These notes are based on a conversation, reported by e-mail, between two retired Carson City officials. (Emphasis added for clarity.)

Petition

“He explained a petition is nothing more than an expression.”

“it has no actual legal bearing.  [It does] substantiate collective opinion however, and parties or agencies do take notice. ”

“Avoid an informal appearance, such a handwritten document and for example; written on yellow legal tablet paper.  Assure the points made are accurate.   This suggests the objections may not be accurate until the full plan is submitted to the planning commission.  A single petition, rather than multiples ones suffices, in that suspicion arises concerning individuals signing repeatedly.  An internet petition would lack merit by officials.”

Initiative

“an initiative [is] to change the city charter, or, in matter of the state, to affect state statute.”

“Review the requirements set by state law.  Have the document and points written specifically to the issue. Assure the signatures are numbered, addresses given, and date of signature.”

Note that one of the requirements of state law for a ballot initiative is a minimum signature count based on the number of voters registered for the last election, and that the signers of a ballot initiative must be currently registered voters (and signatures will be verified by the elections department).

 

In light of this advice, we can only conclude that

(1) At this time we should not be considering a ballot initiative.

(2) The internet petition (at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/andersen-ranch-community-park-initiative) is problematic.

Even a petition has to address specific issues. Even a petition is NOT addressed to the signers; it is addressed to the officials to whom it’s intended to be presented. And therefore a petition, too, has to lay out specifics of the facts and remedy that we seek.

For that reason, I propose starting another petition, more formally written, dated and signed by hand in ink, including name, address and phone number so the signatures can be spot-checked for validity.

TUTORIAL

I. IDENTIFY THE ENTITIES TO WHOM THE PETITION IS ADDRESSED

Community Development Department
Planning Commission
Board of Supervisors

2. IDENTIFY THE PROJECT IN QUESTION

This petition relates to the development called The Vintage At Kings Canyon as described in CPUD 16-009, located on parcels 001-131-01, 007-573-04, 007- 573-05, and 009-012-02, a total of 128.4 acres collectively and colloquially known as the Andersen Ranch.

3. LAY OUT THE RELEVANT FACTS

  1. Where As this location is currently a vacant field that is home to a rich array of wildlife, both resident and migratory;
  2. Where As this location is an active flood zone with two “one hundred year” floods is just the past to decades;
  3. Where As this location is the site of an old US Army fort ……., and of the Washoe village ……. that surrounded the fort;
  4. Where As no environmental impact, archeological/historical or other studies have been published (therefore presumed to have been performed) to address these and similar issues on this location, as part of the plans for developing it as proposed in the CPUD;
  5. Where As the details of the proposed development represent a radical departure from the neighborhood character and quality of life considerations enshrined in the current Master Plan and zoning for this location and its neighborhood; to wit
  6. The current zoning of the Andersen Ranch is SF6, SF12 and SF1A, depending on the specific parcel,
  7. The current zoning is consistent with the zoning of the surrounding neighborhoods within many hundreds of feet on the periphery of the Andersen Ranch; that is, the entire length of Winnie Lane, Long Street, Washington Street, Kings Canyon Road, Ash Canyon Road, Ormsby Boulevard and Mountain  Street consists of single family homes;
  8. This development proposes to change the zoning to mixed-use, multi-family apartment, with rental properties on on SF3 lots and for-sale properties on SF5, SF8, SF10, SF12 and a few SF35 lots, respectively, as explained in the CPUD cited above;
  9. Where As the proposed development represents a significant extra strain on Carson City’s infrastructure and essential services, as explained in the informal review document CPUD-16-009 Conceptual Subdivision Map Review;
  10. Where As there is overwhelming community interest in preserving this last piece of open space on this side of Carson City;

4. TELL THEM WHAT YOU WANT

Therefore we the undersigned petitioners respectfully demand that the Community Development Department, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of Carson City

  1. Reject The Vintage PUD as proposed;
  2. Revert to zoning this property as it was before 2002;
  3. Initiate the necessary studies and plans to acquire and convert this property to a (open space as defined in …….) (Planned Regional Park as defined in …….) (Community Park as defined in …….) (other ….)

5. COLLECT SIGNATURES

(signatures from the neighbors)

(signatures from “dignitaries”)

(signatures from the general public)