HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/2006, BUS 5 - SUPERVISOR LENTHALL'S DALIDIO RANCH TASK FORCE council MatigDM 4/18/06
j ac,Enaa Report " Bus s
CITY OF SAN LU1S OB SPO
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO
SUBJECT: SUPERVISOR LENTHALL'S DALIDIO RANCH TASK FORCE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Discuss a request by Supervisor Jerry Lenthall that the City Council designate two members to
participate in a Dalidio Ranch Task Force for purposes of increasing the public's understanding
of the proposed project and initiative.
DISCUSSION
Background
On March 23, 2006, Supervisor Jerry Lenthall sent the attached letter to Mayor Romero
requesting City participation in a proposed task force regarding the Dalidio Ranch initiative. As
set forth in the letter(Attachment 1), the Supervisor's hopes for the task force are that it will
"increase the public's understanding of this project and the proposed initiative." The City
Council considered Supervisor Lenthall's request during the Communication Section of the April
4, 2006 Council meeting and directed that the request be scheduled for consideration on April 18.
Appointment of Council Members to Task Force
Whether or not the Council chooses to participate on the Task Force, and if so, which two
council members should represent the City of San Luis Obispo, are matters for the Council to
decide. In staff's opinion, however, the Supervisor's goal of improving the information available
to the public regarding the project and the process being pursued to gain its approval is a worthy
goal and would benefit from involvement of the City.
Task Force Role and Suggested"Charge"for Council Members
Staff agrees that the focus ought to be on "fact finding"and oriented toward developing
information and surfacing policy issues, and not on site layout or project planning. In short, the
goal should be developing non-partisan, factual information about the proposed measure and its
implications that voters can use in deciding whether or not to support the initiative. Council
appointees could suggest that the Task Force develop information in the following key areas:
1. Legal Framework—What can be legally accomplished through the initiative process and
what steps and procedures (e.g. permits via other agencies) will still remain if the vote is
affirmative? The City Attorney has provided the City Council with two memoranda
outlining some preliminary thoughts on this topic, the first one provided on March 7,
2006 (Attachment 2). Note: the City Attorney has directed that because his initial
S-/
Supervisor Lenthall's Dalidio Ranch Task Force Page 2
recommendations in that memo are privileged attorney-client communications, they not
be disclosed with this report. The second City Attorney memorandum was provided on
March 30, 2006 (Attachment 3). The March 30'hmemo cites Elections Code Section
9212, which allows agencies to request information that would shed light on several of
the topics and questions outlined below.
2. Policy Implications—What are the long-term policy and precedence implications for our
county and its cities if land use decisions and projects are pursued in such a fashion?
3. Service Issues —What are the facility and service impacts,of building a large urban
project on land surrounded by an incorporated city, e.g. the impact on streets, fire and
paramedic service, police response, water and wastewater service? What policy guidance
is offered regarding County development near City boundaries by the Memorandum of
Understanding recently agreed to between the County and the City?
4. Fiscal Impacts—What are the likely fiscal consequences of building a large urban-like
development on County land that is surrounded by a city and how will these impacts be
addressed? Who will provide the ongoing operation and maintenance support required by
some public amenities now envisioned for the project?
5. Open Space and Agricultural Land Issues —What are the major policy issues for the
City and County as they related to open space and agriculture land preservation?
6. Absence of Interchange —What are the traffic, street and neighborhood impacts of not
building the interchange with the project, how will these impacts be addressed, and how
will the needed interchange be paid for in the future?
7. Other Stakeholder Agencies —Which other agencies should be invited to participate in a
task force fact-finding dialogue? Stakeholders seem to include Caltrans, the Regional
Water Quality control Board, the Air Pollution Control District, and other cities subject to
the policy and precedent implications of the initiative..
In addition to framing the issues like those outlined above (the "what"), the process should also
identify a date by which this fact-finding process should be completed.
FISCAL IMPACT
No added appropriation is needed for City participation. Staff time, however, could be
substantial, depending upon the amount of support and analysis the subcommittee may desire.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Supervisor Lenthall Letter
2. March 7, 2006 City Attorney Memorandum
3. March 30, 2006 City Attorney Memorandum
GAProjects&Programs0alidioTalidio Ranch 2006\Dalidio Ranch Committee CAR.DOC
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - ,
1055 MONTEREY,Room D430 • SAN Luis OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408-2040 • 805.781:5450
March 23, 2006
y 110Nf100 Ail-0 0�S JERRYLUMU L
Mayor Dave Romero �— .
City of San Luis Obispo SUPERVEORDIMICTTHREE
990 Palm Street 9007 P �d
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Romero:
I was pleased with the results of the recently concluded community dialog about the possible future
uses of the Dalidio property and want to again thank the broad-based group of citizens for their hard
work and creative suggestions. In addition,in order to be certain that no momentum is lost from
their effort and in,light of The Tribune's recent and thoughtful editorial, I think more needs to be
done to increase the public's understanding of this project and the proposed initiative.
Therefore, I recommend that County and City officials come together for additional discussion to
reduce the chance ofconfusion from this important public policy matter. In order to accomplish this,
I propose a task force comprised of members ofboth agencies be formed.
Since the Dalidio property is located in the district I represent, I am offering to represent County
interests and have asked Supervisor Katcho Achadjian to join me. I also request the San Luis Obispo
City Council to appoint two members to join this information task force. These meetings will be
open to the public and I will call on our partners in the media to make the dates and times widely
known.
With nearly half(47%) of the City of San Luis Obispo's population residing within the 3`d district,
I am sensitive to the common issues and needs of both bodies. I view this circumstance not as a
County vs. City problem,but one that requires the best participation of both entities to represent all
of our respective constituents.
I am confident this approach will ensure that all San Luis Obispo County residents will be better
suited to decide this matter when exercising their voting rights this fall.
Sincerely,
n --
&RRYENTHALL
District Three Supervisor
c: Other interested parties
�f C � -/
Privileged &Confidential
(Attomey-Client Privilege)
Evidence Code § 950, et seq.
�IIIIIIIIIIIII���� II Iilljll II _
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
From the Office of the City Attorney
March 1, 2006
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney d lr
Subject: Dalidio Ranch Initiative Proposal
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you some basic information about the
initiative process with regard to land use issues and the interplay between the initiative
process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This information is
being provided upon the heels of an announcement that Ernie Dalidio seeks to circulate
an initiative in the county to put on the ballot in November the question of whether the
residents of the county will approve general plan and zoning changes so as to allow his
project. At the time of this writing I have had a chance only to briefly review the
initiative measure that was filed with the county clerk the other day. I have not had an
opportunity to analyze it in depth. I expect to refine this analysis as more information
becomes available, and; of course, I am available to discuss the matter with you further.
Initiatives Generally
Under the California Constitution an initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them. The
Constitution extends that power to the electors of cities and counties in order that they
might propose ordinances at those levels of government. The initiative power is
applicable to legislative acts only. Legislative acts generally involve the formulation of
rules to be applied in all future cases (as opposed to adjudicatory acts which generally
involve the application of fixed rule to a specific set of facts).
Initiatives may encompass amendments to a general plan, a specific plan, or zoning, as
these are all legislative acts. Approval of a use permit, a planned unit development plan
or a variance is an adjudicatory act and cannot be the subject of an initiative.
An initiative on a land use matter must be consistent with the general plan. We will need
to evaluate whether the proposed initiative is consistent with the county's general plan.
However, case law leans strongly towards interpretation in favor of initiatives, so a court
.5'
i
Mayor and City Council
Dalidio Ranch Initiative Proposal
March 7, 2006
Page 2
might be more inclined to uphold an initiative, as it is a statement of the will of the
people, over strict compliance with a legislative requirement that an initiative be
consistent with all aspects of the county's general plan. We will also want to consider
whether the initiative comports with the recent agreement between the City and the
county regarding development at the City's borders, and whether a failure to honor that
agreement might constitute grounds to invalidate the initiative.
CEOA and Initiatives
Initiatives are not a project requiring compliance with CEQA (except when the initiative
is proposed by a local governmental agency). However, as an initiative must relate to a
legislative act, there may be adjudicatory actions that remain to be taken by the county
and those actions will require some environmental review. However, a cursory review of
the proposed initiative indicates that the proposed zoning is quite specific as to what is
allowed by right. And, if the initiative is approved and the developer submits a plan that
closely tracks the zoning requirements, there maybe no adjudicatory approvals remaining
that would trigger CEQA review. Still, there are important traffic and utilities (e.g. water
and sewage) issues that would need to be addressed in some fashion. Further analysis
must be done to determine how those.impacts should be handled. This calculus is
impacted by the fact that there are other regulatory agencies that likely have.jurisdiction
over activities on this site.
Recommendation
cc: Ken'Hampian•,:CAO
Shelly Stanwyck, ACAO
John Mandeville, CDD Director
Jonathan P Lowell - Dalidio Ranch and CA Elertions Code Page 1
From: Jonathan P Lowell
To: Council
Date: 3/30/06 1:23PM
Subject: Dalidio Ranch and CA Elections Code
Council Members:
Mayor Romero has forwarded you a March 23, 2006 communication from Supervisor Lenthall regarding a
proposed task force appointed by both the County and the City to discuss the Dalidio Ranch initiative. To
aid you in evaluating the efficacy of the proposed task force, I think it beneficial that you be aware of a
provision of the Elections Code regarding reports on proposed initiative measures. As you are aware,
initiatives are not subject to CEQA, however, Elections Code Section 9212 sets forth a mechanism for the
legislative body of a city or the board of supervisors in a county to direct the preparation of a report on
various potential aspects and impacts of an initiative measure. Elections Code Section 9212 provides as
follows:
(a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b)
of Section 9214, or Section 9215, the legislative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to any city
agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and specific plans, including the housing
element,the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section
65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3
(commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of
the city to meet its regional housing needs.
(4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to,transportation,
schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to
result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to
current residents and businesses.
(5) Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain business and employment.
(6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and
developed areas designated for revitalization.
(8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report.
(b)The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative
body, but no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of
the petition.
In the case of the proposed initiative measure;the County Board of Supervisors would be the legislative
body to direct County staff to prepare studies on those matters it deems warranted. While the City Council
could direct its own staff to prepare such studies,the developer would have no obligation to cooperate
with the City in this regard. While there appears no legal requirement for the developer to cooperate with
the County, either, there would be a political motivation to do so.
Should you have any questions, please give me a call.
U
O
CD
4� O
U L N
E ._ o0
a) C
4-0
O ._
C-
'-' OJ Q
• rmo �
� Q
J
O �
co
O N � O
Jc L C
cu CL 0
05; C/) •-
CD 0
Cl*.. V
ca
cm
o
cn
U 4cno
O CU 0 V V
Y V .� v � � C
cu E
0 cu CU V Com•
O C'u
4-1
5 ._ O
cu O N
U) �. D cu
a w
.O O
•_
O
.o
-CU
.� CU
a .g
CU
cz
> O
CU ® U -0
U cu
co
CU CU
E
4=4 cn
cn0
cz a
cu
CO c
CO) O
(1) .�C/)
� Com• .,�
U
O � �
U Q
. . oU
-� as
*� c
OO v C
Ami c E
W
c O ®
�
a -
i
I coC
W ® s (D .
L Co W X
� CU N O
_OCU
O U)Z3 Cl)
�_ O
Uo CU :3
UL 0Q) w '
_ c.) o 4 —
O L) o . ZC
$ ; co 0. i::,, 0a)Ecn
oma' C 'WO 0 o •cn �
c cn co :3 �
M V
Q) -4--1
O CL-0 CD
® •— � o, O � co .� .—
.C.t,
0 '0 . . 0 Q EO -0 >
4� CUV � � C O 0cn •L
V
cnY
C/) O
cu OCLJc
L.
N CL
O > .�
T c
. � ca
r U U
C—� O —
� .c 1.
03 CD C
o � n
C •U
� -� cn
C:
cn
i >
cu
LL 0- = CU
0 0
L_
U
c: CU
I
• I j L
C: C`.
o o
o
cn� ccap
�
� �
. � C/)
co
O� moo" -
�
� .� c �o — C:
cn
a�
o7 .°'
cnU
Q
4� O -0
CU cn
p o 0 0
a a0. UCL
• � � � � � ate--+
• '� c
U
CL
a� .0 O ._ a�
V v cin E
CDi �, o
U O
V� OQ — CU -O
m cn
. � Jcu cn CL > O N
N O }, N E O
L
m O
p cn U a�
Gt ® 0.0
CD
l ocn � 0.C .0I
•� m.0
CD cn
O c cu cu
w MST
a - ma CU �
U O O o N
p
cn -54 cnc
co cn CL C � oU � U
C
e
• W
• � � � � L L
L
(a m CD N
V O -Cn � O O
O ._
O N C .cn
O � � �
. � � 'a -EO cn
(u C: N mo O
® C3 CMO � O
L. CU
co
N N
cn 0 c i>>N
� �
C". U
� cn
O
CD -O .0 N MV
L.
® 0mm% c > A
LL 0 -0 .0 m 0 cn CL
(a
co
ch
cn 0.
waft 0
�.
. �..� ) C
® •- -� O
O v Co
�---� V •-
0) C
CD
b.A � Ev,
CL o
co
CU o
. � r: 4, U V
i �
O ? —
• C: O
i
O
O � cU 'o � �
U cu 0�. " C
+a E O. O �O
O •—
U o 4-a c 'cU
• � O c cn CL
C I L HE N
O a� O
C $ � � � O C:_ 'O CIDm O
i 0 c v
CSA - co mc: CL C
E �
O -� N �
V cn cn N
• '"'� Cj •� O N
O C2.3 =3 = N
a Q .� .0 y--
• CD —
i> 0
CD
OV �•_ , ( ,cCc
� � � oo �
� VOma _
�.
cp 75
Vco � �.•••
• � � 0) L.
• me
V O Q c
O 4) ,cto O
> I Jc cn 4-0
O C
4��A C
® — ` D C=
I s � v � o o �
o o .o o
� `n oma
*� cn O '� Ucu
U
U
LO w
(D
Co
® O c� CD C) � co
3
1 1
1
1
CD J
CU (U c Q
E c;) Q O
O o X
O u .�
w
cn■
U -0 cp
C 0 C
N 0 CD
N .0m
CU • U
U �
-� p 5 N
V 0 0. V E
N ® O
' ■ U
•� O -6--aL � 0
v c o m 0 ST-0
Raft °'
NUMMONr OL. p .0cu
U 0 •�.� O c
U
C: -0 r
c;) O Ei Q Ca
L.
CU 0 cn
O
� �
.> _� � j
E
� v 75
U
._ ..
N .O m O 00000" c
.®.
V1 m QO � � O
cm
C N Q >' WE`•
WEEMEM
O
O U �'� O t/� •>
O O >>
O O ® to L OCUv
E ac
Q cn N
U O4. O -o E .�
MIMMOM
O to � O .0 0
. �. VCI
® cp
> cUNNEEN
,L to to mU
cu
w
cn
, O 0
•
Jc
E
a 00N
� u
U N
� � N
� N
® t6
i
cn U. U
Ego ° ° o
° � U U
v (D —
cn
•C: L ° o
° CL
� ° � c
WEEMEN
.� 1-j 4-- =
SEMMES
C). cn o o �? 0 C;)
� - M -W
'o a)
E
U
CU
•_ cu .
C
MENEM
U ° cn L. c
U U
:3 C: > :3
UJ cn cn �• E °UUU
Page 1 of 1
l
SLO Citycouncil-City/County Dalidio Caskforce
From: <d.kish@charter.net> APR 18 2006
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 4/17/2006 11:58 AM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: City/County Dalidio Task-force
Dear Mayor and Council members
My name is Dennis Dish,and i live in Cayucos. I am dismayed to discover that the consequence of the citizens and
government of San Luis obispo not being able to compromise on a troublesome planning issue has led to a county wide
initiative that is based on the idea of abolishing planning review standards in special districts!
I am sure that there is a long line of people waiting to tell/shout at you that this is a terrible idea. I urge you to do everything
you can to solve this problem,if possible before the measure is on the ballot.
Fifteen years ago I began working with your council to create a long cherished dream ,the
performing arts center.That the center exists today is the result of a spirit of compromise badly needed in the present
situation.
The proposed task force is a nod in the right direction, I urge you to broaden the scope,add members fron throughout the
county,and from San Luis add supporters and opponents of the project,hire a professional mediator. I know time is short,but
the need is great. Thank you;Dennis Kish
fj}COUNCIL COD '�'`—
in cao f� F+ti DIP
RED FILE
t -aCA0 ® FiM`E C"!= MEETING AGENDA
® ATTORNEY ' PW DI _ ®ATEN (� ITEM # —
�t7 CLEWORIO Irl POUCE_CN"
na T HEADS r REG G!y
U?IL Q!R, HR DIR_-
p �a
,o L►GE�
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 4/18/2006
Page I of I
SLO Citycouncil - WE OPPOSE THE DALIDIO INITIATIVE
RECEIVED_
APR 18 2006
From: arniesrtran <arniesetran@infostations.com>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> SLO CITY CLERK
Date: 4/18/2006 6:52 AM
Subject: WE OPPOSE THE DALIDIO INITIATIVE
WE OPPOSE THIS INITIATIVE BECAUSE.OF DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS OUTSIDE SLO
CITY, LEADING TO BLIND DECISION MAKING. DONT SET PRECEDENTS LIKE THIS.
THANK YOU, PETI JOHNSON ARNIE SETRAN
Page I of 1
SLO Citycouncil opposition to Dalidio init.
From: arniesrtran <arniesetran@infostations.com>
To: <slodtycoungl@slocity.org>
Date: 4/18/2006 6:52 AM
Subject: .opposition to Dalidio init.
SORRY, WE FORGOT TO.INCLUDE OUR TOWN, LOS OSOS, THANKS, PETI_JOHNSON
C
[COUNCIL ij] coo Olin RED FILE
�CAO >c FIN DIR
ACAO 12 FIRE CHIEF MEETING.AGENDA
T ATTORNEY i;� PW DIR
aCLERKiORIG ® POLICE CHF DATE H d(f ITEM #—&I
❑ DEPT HEADSREC DIR
� UTIL DIR
•� Z'e�6 CG_ Ru HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettirigs\Temp\GW IOOOOI.HTM 4/18/2006
Richard Schmidt 1:r5M97FILE M8/ 7/56 REOSVe'd 1�1
MEETING AGENDA APR 18 2006
RICHARD SCHMIDT DJATE'� I� ITEIVi #_BS
LO CITY CLERK
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
April 18, 2006
City Council Re: Business Item 5 -- Dalidio Task Force
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Council Members:
1. 1 urge you NOT to participate in Supervisor Lenthall's Task Force. If you were to
participate, you -- like the members of his previous Dalidio committee -- will find
yourselves being used to promote this outrageous effort to circumvent established
development review and assessment-of-impact processes.' You will hurt the city's
interests by participating.
Furthermore, isn't Mr. Lenthall basically asking the city to do the county's work in
analyzing the initiative? You get angry about state unfunded mandates. Isn't this the
county trying to do the same thing to you -- get you to do their job without paying you for
doing it? If he succeeds, where will this lead? How many other tasks will the county
honor you with the privilege of doing for them?
2. If the council does decide to participate, it should be upon one condition: That
representatives from every city in the county, not just the City of SLO, are members.
This is nota SLO City issue -- it is an issue that will affect every jurisdiction if it
succeeds and multiplies, which it surely will if it succeeds. No task force work should
begin until all cities are on board.
3. Rather than participate in the task force, I'd urge you to use your staff resources more
effectively. Clearly, your staff understands just how awful this precedent will be. The
issues have nothing to do with the merits or lack thereof of the proposed project; they
have to do with the process. Please direct your staff to get together with their
counterparts at all other cities, to bring them up to speed on the precedent-setting
issues, and to gather feedback on likely projects elsewhere in the county which might
proceed under similar circumstances. This is a case in which unity and shared
knowledge are strength. n CCUNC ! ;TCDD DIR !�
CAO [e FIN DIR
Sincere) M ACAO R FIRE CHIEF
Sincerely, o m ATTORNEY 39,PW DIR
CTCLERK/ORIG POLICE C
❑ DEPT HEADS EEC D"7'
Richard Schmidt oi» 2'uTILGq o
��` ?218/citl& 0 H R C'_ IUC,
' Supervisor Lenthall's role in all of this has to be suspect. If his original committee were in fact
nothing more than a good faith effort to air contrasting views about a project he believed would be coming
through his jurisdiction's approval process, wouldn't a person of normal emotional makeup be absolutely
furious at being used by his developer campaign contributors to create press for their end-run on the
county process?The total lack of anger from Lenthall, not even so much as a peep of criticism, suggests
strongly that he was party to this tawdry scheme all along. Why don't you"ask him point blank tonight why
he's not upset at the initiative scheme's undercutting the standard process and his legitimate role in it?
From Michael Sullivan to City of San suis Obispo-RE Council meeting of 18 Apr 20uo 4q:P
Business item 5-PROPOSED LENTHALL TASK FORCE FOR DALIDIO IMITIATIVE Page 1 J , L�
d' C
Z :t-' 18 Apr 2006
W
� C7w �I
FL To: City of San Luis Obispo including City Council
UJ Z From: Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614
r1- F- �o
w RE: City Council -meeting of 18 April 2006 - Business item 5 - PROPOSED LENTHALL TASK
:-5 W FORCE FOR DALIDIO INITIATIVE
Cl Under the law, the City has no obligation, or even a responsibility, to produce an informational
report on the initiative..... This is a voter initiative in the County jurisdiction, so according to Election
Code 9111, it would be the Board of Supervisors that would approve preparation of such a report,not
the City Council. Jonathan Lowell has pointed this out in Attachment 3, bottom paragraph of staff
report. He(Lowell) continues, "While the City Council could direct its own staff to prepare such
studies, the developer would have no obligation to cooperate with the City in this regard. While there
appears no legal requirement for the developer to cooperate with the County, either,there would be a
political motivation to do so." (See Council Agenda Report for 18 Apr 2006,Bus. item 5,at
Attachment 3 -Comments of City Attorney Jonathan Lowell -paragraph at bottom of page 5-6).
Election Code 9111 is given below. Notice that 9111 (a) states that the Board of Supervisors may
refer the proposed initiative measure TO ANY COUNTY AGENCY OR AGENCIES for a report...."
This implies that the report, if it is prepared, is to be prepared by a COUNTY agency or agencies,
NOT by a "Task Force."
It seems that the legislative intent here is to obtain an impartial analysis from agencies of the
jurisdiction in which the voter initiative is filed(COUNTY, in this case). The best way to obtain an
impartial analysis is to follow the election code and have the Board of Supervisors oversee the
production of any report. This task is not appropriate for an independent Task Force. As the City
Attorney has pointed out(staff report for Council meeting of 18 Apr 2006, Bus. 5), the developer's
influence in a Task Force is likely to be politically motivated. This is inappropriate.
If the County Board of Supervisors approves an initiative report per Election Code 9111,then it is
very important to include information about item 2, Policy implications(page 5-2 of Council Agenda
Report for 18 Apr 2006, Bus. 5). Other Cities, other than just SLO, should provide input to the
County concerning policy implications:
"2. Policy Implications- What are the long-term policy and precedence implications for our
county and its cities if land use decisions and projects are pursued in such a fashion?"
(SLO City Council Agenda Report 18 Apr 2006 at p. 5-2)
If the County decides to use a Task Force to help create a report on the initiative,then information
on item 2 above (Policy implications) should still be obtained for all cities of the county to ensure
that the concerns of all cities throughout the county are addressed.
Regarding item 7, Other Stakeholder Agencies: (Council Agenda Report 18 Apr 2006 at p. 5-2)
These should include not just the ones listed (Cal Trans,Regional g„q ` L l
Pollution Control District) but also p CAO @ FIN DIH J
- environmental group(s) (e.g. ECO-SLO, Sierra Club, etc.), ACAO E FIRE CHIEF
-County Agricultural Commissioner ATTORNEY T PW DIR� [�CLERK/ORIQ B POLICE CHF �
- Airport Land Use Commission v ❑ DEPT HEADS ro REC OR
PIA rLITlt DIR
y . A-�
From Michael Sullivan to City of San Lxis Obispo-RE Council meeting of 18 Apr 200
Business item 5 -PROPOSED LENTHALL TASK FORCE FOR DALIDIO INITIATIVE Page 2 Of 2
-LAFCO
- SLO Council of Governments (Would it be good to ask SLOCOG to determine whether this method
of land use control (initiative)is in agreement with regional planning goals and policies?)
- SLO City Downtown Association ??
-Chamber of Commerce in City of SLO and other cities??
- County's Chamber of Commerce??
- School Districts in all areas of county potentially affected
- Others?
Again, it is most appropriate for the Coun (rather than a Task Force)to select the appropriate
stakeholder groups for a report on the Dalidio Ranch Initiative.
SUMMARY: In the interest of fairness and impartiality, and to comply directly with the Election
Code sec. 9111, it is important to have the County Board of Supervisors maintain direction of any
report, rather than using a Task Force for that purpose.
Michael Sullivan
Addendum:
Elections code. 9111.
(a)During the circulation of the petition or before taking
either action described in subdivisions(a)and(b)of Section 9116,or Section 9118,the board of supervisors
may refer the proposed initiative measure to any county agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the
following:
(1)Its fiscal impact.
(2)Its effect on the internal consistency of the county's general and specific plans, including the housing
element,the consistency between planning and zoning,and the limitations on county actions under Section
65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913)and 4.3 (commencing
with Section 65915)of Division I of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3)Its effect on the use of land,the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the
county to meet its regional housing needs.
(4)Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including,but not limited to,transportation,schools,
parks,and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased
infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance,to current residents and
businesses.
(5)Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain business and employment.
(6)Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
(7)Its impact on agricultural lands,open space,traffic congestion,existing business districts,and developed
areas designated for revitalization.
(8)Any other matters the board of supervisors request to be in the report.
(b)The report shall be presented to the board of supervisors within the time prescribed by the board of
supervisors,but no later than 30 days after the county elections official certifies to the
board of supervisors the sufficiency of the petition.
-end of sec.9111 -
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil-Agenda Item 5
ECEME
From: Linde Owen<lindeowen@earthlink.net> APR 18 2005
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 4/18/2006 12:55 AM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Agenda Item 5
Dear City Council,
Establishing a task force to "inform" SLO County voters about the.Dalidio project and proposed
voter initiative should include an equal share of representatives from the county's public, not solely
members from SLO City and the Board of Supervisors.
This initiative is precedent-setting and has long-term consequences for every town in the county
because of its evasion of laws and of local issues. It should be of concern to every town and city that
this method of decision-making, can bypass the public review process. Please do whatever you can to
prevent this kind of precedent from being established.
Thankyou,
Linde Owen,
Los Osos resident for 16 years
✓ C 4i(,
a COUNCIL R: cD-D L)IR RED FILE
® CAO Z FIN D R MEE 1NG AGENDA
®ATO FIRE CHIEF
B DATE,y
//
ATTORNEY rPW[)In ITEM #�5_
&CLERK/ORIG 2! POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS E REC DIF?
�— IP UTIL DIF?
7� Ie HR DR 1
OL D
If 0-60-fS
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW100001.HTM 4/18/2006
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil - Dalidio - Agt.ida Item
RECEIVED
From: Marty Brown <martybrown@tcsn.net>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> APR 171006
Date: 4/16/2006 4:28 PM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Dalidio - Agenda Item
SLO City Council:
I am writing this letter because of concern regarding the proposed initiative to put the Dalidio development on the
November ballot for the voters of San Luis Obispo County to vote for or against.
The precedents this initiative would set, if passed, would have disastrous consequences for all towns and
residents in SLO County, leading to virtually blind decision-making due to exemptions from local and state
laws and development review, and to a local citizenry rendered virtually mute as their voices are diluted by
county-wide initiatives. Please do whatever you can to prevent these precedents from being set.
This proposed task force cannot reach its goal of educating voters in SLO County if it has no members
from any town other than SLO City. If the Council approves of such a task force, it should demand inclusion
of representatives from all other towns in the county. If this task force isn't to be so composed, it will be a
futile waste of time and anything it produces will ultimately lack credibility.
Sincerely,
Marilyn E. Brown
Atascadero E COUNCIL l CDD
RED FILE
ICAO 1ZFIN Dl
MEETING AGENDA 42 ACAO IZ FIRE CHIEF
ITEM # S ®ATTORNEYp P DIR
Z CLERK/ORIRIG W POLICE
E CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS JD REC D!R
in U IL D!R
C�4c
1 cLE�
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 4/17/2006
Pagel —
1
Allen Settle -Tuesday: Proposed iity/County Task Force
From: "Mita Vujovich-LaBarre" <milavu@hotmail.com>
To: <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slodty.org>, <cdev@thegrid.net>, <dromero@slodty.org>,
<asettle@slodty.org>, <pbrown@slocity.org>
Date: 4/14/2006 3:40 PM
Subject Tuesday: Proposed City/County Task Force RECEIVED
APR 17 2006
Greetings! My daughters and I are on our way out of the country for Spring
break. The upcoming agenda item re: Dalidio Ranch and the proposed Lenthall SLO CITY CLERK
task force concerned me for more reasons than I have time to mention. In
short:
1) Until Dalidio brings a quality project back to the City, I do not feel
that City staff should be spending any time or money analyzing this project.
It is incredibly similar to the project that a majority of City voters voted
down last April. RED FILE
2) Lenthall stated during the election for County Supervisor that he would MEETING AGENDA
support the will of the voters if the project came back to the County. He
did not and served as the swing vote to keep this project alive. There are DATE q1ditLU ITEM # . S
several voters who are still very upset with this action that he took last
August.
3) If, for some reason, the City decides to go forward with two
representatives for the County's task force, Christine Mulholland should
undoubtedly be one of the Council's representatives since she represents therACAO
Ff.CDD DiR
majority of the will of the voters on this issue. CAOCOUFIN DIR
4)John Ewan had a professional business meeting with RRM, Dalidio and fi3FIRECHIEF
Dabney in early December in regard to the Dalidio Ranch so I am sure that he PW DIRwill declare a "conflict of interest." `POLICE CH'=
5) Community members have told me that Paul Brown received funds from the S 9 REC DIR
Home Builders Asso. during his election through Sacramento.These funds, �p UTIL DIR
according to my sources, were from billionaire developer and Dalidio Ranch HR DIR
investor Scott Dabney; in Texas. If this is at all true, Brown may want to ��pO
think twice about being a representative.
6) Itis my understanding that Settle already has declared a conflict due to
property interests.
7) So, Mr. Mayor, by my analysis, you are it!
8)This initiative sets a dangerous precedent for communites throughout the
County. Please do not facilitate this development in this fashion.
9)As a community member, I am hoping that Dalidio and his investors return
to the City with a scaled down project that complements the City;one that
has minimal environmental and financial impacts. One that does not require
the construction of the Prado Road overpass. Again, in the County this is
Class 1 viable ag land and it is the gateway to our community.
10 ) FYI - Save San Luis Obispo was a single issue campaign. It was
developed to defeat the previous Marketplace only. Please be aware that Save
SLO folded in April 2005.This e-mail is being written from me as a
community member who also served on Lenthall's recent task force about this
development. Please be advised that Save SLO did not continue to be a
watchdog for any other City issues or developments.The grassroots
volunteers were exhausted after our victory last April.
11) FYI -County wide opposition is organizing.
12)There are so many problems with this current proposal. Please do not
endorse it!
I have to go catch a plane! Thank you for all that you do! Take care. Mila
Vujovich- La Barre
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW100001.HTM 4/17/2006
Page 1 of 2
SLO Citycouncil - SLOCC 4-18Agenda:Item Dalidio comments
From: "David B" <csi@thegrid.net>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>,
<asettle@slocity.org>, <pbrown@slocity.org>, <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 4/14/2006 11:43 PM
Subject: SLOCC 4-18 Agenda Item - Dalidio comments
CC: <ahooper@slocity.org>, <khampian@slocity.org>, <jlowell@slocity.org>
RED FILE RECEIVED
MEETING AGENDA APR 17 2006
to: SLO City Council members ®A�-El( ITEM # flus. 5
SLO CITY CLERK
cc: Administrative Officer&Attorney
GE COUNCIL
'DDD"
CAO 4e FIN DIR
ACAO 1•FIRE CHIEF
re: Item #5 ?Dalidio Ranch Task Force? - 4-18-06 Agenda. B ATTORNEYFREC
W DIR
19 CLERK/ORIG OLICE CHF
re: Agenda Report & Mayor?s 4-14-06 Tribune Viewpoint. 11 �PHEADS DIR
TRs.�t F7-UTIL DIR
---�� HR DIR
V- CA.F
'' e-
LE7x
Please find attached my (2-page) comments on the above item on your 4-14-06 agenda. I've read the
documents referenced above and intend to submit verbal comments during your meeting on this subject, and
to submit paper copies of my comments for the record. You're involved in a situation with very serious
county-wide ramifications. I hope you'll give my comments the consideration they merit.
I've pasted into the body of this email the text of an article printed in some local newspapers (New Times,
Paso Robles Press, Atascadero News, The Coast News) which expresses my perspective on this matter, and
that of many others. I also have an electronic version of Ned Rogoway's 4-2-06 Tribune Viewpoint on this
matter I can send to you if you wish.
Please also read the attached comments prior to your meeting on 4-18-06.
Thank You;
David Broadwater
Atascadero
Dalidio?s Obscene Affront to SLO County Democracy
I just received an unsolicited and unwanted letter in the mail and I?m livid, not.because it?s pornographic, but
because what it proposes for the November ballot is obscene. I live in Atascadero and would prefer to let the
folks in San Luis Obispo and their representatives make decisions about land use in their neck of the woods.
But Mr. Dalidio wants me to sign a petition so that.every voter in the County can have a say about his
development next to SLO City. By placing his initiative on the ballot, he also wants to have his project
exempted from County and State laws requiring assessment of traffic, school, water, sewer, growth, fire,
police and other needs and effects.
file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Setdngs\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW100001.HTM 4/17/2006
Page 2 of 2
Consider the consequences of this pi�cedent for your own neighborhood. Your aoility to affect decisions that
impact your community can be nearly obliterated by any deep-pocketed developer willing to buy petition-
circulators, polling and PR firms and media commercials. The input of your advisory committee, services
district, city council or planning department could be over-ridden in a perverse reversal of eminent-domain.
Masses of people largely ignorant &/or negligent of your town?s needs and desires could force you to
surrender your autonomy.
Although I?ve read a little about the Dalidio project, I?ve remained a comfortably ignorant spectator, certain
that those most affected would make the best decision. It?s their business, not mine. As a registered voter
(designated as ?high propensity? by Dalidio?s paid propagandists), I don?t want to be required to study his
project in enough detail to vote intelligently. Neither do I want voters from Nipomo, San Miguel, San Luis
Obispo or any other town voting on land use decisions in my neighborhood (unless it?s to open a nuclear
waste repository in town or something similar). That?s our business, not theirs.
The precedent that would be set by the success of Mr. Dalidio?s initiative could result in the unraveling of local
representative democracy. The outlaw exemptions it would ratify would render land use decisions blind to
their infrastructure, economic and ecological consequences. The ability of communities to plan for their
futures would be plagued by unremitting uncertainty and instability.
For years, the initiative process in California has been criticized as divorced from its original purpose
(providing the citizenry with a means to solve problems entrenched politicians won?t address). The primary
cause identified for the degeneration of this exercise in direct,.bottom-up, democracy is the corrupting and
abusive intrusion of moneyed interests (and their hired campaign workers, pollsters and.PR consultants) for
the narrow purpose of increasing their private profits at the public?s expense. Mr. Dalidio?s proposed
initiative is another manifestation of this invasion of our grassroots political territory.
In the interests of representative government, informed decision-making and the integrity of our initiative
process, I urge all citizens to contact their local representatives right now to inform them of this threat to their
roles in land use planning. Ask them to oppose this initiative and recommend that citizens don?t sign Mr.
Dalidio?s petition. Regardless of the SLO-specific impacts of his project, his initiative is an affront to our
community values and is, therefore, obscene as the law defines it.
David Broadwater
Atascadero
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 4/17/2006
to: SLO City Council members
cc: Administrative Officer & Attorney
date: 4-18-06
re: Item #5 "Dalidio Ranch Task Force" - 4-18-06 Agenda.
re: Agenda Report & Mayor's 4-14-06 Tribune Viewpoint.
San Luis Obispo City Council, et al.;
Having read the two documents referenced above, I submit for your consideration these
comments, as someone residing inside SLO County and outside your City.
Wide-Spread, Long-Term Initiative Precedents:
I note that the Agenda Report acknowledges some problems associated with the
initiative for which signatures are currently being gathered. Four phrases in that report
bring attention to the problems of processing developments through ballot initiatives and
the precedent-setting consequences of this approach to planning ("the process being
pursued to gain its approval", "the proposed measure and its implications", "the long-
term policy and precedence implications... if land use decisions and projects are
pursued in such a fashion", & "the policy and precedent implications of the
initiative").
I note also that the Mayor's Viewpoint cites this initiative as problematic due to its
precedent-setting nature ("by means of a countywide vote", "the county initiative
process", "may well set a precedent"). The mayor also acknowledges the problem
associated with the exemptions of this project from local and state laws governing
development by using this process ("bypasses environmental review and the checks
and balances... development review with a local agency").
Additionally, I note that both the Agenda Report and the Mayor's article acknowledge
that the precedents that would be set if this initiative passes would have serious long-term
consequences for every town in SLO County ("the long-term policy and precedence
implications for our county and its cities", "a precedent for how the county will deal with
all of its cities for years to come").
I appreciate and commend the City Staff and Mayor for acknowledging these very
serious problems associated with this initiative. I am adamantly and vehemently opposed
to this initiative precisely for those reasons, and those reasons alone (i.e., regardless of
what eventually happens with Dalidio's land). I am fully cognizant that the precedents this
initiative would set would be very destructive to governmental decision making and citizen
participation in those decisions in my own town and every other town in SLO County. Such
exemptions as allowed by this process will deny decision-makers the data they need to
make informed judgments, rendering them practically blind. Diluting the voices of those
most directly effected by projects with county-wide voting will diminish the potency of local
citizen input, rendering them virtually dumb.
Recommendation:
I urge you, and plead with you, to do whatever it takes to prevent these disastrous
precedents from being set. You owe it to the people who reside in towns other than yours
to ensure that this initiative either does not go on the ballot or is defeated in November if it
does. Please do not allow the problems your city is experiencing with this project destroy
the ability of other towns and their residents to solve theirs. I urge you to adopt a position
in opposition to this initiative now, and then work out your own problems without causing
more for others.
1oft
Proposed Task Force Purpose, Composition & Credibility: �
The Agenda Report, Supervisor Lenthall's letter and the Mayor's article all refer to the
purported purpose of this proposed task force and to its possible composition. The
proposed membership in this task force, however, is so constricted that it will undoubtedly
fail to accomplish its goals due to the fact that its final product will be utterly lacking in
credibility.
The stated purpose of this proposed task force appears to be to educate SLO County
registered voters about two subjects: (1) the Dalidio project & (2) the initiative and its
consequences. The Agenda Report cites these two subjects in two phrases ("the
Supervisor's goal of improving the information available to the public regarding the
project and the process being pursued to gain its approval" &
"developing... information about the proposed measure and its implications that
voters can use"). The Supervisor's letter also cites both subjects ("increase the public's
understanding of this project and the proposed initiative"). Both the. Supervisor and
Mayor emphasize the voter-education goal of the task force ("ensure that all San Luis
Obispo County residents will be better suited to decide this matter when exercising their
voting rights this fall" &"We need to make every effort possible... keep the voters fully
informed"). To accomplish its stated objectives, therefore, this proposed task force would
inform SLO County registered voters about the precedent-setting consequences of this
initiative (including the exemptions from local & state laws and "ballot-box planning", cited
in section above) as well as about the project itself.
Despite the fact that the Agenda Report and the. Mayor's article acknowledge that all
towns in SLO County can be effected by the precedents set by this initiative if it passes, the
Supervisor's letter proposes that membership in this task force be Limited to
representatives from one city and the County Board of Supervisors ("I recommend that
County and City officials come together... task force comprised of members of both
agencies"). The Mayor's article states this is a "good idea" and identifies four members
("two supervisors, two City Council members"). The. Mayor's article rather
dismissively mentions that "others" might be included ("and possibly others"), while the
Agenda Report merely asks about membership ("Which other agencies should be invited to
participate in a task force... other cities subject to the policy and precedent
implications of the initiative").
While such a task force may serve some useful purpose in dealing with this dilemma, it
cannot accomplish its stated objectives with the limited membership currently being
considered. Exclusion of representatives from other towns (incorporated & unincorporated)
would result in an extremely deficient deliberative process based on insufficient input and a
myopic perspective. The validity of any end product would be highly suspect as the
expression of relatively narrow interests. The impact of anything produced by such a
process would have virtually no impact on the purported voter-education purposes of this
task force. Proceeding in such a fashion will only be a waste of everyone's time and
money.
Recommendation:
Should SLO City decide to participate in the proposed task force, it should
require/demand that it include representatives from every incorporated and unincorporated
town in SLO County, and voter-at-large members as well. If SLO City decides to
participate in the proposed task force, it should include in that decision sending an
invitation to all those entities to participate in the task force. Should the SLO City Council
decline to do so, it should issue an explanation for that decision.
Thank You;
David Broadwater
Atascadero