Nothing in the Initiative will impede the development of needed farm-worker housing. This Initiative also supports the General Plan goals of compact, city-centered growth by directing residential development away from agricultural and natural resource lands and into city Urban Growth Boundaries, where services and infrastructure are more efficiently available.

F. Resources Conservation: The General Plan calls for preserving and restoring forest, woodland, and fishery resources, conserving plant and biotic communities, and protecting endangered species. By strengthening the General Plan's commitment to compact urban communities, this Initiative will limit potential urban development in wildlife corridors and riparian and woodland habitat.

G. Effect of Initiative: To ensure that the above-stated purposes are secured, this Initiative would amend the General Plan to require voter approval for any General Plan amendment that: (1) redesignates lands currently designated for agricultural or resource-dependent uses to another use; or (2) increases residential densities on agricultural or rural resource lands. This requirement would remain in effect until December 31, 2030, and would be subject to certain limited exceptions.

H. Exhibits: Certain portions of the General Plan are attached to this Initiative for reference. These include reduced copies of the "Sonoma County General Plan Land Use Plan Maps," Figures LU-5a through LU-5i, attached hereto as Exhibits A through I, which show the General Plan land use designations adopted by the County as of March 23, 1989; and the text of General Plan section 2.8.1, "Policy for Resources and Rural Development Areas," referenced below, attached hereto as Exhibit J. The Land Use Plan Maps, which are the most current version available from the County, have not been updated by the County since their adoption and thus do not show intervening General Plan changes. These exhibits are provided for illustrative purposes only. This Initiative does not adopt or amend any of the policies, designations, or text contained in the exhibits.

Section 2. General Plan Amendments

A. Limitations on Changes to Agricultural and Rural Resource Land Use Designations and Densities

General Plan Land Use Element Text Amendments: The Land Use

1. The following new text is added immediately following Policy LU-8d in Section 2.1.8, entitled "Protection of Agricultural Lands," on page 42 of the General Plan:

LU-8e Limitations on General Plan Amendments Related to Lands Designated as "Land Intensive Agriculture," "Land Extensive Agriculture," and "Diverse Agriculture"

1. Until December 31, 2030, any General Plan amendment that would amend the land use designation or increase the density of any lands that, as of March 3, 2000, are designated as "Land Intensive Agriculture," "Land Extensive Agriculture," or "Diverse Agriculture" shall require: (i) passage of a ballot measure approved by a majority of voters voting; or (ii) Board approval pursuant to the procedures set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (d), below:

a. The Board may amend the General Plan, pursuant to its usual procedures, to: (i) decrease the density allowed on any such lands; (ii) redesignate any such lands to the "Resources and Rural Development" land use designation or to another designation providing greater protection for natural resources than provided by the pre-existing designation; or (iii) redesignate any such lands to the "Public/Quasi Public" land use designation, provided that the General Plan amendment redesignating any such lands allows only for: (A) parks restricted primarily to non-intrusive recreational or educational uses such as hiking and nature study; (B) fire stations, police stations, and related public safety facilities such as those required for emergency telecommunications; or (C) other public facilities needed to protect the public health or safety, provided that the Board, by four-fifths 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;

2. 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 this Policy LU-8e. Nothing in this policy LU-8e shall preclude the Board from applying or adopting, without voter approval, Area Plan or other policies that further restrict densities or uses on lands designated "Land Intensive Agriculture," "Land Extensive Agriculture," or "Diverse Agriculture."

2. The following new text is added immediately following Section 2.8.1 "Policy for Resources and Rural Development Areas" on page 53 of the General Plan:

2.8.2 Limitations on General Plan Amendments Related to Lands Designated as "Resources and Rural Development"

1. Until December 31, 2030, any General Plan amendment that would amend the land use designation or increase the density of any lands that, as of March 3, 2000, are designated as "Resources and Rural Development" shall require: (i) passage of a ballot measure approved by a majority of voters voting; or (ii) Board approval pursuant to the procedures set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (d), below:

B. Reaffirming General Plan Provisions Relating to Growth Monitoring System

The Rural Heritage Initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until December 31, 2030, Land Use Policy LU-1d and Land Use Objective LU-4.1, as set forth respectively on pages 31 and 36 of the General Plan, which read in full as follows:

LU-1d: Establish a growth monitoring system which measures the amount of building activity within the major use categories for each of the nine planning areas and for lands within the boundaries of each urban service area. Submit summary reports annually to the Board of Supervisors. Include in the monitoring system periodic assessments whether or not public services and infrastructure have kept pace with development.

LU-4.1: Assure that development occurs only where physical public services and infrastructure, including school and park facilities, public safety, access and response times, water and wastewater management systems, drainage, and roads, are planned to be available in time to serve the projected development.

C. Reaffirming General Plan Provision Protecting Biotic Resources

The Rural Heritage Initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until December 31, 2030, Land Use Goal LU-9 as set forth on page 43 of the General Plan, which reads in full as follows:

LU-9: The uses and intensities of any land development shall be consistent with preservation of important biotic resource areas and scenic features.

D. Conforming Amendments

In light of the General Plan amendments set forth above in Sections A through C of this Initiative, the Sonoma County General Plan adopted on March 23, 1989, as amended through March 3, 2000, is hereby further amended as set forth below in order to promote internal consistency among the various elements of the General Plan. In this Section, text to be inserted into the General Plan is indicated in bold italic; text in standard type currently appears in the General Plan and remains unchanged by this Initiative. The language adopted in the following amendments may be further amended as appropriate without a vote of the people in the course of future updates and revisions to the General Plan.

1. Land Use Element Policy LU-8d on page 42 is hereby amended as follows:

LU-8d: Deny general plan amendments which convert lands outside of designated urban service areas with Class I, II, or III soils (USDA) to an urban or rural residential, commercial, industrial, or public/quasi public category unless all of the following criteria are met:

1) The use is not in an agricultural production area and will not adversely affect agricultural operations.

2) The supply of vacant potential land for the requested use is insufficient to meet projected demand.

3) No areas with other soil classes are available for non-resource uses in the planning area.

4) An overriding public benefit will result from the proposed use.

5) For lands designated "Land Extensive Agriculture," "Land Intensive Agriculture," "Diverse Agriculture," or "Resources and Rural Development," the amendment conforms to the substantive and procedural requirements of Land Use Element Policies LU-8e and 2.8.2.

Amendments to recognize a pre-existing use are exempt from this policy. Public uses such as parks and sewage treatments plants may be approved if an overriding public benefit exists, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements of Land Use Element Policies LU-8e and 2.8.2.

2. Land Use Element Policy LU-12d on pages 60-62 is hereby amended as follows:

LU-12d: Use the following criteria for consideration of amendments to add "Recreation and Visitor Serving Commercial" designations:

1) the amendment is consistent with the Agricultural Resources Element and with Land Use Element Policies LU-8e and 2.8.2.

2) the use involves the restoration of a designated county landmark and does not require new structures or major building additions or the use is an improved campground or guest ranch located near a major recreation area.

3) uses other than historic restorations are incidental to and compatible with the primary resource use of the parcel.

4) the use does not adversely impact adjacent agricultural or other resource uses.

5) project traffic will not adversely impact the level of service or interfere with the movement of farm equipment, and

6) adequate law enforcement, fire protection services, and water supply for fire suppression and domestic use are available.

3. Land Use Element Policy LU-13h on pages 65-66 is hereby amended as follows:

LU-13h: Outside urban service area boundaries, consider new recreation and visitor serving commercial uses in the "Resources and Rural Development" category only to the extent permitted under Land Use Element Policy 2.8.2 and subject to the following criteria:

1) the use is located close to a major recreational area such as the Russian River.

2) the use is compatible with the primary resource use of the parcel.

3) where practical the use will retain existing redwood trees and will not result in substantial damage to the redwood ecosystem.

4) the use would not adversely affect adjacent agricultural lands.

5) the use would not adversely affect the level of service on roadways.

6) adequate water supply is available for fire suppression and domestic use.

7) adequate police and fire protection are available, and

8) the use will not have an adverse visual impact on a scenic corridor or scenic landscape unit.

Section 3. Implementation

A. Effective Date. Upon the effective date of this Initiative, the provisions of section 2 of the Initiative are hereby inserted into the County of Sonoma General Plan as an amendment thereof, except that if the four amendments of the mandatory elements of the General Plan that are permitted by state law for any given calendar year have already been utilized in the calendar year in which the Initiative becomes effective, this General Plan amendment shall be the first amendment inserted in the County's General Plan on January 1 of the next year. At such time as this General Plan amendment is inserted in the County of Sonoma General Plan, any provisions of the County of Sonoma Zoning Ordinance, as reflected in the ordinance itself or the County of Sonoma Zoning Map, inconsistent with this General Plan amendment shall not be enforced.

B. Interim Amendments. The County of Sonoma General Plan in effect at the time the Notice of Intention to circulate this Initiative measure was submitted to the County of Sonoma Registrar of Voters (March 3, 2000,"submittal date"), and that General Plan as amended by this Initiative measure, comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the County of Sonoma. In order to ensure that the County of Sonoma General Plan remains an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the County as required by state law and to ensure that the actions of the voters in enacting this Initiative are given effect, any provision of the General Plan that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the General Plan is amended by this measure shall, to the extent that such interim-enacted provision is inconsistent with the General Plan provisions adopted by section 2 of this Initiative measure, be amended as soon as possible and in the manner and time required by State law to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this Initiative and other elements of the County's General Plan.

C. Other County Ordinances and Policies. The County of Sonoma is hereby authorized and directed to amend the General Plan, all specific plans, the zoning ordinance, and other ordinances and policies affected by this Initiative as soon as possible and in the manner and time required by any applicable state law to ensure consistency between the goals, objectives and policies adopted in section 2 of this Initiative and other elements of the County's General Plan, all specific plans, the zoning ordinance, and other County ordinances and policies.

Section 4. Exemptions for Certain Projects.

This Initiative shall not apply to any of the following: (1) any project that has obtained as of the effective date of the Initiative a vested right pursuant to state or local law; and (2) 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. Nothing in this Initiative precludes the use of density bonuses in accordance with state law.

Section 5. Severability and Interpretation.

This measure shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this Initiative is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Initiative. The voters hereby declare that this Initiative, and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof would have been adopted or passed even if one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional. If any provision of this Initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity shall not affect any application of this Initiative that can be given effect without the invalid application. This Initiative shall be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Initiative.

Section 6. Amendment or Repeal.

Except as otherwise provided herein, this Initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the County of Sonoma at a County election.

Exhibits are available in the Supplemental Voter Information Pamphlet