Pelfrey v. San Luis Obispo Cty. Bd. of Supers. CA2/6

Filed 7/24/13 Pelfrey v. San Luis Obispo Cty. Bd. of Supers. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

WILLIAM A. PELFREY, 2d Civil No. B241420 (Super. Ct. No. CV110628A) Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Defendant and Respondent.

Here we uphold the validity of an ordinance adopted by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors (the Board) redistricting supervisorial districts following the 2010 census. William A. Pelfrey appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of administrative mandate that would direct the County of San Luis Obispo to rescind the ordinance on the ground that it does not equally divide the population between districts and unnecessarily divides the unincorporated community of Templeton and the City of San Luis Obispo, thereby diluting the rural vote. We conclude the Board proceeded in the manner required by Elections Code section 21500 when it adopted Ordinance No. 3218, amending chapter 2.60 of the County Code, and the deviation from equality of population was within the limits of the discretion given to the Board. 1 Accordingly, we affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Elections Code unless otherwise stated.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND County of San Luis Obispo (County), like all California counties, consists of five supervisorial districts. The Board must adjust the districts following each federal decennial census “so that the districts shall be as nearly equal in population as may be.” (§ 21500.) The Board may also consider secondary criteria--“(a) topography, (b) geography, (c) cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory, and (d) community of interests of the districts.” (Ibid.) The 2010 census established that County’s population had increased by about 10 percent to a total of 262,192, resulting in an 18 percent deviation between the least and most populous districts. The population had increased mainly in District 1 in the north and District 4 in the south. To achieve population equality, Districts 1 and 4 had to cede population. The Board considered a variety of redistricting options, including one Pelfrey developed with help of County staff, “Option C.” After extensive public hearings and outreach, the Board rejected Option C, and adopted “Option B-2” as Ordinance No. 3218. Based on the new population figure (262,192), the “ideal” 20 percent population for each of the five districts would be 52,438. Under the ordinance (Option B-2), District 1 exceeds that number by 1,218 with 20.46 percent of County’s population in its district. The population allocation is: Ordinance No. 3218 (Option B-2) District Population % of total population % variation from ideal District 1 53,656 20.46% 0.46 District 2 51,399 19.60% 0.40 District 3 52,404 19.99% 0.01 District 4 52,842 20.15% 0.15 District 5 51,907 19.80% 0.20 Option B-2 preserves all of the Templeton Community Services District and Urban Reserve Line within District 1, but it places 15 percent of the Templeton Unified School District in District 5. It also extends District 5 across the Cuesta Grade to include