HomeMy WebLinkAbout20170727_LtrToCunninghamCity Attorney's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. CA 93401-3249
805.781.7140
slocity org
July 27, 2017
District Attorney's Office
County of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Lee Cunningham
1035 Palm Street, 4th Floor
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Via First Class Mail and Email
Dear Mr. Cunningham,
Thank you for providing us with a copy of Mr. Rice's complaint submitted to your
office and your response. The allegations come as no surprise. Mr. Rice raised the same
objections with our office when I was preparing the ballot label for Measure B. After receiving
Mr. Rice's objections back in May of 2017, 1 carefully re -reviewed the Elections Code and
relevant case law. I also consulted with the City's elections expert, Craig Steele, with Richards
Watson & Gershon, before releasing the final ballot label and impartial analysis for the special
election for the proposed Measure.
With all due respect, the analysis contained in your June 13, 2017 letter to Mr. Rice
reflects a misunderstanding of not only the applicable facts, including the actual complaint
filed with your office, but the applicable law.
1. Applicable Facts
For the record, the initiative ordinance in Measure B-17 that is now submitted to the
voters remains unaltered from the proposed ordinance in the original petition, precisely as
required by Elections Code § 9214 (Attachment 1). The only thing that was changed was that
the final ballot label did not replicate the circulating ballot title. Mr. Rice confuses and
interchanges the terms "ballot title", which is used at the initiative stage, and "ballot label",
which is used at the election stage. The terms are found in different sections of the Elections
Code.
In your letter, you concluded that it "appears that the City Council acted unlawfully"
when it adopted Ordinance No. 1632, repealing the Rental Housing Inspection program set
forth in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 15.04. You determined the Council's
independent legislative action, unrelated to the initiative petition or any election related issues,
effectively altered the proposed initiative and the question to be posed in violation of Elections
Code § 9214. Mr. Rice's complaint was not about the City's adoption of Ordinance No. 1632,
and to my knowledge no one, including Mr. Rice, has complained that the Council was in any
way precluded from legislatively repealing a program it had legislatively enacted. Rather,
Mr. Rice's complaint relates to my decision not to use the ballot title that was previously
prepared for the Petition circular verbatim in presenting the ballot question to the voters in the
ballot label. Although the analysis behind a City Attorney's obligation to prepare ballot titles
and ballot labels under Elections Code §§ 9203, 9051 and 13247 is technical and nuanced,
understanding those legal distinctions and basic public policy objectives is necessary in order
to understand the basis for my decision to issue a ballot label which differed from the original
ballot title. This was done in order not to mislead the public. Providing truthful information
that is not misleading to the voters is my statutory and ethical obligation as City Attorney and
I take that obligation very seriously. Based on my office's analysis, as well as the independent
assessment of Craig Steele, the action to change the ballot label fulfilled my statutory and
ethical obligations.
It appears you received the complaint on May 24, 2017 and issued a determination on
that complaint on June 13. To my knowledge, no one from your office reached out to our
office in order to better understand the statutory provisions we analyzed or the reasons and
underlying rationale for my decisions regarding this matter before commenting. Obviously,
this is deeply disappointing, especially given your office's position in this community and the
possible adverse impacts such comments could have on the public's trust in its City
government, the reputation of my office and our shared loyalty to the people we both serve as
public counsel. Had you contacted me, or anyone in my office, we would have been happy to
share our analysis and make our outside elections expert available to you. The analysis we
would have provided you would be as follows:
2. Applicable Law
Elections Code § 9203 requires the City Attorney to prepare a ballot title and summary
once an initiative proponent has published or posted the statutorily required notice of intent to
circulate. I did this in 2016 and prepared the following ballot title that was placed on the
initiative measure circular:
AN INITIATIVE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTION" AND TO ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED
"NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING"
Once an initiative measure qualifies for an election then the City Council must take action as
specified in Elections Code § 9214 (which gives the City Council several options in
subsections (a) through (c)). In this instance, the City Council requested the report as specified
in subsection (c) and later ordered a special election pursuant to subsection (b). For the
election material, Elections Code § 13247 states "The statement of all measures submitted to
the voters shall be abbreviated on the ballot in a ballot label as provided for in Section 9051.
The ballot label shall be followed by the words, "Yes " and "No." Mr. Rice contends that the
ballot label must precisely reflect the circulating title and summary, notwithstanding the
significant passage of time and changed legislative context between assignment of the
circulating title and the drafting of the impartial analysis and the ballot label. However,
Elections Code §§ 303.5 and 9051' both recognize a distinction between the circulating ballot
title and summary and the ballot label for the election stage. This distinction recognizes the
reality that time does not stop between when a measure begins circulating and when a separate
ballot label is prepared for the ballot. In this case, the passage of time resulted in a change to
the underlying context in which the initiative arose. Specifically, in the time period between
the date on which the circulating title and summary was prepared in September of 2016 and
the time the special election was called in May of 2017, the Council took a separate and
distinct legislative action to repeal the program it had previously adopted, which was the
subject of a part of the initiative measure — the repeal portion. The fact that the Chapter the
measure sought to repeal no longer existed was reflected in the impartial analysis I prepared
following the measure's qualification for the ballot, as was the analysis of the replacement
provision proposed by the measure (see impartial analysis on page 5 of Attachment 2). The
impartial analysis was prepared in accordance with the Elections Code and was not challenged
as provided therein. The ballot question (or label) (as shown in Attachment 3) accurately
reflects the effect of the adoption of the measure in light of the fact that the repeal portion is
now moot. Nowhere in § 13247 or § 9051 does the Elections Code require the City to present
a question which includes the ballot title verbatim, especially if inclusion of that title question
is fundamentally misleading and does not accurately reflect the effect of a vote on the measure
presented. In fact, this is precisely what the Elections Code is designed to prevent. Doing so
would ignore reality and pretend that a section that no longer exists may be somehow be re -
repealed. This analysis led me to present a ballot question that was accurate, not misleading,
and correctly reflected the effect of the measure's adoption, in an abbreviated form, while
presenting the unaltered text of the measure as circulated, all arguments regarding the measure
and the impartial analysis to the voters. I trust with accurate information, the voters will be
in a position to make informed choices, whatever those choices may be.
I concede that the underlying factual and legislative context in which this measure
arises is unique, and perhaps somewhat confusing. However, I believe that my actions
accurately reflect reality in the ballot question and clearly inform the voters of the question
before them. Your conclusion that there was any "unlawful" conduct of any kind by my office,
the City Clerk or the City Council is unfounded based on the facts, as well as a better
understanding and application of the Elections Code. After learning of your opinion via local
media inquiry and receiving your June 13, 2017 letter via a Public Records Act request, I
asked our elections expert to weigh in on your analysis — his response is attached (Attachment
4).
Given the infrequency with which your office deals with Elections Code issues and
the fact that your office, as you have publicly acknowledged, is not charged with making civil
liability conclusions, we would have assumed that a part of any complete investigation would
have included reaching out to the persons accused of wrongdoing and a qualified authority on
1 9051. (a) (1) The ballot title and summary may differ from the legislative, circulating, or other title and
summary of the measure and shall not exceed 100 words, not including the fiscal impact
statement ... (b) The ballot label shall not contain more than 75 words and shall be a condensed version of
the ballot title and summary including the financial impact summary prepared pursuant to Section 9087
of this code and Section 88003 of the Government Code.
elections law. Your failure to do so has already resulted in erroneous conclusions and public
confusion conveyed by the local media.
Accordingly, I request that you formally retract the statements in your letter regarding
unlawful conduct by the City so that we can both fulfill our obligations to the public and the
voters may make their election decisions based upon the most accurate and objective
information available.
Sincerely,
J. Christine Dietrick
City of San Luis Obispo
City Attorney
Attachments:
1. California Elections Code § 9214
2. Voter Information Guide, Special Election, 8/22/17
3. Ballot for Special Election, 8/22/17
4. 7/27/17 Letter from Craig Steele
CC: SLO City Council
Katie Lichtig, SLO City Manager
Rita Neal, SLO County Counsel, via email
Ann Duggan, SLO Deputy County Counsel, via email
ELECTIONS CODE - ELEC
DIVISION 9. MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS [9000 - 96101
( Division 9 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
CHAPTER 3. Municipal Elections [9200 - 92951
( Chapter 3 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
ARTICLE 1. Initiative [9200 - 9226]
(Article 1 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
9214.
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 15 percent of the voters of the
city according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the
Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187, effective at the time the notice
specified in Section 9202 was published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less registered
voters, by 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser
number, and contains a request that the ordinance be submitted immediately to a
vote of the people at a special election, the legislative body shall do one of the
following:
(a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the
certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented.
(b) Immediately order a special election, to be held pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 1405, at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a
vote of the voters of the city.
(c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the
certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the
legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days
or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b).
(Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 55, Sec. 17. Effective January 1, 2001.)
ATTACHMENT # I
County of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
o Special Election
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Voter Information Guide
• This is a mailed ballot election. Your OFFICIAL BALLOT
along with this Voter Information Guide are contained in your
Vote -By -Mail (VBM) packet. There is no sample ballot in this
booklet since your OFFICIAL BALLOT is included. If you
desire a copy of the ballot for your use, you can download one
from www.slocounty.ca.gov/clerk or call (805) 781-5228 to
request one to be sent to you. This will be the only official
mailing.
• To be counted, your ballot must be postmarked on or
before Election Day and received within 3 days after
Election Day or received by the County Clerk -Recorder's
Main Office or at any drop-off location (listed on the back
cover of this booklet) by 8:00 pm on Election Day, August
22, 2017.
• Spoiled Ballot? If you make a mistake, tear or deface any
portion of your ballot, please contact the Clerk -Recorder office
for further instructions.
• Contact the Clerk -Recorder by phone at (805) 781-5228 or via
email at elections@co.slo.ca.us with any questions.
• Vote by Mail'Look-Up on the Web: Check the status of your
returned VBM ballot on the Internet at www.slovote.com
VIG SLO-1
ATTACHMENT 4a
Vote By Mail Instructions to Voters
Use any black or blue colored pen or pencil to mark your ballot.
Follow the "Instructions To Voters" on your OFFICIAL BALLOT to
vote on the measure of your choice.
WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED VOTING:
1. Tear off the stub, fold the ballot, seal it in the I. D. Return Envelope,
read Declaration of Voter and sign your name in the space provided -
your signature must look similar to the original signature on your
Affidavit of Registration - DO NOT PRINT YOUR NAME.
2. If you are unable to sign, you must mark an "X" and have it
witnessed by one other person. No one else may sign for you.
3. If your residence address is different than what is printed on your
envelope, please provide your updated address on the line provided.
4. Affix first class postage (currently $0.49). The USPS recommends
that you mail your ballot by Tuesday, August 15, 2017, or sooner, to
ensure that it arrives by Election Day — August 22, 2017. You may
also return your ballot in person to the County Clerk -Recorder's Office,
1055 Monterey Street, #D120, San Luis Obispo (8am to 5pm, Monday
- Friday). On Election Day, you may return your ballot in person at any
of the Official Ballot Drop -Off Centers listed on the back cover of this
booklet between 7:00am and 8:00pm.
You may vote and return your ballot as soon as you receive it - you do
not have to wait until Election Day. However, be aware that once your
voted ballot is returned to the Elections Office, either in person or by
mail, it is considered "in the ballot box" and may not be retrieved.
VOTER'S PAMPHLET INFORMATION SECTION
The Following Contains Voter Information Applicable to your Ballot:
• BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY
• FULL TEXT OF THE BALLOT MEASURE
• CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
ARGUMENTS, IN FAVOR AND AGAINST
• REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR AND
AGAINST
Arguments in support or opposition of the proposed laws are the
opinions of the authors. The arguments are printed as submitted by
the authors.
VIG SLO-2
The San Luis Obispo City Attorney prepared the following title and summary of the chief
purpose and points of the proposed initiative measure prior to circulation of the measure for
signatures and prior to City Council repeal of Chapter 15.10. entitled "Rental Housing
Inspection", effective April 20, 2017.
TITLE
AN INITIATIVE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL
CODE ENTITLED "RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION" AND TO ADOPT NEW CHAPTER
15.10 ENTITLED "NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING"
SUMMARY
Existing San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 15.10, Rental Housing Inspection,
established a program for the registration and code compliance inspection of residential rental
units in the City of San Luis Obispo. Chapter 15.10 applies to all "residential rental dwelling
units" in the City, which are defined as "...single-family dwellings, duplexes, and second
dwelling units, which are rented, leased, or held out for rent or lease, or otherwise used for
residential rental purposes, including any curtilage, structures or buildings on the property on
which the residential rental dwelling unit is located... This definition excludes multifamily
dwellings having three or more dwelling units within a structure and transient type occupancies
(hotels, motels and bed and breakfasts)," which are subject to separate state law inspection
provisions.
Based on legal and factual assertions stated in the proposed measure, the proposed measure
would repeal entirely San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 15.10, entitled "Rental Housing
Inspection," Sections 15.10.010 — 15.10.110, and replace that Chapter with a new Chapter
15.10, entitled "Non -Discrimination in Housing," Section 15.10.010, to read as follows:
The City of San Luis Obispo shall not discriminate against any person based upon
age, income, disability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, or inability or ability to
own a home, by imposing any compulsory program, policy, intrusion or inspection
applicable to any residential dwelling unit. No determination to conduct an inspection
of any dwelling shall be based substantially on any occupant's age, income,
disability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity or status as an owner or renter of
such dwelling.
Current California and federal laws prohibit discrimination in housing accommodations based
on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability or genetic
information. The first sentence of the proposed measure defines certain characteristics on
which it would prohibit the City from discriminating "... by imposing any compulsory program,
policy, intrusion, or inspection applicable to any residential dwelling unit." The characteristics
on which the defined discrimination would be prohibited include some, but not all, existing
characteristics protected under state and federal housing law. The proposed measure
additionally would prohibit the form of discrimination described in the measure based on
"income" and "inability or ability to own a home". The second sentence of the proposed
measure would prohibit a City "...determination to conduct an inspection of any
dwelling... based substantially on..." the same set of characteristics on which the measure
would prohibit discrimination, but including "status as an owner or renter" and not including
"inability or ability to own a home".
VIG SLO-3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE B-17
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS ABOLISHING
CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A NOW
DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the People of San Luis Obispo seek to protect the privacy of all residents from
discriminatory inspections invading residents' privacy that violate the First, Fourth and Fifth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.10 requires mandatory intrusive inspections inside homes in San Luis
Obispo violating the privacy of City residents under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.10 is so vague that City Officials are authorized to silently discriminate
in determining whose home to target based on age, income, political activity, or status as a
renter or an owner; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.10 must be abolished and replaced with a Non -Discrimination in
Housing Ordinance to protect residents' privacy in San Luis Obispo;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This ordinance shall be known as the "Non -Discrimination in Housing Ordinance."
SECTION 2. Chapter 15.10, "Rental Housing Inspection", of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code is hereby repealed and new Chapter 15.10 is adopted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 15.10. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING
SECTION 15.10.010 The City of San Luis Obispo shall not discriminate against any person
based upon age, income, disability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, or inability or ability
to own a home, by imposing any compulsory program, policy, intrusion or inspection applicable
to any residential dwelling unit. No determination to conduct an inspection of any dwelling shall
be based substantially on any occupant's age, income, disability, gender, race, ethnicity,
sexual identity or status as an owner or renter of such dwelling.
SECTION 3. The people of City of San Luis Obispo hereby request this ordinance be submitted
immediately to a vote of the people at a special election, pursuant to Elections Code § 9214.
VIG SLO-4
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE B-17
This is an initiative measure placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of
City voters. The measure proposes to: 1) repeal former Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code, entitled 'Rental Housing Inspection", which established a program for the
registration and code compliance inspection of residential rental units in the City; and 2)
replace it with a new Chapter 15.10 entitled "Non -Discrimination in Housing." After proponents
submitted the measure to the City Elections Official and it qualified for a special election, the
City Council repealed the Rental Housing Inspection program. The Elections Code does not
permit a qualified measure to be modified or withdrawn, once submitted. Thus, the repeal
provision remains in the text of the measure, even though the Council already repealed
Chapter 15.10.
The City is currently governed by state and federal laws, which: 1) prohibit housing
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression,
sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income,
disability or genetic information; and 2) establish the legal requirements to conduct residential
inspections.
The first sentence of the proposed measure specifies that "...imposing any compulsory
program, policy, intrusion, or inspection applicable to any residential dwelling unit" is a
prohibited type of discrimination, if based on certain characteristics, including some, but not all,
characteristics protected under state and federal housing law. The sentence also prohibits the
specified type of discrimination based on "income" or "inability or ability to own a home," which
are not protected characteristics, as defined under state or federal law.
The second sentence of the measure prohibits any City "...determination to conduct an
inspection of any dwelling... based substantially on..." similar, but not identical, characteristics
as listed in the first sentence. This inspection sentence includes the characteristic "status as
an owner or renter," instead of "inability or ability to own a home" as used in the first sentence.
The measure does not define any terms or explain the distinctions in terms between the two
sentences. The measure does not include any of the exemptions included in state or federal
housing law. This creates uncertainty as to the effect of the measure on existing law and the
operation of the measure.
The measure also states that former Chapter 15.10 authorized discrimination and was
unconstitutional. Those assertions have not been ruled upon by a court, but could result in
liability to the City in subsequent litigation if the measure were adopted and a court deemed the
assertions to be admissions by the City.
A yes vote means that new Chapter 15.10 would replace former Chapter 15.10 and that
specified City actions and residential inspections, based on the characteristics specified in the
measure, would be prohibited, unless later modified by the voters of the City.
A no vote means that former Chapter 15.10 would not be replaced with new Chapter 15.10 and
the City would continue to be governed by existing state and federal laws regarding housing
non-discrimination and residential inspections.
sl J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
VIG SLO-5
Arguments in support or opposition of the proposed laws are the opinions of the
authors.
The arguments are printed as submitted by the authors.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B-17
You can help San Luis Obispo be a livable, affordable, and welcoming city with your Yes vote
for Measure B-17. Thousands of your neighbors signed the initiative petition to give you this
opportunity to guarantee residents' sacred rights of privacy and foreclose discrimination in city
housing policies.
By voting Yes, we all can secure the "Rental Housing Inspection" ordinance in an enduring
repeal -lock -box, so that it cannot be re -imposed without the voters' say so. And, if any city
council puts a similar invasive ordinance on a future ballot, San Luis Obispo voters will never
again allow unconstitutional searches of private homes, without probable cause.
By voting Yes, we will decree for the first time that San Luis Obispo housing policies must not
discriminate between people based on age, income, disability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual
identity, or status as a renter or homeowner. Your Yes vote assures that every person in San
Luis Obispo is treated with equal dignity, regardless of status.
By voting Yes, we can keep our city from stumbling into costly and embarrassing lawsuits for
violating residents' fourth and fifth amendment rights.
By voting Yes, we can reduce skyrocketing rent increases. The "Rental Housing Inspection"
ordinance's expensive registration and inspection fees would otherwise be passed by landlords
on to tenants.
False fears peddling the "dangers" of treating all people with equal dignity collapse under the
weight of the opponents' own tortured reasoning.
The city's desire to raise revenue never justifies unconstitutional ordinances. Strike a blow for
equal dignity, more affordable housing, security, and privacy by Voting Yes on Measure B-17.
s/ Stew Jenkins
Homeowner -Proponent
s/ Daniel Knight
Tenant -Proponent
s/ Ernest Kim
Homeowner
s/ Cameron Berkins
Renter Equality Affordability League
s/ Alisa Reynolds
Tenant
VIG SLO-6
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B-17
Please vote NO on Measure B-17 to support affordable housing and to avoid potential costly
lawsuits.
This measure was created to fight a law that is no longer in existence. The proponents'
argument is centered on a program that was repealed 5-0.
No future Council will bring back a program that was repealed by a unanimous vote, and
opposed so strongly by so many residents.
The initiative petition got thousands of signatures through misleading language and a desire to
remove the Rental Housing Inspection Program, The Council listened to the voices of the
people and got rid of the program.
Instead of celebrating an example of democracy working and a win for Fourth and Fifth
Amendment rights, the community is met with B-17, a good idea gone very bad.
The problem with B-17 is that no one really knows what the legal interpretation would be.
That's what the impartial legal analysis contained in this ballot pamphlet says. That's why so
many people who care about affordable housing are completely against it.
B-17 cannot reduce rent increases by dismantling our affordable housing programs.
Even the spokesperson of this ordinance recognized the harms contained in the "non-
discrimination" language and tried to fix it after the petitions were turned in, but it was too late.
There is no fixing of poorly written, legally unclear language.
Let's preserve San Luis Obispo's ability to help everyday people with affordable housing
programs and policies.
We urge you to vote NO on Measure B-17.
s/ Julia Ogden
CEO, Habitat for Humanity
s/ John Fowler
CEO, People's Self -Help Housing
s/ Scott Smith
Executive Director, Housing Authority (HASLO)
s/ John Spatafore
President, Friends of 40 Prado -Homeless Foundation
s/ Dale Stoker
SLO U40 Housing & Renter Advocate
VIG SLO-7
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B-17
Please vote NO on this misleading ballot measure. It is unnecessary, ill advised, harmful to
every affordable housing program in our city, and could trap the community in costly lawsuits.
The first section of this ordinance attempts to repeal the Rental Housing Inspection Program,
It has already been repealed by the Council on a 5-0 vote. The city's residents were very clear
in communicating their overwhelming lack of support for this program, and it is not coming
back.
The second section sounds harmless. The label of "non-discrimination" is compelling, and
sounds easy to support. But it is a trap, because it includes legally unrecognized and legally
unclear categories like "income", "owner or renter", and "ability to own a home". These create
legal loopholes.
There are lawyers who would take advantage of these loopholes and sue the city over its
housing programs. Countless taxpayer dollars would be lost on litigation defending our
affordable housing regulations. These laws help provide housing for workers, seniors,
students, low-income residents, veterans, and those struggling to afford housing in San Luis
Obispo. For example, under this ordinance even laws that stabilize rent for mobile home parks
could be argued as "discrimination" in favor of renters.
This ordinance would dismantle any hope of affordable housing programs in SLO. This may
not have been the intent, but it will most certainly be the result.
The writers of this ordinance will argue that it "locks' into place the end of the RHIP. But the
RHIP is already dead and gone, we already have anti -discrimination protections, and this
ordinance could instead kill off all the city's housing programs. If you think San Luis Obispo is
expensive now, wait until these programs are taken away.
Don't risk letting this happen. Please vote NO on Measure B-17.
s/ Heidi Harmon
Mayor
s/ Dan Rivoire
Vice Mayor
s/ Andy Pease
Council Member
s/ Carlyn Christianson
Council Member
s/ Aaron Gomez
Council Member
VIG SLO-S
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B-17
The city council and their adherents argue Measure B-17 is not needed because the Rental
Inspection ordinance is "dead and gone." But the council can undo its repeal next week. Voter
repeal is permanent.
To paraphrase "Miracle Max" from the "The Princess Bride," the city council's rental inspection
ordinance "is only MOSTLY dead."
Barely secret is council's desire to breathe new life into the ordinance's registration and license
fees, with hugely increased fines for innocent things like replacing your water heater without a
permit when you wake Saturday morning with no hot shower. Without B-17, fees and fines will
be passed on to raise rents.
Unless we vote yes on Measure B-17, a future city council can bring back all of its invasive
provisions. City management wrote the inspection ordinance, and remain to push it through
again to pad salaries.
Voting yes makes more affordable rental housing. Current affordable housing programs
impose a "fee" on developers for the city's low-income building fund, unless developers create
low cost units. Mobile home rent control prevents trailer park owner greed. Neither
discriminates AGAINST folks by age, income, disability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity,
or status as a renter or homeowner!
Discrimination pits one group against another. The city council's death grip on their "privilege"
to discriminate shows voters that Measure B-17 is overdue to assure equal dignity in housing
regardless of age, income, disability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, or status as a
renter or homeowner.
Yes on Measure B-17 ends housing discrimination.
s/ Cameron Berkins
Renter Equality Affordability League
s/ Daniel Knight
Tenant -Proponent
s/ Stew Jenkins
Homeowner -Proponent
s/ Alisa Reynolds
Tenant
s/ Allen K. Settle
Former Mayor San Luis Obispo
VIG SLO-9
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
VIG SLO-10
Visit Us On The Web
®r.T__r1r" www.slovote.com
Find Out The Status Of Your Vote -By -Mail
Ballot
County of San Luis Obispo
Election Information
Vote -by -mail ballot status took -up
This vote -by -malt ballot status lookup is provided for our voters to be able to
track the date their vale by -mail ballot was mailed to them and whether it
has been received by the Elections Office.
In order to maintain the privacy of the voter, the informal[ on below must be
an exact match to the voter registration on file with our office and all fields
must be completed.
Crick the 5ubrnk button below, then scrod down the page to see your blot
status.
11 you cannot find your vote -by -mail ballot record, please contact the
Elections Office at 7M5226 and we can assist you -
Last Name
Birth Date (Forst mmldd,'Ym)
i Street Address Number Only
` Zip Code
i
Submit ;
VIG SLO-11
Official Ballot Drop-off Locations
ELECTION DAY: AUGUST 22, 2017
Locations will open at 7 A.M. and close at 8 P.M.
Listed below are the locations where you can drop
off your Vote -By -Mail ballot on Election Day:
Zion Lutheran Fellowship Hall
1010 Foothill Boulevard
San Luis Obispo
Unity of San Luis Obispo
1130 Orcutt Road
San Luis Obispo
Laguna Lake Mobile Estates
1801 Prefumo Canyon Road
San Luis Obispo
Clerk -Recorder Main Office
1055 Monterey Street, Room D120
San Luis Obispo
*Please note that these locations, with the exception of the
Clerk -Recorder's Main Office are for completed ballot drop
off only. If you need a replacement ballot or need other
assistance, please come to the County Clerk -Recorder
office.
VIG SLO-12
OFFICIAL BALLOT
■ AUGUST 22, 2017
■ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SPECIAL ELECTION
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
■ INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS:
1
To vote, fill in the oval like this:
'
r To vote on a measure, fill in the OVAL next to the word "Yes" or the word "No" If you tear, deface or wrongly mark this ballot,
■ return it to the Elections Official and get another
i
r
�
■ MEASURE SUBMITTED TO THE
9
VOTERS
a
�
■ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
a MEASURE B•17
comxiri�
Shall an ordinance be adopted to replace former
r Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
■ Code, entitled "Rental Housing Inspection" (repealed
1
by City Council Ordinance 1632, effective April 20,
r 2017), with new Chapter 15,10 to be entitled "Non-
Discrimination in Housing"?
s
■ i_: ) YES
■ NO
■
a
�
■
>R
�
■
e
r
1
r
p
■
1
■
y
a
p
■
1
r
1
r
a
■
a
■
1
ATTACHMENT *3
■
1
r arr � ara � ■■■ � aa: r■ ■■n ra■r aa>w ■r■1 � w ■rn a>• a>• >— ■>. w■r wr�rr aair s>w � ■>. ■>. � a' � �, raer 1■hl .
Card I
1b,4kTi RICHARDS I WATSON GERSHON
TRO ATTORNEYS AT LAW —A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
355 South Grand Avenue, 4oth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
Telephone 213.626.8484 Facsimile 213.626.0078
RICHARD RICHARDS
July 27 2017
'
(1916-1988)
GLENN R. WATSON
(1917-2010)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
HARRY L, GERSHON
(1922-2007)
STEVEN L. DORSEY
Christine Dietrick, Esq.
WIAM L. SZ
GREG RIYLW. STEPAN CIICH
City Attorney
QUINN M. BARROW
CAROL W. LYNCH
City of San Luis Obispo
GREGORY M. KUNERT
THOMAS M. IIMBO
990 East Palm Street
ROBERT C. CECCON
KEVIN G. ENNIS
ROBIN D. HARRIS
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
MICHAEL ESTRADA
LAURENCE S. WIENER
B. TILDEN KIM
SASKIA T. ASAMURA
Re: Review of District Attorney Letter Regaidin Initiative
KAYS ER O. SUMS
..
PETER M, THORSON
JAMES L. MARKMAN
CRAIG A. STEELE
T. PETER PIERCE
Dear Christine:
TERENCE R. BOGA
LISA BOND
ROXANNE M. DIAZ
JIM G. G m Az
As you requested, I have reviewed the letter from Assistant District Attorney Lee
ROY A. CLARKE
MICHAEL F, YOSHIBA
REGINA N. DANNER
Cunningham to Kevin Rice dated June 13, 2017. In that letter, Mr. Cunningham
PAULA GUTTER RAZ BAEZA
BRUCE W. GALLOWAY
purports to analyze the City Council's entirely lawful action of repealing the City's
DIANA K. CHUANG
PATRICK K. BOBKO
Rental Housing Inspection program through the adoption of Ordinance #1632, while
DAVID M. SNOW
LOLLY A. ENRIQUEZ
a citizen initiative to do the same thing was pending.
GINETTA L. GIOVINCO
TRISHA ORTIZ
CANDICE K. LEE
TRUSIS
JENNIFERMr.
FLOW
STEVEN L,. FLOWERR
Cunningham's conclusion is not supported by the law. The City is right to
TOUSSAINT 5, BAILEY
SERITA R. YOUNG
demand that he retract this uninformed, misleading letter. Without a retraction, this
INDER KHALSA
AMY GREYSON
DEBORAH R, HAKMAN
letter will undoubtedly be used to misinform the public about actions by the City
D. CRAIG FOX
MARICELA E. MARROQU IN
Council and City staff that were legal, responsible and entirely within their authority.
WHITNEY G. MCDONALD
STEPHANIE CAO
PATRICK D. SKAHAN
STEPHEN D. LEE
YOUSTINA N. AZIZ
Mr. Cunningham's letter is legally and factually wrong for the following reasons:
BRENDAN KEARNS
KYLE H. BROCHARD
NICHOLAS R, GHIRELLI
ISRA SHAH
. There is no law that prevents a City Council from taking any legislative action
ROMTIN PARVARESH
ANDREW R. CONTREIRAS
It wishes — such as repealing an existing ordinance — while an initiative
CASEY STRONG
STEVEN A, NGUY
MARVIN E. BONILLA
petition on the same subject is pending. Mr. Cunningham's apparent opinion
BENNETT A. GIVENS
LEE A. KAPLAN
that such action might have changed one effect of the initiative is legally
OF COUNSEL
irrelevant. I note that Mr. Cunningham does not specifically say what law he
MITCHELL E. ABBOTT
TERESAHO-DRANO LE BROWNS
TERESA
believes the City Council broke when he says they acted "unlawfully." He
DIANA H. VARAT
mentions, but does not accurately quote, Elections Code Section 9210, which
SANFRANCISCO OFFICE
prevents the alteration of "petition sections" once they are filed. Mr.
TELEPHONE 415.421,8484
Cunningham omitted the word "sections" from his letter. This Elections Code
ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE
TELEPHONE 714,990.0901
section prevents the alteration of the signatures themselves, the voter
E9 5 9OFFICE 73TELEPHN.23
registration information, the declarations of circulators, and other details
CENTRAL COAST OFFICE
805.439.3515
related to the form of the actual document voters sign on the multiple
TELEPHONE
"sections" of a single petition that are turned in to an elections official.
Section 9210 does not mention the text of the proposed initiative ordinance
itself, and does not expressly or impliedly prohibit Mr. Cunningham's
ATTACHMENT44
RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Christine Dietrick, Esq.
July 27, 2017
Page 2
erroneous supposition that the City Council "effectively altered the question to
be posed." Section 9210 does not, and cannot, limit the legislative authority
of the City Council granted by the State Constitution and the City Charter.
Misstating the content of a statute and then concocting an argument that the
City did something that looks sort of inconsistent with the misstated law,
creates the appearance of ill-informed, conclusion -driven lawyering in which
public lawyers should not engage.
2. Similarly, the City Council did not violate the other statute Mr. Cunningham
mentions, Elections Code Section 9214. He expressly states that the City
Council followed Elections Code Section 9214(b) by ordering that the
"ordinance" be submitted to the voters "without alteration." The City Council
took no action whatsoever to alter "the ordinance" that is the subject of the
initiative petition. The entire ordinance has been submitted to the voters
without alteration, as filed with the petition. Having acknowledged that the
City Council did not violate this law, he then concocts a false argument that
the City Council unlawfully altered "the question" to be voted on by changing
the potential effect of the ballot measure if it is passed. He is wrong on the
law because the City Council did exactly what the law requires, and because
that law says nothing about Mr. Cunningham's amorphous concept of "the
question." Mr. Cunningham is also factually wrong because it is a fact that the
voters are still being asked to consider the exact ordinance, unaltered, after the
City Council's action as before. The City Council took no action to change
the text of the initiative ordinance presented. The simple act of filing an
initiative petition does not deprive the City Council of their basic legislative
authority to adopt or repeal ordinances.
Given the unique timeline and circumstances, the City Council and City staff acted
entirely within their authority to both repeal the Rental Housing Inspection ordinance,
and to take the steps they deemed necessary to fully and accurately inform the voters
regarding the potential effects of the initiative measure. Mr. Cunningham's use of the
word "unlawful" to describe the City Council's action was incorrect and irresponsible
because it is not supported by the law, facts or his own argument. Later in the letter
he calls the same act merely "an error."
I would also note that Mr. Rice's complaint to the DA regarding the "ballot title" is
legally incorrect. Perhaps that is why Mr. Cunningham ignored that complaint and
answered, incorrectly, his own question. You and I have previously, and repeatedly,
addressed Mr. Rice's issue and I will not repeat that analysis here.
RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Christine Dietrick, Esq.
July 27, 2017
Page 3
I do not understand Mr. Cunningham's reason for writing the letter in the first place
as his incorrect analysis was not necessary or appropriate to the resolution of the
question posed to him that might have been within his jurisdiction. The letter ignored
Mr. Rice's actual complaint regarding the ballot title and summary and, inexplicably,
answered a question Mr. Rice did not ask. To my knowledge, not even the
proponents of the initiative have taken the ridiculous position that the City Council
did not have the legal authority to repeal an ordinance the City Council had
previously adopted. Why Mr. Cunningham thought he had the authority or reason to
make this completely unsupported allegation is beyond me.
I further note that approximately three weeks passed between the District Attorney's
receipt of Mr. Rice's complaint and the date Mr. Cunningham sent the response. One
would think that during that time a responsible public official might have contacted
the City Attorney to seek the City's perspective on this unique issue. You have told
me that Mr. Cunningham did not do so. If Mr. Cunningham was prepared to advise
that the City Council acted unlawfully, it is bewildering why he did not think it would
be productive to provide that advice directly to the City Council or the City Attorney.
Based on my nearly 25 years of practice in municipal law and elections law, I can
state without hesitation that the San Luis Obispo City Council did not act
"unlawfully," or even in "error" as alleged in Mr. Cunningham's letter. He should
not have inserted himself into election by providing this incorrect and misleading
letter. It should be withdrawn or, at the very least, ignored.
Very truly yo ,
rai A. Steele
12767-0005\2101846v l .doc