MEASURE

L

SECTION 1

Shall the Berkeley City Charter be amended so that the candidate receiving the highest number of votes for the office of Mayor, Council-member or Auditor be elected, provided that the candidate receives at least 45% of the votes cast for such office?

SECTION 2

Shall this Berkeley City Charter be amended to apply to candidates in the November 1998 General Municipal Election and to all such elections thereafter?

THE SITUATION

The City Charter currently provides for the election of the Mayor, Councilmembers, and Auditor by a majority of votes for each office. If no candidate receives a majority of votes cast (50% plus 1), a run-off election must be held between the two highest vote-getters, four weeks after the initial election.

This Charter amendment Measure L, would declare the can- didate with the highest number of votes, but at least 45%, the winner, for the offices of Mayor, Council or Auditor and would require a run-off election between the two highest vote-getters only if the candidate with the most votes received less than 45% of the votes cast. If the measure is approved, it would apply to candidates in the affor- mentioned offices in the November 1998 election, as well as to those in subsequent elections.

A YES vote means the Charter would be changed to allow a candidate running for the office of Mayor, Councilmember or Auditor to win the election without a run-off if the candidate with the most votes received at least 45% of the vote. The change would take effect following a majority vote of YES on the measure and would then be applied to the results of the races for Mayor, Councilmember and Auditor in this and subsequent elections.

A NO vote means the present system would be retained, requiring a run-off election between the two highest vote-getters if no candidate receives a majority vote in this and subsequent elections.

· Before 1986 officials were elected by a simple plurality -- the highest vote-getter won, even by one vote.

· Significantly fewer voters than voted at the general election turn out for a run-off.

·Run-off elections add greatly to the cost of holding municipal elections.

· It is important for this measure to

take immediate effect to begin realizing savings for the City.

· A candidate who receives 45% of the votes cast and the most votes for that office will be declared elected, even if the nearest opponent gets 44.9%.

· With the winning candidate able to be elected with 45% of the vote, the majority (55%) of the voters will have chosen other candidates.

· Savings projected if no run-off elections were held are minimal. The bulk of the expenses are incurred before the election, because a run-off must be planned for if there are 3 or more candidates.

· By allowing the measure to take effect immediately, voters will be electing candidates to take office under a set of rules that could change the effect of their votes.

Keith Carson, Alameda Couty Supervisor; Maudelle Shirek, Vice Mayor; Dona Spring, Councilmember; Linda Maio, Councilmember; Margaret Breland, Councilmember; Kriss Worthington, Councilmember.

MAJOR OPPONENTS

Betty Olds, Councilmember; Prof. Fred Collignon, former Councilmember and Chair, Department of City and Regional Planning, UC Berkeley; John Denton, former Councilmember; Dorothy Bryant, Author; Martha H. Jones, President, Council of Neighborhood Associations; Susan E. Wengraf, for the Berkeley Democratic Club; Peter R. Tannenbaum, former Vice Chair, Berkeley Fair Campaign Practices Commission.

MEASURE

M

Shall the voters advise the Berkeley City Council to affirm the City's policy to request that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and CalTrans include passenger rail service as part of the redesign of the Bay Bridge in order to reduce regional traffic congestion, promote regional mass transit use, and protect the environment?

THE SITUATION

The eastern half of the Bay Bridge needs to be replaced by a bridge strong enough to withstand anticipated earthquakes. A new bridge is being designed between Yerba Buena Island/Treasure Island and the East Bay, which is to have the same capacity as the present bridge, plus bike lanes. The city councils of Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and San Francisco have placed similar advisory measures on the ballots of each city for this general election. Since the Berkeley City Council has already passed a resolution making the substance of this advisory measure City policy, this would be an advisory affirmation by the voters of Berkeley.

This advisory proposition, Measure M, would inform the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (the regional transportation planning commission) and CalTrans (the state transportation planning agency) as to voter affirmation of Berkeley's policy to support the inclusion of passenger rail service as part of the redesign of the Bay Bridge in order to reduce regional traffic congestion, promote regional mass transit use, and protect the environment.

A YES vote means the voters advise the Berkeley City Council that they affirm the City's policy to include passenger rail service as part of the redesign of the Bay Bridge.

A NO vote means the voters advise the Berkeley City Council that they do not support the City's policy to include passenger rail service as part of the redesign of the Bay Bridge.

· Traffic congestion is the Bay Area's major problem; rebuilding the eastern half of the Bay Bridge is an opportunity to address that problem and meet future needs.

· Rail and other forms of mass transit can carry ten times as many people in a lane as a car lane can.

· Transit planning needs to be done in conjunction with bridge design to provide connections to existing and future rail (like the ramps that exist at the San Francisco end of the bridge into the Transbay Terminal).

· A study of alternatives such as connecting the Capitol Corridor train to San Francisco, reinstating streetcar connections or instituting a high volume bus/van lane could determine which to plan for in the life of the bridge, and should already have been done.

· MTC's status quo is not acceptable. Four cities working together can help shape a better transportation future.

· As there are no plans for rebuilding the western half of the bridge or the tunnel through Treasure Island, mass transit service on the bridge would require using at least one existing lane.

· BART provides mass transit service across the Bay. Advances in technology will increase its capacity.

· Some supporters want connection to Capitol Corridor heavy rail to Sacramento, some want to resurrect streetcars on the bridge, and others, a bus lane. As supporters do not agree on a preferred transit system, bridge design and construction would be impeded.

· It is important to rebuild the Bay Bridge as soon as possible because of earthquake hazard. Vulnerability of the bridge is a constant threat to the region.

· Much effort has already gone into getting plans for the bridge this far. It is too late to change.

Shirley Dean, Mayor; Helen Burke, Chair, Sierra Club; Charles Betcher, President, Bus Riders Union; Miriam Hawley, Director, AC Transit; Hank Resnik, Transportation Commissioner.

MAJOR OPPONENTS

There is no formal opposition recorded in the Alameda Counter Voter Pamphlet.