Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 Sample Ballot & Voter Information PamphletSAN LUIS OBISPO �svo/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SPECIAL ELECTION TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1991 and Voter Information Pamphlet NOTICE: APPLICATION FOR ABSENT VOTER BALLOT ENCLOSED THE LOCATION OF YOUR POLLING PLACE IS SHOWN ON BACK COVER • POLLS OPEN AT 7 A.M. AND CLOSE AT 8 P.M. e MARK AND TAKE THIS SAMPLE BALLOT TO YOUR POLLING PLACE 40 -FC -83588 40 -FC � � * ro.dmuivEr�upu[ �svo/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SPECIAL ELECTION TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1991 and Voter Information Pamphlet NOTICE: APPLICATION FOR ABSENT VOTER BALLOT ENCLOSED THE LOCATION OF YOUR POLLING PLACE IS SHOWN ON BACK COVER • POLLS OPEN AT 7 A.M. AND CLOSE AT 8 P.M. e MARK AND TAKE THIS SAMPLE BALLOT TO YOUR POLLING PLACE 40 -FC -83588 40 -FC RUCTIONS TO VOTERS INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER: PLACE THE BALLOT CARD UNDER THE PLASTIC SO THAT IT LIES COMPLETELY FLAT IN THE BALLOT CARD TRAY. To vote on any measure, PUNCH OUT THE CROSS (+) in the voting square after the word "YES" or after the word "NO." All distinguishing marks or erasures are forbidden and make the ballot void. If you wrongly punch, tear or deface any portion of your ballot card, replacethe card in the Ballot Envelope, return,it to the Precinct Board Member and obtain another. AFTER YOU HAVE,COMPLETED VOTING, PLACE YOUR BALLOT CARD. IN THE.BALLOT'ENVELOPE WITH THE NUMBERED STUB AT THE TOP AND HAND IT TO THE PRECINCT BOARD MEMBER, WHO SHALL, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE VOTER, REMOVE THE NUMBERED STUB, HAND SAME TO VOTER AND DEPOSIT THE VOTED BALLOT IN THE BALLOT BOX. HOW TO VOTE YOUR BALLOT CARR® STEP 1 Slip ballot all the way into tray UNDER clear plastic cover from left side of machine. STEP 2 Move the chrome punch lever with its red plastic pointer to the right of the measure and completely depress the lever which will punch out the cross +. STEP 3 STUB AT After you have completed voting, return the Too chrome• punch lever to the top position. Place your ballot card with the stub at the top, in the ballot envelope and hand it to the Pre- cinct Board Member. D-1 1E Q •ii:MEASURES SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS !:: t ::•i ," . : •:::CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SOUP lUm 1 /'1 N I:J:F.l all 201:111171 K: 1 ' ! ... Shall the approval of the planned devel. :•::INITIATIVE ORDINANCE - WATER RATI ...:. Rationing ordinance 1adopted? can •.• �..• ..: Cn n ♦ 1 t /1T /� ♦ n t1 ur��w �,r►nv SIDE 2 001 AAP - TOP OFFICIAL BALLOT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SPECIAL ELECTION SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY APRIL 9, 1991 This ballot stub shall be tom oft by precinct board member and handed to the voter. 4U•IUTA 001 4o-sa401 a i..• :.....IME ...... the even -numbered odd-numberedma :....year :•M•ADVISORY 1 ONLY STATE WATER PROJECT ..., m® 4U•IUTA 001 4o-sa401 a VP -11 FULL TEXT OF MEAS'�A REFERENDUM ON TRACT 1750 (O'ttance No. 1179) "Referendum against an ordinance passed by the City Council, to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: Pursuant to Elections Code 4051, we, the undersigned, more than ten percent of the number of registered voters in the City according to the County Clerk's last official report of registration, hereby present this petition protesting your adoption on October 2, 1990, of Ordinance No. 1179. The full text of the Ordinance is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1179 (1990 SERIES) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO DESIG- NATE AN AREA ON TANK FARM ROAD, EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, AS R -1 -SP -PD and R -2 -SP -PD, ALLOWING SOME EXCEPTIONS TO DENSITY AND YARDS (PD 1449-B). WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider the planned development request PD 1449-B; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed planned development will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity. 2. The planned development is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The planned development conforms to the general plan and specific plan for Edna Islay and meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed planned development is consistent with the Edna -Islay Specific Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report was certified by the council in 1982. The City Council has considered the EIR and addendum. 5. The project provides facilities and amenities suited to particular occu- pancy groups: families with children, and moderate -income homebuyers. 6. The project provides a greater range of housing types and costs than would be possible with development of uniform dwellings throughout the project site or neighborhood. 7. Features of the particular design, including common open space areas, provision of a large play area in the apartment complex, narrower right-of- way widths, small lots, design of the Rodriguez.Adobe Park, creek setbacks and bicycle paths, achieve the intent of conventional standards for privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with neighborhood character as well as or better than the standards do. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The Planned Development PD 1449-B is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. A reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the Housing Authority lot only is hereby approved. Up to 25% of the required spaces may be eliminated, provided that they are replaced by an expanded play/picnic area. 2. No sideyard exceptions are allowed for the lots in phases 3 and 4 (small lots). 3. Smaller than normal lot sizes are hereby approved, but in no case shall a lot size be smaller than 4,000 square feet. 4. Zero -lot line development schemes are allowed in any phase, provided the separation between buildings is consistent with the zoning regulations. 5. A density bonus, allowing 353 dwellings, including 134 small lots, 88 two-bedroom condominium units, 111 large single-family lots, and 20 two - and three-bedroom Housing Authority apartments, on the lots as shown on the preliminary plan, is hereby granted. 6. The applicant shall submit a precise plan, consistent with the zoning regulations requirements for precise plans, to the Community Development Director for approval. Such precise plan may be incorporated in the improve- ment plans for Tract 1750. 40-51 IMPART�NALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY REFERENDUivr'O REPEAL ORDINANCE NO.1179 MEASURE A On February 8, 1982, the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted Resolution 4733, approving the Edna -Islay Specific Plan. On September 18, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution 6874, ap- proving a vesting tentative map for Tract 1750 (referred to as Tract 1750), a phased subdivision located on Tank Farm Road, on the east side of the railroad tracks in the Edna -Islay Specific Plan area. By law, approval of a vesting tentative map confers a vested right to proceed with the subdivision development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, polices and standards in effect at the time the application for approval of the vesting tentative map is complete. Concurrent with the approval of Tract 1750, by separate action on October 2, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1179, a planned develop- ment rezoning of the land encompassed by Tract 1750 (referred to as the planned development rezoning), allowing certain exceptions to lot sizes, yards, and density. This measure, if passed by the voters, would repeal Ordinance No. 1179, and the planned development rezoning would not go into effect. The ordi- nance could not again be enacted by the City Council for a period of one year after the date of its disapproval by the voters. This measure, if passed by the voters, would not repeal Tract 1750. However, any part of Tract 1750 dependent upon or effectuated by the planned development rezoning would no longer be valid and would have to be revised to conform to current zoning. If this measure is rejected by the voters, then the planned development rezoning would go into effect immediately. Whether this measure is passed or rejected by the voters, the Edna -Islay Specific Plan will remain in full force and effect. s/ Jeffrey G. Jorgensen City Attorney ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ME RE A Vote YES on MEASURE A to repeal the rezoning permitting a massive tract development at Islay Hill. Tract 1750, the Arbors, is the wrong design, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Should we smother the slopes of Islay Hill with a mammoth Los Angeles -style subdivision? Should we commit our- selves to enormous growth when we are rationing water? The go-ahead given this development by three councilmembers while our water supply is in crisis defies common sense. What message does the city send its water -conserving citizens by approving 353 more homes in the midst of our worst drought? We deserve better than "growth as usual". Tract 1750 will deface Islay Hill. Pacifica Corporation foolishly plans houses on landslide areas; a portion of the hill the size of six football fields will be excavated and reshaped, permanently scarring the scenic beauty of the southernmost of the Morros. Our landmark morros deserve better. The proposed rezoning impacts the creek habitat of two candidate endan- gered species; yet as approved, construction will have started before these impacts are even studied. This "build first, worry later" policy violates the law as well as good stewardship. Our environment deserves better. Unless we vote to repeal this massive project, there will be no second chance to save Islay Hill. This crucial area is an important greenbelt, and its protection will set a precedent for development throughout San Luis Obispo. If we preserve Islay Hill, future planners and councilmembers will not have to create new standards for development, we will have established an excellent model. Join with the 5,000 citizens who signed petitions protesting Tract 1750. Vote to repeal this unfortunate rezoning. Together, we can clearly convey to forgetful developers and city officials: The citizens of San Luis Obispo deserve better. Please vote YES ON MEASURE A. s/ John Chesnut s/ Mark Adams s/ Bill Roalman s/ Judy Neuhauser s/ E. LaVerne Schneider REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A The referendum proponents continue to use scare tactics and misstatements of facts to create confusion about the issues. The exacting review process and development standards in this city do not allow "LA style subdivisions." In fact, 60% of the total project is devoted to open space. Ownership of Islay Hill is transferred permanently to the public. These requirements far exceed those imposed on other developments. The rezoning increases creek protection and guarantees twice as much open space than the original 1982 plan. Environmental protection must be approved by the City and State Fish & Game 2�Z to construction. All construction will meet or exceed state and local standards. No construction (not a single home!) will be built without adequate water. Even when water is available, only a minimum number of homes can be It per year. The referendum proponents are long-time community dissidents whose arguments against this project were heard and carefully considered in numerous public hearings. Their suggestions were incorporated into the project but their overall opposition was rejected each and every time, and the rezoning under attack was approved by a majority of the Council. As noted by the City Attorney, the referendum will not invalidate the subdivision. It may, at most, require minor changes to the project. These changes are the very things that make the project a good one. Don't jeopardize: - City Park construction - Public ownership of Islay Hill - Voluntary, low cost housing program - Restoration of a historic adobe Support the adopted General Plan. VOTE NO on Measure A. s/ Ron Ounin, Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo s/ Fred Peterson, Member, City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission s/ J. Cordner Gibson, Former Cal -Poly Dean of Agriculture s/ Matthew S. Kennedy, Homeowner, Arbors at Islay Hill s/ Jerry Reiss, Member, San Luis Obispo City Council ARGUO AGAINST MEASURE A SUPPORT REASONABLE GROWTH CONTROL -- VOTE NO ON MEASURE A For the past 10 years, the City has had highly regarded growth manage- ment regulations. These have been modified on occasion to address particu- lar concerns, including the current drought situation. The Islay Hill project has been included in the City's General Plan for 8 years and is the last part to receive City approval. Under the current regulations, the development would not be built until approximately 1997-2001! The City needs a variety of housing. This project provides apartments, condominiums and traditional single-family homes. Again, under existing rules, this needed housing will be built over the next 6 - 10 years. The City requires that CONSTRUCTION MUST BE PHASED, EVEN IF WATER WERE AVAILABLE NOW. This project WILL NOT SUDDENLY INCREASE WATER USE. No construc- tion can occur until water is available. The PLANNING of new homes must continue even in times of drought so that when water is available, reasonable growth can be accommodated within the City -established rules. This project meets those rules and proposes fewer homes and many more community- wide benefits than contemplated under the City's Original Plan. A "NO" vote on this referendum will ensure the following will occur: - A major new City Park with extensive bike trails - The renovation of a historic adobe - 90 acres oferp manent open space (including Islay Hill) - Aep rpetual affordable housing program - An extensive creek restoration program - Protection of sensitive animal species The City planning process is very thorough. All details of this project have been scrutinized. EVERY applicable City committee or commission has ap- proved the project. We must be visionary about future housing needs and recognize that some additional housing is necessary, even for the people who live here now. SUPPORT REASONABLE GROWTH CONTROL AND PRESERVE OUR HOUSING OPTIONS. VOTE NO on Measure A. 40-52 s/ Loa[ R. Lorenzen The Pacifica Corporation REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A The "Argument Against Measure A" is full of deceptions. Don't be misled. Tract 1750 violates the adopted 1982 Edna -Islay Specific Plan in at least a dozen major ways. including: Dwellings are crowded against the railroad, necessitating Los Angeles style sound walls within their yards, whereas the Plan provides a generous landscaped buffer between trains and homes. ' It provides TOO LITTLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. The developer brags about 23 affordable units, but the Plan shows 23 ACRES developable with 276 affordable condominiums and apartments. Instead, Tract 1750 offers expensive single-family houses. ' It creates 134 SUBSTANDARD LOTS only 2/3 the minimum size allowed by city ordinance. ' Houses and streets are higher on Islay Hill than permitted in the Plan and VIOLATE DESIGNATED HILLSIDE OPEN SPACE. 75 acres of designated Islay Hill open space cannot be protected by Tract 1750 because Pacifica Corporation gave away the land! . The total number of dwellings exceeds the maximum allowed. • Condominium and apartment densities per acre are higher than allowed. Many facilities offered by Tract 1750 are flawed. The "major new bike trail" plunges over a 5' waterfall and into a dank storm sewer beneath the railroad! Expensive homes are to be built practically beneath high voltage power lines! Tract 1750's CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN IMMEDIATELY under the city's water retrofit program. This WILL ADD TO OUR WATER CRISIS. As public officials who have helped create and implement the 1982 Specific Plan, we are horrified by Tract 1750's violation of the agreed-upon vision for Edna -Islay. We urge you: VOTE YES ON MEASURE A. s/ Melanie Billig, Former San Luis Obispo Mayor, City Council Member and Planning Commissioner s/ Allen Settle, Former San Luis Obispo City Council Member and Planning Commissioner s/ Richard Schmidt, Member San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, Former Member City Waterways Planning Board FULL TEXT OF MEAS B "Be it ordained by the people of the City of San Luis Obispo: In order to end water supply shortfalls and water rationing, the City Council of San Luis Obispo shall be required to do the following: . Section I. A) The City of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter known as 'the City") shall expedite its own efforts to find, treat and supply water for all water users and shall maintain its own level of water production by using groundwater, desalination, recycling, rain water retention, and/or other methods to complement the production from private sources (See Section ll). The total production from all sources, public and private, shall meet user needs at all times without rationing, (approximately 8000 acre feet per year as of January 1990). The City should give priority to the.most economic sources of water but may pursue any or all_sources of water to meet the requirements of this ordinance. B) All mandatory rationing and penalties shall be phased out within one year of passage of this ordinance. C) Within one year of the passage of this ordinance the City shall rollback all rate increases directly caused by water rationing. D) Water conservation programs shall be contin- ued on an educational basis only. The City shall not continue or re-establish rationing under a different name. Rationing is hereby defined as any fines, penalties, limits, allocations, restrictions, or any other method primarily designed to limit the amount of water a user can purchase. However, the City may establish a lifeline rate and/or lifeline amount for water users and may establish a graduated rate structure to reflect the actual costs of supplying additional water. Section II. A) If the City is unable to meet the requirements of Section I through government sources, it is hereby required to seek all private sources of water whether, underground, desalinated, recycled, surface water or any other water that can be treated to meet state standards, so that the require- ments of Section I can be met. The supply of water may come from any geographical area. B) The. City shall not limit the number of private water suppliers and should encourage as much competition as possible among private suppliers. Section III. If any Section, Subsection or part of this initiative/ordinance is. declared or ruled by the courts to be illegal, invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining Sections, Subsections, or parts shall remain valid as a legal ordinance. If any Section, Subsection, or part of this initiative/ordinance is ruled invalid, efforts shall be made to determine the original intent and, if possible the invalid portion(s) be revised to remain a legal part of the ordinance. Section IV. The effective date of this ordinance shall be sixty (60) days after.its adoption by the San Luis Obispo City Council, or if it is passed by the voters, ten (10) days after the vote is declared." 40-53 IMPART`WW (ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY A.T.E.R. INITIATIVE MEASURE B This measure would, if passed by the•voters, require the City of San Luis Obispo to expedite efforts to find, treat and supply water for all water users. Mandatory water rationing and penalties would be phased out and rate increases associated with mandatory rationing would be rolled back within one year of the passage of this measure. The City would be required to meet the demand of all water users by using public and private sources of water. Specifically, the City would be required to produce water from ground water sources, desalination, recycling, rain, Water retention, and other methods. If these sources could not or did not meet the demand for water, then private sources of water (if the water could be treated to bring it up to state standards) would have to be purchased to ensure that demand was met. While priority is to be given to the most economic sources of supply, the City may pursue any and all sources of water in order to meet demand. If any part of the measure is declared or found invalid, then the rest of the measure shall be severed and remain valid. In addition, the measure requires that an effort be made to revise any invalid parts to make them enforceable. The measure, if approved, will require the amendment, modification, or repeal of various City ordinances, rules, regulations and policies which are unspecified. The full extent of the measure's impact on existing ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies is uncertain due to the indefinite language of the measure. s/ Jeffrey G. Jorgensen .City Attorney ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF Ml 1RE B This initiative requires the city to obtain public and/or private sources of water, rollback rate increases caused by rationing, and phase out water rationing, all one year after passage. The W.A.T.E.R. initiative, signed by 5500 San Luis Obispo citizens --the most successful petition drive in city history --demonstrates San Luis Obispo citizens never wanted rationing to become our city's Number One water policy. Can rationing be restored after this initiative passes? Of course. Any time the city can convince the citizens that rationing will be required, the City Council can place an amendment to the initiative on the ballot to restore rationing. If City Councilmembers need your decision on state water, shouldn't they ask you about continuing rationing? Absolutely! The scare tactics that initiative opponents,. especially city staff, are trying to stir up apply only to their own water mismanagement: a damaged economy, empty reservoirs, dead lawns, etc. This moderate initiative doesn't even take final affect until 1992 and simply requires the city to get more water itself or, as many government agencies elsewhere have, turn to private professionals for help. The private Dalidio wells saved us from disaster. The city received at least one private desalination offer nearly two years ago, but simply "received and filed it". Years of studies and nonaction, not just weather, put us into rationing. The city waited until the last minute to begin implementation of years of water studies. By rolling, back punishing rationing -caused rate increases and by selling water to users at a price that covers all its costs, we will live within our local resources without being penalized for keeping San Luis Obispo beautiful. Your "Yes on Measure B" vote will put real pressure on the city to get water and work hard to avoid this rationing mess in the future. s/ Gary Kunkel, W.A.T.E.R. Director s/ Ron Bearce, Director The San Luis Institute s/ Charles Long, former Hotel/Motel Association President and former Chamber of Commerce Board member s/ Roger Freberg, Director San Luis Coastal Resource Conservation District (Speaking as an individual member) s/ Steve Murphy, Gardener/Landscaper REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B W.A.T.E.R. proponents continue to tell us that more local water is avail- able than is being provided to us. What water? The fact is that our reservoirs are running dry, our dependence on wells is so demanding that we appear to be making land sink from the underground pull, and even a "fast track" desalting plant will take almost two years to construct. There simply is no other reasonable local water source to help pull us through this emergency. We are in a drought of epic proportions. Despite our dire natural conditions, in the last year we have seen aggres- sive efforts to develop additional water supplies. Over a dozen new water projects are on the drawing board, fifty test wells have been drilled and nearly 2,000 new acre feet of water have been piped to SLO residents. Water rates have not been raised to punish water users but to help pay for these many new water projects. We are in a crisis, yet W.A.T.E.R. proponents seem to feel we can still "have it all". There is no more local water. There has been no rainfall. How then, can we possibly expect to see low water rates and no rationing while at the same time pushing for new water development? The W.A.T.E.R. initia- tive, Measure B is simply naive. W.A.T.E.R. cannot end the drought. It cannot end rationing. About all it can do is put at our community at the real risk of running out of water. Vote NO on B. s/ Robert E. Griffin, former SLO City Councilmember s/ Charlie West, Owner, San Luis Sourdough s/ Kathy Strong, Founder, SLO Children's Museum s/ Richard Kranzdort s/ Fred L. Glenn, Treasurer, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 40-54 ARGUI�D! AGAINST MEASURE B It would be terrific if we could end the drought by voting it away. The W.A.T.E.R. initiative suggests we can, and that's what makes the initiative both attractive and terribly dangerous. It makes promises to end the effects of the drought --promises that cannot be kept. A vote for the W.A.T.E.R. initiative will not create more water, yet it ends rationing within a year. We would all love to see rationing end, but it makes no sense to stop rationing in the face of a continued drought. Rationing is a reasonable response to a dire situation. Consider where the W.A.T.E.R. proposal would leave us: • Dry reservoirs in 1992. • Inadequate water supplies for fire protection. • Huge water bills. • Crippled city government because essential money would be removed from police, fire and streets and diverted into water. The impacts of the W.A.T.E.R. initiative are many and are all bad for our community. The initiative suggests that water is available but is being withheld by City officials. That's not true. Every reasonable water source is being tapped. The City has spent nearly $2 million and put ten new wells into operation in the last year. Projects like desalination and increased dam capacity are underway. And now we've finally got the chance to get State Water flowing. We're all worn down by the drought. A desperate measure like the W.A.T.E.R. initiative will not end the drought and will not bring water. It will cost millions and will keep us from pursuing real water solutions. It's a pied piper proposal that must be rejected. Vote NO on Measure B. s/ Pierre Rademaker, Chairman, Water Task Force San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce s/ Dorothy Conner s/ Howard Carroll s/ Lynn Cooper Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo s/ David Bernhardt, M.D. REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B Unfortunately, W.A.T.E.R. opponents have chosen unfounded scare tac- tics over impartial arguments. What does this initiative do? Section I: The city shall "expedite its ... efforts", giving "priority to the most economic" water, and "may" pursue all water in order to "meet user needs". Section II: If the City fails to get water, it must "seek though not necessarily accept) all private... water... that can be treated to meet state standards." Read the "Impartial Analysis by the City Attorney". Are these frightening exaggerations? No. City mismanagement may cause more "huge water bills" or "dry reser- voirs in 1992", but not an initiative that won't take final effect until after April 8, 1992. The city doesn't have to use police or fire money or buy expensive water citizens don't want. By ignoring desalination and water reclamation, we became overdependent on groundwater, putting millions of dollars into over forty recently drilled but unused wells while the few in service have dropping levels of water, water that should have been used only as a temporary emergency reserve. Ray Husum, a local business leader states: "Without this initiative, we could face years more of rationing. The Water Action people forced the Council into supporting new water while the issue was simply 'studied' for years. If W.A.T.E.R. passes, the Council must get water or ask voters to extend rationing." Support all water options. Vote yes on Measure B. s/ Gary Kunkel, Water Action To Eliminating Rationing (W.A.T.E.R.) Director s/ Ray Husum, President, The Central Coast Business Association Member, Water Task Force/Legislative/Economic Committee of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce s/ Leslie Bearce, Co -Director, The Central Coast Business Association FULL TEXT OF MEAS C PROPOSED CHANL v (Showing Changes To Charter) WHEREAS, California Education Code Section 1111 was amended by the State Legislature to allow the school districts to change their elections to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even numbered years; and WHEREAS, the cost savings and increased voter turnout of consolidated elections make it advantageous to the City to hold general municipal elections at the same time as school board, State and County General Elections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 1. A special municipal election is hereby ordered to be held on Tuesday, April 9, 1991, for the purpose of voting upon a proposed charter amendment as hereinafter set forth. 2. The proposed charter amendment would: (a) Change the date of the City's general election from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd numbered years to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even numbered years; and (b) Extend the terms of current office holders whose terms ordinarily would expire in November 1991 and November 1993 to November 1992 and November 1994, respectively, and exempt those periods of extention from the limitation of terms provided for in Charter Section 405. 3. Said proposed charter amendment amends two charter sections to read as follows: SECTION 302. General Municipal Elections. General municipal elections to fill elective offices shall be in the City on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each even numbered year. SECTION 404. Term of Office. (a) The term of the Mayor shall be two years, and the terms of the Council members shall be four years. (b) Terms shall commence on the first day of December at twelve o'clock noon following the election and each shall serve until a successor is elected or appointed and qualified. Ties in voting shall be settled by the casting of lots. (c) Any other provision in this Charter to the contrary notwithstanding: 1. The terms of office of the Mayor. elected at the November 7, 1989 general municipal election and the Councilmembers elected at the November 1_19E general municipal election shall be extended from two years and four years, respectively, until a successor is elected or appointed and qualified following the November 3. 1992 general municipal election; 2. The terms of office of the Councilmembers elected at the November 7, 1989 general municipal election shall be extended from four years until a successor is elected or appointed and qualified following the November 8, 1994 general municipal election; 3. The approximate twelve month periods of term extension set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not be counted in determining the disability to serve set forth in Section 405 of this Charter. 40-55 IMPARNALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY C HARTER PROPOSITION MEASURE C This measure, if approved, will require general municipal elections for elective offices to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each even -numbered year. This will allow general municipal elections to be consolidated with the State General election. It will also allow for the continued consolidation of City general municipal elections with school district elections. The existing charter requires general municipal elections for elective offices to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each odd -numbered year. Further, this measure, if approved, will extend by approximately twelve months: (a) the two year term of the Mayor elected at the general municipal election of November 7, 1989 and (b) the four year terms of Council members elected at the November 3, 1987 and November 7, 1989 elections. This extension is necessary to accommodate the election date change explained above. The approximate twelve month term extension will not count in determining whether a person has served eight successive years in the same office for purposes of the limitation of terms set forth in Charter Section 405. s/ Jeffrey G. Jorgensen City Attorney ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF M(,_ .'RE C Moving the city's election should result in a better voter turnout, as experienced by other cities in the County which have consolidated their elections with the State and National elections. Consolidating the municipal election with other elections will save the city taxpayers a significant amount of money. City Costs for polling places, election workers, printing, supplies and postage will be reduced. The League of Women Voters supports informed, active. participation of voters, and procedures that encourage an informed and active electorate. We believe that efficient and economical government requires adequate financing --saving money in one area allows use of those funds for other important municipal services. We urge you to vote for this Charter Amendment. s/ Avis Austin, President League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE C There is no guarantee that changing the City's election date will result in a better voter turnout. Voter turnout is stimulated by concern for candidates and interest in local ballot measures. How much better it is to emphasize our local candidates and measures by having only these items before the voter. This is how we can make our City government the very best. The monies spent on City elections is worth every penny when we can be assured that voters are focusing on local candidates and local issues. Voter imput is direct and more carefully considered.. When saving money is an issue, it can be saved from some other munici- pal expenditure. Do not sacrifice well informed voters for a comparatively few dollars. Do not be guiled into changing our City Charter. It serves us well in its present form. VOTE NO ON MEASURE "C" s/ Martha R. Schwartz ARGU,'�'l AGAINST MEASURE C "Shall the City Charter Section 404 be amended to move the General Municipal Election. date from November of the odd year to November of the even year?" ' The best means of citizens communicating with their elected officials is at the local level. The further away from the local electorates the citizen gets, the more difficult it becomes to have a voice heard. e Local elections at our City level involves local candidates fo- rums/debates, where the candidate must be prepared, personally, to answer questions from the voter and re -act to other candidates. e If the election date is to combine with County, State and National elections, our local candidates will be lost in the crowd. e It would become extremely difficult to get public attendance at a to- rum/debate that would compete with County, State, and National candi- dates forums/debates. e During local elections the voter can help form policies through direct contact with the "to be" elected officials. It is here that the voter has a good opportunity to express himself. e If the election is combined with County, State and National voting, the emphasis would fall short of direct contact with local government as competition and longer ballots can be expected. e This change would extend the current Council's seats for 1 additional year: They were not elected for this extended. time: e Is the local voter so disinterested in local elections that he can't or won't devote several minutes once a year to vote? e Finally, if it's a matter of money the voter is considering, it is money well worth spending. WE URGE A NO VOTE ON MEASURE C s/ Martha R. Schwartz s/ Timothy M. Farrell IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY PARTICIPATION IN STATE WATER PROJECT MEASURED . This is an advisory measure only. The City of San Luis Obispo has previously requested an entitlement to 3000 acre feet per year of water from the State Water Project. The City Council may exercise its right to this entitlement by electing to participate in the Coastal Branch aqueduct, along with other subscribing agencies, after a final environmental impact report for the project has been certified. Support for this measure will advise the City Council of support for participation by the City in the State Water Project. Opposition to this measure will advise the City Council of opposition to participation by the City in the State Water Project. 40 -ss Jeffrey G. Jorgensen City Attorney ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CURE D Our city needs safe, dependable, yet economical new supplies of water to protect us from the devastating effects of droughts and to provide for the controlled, measured growth envisioned in our General Plan. State Water will meet those needs. Because of the current drought, the City Council recently authorized the first steps for a desalination plant, with projected water costs between $1,900 and $2,800 per acre foot (the amount used by a family of five.) By contrast. State Water is estimated to cost just $480 per acre foot. Quite a difference! State Water is a priority source of supplemental water for our city because: • After the drought, it will allow us to turn off the exorbitantly high cost "desal" plant. Although needed as an emergency source, the desal plant's energy usage alone is 150% of the entire cost of State Water. • It will allow our limited ground water basin to be placed in reserve, using it to support traditional agriculture and open space. • State Water meets every drinking water standard now in effect. • State Water is reliable. Urban users have highest priority for the water which comes from an area which normally doesn't have droughts when we do. • The "Coastal Aqueduct" needed to bring us State Water is an under- ground pipe, largely invisible on the surface after construction. Other envi- ronmental impacts will be mitigated. • Low cost financing (4.2%) already exists; aqueduct construction can start with final environmental approval this year. All new sources of water have growth consequences. We believe growth is an issue best controlled by our General Plan policies and the City Charter. An adequate supply of water is needed to survive droughts, maintain our quality of life, and to provide for some small amount of growth at a rate acceptable to our citizens. Vote yes on "D". s/ Dennis D. Law, President San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce s/ Kenneth E. Schwartz Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo s/ Frank Martinez Retired President, Cuesta College s/ Louis Tedone, M.D. s/ Mike Multari Former City Planning Director REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE D In the recent article, published by a major Southern California water agency it was reported that State Water is loaded with contaminants which make it unhealthy. It was also stated that there is no known treatment process to overcome this problem. State Water is unreliable and unable to satisfy current demand. The State Water project has contracted to deliver 4,200,000 acre feet annually. How- ever it only has a safe annual yield of 2,400,000 acre feet. Where the difference will be made up is unclear. Therefore, the long-term costs and reliability of the entire project are in question. With 300,000 more people being added to the County with the importation of State Water and other local sources, we will have tremendous traffic problems making it necessary to build more roads and freeways. This will degrade existing residential neighborhoods and will destroy significant scenic areas and agricultural land. It will result in doubling the number of vehicles thus making it impossible to meet State air quality standards. Lake Nacimiento in northern San Luis Obispo County could provide ade- quate water to meet city's future needs. Our Nacimiento water has been given to Monterey County for the last 25 years because we did not have a delivery system to use it. A "NO" vote on State Water means you want Nacimiento water which is reliable, healthy, inexpensive, under local control, and waiting to be used. s/ Anna Alexander Community Activist s/ Amy Arsenio Community Activist s/ Dominic Perello Sierra Club Activist s/ Peg Pinard, Member San Luis Obispo City Council s/ Bill Roalman, Member San Luis Obispo City Council 40-57 ARGONT AGAINST MEASURE D San Luis Obispo City and County have better sources of future water supplies available than the State Water Project. One major alternative within our control is Lake Nacimiento reservoir. Others include enlarging the Santa Margarita reservoir, desalting sea water, and water reclamation. Our City needs a safe, reliable and locally controlled water supply. Accord- ing to some of its primary users, State Water is neither safe nor reliable. For example, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in their November 1990 edition of AQUEDUCT magazine, reported that State Water may not be safe to drink because of pollutants. State Water is not reliable. In January 1991, Southern California water agencies announced that State Water deliveries to millions of customers would be reduced because of the drought. Meeting future water commit- ments is also a major concern. Presently, the State Water project is able to deliver little more than half the amount promised in its contracts. Future water shortages in the State Water system may become the norm. Our water resources need to be locally controlled. We do not want open- ended costs and questionable reliability decided in Sacramento. Voting to support State Water is like giving the state a signed blank check. The environmental consequences of State Water must not be ignored. The project will provide water for 150,000 more people in our County. Addi- tionally, development of local water resources could support another 150,000 people. Development of both State Water and local water sources would facilitate rapid urban expansion, resulting in major degradation of our environment. We don't need expensive State Water controlled by Sacramento bureau- crats. Instead, we need to start developing local water sources under local control to meet our future needs. Vote NO on Measure D. s/ Amy Arsenio Community Activist s/ Richard J. Krejsa Professor of Biology, Cal Poly s/ Dominic Perello Sierra Club Activist s/ Peg Pinard, Member, San Luis Obispo City Council s/ Bill Roalman, Member, San Luis Obispo City Council REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE D Opponents of State Water say there are other better alternatives for new water. Let's look closely at the alternatives they propose. They complain that State Water is expensive. Yet their desalination alterna- tive would cost at least three times more than State Water. Opponents say State Water isn't reliable. Yet their alternative, Lake Naci- miento, has been virtually dry for two years, and wouldn't have given us a drop if we had depended on it during this drought. They say we need more "local control." The State Water Project has been reliably providing water as agreed for 26 years. Their alternative, Lake Nacimiento, is owned by Monterey County, which has shown a total disre- gard for our county's interests. Our local reservoirs depend on rainfall in this one region. We've seen recently just how much "local control" we have over that source. The opponents say State Water may not be safe. It meets all the State's stringent drinking water standards. Their alternative, reclaimed sewer efflu- ent, has never even been approved for human consumption. They're critical of the environmental effects of State Water. Yet their desalination alternative is extremely energy intensive and would have much greater regional and global environmental impact. State Water would be no more growth inducing than any source of water. If the opponents are sure water causes growth, why do they push desalination, which could provide an unlimited amount of water? State Water is safe, reliable and affordable and is by far the best choice. Vote Yes on D! s/ Donald E. Righetti, Farmer and Member Board of Directors, SLO County Farm Bureau s/ Bert E. Forbes, President, Ziatech Corporation s/ Sharon G. Young, Immediate Past President SLO Chamber of Commerce s/ Frank W. Avila, Retired Cuesta Instructor s/ Glenn Carlson, Retired Hospital Administrator X-1 TAPE/STAPLE HERE 40AV C r POLLS OPEN AT 1 A.M. AND CLOSE AT 8 P.M. NOTICE If you find that for any reason you will be unable to vote in person on election day, promptly complete and sign the application for an absent voters ballot printed on the reverse side of this page and return it to the: County Clerk, Elections Division, 1007 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93408-2509. Your application must reach the office of the Clerk not less than 7 days before the day of election. For further information phone: Elections Department 549-5728. NOTICE TO THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED: If your polling place does not meet requirements for accessibility by the physically handicapped, a physically handi- capped person may appear outside the polling place and vote a regular ballot delivered to such person by a precinct board member. NOTICE: The law makes provision for persons with specific physical handicaps to be placed into a permanent absent voter status. For information regarding the criteria to establish permanent absent voter status check the box below and return this form to the County Clerk's Office. 11 ASSISTANCE TO THE HEARING, OR SPEECH IMPAIRED: The Secretary of State's Office has a TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf) to provide election infor- mation: 1-800-833-8683 (1 -800 -TDD -VOTE). DO NOT SEPARATE FOLD ALONG THIS LINE DO NOT SEPARATE 605Z -80b£6 VO OcIS180 Siff NVS 133U -LS A3U31NOVU LOOL UOiSiAiQ SUO113913 japiODOU-1aa10 A4uno0 A3N000 'W SIONVH:l '113H dWV1S 30V1d 3wiSOd SSvi3 1S8Id W0WJ TAKE THIS SAMPLE BALLOT TO YOUR PW^'G PLACE FOR REFERENCE From FRANCIS M. COONEY County Clerk -Recorder Elections Division 1007 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408-2509 DO NOT FORWARD VOTING PRECINCT NUMBER 1> POLLING PLACE LOCATION 1> Please mail ballot to me at: 101 APPLICATION FOR ABSENT VOTER'S BALLOT NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE APRIL 9, 1991 ELECTION DAY I hereby apply for an absent voter's ballot: APRIL 2, 1991 LAST DAY APPLICATION MAY BE RECEIVED 1 SIGNATURE OF VOTER RESIDENCE ADDRESS AS REGISTERED 3ALLOT WILL NOT BE SENT UNLESS SIGNED BY APPLICANT BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID San Luis Obispo, CA PERMIT NO. 1 BALLOT TYPE DATE 40 -BC -63588 40 -BC