HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2006, C12 - DALIDIO RANCH: ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9111 INPUT council M -D° tR1ao 0(x.
acenoa Report I�Numbv C�2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO
SUBJECT: Dalidio Ranch: Elections Code Section 9111 Input
CAO RECOMAWNDATION
Direct the CAO to provide staff input to the County regarding the effect of the proposed Dalidio
Ranch initiative, if the Board of Supervisors authorizes a 30 day input process pursuant to
Elections Code Section 9111.
DISCUSSION
On Tuesday, June 13a', the Board of Supervisors will consider the initiative petition for the
Dalidio Ranch process. Attached is a staff report prepared by the County Clerk-Recorder that
fully explains the actions and alternatives that will be considered by the Board (Attachment 1).
One alternative noted in the report is to "refer the measure to any county agency for a report on
the fiscal impact and/or any other matters that your Board requests to be in the report." This
referral process is not to exceed 30 days, which means that the information will return to the
Board no later than July 11, 2006.
If the Board elects to pursue this referral process, which is authorized under Elections Code
Section 9111, then I suggest that City staff provide its best assessment of the effects of the
proposed initiative during this 30 day timeframe. Staff input should focus on the seven areas
concern identified by the City Council in the April 20, 2006 letter to Supervisor Lenthall
(Attachment 2). At the time the letter was written, it was expected that the Lenthall Committee
process would start in June and that the City would offer its input on these areas in June or early
July. However, the first meeting of the Lenthall Committee is not set until July 19`h, after the
July 11`h Section 9111 deadline. Therefore, staff believes that it is important to accelerate the
development of this information at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. County Clerk-Recorder Agenda Report
2. Letter to Supervisor Lenthall
c�2-�
ATTACHMENT 1
Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO • 1055 MONTEREY ST.RM.D120 • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93408 • (805)781-5080/5088
JULIE L.RODEWALD THERESA STEPHENSON
COUNTY CLERK RECORDER Administrative Service Officer
TOMMY GONG
ASSISTANT COUNTY CLERK RECORDER
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: JULIE L. RODEWALD, County Clerk-Recorder ;/
DATE: June 13, 2006
SUBJECT: Submittal of the Certificate of Sufficiency -An Initiative Petition to Amend the
County General Plan and Land Use Ordinances to Allow for Development of the
Dalidio Ranch Project.
Recommendation:
That your Board take one of the following actions pursuant to Elections Code §9118:
1. Adopt.the ordinance without alteration at this meeting or within 10 days after it is
presented.
2. Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters at the next Statewide Election
occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election and instruct
chairperson to sign the resolution placing the measure on the November 7, 2006
General Election.
3. Order a report on effect of proposed initiative pursuant to Elections Code § 9111.
Discussion:
The Notice of Intention to Circulate the petition was filed with the Clerk-Recorder's Office on March
3, 2006 and the Ballot Title and Summary was prepared by County Counsel. The petition was
circulated within San Luis Obispo County and filed on May 5, 2006. The petition consisted of 620
sections and 18,716 signatures. A random sampling of 561 signatures was completed pursuantto
Elections Code §9115. The signatures were checked against the voter records to ensure the
person was a registered voter at the time of signing the petition; the address was the same as on
the voter's registration and the signature of the voter matched the signature on the registration
form. Of the 561 signatures checked, 79.5% were determined to be valid. When this percentage
was applied to the 18,716 signatures presented,the total was more than the number of signatures
required to certify the petition based on the random sampling verification (9,072).
k. .
The elections official has attached the Certificate of Sufficiency for this petition and is presenting it
to your Board for action. Pursuant to Elections Code § 9118 your Board has three options: 1)
l . ATTACHMENT 1
pass the ordinance without alteration; 2) submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters at
the next statewide election, not less than 88 days from the order of election; which is November 7,
2006, or 3) refer the measure to any county agency for a report on the fiscal impact and/or any
other matters that your Board requests to be in the report. If your Board elects to request a report,
it shall be presented within the time prescribed by your Board, but no later than 30 days from today.
Upon presentation of the report, your Board's options will be to pass the ordinance without
alteration or submit it, without alteration, to the voters at the next statewide election occurring not
less than 88 days after the order of election. August 11, 2006 is the statutory deadline to place a
measure on the November 7, 2006 General Election ballot.
If your Board takes action today to place the measure on the ballot, primary arguments for and
against this measure will be due on July 14th . If your Board takes action at a later date to place
the measure on the November 7, 2006 ballot,the primary arguments will be due approximately 10
days after your Board's action, on a date to be announced at that time. This shortened time
period for submission of the arguments will allow the Clerk-Recorder to meet the statutory
requirements for a public inspection period and still ensure that the sample ballot booklet can be
printed and distributed to our voters at the earliest possible date.
An impartial analysis of the measure will be prepared by County Counsel. This impartial analysis
will be printed in the sample ballot booklet mailed to each voter. The county has the option of
printing the entire text of the measure or including a statement under the impartial analysis to notify
voters that the statement is an impartial analysis of the measure and the full text of the measure will
be mailed at no cost to any voter upon request. In addition, the elections official may include a
statement that the full text of the measure is accessible on the county's website. Due to the
length of the full text of the measure and the inclusion of maps that may not translate well to the
reduced format of the sample ballot, I am recommending that the full text not be printed in the
sample ballot booklet. The full text of the measure would add at 40-50 pages to the sample
ballot booklet at a printing cost of at least $100,000. There would also be additional postage
costs as the inclusion of this text would nearly triple the size of the sample ballot booklet. Instead
of the printing the full text of the measure would be posted on the County Clerk-Recorder's website
as well as be available to any voter upon request.
Other Agency Involvement:
County Counsel prepared the Ballot Title and Summary for the petition pursuant to Elections Code
Section 9105, approved the resolution as to legal form and effect and will prepare the Impartial
Analysis pursuant to Elections Code Section 9160.
Financial Considerations:
The estimated cost for the printing of the impartial analysis and arguments for and against this
measure in the sample ballot booklet is $5,000. The cost of printing the sample ballot has been
included in the County Clerk-Recorder's budget.
Intended Results:
That your Board take action on the initiative measure as required by the Elections Code.
ATTACHMENT I
COUNTY ELECTION OFFICIAL'S CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY
AN.INITIATIVE PETITION TO AMEND THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND LAND USE
ORDINANCES TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE DALIDIO RANCH PROJECT.
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO)
ss
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
I, JULIE L. RODEWALD, County Clerk-Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, hereby certify:
That the above titled petition was filed with this office on May 5, 2006;
That said petition consists of 620 sections;
That each section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified electors of this
county;
That each section contains an Affidavit of Circulator purporting to be the affidavit of the person who
solicited the signatures,and containing the dates between which the purported qualified electors signed this
petition;
Thatthe affiant stated that he or she had solicited the signatures upon that section,and that all of the
Signatures were made in his or her presence, and that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief each
signature to that sectIon was the genuine signature of the person whose name in purports to be;
That after the proponent filed this petition the signatures were verified pursuant to Elections Code
Section 9115 by examining the records of registration in this county, current and in effect at the respective
purported dates of such signing, to determine what number of qualified electors signed the petition, and
from that examination I have determined the following facts regarding this petition:
Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent 18,716
Number of signatures verified per Elections Code Section 9115 561
Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT 446
Number of signatures found INSUFFICIENT 115
INSUFFICIENT because of DUPLICATE 0
Percentage of signatures found sufficient 79.5%
Percentage of sufficient signatures x total number of unverified signatures 14,879
Number of signatures necessary to declare petition sufficient utilizing the 9,072
random sample technique (110% of 8,247)
THEREFORE, I hereby find this Initiative Petition to be sufficient, based on the random sample
examination method prescribed by Elections Code Section 9115.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and my official seal this 30"' day of May,
2006
jQ'�
.t
JULI �\
4j
OLR DEWALD, County Clerk-Recorder
`WA�tectons\Initiatives\Forms\Certificate of Sufficiency
�%tv off, , ATTACHMENT 2
* lot4 * City of sAn luis omspo
15 �y OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
l4I S 01b 990 Palm Street n San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 ■ 805/781-7119
April 20, 2006
County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Jerry Lenthall
County Government Center, Room D-430
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Jeer'-/
Dear Supervisor. all:
At our meeting of April 18, 2006, the City Council considered your invitation to
participate in an information task force regarding the Dalidio Ranch initiative. I am
pleased to say that we agree with your goal of ensuring that County residents are fully
informed regarding the Dalidio Ranch initiative, should it proceed.to a vote this fall.
Council Members John Ewan and Paul Brown were appointed by the Council to
represent the City.
As they say, however, "the devil is in the detail" and a fact-finding endeavor of this kind
will only be valuable if the focus is on developing the right facts. Therefore, prior to
making these appointments, the Council gave a great deal of thought to the issues that we
think the task force should address, and we also discussed those issues that we think the
task force should avoid. I have attached our hopes for the task force agenda.
Of course, we recognize that this is your task force and that you and others may have
different ideas. While we will certainly respect those other ideas, we do strongly feel that
the focus should be on the initiative and its impacts, and not on other project, site, design
or land use options. The project is being proposed in a very specific fashion on County
land surrounded by the City. Working with others to develop facts about what this means
—and what its potential impacts may be.—is what our Council has directed the
subcommittee to explore with you and others.
In closing, we sincerely thank you for taking the initiative on what is a very complicated
and difficult task. We look forward to the results of the effort.
Sincerely yours,
Dave Romero, Mayor
San Luis Obispo
Cc: City Council
Board of Supervisors
ATTACHMENT 2
City of San Luis Obispo's Suggested Agenda for the Dalidio Ranch Information
Task Force: April 18, 2006
Proposed Areas of Task Force Focus
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?
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 relate 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(other cities and the County
should share.a common interest in the precedent such an initiative may set).
Issues the Task Force Should Avoid
1. Site planning: How can the site be redesigned for improvement, e.g. to make it more
compatible with the surrounding area?
2. Uses and Project "mix What other uses, public or private, would be desirable on the
site? What should be the right "mix"of public amenities vs. commercial uses?
3. Financial Tools: What financing mechanisms can be developed to facilitate the project
or the public improvements needed for the project?
4. Land Use Alternatives and Competing Philosophies: Should the site be more or less
aggressively developed—or not developed at all? If it is developed, should there be more
organic farm, less "big box," less "specialty retail," more recreation facilities, etc?
Mcouncit
memoRAnoum
laty of san lues owsl2o, aammistuation 6e aatment
DATE: June 14, 2006 RECEIVED
TO: City Council 'UN 14 2006
FROM- Ken Hampian, CAO SLO CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: Consent Item C-12: Dalidio Ranch Input
On June 13, 2006 the Board of Supervisors declined to avail itself of the Election Code Section
9111 process. However, staff continues to believe that the questions identified by Council
regarding this initiative are important to address, and therefore I am modifying the CAO
Recommendation to read as follows:
Direct the CAO to provide staff input to the County staff regarding the effects of the proposed
Dalidio Ranch initiative in the near future so that County Planning staff, County Counsel,
Lenthall Committee members and the public can have added, important information available
when considerinz the possible effects of the initiative.
�1 COUNCILRIGE
DIR
frJ CAODIR
MACAO CHIEF RED FILE
@ATTORNIR MEETING AGENDA
�'CLERK/OCE CHF❑ DEPT HEDIR DATES EM # G/2
0-��'gDIRIR
� Cho
Redfle-Code 9111 Change