An elementary school proposed for agricultural land is not subject to a Ventura County initiative intended to preserve farmland and open space, according to an attorney general's opinion. A school district board of trustees, by a two-thirds vote, may exempt itself from local land use regulations, according to the opinion prepared by Deputy Attorney General Gregory Gonot. He quoted extensively from City of Santa Clara v. Santa Clara Unified School District (1971) 22 CalApp.3d 152, in which the court interpreted Government Code §§ 53091 and 53094. "The only reasonable interpretation of these sections is that a school district must abide by local zoning ordinances unless it chooses to exercise its right of exemption," the court said in Santa Clara. The school district may declare the exemption at any time, provided the decision is not arbitrary and capricious, the court ruled. The Santa Clara court said state law sets school districts apart from other local agencies. "The Legislature accordingly provided in § 53094 that school districts, as opposed to other local agencies, should retain the right to exempt themselves from local zoning ordinances," the court ruled. In the case at hand, the Ventura Unified School District proposed building an elementary school on a 15-acre orchard in unincorporated Ventura County, just outside the City of Ventura boundary. The district picked the site one year ago, before voters approved Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiatives in the county and several cities. The SOAR initiatives prevent urban development of agriculturally zoned land, such as the 15-acre orchard, unless voters approve a rezoning. State Sen. Jack O'Connell (D-Santa Barbara), who represents the region, requested the attorney general's opinion. Richard Francis, the Ventura attorney who authored the SOAR initiatives, said the opinion was unsurprising and called it "a whole lot of nothing. The law is real clear on this." Gonot opined that the initiative is no different than any other zoning regulation and cannot be extended to schools. "The fact that this particular general plan ordinance was adopted as an initiative measure by the electorate does not change our analysis," Gonot wrote. "Adoption of a general plan, like adoption of a zoning ordinance, is a legislative act. (66 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 258, 260 (1983); see § 65301.5) While county voters may amend the county's general plan to the same extent as the board of supervisors, they cannot adopt an amendment that makes it conflict with state law." "Accordingly," Gonot continued, "the ordinance in question must yield to the authorization contained in § 53094, permitting a school district under specified conditions to construct a school on property even though such use would not be in conformity with the general plan." Francis said that while local agencies cannot keep schools out of greenbelts and agricultural districts, practical constraints may discourage school construction in these areas. Developers cannot use schools to break apart greenbelts easily because, under SOAR, the accompanying urban development must go before voters, he said. Also, some school officials shy away from building on farmland because of past pesticide use. Minimum lot sizes, from which schools are not exempt, also complicate school siting decisions, Francis added. For example, Oxnard High School, just south of Ventura, is located on an excessively large parcel because the county refused to grant a minimal parcel size variance. The school must farm part of its property. Francis suggested he could live with the statutes. "I'm not running any statewide initiative to change the law," he said. Attorney General's opinion No. 99-401, filed July 26, 1999.