Loading...
CC 2016-10-25 Items Rec'd at Mtg 10/19/2016 HJTA fights government electioneering �c ill�� /D>'Z6 l�c� l From: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association<distribution@hjta.org> A t'dX , S s-IrO r ..To: ahseastrand<ahseastrand@aol.com> I-001 —7 • Subject: HJTA fights government electioneering 1 Date: Tue,Oct 18,2016 10:18 pm U to 1 G co m View this email in your browser HJTA is California's largest taxpayer advocacy organization. ODShare ( )Tweet LE::9 Forward rjfi\ - Howar'dJarvis :: T, -� . Taxpayers Association XIII07N � .�. ; HJTA IS THE TAXPAYERS'RESOURCE Contribute You are receiving this email because you subscribed on the HJTA website, or you provided your address in response to direct maiL Please see the bottom of this message to unsubscribe. HJTA AND CENTRAL COAST TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION FILE COMPLAINT AGAINST ILLEGAL ELECTIONEERING BY SAN LUIS OBISPO GOVERNMENTS Taxpayer dollars used to support local transportation tax in violation of law Sacramento, CA— The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Central Coast Taxpayers Association today (18) announced they have filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) alleging campaign reporting violations of the Political Reform Act by the County of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and the Yes on Measure J Committee, a committee primarily formed to support San Luis Obispo County Measure J-16, the so-called Self Help Local Transportation Tax measure on the November 8, 2016 ballot. The complaint alleges that the Respondents violated campaign reporting laws by failing to report County and SLOCOG nearly a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars by the County and SLOCOG on promotional materials and government employee and https://mail.aoicom/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1/2 10/19/2016 HJTA fights government electioneering contractor compensation supporting Measure J as campaign contributions. The promotional materials that were sent to registered voters of San Luis Obispo County taken in context unambiguously urge voters to support Measure J and were not informational only. The government employee and contractor compensation was for engaging in coordinated Yes on Measure J messaging with Yes on J Committee leaders in appearances before numerous San Luis Obispo County civic organizations at which organizational endorsements of Yes on Measure J were sought. HJTA and CCTA are being represented by Chuck Bell of the law firm Bell McAndrews & Hiltachk which specializes in California political law. HJTA is California's largest taxpayer advocacy organization. In addition to protecting Proposition 13, HJTA has prevailed in numerous lawsuits against government entities which have wrongfully spent taxpayer money for political purposes. CCTA is a San Luis Obispo County organization formed to protect San Luis Obispo County taxpayer interests. Andrea Seastrand is President of CCTA. f c? ?FL-1;0 tA.415N- Facebook Twitter Website Sign Our Petition Copyright©2016 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.All rights reserved. 621 S.Westmoreland Avenue,Suite 202,Los Angeles,CA 90005 unsubscribe from this fist update subscription preferences https l/mail.ad.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 2/2 BELL, MCAND$EWS & HILTACHK, LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 455 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 600 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95914 (916) 442-7757 FAX (916) 442-7759 www.bmhlaw.com October 4,2016 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY RECEIPT REQUESTED San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1114 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attention:Public Records Coordinator San Luis Obispo County Counsel • Government Center 1055 Monterey Street, Suite D320 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Attention: Public Records Coordinator San Luis Obispo County Registrar-Recorder Government Center _ 1055 Monterey Street, Suite D120 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Attention: Public Records Re: Public Records Act Request Dear Madam or Sir: This letter is to request access to records in the possession of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments for the purpose of inspection and copying pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Gov. Code, §§6250, et seq.) The information that I ask to inspect and copy is as follows: 1. All public and documents' from January 1,2015 to the present date, Documents include"any handwriting,typewriting,printing,photostating,photographing,photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile,and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation,including letters,words,pictures,sounds,or symbols,or combinations thereof,and any record thereby created,regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored,"including written or electronic spreadsheets,power point presentations,chats and graphs, polling surveys,polling data. public Records Act Request • October 4,2016 Page 2 . October 4,2016,relat ' SLO-COG's planning, consideration, adoption, promotion of apprry o Measure J(2016)by local jurisdictions,including Arroyo Grande,Atascadero, Grover Beach,Morro Bay,Paso Robles,San Luis Obispo and related to the Self-Help Transportation Tax Measure now known as County Measure J. 2. All public and private documents garTranuary 1, 2015 to the present date, October 3,2016, January I,2013 to the present date, October 4, 2016,-that are requests for proposals, contracts and correspondence between SLO-COG and any bidders or bid awardees for contracts related to consulting,planning,polling, analysis of polling,related to the planning, consideration, adoption and promotion of approval of the Self Help Transportation Tax Measure now identified as County Measure J. 3. All public and private2 documents from June 30, 2015 to the present date, October 4, 2016, (a)between SLO-COG,its officers, directors,employees and consultants, including Ron DeCarli--Executive Director SLOCOG; James Worthley-- Regional Planning Division Chief SLOCOG; and Kendall Flint-- SLOCOG Consultant; and(b)between such SLO-COG personnel identified in 3 (a) and the following individuals: Jorge Aguilar—Wallace Group, Chair Of the Yes on J Committee; Clint Pearce—President,Madonna Enterprises Yes on J; John Wallace—President,Wallace Group; and Jeff Eckles—Executive Director,Home Builders Association of the Central Coast Yes on J. 4. All public and private documents from June 30, 2015 to the present date, October 4,2016, of SLO-COG related to the Yes on Measure J campaign,or between SLO-COG officers, directors, employees and consultants and the following identified Yes on Measure J committee officers, directors,principal officers, treasurer and campaign consultants,including Jorge Aguilar—Wallace Group, Chair Of the Yes on J Committee; Clint Pearce—President,Madonna Enterprises Yes on J; John Wallace—President,Wallace Group; and Jeff Eckles—Executive Director,Home Builders Association of the Central Coast Yes on J;Wayne Johnson Agency;Wayne Johnson, Consultant; and Tim Rosales,Consultant. 5. All public and private documents from June 30,2015 to the present date,October 4,2016, of SLO-COG(a)related to the inclusion of Attachment A,in the Special Measure J Supplemental Ballot Pamphlet from Registar of Voters of San Luis Obispo County to voters concerning, or(b)between County Counsel Rita L.Neal, County Registrar-Recorder Tommy Gong and SLO-COG officers, directors, employees and consultants and the following identified Yes on Measure J 2"Private documents"include communications of the identified person by means of private correspondence or through the use of private email accounts of the identified person that include communications related to the person's public agency responsibilities. 1 public Records Act Request October 4,2016 Page 3 committee officers, directors,principal officers,treasurer, and campaign consultants,including Jorge Aguilar—Wallace Group,Chair Of the Yes on J Committee; Clint Pearce—President,Madonna Enterprises Yes on J;John Wallace—President,Wallace Group; and Jeff Eckles—Executive Director,Home Builders Association of the Central Coast Yes on J. 6. All public and private documents from July 1,2016 to the present date,October 4, 2016, (a) of SLO-COG, or (b)between SLO-COG officers,directors, employees and consultants and the Yes on Measure J committee officers,principal officers, treasurer, or related to the organization, scheduling,planning, or coordination of presentations between SLO-COG and the Yes on Measure J committee,made to community organizations and groups,including but not limited to city councils, trade associations such as the San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau,civic associations such as Rotary Clubs, Jaycees, and Elks Lodges,Women's clubs,the League of Women Voters,university Women's groups. 7. All communications from Yes on Measure J to SLO-COG,its officers,directors, employees and consultants related to coordination of campaign messages at such meetings described in paragraph 5. The above request reasonably describes identifiable records or information produced therefrom, and I believe that there exist no express provisions of law exempting the record(s)from disclosure. Please note that Government Code section 6253 stipulates that you have ten(10) days from the receipt of this request to notify me as to whether you are in possession of any of the above requested records. Pursuant to section 6253, I ask that you make the record(s)"promptly available," for inspection and copying,based on my payment of "fees covering direct costs of duplication,or a statutory fee if applicable." Please also contact me when you have determined the cost of duplication. If a portion of the information I have requested is exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, Government Code section 6253 additionally requires segregation and deletion of material in order that the remainder of the information may be released. If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of the material I have requested, Government Code section 6253 requires notification to me of the reasons for the determination not later than 10 days after your receipt of this request. f *Public Records Act Request '`� October 4,2016 Page 4 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or require additional information at the address above. I e , yours, -harles H. Bell, Jr. CHB/cfd RECEIVED OCT 2 5.2016• CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BELLE MER DEVELOPMENTS, LLC .998 Huston Street, Suite C` Grover Beach, CA 93433 October 25,2016 City of Arroyo Grande City Clerk 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande,-CA 93420 RE: City Council Hearing October 11,2016 and October 25,2016; Building Moratorium Pending Resolution;Request to have letter to be placed on the record. Dear Mayor, Council Members and Staff; This letter is in response to Council's October 11, 2016 building moratorium discussions and proposed resolution. We request this be submitted to all Council Members and staff and to be included on the record. We further request that this matter be continued so you can consider the comments contained herein. Belle Mer Developments,LLC is the property owner and developer of Tract 3054 located on Ash Street in Arroyo Grande. Belle Mer purchased the property and entitlements for 7 residential Iots from the prior developer closing on July 1,2016 after the final•map was recorded on June 6, 2016. The improvement agreement for the final map was assigned to Belle Mer by Council and Belle Mer posted the required security. The Bureau of Real Estate issued a Final Subdivision Public Report for the project on June 10;2016. The staff report prepared for the City Council hearing on October 11th recommended adopting Building Restrictions(Moratorium). At page 10 of the report the first recommendation was to allow"Existing planning permit applications deemed complete as'of the date of a Resolution imposing the building moratorium would be processed and building permits issued for those projects." Under this recommendation,Tract 3054 would be allowed'to proceed to completion. - However,-during the Council's discussion,several.questions were posed'as to whether- there were other steps during the process beyond the"application deemed complete" stage through to the issuance of a building permit that could be,further restricted or The comment from City Attorney Whitman'was that they could not legally consider restricting Vesting Tentative Maps but all else would be under the Council's discretion. At this point Council members asked staff about specific,projects and whether they were vested,and the Community development Director Teresa McClish responded C; Lb virtdOr ?t).) t,elai r&:t"_} Ai-lorrij , • - accordingly. First,the Courtland project was stated to have a vesting map and building permits had been pulled. Second,the East Cherry Creek project was brought up and it was stated to have received a vesting tentative map approval only the week before. When asked if there were any other projects in pipeline McClish did not mention any other projects. Councilman Guthrie then asked about the Ash Street project and McClish responded affirmatively that the project has a vested map. Despite Council members inquiry to staff,there was no further discussion about other project stages beyond the application stage, such as the recording of a fmal map or substantial investment, that might be appropriate to allow to continue to completion. Theseconsiderations are well within the Council discretion. Belle Mer requests that the building moratorium matter be continued for the following reasons. 1. At the hearing the Council deviated substantially and arbitrarily from the recommendations of staff with regard to a building moratorium. The difference between the recommendation of being allowed to continue to completion as being when the "application is deemed complete"and an approved vested tentative map removes all consideration for those small projects that were approved several years ago with a recorded final map and substantial investments made in land costs,engineering, studies, reports, and other soft costs. Neither staff nor council gave any deference or consideration to these projects that are well underway. Tract 3054 was not a vesting tentative map but it is now a final map, security has been posted,plans have been prepared, substantial fees have been paid,costs have been incurred and loans for construction are in place accruing interest each day. Ms. McClish mistakenly stated this was a vested map when it is not and as such the status of this project and those in similar position,if any, were not a part of any discussions at the Council hearing. To now not allow these projects to go forward is discriminatory since this is a discretionary decision under the Water Code and not mandatory. Further it causes a great hardship to a property owner at this late stage of development. 2. The City Attorney stated that any vested tentative maps are off limits with regard to building moratorium or restrictions. Only the week previous,the planning commission approved a vested map application for 80 residential units. This comes ata time Council is considering a full moratorium on building. Here is a new project in its infancy with little money spent being given preference over projects that have been approved, fmal maps recorded and significant costs spent. The decision to restrict development under the Water Code is discretionary and to allow vested tentative maps to continue to completion without allowing those projects far more advanced in the development process to continue is discriminatory. - 3. We disagree with the City Attorney's position that there is no discretion to impose restrictions on vested rights. A City may apply new regulations on the developer who holds a vested map if it is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public (see tf Gov. Code sections 65865 and 66498). The City is imposing the building moratorium andotherrestrictions under Water Code Chapter Three entitled"Water Shortage Emergencies"(350-359). By its very language this code states a health and safety emergency certainly giving the City authority to impair vested rights that are acquired by vesting tentative maps. As such if the City declares a Stage 1 water shortage emergency no preference-should be given to those with vested maps. The Council should also consider Gov. Code section 65961 which does provide protections to a final map for 5 years after the recordation of a final map. Case law has compared this language with that in Gov. Code conferring vested rights on a tentative map. 4. There was no opportunity to respond on the record after the Council posed this arbitrary and inequitable restriction. Council took a vote to impose a building moratorium not discussed in the staff report and not contemplated at other hearings. Because of the length of the hearing Council adjourned without public comment as to the posed. resolution. It isourposition that further discussion needs to take place. Belle Mer understands the issues the City and State faces with regard to water. However, to impose unpublished and new restrictions that have devastating outcomes for those who have invested and committed so much time,effort and money with no regard to their position in the development process at all, is not fair and completely unjust. We ask the City to confer with Community Development to ascertain those projects, such as Tract 3054,that have gone completely through the application process, have been approved, submitted studies and.reports,paid fees,have construction plans,posted security,have secured and incurred construction lending,received a public report from the state and recorded a final map. And further we ask the Council to act within their discretion and allow advancedprojectsother than those with a vesting tentative map to continue to completion. If it does not,Belle Mer will suffer undue hardship.It is our position that if the City does not give the same consideration to these projects it will be acting arbitrarily and in a discriminating and selective manner with regard which projects go forward. We request you take the above in consideration prior to approving a resolution. If you have any questions please contact me through counsel at 805-994-1841. Bell Mer Deyeiopuie LLC - -- -- Warren Sanders,.- Ta ger. Cc: Pamela Denney,Esq. 7