Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2004, BUS 9 - REFERENDUM PETITIONS REGARDING DALIDIO-SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE PROJECT council Mtig D� j acEnba Repoat `�N=bw 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Audrey Hooper, City C1erod Jonathan Lowell, City Attomey,,e SUBJECT: REFERENDUM PETITIONS REGARDING DALIDIO-SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE PROJECT CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the Certificates of Results for two referendum petitions related to Ordinances Nos. 1449 and 1452 (2004 Series) regarding the Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace project.. 2. Consider three options for conducting a special election: polling place, all-mail ballot, or a combination of polling place and mail ballot. 3. Review options for election timing; and set an election date. 4. Depending upon the options chosen, direct staff to take other appropriate actions as outlined in the agenda report. REPORT IN BRIEF Council directed staff to pursue options for conducting a special election required upon certification of the sufficiency of three referendum petitions submitted to the City Clerk related to the Dalidio- .San Luis Obispo Marketplace project. Information regarding three methods of conducting the special election has been provided. Those methods are a traditional polling place election, an all mail ballot election, and combined mail ballot/polling place election. Costs for each method and possible dates for conducting a special election have also been included. Staff has provided additional information about the all mail ballot election option because it is an option that is less familiar. While staff has attempted to provide the Council with adequate information upon which to make a decision, no specific staff recommendation is being made regarding the method of voting since determining this requires the consideration of matters that are best weighed by the Council. Whichever method is chosen, however, the CAO suggests that an earlier timeframe would be advantageous in terms of resolving the issue. A number of implementing actions are required in connection with whichever option and timeframe are chosen. This report details those added actions and, for each option, provides the associated resolutions that must be adopted in order to move forward with an election. — 1 Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Merketplace_Project Page 2 DISCUSSION Background On September 21, 2004, Council received the City Clerk's Certificate of Results of a Referendum Petition (Petition No. 1) against Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) upholding an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a proposed General Plan Amendment for the Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace project. Elections Code section 9241 requires that, upon the certification of sufficiency of a referendum petition, Council either rescind its earlier action approving. Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) or submit the resolution to the voters at the next regular municipal election or at a special election. Council deferred action on Petition No. 1 because two additional referendum petitions related to the San Luis Obispo Marketplace project were in process on September 20: Petition No. 2 against Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), approval of a prezoning and preliminary development plan, and Petition No. 3 against Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), approving a Development Agreement. In addition to addressing all the petitions at the same time, at its September 21" meeting, the Council also directed staff to return with additional information related to mail ballot elections. This agenda report follows up on that direction. Certificates of Results of Referendum Petitions Petition No. 2 against Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series) was submitted to the City Clerk on September I". The prima facie' review of Petition No. 2 was completed on September 9th. Following completion of signature verification, Petition No. 2 was certified as sufficient by the City Clerk on October 26, 2004 (Attachment 1). Petition No. 3 against Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) was submitted to the City Clerk on September 15th. The prima facie review of Petition No. 3 was completed on September 24th. This petition was certified as sufficient by the City Clerk on November 5, 2004, following completion of signature verification (Attachment 2). Elections Issues The City of San Luis Obispo has made it a practice to contract with the County Registrar of Voters for assistance in the conduct of its municipal elections. However, the Registrar of Voters has indicated to staff that the earliest possible date that the County will be able to provide assistance for a special election would be the first Tuesday in November 2005. In order to provide Council with other alternatives, staff has been pursuing several options to ensure the conduct of an election that will a) draw as large a voter turnout as possible, b) maintain the highest level of integrity, and c) be as economically feasible as possible. With those objectives in t Elections Code section 9113 directs that a prima facie(on its face) review be conducted upon submission of a petition to ensure the number of signatures exceeds the minimum number required. Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 3 mind, staff has gathered the following information to assist Council in providing the appropriate direction. 1) Voter Registration and Turnout At its September 21, 2004, meeting, several Council Members discussed the importance of holding an election that will draw the largest voter turnout possible. It was noted that special elections do not typically draw as many voters as other elections. In light of this discussion, staff is providing the following information to assist Council in determining which type of election will best meet its goals related to voter turnout. Registration The following chart compares the percentage of registered voters of the voting age population in the City of San Luis Obispo with the percentage of registered voters statewide for those years in which presidential elections were held. % Of Votin A e Population Registered to Vote Year State San Luis Obispo 1992 72% 77% 1996 800/0 78% 2000 73% 72% 2004 75% 79% Turnout Voter turnout can be driven by a number of variables, including whether the election is consolidated with other local, statewide, or federal elections or whether it is a special election involving a single jurisdiction. Turnout for a ballot measure election also varies depending on the nature of the ballot measure. For example, in April 1991, the City of San Luis Obispo held a special, stand-alone election involving four ballot measures. Voter turnout in San Luis Obispo for the 1991 election was 36%. Four ballot measures were presented to the voters at that election: a referendum measure related to the repeal of Tract 1750 (Islay Hill/Arbors), a measure related to water rationing, a Charter Amendment moving the General Municipal Election date from November of odd years to November of even years, and a measure related to the City's participation in the State Water Project. Voter turnout in San Luis Obispo for the regular election held.in November 1992 was 81%. The ballot for this election included the offices of President/Vice President and other federal/state/county offices and measures, Mayor and City Council candidates for the City of San Luis Obispo and one City ballot measure. The ballot measure was a referendum to repeal a Water Supply Agreement, a Water Treatment and Local Facilities Agreement, and action authorizing participation in the State Water Project previously taken by the City Council. Additional information regarding the history of voter turnout in the City of San Luis Obispo is included in Attachment 3. 9 - 3 I t Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 4 2)Integrity of Election Process The concern about the possibility of voter fraud has been increasing nationwide. However, according to the County Registrar of Voters, while there have been isolated complaints regarding voter registration and/or signatures on petitions, there is no evidence of voter fraud in the County either for the traditional polling place elections or the recent Los Osos mail ballot election. There is a more rigorous voter verification process for mail ballot elections than for polling place elections. This is because, with.few exceptions, State law prohibits polling place workers from checking voter identification at the polling place. While voters are required to sign a log prior to being issued a ballot at the polling place, their signatures are not checked against original registration affidavits. In a mail ballot election, signatures are required on all returned ballots. Voter signatures are then verified by matching them against voter registration cards. In addition, each returned ballot is accounted for by address and name to eliminate any possibility of duplicate votes. While it is important not to dismiss the possibility of fraud by third parties, such fears were not realized in the cities and agencies conducting mail ballot elections in California. Concerns have been expressed that a mail ballot election may eliminate the secret ballot and/or increase the possibility of undue influence. The dramatic increase in absentee voting would seem to indicate this concern on the part of the voters is minimal. Attachment 4 provides a comparison of the trend in absentee voting in California from 1962 until March 2004. In an effort to deter voter fraud in the State of California, laws are in place that make it a felony to attempt to commit, commit, or aid or abet an act of voter fraud. c) Economic Issues Elections Contractor The City Clerk's office is not staffed to conduct an election without the assistance of the County Registrar of Voters or some other similar resource. Tasks involved in conducting an election include, in part: 1) Locating vendors qualified and prepared to print approximately 30,000 sample ballot pamphlets, various types of envelopes (return, provisional ballot, outgoing absentee voter), absentee voter instructions, and the ballots themselves (requiring a vendor certified by the Secretary of State's office). 2) Locating vendors that provide precinct supplies and equipment. 3) Locating elections officers (typically four to five per precinct). 4) Preparing and printing guidelines and rosters for elections officers, and providing the required election officers training. 5) Locating polling places. 6) Obtaining and affixing approximately 30,000 address labels. a - 4 Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 5 7) Checking signatures on absentee ballot applications and absentee ballot envelopes for a traditional polling place election, or on ballot envelopes for an all mail, or combined mail ballot/polling place election. The County Registrar of Voters office has advised staff that it will be unable to assist in the conduct of a special election for the City of San Luis Obispo until November 2005. To ensure the proper functioning of a special election conducted without the assistance of the San Luis Obispo Registrar of Voters, it will be imperative for the City to contract with an elections firm that has both a high level of expertise and a high level of integrity. The firm of Martin & Chapman is the primary elections contractor in the State of California. This firm provides elections services, supplies and guidance to more than 400 cities; counties, districts, organizations and associations within the State, and has done so for more than thirty years. The City Clerk's office has received eighteen written references for this firm. Copies of these references are in the Council's reading file. If the Council establishes an election date at a time when the County Registrar of Voters is unable to assist with a special election, we recommend authorizing the CAO to enter into an agreement for election services with Martin &Chapman. Election Costs If an election date is established in this fiscal year, an additional action that the Council will need to take is to appropriate funds from the General Fund unreserved fund balance to cover the costs of a special election. Estimated costs for different types of voting methods, using the services of an elections contractor, are as follows: Traditional Polling Place $73,844 All Mail Ballot with a.Drop-off'Center at City Hall: $56,152 Combination of Mail Ballot with Four Polling Places: $59,192 If Council defers the election until November 2005, the County Registrar of Voters will be able to assist with the conduct of this election. At this time, the Registrar of Voters office is only able to provide a preliminary estimate: Traditional Polling Place Election $59,721 An estimate for a mail ballot election is not available from the Registrar of Voters office since the Registrar has indicated that she will not conduct a November election by mail based on the fact that the County doesn't have the flexibility that a Charter city does. The estimate for the elections contractor to conduct a traditional polling place election is significantly higher than that provided by the County Registrar of Voters. This is due, in part, by the need for the rental and transportation before and after the election of equipment and precinct supplies, including voting booths, ballot boxes, and a ballot counter. In addition, Martin &. Chapman Company provides the equipment operators and additional staff to run the equipment and assist in overseeing election night tasks. The City Clerk's staff is investigating options to reduce the cost of an election if it is conducted with the assistance of the elections contractor, including: Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 6 a. Further reducing the number of precincts for a traditional polling place election. Elections Code Section 12241 authorizes the consolidation of precincts for local, special elections. The County Registrar of Voters office has established 26 precincts in the City for consolidated elections. The above estimate for a traditional polling place election is based on 15 precincts. It may be feasible to further reduce them to 10. b. Having a local printer print the sample ballots. If an election date is established that will preclude the City from contracting with the Registrar of Voters office for the conduct of the election, additional costs will be incurred by the City Clerk's office. These costs include publications of legal notices, voter outreach, extra temporary staff, an additional telephone line dedicated to the election, overtime for the City Clerk's staff, miscellaneous expenses and contingencies. The need for additional assistance will exist regardless of whether a traditional polling place or mail ballot, or combination mail ballot/polling place election is held. Preliminary estimates indicate those costs could be as high as $36,000.? If the election is not held in the current fiscal year; staff will proceed with budgeting accordingly in the next financial plan. Election Options 1) Traditional Polling Place Special Election Advantages/Disadvantages Elections in the City of San Luis Obispo have generally been conducted using the traditional polling place method. Voters in the City are used to having the option of going to a polling place to cast their votes, and, therefore, this option is widely understood and accepted. Becduse fraud has not been an issue in San Luis Obispo, it is difficult to know how many of the voters may experience a higher degree of comfort voting in a polling booth. Nevertheless, this may be one of the advantages of holding a traditional polling place election. At this time, there are more than 9,000 permanent absentee voters in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Registrar of Voters anticipates at least 11,000 by November 2005, or about 30% of all registered voters. This creates the unintended consequence of conducting two different types of elections. It becomes necessary to establish different procedures and processes for those who vote at the polls versus those who vote absentee. The traditional polling place method is also 2 question arose at the last meeting as to whether the full text of the ballot measures will be published in the voter information pamphlet. The estimates provided previously do not include the cost of publication of the entire text of each ballot measure. Staff has obtained preliminary estimates for printing the full text in the pamphlet ranging from $16,000 to $35,000. As a result, staff is proposing that language be included in the ballot pamphlet indicating that the full text of each measure will be available on the City's website as well in the City Clerk's office. In consulting with the Registrar of Voters and other cities faced with a ballot measures as extensive as those at issue here, staff found that this has been the standard procedure. In addition,staff will pursue other options for advising the public of the availability of the full text of the measures. ` t-f' Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 7 less likely to improve turnout and thus the election "cost per voter" may be higher than other options. The higher cost of a traditional polling place election is one of the disadvantages during a time when the City is faced with a challenging fiscal situation. 2) All Mail Ballot Special Election This option is growing.in use, either as a direct methodology, or indirectly as a result of the increasing use of absentee ballot voting. Because this method is less well understood, it is described in greater detail in this report than a traditional polling place election. Authority to Conduct a Mail Ballot Election The City Attorney advises that an all mail ballot election is permissible under the City Charter. Article III (Municipal Elections), Section 301 of the Charter provides: "Unless otherwise provided by ordinance hereinafter enacted, all elections shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended." Section 301 grants the Council authority by ordinance to adopt election procedures that vary from the requirements of the Elections Code. Section 304 of the Charter pertains to initiatives, referenda and recalls, and provides the state Elections Code governs these matters insofar as the provisions of the Elections Code are not in conflict with the Charter. As the Charter allows the Council to, by ordinance, enact rules that vary from the Elections Code, it follows that the Council may by ordinance enact rules governing initiatives, referenda and recalls that vary from the Elections Code. Not to allow the Council to exercise this authority would be in conflict with the language of Section 301 of the Charter. A Brief History Mail ballot elections were first authorized in the California's Election Code in 1976 with limitations to special districts. In 1977, Monterey County was the first county to hold a mail ballot special district election for 45,000 registered voters, followed by San Diego County, which held a mail ballot district election involving 72,000 registered voters, and Los Angeles County involving 90,000 registered voters. In 1981, the City of San Diego held the largest mail ballot election to date in the United States. In the case of each of the jurisdictions holding mail ballot elections, there appeared to be a significant increase in voter turnout and decrease in the cost of the election. A report on "The City of San Diego Mail Ballot Election Experience" prepared by then City Clerk Charles Abdelnour, along with back-up materials, is available in the Council's reading file. In 1992, the State legislature enacted a mail ballot pilot program in Stanislaus and Placer Counties. Prior to that time, the City of Modesto, because of its Charter status, had already conducted several mail ballot elections for 90,000 of its registered voters. In 1993, the City of Modesto conducted its regular Council election by mail. The majority of the other cities and agencies within the County also conducted their elections by mail. Voter turnout in the City of Modesto increased from 28.8% to 44.4% for similar elections. The overall county turnout q -9 Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 8 increased from 19% to 44.2%. The cost of Modesto's election decreased dramatically. The total cost of the mail ballot election was $43,445 ($.53 per voter). The same election would have cost almost $102,000 ($1.25 per voter) if it had been conducted as a traditional polling place election. Detailed information regarding Modesto's experiences with mail ballot elections and a Stanislaus County report to the State Legislature are available in the Council's reading file. Other successful mail ballot elections have also been held in California, including the Cities of Berkeley, Burbank, Fairfield, Napa, Seal Beach and Santa Cruz County. A number of states, including Colorado, Oregon (which has used the mail ballot system extensively), Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, and Washington, have used mail ballot systems. Included in the Council's reading file is information regarding Mail Ballot Elections in Colorado and Oregon, and a paper by Rachel Hams, California Research Bureau, published in 1999 entitled "Voting-by-Mail:. A Look at Modernizing the Electoral System." In her paper, Ms. Hams notes that "All election officials who have conducted all-mail-ballot elections agree that vote-by-mail always increases voter turnout." All-mail-ballot elections are not without their problems. Local resident Kent Taylor has previously provided to Council an article on this subject. A copy of that article is included in the Council's reading file. The article discusses, in part, such issues as voter turnout relative to voter registration, how cost savings are defined, and the potential for increased fraud.. Advantages/Disadvantages Without fail, one of the advantages cited in other cities that have conducted mail ballot elections has been the increase in voter participation. Given the voting history of residents in the City of San Luis Obispo, it is unclear whether a mail ballot election in this community will, indeed, substantially increase the voter turnout. Another advantage of an all-mail ballot election is the cost savings that may result from the elimination of the need for polling place equipment and precinct workers on Election Day. Thus, even if turnout only increases modestly, the election cost-per-voter may decrease more substantially. If Council directs staff to conduct this type of election, we recommend establishing a drop-off center at City Hall as an option for those voters who prefer to vote at a polling place or may consider a mail ballot election confusing and/or a disadvantage of some kind. 3) Mail Ballot Special Election with Polling Places An advantage to this type of "hybrid" election method is that the number of precincts can be greatly reduced, while at the same time providing voters who prefer to vote at a polling place the opportunity of doing so. If Council directs staff to conduct this type of election, we recommend placing a minimum of four polling places/return centers in strategic geographic locations throughout the City. (It may be interesting to note that although the City of Napa established four return centers for its voters during its March 1997 election, 91% of the ballots returned during that election were mailed. Voter participation in this election was 44%. The average turnout for stand alone elections was 38%. A copy of the City Clerk's follow=up report to the Napa City Council is included in the Council's reading file.) G O Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace.Project Page 9 Perhaps the greatest advantage to this type of election is the reduction in costs as a result of reducing the number of polling places, equipment, and precinct workers needed. A disadvantage could result if a higher than anticipated number of voters chose to vote at a polling place, thus causing a bottleneck. In addition, there may be some confusion on the part of people accustomed to the usual voting method. Election Dates In accordance with Elections Code 9241, the Council may either submit the petitions to the voters at the next regular municipal election or establish an election date that is "not less than 88 days after the order" to hold an election. The next regular general municipal election is scheduled for November 7, 2006. In addition to the November 2006 option, Council may also choose to hold the special election in November 2005. Typically elections are held on the first Tuesday, after the first Monday, in November (November 8th). If Council directs that the special election be held on this date, we recommend contracting with the County Registrar of Voters office for the conduct of this election. However, in order to avoid prolonged community divisiveness and to abide by the "spirit" of the referendum process, which is to provide the community with a timely opportunity to reconsider a City Council decision, staff recommends holding a special election in Spring 2005. With that in mind, in addition to the November 2005 and 2006 dates, the following dates are being presented for consideration. While the Elections Code does not restrict Council from holding a special election on another day, because elections are typically held on Tuesdays, staff has only provided dates which fall on Tuesdays. March 22, 2005 March 29, 2005 April 26, 2005 May 10, 2005 A number of elections throughout the State are being held during the period of time between February and April 2005. As a result, the availability of elections equipment and services through a contractor is limited. The dates listed above are those for which there is no conflict in obtaining the required equipment or services of the elections contractor. Another consideration is the League of Cities City Council-City Manager Team Building Workshop, which in 2005 will be offered either April 27-29 or May 18-20. Staff would not recommend an election date of February 15th because of its proximity to the recent November election and the preparation time required fora special election. Additionally, Council may want to take into consideration spring breaks: q -1 Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 10 ■ Cal Poly's spring break is scheduled for March 22nd through the 27th.. ■ San Luis Coastal Unified School District's break is March 28th through April 1st. ■ Cuesta Colleges spring break begins March 28th and ends on April 2nd. Given all of these considerations — sufficient planning time, elections contractor availability, avoiding regular Council meeting dates, college breaks, and the League workshop — staff would suggest either the April 26 or May 10 dates (with attendance at the League workshop targeted for the May 18-20 session). Council Actions Depending upon the Council's preferred election approach, the following actions are required. 1. Traditional Polling Place Special Election prior to November 2005 (Attachment 5) a. Establish an election date and adopt a resolution calling and giving notice of the special election. b. Adopt a resolution setting priorities for filing written arguments and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. c. Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments. d. Appropriate $109,800 from the General Fund unreserved fund balance and authorize the CAO to enter into an agreement with Martin & Chapman, elections contractor, for assistance in the conduct of a special election. 2. Mail.Ballot Special.Election (Attachment 6)3 a. Introduce and adopt an ordinance related to the conduct of a mail ballot election. b. Establish an election date and adopt a resolution calling and giving notice of a special election. c. Adopt a resolution setting priorities for filing written arguments and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. d. Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments. e. Appropriate $92,200 from the General Fund unreserved fund balance and authorize the CAO to enter into an agreement with Martin & Chapman, elections contractor, for assistance in the conduct of a special election. 3. Combined Mail Ballot/Polling Place Special Election (Attachment 71 a. Introduce and adopt an ordinance related to the conduct of a combined mail ballot/polling place election. b. Establish an election date and adopt a resolution calling and giving notice of a special election. c. Adopt a resolution setting priorities for filing written arguments and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. d. Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments. 3 Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9235 (a), "An ordinance calling or otherwise relating to an election"may take effect immediately. n V1 � I � Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 11 e. Appropriate $95,200 from the General Fund unreserved fund balance and authorize the CAO to enter into an agreement with Martin & Chapman, elections contractor, for assistance in the conduct of a special election.. 4. Traditional Polling Place Special Election to be held in November 2005 (Attachment 8) a. Adopt a resolution calling and giving notice of a special election to be held on November 8, 2005. b. Adopt a resolution setting priorities for filing written arguments and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. c. Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments. d. Authorize the CAO to enter into an agreement with the San Luis Obispo Registrar of Voters for assistance in the conduct of a special election. In this case, staff will propose funds for this special election in the 2005-07 Financial Plan 5. Traditional Polling Place Special Election to be held in November 2006 (Attachment 9) a. Adopt a resolution calling and giving notice of a special election to be held on November 7, 2006. b. Adopt a resolution setting priorities for filing written arguments and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. c. Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments.. d. Authorize the CAO to enter into an agreement with the San Luis Obispo County Registrar of Voters for the conduct of a consolidated Municipal Election. In this case, staff will propose funds for this special election in the 2005-07 Financial Plan. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for a special election is not available within existing resources. Therefore, if Council sets an election date in the current fiscal year, Council will need to appropriate funds from the unreserved General Fund Balance up to $109,800, depending on the election option selected. For those options that fall in fiscal year 2005-2006 or 2006-2007 (Actions 4 and 5), no funding action is required at this time. As discussed above, in this case funding will be proposed in the 2005-07 Financial Plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council has the option of directing staff to place the ballot measures before the voters at the regular Municipal Election to be held on November 7, 2006. If Council gives this direction, Council would need to take the same actions indicated previously in the agenda report for a traditional polling place election. Staff is not, however, recommending this action for reasons explained above: to avoid prolonged community divisiveness and to abide by the "spirit" of the referendum process. 2. The Council also has the option of rescinding its earlier actions adopting Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) and Ordinances Nos. 1449 and 1452 (2004 Series). However, staff is not recommending this option since a majority of the Council has not indicated an interest in doing so. Referendum Petitions Regarding Dalidio-San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project Page 12 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 -Certificate of Results: Referendum Petition No. 2 Attachment 2 -Certificate of Results: Referendum Petition No. 3 Attachment 3 -History of Voter Turnout in the City of San Luis Obispo Attachment 4-Historical Absentee Ballot Use in California Attachment 5 -Traditional Polling Place Special Election Prior to November 2005: Resolutions Attachment 6 -Mail Ballot Special Election - Ordinance and Resolutions Attachment 7 -Combined Mail Ballot/Polling Place Special Election: Ordinance and Resolutions Attachment 8 -Traditional Polling Place Special Election November 2005: Resolutions Attachment 97 Traditional Polling Place Special Election November 2006: Resolutions COUNCIL READING FILE 1. References for Martin &Chapman Company (Elections Contractor) 2. Report: "The City of San Diego Mail Ballot Election Experience" 3. Report: "Elections by Mail" by the City of Modesto City Clerk 4. Report to the State Legislature: "All-Mail Election Pilot Project" for Stanislaus County 5. Proposed Amendment to the Colorado Statutes re Mail Ballot Elections 6. Internet Article by Mary Ann Barton Regarding Oregon's Vote-by-Mail Elections 7. California Research Bureau Report by Rachel Hams: "Voting-By-Mail: A Look at Modernizing the Electoral System" 8. Kent Taylor Letter/Internet Research Regarding All-Mail Elections 9. Napa City Clerk's Report on March 4, 1997 Mail Ballot Election GA702-01 Elections\ELECrION 2005 SPECIALWgenda ReportAl1-16-04 Referendum Report.doc ATTACHMENT 1 Certificate of Results—Referendum Petition No. 2 City of San Luis Obispo CERTIFICATE OF RESULTS OF EXAMINATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION I, AUDREY HOOPER, City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, hereby certify: 1. That a petition for a REFERENDUM AGAINST AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ORDINANCE NO. 1449 (2004 SERIES), was acknowledged as officially filed with this office on September 9, 2004. 2. That said petition consists of 123 sections with a raw count of 4,696 signatures (according to the County Elections Office). 3. That each petition section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified electors of this City. 4. 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. 5. That the 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 it purports to be. 6. That after the proponents filed this petition the signatures were verified pursuant to Elections Code Sections 9115 and 9211 by examining the records of registration in this city,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: Page I Facts A. Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent 4696 B. Number of signatures verified per Elections Code §§ 9115 and 9211 500 C. Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT 385 D. Number of signatures found INSUFFICIENT 115 E. Number insufficient because DUPLICATE 3 F. Percentage of signatures found sufficient in random sample 77% G. Percentage of sufficient signatures x total number of signatures submitted (77% x 4696) 3616 H. Total valid signatures based on random sample less weighted duplicates (216) 3400 I. Number of signatures necessary to declare petition sufficient utilizing the random sample technique (110% x 2330) 2563 THEREFORE, I hereby find this Referendum Petition to be sufficient, based on the random sample examination method prescribed by Elections Code Sections 9115 and 9211. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the City's official seal this 26 day of October 2004. Audrey Hoo er City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo Received by: GA702-01 Elections\Petition Procedures\Certificate of Sufficiency Referendum Petition 112004 r Page 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Certificate of Results—Referendum Petition No. 3 City of San Luis Obispo CERTIFICATE OF RESULTS OF EXAMINATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION I, AUDREY HOOPER, City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, hereby certify: 1. That a petition for a REFERENDUM AGAINST AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ORDINANCE NO. 1452 (2004 SERIES), was acknowledged as officially filed with this office on September 24, 2004. 2. That said petition consists of 108 sections with a raw count of 4,067 signatures (according to the County Elections Office). 3. That each petition section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified electors of this City. 4. 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. 5. That the 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 it purports to be. 6. That after the proponents filed this petition the signatures were verified pursuant to Elections Code Sections 9115 and 9211 by examining the records of registration in this city, 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: Page I I Facts A. Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent 4067 B. Number of signatures verified per Elections Code §§ 9115 and 9211 500 C. Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT 388 D. Number of signatures found INSUFFICIENT 112 E. Number insufficient because DUPLICATE 2 F. Percentage of signatures found sufficient in random sample 78% G. Percentage of sufficient signatures x total number of signatures submitted (78% x 4067) 3172 H. Total valid signatures based on random sample less weighted duplicates (112) 3060 I. Number of signatures necessary to declare petition sufficient utilizing the random sample technique (110% x 2330) 2563 THEREFORE, I hereby find this Referendum Petition to be sufficient, based on the random sample examination method prescribed by Elections Code Sections 9115 and 9211. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the City's official seal this 5th day of November 2004. Audrey Hoo r City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo Received by: GA702-01 ElecdonsTetition Procedures\Certificate of Sufficiency Referendum Petition 1112004 Page 2 i ATTACHMENT 3 History of Voter Turnout in the City of San Luis Obispo CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISeO HISTORY OF VOTER TURNOUT % of % of Turnout Turnout % of # of of Voting at Turnout Date of Registered Registered Polling Voting Type of Election Election Voters Voters Places Absentee Special/4 Measures 04/1991.S 229116 36% 83% 17% Regular/Candidates/ 1 Measure 11/1992C* 28,427 81% 81% 19% Regular/Candidates 11/1994C 259443 67% 70% 30% Regular/Candidates/ 9 Measures 11/1996C* 282082 72% 76% 24% Regular/Candidates 11/1998C 25,024 60% 59% 41% Regular/Candidates/ 2 Measures 11/2000C* 26,442 74% 66% 34% .Regula Candidates 11/2002C 249919 55% 63% 370/6 S = Special Election; C = Consolidated; * = Presidential Election COMPARISON OF VOTER TURNOUT Year State County City 1992 75% 63% 81% 1996 66% 76% 72% 2000 71% 77% 66% 2002 51% 60% 55% 2004 N/A 64% 62% G:/702-01 Elections/ELECTION 2005 Special/History of Voter Turnout in SLO 11/5/2004 9' J ATTACHMENT 4 Historical Absentee Ballot Use in California * f i • HOME ;kSf• • Y omm • (ONIACI US t ,• 1 _ !Y.LJ[:7SlL:uI:JJV r cwv.:aR.aw�"'-'moi & IOVOTTEERR Historical Absentee Ballot Use in California 8 VO INFORMATION About Elections Division. Election Results and Data was not collected for elections which indicate "Not Available." Election Dates. Register to Vote. i Vote by Mail (Absentee) Ballot Use 1962-2002 Voter Registration Statistics. PRIMARY GENERAL { Voter Information. initiatives Mail Ballots Mail Ballots VoteOutreach. Year Ballots Cast % Ballots Cast % r Political Parties. Candidate Information. 1962 Not available 1 156,167 1 5,929,602 2.63% Resources. 1964 Not available 304,858 7,233,067 4.21% Site Mag. 1966 95,993 1 5,079,911 1 1.89% 218,242 6,505,067 1 3.35% 1968 Not available 334,365 7,363,711 1 4.54% 11970 100,455 5,011,908 1 2.00% 204,143 6,633,400 1 3.08% 1x972 204,216 6,460,2201 3.16% 405,688 8,595,950 11974 159,831 5,128,375 1 3.12% Not available 1976 Not available 366,535 8,137,202 4.50% 1978 325,518 6,843,001 1 4.76% 314,258 7,132,210 4.41% 1980 343,875 1 6,774,184 1 5.08% 549,007 8,775,459 6.26% 11982 326,213 5,856,026 1 5.57% 1 525,186 8,064,314 6.51% 1984 418,1095,609,063 ) 7.45% 913,574] 9,796,375 9.33% 1986 426,133 4,937,936 1 8.63% 1 685,57747,617,142F9.00% 1988 572,057 6,037,463 1 9.48% 11,434,853110,194,539714.07% 1990 808,838 5,386,537 115.1 7,899,131 ( 18.38% Cl 'C 1993 Not applicable 1,156,214 1 5,282,443 1 21.89% 1994 1,011,563 4,966,827 1 20.37% 1 2,009,643 1 8,900,636 1 22.58% 1996 1,415,176 6,081,777 1 23.27% 1 2,078,065 10,263,490 20.25% 1998 1,566,882 1 6,202,618 1 25.26% 1 2,131,484 1 8,621,121 1 24.72% 2000 1,842,891 7,883,385 1 23.38% 1 2,732,947 11,142,843 24.53% 2002 1,378,413 5,286,204 1 26.08% 1 2,096,094 1 7,738,821 27.09% 2003 Not applicable 2,775,785 1 9,413,377 1 29.49% 2004 2,293;321 1 6,684,421 34.31% q -a3 r ATTACHMENT 5 Traditional Polling Place Special Election Prior to November 2005 - Resolutions R-U 7 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, 920059 FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF A RESOLUTION AND TWO ORDINANCES REGARDING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on July 7, 2004, adopted Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) providing for Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Proposed General Plan Map Amendment and Amending the General Plan Land Use Map by Designating 48.7 Acres of the Property as General Retail, 8.1 Acres as Office, 3.3 Acres as Medium-High Density Residential, 54.7 Acres as Open Space, with the Remainder 16.2 Acres Allocated Toward Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way in Conjunction with the Consideration of the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project Located at 2005 Dalidio Drive (GPA 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 3, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series); Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Proposed Prezoning to Accommodate the Dalidio/Marketplace Annexation and Amending the Zoning Regulations Map to Designate: 48.7 Acres as C-R-PD, Retail-Commercial with the Planned Development Overlay (and Approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Retail Project Known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace); 8.1 Acres as O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay; 3.3 Acres as R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Consideration Overlay; 45 Acres as AG,.Agriculture; 9.7 Acres as C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space with a 40-Acre Minimum Parcel Size; and 16.2 Acres Ser Aside for Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way, Contingent Upon Final Approval of Annexation of the Site at 2005 Dalidio Dr. (R 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 17, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Approving a Development Agreement Between the City, the Dalidio Family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project; and WHEREAS,the resolution and two ordinances were published as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 2. (commencing at.section 9235) of the Election Code of the State of California, petitions have been filed with the legislative body of the City of San Luis Obispo signed by more than 10 percent of the registered voters of the City to repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series) and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) or submit these to a vote of the voters; and R 9 -9, Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the petitions were signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, California desires to submit to the voters at a special municipal election measures relating to Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of the repeal of the resolution and two ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the resolution and two ordinances to the voters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo Charter and the Elections Code of the State of California, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on Tuesday, , 2005', a special municipal election for the purpose of submitting the following measures to the voters: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Yes Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres allocated to roads and an interchange in No conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace development roject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Yes repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary No development plan for the retail project known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? `�I'dam i Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 3 Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? SECTION 2. That the full text of the resolution and two ordinances submitted to the voters are on file in the City Clerk's Office and available for viewing on the City's website, www.slocity.orQ., and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. That the ballots to be used at the special election shall be in form and content as required by law. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the special election. SECTION 5. That the polls shall be open at 7:00 a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until 8:00 p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in section 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California. SECTION 6. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the special election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 7. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the special election, in time, form and manner as required by law. Upon motion of seconded by ._ and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: O' l f Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 4 The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cathan Lowell ` City Attorney GA702-01 ElecdonAELECTION 2005 SPEMUResolutions & Ordinances\Resolution-la Polling Place Prior to November 2005 Set Election.doc 1 11 V RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES WHEREAS, a special municipal election is to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo on 2005, at which time there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Yes Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres allocated to roads and an interchange in No conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Yes Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes any and all members of the City Council to file written arguments In Favor or Against the measures in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the arguments until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. R. q, AA I Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of each measure to the City Attorney who shall prepare impartial analyses of each of the measures showing the effect of the measures on the existing law and the operation of the measures. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan l? Lowell City Attorney GA702-01 Elections\F? MON 2005 SPEC1,4URcsolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-1b Polling Place Prior to November 2005 Argument.doc _( 3V RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHEREAS, Section 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal elections. NOW,. THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measures which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the special election to be held on , 2005. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. R Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonath . Lowell City Attorney GA702-01 ElectionAELECTION 2005 SPECLkUlIesolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-I c Polling Place Prior to November 2005 Rebuttal.doc q �3� ATTACHMENT 6 Mail Ballot Special Election—Ordinance and Resolutions R-33 ORDINANCE NO. (2004 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF AN ALL-MAIL BALLOT ELECTION WHEREAS, the City Council has called a special municipal election to be conducted on , 2005, as an all-mail ballot election; in order to increase voter participation and reduce election costs; and WHEREAS, at said special election, the following questions shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of San Luis Obispo: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Yes Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres allocated to roads and an interchange in No conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Yes Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a procedure for conducting said special election by an all-mail ballot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that said special election shall be conducted as an all-mail ballot election in accordance with the provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of this ordinance. �' 34 Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Conduct of the Election. Said special municipal election shall be held and conducted, and the votes thereof canvassed, and the returns thereof made, and the result thereof ascertained and determined, as herein provided; and in all particulars not prescribed by this ordinance, said election shall be held as provided by the general laws of the State of California for the holding of municipal elections in the City. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to conduct said special election as provided herein and as required by law. SECTION 2. Drop-off Center. The City Clerk shall establish City Hall as the official ballot drop-off center. The City Hall official drop-off center shall be open 29 days before Election Day on weekdays (excluding holidays) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Election Day from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and at that time,shall be closed. SECTION 4. Provision of Ballot Materials. The City Clerk shall provide to each registered voter all supplies necessary for the use and return of the ballot by mail. A. Each ballot mailed by the City Clerk shall be accompanied by a ballot pamphlet and instructions for return of the ballot, including the location of the official ballot drop-off center at City Hall for the special election, and the date and time by which such ballot must be received at the official ballot drop-off center to be counted for the election. B. Each ballot mailed by the City Clerk shall be accompanied by an official return envelope. C. The return envelope shall bear the following information, to be printed thereon by the City Clerk or provided by the voter, as appropriate: 1. A notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the canvassing board. 2. A warning plainly printed that voting more than once constitutes a crime. 3. A declaration of the voter, under penalty of perjury, that he or she resides within the precinct in which he or she is voting and is the person whose name appears on the envelope. 4. The residence address of the voter as shown on the affidavit of registration. 5: The signature of the voter. 6. The date of signing. 7. If the ballot will be returned in person by someone other than the voter, the voter's 9 o Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Page 3 handwritten designation of that person by name, and a declaration signed by the voter, under penalty of perjury, that said adult person has been authorized by the voter to return the ballot. D. The City Clerk shall not commence to mail the ballot and election materials prior to the 29th day before the election, and shall complete the mailing no later than the 10th day prior to the election. E. The failure of any registered voter to receive an official ballot shall not invalidate any election conducted pursuant to this Chapter. SECTION 5. Return of Ballots. A. Ballots may be returned by regular, certified or registered United States mail, overnight commercial carver or in person. Ballots returned in person may be returned to the City Hall drop-off center. The City Clerk may include a notice to voters to the effect that they are permitted to return the voted ballot by certified or registered United States mail or overnight commercial carrier. B. All ballots shall be delivered, by mail to the City Clerk or in person by the voter or other authorized person to the official ballot drop-off center at City Hall no later than 8:00 p.m. on the date of the special election. Any ballot received by the City Clerk by mail or at the official ballot drop-off center after 8:00 p.m. on the date of the Special Election shall not be accepted or counted. However, if at the time of the announcement that the poll is closed there are any voters inside the official ballot drop-off center who have not been able to deposit their official ballot envelope with the election officials there,. the election officials shall continue to accept envelopes from such voters until all have had the opportunity to deliver their ballots. C. Any ballot returned in person shall be returned by the voter who was authorized to cast the ballot or by an adult person designated and authorized, in said voter's own handwriting, in the appropriate place provided by the City Clerk on the outside of the return envelope. Any person who shall deliver any other voter's ballot to the official ballot drop-off center shall, at the time of such delivery, personally sign, in the presence of the City Clerk or a Deputy City Clerk, a declaration under penalty of perjury relating to such designation, authorization and delivery on a form to be furnished by the City Clerk. D. The City Clerk shall establish appropriate procedures for verifying the signature and residence address of each voter casting a mailed ballot. Upon receipt at the City Clerk's office, the City Clerk or a Deputy City Clerk shall compare the signature on each envelope with that appearing on the affidavit of registration of such voter and, if determined to be the same, deposit the ballot, still in the official return envelope, in a ballot container in the City Clerk's office. If � '3tp } Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Page 4 the ballot is rejected on the basis of such comparison, the envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted, and the cause of rejection shall be noted on the face of the envelope. A variance between the signatures caused by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, shall not invalidate the ballot. No ballot shall be removed from its envelope until the time for processing. No ballot shall be rejected on the basis of this subsection after the envelope has been opened. SECTION 6. Official Ballot Drop-Off Center. The City Clerk shall establish the appropriate procedures and furnish the necessary staffing to ensure the secrecy and adequate security of ballots returned to the officially designated ballot drop-off center at City Hall. SECTION 7. Absent Voter. A. No application need be made by any voter for an absentee ballot for this special election conducted entirely by mail and, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the provisions of Division 3 (Section 3000 et seq.) of the Elections Code of the State of California shall not apply to this special election; provided, however that any voter who has qualified as a permanent absentee voter under the Elections Code shall receive and return a ballot in the manner provided herein for all other voters. The return of the mailed ballot conforming in all particulars to the requirements of this ordinance shall be accepted as an absentee ballot on behalf of any voter who is absent from the City on the date of the election. B. Any registered voter who will be absent from the City prior to the mail-ballot election to and including the date of the election may file a written application with the City Clerk to receive an absentee mailed ballot at an address other than the voter's residence. The application shall be filed following the adoption of the ordinance calling the mailed ballot election and on or before the seventh day prior to the election. The application shall show the voter's place of residence and the address to which the ballot should be mailed, and state that the voter will be unable to receive and return the mailed ballot by the election date, and shall be signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury. No voter who requests an absentee mail ballot shall be required to return or surrender a duplicate mailed ballot sent to the voter's residence. SECTION S. Provisional Ballots. Any registered voter who has not already cast his or her vote may obtain a ballot at the City Hall drop-off center. The drop-off center shall provide the necessary materials to enable voters to cast their votes in person, in accordance with the provisional ballot provisions of the Elections Code. SECTION 9. Processing of Ballots. Notwithstanding any provision in the California Elections Code, the City Clerk may commence processing the ballots no earlier than the seventh working day prior to the election. However, the City Clerk shall not release any results until 8:00 p.m. on the day of the special election. SECTION 10. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an ordinance calling, ordering and relating to an election, shall take effect immediately from and after its adoption. Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Page 5 INTRODUCED AND FINALLY ADOPTED on the 16th day of November 2004 by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: onath"O.Azwell City Attorney GA702-01 Electlons\ELECTION 2005 SPECIAL\Resolutions\Ordinance-2a All Mail Ballot I� O V RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF AN ALL-MAIL BALLOT SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, , 20059 FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF A RESOLUTION AND TWO ORDINANCES REGARDING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on July 7, 2004, adopted Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) providing for Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of.a Proposed General.Plan Map Amendment and Amending the General Plan Land Use Map by Designating 48.7 Acres of the Property as General Retail, 8.1 Acres as Office, 3.3 Acres as Medium-High Density Residential, 54.7 Acres as Open Space, with the Remainder 16.2 Acres Allocated Toward Roads and Interchange Right-O&Way in Conjunction with the Consideration of the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project Located at 2005 Dalidio Drive (GPA 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 3, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Proposed Prezoning to Accommodate the Dalidio/Marketplace Annexation and Amending the Zoning Regulations Map to Designate: 48.7 Acres as C-R-PD, Retail-Commercial with the Planned Development Overlay (and Approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Retail Project Known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace); 8.1 Acres as O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay; 3.3 Acres as R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Consideration Overlay; 45 Acres as AG, Agriculture; 9.7 Acres as C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space with a 40-Acre Minimum Parcel Size; and 16.2 Acres Set Aside for Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way, Contingent Upon Final Approval of Annexation of the Site at 2005 Dalidio Dr. (R 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 17, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Approving a Development Agreement Between the City, the Dalidio Family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project; and WHEREAS, the resolution and two ordinances were published as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 2 (commencing at section 9235) of the Election Code of the State of California, petitions have been filed with the legislative body of the City of San Luis Obispo signed by more than 10 percent of the registered voters of the City to repeal Resolution No: 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series) and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) or submit these to a vote of the voters; and R �/� C C Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the petitions were signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, California desires to submit to the voters at a special municipal election measures relating to Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the measures to the voters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That there is called and ordered to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on Tuesday, -, 2005, a special municipal election conducted by all- mail ballot for the purpose of submitting the following measures to the voters: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Yes Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres allocated to roads and an interchange in No conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Yes Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? a _4o Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 3 SECTION 2. That the full text of the resolution and two ordinances submitted to the voters are on file in the City Clerk's Office and available for viewing on the City's website, www.slocity.org., and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. That the ballots to be used at the special election shall be in form and content as required by law. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 5. That pursuant to the applicable provisions of the City Charter and Ordinance No. (2004 Series) of the City of San Luis Obispo, said special election shall be held and conducted by all mail ballot, and shall be conducted pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 4 (commencing with Section 4100) of the California Elections Code only insofar as required by law, and only where not inconsistent with the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo and Ordinance No. (2004 Series). Notwithstanding Elections Code Section 4103, ballots cast in this special election shall be returned to the office of the City Clerk by mail or in person no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Only ballots received in the office of the City Clerk by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day shall be counted. SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the special election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES:. NOES:. ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: onathan P. Lowell City Attorney GA702-01 Elections\EL.ECTION 2005 SPECIAUResolutions&Ordinances\Resoludon-2b All Mail Ballot Set Election.doc l — ` � 1/\ 1 4' RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES WHEREAS,a special municipal election is to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo on 2005, at which time.there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as Yes general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres No allocated to roads and an interchange in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3; 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes any and all members of the City Council to file written arguments In Favor or Against the measures in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the arguments until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. R I( Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of each measure to the City Attorney who shall prepare impartial analyses of each of the measures showing the effect of the measures on the existing law and the operations of the measures. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APP D AS TO FORM: onathan well City Attorney G1702-01 ElectionAELECTION 2005 SPECIAI.1Resolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-2c All Mail Ballot Argument.doc L4 1. RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHEREAS, Section 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal elections. NOW, THEREFORE, The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measures which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measures to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the special election to be held on 2005. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk R Resolution.No. (2004 Series) Page 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: th P. well City Attorney GA702-01 ElectionAELECTION 2005 SPECIADResolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-2d All Mail Ballot Rebuttall.doc 1�1W ATTACHMENT 7 Combined Mail Ballot/Polling Place Special Election—Ordinance and Resolutions `C 1 �J I ORDINANCE NO. (2004 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A COMBINED MAIL BALLOT/POLLING PLACE ELECTION WHEREAS, the City Council has called a special municipal election to be conducted on , 2005, as a combined mail ballot/polling place election, in order to increase voter participation and reduce election costs; and WHEREAS, at said special election, the following questions shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of San Luis Obispo: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Yes Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres allocated to roads and an interchange in No conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Yes repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning No regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, No the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a procedure for conducting said special election as a combined mail ballot/polling place election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that said special election shall be conducted as a combined mail ballot/polling place election in accordance with the provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of this ordinance. �—`TD Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Conduct of the Election. Said special municipal election shall be held and conducted, and the votes thereof canvassed; and the returns thereof made, and the result thereof ascertained and determined, as herein provided; and in all particulars not prescribed by this ordinance, said special election shall be held as provided by the general laws of the State of California for the holding of municipal elections in the City. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to conduct said special election as provided herein and as required by law. SECTION 2. Drop-off Center/Polling Places. A. The City Clerk shall establish City Hall as the official ballot drop-off center. The City Hall official drop-off center shall be open 29 days before Election Day on weekdays (excluding holidays) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Election Day from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. City Hall shall also serve as a polling place on the date of the special election and shall be open from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., and at that time, shall be closed. B. Precincts and four additional combined polling places/drop off centers shall be established by the City Clerk prior to the 60th day before the date of the special election. The polling places/drop off centers shall be open on Election Day from 7`.00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., and at that time shall be closed. SECTION 4. Provision of Ballot Materials. The City Clerk shall provide to each registered voter all supplies necessary for the use and return of the ballot by mail. A. Each ballot mailed by the City Clerk shall be accompanied by a ballot pamphlet and instructions for return of the ballot, including the location of the official ballot drop-off center at City Hall, and the date and time by which such ballot must be received at the official ballot drop-off center or at the polling places to be counted for the special election.. B. Each ballot mailed by the. City Clerk shall be accompanied by an official return envelope. C. The return envelope shall bear the following information, to be printed thereon by the City Clerk or provided by the voter, as appropriate: 1. A notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the canvassing board. 2. A warning plainly printed that voting more than once constitutes a crime. 3. A declaration of the voter, under penalty of perjury, that he or she resides within the precinct in which he or she is voting and is the person whose name appears on the envelope. Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Page 3 4. The residence address of the voter as shown on the affidavit of registration. 5. The signature of the voter. 6. The date of signing. 7. If the ballot will be returned in person by someone other than the voter, the voter's handwritten designation of that person by name, and a declaration signed by the voter, under penalty of perjury, that said adult person has been authorized by the voter to return the ballot. D. The City Clerk shall not commence to mail the ballot and election materials prior to the 29th day before the election, and shall complete the mailing no later than the 10th day prior to the election. E. The failure of any registered voter to receive an official ballot shall not invalidate any election conducted pursuant to this Chapter. SECTION 5. Return of Ballots. A. Ballots may be returned by regular, certified or registered United States mail, overnight commercial carrier or in person. Ballots returned in person may be returned to the City Hall drop-off center or polling places as described in Section 2. The City Clerk may include a notice to voters to the effect that they are permitted to return the voted ballot by certified or registered United States mail or overnight commercial carrier. B. All ballots shall be delivered, by mail to the City Clerk or in person by the voter or other authorized person to the official ballot drop-off center/polling place at City Hall or to one . of the four additional polling places/drop off centers no later than 8:00 p.m. on the date of the special election. Any ballot received by the City Clerk by mail, at the City Hall ballot drop-off center/polling place, or at one of the four additional polling places/dropping centers after 8:00 p.m. on the date of the Special Election shall not be accepted or counted. However, if at the time of the announcement that polls are closed there are any voters inside the official ballot drop-off center/polling place at City Hall or at the additional polling places/drop-off centers who have not been able to deposit their official ballot envelopes with the elections officials there, the elections officials shall continue to accept envelopes from such voters until all have had the opportunity to deliver their ballots. C. Any ballot returned in person shall be returned by the voter who was authorized to cast the ballot or by an adult person designated and authorized, in said voter's own handwriting, in the appropriate place provided by the City Clerk on the outside of the return envelope. q-Sv Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Page 4 Any person who shall deliver any other voter's ballot to the official ballot drop-off center, or to one of the designated polling places/drop-off center, shall, at the time of such delivery; personally sign, in the presence of the City Clerk, a Deputy City Clerk or a precinct officer, a declaration under penalty of perjury relating to such designation, authorization and delivery on a form to be furnished by the City Clerk. D. The City Clerk shall establish appropriate procedures for verifying the signature and residence address of each voter casting a mailed ballot. Upon receipt at the City Clerk's office, the City Clerk or a Deputy City Clerk shall compare the signature on each envelope with that appearing on the affidavit of registration of such voter and, if determined to be the same, deposit the ballot, still in the official return envelope, in a ballot container in the City Clerk's office. If the ballot is rejected on the basis of such comparison, the envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted, and the cause of rejection shall be noted on the face of the envelope. A variance between the signatures caused by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, shall not invalidate the ballot. No ballot shall be removed from m its envelope until the time for processing. No ballot shall be rejected on the basis of this subsection after the envelope has been opened. SECTION 6. Official Ballot Drop-Off Center/Polling Places. The City Clerk shall establish the appropriate procedures and furnish the necessary staffing to ensure the secrecy and adequate security of ballots returned to the officially designated ballot drop-off center at City Hall and to the designated polling places. SECTION 7. Absent Voter. A. No application need be made by any voter for an absentee ballot for this special election conducted as a combined mail ballot/polling place election and, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the provisions of Division 3 (Section 3000 et seq.) of the Elections Code of the State of California shall not apply to this special election; provided, however that any voter who has qualified as a permanent absentee voter under the Elections Code shall receive and return a ballot in the manner provided herein for all other voters. The return of the mailed ballot conforming in all particulars to the requirements of this ordinance shall be accepted as an absentee ballot on behalf of any voter who is absent from the City on the date of the election. B. Any registered voter who will be absent from the City prior to this special election to and including the date of the special election may file a written application with the City Clerk to receive an absentee mailed ballot at an address other than the voter's residence. The application shall be filed following the adoption of the ordinance calling the mailed ballot election and on or before the seventh day prior to the election. The application shall show the voter's place of residence and the address to which the ballot should be mailed, and state that the voter will be unable to receive and return the mailed ballot by the election date, and shall be signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury. No voter who requests an absentee mail ballot shall be required to return or surrender a duplicate mailed ballot sent to the voter's residence. q -SI Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Page 5 SECTION 8. Provisional Ballots. Any registered voter who has not already cast his or her vote may obtain a ballot at the City Hall drop-off center or established polling places/drop- off centers. The City Clerk, a Deputy City Clerk, or precinct officer at the City drop-off center or polling places/drop-off centers shall provide the necessary materials to enable voters to cast their votes in person, in accordance with the provisional ballot provisions of the Elections Code. SECTION 9. Processing of Ballots. Notwithstanding any provision in the California Elections Code, the City Clerk may commence processing the ballots no earlier than the seventh working day prior to the election. However, the City Clerk shall not release any results until 8:00 p.m. on the day of the special election. SECTION 10. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an ordinance calling, ordering and relating to an election, shall take effect immediately from and after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FINALLY ADOPTED on the 16th day of November 2004 by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: athan wel City Attorney GA702-01 Elections\ELECrION 2005 SPECIAL\Resolutions\Ordinance-3a Combined Mail Ballot Polling Place �-sa RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A COMBINED MAIL BALLOT/POLLING PLACE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, , 20059 FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF A RESOLUTION AND TWO ORDINANCES REGARDING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on July 7, 2004, adopted Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) providing for Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Proposed General Plan Map Amendment and Amending the General Plan Land Use Map by Designating 48.7 Acres of the Property as General Retail, 8.1 Acres as Office, 3.3 Acres as Medium-High Density Residential, 54.7 Acres as Open Space, with the Remainder 16.2 Acres Allocated Toward Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way in Conjunction with the Consideration of the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project Located at 2005 Dalidio Drive (GPA 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 3, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Proposed Prezoning to Accommodate the Dalidio/Marketplace Annexation and Amending the Zoning Regulations Map to Designate: 48.7 Acres as C-R-PD, Retail-Commercial with the Planned Development Overlay (and Approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Retail Project Known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace); 8.1 Acres as O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay; 3.3 Acres as R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Consideration Overlay; 45 Acres as AG, Agriculture; 9.7 Acres as C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space with a 40-Acre Minimum Parcel Size; and 16.2 Acres Set Aside for Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way, Contingent Upon Final Approval of Annexation of the Site at 2005 Dalidio Dr. (R 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 17, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Approving a Development Agreement Between the City, the Dalidio Family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project; and WHEREAS,the resolution and two ordinances were published as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 2 (commencing at section 9235)of the Election Code of the State of California, petitions have been filed with the legislative body of the City of San Luis Obispo signed by more than 10 percent of the registered voters of the City to repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series) and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) or submit these to a vote of the voters; and R x,53 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the petitions were signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, California desires to submit to the voters at a special municipal election measures relating to Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the measures to the voters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That there is called and ordered to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on Tuesday,. , 2005, a special municipal election to be conducted as a combined mail ballot and traditional polling place election for the purpose of submitting the following measures to the voters: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as Yes general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres No allocated to roads and an interchange in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Yes Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 3 SECTION 2. That the full text of the resolution and two ordinances submitted to the voters are on file in the City Clerk's Office and available for viewing on the City's website, www.slocity.org., and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. That the ballots to be used at the special election shall be in form and content as required by law. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is authorized; instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 5. That pursuant to the applicable provisions of the City Charter and Ordinance No. (2004 Series) of the City of San Luis Obispo, said special election shall be held and conducted as a combined mail ballot and traditional polling place election, and shall be conducted pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 4 (commencing with Section 4100) of the California Elections Code only insofar as required by law, and only where not inconsistent with the Charter and Ordinance No. (2004 Series) of the City of San Luis Obispo. Notwithstanding Elections Code Section 4103, ballots cast in this special election shall be returned to the designated polling places, by mail, or in person to the office of the City Clerk no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Only ballots received in the office of the City Clerk by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day shall be counted. SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the special election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk L Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney GA702-01 ElectionAELEC770N 2005 SPECIAL Resolutions&OrdinanceARcsolution4b Combined Mail Ballot Polling Place Set Election.doc RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES WHEREAS, a special municipal election is to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo on 2005, at which time there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Yes Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres allocated to roads and an interchange in No conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Yes Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes any and all members of the City Council to file written arguments In Favor or Against the measures in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the arguments until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. R � I Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of each measure to the City Attorney who shall prepare impartial analyses of each of the measures showing the effect of the measures on the existing law and the operations the measures. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: athanP. well City Attorney G1702-01 Elections\ELECITON 2005 SPEC[AL\Resolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-3c Combined Mail Ballot Polling Place Argument.doc RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHEREAS, Section 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal elections. NOW, THEREFORE, The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measures to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the special election to be held on -12005. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk R 0149 I Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: f�� ire Jona well City Attorney GA702-01 Elections\ELEC TION 2005 SPECIAL\Resolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-3d Combined Mail Ballot Polling Place Rebuttal.doc q-�o ATTACHMENT 8 Traditional Polling.Place Special Election November 2005 -Resolutions I RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 8,20059 FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF A RESOLUTION AND TWO ORDINANCES REGARDING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO RENDER SERVICES RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on July 7, 2004, adopted Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) providing for Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Proposed General Plan Map Amendment and Amending the General Plan Land Use Map by Designating 48.7 Acres of the Property as General Retail, 8.1 Acres as Office, 3.3 Acres as Medium-High Density Residential, 54.7 Acres as Open Space, with the Remainder 16.2 Acres Allocated Toward Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way in Conjunction with the Consideration of the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project Located at 2005 Dalidio Drive (GPA 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 3, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Proposed Prezoning to Accommodate the Dalidio/Marketplace Annexation and Amending the Zoning Regulations Map to Designate: 48.7 Acres as C-R-PD, Retail-Commercial with the Planned Development Overlay (and Approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Retail Project Known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace); 8.1 Acres as O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay; 3.3 Acres as R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Consideration Overlay; 45 Acres as AG, Agriculture; 9.7 Acres as C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space with a 40-Acre Minimum Parcel Size; and 16.2 Acres Set Aside for Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way, Contingent Upon Final Approval of Annexation of the Site at 2005 Dalidio Dr. (R 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 17, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Approving a Development Agreement Between the City, the Dalidio Family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project; and WHEREAS, the resolution and two ordinances were published as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 2 (commencing at section 9235) of the Election Code of the State of California, petitions have been filed with the legislative body of the City of San Luis Obispo signed by more than 10 percent of the registered voters of the City to repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series) and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) or submit these to a vote of the voters; and R—7—(Pa Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the petitions were signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified;and WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of the repeal of the resolution and two ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, California desires to submit to the voters at a special municipal election measures relating to Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the resolution and two ordinances to the voters;and WHEREAS, in the course of the conduct of the special election it is necessary for the City to request.services of the San Luis Obispo County Registrar of Voters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo Charter and the Elections Code of the State of California, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, a special municipal election for the purpose of submitting the following measures to the voters: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as Yes general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16:2 acres No allocated to roads and an interchange in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? q -�3 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 3 Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? SECTION 2. That the full text of the resolution and two ordinances submitted to the voters are on file in the City Clerk's Office and available for viewing on the City's website, www.slocity.org., and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. That pursuant to section 10403 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the City Council requests the Board of Supervisors of the County issue instructions to the County Clerk and Registrar of Voters to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of a special election for the City of San Luis Obispo on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, and said Board is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of the special election and certify the results of the canvass of the returns of the special election to the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, which shall thereupon declare the results thereof. SECTION 4. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill pursuant to section 51350 of the Government Code. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file certified copies of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk and the Registrar of Voters of the County of San Luis Obispo. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. � 'CD� Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 4 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ath . Lowell l City Attorney G1702-01 Elections\ELECrION 2005 SPEMUResolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-4a Polling Place November 2005 Set Election.doc L `W� RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES WHEREAS, a special municipal election is to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo on November 8, 2005, at which time there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as Yes general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres No allocated to roads and an interchange in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Yes Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes any and all members of the City Council to file written arguments In Favor or Against the measures in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the arguments until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. R �(�LP Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of each measure to the City Attorney who shall prepare impartial analyses of each of the measures showing the effect of the measures on the existing law and the operation of the measures. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST`. Audrey Hooper City Clerk 5APPROAS TO FORM: Lowel City Attorney G1702-01 ElectionsELECTION 2005 SPECIAUResolutions&OrdinancrAlIesolution-4b Polling Place November 2005 Argument.doc I -f RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHEREAS, Section 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal elections. NOW, THEREFORE, The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measures which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measures to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the special election to be held on November 8, 2005. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. R� �� Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk 777T7::�,� Jonath P. well City Attomey GA702-01 ElectionAELECTION 2005 SPEMUResolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-4c Polling Place November 2005 Rebuttal.doc i - ATTACHMENT 9 Traditional Polling Place Special Election November 2006 - Resolutions vl —� RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 7,20069 FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF A RESOLUTION AND TWO ORDINANCES REGARDING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO RENDER SERVICES RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on July 7, 2004, adopted Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) providing for Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Proposed General Plan Map Amendment and Amending the General Plan Land Use Map by Designating 48.7 Acres of the Property as General Retail, 8.1 Acres as Office, 3.3 Acres as Medium-High Density Residential, 54.7 Acres as Open Space, with the Remainder 16.2 Acres Allocated Toward Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way in Conjunction with the Consideration of the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project Located at 2005 Dalidio Drive (GPA 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 3, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Upholding an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Proposed Prezoning to Accommodate the Dalidio/Marketplace Annexation and Amending the Zoning Regulations Map to Designate: 48.7 Acres as C-R-PD, Retail-Commercial with the Planned Development Overlay (and Approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Retail Project Known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace); 8.1 Acres as O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay; 3.3 Acres as R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Consideration Overlay; 45 Acres as AG, Agriculture; 9.7 Acres as C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space with a 40-Acre Minimum Parcel Size; and 16.2 Acres Set Aside for Roads and Interchange Right-Of-Way, Contingent Upon Final Approval of Annexation of the Site at 2005 Dalidio Dr. (R 108-02); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on August 17, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Approving a Development Agreement Between the City, the Dalidio Family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project; and WHEREAS,the resolution and two ordinances were published as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 2 (commencing at section 9235) of the Election Code of the State of California, petitions have been filed with the legislative body of the City of San Luis Obispo signed by more than 10 percent of the registered voters of the City to repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series) and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) or submit these to a vote of the voters; and R q-n I l Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the petitions were signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of the repeal of the resolution and two ordinances; and WBEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, California desires to submit to the voters at a special municipal election measures relating to Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series); and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the resolution and two ordinances to the voters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo Charter and the Elections Code of the State of California, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, a special municipal election for the purpose of submitting the following measures to the voters: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as Yes general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres No allocated to roads and an interchange in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the No Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 3 Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? SECTION 2. That the full text of the resolution and two ordinances submitted to the voters are on file in the City Clerk's Office and available for viewing on the City's website, www.slocity.org., and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. That the full special election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date, and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the County Elections Department of the County of San Luis Obispo canvass the returns of the special election. SECTION 4. Pursuant to the requirements of the Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo is hereby requested to order the consolidation of the special election with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. SECTION 5. The Board of Supervisors is requested to certify the results of the canvass of the returns of the special election to the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, which shall thereupon declare the results thereof. SECTION 6. The Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to the County Clerk and Registrar of Voters to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said special election. The City will pay its pro rata share of extra costs incurred by the County in consolidating the elections pursuant to Section 51350 of the Government Code. SECTION 7. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill pursuant to section 51350 of the Government Code. SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file certified copies of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk and the Registrar of Voters of the County of San Luis Obispo. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 4 The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: athan P. Lowell City Attorney GA702-01 ElectionsEL.ECTION 2005 SPECIAUResolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-5a Polling Place November 2006 Set Election-doc 9 -(14 � I RESOLU'T'ION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES WHEREAS, a special municipal election is to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo on November 7, 2006, at which time there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series), adopted July 7, 2004, amending the General Plan Land Use Map by designating 48.7 acres as Yes general retail, 8.1 acres as office, 3.3 acres as medium-high density residential, 54.7 acres as open space, with the remainder 16.2 acres No allocated to roads and an interchange in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Marketplace developmentproject? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series), Yes adopted August 3, 2004, amending the zoning regulations map and approving a preliminary development plan for the retail project known as No the San Luis Obispo.Marketplace? Shall the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo repeal Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series), adopted August 17, 2004, approving a Yes Development Agreement and a Special Tax Reimbursement Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo No Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplaceproject? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes any and all members of the City Council to file written arguments In Favor or Against the measures in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the arguments until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. R�n Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of each measure to the City Attorney who shall prepare impartial analyses of each of the measures showing the effect of the measures on the existing law and the operations of the measures. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: onatiran P. Lowell City Attorney GA702-01 Elections\ELECITON 2005 SPECIAWtesolutions&OrdinancesUtesolution-5b Polling Place November 2006 Argument.doc �_9 �1 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHEREAS, Section 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal elections. NOW, THEREFORE, The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measures which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measures to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the special election to be held on November 7, 2006. Upon motion of seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk R n / 1 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: onathan P. Lowell City Attorney GA702-01 ElectionsM.EMON 2005 SPECIAL\Resolutions&Ordinances\Resolution-5c Polling Place November 2006 Rebuttal.doc 9� �g. Gnu SAVE SAN LUIS OBISPO ilk yourd ke► Mayor and City Council PO Box 4312 City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo CA 93406 990 Palm Street . November 16, 2004 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Dear Mayor and Council: Save San Luis Obispo has some concerns regarding the language proposed for the ballot in the upcoming special election regarding the San Luis Marketplace. It is confusing and convoluted, in that a "YES"vote means NO on the Marketplace and a "NO"vote means YES. We urge the council to make the ballot language straightforward, so that a "YES"vote means the voter is in favor of the Marketplace and a "NO" vote means the voter is not in favor of it. The proposed ballot language is not consistent with the provisions of section 9241 of the Election Code which states: If the legislative body does not entirely repeal the ordinance against which the petition is filed, the legislative body shall submit the ordinance to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the order of the legislative body, or at a special election called for the purpose, not less than 88 days after the order of the legislative body. The ordinan shall not became effective until a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance vote in favor of it. If the legislative body repeals the ordinance or submits the ordinance to the voters, and a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance do not vote in favor of it, the ordinance shall not again be enacted by the legislative body for a period of one year after the date of its repeal by the legislative body or disapproval by the voters. (Emphasis added) We urge the Council to change the wording of the Measure so that it is straight forward,for example: "Shall Ordinance (or Resolution) No. of the City of San Luis Obispo California approving the for the San Luis Marketplace Project be adopted? YES or NO* We also believe that it is very important that the full text of the ordinances should be included in each voter pamphlet To do less, you must assume either that the voting public wants to be ill informed or that the City Cleric will not be burdened by responding to thousands of requests for copies of the Resolution and Ordinances. We also have a question. Please clarify whether our organization, as proponents of the referendum will be permitted to write the argument against the Marketplace. This is unclear from the staff report,which seems to indicate that the City Council will write the arguments. We believe that it is important that we be allowed to write the argument Thank you for taking our positions into account as you make this important decision. Sincerely, Kent Taylo Treasurer-Save San Luis Obispo From Nfichael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo- 16 Nov 2004 P. 1 of 2 Subject: City Council agenda item Bas 9 for 16 Nov 2004-Referendum petitions regarding Dalidio Marketplace 16 Nov 2004 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED To: DA I h ITEM #. �'(�U .I d ,i City Council and City of San Luis Obispo D`L 2004 F 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SLO CITY CLERK' From: Michael Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614 RE: Council agenda for 16 Nov 2004,item Bus 9-.Referendum petitions regarding Dalidio- San Luis Obispo Marketplace project Pages 10- 11 of the staff report list various options for council actions for a vote on the proposed Marketplace project. Of these,the ones which are most advantageous for the City and the public are option 4(Traditional polling place special election to be held in November 2005)or option 5 (Traditional polling place special election to be held in November 2006). The advantages are as follows: (1) It is likely that there would be better voter turnout in November 2005 rather than April 26, 2005 or May 10, 2005. -Voter turnout in the spring months is often low. For example, the City special election in April 1991 had the very poor result of only 36%turnout. -It is likely that voter turnout among college age people(Cuesta College, Cal Poly University) would be low at a busy time of the academic year in the spring months. - Given the longer lead time to prepare arguments and rebuttals for the November 2005 date, and the extra time for publicity on TV and in the newspaper,the November date is more likely to have the higher turnout. (2) The traditional polling method, with oversight by the County, is likely to provide better integrity and security of the voting process. - County staff and county workers have a long history of management of elections and know the proper procedures, and have the needed equipment and training. - Although the vote-by-mail method does have some security advantages, it also has the opportunity for fraud in various ways not discussed in the staff report. For example, dishonest persons could fraudulently register at the address of somebody they know with a QuLoLSan Luiq Obispo address CO'Ur- ORNEY 0 _ CDD DIR IR O � FIN DIR O FIRE CHIEF PW DIR RK/ORIG POLICECHF MEADS AEC DIR I UTIL DIR HR DIR From N icbael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo- 16 Nov 2004 p. 2 of 2 Subject: City Council agenda item Bus 9 for 16 Nov 2004-Referendum petitions regarding Dalidio Marketplace even if that person did not actually live in the City limits. That person could then receive the ballot at the San Luis Obispo address and mail in the ballot. (3) Options 4 or 5, with involvement of the County, offer substantial cost savings to the City compared to all the other methods. Table 1, below, is based on economic information from the Council agenda report for 16 Nov 2004, item Bus 9. Table 1 -Comparison of options for election Voting type (1) Cost to City,with (2) Cost to City, Savings to the City if County registrar of without County method(1)(County voters assistance registrar of voters assistance) is chosen: assistance(use a See Notes (A)and(B) contractor instead Traditional (at polling $599721 $73,844+ 361000= $1095844 -$599721 = per) $1099944 $509123 Hybrid (traditional and Not available ? $59,192+ $36,000= $952192 - $592721 = mail-in) $959192 $351,471 Mail-in only Not available ? $569152+ $36,000= $92,152 - $59,721 = $92,152 $329431 Notes (A) County would probably only be able to'do traditional type election, not mail-in or hybrid. (B) Savings do not figure potential added costs for City, regardless of voting method. Clearly, options 4 or 5 present substantial benefit to the City and the voters. Given the goal of a speedier resolution to the matter, option 4 (November 2005 election under County supervision) is the best overall choice for the City and for the voters. Michael C. Sullivan —� Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle- Re: Opposition to Changing Voting Process for Special Election From: <Slokk1999@aol.com> To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <kschwarts@slocity.org>,<asettle@slocity.org>,<cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org> Date: 11/14/2004 6:24 PM Subject: Re: Opposition to Changing Voting Process for Special Election Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, It is our understanding that you will be considering a proposal to change to normal voting process for the referendum on The Marketplace. We are very much opposed to your changing the voting method citizens of this town have been using since time immemorial and feel that it will cause further confusion regarding a project that will change the charaction of San Luis Obispo forever. Sincerely, Elizabeth Johnson Robert Johnson RECEIVED NOV 16 2M n SLO CITY CLERK ;t • RED FU �'�, ?L. OUNCIL ZCDD DIR �AO Z FIN DIR ACAO �Z FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY J'PW DIR ❑ DEPT HEADS �'REC DIR p0UCECHF eUTlL DIR ZHR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\L.ocal%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 11/16/2004 Nov 16 04 01 : 51p fin 91ers 809-7544-2601 p. 1 dromero@slocity.org,All Mail-In Ballot To: dromero@slocity.org From: Ann MarieAlers <ann@sonicsensors.com> RECEIVED Subject All Mail-In Ballot Cc: Nov 16 204 Bcc: Attached: SLO CITY CLERK Dear Mayor Romero and Councilmembers: The following are some factual statements about Oregon, the state that pioneered the vote-by mail method. Before you make your final decision about the all mail -in ballot today, 1 can not urge you enough read the information I have enclosed for you. Please read all three articles. Lets not make the voting issue at hand about the Marketplace'Worse" by an all mail -in ballot. You may be opening a can of worms that could even delay the Marketplace project longer? Please do not change the voting process for this election. This is not an appropriate time to change our voting methods. Thank you for your consideration. Si,,rerely Ron and Ann Alers httl2.//vrtvw.newswithviews.com/BiU/sizemorel.htm "Truth is, vote by mail is a formula for election fraud. The dove beginning to encs, no real human ever has to see the.voter's fa cc. ti:s r.r. '•;:'�.'-= ; =_ _:c, that you arc w ho you say you are, or that the person you s-1,x- yuu ;r, :' COUNCIL _ CDD DIR CAO &iIN DIR RED FILE ACAO RIOPIRE CHIEF �■��ING AGENDA ATTORNEY Pw DIR Mu-■ Gi ZCLERIV0RI4 .2-PCLICE CHF DA +� ITEM # 1H D) EADS $REC DIR KJ Z-LTIL DIR S;-98 DIR Printed for A=WAWe Alers<ann@sonicsensors.com> Page 1 of 1 i Allen Settle -same message with venders spelled correctly From: "adrienne dickinson" <dickinsonfam@hotmail.com> To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> Date: 11/14/2004 8:35 PM Subject. same message with venders spelled correctly Robert and I wish to go on record as opposing a special election in March for the market place issue. Waiting until the November election makes sense in terms of budget. Why should Bill Byrd be the one to determine when we have an election in San Luis Obispo? Let's keep business vultures from Glendora and Texas out of our city affairs. (And if potential venders are that fickle when it comes to business in San Luis Obisp, who needs them FRECEIVED anyway? If they really want to be part of our community and do what's best for residents, then they can wait.) 2COtThank you. LERK Adrienne Dickinson w� n'' �Lplp.DhR jWNG . / COUNCIL av�1N DIR TM. \I ` ICAO F1RE CHIEF EF '��p()UrE CHF r E O IO REC DIR CLE HEADS UTIL DIR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%a2OSettings\Temp\GW)000O1.HTM 11/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle- Marketplace referendum From: <wfranas@calpoly.edu> To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <asetde@slodty.org>, <cmulholland@slodty.org>, <jewan@slocity.org> Date: 11/15/2004 8:10 AM Subject Marketplace referendum Dear City Representatives, I understand that on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 the City Council will set a date for the election on the referendums on the construction of the new Marketplace project. A proposal to change the traditional polling place method of voting to one that is conducted entirely by mail (and by out of town contractors) will also be considered. RECEIVED It is my opinion that this election is not the appropriate time to introduce a NOV 1. E 2�0f new voting procedure. Please do not accept the proposal to change the procedure! SLO CITY CLERK Thank you, Hunter Francis, San Luis Obispo ................................ C�PTE�-F fTEM Dig>� AnLUNCIL y/CDD DIR L CAC e O'ACAO SIN DIR SPIRE CHIEF -eATTORNEY �"PW DIR 2CLERK/ORIG -0,rPOLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS J'REC DIR ZrLML DIR e'HR DIR file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 11/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 i Allen Settle-Concern over new voting method. From: "Linda Vanasupa" <Ivanasup@calpoly.edu> To: <asettle@slocity.org> Date: 11A 5/2004 9:31 AM Subject: Concern over new voting method. Allen, I am writing to express my concern over implementing a new voting method for the referendum on the Marketplace. Is it possible to stick with the traditional method? Linda Vanasupa SLO Citizen RECEIVED NOV ] .6 2M SLO CITY CLERK FLED FILE M EnNG A+t3iE . DA ' ITEM #COUNC11 L �;<DD DIR ' CAO /FIN DIR ACAO i TIRE CHIEF TTORNEY �'PW DIR CLERK/ORIG L'�POLICE CHF 10 DEP_, HEADS EC DIR IL DIR 1 t-- -- �FiR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 11/16/2004 _ Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle - Proposed Changes to the Voting Process From: Linda Seeley <lindaseeley@charter.net> To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <cmullholland@slocity.org>, <asettie@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org> Date: 11/15/2004 12:07 PM Subject: Proposed Changes to the Voting Process Please DO NOT change the voting process for the.upcoming Marketplace vote.The Save San Luis Obispo Committee worked long and hard to collect thousands of signatures to get the initiative on the ballot, and this is certainly not an appropriate time to introduce a new voting procedure. Thank you. Linda Seeley RECEIVED San Luis Obispo NOV 1 .6 M§ SLO CITY CLERK RED FILE ME ;7nNG AGENDA DATE- iw ITEM L;fODETT OUNCIL �"CDD DIR AO FIN DIR CAO C' FIRE CHIEF TTORNEY ZPW DIR LERK/ORIG 2-POUCE CHF HEADS Z REC DIR T IL DIR R DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW 100001.HTM 11/16/2004 Page 1 of I Alien Settle- MARKETPLACE REFERENDUM From: <Dabookman@aol.com> To: <DROMERO@SLOCITY.ORG>,<KSCHWARTZ@SLOCITY.ORG>, <ASETTLE@SLOCITY.ORG>, <CMULHOLLAND@SLOCITY.ORG>,<JEWAN@SLOCITY.ORG> Date: 11/15/2004 4:41 PM Subject: MARKETPLACE REFERENDUM PLEASE SUPPORT THE TRADITIONAL POLLING PLACE METHOD OF VOTING FOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT UPCOMING VOTE. ALSO, THE TRIBUNE HAD WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS AN EXCELLENT IDEA- HAVE MR. DALIDIO, MR. BIRD AND THEIR TEXAS BUDDIES PAY FOR THE COST OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION.. SINCERELY, DAVID BOOKER AND JENNIFER BLOMFIELD RECEIVED 785 BUCHON ST. , SLO. NOV 1 .6 2C04 SLO CITY CLERK RED FILE MEEnNG AGEW A DA 9t rrEm COUNC7-2REC DIP CAODIR ACAOCHIEF p'ATTORDIR J rCLERK/ ICE CHF ❑ D HDIR DIRIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 11/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil-Marketplace Election RE EVC ED From: Terry Mohan<catsdad@sbcglobal.net> NOV� 2004 To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 11/15/2004 8:40 PM SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Marketplace Election Dear Mayor Romero and Council members„ In regard to the agenda item of November 16,2004 I want to voice my objection to having anything but a traditional polling place election for the three Marketplace referendums. There is no need to hurry and pay the additional cost of a special election.As the Tribune editorial stated this past week if the Marketplace and it?s tenants can not wait until November of 2005 for an election then maybe there is something wrong with this project. An election supervised by the County Clerk?s office would be the most economical,legitimate,and fairest to the voters of the City. The probability of litigation,that other election forms would surely invite from either losing side,would be eliminated.We?ve waited this long to settle this issue,twelve more months will only give the voters a better chance to make a more informed decision. Thank you, Terry Mohan FI=D FILE 2416 Santa Clara C,i:EETING AGENDA San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 C. ITEPJl " �S 9 / VDD D!n ✓CAO eFIN DIR .40A0 FIRE CHIEF 1,;.;,ATI TORN EY LPW DIR %CLERK/ORIG .LPOLICE CHF DCPT HEADS „/RCC DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW IOOOOI.HTM 11/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - November 16 Meeting: Marketplace Special Election From: Kathi Cole <klcole@calpoly.edu> =� 2 To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 11/15/2004 5:22 PM Subject: November 16 Meeting: Marketplace Special Election RE: Method of Voting for Marketplace Referendum Dear Council Members: I understand this issue will be before the City Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, November 16. I urge you?.please DO NOT SUPPORT any electoral procedure OTHER THAN THE USUAL ELECTORAL METHODS which have been followed in the recent past, and have produced verified fair and proper results. We have just seen a national election with numerous voting irregularities and even potential cases of serious fraud. It is vital to all parties concemed ? and especially to the people of San Luis Obispo who elected you ? that this referendum vote is decisive, final, and without any questions hanging over the process. I believe that is only possible if the special election is held in a manner consistent RED FILE with all citywide elections, REGARDLESS of when that special election MIEETING AGENDA occurs. �,—EAUW C. .I r= ITEM 4 bus_9 Thank you. Kathi Cole 206 Via San Blas San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (my residence is located between Madonna Road and Prado Road,just east of South Higuera) Kathi ColeuNCIL CDD DIR College Relations Office, 13-1086 �C.0 2 FIN DIR College of EngineeringACRO TFIRE CHIEF Cal Poly State University 'l p,t f0RNEY ?N DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 /CLERKioRIG ? C CHF DI Phone: 805-756-6601 i _��T HEADS R-=FC IL 'R Fax: 805-756-6579 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 11/16/2004 Page 1 of 1 RE SLO Citycouncil - Marketplace referendum CAift4/ �EIVED From: <wfrancis@calpoly.edu> LSL-OCILCLERKJ To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org> Date: 11/15/2004 8:10 AM Subject: Marketplace referendum Dear City Representatives, I understand that on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 the City Council will seta date for the election on the referendums on the construction of the new Marketplace project. A proposal to change the traditional polling place method of voting to one that is conducted entirely by mail (and by out of town contractors) will also be considered. It is my opinion that this election is not the appropriate time to introduce a new voting procedure. Please do not accept the proposal to change the procedure! Thank you, Hunter Francis, San Luis Obispo y �� n Rvwu�._C4- -r-r_- -— .— COUNCIL 1CDD DIR r CAO -'FIN DIR ACAO IRE CHIEF :rATTORNEY 7-1-PW DIR i7 CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF E, -DEPT HEADS ;Z PEC DIR �JT-Ii- OIR RED FILE =E'TING AGENDA G.=TLti I ITEM file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW 100001.H... 11/15/2004 Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 1&11/14/4 RVIEI E RICHARD SCHMIDT NOV ? 2604 K 1 id Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9 0 0 44- ,uUN `IL CDD Dln � N DIR MEETING AGENDA CAO -fJ„��1�,N November 14, 2004 F ACAO ;,, rIRE CHIEF tlATTORNEY .'PW DIR 1)AT I I ITEM #�� City Council i/ CL=RKORIG 2'pOL1C CHF D,--FTHEADS, ;�!P,EC D9en a Item B-9: Marketplace Referendum City of San Luis Obispo. yuTIL Dia Dear Council Members - — W This communication contains general comments on B-9 other than the mail election issue, which is covered in a separate communication. 1. COST TO THE CITY. I don't understand the preoccupation with cost to the city. Is it not true that you have an indemnification agreement with the developer by which he will pick up city costs for the election? If not, you made a bad bargain with him. In any event, the difference in cost between the cheapest possible dubious election and a clearly legitimate one are trivial compared to the damage to your reputations if you make the wrong choice and the costs of litigation which may also accompany that choice. 2. TEXT OF MEASURES ON THE BALLOT. It is important that the city provide the voters with the COMPLETE TEXT OF THE MEASURES TO BE VOTED UPON IN THE BALLOT PAMPHLET. Only making the text available for"inspection”at the clerk's office or on the city's dysfunctional Web site is NOT proper access. It disenfranchises most of the population. It suggests the city is being sneaky, and trying to conceal the true nature of the measures (like, for example, the contents of the development agreement). No public purpose is served by not providing the complete text to each voter. Public purpose is thwarted t y NOT providing the full text. Absent the complete texts of the ballot measures in the ballot pamphlet, voters will be voting on legalese and propaganda, and not on the measures at hand. If you don't provide the full text, the charge will be made that you didn't want voters to know what they're voting on. Council Member Ewan stated he wanted to continue approving Marketplace actions so"the complete package" could be placed before voters. Well, here is your chance to put "the complete package"before the voters--the text of what they're voting on and what you approved. It would be hypocritical for anyone to talk about providing a"complete package"when the package being provided is in fact empty. The complete text needs to be provided to every voter. Finally, it would be doubly hypocritical for the city not to provide the complete text. The petitioners, at a cost of many thousands of dollars, had to include every word of your approvals on every one of their petitions. Having put petitioners through that, it is hypocritical for the city to refuse to provide that same information to voters. The what's-sauce-for-the-goose-is-sauce-for-the-gander principle applies here. The cost of providing the full text is trivial in the overall scheme of things, and in making clear the city wants the public to be fully informed of what they vote on. Do the right thing, and include the full text in the ballot pamphlet. 3. WHO CAN MAKE BALLOT ARGUMENTS. The resolution "setting priorities for filing written arguments"seems to state that only the Council may present ballot arguments. if this is the case, it is wrong to do this. Surely both the parties (petitioners and developer) have higher rights than the council to present ballot arguments. For the council to present additional arguments seems unfair also, since it will end up being a 2-1 situation-- 2 arguments against, 1 for. Please make it possible for the parties to be the ones filing the arguments. Marketplace, Page 1 -- Item B-9 Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 CM11/14/4 08:09 PM p2/2 4. ELECTION TIMING VERSUS MAXIMIZING TURNOUT Council members have variously stated that they want an election as soon as possible and they want one with the largest possible turnout. You cannot have it both ways, and will have to make a choice. The largest turnout comes at statewide/municipal elections, and the next one will be in November 2006. You will have to settle for about half that election's turnout to hold one sooner --that's a fact, and you'll have to swallow it if you want a nearer-term election. You cannot change the fact that off-schedule special elections never get the same level of participation as even-year state/municipal elections. (And I'd point out that you had the first referendum petition in plenty of time you could have gone ahead and voluntarily placed it on THIS November's election and got the issue resolved once and for all -- and you were in fact urged to do that-- but you refused. In light of that, having to wait to get a bigger turnout is a problem of your own making, and should not be used to rationalize an illegitimate commercially- operated or mail in election.) 5. ELECTION TIMING VERSUS ELECTION LEGITIMACY For reasons enumerated in my other communication on this Item, an election run by a private consultant will raise questions about legitimacy, fairness, and conflict of interest, what with said consultant being answerable to a city administration with an axe to grind rather than to the people of this city, and possibly even being paid by one party to the election. A mail election will also be branded illegitimate, and may promote litigation which will further stall resolution of the referendums. I urge you, therefore, to have an election which maximizes legitimacy of the outcome. That requires waiting until county election officials can conduct it in the normal manner. Beyond that, I don't care when you schedule it. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Marketplace, Page 2— Item B-9 Richard Schmidt V 5444247 CW11/1414 RECEIVED RICHARD SCHMIDT F 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9 ( C3�E4 November 14, 2004 `,C0Ll CIL TCDD DIR /CA0 ?rIN DIR iACAO ,ZFIFl.�p�� City Council yATTORNEY g PW"D' ga tem B-9: Mail Ballot Electon RED FILE City of San Luis Obispoi fLH-RK'0,91G 21POUCE CHF M, ETING AGENDA DEPT HEADS YR�C DIR Dear Council Members:l 'C a II_ Did D -TLS ITEM `L /. This communication relates solely to the issue of a mail ballot election. General comments on other matters . are in a separate communication. I had thought after the vigorous discussion last time, this issue was dead, but apparently, judging from the lengthy biased report report by your administration, it is not. While administration officially remains neutral, their report is so one-sided and rosy-eyed as to be manipulative, and it requires rejoinder. With the public in an uproar over the integrity of the electoral process, it would be foolish for the council to further complicate voting on Bill Bird's Marketplace by using a questionable and unfamiliar voting method solely for this matter. If you do, you will forever foreclose the community closure you claim to seek by letting this matter go to a vote rather than doing right now what the voters in a honest election will do, rescind your approvals. I'd like to make a number of points your administration report fails to make because it is so one-sided. (It is hard to understand why administration feels you are well-served by receiving only one side of a controversial matter. But this seems to be the way of the Hampian regime, and will apparently continue until the council makes clear they want multiple viewpoints in staff reports. Administration could easily have done a more well-rounded report: I spent a few minutes on the Lexis-Nexis Academic Search database, and found hundreds of articles about problems with mail balloting. Using that single source barely scratches the surface of what's easily available in popular and scholarly publications.) 1. The "background" materials placed in your reading file are of questionable merit, and with the exception of material provided by Kent Taylor, they are mostly self-serving reports by election officials about elections over which they presided -- hardly an objective source for information! Katherine Harris still sees no problems with 2000's voting in Florida! Let's be a bit skeptical of information coming from such self-interested sources. Also, it's interesting that information about Colorado is included in the reading file. Several years ago, Coloradans were urged to become the second state(after Oregon) to go to all-mail elections. When the people voted (at their polling places), they resoundingly defeated this flawed idea. Why? One reason is the local press had been full of stories about questionable-to-crooked Colorado elections conducted this way, and the people rejected all-mail balloting because it demonstrably lacked integrity. 2. "Increased voter turnout". This seems to be the winning propaganda point in favor of mail voting. But is it true?There is no clear evidence, despite the skewed information in the administration report. In fact, dispassionate studies-- as opposed to statements by voting officials locked into believing their own eye-popping stories -- suggest it is not true. To cite only two among the many compelling counter views: • Melody Rose, a Portland State University Political Science professor, challenges the notion that Oregon's "highly successful"system has saved costs and enhanced turnout. 'The trouble is,"she says, "that's not true." Oregon officials, she points out, cook the books when they claim astronomical turnouts. In the 2000 presidential election, for example, officials touted an astounding 80%turnout, which is well above national averages. Rose says election officials aren't being honest because they're using a different measuring system than the customary one. They're counting turnout among registered voters, and since people who register tend to vote, the numbers are misleadingly high. If election officials instead used the measure used by political scientists, that is turnout as a percentage of eligible voters, Oregon's 2000 presidential election turnout drops to a mundane 62%. That's a big difference, and, she says, is typical of how officials promoting vote-by-mail inflate their claims Page 1, 8-9, Mail Election Comments Richard Schmidt 17544-4247 M11/14/4 G8:13PM D2/5 I' to make the system look better ttiwt it is. Note, your administration report (A,4s the same thing. Rose also examines voter turnout for Oregon's important 2002 special election, when there were "landmark" statewide measures on the ballot, but no candidates. In this special election, officials claimed a 44%turnout, which is unremarkable, but when measured as a percentage of those eligible to vote, turnout was a measly 32%. Clearly, if the best-in-the-nation mail ballot system can produce only a 32% turnout fora special election, this system has no bragging rights for producing a good turnout. We get better turnouts in conventional special elections in SLO. • Curtis Gans, a well-respected social scientist and one of the nation's leading voting experts, flatly dismisses the claim mail balloting increases voter turnout, and has statistical analyses to prove his point. In fact, Gans says various mail ballot systems in place since 1988 have actually hurt voter participation --in part because of the very nature of the systems. And, he concludes, mail elections also impede both get-out-the- vote campaigns and campaigning itself, and leave the electorate less informed and less energized to vote. The problem with claims about increased voter turnout with mail balloting, says Gans, is that the increases claimed never include comparisons to what would have probably happened without mail balloting. So, he provides some comparisons: • 24 states, including California, have "no excuse required"absentee voting (ballots given without meeting any conditions other than requesting one). In 2000, Gans says, states with this provision increased turnout 2.1%from 1996, and that increase is cited by proponents of mail balloting. However, in states without such easy absentee balloting, participation went up 3.1%, which is a larger increase. • Early voting, available in 9 states in 2000, also did not increase turnout. States with it saw increases of 2.6%, while states without it had increases of 2.8%from 1996. • Mail voting in Oregon has made little difference in turnout. It has done nothing to change the state's turnout ranking for presidential elections;the state ranked 6th in the nation both before and after institution of mail voting. In 2000 (their first all-mail ballot), Oregon's voter participation was up 2.7%from 1996, but for the 16 battleground states that year(Oregon was one of them), none of the rest of which had mail balloting, participation was up 3.5%. Gans is clear: the increased turnout claims of voting officials and politicians who promote mail balloting negi I the sort of demographic comparison which would tell whether they are telling the truth or merely citing meaningless statistics. 3. "Mail voting costs less." This, too, is questionable. Even a cursory review of the costs in your administration report shows this is not true. And the costs listed in the report don't cover all costs; when these are properly included, an all mail election costs considerably more than a regular election. For example, part of what mail balloting may do is simply transfer costs from the public agency to the voter, for example, by not providing return postage. Thus such election costs don't turn up in the official accounting of the election's cost. YOUR ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES TO MAKE THIS COST TRANSFER TO VOTERS. YOU MUST NOT ALLOW THIS, AND SHOULD PROVIDE RETURN POSTAGE IF YOU UNWISELY DECIDE AGAINST ALL COMMON SENSE TO HOLD A MAIL ELECTION. Studies indicate not providing return postage for ballots substantially reduces voter participation. It also causes problems, like ballots returned to the sender due to insufficient or missing postage; many of these ballots never get counted, further reducing participation. 4. "Mail voting is secret."This claim is absurd on its face given the signatures required on the ballot and on the envelope containing the ballot. Connecting signatures to specific ballots eliminates the secret ballot. In fact, lack of secrecy is one of the BIGGEST complaints about mail balloting. Because of the signed-ballot provision, in the recent Los Osos sewer election (which staff claims was a great electoral experience), it has been claimed that anyone who wanted to know how anyone else voted could find out. Indeed, there were recriminations around Page 2, B-9, Mail Election Comments Richard Schmidt V544-4247 M11/1414 08:14PM D3/5 i. that town about how people had voted -- based on knowledge that could oi.., have been ascertained because of the lack of secrecy surrounding the voted ballots. YQting citizens should not be subjected to even the pmM_ of such intimidation. This is un-American. Also, vote counting may be observered by non-counters, who are legally entitled to watch the counting. With signatures connected with ballots, this is a clear way to violate voting secrecy. Lack of secrecy is also a problem at the time of voting. In a voting booth, nobody knows how you vote except you; you are there alone. But in a household, dormitory, assisted living facility, or fraternity house, for example, mail voting becomes something which may not enjoy any privacy, which is likely done in the presence of others, and the opportunities for coercion (whether spousal or other) abound. Mail balloting explicitly eliminates the secrecy of the voting booth, and introduces many opportunities for pressure and outright voter intimidation. It is the antithesis, in this respect, of a good voting system. This, too, is un-American. 5. "Mail voting is freer from fraud than polling place voting."This claim seems so absurd on its face, one suspects those making it make it so loudly to cover up the obvious problems, which begin with provisions of the ordinances before you. Note in those ordinances (all-mail and hybrid) Section 4, C.7 and Section 5, C (all mail ordinance numbering). These provisions allow anyone to sign over ballots to anyone else, who may return them to the city clerk! (This is in great contrast to the sign-over provisions for absentee ballots, which can only be returned by a.specifled close family member, and only upon certification one cannot for some good reason return the ballot oneself.) If you adopt that language, you are establishing the legitimacy of ballot bundling; any interested party may go out and solicit ballots, either voted or unvoted, and then do as he pleases with them -- returning those voted "properly,"discarding those not voted according to the bundler's wishes, for example, or even collecting them blank and voting them himself. You also open up the opportunity for outright selling of votes--for money, or for other considerations including, say, food, drink, or sex. How anyone can with a straight face claim such a system is more corruption-proof than poll voting is laughable. Such a system is an invitation to corruption. Consider other opportunities for fraud: Ballot theft. One of the differences between absentee voting and all mail voting (a difference administration doesn't point out), is that with the former, ballots are mailed over a considerable length of time only to voters who request them, and voters know to be expecting the ballot by return mall. This means relatively few ballots are mailed out at any one time, thus reducing (but not eliminating)the likelihood of mass ballot theft. With all- mail voting, however, a mass of ballots is mailed all at one time, and the voter doesn't know when to expect one, or even to expect one, since they are mailed to everyone without request. This is an invitation to thieves- to intercept ballots in transit, or to empty them from mailboxes on the receiving end. Stolen ballots may be voted corruptly, or they may simply be discarded to reduce voter participation. Consider the high percentage of our citizens residing in congregate facilities: student housing complexes, fraternities, senior homes, group living homes, apartment complexes. In any of these, there'd be a lot of ballots to steal, and signatures are on file and readily available to the enterprising election manipulator. Since the recipient didn't know the ballot was coming, it might never be missed. WE HAVE A SPECIAL SET OF BALLOT SECURITY PROBLEMS IN THIS TOWN GIVEN THE HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS LIVING IN THESE SORTS OF CONDITIONS. And remember, although the clerk claims fraud operators will be punished, those punishments, if they ever take Page 3, B-9, Mail Election Comments Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 It 11/1414 ®8:16 PM D 415 place,' are minor compared to th,--oeneflts to the malefactor, and the croo►._ ,election's results remain Intact despite the prosecuted fraud. (In Texas, there is evidence stolen ballots have swung elections; in England, ballot desperadoes go so far as to highjack mail trucks and blow up mail drop boxes known to contain ballots presumably voted for the opposition. These sorts of problems don't exist with a polling place election. Why open the door to them?) • Quid pro quo. One of the simplest election scams, and one that's probably legal, if unethical, is the ballot-for- barbecue or ballot-for-beer scheme. Bring your ballot to our barbecue or beertest, sign it and give it to us as your ticket for admission, and we'll deliver it. Your ordinance condones this. Is this a danger?Absolutely. With tens of thousands of ballots going out to people who haven't requested them and don't know anything about the issue, and don't care, why not use them as a ticket for a free meal or free high?An arm of the Republican Party in recent weeks went almost this far on the Cal Poly campus offering free food for the benefit of a mayoral and council candidate. And a council candidate offered students half-price meals in his establishment in the leadup up to the election. Nobody blinked at this manipulation of uninterested voters. Why not add a ballot-turnover to the equation and gain firm control over the outcome? And then there's the gentler way for gentler people. Say a"nice" person goes to one of the senior facilities, where everyone has received a ballot, and announces a ballot party (with cookies and ice cream) where we'll talk about the issues and help you vote. Just be sure to remember to bring your ballot. Then she collects the ballots, which thanks to the "nice"person's help, have been voted the "right" way. Note that not providing return postage would further encourage ballot bundling and fraud, for it incentivizes alternative methods of ballot return. These are just two among many possible nightmare scenarios an all-mail voting system introduces to our elections. DONT GO THERE, FOR THE GOOD OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SYSTEM BY WHICH YOU ARE ALL SELECTED. 6. "Verification of voter signatures provides greater ballot security than in a polling place." This is an odd claim, especially considering the high legitimacy of polling place voting, and the total lack of local claims of polling place fraud. Beyond that, the 'Verification" system raises many questions. For starters, who knows whether the signature was signed by the same hand that voted the ballot? Or by someone else? The signature may be valid, and the vote still be illegitimate. This issue never arises in a polling place. Then consider the vagaries of `verification." Who among us can say for certain that a signature on a ballot is by the same person who signed 20 years earlier on a voter registration card? Handwriting changes. Steady hands may come to shake. Eyes that guide the hand may become blurry. What subjective standards will enable us to make that determination? Who will play "god" in this manner over whether a vote counts or is discarded?To say this is a foolproof system is foolish. What if a ballot is determined to be "illegitimate"on grounds of signature verification?The voter who cast that ballot will never know her vote was thrown out. In a polling place, any voter would be aware of a challenge (and also of a mismarked ballot, something else for which mail balloting is unforgiving). How can voters have confidence in a system where someone plays"god" in a back room, discarding votes determined on some subjective basis not to be legitimate? Where are the checks and balances in such a system? Where is the fairness? On the other hand, if the examiners don't exercise such subjective diligence and engage in permissive kindness ' Have there ever been any prosecutions here? I have filed numerous complaints about blatant violations of the city's election laws in past elections, and NONE have ever been acted upon. There are multiple complaints of election irregularities in the recent election which clearly violate the law, and to my knowledge none are being pursued to prosecution. It's better to prevent voting system problems than to depend upon uncertain enforcement after problem-plagued provisions are admitted to the voting system. Page 4, &9, Mail Election Comments Richard Schmidt V544-4247 CEO 11/1414 OB:17PM p5/5 towards all ballots not signed by 4-dog's paw, claims of great security base, in signature matching are meaningless. Another issue raised by signature matching of the sort described in the staff report: How long will it take to count the ballots this way?It took our elections staff months just to verify 500 signatures on the referendum petitions. How long would it take to verify 40 times that many in a mail election? How many weeks or months past "election day"would the public have to wait to get results o1 the election? The longer the wait, the more Illegitimate the election appears to the public;the longer ballots sit around, and the more opportunity for tampering with them. Such a system cannot be claimed to offer superior security. 7. "A contractor will run an an elction as honest as that run by the county."One would hope this to be the case, but privatizing an election introduces a great deal of discomfort and potential for fraud into a system where it should not be, and doesn't need to be. When the CEO of Diebold says he'll do whatever it takes to deliver Ohio to Bush, the bar for contractor honesty has been set very low in the public's mind. The problem with the city hiring a contractor to do THIS election is simple: The city, meaning the same administration who will hire the contractor, have shown they are not disinterested parties. They vigorously advocate a position. They manipulated the council's initial Marketplace decisions through a combination of persuasion and selective information. They have fed snotty insider comments on referendum proponents to the Chamber's e-Insider, which has publicized this dirt. They have a case to make, an election outcome they want, and scores to settle with citizens who stand in their way. Then they hire a firm to run an election. In polite language, this is a conflict of interest. All consultants work for money, and work not only for present money, but also future money. A consultant has every reason to want to please those who hire him, and every reason to want not to displease the hirer. What better way to get future work?The consultant doesn't work.for the people of San Luis Obispo, he works for the city hall administration. And an election run in this fashion would be fair and impartial?This situation doesn't pass the smell test, especially when the contractor would be running an untried and highly questionable type of election. The people of San Luis Obispo would be a lot more comfortable with an election run in the customary way by public officials who are responsible to them, and removed from the control of the city hall administration. You need to honor this way of lending legitimacy to the election's results, and wait till the county, not a private vendor, can run our election. One could write a book of refutation about the alleged "merits"of the mail in election the city administration is pushing for. But I'll spare you. I've said enough to deflate this balloon. The credibility of our electoral system is paramount. It is the basis on which the public accepts the outcome as legitimate. We have a credible system -- going to the polis and voting. Don't replace it with a system with little credibility. In conclusion, PLEASE DO NOT HOLD A MAIL-IN ELECTION. As I said to you the last time this issue was discussed, the present polling place method works well in San Luis Obispo. It isn't broken, so don't try to fix it. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt PS. Remember, Democracy is inherently a group activity. The rituals of its practice are important for its continuation. Aside from the problems with mail elections, consider what happens when we stop practicing the collective rituals that bind us together-- like having an election day when we go to the polis and visibly express what it means to be an American -- and replace them with something mundane and ritually insignificant, like mail voting. Do your part to stengthen rather than weaken the loosening fibers that keep us all working together.. Page 5, B-9, Mail Election Comments CYDNEY HOLCOMB SOS SS4 OSSS 11/1S/04 OS:24pm P. 001 RECEIVED NOV j 5 20i!4 tae n LO CITY CLERK Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604. San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 RED FILE yCou CIL -TCDD D, PtifE ING AGENDA Gc:A FIN DIR I/ACApFIRE CHIEF L�ITEM # hJL_9 I Al oRNEY DIR ,;?�'CLERK'ORIG GPOLICE CHF 71— DEPT HEADS P,EC CIR i DATE: November 15, 2004 1,511, 'i''P, TO: San Luis Obispo City Council VIA: Fax to: .781-7109 RE: Meeting Date: November 16, 2004 - Item Number: Bus. 9 SUBJECT: REFERENDUM PETITIONS REGARDING DALIDIO-SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE PROJECT. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, RQN continues to oppose the use of all-mailed ballots for the special election on the Marketplace referenda. We stand by our original belief that an election conducted totally by mail and by "out of town contractors" carries with it risks of fraud and other irregularities not currently experienced with the present system. Please see the attached article (Attachment-A) 'Vote by Mail' A Formula for Fraud, by Bill Sizemore regarding all-mailed ballot issues in the State of Oregon. We also continue to believe that voters should have the option to choose how they want to vote. For example, in the March 2004 primary election 66% of the City's registered voters chose to vote at their polling place as opposed to voting by absentee ballot. And, as we have said previously: this is not the election to change the way people vote. We therefore, respectfully urge you to choose the November, 2005 option. This will not only maintain the integrity of the voting system by using the traditional method of voting and local election staff, but it will save the City, or whoever is paying the bill, $50,000.00. Sincerely, 4 id.,�� -7 _V'o-� , Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN Attachment -1 CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805 S84 0365 11/15/04 05:24pm P. 002 I ) ' November 15, 2004 Attachment-A RQN - Opposition to All-Mailed Ballots Page 1 'VOTE BY MAIL' A FORMULA FOR FRAUD By Bili Sizemore April 8, 2003 NewsWithViews.com Quick and easy works for a lot of things. Voting Is not one of them. Making it convenient for citizens to cast their ballots is a good thing, generally, but not if the convenience undermines the integrity of the entire election process. I live in Oregon, the state that pioneered vote-by-mail. Here, we don't go to the polls on election day. Instead, the elections division mails our ballots directly to our homes two to three weeks before the election. We mark or punch our ballots at our leisure sitting at the kitchen table and then simply drop them in the mail. No braving the elements on election day. No fear of an ice storm suppressing voter turn- out. No more waiting in line at the polls or being forced to hurry our decisions because of the long lines behind us. That's why most Oregonians love vote by mail. It's quick and easy, the ultimate in voting convenience. But, at what price? Truth Is, vote by mail is a formula for election fraud. The Flaw is obvious: From beginning to end, no real human ever has to see the voter's face. No real person determines that you are who you say you are, or that the person you say you are even exists. Unscrupulous people can easily mark someone else's ballot and not get caught. Have any fictitious names you want to vote under? It's easy. Who's going to know?Some voter's ballots are mailed to a P.O. Box. The person picking up his mail throws the ballot in the trash if he or she doesn't want to vote on a particular issue. Anyone can retrieve those ballots out of the trash. In Oregon, anyone who wants to, can have three or four additional ballots mailed to their home. Why vote just once when you can vote early and often? And what about your dog? Shouldn't he have a say regarding who will represent him in the next legislature? You registered him with the county, why not with the elections division? Under the old system it was hard to sneak an extra ballot past those ever-attentive little old ladies down at the voting precinct. Unless you were a master of disguises, more likely than not, those gals would recognize you from your earlier trip that same day. Not so with vote-by-mail. No one has to see your mug in person. Not ever. If you're a cheat, here's all you have to do to vote three or four times in the next election: Next time you stop by the local post office or the Department of Motor Vehicles, pick up a handful of voter registration cards. They're free and there's no limit on how many you can take. Using your own address, fill in the names of relatives in other states, or easier yet, just make up any names you like. Names that have a minority ring to them are best. With the CYDNEY HOLCOhB SOS SS4 OSSS 11l1S104 0S:24pm P. 003 I November 15, 2004 Attachment-A RQN - Opposition to All-Mailed Ballots Page 2 government's commitment to political correctness, minority names are less likely to be. challenged. You don't need to show identification of any kind. You don't have to demonstrate residency. After all, that would discriminate against the homeless. You don't have to demonstrate citizenship, either. That.would be an attack on minorities and immigrants. All you need is a name, address or a P.O. Box to which the elections division can mail all those official ballots. When I said you could vote three or four extra times, that was because the folks at the elections division might get suspicious, if you have ten or twenty ballots sent to your little, two bedroom house. If, however, you are the manager of a large apartment complex, the sky's the limit. You might be able to decide a local election single-handedly. Heck, 500 votes or so in Florida decided the presidency of the United States. Think big! Of course, I'm not recommending that you actually do this. That would be dishonest, and certainly, there are penalties if you get caught. The chances of getting caught, however, are minimal. In fact, the only real safeguard in the system is that each ballot has to be signed. All that means, though, is if you're going to sign lots of different ballots personally, you need to sign each one differently and keep a sample of each signature so you can sign the same in future elections. You can even trace the signatures, so they look identical. (Note: To open a bank account you need two sets of I.D.'s to prove your identity. To cash a check, some banks require thumb prints. Not so with voting.) There was a case in Oregon recently where a woman traced a dozen or so signatures on a petition. Each signature was examined by a clerk at the elections division and compared to the original signature on the person's voter's voter registration card. Every signature was certified as genuine. They weren't. They were all fraudulent. The woman had traced them from another document, and they only looked genuine. The elections division missed every one of them. Not too long ago, some renters moved out of a house.I own and left the state. Sure enough, a few weeks before the next election, a half dozen official ballots showed up in the mailbox. I could have traced my ex-renters signatures off the rental agreement and onto their ballots and mailed them to the elections division marked any way I chose. Except for God and me, who would have known? It would have been easy, and the chances that I would have been caught, close to zero. Why? Because there's simply no way the local elections office can carefully check the signatures on hundreds of thousands of ballots in a short period of time. If the signatures were traced, they probably wouldn't catch the forgeries anyway, even if they looked carefully at each one. That's the problem. Vote by mail is a system designed for honest people. It is predicated on the notion that people are basically good and won't cheat. Here in Oregon, we hold our elections as if we don't have dishonest people. Voter fraud happens in Chicago, we say, not here. Pretty foolish, huh? A pretty naive way to decide who will be the next president, governor, or mayor and decide the laws the rest of us must live under. I'm sure the founding fathers, with their more realistic view of fallen human nature, would have scoffed at such a system. CYDNEY HOLCOMB SOS SS4 OSSS 11/1S/04 OS:24pm P. 004 November 15, 2004 Attachment-A RQN - Opposition to All-Mailed Ballots Page 3 They designed our entire government to provide checks and balances on man's basic tendency towards corruption. So, how much voter fraud goes on with Oregon's vote by mail system? Truth is, God only knows. Literally. But it could be a lot. One thing's for sure, before other states follow suit, they need to look more carefully at the many vulnerabilities inherent in the system. A study by a local college professor concluded that about 30,000 people signed other peoples' ballots in a recent Oregon election. Of course, that didn't include the ones who wouldn't admit that they had broken the law. In 2000, Bush and Gore were separated by only about 6,000 votes here in Oregon. 30,000 is a lot of fraudulent votes, and could have decided the election. The actual number could be much higher. If it's not, give it time. As more people discover how easy it is to cheat and how unlikely it is that they will be caught, the fraud will increase and close elections will be decided by the cheats, not the real voters. That may have happened already. The flaws in the vote by mail system work in reverse, too. The votes of real registered voters are discarded at will by county elections personnel. If a clerk is of the opinion that the signature on the vote by mail ballot doesn't match the signature on the voter's registration card, he nullifies the entire ballot. Bear in mind that the elections clerks are novices at handwriting analysis and the signatures on the voter registration cards are often decades old and a person's handwriting changes over time. Nonetheless, if the clerk says the signatures don't match, the entire ballot is nullified. Your vote didn't count. How often does this happen? God only knows. Can you imagine the potential for corruption if just one staff person at the elections office chooses to decide the election single-handedly? (Granted, Oregon law requires clerks to attempt to contact voters, if possible, before nullifying their ballots because of non- matching signatures, but they must do so by 8:00 p.m. on election night. With huge numbers of ballots coming in on the last day of the election, there is simply no time for clerks to check the signatures and contact the voters in question. Decisions are final at 8:01 P.M.) Recently, the taxpayer organization I run did an extensive sampling of nullified signatures on a statewide petition and found that almost all of the signatures the county elections staff had discarded for not matching were indeed valid. For more details, see my NewsWithViews column, "When Your Signature Doesn't Count." When we challenged the nullification of perfectly valid signatures as a violation of the voters' constitutional rights and delivered to the court sworn affidavits from the actual voters, the judge replied that state statutes give election clerks the discretion to decide whether signatures match and that their discretion Is not reviewable. To have a clerk's opinion overrule the sworn affidavit of the actual signer is an awful lot of power to give to a bureaucrat. There are a lot of other vulnerabilities inherent in the vote by mail system, such as union voting parties with pressure to vote a certain way. Strangers from special Interest groups picking up ballots and dropping them off for you. Or not. A dishonest postal worker"losing" a sack of mail from a voting precinct of a decidedly different persuasion. The possibilities for corruption are as endless as the imagination and creativity of the dishonest. CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805 S34 0365 11/15/04 05:24pm P. 005 November 15, 2004 _ Attach ment-A RQN - Opposition to All-Mailed Ballots Page 4 In the 2000 election, a fellow with a big, wooden box and a sign saying, "Drop Ballots Here," stood on the sidewalk outside.an auditorium where 12,000 voters were gathered to hear presidential candidate George W. Bush give a campaign speech. Attendees had been asked to bring their ballots to the rally and drop them off. Many did. Problem was, no one knows who the guy on the sidewalk was. The real ballot drop-off box was a block ahead at the main entry. The guy with the big, wooden box made a hasty exit when a passerby asked him for identification. Along with him went a bunch of official ballots that trusting voters had deposited in his box. No one knows if those ballots were dropped off at the elections office or the nearest dumpster. All those carefully considered decisions may have become mere trash. There are a lot of good things one can say about vote by mail. Apparently, a solid majority of Oregon voters like it. Voting by mail is easier and more convenient than braving the November elements and waiting in line down at the precinct for your turn to vote. But if all this convenience puts the actual results of the election at risk, is that not too high a price to pay? After all, if we do not insure that elections are decided by real live, eligible voters, why bother to hold them? We lost something rather sacred when we stopped meeting with our neighbors down at the local precinct and waiting our turn in line to cast our ballots to determine together who our leaders would be and which ballot measures would pass or fail. We lost part of our sense of community. Here in Oregon, voting booths have become a thing of the past. Now we vote at the kitchen table, put a stamp on the envelope, and drop our ballot in the mail at our convenience. Then we sit back and trust that everyone else is as honest as we are. Sad to say, people of Oregon gave up their time-proven voting system for a piece of convenience. Are the voters in other states willing to follow suit? © 2003 Bill Sizemore - All Rights Reserved Bill Sizemore is a registered Independent who works as executive director of the Oregon Taxpayers Union, a statewide taxpayer organization. Bill was the Republican candidate for govemor in 1998. He and his wife Cindy have four children, ages eight to thirteen, and live on 36 acres in Beavercreek, just southeast of Oregon City, Oregon. Bill Sizemore is considered one of the foremost experts on the initiative process in the nation, having placed dozens of measures on the statewide ballot. Bill was raised in the logging communities of the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state, and moved to Portland in 1972. He is a graduate of Portland Bible College, where he taught for two years. On the side, he does a daily, one-hour political news commentary show on KKGT Great Talk 1150 AM, a Portland radio station and a contributing writer for www NewsWithViews.com. E-Mail: billgotu.oro Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - Change in voting procedures RECEIVED I';GOV 15 2004 From: "Ernesto Deutsch" <edeutsch@calpoly.edu> SLO CITY CLERK To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> Date: 11/15/2004 9:21 AM Subject: Change in voting procedures Hello, I would like to add my voice of concern over instituting a new voting procedure that will directly affect the Marketplace Project elections outcome. Please postpone this new procedure when no other CURRENT items are on the docket for consideration. This will give a fairer chance of objective passage of the 3 Marketplace Project measures while minimizing controversy or appearance of impropriety. Thank you, E. Deutsch SLO resident. < —, C-Cu NC I 4L �DD DIR �,�CAO Z FIN DIR .,CAO 2!—IRE CHIEF ATTORNEY ,Le---W DIR j <LERK'ORIG Z?OLIC=CHF 1 nrpT - ZREC DIR �r %UTIL �DiR I RED FILE ING AGENDA 1l ITEM file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.H... 11/15/2004 RED FILE , RECEIVED �f ING AGENDA t _ PCV 2 2004 l iP IT #I � L ' SLO CITY CLERK SAVE SAN LUIS OBISPO ...it's yowrawimf November 11, 2004 COUNCIL =TCDD DIR P CAO "?'FIN DIR San Luis Obispo City Council MACAO SIRE CHIEF 990 Palm Street iii- /CCLERKLERKI0. 14 `POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ;J DEPT HEADS 7_,�REC DIR Subject: November 16`s Meeting-Item 9—Marketplace Project Election Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, We have reviewed the staff report on this item and offer the following comments and recommendations.- Method ecommendations:Method of Conducting the Election We urge you to conduct the Marketplace election as a traditional polling place election. We have previously testified and written you about our concerns with an all-mail election. A hybrid, combining both the traditional polling place approach and the all- mail approach is bound to confuse voters. We believe it is in the City's interest,the developer/property owner's interest, and our interest to have the results of this election free of any cloud of mischief or impropriety. The traditional approach, would allow voters to go to the polls or use absentee ballots,just like the recent municipal election. It would also rely on public employees from the City Clerk and County Clerk to conduct the election. The City Attorney is in receipt of a letter from our attorney that concludes that the City Charter must be amended before an all-mail ballot would be lawful. The results of an election based on shakey legal ground could get bogged down in litigation before it is conducted. Worse yet,the results could be challenged by either side after the election. This is in no one's interest. Ballot Measure Wording This issue was not highlighted in the staff report but emerges in the various alternative resolutions that are in the attachments to the report. As drafted in the resolutions, the PO Box 4312 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-4312 805-546-1112 1 voters would be asked to vote"yes" if they wish to repeal your earlier approvals, and "no" if they wish to allow your earlier approvals to stand. The problems with this approach are obvious. A`yes" vote means"No" on the Marketplace, and a"No"vote means"yes". We have asked our attorney to look into the legality of this approach. But apart from the legal issues, we urge you to do the voters a favor, and make this election clear and straightforward. "Yes" should mean"Yes" on the Marketplace and"No" should mean"No"on the Marketplace. Again, having a cloud of confusion or doubt will do no one any good. Election Timing We see benefits to our cause of having an early election. Our supporters are energized, our campaign is moving well along, and we feel an election in the near tern will help us be successful. On the other hand, the staff report does a good job of identifying some of the logistical and financial considerations that must be dealt with. We think the election results will be more widely accepted if a traditional approach is used. In this context, "traditional" means the County Clerk would actually conduct the election. Since the soonest date that a traditional election will be possible is November, 2005, we are comfortable with that timing. According to the staff report, a November, 2005 election would have the lowest cost of any of the options being considered. Save San Luis Obispo can work with any election date the Council selects. What matters more to us is that the election procedure be one which is familiar to City voters. Thank you for considering our views on these subjects. Si cerely, Mi-- 4,rJ, Vujch-LaBarre, Chairwoman, Save San Luis Obispo 2 From Mchael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo - 16 Nov 2004 p. I of 2 Subject City Council agenda item Bus 9 for 16 Nov 2004 -Referendumpetitions regarding Dalidio Marketplace 16 Nov 2004 To: City Council and City of San Luis Obispo 990 Patm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 From: Michael Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) s45-e614 RE: Council agenda for 16 Nov 2004, item Bus 9 - Referendum petitions regarding Dalidio - San Luis Obispo Marketplace project Pages 10 - 11 of the staffreport list various options for council actions for a vote on the proposed Marketplace project. Of these, the ones which are most advantageous for the City and the public are option 4 (Traditional polling place special elestion to be held in November 2005) or option 5 (Traditional polling place special election to be held in November 2006). The advantages are as follows: (1) It is likely that there would be better voter turnout in November 2005 rather than April 26,2005 orMay 10,2005. - Voter turnout in the spring months is often low. For example, the City special election in April 1991 had the very poor result of only 360lo turnout. - It is likely that voterturnout among college age people (Cuesta College, Cal Poly University) would be low at a busy time of the academic year in the spring months. - Given the longer lead time to prepare arguments and rebuttals for the November 2005 date, and the extra time for pubticity on TV and in the newspaper, the November date is more likely to have the higher turnout. (2) The traditional polling method, with oversieht by the County, is likely to provide better integrity and security ofthe voting process. - County staffand county workers have a long history of management of elections and know the proper procedures, and have the needed equipment and training. - Although the vote-by-mail method does have some security advantages, it also has the oppornlnity for fraud in various ways not discussed in the staffreport. For example, dishonest persons could fraudulently register at the address of somebody they know with UNCIL RED FILE MEETING AGENDA^^ Dxe'(alo4 ffEM #-JL cAO ACAO AfiORNEY CLERIVORIG CDD DIR FIN DIR FIRE CHIEF PW DIR POUCE CHF REC DIR UTIL DIR HR DIR r,,t:it/ 1 $ 200+ SLO C ITY W 0 EEADS From Mchael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo - 16 Nov 2004 p' 2 of S"ii..t, City Council ug.odu it * Bus 9 for 16-Nov 2004 - Referendum petitions regarding Dalidio Markeplace even if that person did not actually live in the City timits. That person could then receive the ballot at the San l-uis Obispo address and mail in the ballot' (3) Options 4 or 5, with involvement of the County, offer substantial cost savings to the City .o*putra to all the other methods. Table L, below, is based on economic information from the Council agendareport for 16 Nov 2004, item Bus 9. Table 1 -of for election Notes in) Co*tV would probably only be atle to do traditional type _election, not mail-in or hybrid. Cgi S*irds do not figure pot.niiul added costs for City, regardless of voting method. Clearly, options 4 or 5 present substantial benefit to the City and thevoters. Gven the goal of a ,pe.ai., iero^tution to the matter, option 4 (November 2005 election under County supervision) is tire best overall c.hoice for the City and for the voters' Michael C. Sullivan Voting type (1) Cost to City' with County registrar of voters assistance (2) Cost to City' without County registrar ofvoters assistance (use a contractor instead) Savings to the City if method (1) (County assistance) is chosen: See Notes (A) and (B) Traditional (at Polling place) 859,721 $73,844 + 3 6,000 = $109,844 $109,844 -$59,721= $50,123 Hybrid and Not available ?$59,192 + $36,000 = $95"192 $95J92 - $59,721: s15,471 Mail-in only Not available ?$56,152 + $36,000: s92,152 $92,152 - $59,721: $32,431 Nov 16 04 O1:51p Rnr \l ens 805,.-s44 - 2601 p.1 romed .o All Mail-ln Ballot To: dromero@slocity-org From : Ann lvlarie Alers <ann@sonicsensors -com> Subject All ttlail-ln Ballot Cc: Bcc: Attached: Dear lr/hyor Romero and Councilmembers: The following are some factual statements about Oregon, the state that pioneered the vote-by mail method- Before you make your finat decision about the all mail -in ballot today, I can not "rg" yo, enough read the information lhave enclosed for you. Please read allthree articles' Lets not make tre voting issue at hand about the lvlarkeQlace '\rvorse" by an all mail -in ballot. iou r"y be openinj r J"n of worms that could even delay the t\tlarketplace project longeP please do not change the voting process for this election. This is not an appropriate time to change our voting methods- Thank you for Your consideration. "vi:tw".fu*- Ron arfd Ann Alers http: / i 'ww:newswithviews,com /Bill 'sizemorel'htm "Truth is, vote by mail is a fbrmula tbr election lraud. Ttrc i'[iiri' :s <';,rr'::r::-: -'::'ir::: beginni'g tcierrd, no real human ever lras to see the r'oter's t'acc. Ni: t'i':1, ,-..::'sli: ti'.ri'-':'it"l::cs thirt :rouirc lvho you say you are, or that the person you se:l' \'(;t!' il:'r.: rt','t':: r:r'::r:s'" RECEIVED NOV 1 6 200tt SLO CITY CLERK CDD DIR RED FILE MEEtrNu ou5tu"g oAre{trqlo:L ffEt cou ACAO ATTORNEY A'Firu otR p,Frna cHtEF -ffPW DIH .E.POUCE CHF ffREC DIH L DIF D'R P ri nted tor ftwf,sFle Alers <a n n@sonicse nsors'com>1 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle - Re: Opposition to Ghanging Voting Process for Special Election IO: From; Date: Subject: <Slokk1999 @aol.com> <dromero@slocity.org>, <kschwarts@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan @slocity.org> 1111412004 6:24 PM Re: Opposition to Changing Voting Process for Special Election 4.. Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, It is our understanding that you will be considering a proposal to change to normal voting process for the referendum on The Marketplace. We are very much opposed to your changing the voting method citizens of this town have been using since time immemorial and feel that it will cause further confusion regarding a project that will change the charaction of San Luis Obispo forever Sincerely, Elizabeth Johnson Robert Johnson RECEIVED Nov 1 6 Zcorr SLO CITY CLERK . REDff . EEilTGEDB mrcilklggtTEr t'9,ts-] UNCI .da R DIR ZCDD DIR u FIN DIR't FIRE CHIEF'-a'Pw DIR'dpouce cnr rFEC DIR .eimu otn file://C:\Documents%o2}and%o}OSettings\slouser\LocalTo2OSettings\Temp\GW )00001.FITM 1I11612004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle - same message with venders spelled correctly From: To: Date: Subject: "adrienne dickinson" <dickinsonfam@hotmail.com> <asettle@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, < dromero@slocity.org > tLlt4l2004 8:35 PM same message with venders spelled correctly Robert and I wish to go on record as opposing a special election in March for the market place issue. Waiting until the November election makes sense in terms of budget. Why should Bill Byrd be the one to determine when we have an election in San Luis Obispo? Let's keep business vultures from Glendora and Texas out of our city affairs. (And if potential venders are that fickle when it comes to business in San Luis Obisp, who needs them anyway? If they really want to be pat of our community and do what's best for residents, then they can wait.) Thank you. Adrienne Dickinson R ECEIVED NOV 1 6 200rr SLO CITY CLER K REDnt'.'- - u*;GAGEDS gATE-I/rqA rrEtl #PlE-l CLE o file://C:\Documents%o2oand%o2}Settings\slouser\LocalTo2OSettings\Temp\GW)00001.FITM tll1612004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle - Marketplace referendum From: lo: Date: Subject: <wfrancis@calpoly.edu > <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org >, <jewan@slocity.org> LUI5/20M 8:10 AM Marketplace referendum Dear City Representatives, I understand that on Tuesday, November 16,2004 the City Council will set a date for the election on the referendums on the construction of the new Marketplace project. A proposal to change the traditional polling place method of voting to one that is conducted entirely by mail (and by out of town contractors) will also be considered. It is my opinion that this election is not the appropriate time to introduce a new voting procedure. Please do not accept the proposal to change the procedure! Thank you, Hunter Francis, San Luis Obispo RED rJ4, rrEu 't RECEIVED NOv 1 6 2c0rr SLO CIW CLER K UNCIL cAO .E'icAo gAIToRNEY ^APOLJCE CHT -ryREC DIR E'UTIL DIR E+IR DIR file://C:\Documents%o20andTo20Settings\slouser\LocalTo2OSettings\Temp\GW)00001.HTM Lr/1612004 Page 1 of I Allen Settle - Concern over new voting method. From: To: Date: Subiect: "Linda Vanasupa" <lvanasup@calpoly.edu> <asettle @ slocity.org> 11115/2004 9:31 AM Concern over new voting method. Allen, I am writing to express my concern over implementing a new voting method for the referendum on the Marketplace ls it possible to stick with the traditional method? Linda Vanasupa SLO Citizen RECEIVED NOv 1 6 2e0h SLO CIW CLERK RED RLE MEENNG AGEDNA DArE-S#d ffE-t'l# b4(q': UNCI cAo ACAO 'rrcDD DIR e'rtN otn {rnecHtEF vPW Dtfr pouc RNEY R CLERIVORIG E CHF HEADS rL-)DIR IL DIR R DIR file://C:\Documents%o2oand%o2oSettings\slouser\LocalTo20Settings\Temp\GW)00001.FITM rr/1612004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle - Proposed Changes to the Voting Process iffi t*$Ss.*i{1ffi*S#Srtr's:ff #U'Sffi:FwS;$&\tt':SriSSSK From: To: Date: Subject: Linda Seeley <lindaseeley@chafter.net> <dromero@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <cmullholland@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <jewan@docity.org> LLlLSl200412:07 PM Proposed Changes to the Voting Process Please DO NOT change the voting process for the upcoming Marketplace vote. The Save San Luis Obispo Committee worked long and hard to collect thousands of signatures to get the initiative on the ballot, and this is certainly not an appropriate time to introduce a new voting procedure. Thank you. Linda Seeley San Luis Obispo RECEIVED N(iv 1 6 2corr SLO CITY CLERK RED FllE MEENNG AGENDA pnrrJ@*, ffEM # tus1' E-COUNCIL ATTORNEY CLERI(ORIG trD ,Z coo otn'/rrru orn D,trIRE CHIEFXw on .U POUCE CHFE REC DIRETIL DIR R DIR file://C:\Documents%o20and%o20Settings\slouser\LocalTo20Settings\Temp\GW)00001.FITM LUr6t2004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle - MARKETPLACE REFERENDUM To: rrom: Date: Subject: <Dabookman @aol.com> <DROMERO@SLOCITY.ORG>, <KSCHWARTZ@SLOCITY.ORG>, <ASETTLE@SLOCITY.ORG>, <CMULHOLLAND @ SLOCITY.ORG>, <JEWAN @ SLOCITY.ORG> 11/15/2004 4:41 PM MARKETPLACE REFERENDUM PLEASE SUPPORT THE TRADITIONAL POLLING PLACE METHOD OF VOTING FOR THISVERY IMPORTANT UPCOMING VOTE. ALSO, THE TRIBUNE HAD WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS AN EXCELLENT IDEA - HAVE MR. DALIDIO, MR. BIRD AND THEIR TEXAS BUDDIES PAY FOR THE COST OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION. SINCERELY, DAVID BOOKER AND JENNIFER BLOMFIELD 785 BUCHON ST. , SLO. RECEIVED NOV 1 G 200rr SLO CITY CLERK RED FILE MEENNG AGET.IDA oerclte{gErEM # W' COUNCIL cAO ACAO RNFY CLERIVORIG EADS L OIH HR DIR P9DD DtR ET FIN DiR .B FIRE CHIEFF PW Dtn ^A,POLJCE CHF€ NEC DIR file://C:\Documents%o20and%o2}Settings\slouser\LocalTo2OSettings\Temp\GW)00001.FITM ll/1612004 Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - November 16 Meeting: Marketplace Special Election From: To: Date: Subject: Kathi Cole < klcole@calpoly.edu > < slocitycou nci l@slocity.org > IIlt5l2004 5:22 PM November 16 Meeting: Marketplace Special Election RE: Method of Voting for Marketplace Referendum Dear Council Members: I understand this issue will be before the City Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, November 16. I urge you?.please DO NOl- SUPPORT any electoral procedure OTHER THAN THE USUAL ELECTORAL METHODS which have been followed in the recent past, and have produced verified fair and proper results. We have just seen a national election with numerous voting irregularities and even potential cases of serious fraud. It is vital to all parties concerned ? and especially to the people of San Luis Obispo who elected you ? that this referendum vote is decisive, final, and without any questions hanging over the process. I believe that is only possible if the special election is held in a manner consistent with all citywide elections, REGARDLESS of when that special election lcurs. Thank you. : KathiCole 206 Via San Blas San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (my residence is located between Madonna Road and Prado Road, just east of South Higuera) i.:D f:ILE , .-..81'ING AGENDA 'l r\rr: : 'lzas q KathiCole College Relations Office, 13-108B College of Engineering Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Phone: 805-756-6601 Fax: 805-756-6579 .,' !,TTORNEY -z(:lr-RK'oRto]- |,T HEADS .'Lrtlr>,anl):./ -Ytb {+0-'.d 1 lu) ;z' " 't) .< jiCAO r/ c)., E rrN itin .zlrtnr cutrr dPw otn ,T POLICE CHF fi 7t-'r^ r't- IL l file://C:\Do cuments%o2}andZo2}settings\slouser\LocalTo20Settings\Temp\GW)00001.I{TM lIl1612004 Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - Marketplace Election tlrom: TerryMohan<catsdad@sbcglobal.net> To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: IIlI5l2004 8:40 PM Subject: Marketplace Election Dear Mayor Romero and Council members,, In regard to the agenda item of November 16, 2004 I want to voice my objection to having anything but a traditional polling place election for the three Marketplace referendums. There is no need to hurry and pay the additional cost of a special election. As the Tribune editorial stated this past week if the Marketplace and it?s tenants can not wait until November of 2005 for an election then maybe there is something wrong with this project. An election supervised by the County Clerk?s office would be the most economical, legitimate, and fairest to the voters of the City. The probability of litigation, that other election forms would surely invite from either losing side, would be eliminated. We?ve waited this long to settle this issue, twelve more months will only give the voters a better chance to make a more informed decision. Thank you, lerrv Mohant" 2416 SantaClara San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . -.-"-. -rr -, :'.-: i',i--c -I',i'iNG AGENDA 1:/1i11y:: +fu^d ,.'t ,-) .// ';:'AO -, I IORNEY /: ::RK'ORIG i ; i:l',lJb,zliilrwr-ttp -z ?.tb -Z/C-D: .,, g'rtru lin pF\RE CHIEF ZPW DIR .gPOLICF CHF 1.72=r'; ':1-, ,r'_/ file://C:\DocumentsVo2}and%o20Settings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW)00001.FIIM lLl1612004 CVDNEV HOLCOHP aas 594 @385 I!./LS/A4 @St?4pm P. a@1 i, .'j i l" rr'.: i CIW CLERK RECEIV ED )f.t' Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604. San Luis Obispo,cA 93406 -t{o^d II:D FILE ; i:E]'ING AGENDA,,lJVNrr,::" b,tsq -,/ ITORNFY .WW DIR ,,, i ;]RK CF1IG N-POLICE CH./ ''i ;l:\Ds .fr?'" '' r(r*t*x't--' -/ ," "'L ,'t .1.., ,,/ :-,1,O* €CD, .E'FIN Dii] .€-FIAE CHIEF DATE:November 15,2OO4 San Luis Obispo City Council Fax to: 7aL-7IO9 Meeting Date: November L6, 2OO4 - Item Number: Btts. 9 TO: VIA: RE: SUBJECT:REFERENDUM PETITIONS REGARDING DALIDIO-SAN LUIS MARKETPIACE PROJECT. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Clty Council, RQN continues to oppose the use of all-mailed ballots for the special election on the Marketplace referenda. We stand by our orlginal belief that an election conducted totally by mail and by "out of town contractors" carries with it risks of fraud and other irregularities not currently experienced with the present system. Please see the attached article (Attachment-A) 'Vote by Mail'A Formula for Fraud, by Bitl Sizemore regarding all-mailed ballot issues in the State of Oregon. We also continue to belleve that voters should have the option to choose how they want to vote. For example, in the March 2004 primary election 660lo of the City's registered voters chose to vote at their polling place as opposed to voting by absentee ballot. And, as we have said previously: this is not the election to change the way people vote. We therefore, respectfully urge you to choose the November, 2005 option. Thls wlll not only maintain the integrity of the voting system by using the traditional method of voting and local election staff, but it will save the City, or whoever is paying the bill, $50,000.00. Sincerely,Qry -htr*-,'$ Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN Attachment -1 CYDNEY HOLCOMB November 15 2004 aaS ss4 @365 1-L/LE/A4 @5z74pm P. AAZ Attachment-A RQN - Opposition to All-Mailed Ballots Page 1 'VOTE BY MAIL'A FORMUI.A FOR FRAUD By Bill Sizemore April B, 2003 NewsWithViews.com Quick and easy works for a lot of things. Voting ls not one of them. Making it convenient for citizens to cast their ballots is a good thing, generally, but not if the convenience undermines the integrity of the entire election process. I live in Oregon, the state that pioneered vote-by-mail. Here, we don't go to the polls on election day. Instead, the elections division mails our ballots directly to our homes two to three weeks before the election, We mark or punch our ballots at our leisure sitting at the kitchen table and then simply drop them in the mail. No braving the elements on election day. No fear of an ice storm suppressing voter turn- out. No more waiting in line at the polls or being forced to hurry our decisions because of the long lines behind us. That's why most Oregonians love vote by mail. It's quick and easy, the ultimate in voting convenience, But, at what price? Truth is, vote by mail is a formula for election fraud. The flaw is obvious: From beginning to end, no real human ever has to see the voter's face. No real person determines that you are who you say you are, or that the person you say you are even exists. Unscrupulous people can easily mark sorneone else's ballot and not get caught. Have any fictitious names you want to vote under? It's easy. Who's going to know?Some voter's ballots are mailed to a P.O. Box. The person picking up his mail throws the ballot in the trash if he or she doesn't want to vote on a particular issue, Anyone can retrieve those ballots out of the trash. In Oregon, anyone who wants to, can have three or four additional ballots mailed to their home. Why vote just once when you can vote early and often? And what about your dog? Shouldn't he have a say regarding who will represent him in the next legislature? You registered him with the county, whY not with the elections divlslon? Under the old system it was hard to sneak an extra ballot past those ever-attentive little old ladles down at tne voting precinct. Unless you were a master of disguises' more likely than not, those gals would recognize you from your earlier trip that same day. Not so with vote-by-mait. No one has to see your mug ln person. Not ever. If you're a cheat, here's all you have to do to vote three or four tlmes in the next election: Next time yo, rtop by the iocal post office or the Department of Motor Vehicles, pick up a handful of voter registration cards. They're free and there's no llmlt on how many you can take. Using your own address, fitl in the names of relatives in other states, or easier yet, just make up uny names you like. Names that have a minority ring to them are best. With the CYDNEY HOLCOMB November 15 2004 EAs SS4 @385 LI/rg/@4 @ElZ4pm P. @Ag Attachment-A RQN - Opposition to All-Mailed Ballots Page 2 government's commitment to politicat correctness, minority names are less likely to be challenged. you don't need to show identification of any kind. You don't have to demonstrate residency. After all, that would discriminate against the homeless. You don't have to demonstrate citizenship, either. That would be an attack on minorities and immigrants. All you need is a name, address or a P,O. Box to which the elections division can mail all those official ballots. When I said you could vote three or four extra times, that was because the folks at the elections division might get suspicious, if you have ten or twenty ballots sent to your little' two bedroom house, If, however, you are the manager of a large apartment complex, the sky's the limit. You might be abte to decide a local election single-handedly. Heck, 500 votes or so in Florida decided the presldency of the United States. Think big! Of course, I'm not recommending that you actually do this. That would be dishonest, and ceftainly, there are penalties if you get caught. The chances of getting caught, however, are minimal. In fact, the only real safeguard in the system is that each ballot has to be signed. All that means, though, is if you're going to sign lots of different ballots personally, you need to sign each one differently ind keep a sample of each signature so you can sign the same in future elections. You can even trace the signatures, so they look identical, (Note: To open a bank account you need two sets of I.D.'s to prove your identity. To cash a check, some banks require thumb prints. Not so with voting.) There was a case in Oregon recently where a woman traced a dozen or so signatures on a petition. Each signature was examined by a clerk at the elections division and compared to the original signature on the person's voter's voter registration card. Every signature was certified as genuine. They weren't. They were all fraudulent. The woman had traced them from another document, and they only looked genuine. The elections division missed every one of them. Not too long ago, some renters moved out of a house I own and left the state. Sure enough, a few weeki bifore the next electlon, a half dozen official ballots showed up in the mailbox. I could have traced my ex-renters signatures off the rental agreement and onto their ballots and mailed them to the elections division marked any way I chose. Except for God and me, who would have known? It would have been easy, and the chances that I would have been caught, close to zero. Why? Because there's simply no way the local elections office can carefully check the signatures on hundreds of thousands of ballots in a short period of time. If the signatures were traced, they probably wouldn't catch the forgeries anyway, even if they looked carefully at each one. That's the problem. Vote by mail is a system designed for honest people. It is predicated on the notlon that people are basically good and won't cheat. Here ln Oregon, we hold our elections as if we don't have dishonest people. Voter fraud happens in Chicago, we say, not here. Pretty foollsh, huh? A pretty naive way to decide who will be the next president, governor' or mayor and decide the taws the rest of us must live under. I'm sure the founding fathers, wlth their more realistic vlew of fallen human nature, would have scoffed at such a system' CVENEV HOLCOME EOS 5S4 ASB5 7"7. / rS/@4 @,5z24pm P. @,@'4 Attachment-ANovember 15 2004 RQN - Opposition to All-Mailed Ballots Page 3 They designed our entire government to provide checks and balances on man's basic tendency towards corruption. So, how much voter fraud goes on with Oregon's vote by mail system? Truth is, God only knows. Literally. But it could be a lot. One thlng's for sure, before other states follow sult; they need to look more carefully at the many vulnerabilities inherent in the system. A study by a local college professor concluded that about 30,000 peopte signed other peoples' ballots in a recent Oregon election. Of course, that didn't include the ones who wouldn't admit that they had broken the law. In 2OO0, Bush and Gore were separated by only about 6,000 votes here in Oregon. 3O,OOO is a lot of fraudulent votes, and could have decided the election. The actual number could be much higher. If it's not, give it time. As more people discover how easy it is to cheat and how unlikely it is that they will be caught, the fraud will increase and close elections will be decided by the cheats, not the real voters. That may have happened already. The flaws in the vote by mail system work in reverse, too. The votes of real registered voters are discarded at will by county elections personnel. If a clerk is of the opinion that the signature on the vote by mail ballot doesn't match the signature on the voter's registration card, he nullifies the entire ballot. Bear in mind that the elections clerks are novices at handwriting analysis and the signatures on the voter registration cards are often decades old and a person's handwriting changes over time, Nonetheless, if the clerk says the signatures don't match, the entire ballot is nullified. Your vote didn't count. How often does this happen? God only knows. Can you imagine the potential for corruption if just one staff person at the elections office chooses to decide the election single-handedly? (Granted, Oregon law requires clerks to attempt to contact voters, if possible, before nullifying their ballots because of non- matching signatures, but they must do so by B:OO p.m. on election night. With huge numbers of ballots coming in on the last day of the election, there is simply no time for clerks to check the signatures and contact the voterc in question. Decisions are final at 8:01 p.m.) Recently, the taxpayer organization I run did an extensive sampling of nullified signatures on a statewide petition and found that almost all of the signatures the county elections staff had discarded for not matching were indeed valid. For more details, see my NewsWithViews column, "When Your Signature Doesn't Count." When we challenged the nullification of perfectly valid signatures. as a violatlon of the voters' constitutional rights and delivered to the couft swom affidavits from the actual voters, the judge replied that state statutes give election clerks the discretion to decide whether signatures match and that their discretion ls not reviewable. To have a clerk's opinion overrule the sworn affidavit of the actual signer is an awful lot of power to give to a bureaucrat. There are a lot of other vulnerabilities inherent in the vote by rnail system, such as union votlng parties with pressure to vote a certain way. Strangers from special interest groups picking up ballots and dropping them off for you. Or not. A dishonest postal worker "losing" a sack of mall from a voting preclnct of a decidedly dlfferent persuaslon. The possibilitles for corruptlon are as endless as the lmaglnation and creatlvlty of the dishonest. CYENEY HOLCOI4B 2004 e@5 5S4 4365 LI/1-S/@+ @5: Z4pm P, @@5 Attachment-ANovember 15 RQN - Opposition to All-Mailed Ballots Page 4 In the 2ooo election, a fellow with a big, wooden box and a sign saying, "Drop Batlots Here,,, stood on the sidewalk outslde an Juditorium where 12,OOO voters were gathered to hear presidential candidate George W. Bush give a campaign speech' Attendees had been asked' to bring their ballots to the rally and drop them off. Many did. problem was, no one knows who the guy on the sidewalk was. The real ballot drop-off box was a block ahead at the main entry.-Tne guy with the big, woodenbox'made a hasty exit when a passerby asked him for identificatio-n.-Rtong with him went a bunch of official ballots that trusting voters had deposited in his box. No one knows if those ballots were dropped off at the elections office or the nearest dumpster. All those carefully considered decisions may have become mere trash' There are a lot of good things one can say about vote by mail. Apparently, a solid majority of Oregon voters tife tt. VJting by mail is easier and more convenient than braving the November elements and waiting in'tine down at the precinct for your turn to vote. But if all this convenience puts the actual results of the election at risk, is that not too high a price to pay? After all, if we do not insure that elections are decided by real live, eligible voters, why bother to hold them? We lost something rather sacred when we stopped meeting with our neighbors down at the local precinct and waiting our turn in line to cast our ballots to determine together who our leaders would be and which ballot measures would pass or fail. We lost part of our sense of community. Here in Oregon, voting booths have become a thing of the past. Now we vote at the kitchen table, put a stamp on tne envelope, and drop our ballot in the mail at our convenience. Then we sit back and trust that everyone else is as honest as We are. Sad to say, people of Oregon gave up their time-proven voting system for a piece of convenlence. Are the voters in other states willing to follow suit? @ 2OO3 Bill Sizemore - All Rlghts Reserved Bltt Sizemore is a registered Independent who works as executive director of the Oregon Taxpayers lJnion, a itatewide taxpayer organization, Bitt was the Republican candidate for governor in 1998. He and his wife Cindy iave four children, ages eight to thirteen, and live on 36 acres in Beavercreek, iust southeast of Oregon CitY, Oregon' Bitt Sizemore is considered one of the foremost experts on the initiative process in the nation, having placed dozens of measures on the statewide battot. Bill was raised in the toggin'g communiiles of the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state, and moved to Portland in-IgiZ. He is a graduate of Porttand Bible Cotlege, where he taught for two years. On the side, he does a iaity, one-hour politicat news commentary show on KKGT Great Talk 775O AMi a Porttand radto'station and a contributing writerfor www.NewsWithViews.com. E'Mail: bill@otu.org Page 1 of 1 To: SLO Citycouncil - Marketplace referendum From: <wfrancis@calpoly.edu> Date: Subject: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org >, <dromero@slocity.org ), < kschwaftz@slocity.org >, <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org> LL|1512004 B:10 AM Marketplace referend u m Dear City Representatives, I understand that on Tuesday, November 16,2004 the City Council will set a date for the election on the referendums on the construction of the new Marketplace project. A proposal to change the traditional polling place method of voting to one that is conducted entirely by mail (and by out of town contractors) will also be considered. it is my opinion that this election is not the appropriate time to introduce a new voting procedure. Please do not accept the proposal to change the procedure! Thank you, Hunter Francis, San Luis Obispo 1{d;.d ru/L /- 'J -r''iCAO .,--',, il-CRNEY PCJ;', E.FIN Dtil ITIRE CHIEF "trpw orn ,i Por rce cHF'F:,,' ' ,.-- 'l ERI{ORlc i,T I.JL:ADS -Jt/ It].lDr.t(\ll-/ - i,tb r.:D FILE I ::ETING AGENDA Y,Aw-rrr i rh)s1 RE CEIVED RKslo clw cL E file://C:\Documents%o}Oand%o}OSettings\slouser\LocalTo20Settings\Temp\GW)00001.H... lUl5l2004 Page 1 of I SLO Citycouncil - Change in voting procedures From: To: Date: Subject: "Ernesto Deutsch" <edeutsch@calpoly.edu > <slocitycouncil@slocity.org >, <dromero@slocity.org > LLlI5l2004 9:21 AM Change in voting procedures Hello, i would like to add my voice of concern over instituting a new voting procedure that will directly affect the Marketplace Project elections outcome. Please postpone this new procedure when no other CURRENT items are on the docket for consideration. This will give a fairer chance of objective passage of the 3 Marketplace Project measures while minimizing controversy or appearance of impropriety. Thank you, E. Deutsch SLO resident. +{o4l -'(CIAO --'"'TITORNEY'-4;r gnK,oRtc '-.4\. -'{, t': ii,', z-i-rnE cHtrr jlPV/ DIR iTPOI.ICE CHF ,4 ::'::- t't ' ]OIL ., ) i''i' ilEADs z-InVnrtt!- ,/ .Pt& r--D riLE ',nliwlnP3fu. RECEIVED SLO CITY CLERK file://C:\Documents%o2}and%o2}Settings\slouser\LocalTo2OSettings\Temp\GW)00001.H... lLlt5l2004 E 'Jt:: I J. rUU 1ii: iii -t , Richard Schmidt RICHARD SCHMIDT E 544-4247 w11t14t4 San Luis Obispo, CA+{o/a 1 1.;,;Utrl November 14,2004 ACAO IL{EETING AGENDA n.rrr. tfrr/n{' rrEr,4 {LfoLtt City Council City of San Luis TIORNEY CLERIqORIG D HEADS Item B-9: Marketplace Referendum Dear Council Mem This communication contains general comments on B-9 other than the mail election issue, which is covered in a separate communication. 1. COST TO THE CITY. I don't understand the preoccupation with cost to lhe city. ls it not true that you have an indemnilication agreement with the developer by which he will pick up city costslor the election? ll not, you made a bad bargain with him. ln any event, the difference in cost between the cheapest possible dubious etection and a clearly legitimate one are trivial compared to the damage to your reputations if you make the wrong choice and the costs ol litigation which may also accompany that choice. 2. TEXT OF MEASURES ON THE BALLOT. It is important that the city provide lhe voters with the coMpLETE TEXT oF THE MEASURES To BE VOTED UPON lN THE BALLOT PAMPHLET. Only making the text available lor "inspection" al the clerk's oflice or on the city's dyslunctional Web site is NOT proper access. lt disenlranchises most ol the population. lt suggests the city is being sneaky, and trying to concealthe true nature of the measures (like, for example, the contents ol the development agreement). No public purpose is served by not providing the complete text to each voter. Public purpose is thwarted by NOT providing the fulltext. Absent the complete texts ol the ballot measures in the ballot pamphlet, voters will be voting on legalese and propaganda, and not on the measures at hand. ll you don't provide the fulltext, the charge will be made that you didn't want voters to know what they're voting on. Council Member Ewan stated he wanted to continue approving Marketplace aclions so "the complete package" could be placed belore voters. Well, here is your chance to put "the complete package" belore the voters -- the text ol what they're voting on and what you approved. lt would be hypocritical lor anyone to talk about providing a "complete package" when the package being provided is in fact empty. The complete text needs to be provided to every voter. Finally, it would be doubly hypocriticallor the city not to provide the complete texl. The petitioners, at a cost of many thousands ol dollars, had to include every word of your approvals on every one ol their petitions. Having put petitioners through that, it is hypocritical lor the city to reluse to provide that same information to voters. The what's-sauce-for-the-goose-is-sauce-for-the-gander principle applies here. The cost ol providing the lull text is trivial in the overall scheme ol things, and in making clear the city wants the public to be fully inlormed ol what they vote on, Do the right thing, and include the fulltext in the ballot pamphlet. 3. WHO CAN MAKE BALLOT ARGUMENTS. The resolution "setting priorities for f iling written arguments" seems to slate that only the Council may present ballot arguments. ll this is the case, it is wrong to do this. Surely both the parties (petitioners and developer) have higher rights than the council to present ballot arguments. For the council to present additional arguments seems unfair also, since it will end up being a 2-1 situation -- 2 arguments against, 1 for. please make it possible for the parties to be the ones liling the arguments. Marketplace, Page 1 -- ltem B-9 Richard Schmidt r 544-4247 \W11t14t4 08:09 PM 3212 4. ELECTION TIMING VERSUS MAXIMIZING TURNOUT Council members have variously stated that they want an election as soon as possible and they want one with the largest possible turnoul. You cannot have it both ways, and will have to make a choice. The largest turnout comes at statewide/municipal elections, and the next one will be in November 2006. You will have to settle lor about half that election's turnout to hold one sooner -- that's a fact, and you'll have to swallow it il you want a nearer-term election. You cannot change the lact that ofl-schedule special elections never get the same level of participation as even-year stale/municipal elections. (And I'd point out that you had the lirst relerendum petition in plenty ol time you could have gone ahead and voluntarily placed it on THIS November's election and got the issue resolved once and lor all -- and you were in fact urged to do that -- but you refused. ln light ol that, having to wait to get a bigger turnout is a problem ol your own making, and should not be used to rationalize an illegilimate commercially- operated or mailin election.) 5. ELECTION TIMING VERSUS ELECTION LEGITIMACY For reasons enumerated in my other communication on this item, an election run by a private consultant will raise questions aboul legitimacy, lairness, and conflict ol interest, what with said consultant being answerable to a city administration with an axe to grind rather than to the people ol this city, and possibly even being paid by one party to the election. A mail election will also be branded illegitimate, and may promote litigation which willlurther stall resolution of the relerendums. I urge you, therefore, to have an election which maximizes legitimacy ol the outcome. That requires waiting until county election oflicials can conduct it in the normal manner. Beyond that, I don't care when you schedule it. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Marketplace, Page 2 - ltem B-9 ' Richard Schmidt RICHARD SCHMIDT November 14,2004 ,/ E 544-4247 ,rfi11/14/4 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obis po, cA W44 .l^il CDD D]tI jr:rO r'ntru ntn €Ffr[#ttr" U?OLICE CHFy',:;::2 r,t:1 ./ city counc,r 2, :,iffi*r*, City of San Luis ObisOo2.,,.,;i:lopfg Dear Council Member " ./ ar,$,gD tem B-9: Mail Ballot Electon nED FILE I.i;81'ING AGENDA r . Ayiislnl- lrrt.l {fus:1 This communication relates solely to the issue ol a mail ballot election. Generalcomments on other matters are in a separate communication. I had thought after the vigorous discussion last time, this issue was dead, but apparently, judging lrom the lengthy biased reporl report by your administralion, it is not. While administration officially remains neutral, their repod is so one-sided and rosy-eyed as to be manipulative, and it requires rejoinder. With the public in an uproar over the integrity ol the electoral process, it would be loolish lor the councilto lufiher complicate voting on Bill Bird's Marketplace by using a questionable and unlamiliar voting method solely lor this matter. ll you do, you will lorever foreclose the community closure you claim to seek by letting this matter go lo a vote rather than doing right now what the voters in a honest election will do, rescind your approvals. I'd like to make a number of points your administration report lails to make because it is so one-sided. (lt is hard to understand why administration leels you are well-serued by receiving only one side ol a controversial matter. But this seems to be the way ol the Hampian regime, and will apparently continue until the council makes clear they want multiple viewpoints in stafl reports. Administration could easily have done a more well-rounded report I spent a lew minutes on the Lexis-Nexis Academic Search database, and lound hundreds ol articles about )problems with mail balloting. Using that single source barely scratches the surface ol what's easily available in popular and scholarly publications.) 1. The "background" materials placed in your reading file are of questionable merit, and with the exception ol material provided by Kent Taylor, they are mostly sell-serving reports by election ollicials about elections over which they presided -- hardly an objective source lor information! Katherine Harris still sees no problems with 2000's voting in Florida! Lel's be a bit skeptical ol inlormation coming lrom such self-interested sources. Also, it's interesting that inlormation about Colorado is included in the reading file. Severalyears ago, Coloradans were urged to become the second state (after Oregon) to go to all-mail elections. When the people voted (at their polling places), they resoundingly deleated this f lawed idea. Why? One reason is the local press had been lull ol stories about questionable-to-crooked Colorado elections conducted this way, and the people rejected all-mail balloting because it demonstrably lacked integrity. 2. "lncreased voter turnout". This seems to be the winning propaganda point in lavor of mailvoting. But is it true? There is no clear evidence, despite the skewed information in the administration report. ln fact, dispassionate studies -- as opposed to statements by voting ollicials locked into believing their own eye-popping stories -- suggest it is not true. To cite only two among the many compelling counter views: . Melody Rose, a Portland State University Politicalscience professor, challenges the notion that Oregon's "highly successlul" syslem has saved costs and enhanced turnout. "The trouble is," she says, "that's not true." Oregon olficials, she points out, cook the books when they claim astronomicalturnouts. ln the 2000 presidential election, lor example, olficials touted an astounding B0% turnout, which is well above national averages. Rose says election olficials aren't being honest because they're using a dilterent measuring system than the ,customary one. They're counting turnout among registeredvoters, and since people who register tend to vote, .-/the numbers are misleadingly high. ll election olficials instead used the measure used by political scientists, that is turnout as a percentage ol eligible voters, Oregon's 2000 presidential election turnout drops to a mundane 62h. Thal's a big difference, and, she says, is typical ol how ollicials promoting vote-by-mail inllate their claims Page 1, B-9, MailElection Comments RECEIVE 1 4gfEFfi? Richard Schmidt I5M-4247 w11t1414 O8:13 PM DZs to make the system look bette ,&r it is. Note, your administration report does the same thing Rose also examines voter turnout for Oregon's importanl2002 special election, when there were "landmark" statewide measures on the ballot, but no candidates. ln this special election, officials claimed a 44'/o turnout, which is unremarkable, but when measured as a percentage ol those eligible to vote, turnout was a measly 32/.. Clearly, il the best-inlhe-nation mail ballol system can produce only a 32% turnout lor a special electio,., this system has no bragging rights tor producing a good turnout. We get better turnouts in conventional special elections in SLO. . Curtis Gans, a well-respected social scientist and one ol the nalion's leading voting experts, flatly dismisses the claim mail balloting increases voler turnout, and has statistical analyses to prove his point. ln f act, Gans says various mail ballot syslems in place since 19BB have actually hurt voter participation -- in parl because ol the very nature ol the syslems. And, he concludes, mail elections also impede both get-out-the- vote campaigns and campaigning itsell, and leave the electorate less informed and less energized to vote. The problem with claims about increased voter turnout with mail balloting, says Gans, is that the increases claimed never include comparisons to what would have probably happened wilhout mail balloting. So, he provides some comparisons: . 24 states, including California, have "no excuse required" absentee voting (ballots given without meeting any conditions other than requesting one). ln 2000, Gans says, states with this provision increased turnoul 2.1"h lrom 1996, and that increase is cited by proponents of mail balloting. However, in states without such easy absentee balloting, participation went up 3.1%, which is a larger increase. . Early voting, available in 9 states in 2000, also did not increase turnout. States with it saw increases ol 2.6%, while states without it had increases ol 2.8% lrom 1996. . Mail voting in Oregon has made little difference in turnout. lt has done nothing to change the state's turnot't ranking for presidential elections; the state ranked 6th in the nation both belore and alter institution ol ma voting. ln 2000 (their lirst all-mail ballot), Oregon's voter participation was up 2.7"/" lrom 1996, but lor the ru battleground states that year (Oregon was one of them), none of the rest ol which had mail balloting, participation was up 3.5%. Gans is clear: the increased turnout claims ol voting olficials and potiticians-wnoEamole-maitIallottng neglect the sort ol demographie_comparison which would tell whether they are telling the truth, or merely citing meaningless statistics. 3. "Mail voting costs less." This, too, is questionable. Even a cursory review of the costs in your administration report shows this is not true. And the costs listed in the report don't cover all costs; when these are properly included, an all mail election costs considerably more than a regular election. For example, part ol what mail balloting may do is simply transfer costs from the public agency to the voter, for example, by not providing relurn postage, Thus such election costs don't turn up in the oflicial accounting ol the election's cost. YOUR ADMINISTMTION PROPOSES TO MAKE THIS COST TRANSFER TO VOTERS. YOU MUST NOT ALLOW THIS, AND SHOULD PROVIDE RETURN POSTAGE IF YOU UNWISELY DECIDE AGAINST ALL COMMON SENSE TO HOLD A MAIL ELECTION. Studies indicate not providing return postage lor ballots substantially reduces voter participation. lt also causes problems, like ballots returned to the sender due to insuflicient or missing postage; many ol these ballots never get counted, further reducing participation. 4. "Mail voting is secret." This claim is absurd on its face given the signatures required on the ballot and on the envelope containing the ballot. Connecting signatures to specilic ballots eliminates the secret ballot. ln lact, r^^k ol secrecy is one of the BIGGEST complaints about mail balloting. Because of the signed-ballot provision, it recenl Los Osos sewer election (which stall claims was a great electoral experience), it has been claimed that anyone who wanted to know how anyone else voted could llnd out. lndeed, there were recrlmlnatlons around Page 2, B-9, Mail Election Comments , Richard Schmidt 1544-4247 -@11/144 O8:14PM D3/5 that town about how people had voted -- based on knowledge that could onry'have been ascertained because ot the lack of secrecy surrounding the voted ballots. Voting citizens should not be subjected to even the possibilitlt ol such intimidation. This is un-American. Also, vote counting may be observered by non-counters, who are legally entitled to watch the counting. With signatures connected with ballots, this is a clear way to violate voting secrecy. Lack ol secrecy is also a problem at the time ol voting. ln a voting booth, nobody knows how you vote except you; you are there alone. But in a household, dormitory, assisted living facility, or lraternity house, tor example, mail voting becomes something which may not enjoy any privacy, which is likely done in the presence ol others, and the opportunities lor coercion (whether spousal or other) abound. Mail balloting€xpticiily_eliminateslhe secrecy ol the voting booth, and introduces many oppodunitieslolpressue_and_oultight voter intimidation. lt is the antithesis, in this respect, of a good voting system. This, too, is un-American. 5. "Mail voting is freer from fraud than polling place voting." This claim seems so absurd on its lace, one suspects those making it mal<e it so loudly to cover up the obvious problems, which begin with provisions of the ordinances belore you. Note in those ordinances (all-mail and hybrid) Section 4, C.7 and Section 5, C (all mail ordinance numbering). These provisions allow anyone to sign over ballots to anyone else, who may return them to the city clerk! (This is in great contrast to the sign-over provisions lor absentee ballots, which can only be returned by a specified close family member, and only upon certilication one cannot lor some good reason return the ballot oneself.) ll you adopt that language, you are establishing the legitimacy of ballot bundling;any interested party may go out and solicit ballots, either voted or unvoted, and then do as he pleases with them -- returning those voted "properly," discarding those not voted according to the bundler's wishes, for example, or even collecting them blank and voting them himself. ,You also open up the opportunity for outright selling of votes -- for money, or tor other considerations including, 'say, food, drink, or sex. How anyone can with a straight lace claim such a system is more corruption-proof than pollvoting is laughable. Such a system is an invitation to corruption. Consider other oppodunities for lraud: . Ballot lhelt One of the dillerences between absentee voting and all mail voting (a dilterence administration doesn't point oul), is that with the former, ballots are mailed over a considerable length ol time only to voters who request them, and voters know to be expecting the ballot by return mall. Thls means relatlvely lew ballots are mailed out at any one time, thus reducing (but not eliminating) the likelihood ol mass ballot theft. With all- mail voling, however, a mass ol ballots is mailed all at one time, and the voter doesn't know when to expect one, or even to expecl one, since they are mailed to everyone without request. This is an invitation to thieves -- to intercept ballots in transit, or to empty them lrom mailboxes on the receiving end. Stolen ballots may be voted corruptly, or they may simply be discarded to reduce voter participation. Consider the high percentage ol our citizens residing in congregate facilities: student housing complexes, fraternities, senior homes, group living homes, apartment complexes. ln any ol these, there'd be a lot of ballots lo steal, and signatures are on lile and readily available to the enterprising election manipulator. Since the recipient didn't know the ballot was coming, it might never be missed. WE HAVE A SPECIAL SET OF BALLOT SECURITY PROBLEMS IN THIS TOWN GIVEN THE HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS LIVING IN THESE SORTS OF CONDITIONS. And remember, although the clerk claims lraud operators will be punished, those punishments, il they ever take Page 3, B-9, MailElection Comments Richard Schmidt E 544-4247 W11t14t4 08:16 PM D4/5 : benellts to the malefactor, and the crooKed electlon's results remaln lntactplace,' are mlnor compared to despilelhe-prosecutedlrcud. (ln Texas, there is evidence stolen ballots have swung elections; in England, ballot desperadoes go so far as to highjack mailtrucks and blow up mail drop boxes known to contain ballots presumably voted lor the oppositir These sorts ol problems don't exist with a polling place election. Why open the door to them?) . Quid pro quo. One ol the simplest election scams, and one that's probably legal, il unethical, is the ballot-for- barbecue or ballotfor-beer scheme. Bring your ballot to our barbecue or beerfest, sign it and give it to us as your ticket lor admission, and we'll deliver it. Your ordinance condones this. ls this a danger? Absolutely. With tens of thousands of ballots going out to people who haven't requested them and don't know anything about the issue, and don't care, why not use them as a ticket for a free meal or lree high? An arrn ol the Republican Party in recent weeks went almost this lar on the Cal Poly campus offering free food lor the benelit of a mayoral and council candidate. And a council candidate ollered students hall-price meals in his establishment in the leadup up to the election. Nobody blinked at this manipulalion ol uninterested voters. Why not add a ballot-turnover to the equation and gain firm control over the outcome? And then there's the gentler way lor gentler people. Say a "nice" person goes to one of the senior facilities, where everyone has received a ballot, and announces a ballot party (with cookies and ice cream) where we'll talk about the issues and help you vote. Just be sure to remember to bring your ballot. Then she collects the ballots, which thanks to the "nice" person's help, have been voted the "right" way. Note that not providing return postage would lurther encourage ballot bundling and fraud, for it incentivizes alternative methods ol ballot return. These are just two among many possible nightmare scenarios an all-mailvoting system introduces to our elections. DON'T GO THERE, FOR THE GOOD OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SYSTEM BY WHICH YOU ARE ALL SELECTED. 6. "Verification of voter signatures provides greater ballot security than in a polling place." This is an r claim, especially considering the high legitimacy of polling place voting, and the total lack ol local claims of polling place lraud. Beyond that, the "verilication" system raises many questions. For staders, who knows whether the signature was signed by the same hand that voted the ballot? Or by someone else? The signature may be valid, and the vote still be illegitimate. This issue never arises in a polling place. Then consider the vagaries ol "verification." Who among us can say lor certain that a signature on a ballot is by the same person who signed 20 years earlier on a voter registration card? Handwriting changes. Steady hands may come to shake. Eyes that guide the hand may become blurry. What subjective standards willenable us to make that determination? Who will play "god" in this manner over whether a vote counts or is discarded? To say this is a loolprool system is foolish. What il a ballot is determined to be "illegitimate" on grounds of signature verification? The voter who cast thal ballot will never know her vote was thrown out. ln a polling place, any voter would be aware ol a challenge (and also ol a mismarked ballot, something else lor which mail balloting is unforgiving). How can voters have conlidence in a system where someone plays "god" in a back room, discarding votes determined on some subjective basis not to be legitimate? Where are the checks and balances in such a system? Where is the fairness? On the other hand, il the examiners don't exercise such subjective diligence and engage in permissive kindness ' Have there ever been any prosecutions here? I have liled numerous complaints about blatant violations the city's election laws in past elections, and NONE have ever been acted upon.There are multiple complair' ol election irregularities in the recent election which clearly violate the law, and to my knowledge none are b, pursued to prosecution. lt's better to prevent voting system problems than to depend upon uncertain enlorcement aller problem-plagued provisions are admitted to the voting system. Page 4, B-9, MailElection Comments ol Richard Schmidt t 5M-4247 W11l1N4 @8:17 PM D 5/5 towards all ballots not signed by a dog's paw, claims ol great security bas( n signature matching are meanlngless. . Another issue raised by signature matching ol the sort described in the stafl report: How long will it take to count the ballots this wayS lt took our elections stalf months just to verily 500 signatures on lhe relerendum petitions. How long would it take to verify 40 times that many in a mail election? How many weeks or months past "election day" would the public have to wait to get results ol the election? The longer the walt, the more lllegltimate the electlon appears to the public;the longer ballots slt around, and the more oppofiunity for tampering with them. Such a system cannot be claimed to oller superior security. 7. "A contractor will run an an elction as honest as that run by the county." One would hope this to be the case, but privatizing an election introduces a great deal of discomlort and potential lor fraud into a system where it should not be, and doesn't need to be. When the CEO of Diebold says he'll do whatever it takes to deliver Ohio to Bush, the bar for contractor honesty has been set very low in the public's mind. The problem with the city hiring a contractor to do THIS election is simple: The city, meaning the same administration who will hire the contractor, have shown they are not disinterested parties. They vigorously advocate a position. They manipulated the council's initial Marketplace decisions through a combination ol persuasion and selective information. They have led snotty insider comments on referendum proponents to the Chamber's e-lnsider, which has publicized this dirt. They have a case to make, an election outcome they want, and scores to settle with citizens who stand in their way. Then they hire a lirm to run an election. ln polite language, this is a conllict ol interest. All consultants work lor money, and work not only lor present money, but also fulure money. A consultant has every reason lo want to please those who hire him, and every reason lo wanl not to displease the hirer. What better way to get luture work? The consultant doesn't work lor the people of San Luis Obispo, he works tor the city hall administration. And an election run in this lashion would be fair and impartial? This situation doesn't pass the smell test, especially when the contractor would be running 'an unlried and highly questionable type ol election. The people ol San Luis Obispo would be a lot more comforlable with an election run in the customary way by public ollicials who are responsible to lhem, and removed trom the control ol the city hall administration. You need to honor this way ol lending legitimacy to the election's results, and wait till the county, not a private vendor, can run our election. One could write a book ol ref utation about the alleged "merits" ol the mail in election the city administration is pushing for. But I'll spare you. I've said enough to dellate this balloon. The credibility ol our electoral system is paramount. lt is the basis on which the public accepts the outcome as legitimate. We have a credible system -- going to the polls and voting. Don't replace it with a system with little credibility. ln conclusion, PLEASE DO NOT HOLD A MAIL-IN ELECTION. As lsaid to you the last time this issue was discussed, the present polling place method works well in San Luis Obispo. lt isn't broken, so don't try to lix it. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt PS. Remember, Democracy is inherently a group activity. The rituals ol its practice are important lor its ,continuation, Aside lrom the problems with mail elections, consider what happens when we stop practicing the ..rcollective rituals that bind us together -- like having an election day when we go to the polls and visibly express what it means to be an American -- and replace them wlth somethlng mundane and ritually insignilicant, like mail voting. Do your pad to stengthen rather than weaken the loosening libers that keep us all working together. Page 5, B-9, MailElection Comments N=D FILE 11' f:- L. - ri tf November 11,2004 AGENDA trEr.4 t;hr\g9 SAVE SAN LUIS OBISPO ...rt's Aow&oire! rYCAO Sen Luis Obispo City Council ''/.Yg^.,-- 990 Palm Street san Luis obispo, cA e34ol iry!|$T[g|f? --t nkxr-nlr- =-.2 ?tb Subject: November 16t Meeting - Item 9 - Marketplace Project Election ./{liOUNClL PCDD DIR €,FIN DIR TE FTRE CHIEF #PW DIR -ffPOLIEE CHF ffnnc nrn Jj4lllL I'iil U.Y, I " Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, We have reviewed the staffreport on this item and offer the following comments and recommendations: Method of Conducting the Elestion We urgo you to conduct the Mark*place election as a traditional polling place election. We have previously testified and written you about our conc€rns with an all-mail election. A hybrid, combining both the traditional polling place approach and the all- mail approach is bound to confuse voters. We believe it is in the City's interest, the developer/property owner's interest, and our interest to have the rezults ofthis election free of any cloud of mischief or impropriety. The traditional approaclr, would allow voters to go to the polls or us€ absentee ballotg just like the recent municipal election. It would also rely on public employees from the City Clerk and County Clerk to conduct the election. The City Attorney is in receipt of a letterfrom our dtorney that concludes that the City Charter must be amended before an all-mail ballot would be lawful. The results of an election basod on shakey legal ground could get bogged down in litigation before it is conducted. Worse yet, the results could be challenged by either side after the election, This is in no one's interest. Ballot Meazure Wording This issue was not highlighted in the staffreport but emerges in the various alternative resolutions that are in the attachments to the report. As drafted in the resolutions, the PO Box 4312 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-4312 805-546-1 112 -T*n'' { "'"'" I RECEIVED iitlv i P" ?iitjq SLO CITY CLERK voters would be asked to vote "yes" if they wish to repeal your earlier approvals, and 'ono" if they wish to allow your earlier approvals to stand. The problems with this approaCh are Obvious. A "yes" vote means "No" On the Marketplace, and a "No" vote means "yes". We have asked our attorney to look into the legality of this approach. But apart from the legal issues, we urge you to do the voters a favor, and make this election ciear and straigtrt-forward. -*Yes"-should mean "Ye$" on the Marketplace and 'T{o' should mean'T.{o"on the Marketplace. Agairq having a cloud of confusion or doubt will do no one any good. Election Timing We see benefits to our cause of having an early election. Our supporters are energized, our campaign is moving well along, and we feel an election in the near term will help us be successful. Onthe other hand, the staffreport does a good job of identiffing some of the logistical and financial considerations that must be dealt with. We think the election rezults will be more widely accepted if a traditional approach is used. In this context, "traditional" means the County Clerk would actually conduct the election. Since the soonest date that a traditional election will be possible is November, 2}05,we are comfortable with that timing. According to the staffreport, aNovember, 2005 election would have the lowest cost of any of the options being considered. Save San Luis Obispo can work with any election date the Council selects. What matters more to us is that the election procedure be one which is familiar to City voters. Thank you for considering ourviews on these subjects. l*r";.'. t^&r^- vuj Chairwomarq Save San Luis Obispo 2