HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1990, 6 - INITIATIVE PETITION - WATER ACTION TO ELIMINATE RATIONING MEETING DATE:
city Of Sar. _JIS OBISPO 0
ITEM
NUM
COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
FROM: P s, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Int ' ve Petition - Water Action to Eliminate Rationing
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file Certificate of Sufficiency and direct staff to prepare a report
on the effect of the proposed initiative pursuant to Elections Code Section 4009.5, to return
to Council on January 2, 1991.
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 1990, Gary Kunkel, Steve Murphy and Ron Manz filed a Notice of Intent to
circulate a Petition with the City Clerk entitled "Water Action to Eliminate Rationing."
As required by Elections Code 4000 et seq., the proposed measure was referred to the City
Attorney for preparation of a ballot title and summary of the proposed measure. This was
provided the petitioners, and, after publication, they had 180 days to circulate it in an effort
to obtain 10% (2,377) or 15% (3,565) of the registered voters according to the last report
of registration by the County Clerk's Office to the Secretary of State effective April 16,
1990.
The petition was filed with the City Clerk on October 18, 1990 with 5,492 signatures. The
City Clerk examined the petition within the 30 days as required by Elections Code 3703,
and a Certificate of Sufficiency is being submitted to the City Council by way of this report.
State law requires that an initiative petition qualifying with 10% of the required number
of voters of the city must be submitted to the next Regular Municipal Election in November
of 1991 unless, for any reason, the Council chooses to submit it at a Special Municipal
Election sooner or adopts the initiative, without alteration.
At this time, the City Council may refer the initiative measure to any department for a
report on any or all of the following (E.C. 4009.5):
A) Its fiscal impact;
B) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and specific plans
including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning,
the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code,
Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with
Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
I
C) Any other matters the Council requests to be in the report.
Initiative Petition
December 4, 1990
Page 2
The report must be presented to the City Council no later than 30 days after the City Clerk
certifies the sufficiency of the petition. Therefore, if the City Council requests a report, it
would need to be considered by the City Council no later than Wednesday,January 2, 1991,
to meet the 30 day requirement.
If a report is requested, the City Council may at that time consider:
1. Adopting the ordinance, without alteration;
2. Submitting the measure at a Special Election, not sooner than 88 days or
more that 103 days after the Council considers the report.
3. Set the measure at the next Regular Municipal Election to be held Tuesday,
November 5, 1991.
4. Do not place the initiative on the ballot if legal findings are made that the
initiative is invalid, or consider other legal options.
RECOMMENDTION
It is recommended that the City Council refer the initiatve measure to the appropriate City
departments for a report, to return to the Council on January 2, 1991, on the following:
1. Its fiscal impact (Finance).
2. Its effect on the internal consistency of the City's general and specific plans
including but not limited to the Housing Element, Urban Land Use Element,
Water and Wastewater Management Element, Conservation Element, the
consistency between planning and zoning,the limitations on City actions under
Section 65008 of the Government Code, Chapter 4.2 (commencing with
Seciton 65913)and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915)of Division 1 of Title
7 of the Government Code. (Community Development)
3. Its effect on the operations, policies, regulations programs, resolutions and
ordinances relating to the City's Community Development Department.
(Community Development)
4. Its effect on the operations, policies, regulations, resolutions and ordinances
relating to the City's Utilities Department and Water/Sewer Division
including, but not limited to, its Annual Water Operational Plan, Mandatory
Water Conservation Policy, Water Allocation Regulations and retrofit
program. (Utilities)
Initiative Petition
December 4, 1990
Page 3
5. Its effect on the Fire Code, specifically fireflow demands and standby water
needs for fire protection and impacts on City Insurance Service Office (ISO)
Class II Rating. (Fire Department)
6. The legal validity or invalidity of the initiative measure. (City Attorney)
7. Any other matters the Council requests to be in the report. (Council)
SPECIAL ELECTION ISSUES
Other issues that may either necessitate or influence the need for a Special Election are:
1. A referendum relative to Tract 1750 was filed in the City Clerk's Office on
Thursday, November 1, with 4,633 signatures. Only 2,482 signatures (10%)
are required which, on the face of it, would appear likely to qualify and would
necessitate placing this on the next Regular Municipal Election, or, if Council
wishes, it may be placed on an earlier special election.
2. Notices of Intent to Circulate a Recall petition against three Councilmembers
were filed with the City Clerk on Wednesday, November 7, 1990. Some
5,000+ signatures (20%) will be required for each recall petition. If one or
more petitions qualify, this could require a special election in June-
September, 1991.
3. In June, 1990, the Council took action to support holding an election to
consider the issue of approving State Water. The Council will be considering
this election option at its November 27 Council meeting and depending upon
the outcome of that meeting, a Special Election may be identified.
4. If the Council wishes, they may order a special election to be held not less
that 88 nor more than 103 days after January 2, 1991 if the Council orders a
special election at that time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City's General Municipal Election will be held in November '91 for the purpose of
electing the Mayor and two Councilmembers and will cost approximately $25-35,000
depending upon the number of candidates that file and the number of measures being
considered. It is generally less costly than a Special Election because it is consolidated
with the Countv's Uniform District Elections (UDEL) which includes the schools, Cuesta
College and special districts.' Measures added to a Regular election average from $3500
to $5000 per measure depending upon length of measure, arguments submitted for and
G-3
Initiative Petition
December 4, 1990
Page 4
against and whether it is placed by the Council or by the people.
A Special Election not consolidated with the County would cost approximately $40,000 to
$50,000 depending upon the number of measures placed on the ballot. Additional measures
would average from $3500 to $5000.
Costs incurred thus far in and verifying signatures only total approximately $2440. This
equates to 255 hours of labor averaging $9.60 per hour.
'The Board of Supervisors is expected to consider a request by Cuesta College to move
the UDEL election to the State's General Election date in November 1992. This could
considerably increase the City's cost in conducting its elections. (A separate report will
be provided Council on this issue.)
CONCURRENCES:
City Attorney, City Administrative Officer, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
Certificate of Sufficiency _
PV:klc
elerpt. wp
G—�
i
city osAn hues oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY
I, Pam Voges, City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, hereby certify
that I have carefully checked the names on the initiative petition filed in m_ y office on
October 18, 1990, reading in full as follows:
"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 1. 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 II)..
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
O 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 continued 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 requirements 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.
O
z1110,
Certificate of Sufficiency,+
Page 2 n
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."
The signatures found on the petition were compared to the signatures of the
Affidavit of Registration in the Registrar of Voters Office. Pursuant to Section 4011 of the
California Elections Code, the petitions were found to contain the signatures of more than
10% of the voters of the City of San Luis Obispo according to the County Clerk's official
report of registration to the Secretary of State effective on May 3, 1990, recording a total
of 23,769.
Date Pam Voges, City Cl k