Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10171989 - 2.4 2. 4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Or-der on _October 17, 1989 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: (See below for vote) ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Report on Local Measures on the November 7, 1989 Ballot In response to the request of the Board, the County Adminis- trator provided a report providing a summary of the local measures on the November 7 , 1989 ballot including recommendations relative to positions that Board may want to take on the respective ballot measures. (A copy of the report is attached and included as a part of this document. ) Mark Finucane, Director of Health Services, and Paul Kaatz , representing Contra Costa Employees Association, Local I , urged the Board to oppose Measure D. Board members considered the recommendations of staff and the comments presented. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of staff relative to Measures A, C, E, and G are APPROVED. PASSED by the Board by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board TAKES a position in opposition to Measure D. PASSED by the Board by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden., McPeak, Torlakson NOES: Supervisor Schroder ABSENT: None I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: 614�✓ /Z Afr g cc• County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board Health Services Director of Supervisors and County Administrator Drug Program Chief . By 1 ': Deputy TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS sE--L- ?� Contra FROM: Costa COS Phil Batchelor, County Administrator oy_ s s �� •�,,:_-=�-- •� County do= CPv DATE: October 11, 1989 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF LOCAL MEASURES ON THE NOVEMBER 7 , 1989 BALLOT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECO14MENDATION Determine whether the Board of Supervisors wishes to take a position on any of the following' local measures which will appear on the ballot next month. It is suggested that the Board of Supervisors consider the following possible positions: City of Concord Measure D Take no Position City of Concord Measure E Take no Position Mt. Diablo Unified Measure A Board has already Supported School District City of Richmond Measure C Support San Ramon Valley Measure G Support Fire Protection District BACKGROUND: On October 3 , 1989 the Board of Supervisors asked the County Administrator to prepare a summary of all local measures which appear on the ballot in any local jurisdiction for the November 7, 1989 election. With the help of the Elections staff we have identified five such local measures on the ballot on November 7, 1989 . One of these is the Mt. Diablo Unified School District' s bond issue, which the Board of Supervisors voted to support on October 3 , 1989. It is included here for the Board' s information. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:Yes YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): r ACTION OF BOARD ON or-t-ober 1 7., 19 99 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS IH BY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND COR T COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON E DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED County A ' nistrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK O E BOARD OF Health ervices Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMI TRATOR Dru rogram Chief rry McGraw, CAO office M382 /88) BY PUTY -2- CITY OF CONCORD Measure D Measure "D" on the ballot in the City of Concord is a referendum measure seeking to overturn the decision of the City Council to enact an AIDS Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. The language on the ballot reads as follows: "Shall Ordinance 89-9 (AIDS Anti-Discrimination) be repealed?" The impartial analysis prepared by the Concord City Attorney reads as follows: "Ordinance 89-9 (AIDS Anti-Discrimination) would prohibit discrimination against individuals who suffer from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or who suffer from an AIDS related condition (ARC) or any other medical condition contracted as a result of having AIDS or ARC, in employment, housing, in the use of City facilities and services and by business establishments. "The Ordinance prohibits labor organizations and employment agencies from discriminating against an individual because of that person' s having AIDS, ARC or a related medical condition. "The Ordinance prohibits requiring a person to undertake a test designed to show that that person has AIDS or any of its associated conditions but does not prohibit any test which is specifically authorized by state or federal law. "There are also protections for those who associate with persons infected with the AIDS virus or who suffer from ARC. The Ordinance also prohibits retaliation against individuals who enforce their rights under the Ordinance. "The Ordinance would have no effect on existing City law since the City has no similar anti-discrimination ordinance; it would be in addition to existing State and Federal law prohibiting discrimination against individuals with physical handicaps or disabilities. "The Ordinance does not affect any existing law with regard to allowable employment practices or employer/employee relations. "The Ordinance does not apply to the rental of any housing unit in which the owner or a member of his or her family would occupy the same living unit with the prospective tenant. "If a charge of discrimination is made, the Ordinance sets forth affirmative defenses which may be raised to refute the charge. These defenses include good faith job requirements and health and safety factors which may justify the conduct which otherwise would be considered discriminatory. The Ordinance does not change existing law regarding the burden of proof if a lawsuit is filed by a person claiming discrimination. "The Ordinance provides for a private cause of action in the civil courts and is not enforced by the Office of the City Attorney or District Attorney. Anyone who successfully proves discrimination under the Ordinance may be awarded by the court damages and/or an injunction and . may be entitled to attorney' s fees. "The Ordinance permits, upon request, mediation of complaints of discrimination by the Concord Human Relations Commission. The -3- Human Relations Commission has no enforcement authority and cannot levy fines or impose any sanctions. "To repeal the Ordinance a "yes" vote must be cast. To retain the Ordinance a "no" vote must be cast. " The argument in favor of Measure D is signed by the following: Lloyd Mashore Concord Resident Concord City Council Candidate Clyde O'Neill, M.D. Surgeon, Mt. Diablo Hospital Medical Staff California Physicians for a Logical AIDS Response Timothy C. Howard, M.D. Surgeon, Mt. Diablo Hospital Medical Staff Member, California Medical Association Grace Ellis Member, Mt. Diablo Hospital Board of Directors California Health Care Advocates Michael D. Imfeld, Esq. Member, California Bar Association National Legal Medical Consultants The argument against Measure D is signed by the following: Mark Finucane, Director Contra Costa County Health Services Department Wendel Brunner, M.D. Director of Public Health Contra Costa County Mary Bacon, R.N. , CNA Nursing Supervisor, Mt. Diablo Hospital Father Mac R. Stanley Episcopal Priest Kent Sack, M.D. Family Practice Department Mt. Diablo Hospital Measure E Measure "E" on the ballot in the City of Concord is a referendum measure seeking to overturn the decision of the City Council to amend the General Plan in such a way as to permit the development of Crystyl Ranch. The language on the ballot reads as follows: Shall the amendments to the City of Concord General Plan permitting the Crystyl Ranch project be repealed?" The impartial analysis prepared by the Concord City Attorney reads as follows: "On June 28, 1989, the Concord City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-4822. 2 which amended portions of the City of Concord' s General Plan to permit the development of Crystyl Ranch. This measures requires the voters to determine if they approve or disapprove of those General Plan amendments. "In general, the amendments to the General Plan set forth in Resolution No. 89-4822.2 would permit and require the following: The development of a private, gated golf course community containing between 710 and 725 dwellings -4- units located on a variety of lot sizes which range from 4,000 square feet to estate lots ( 1 to 3 acres) , The development of private recreational facilities consisting of an 18-hole golf course, tennis courts and a clubhouse and pool facility. Provide for permanent open space in addition to the golf course. Provide for the retention of Galindo Creek as it flows through the property in a natural state, including a buffer area between the Creek and adjoining residential and/or golf course development. Three golf holes are located in the buffer area. Require further review of proposed development in the northeast corner of the site in order to protect existing oak trees and to minimize grading of ridgetops. Require further analysis of the sufficiency of the buffer between the Lime Ridge Open Space and residential development along the western boundary of the site. Permit development of the site above a 600 foot elevation in the vicinity of the Lime Ridge Open Space. Establish specific design standards for development of this site which include standards for hillside development and landscaping. These design standards would be in lieu of the provisions in the City' s Municipal Code which regulate hillside development. "If the measure is successful, then the above amendments to the General Plan would be repealed. Development of Crystyl Ranch then must be consistent with the General Plan prior to adoption of these amendments, or consistent with the General Plan as may be subsequently amended. Development consistent with the existing General Plan, if undertaken, would result in: The development of a residential project containing a maximum of 454 units in the staff 's opinion (the developer contends the number could range up to 570 units) . - A development subject to the Municipal Code provisions dealing with hillside development. - Development on the site above a 600 foot elevation only in areas designated in the existing Newhall Ranch Area Plan. - Maintenance of Galindo Creek Corridor in its natural condition. - Extension of Rolling Woods Way through the site and across the State College site to Ygnacio Valley Road. "To repeal the General Plan amendments and thus prohibit the development of Crystyl Ranch a"yes" vote must be cast. To retain the General Plan amendments which will permit the development of Crystyl Ranch a "no" vote must be cast. " -5- The argument in favor of Measure E is signed by the following: Farrell "Bud" Stewart Former Concord City Manager Co-Chair, Referendum Committee Against Crystyl Ranch Richard "Dick" Stockwell Former Concord Planning Director Co-Chair, Referendum Committee Against Crystyl Ranch Peter Hirano Former Concord Planning Director Co-Chair, Referendum Committee Against Crystyl Ranch Genevieve L. Sattler Founder and Director of Save Mt. Diablo Alan W. Ackermann President of the Cowell Homeowners Association The argument against Measure E is signed by the following: Kathy Adams President of the Concord Chamber of Commerce John Zandonella Community Civic Leader and Businessman Kent Barcus, Concord resident Mark Hines, Concord resident Kathleen Chenard, Concord resident MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Measure A Measure A on the ballot in the Mt. Diablo Unified School District is a school bond measure placed on the ballot by the Board of Education of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. The language on the ballot reads as follows: "Shall Mt. Diablo Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 1 be authorized to finance the rehabilitation and improvement of existing elementary, middle/intermediate and high school facilities and other facilities and the construction and installation of new elementary, middle/intermediate and high school facilities at existing school sites, together with necessary appurtenances thereto and furniture and equipment therefor, by incurring a bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $90,000,000, and shall an appropriation limit in the amount of $2,500,000 per fiscal year in connection therewith be established for the Community Facilities District, and shall a special tax (which includes a senior citizens exemption) with a maximum rate and method of apportionment as provided in Resolution No. 200 adopted by the Board of Education of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District on June 6, 1989, which is incorporated by reference herein, be levied to pay for such school facilities, including the payment of principal of and interest on such bonds and including the repayment of funds advanced for the Community Facilities District?" -6- The impartial analysis prepared by County Counsel reads as follows: "Mt. Diablo Unified School District adopted a Resolution reconfirming the establishment of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 1 (the boundaries of which encompass the School District' s territory) , pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, which provides an alternative method of financing certain public facilities. "The ballot measure includes three provisions: 1. Special Tax. The measure provides for a special tax, the proceeds to be used by the School District for the following purposes: rehabilitating and improving existing school facilities and constructing and installing school facilities at existing sites, together with necessary appurtenances, furniture, and equipment, with an estimated useful life of five years or longer and paying the principal and interest on the bonded indebtedness incurred for the rehabilitation and improvement or construction of such facilities, including the repayment of funds advanced for the Community Facilities District. The proposed special tax is not based on the value of real property but is to be levied on taxable units per assessor' s parcel or acre. For instance, single family residential land use will have one taxable unit per parcel, multiple family residential land use will have one taxable unit for each half acre or portion thereof, and commercial or industrial land use will have four taxable units per acre. The annual tax on each taxable unit will be $67.00, unless the School District reduces the tax. The tax will be imposed as long as needed to pay for the purposes set forth above. Proceeds from a special tax are not available for all school district expenditures but may only be used for those specific purposes set forth in the tax measure. 2. Bonded Indebtedness. The measure seeks voter approval for incurring bonded indebtedness in the amount of $90,000 ,000 to finance all or a portion of the facilities for the Community Facilities District. The purposes for which the proposed debt are to be incurred are set forth in the ballot measure. In exchange for money received from the holder of the bonds, the Community Facilities District will promise to pay the holder interest for a certain period of time and to repay the loan on the expiration date. 3 . Appropriations Limit. The California Constitution authorizes a new public entity to establish its appropriations limit (the maximum amount the public entity may expend in any given fiscal year) upon approval of the voters of the public entity. The ballot measure seeks voter approval to establish an appropriations limit for the Community Facilities District of $2,500,000 per fiscal year. In order to expend the proceeds of the special tax and bonds, an appropriations limit must be established. "The ballot measure will pass or fail as a whole. Two-thirds of those voting on the measure must approve the measure in order for it to pass. "A "Yes" vote is for authorizing the special tax, the bonded indebtedness, and the appropriations limit. "A "Non" vote is against authorizing the special tax, the bonded indebtedness, and the appropriations limit. " -7- The argument in favor of Measure A is sign by the following: Alfred R. "Bud" Hansen Businessman Linda K. Mayo Concerned Parent Joseph Acorn President, Mt. Diablo Education Association Thurman Gupton Member, Concerned Minority Parents in the Mt. Diablo School District William R. Hansen Retired Principal No argument against Measure A was submitted. CITY OF RICHMOND Measure C Measure C on the ballot in the City of Richmond is a special tax measure placed on the ballot by the Richmond City Council. The language on the ballot reads as follows: "Shall the ordinance levying and assessing a special tax on each parcel of property within the City of Richmond to furnish, operate and maintain drug enforcement, education, prevention and counseling programs by the City of Richmond be adopted?" The impartial analysis prepared by the Richmond City Attorney reads as follows: "This proposed ordinance would impose a special tax on each parcel of property within the City of Richmond, beginning fiscal year 1990-91. The purpose of the tax is to furnish, operate and maintain drug enforcement, education, prevention and counseling programs by the City of Richmond. "The City Council would annually set the special tax rate per parcel per year, but the tax rate set by the City Council could not exceed the maximum tax rate per parcel per year set forth in the ordinance. The maximum tax rate could only be increased with the approval of two-thirds ( 2/3) of the qualified voters. The maximum tax rate per parcel per year is as follows: Single family residential (including condominiums, townhouses and mobilehomes) $ 30 Single family residential (vacant) $ 15 Duplex $ 60 Triplex $ 90 Fourplex $ 120 Multiple (apartment) 5 to 12 units $ 240 13 to 24 units $ 450 25 to 59 units $ 900 60 units or more $2250 Multiple vacant $ 155 Commercial $ 240 Commercial (vacant) $ 120 Industrial $ 900 Industrial (vacant) $ 450 Land and Miscellaneous ( improved or vacant) $ 450 -8- "It is estimated by the Finance Director of the City of Richmond that if the maximum tax rate is leveled by the City Council that the proposed tax would raise $3 ,296 ,000 per year. All revenues raised by this proposed special tax could only be used to furnish, operate and maintain drug enforcement, education, prevention and counseling programs. Any unexpended revenues raised by the City may only be used in the succeeding years for the purposes stated above or may be returned to the taxpayer. "Since this proposed tax is a special tax, the approval of two-thirds ( 2/3 ) of the qualified voters would be necessary to enact the ordinance, and if enacted, the approval of two-thirds ( 2/3 ) of the qualified voters would be necessary to amend the ordinance, except that the City Council may amend the ordinance to carry out the general purposes of the ordinance. " The argument in favor of Measure C is signed by the following: David MacDiarmid Councilmember Lawrence M. Moore City Manager No argument against Measure C was submitted. SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Measure G Measure G on the ballot in the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is an appropriations limit measure placed on the ballot by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. The language on the ballot reads as follows: "Shall the appropriation limit of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for the fiscal year 1990/91, applying to available funds without increasing taxes, be established at $13 million and should the increased limit for this fiscal period ($13 million) be used to determine the limits for fiscal years 1991-/92 through 1993/94?" The analysis prepared by the Attorney for the District reads as follows: "Background Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, enacted by initiative in November, 1979, limits the ability of local governments to "appropriate" (i.e. , expend) the "proceeds of taxes" . Appropriations from tax revenues cannot exceed a specified "appropriations limit" . The appropriations limit was initially based on the level of appropriations made during Fiscal Year (FY) 1978-79 and is adjusted annually to reflect ensuing changes in population, and cost of living. Each local agency must determine its appropriations limit annually. Section 4 of Article XIIIB allows the appropriations limit to be increased for a period of up to four years, by a vote of the people. This does not result in any additional tax now being charged for district services. "Proposal If enacted, this ballot measure would create authorization for an increased appropriations limit, for each of the coming four fiscal years, as authorized by Section 4 of Article XIIIB, and would increase the amount of that limit from the present $8,849,530 to $13 ,000 ,000. If not approved, the limit will revert to the previous adjusted level of 1986/87 of $7,199,230. -9- The new limit for FY 1990/91 would be $13,000,000. The limits applicable to FYs 1991/92 through 1993/94 would be determined by applying the appropriate inflationary and population factors to this higher figure. After FY 1993/94, the appropriations limit will decrease to the level it would have been had this measure not been enacted, unless a higher limit is again approved by a vote of the residents of the District at the end of the coming four years. "Fiscal Effect An increase in the FY 1990/91 appropriations limit would authorize the District to appropriate tax revenues which it receives in excess of the previously set applicable limit, but not more than $13 ,000,000. During the next four fiscal years, the District' s appropriations limits and ability to expend tax revenue would also be higher that they would be in the absence of this measure if the District' s rapid growth continues. Authority for this limit does not mean that the District will necessarily use that amount of tax revenue set by the limit but that the District may set a limit each year based on projected increases because of the necessity to furnish services and equipment for the rapidly expanding needs of the district. Approval of this limit does not result in increased taxes as the appropriation each fiscal year is against existing taxes already assessed and collected. " The argument in favor of Measure G was signed by the following: H. Alan Huovinen, Director, Danville Thomas W. Seabury, Director, Diablo Patricia I . Boom, Director, San Ramon A. William Blendow, Director, Alamo Louis A. Sylvia, Director, Danville No argument against Measure G was submitted.