Local Ballot Measure Results From November

Alameda County

• Voters approved a $5 million bond to expand the fire station and add “sustainable building features” to the civic center complex. The bonds will cost property owners about $19 per $100,000 of assessed valuation for about 25 years. Measure C: Yes, 76.4% (2/3 vote required)

• To accommodate the proposed development of five sports fields on 16 acres, the electorate approved amendments to a voter-approved waterfront specific plan to make public or commercial recreation facilities by-right uses. Measure F: Yes, 79.9%

• A measure to increase the permissible number of conversions of apartments to condominiums from 100 to 500 annually, and reduce affordable housing requirements for conversions, was rejected. Measure I: No, 73.8% (pro growth—no)

• Voters also said no to an initiative that would have kept in place the city’s rigorous system of historic preservation. The city has proposed reforming the regulations, and the initiative was a response. Mayor Tom Bates argued the regulations are abused to halt development. Backers said the regulations are necessary to protect neighborhood integrity. Measure J: No, 57.3% (slow growth—no)

• An initiative to rezone land near Coyote Hills Regional Park to agriculture was soundly defeated. The initiative was an attempt to block a proposed 800-unit housing development on the Patterson Ranch. Measure K: No, 65.9% (slow growth—no)

• A $30 million bond to purchase 24 acres for parkland in Castro Valley and make other park improvements failed. The bond would have cost property owners about $16 per $100,000 of valuation. Measure Q: No, 37.3% (2/3 vote required) (slow growth—no)

• A $148 million library bond would have converted the recently closed Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center into a library and built new branch libraries. Measure N: No, 36.2% (2/3 vote required)

• Voters backed the “grand park” design approved by the City Council for the 300-acre Bernal property. The plan calls for open space, sports fields, a community center and cultural facilities, and indoor and outdoor theaters. Measure P: Yes, 82.1%

Amador County

• A half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements and road maintenance failed to receive even majority support. Measure K: No, 51.5% (2/3 vote required)

Contra Costa County

• A countywide urban growth boundary that is similar to existing limits won easy approval. Measure L: Yes, 63.9% (slow growth—yes)

• A $59.1 million bond that would have paid for road, storm drain and water main improvements failed. Measure Q: No, 35.8% (2/3 vote required)

Fresno County

• The renewal of a half-cent sales tax for transportation for 20 years won approval. The county’s existing half-cent tax was approved by only a majority of voters in 1986 and was scheduled to expire in 2007. Measure C: Yes, 77.7% (2/3 vote required)

Kern County

• A half-cent sales tax for 20 years that would have raised about $1 billion for transportation projects failed to receive super-majority support. Measure I: No, 43.6% (2/3 vote required)

Los Angeles County

• Two initiatives backed by the Westfield Santa Anita mall — and aimed at developer Rick Caruso’s plan for a lifestyle center at Santa Anita race track, adjacent to the Westfield mall — won very narrow approval. One measure bans most billboards on the race track property; the second prohibits charging for parking in large commercial centers. Measure N (billboards): Yes, 50.3% (slow growth—yes) Measure P (free parking): Yes, 51.1% (slow growth—yes)

• A $12.5 million bond to pay for the purchase of the 183-acre Johnson’s Pasture in the hills adjacent to the city’s existing wilderness park won approval. The property owner wants to sell the pastureland, and developers had expressed interest. The bonds will cost property owners about $33 per $100,000 of assessed value for 30 years. Measure S: Yes, 70.5% (slow growth—yes)

• A proposed special tax of $89 per house and $65 per multi-family unit to fund construction and operation of a new 24,500-square-foot library failed badly. About 70% of the tax would have paid for bonds to finance construction. Measure L: No, 71.0% (2/3 vote required)

• A $1 billion housing bond failed to receive two-thirds approval. The bond would have provided $750 million for grants and loans to developers of affordable housing and $250 million for home-purchase assistance. The bond would have cost property owners $14.66 for every $100,000 of assessed value for 20 years. Measure H: No, 37.7% (2/3 vote required) (pro growth—no)

• Voters convincingly said they do not want to renovate the city-owned Rose Bowl so that it may be leased to a professional football team. Measure A: No, 72.1%

• A parcel tax of $84 per single-family house (with varying levels for multi-family and commercial properties) to improve urban runoff management and implement measures to prevent ocean pollution passed by a handful of votes. Measure V: Yes, 66.71% (2/3 vote required)

• Voters rejected a proposed general plan amendment that would have permitted development of a Lowe’s store on 22 acres now zoned for offices. Measure Z: No, 55.8% (pro growth—no)

Madera County

• Voters approved a half-cent sales tax for transportation. The tax follows an earlier measure that expired in October 2005, and is expected to raise $213 million over 20 years. Measure T: Yes, 72.7% (2/3 vote required)

Marin County

• A quarter-cent sales tax to build and operate a 70-mile commuter rail line and construct an adjacent bike path from Cloverdale in northern Sonoma County to Larkspur in southern Marin County failed. The defeat in Marin County was enough to kill the tax, even though slightly more than two-thirds of Sonoma County voters supported it. Measure R: No, 42.6% (2/3 vote required)

Merced County

• A half-cent sales tax for 30 years to fund transportation projects lost for the second time this year. It would have raised an estimated $466 million, with about 95% going for roads and highways. Measure G: No, 39.1% (2/3 vote required)

Napa County

• Voters approved creation of the Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District. No new funding is included. Measure I: Yes, 54.3%

Nevada County

• A half-cent sales tax would have funded construction of four transportation projects, including a long-sought Highway 49 interchange to serve a hospital. Measure T: No, 42.5% (2/3 vote required)

Orange County

• Voters approved the extension of a half-cent sales tax that will raise nearly $12 billion over 30 years for transportation projects. The tax was scheduled to expire in 2011. Measure M: Yes, 69.6% (2/3 vote required)

• Voters approved a City Council-backed charter amendment that prohibits the city, its redevelopment agency and its housing authority from using eminent domain to acquire private property for the purpose of conveying the property to another private entity. Measure P: Yes, 80.4%

• A city-sponsored charter amendment that would prohibit gambling facilities won approval. Measure Q: Yes, 75.5%

• Voters approved a city-sponsored ballot measure prohibiting the use of eminent domain to acquire property for the purpose of transferring the property to another private property “for the conduct of for-profit commercial activity.” Measure S: Yes, 84.7%

• Voters approved the city’s plan to build a 47,000-square-foot senior center on five acres in Central Park. Measure T: Yes, 51.2%

• Voters rejected the Greenlight II initiative that would have required voters to decide on any proposed development that would “significantly increase traffic, density or intensity above the as-built condition of a neighborhood.” The initiative was a follow-up to a 2000 measure (Greenlight I) that requires votes on certain projects exceeding general plan provisions. Measure X: No, 63.3% (slow growth—no)

• Meanwhile, voters approved a city-backed general plan update that was on the ballot as the result of Greenlight I. The update permits about 1,100 more residential units than the 1988 general plan but reduces non-residential development by about 450,000 square feet. Measure V: Yes, 53.7% (pro growth—yes)

• A city-sponsored charter amendment prohibiting the use of eminent domain for the sole purpose of transferring property from one person to another for economic development won approval. Measure W: Yes, 76.6%

Riverside County

• A landowner-backed initiative would have rezoned 344 acres now designated for large-lot residential development to permit smaller lots and some commercial development. Measure M: No, 58.0% (pro growth—no)

• Voters backed a measure placed on the ballot by the City Council clarifying a 1994 ballot measure that limits most new structures to a maximum of “20 feet or one story.” The clarification states that the maximum is both one story and 20 feet, with a few exceptions for larger lots and commercial development. Measure N: Yes, 80.8% (slow growth—yes)

Sacramento County

• A quarter-cent sales tax increase for 15 years would have funded development of a downtown Sacramento basketball arena and other public facilities. Because tax proceeds were not specifically earmarked in the ballot measure, only a majority vote was required. However, Sacramento Kings owners provided no support for the measure. Measure R: No, 80.4% (pro growth—no)

San Benito County

• Voters rejected an initiative that would have rezoned 1,300 acres of ag land to “mixed-use residential community” to accommodate the proposed Del Webb Sun City Hollister project. The initiative would also have exempted the project from the city’s annual limit of 244 new sewer connections after a sewer moratorium is lifted. Measure S: No, 57% (pro growth—no)

San Bernardino County

• A county-crafted measure that prohibits the county from using eminent domain to acquire property for the purpose of transferring it to another private entity won. Measure O: Yes, 68.5%

• Voters backed a citizen initiative that intends to limit development in the “South Hills” to about 800 units. The initiative also establishes a 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size for the entire city, imposes new building height maximums and requires that developers mitigate traffic impacts. Measure V: Yes, 52.8% (slow growth—yes)

• At the same time, voters rejected a City Council-backed alternative that would have limited development in the South Hills to 1,185 houses, prevented the city from selling the 1,050 acres it owns in the South Hills, and required a subsequent vote to change the restrictions. Measure U: No, 52.9% (pro growth—no)

San Diego County

• In an advisory election, voters said they do not favor development of a commercial airport on a portion of Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. The San Diego Regional Airport Authority recommended the site over other locations despite the military’s opposition. Proposition A: No, 61.9%

• Voters approved a measure that makes members of Boulevard Sponsor Group, a land use advisory panel for the Boulevard area in southeastern San Diego County, directly elected. The Board of Supervisors has appointed the members previously. Proposition V: Yes, 74.0%

• Voters narrowly favored one ballot measure over another regarding the “strawberry fields” just east of Interstate 5. Voters barely rejected a citizens initiative (Proposition E) that would have designated 380 acres as “coastal agricultural,” blocking potential residential and commercial development. They approved a City Council alternative (Proposition D) that designates 208 acres as regional open space with agricultural uses permitted, but which does not block development on 45 acres already zoned for visitor-related commercial development. Proposition D: Yes, 50.4% (pro growth—yes) Proposition E: No, 50.2% (slow growth—no)

• In an Article 34 election, voters authorized development or acquisition of up to 1,600 units of low-income rental housing. Proposition F: Yes, 55.8% (pro growth—yes)

• An initiative that increases the minimum parcel size in some single-family residential zones from 3,500 square feet to 5,250 square feet won by only nine votes out of 6,705 cast. The measure, which says it is retroactive to January 18, 2006, is an attempt to halt the practice of tearing down one house and replacing it with two. The city contends the initiative is illegal for a number of reasons, and litigation is pending. Proposition J: Yes, 50.1% (slow growth—yes)

• A bond of $596 million to fund hospital and healthcare facilities in Oceanside, Carlsbad and Vista failed. It would have cost property owners $23 per $100,000 of valuation. A similar measure failed by a narrower margin in June. Proposition T: No, 35.2% (2/3 vote required)

• A half-cent sales tax for 30 years will pay for a new civic center, fire stations, sports fields and upgrades to the city-owned amphitheater. Because the measure did not specifically earmark revenues, only a majority approval was required. Proposition L: Yes, 54.0%

• A measure backed by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval requires chain stores (formula businesses with at least 11 locations) to receive a special use permit before opening in a neighborhood commercial district. The city already restricts chains in a few parts of town. Proposition G: Yes, 58.0% (slow growth—yes)

San Joaquin County

• Despite a campaign against the measure by two county supervisors, voters approved a 30-year renewal of an existing half-cent sales tax for transportation. The existing tax expires in 2011. Measure K: Yes, 77.9% (2/3 vote required)

• Voters rejected a half-cent sales tax to fund construction of a fire station, an aquatics center, and an indoor sports center, and to fund the addition of paramedic services. Measure G: No, 56.2% (2/3 vote required)

• After losing a City of San Luis Obispo referendum election last year (see , June 2005), property owner Ernie Dalidio found countywide support for his plan to develop a 530,000-square-foot shopping center, 150-room hotel, 60 residential units and 200,000 square feet of office space on 131 acres just south of town. Measure J: Yes, 64.6% (pro growth—yes)

• The electorate backed a measure requiring voter approval before the district extends water service outside the 2006 district boundaries. Measure P: Yes, 78.5% (slow growth—yes)

San Mateo County

• A one-eighth-cent sales tax for 25 years to fund open space acquisition, and parks improvement and maintenance by the county, cities and special districts failed. Measure A: No, 44.7% (2/3 vote required) (slow growth—no)

• The City Council asked voters to decide on a proposal to annex Guadalupe Valley Quarry, close the mine and replace it with 173 units of housing. Measure B: No, 73.2% (pro growth—no)

• A $44 million bond to improve “under capacity flood control infrastructure” and retrofit city buildings for seismic safety and disabled access failed. Measure H: No, 35.9% (2/3 vote required)

• An advisory measure asked whether the city should construct 17 acres of sports fields at the 160-acre Bayfront Park. Measure J: No, 61.3%

• Voters rejected a measure to permit development of about 355 housing units and a 350-room hotel at the former Rockaway Quarry. Voters have rejected previous development proposals for the site. Measure L: No, 51.5% (pro growth—no)

Santa Barbara County

• A measure to double an existing quarter-cent sales tax for transportation, and extend the tax for 30 years, failed. The measure would have generated an estimated $1.575 billion. Among other things, the tax would have funded a new commuter rail service between Goleta and Ventura. Measure D: No, 45.8% (2/3 vote required)

Santa Clara County

• Voters narrowly rejected the Land Conservation Initiative. It would have increased minimum parcel sizes on designated rangeland and steep hillsides to 160 acres, and set a minimum parcel size of 40 acres on other agricultural lands and hillsides. The initiative, which affected about 400,000 acres, also sought to impose other building restrictions to protect stream corridors, wildlife and forests. Measure A: No, 50.7% (slow growth—no)

• In separate referendums, voters rejected rezoning for two condominium projects — a 134-unit development proposed for 5.2 acres at Vallco Fashion Park (Measure D), and a 380-unit, 26-acre proposal for surplus Hewlett Packard land (Measure E). The city approved the projects in March (see , May 2006). Measure D: No, 65.2% (slow growth—yes) Measure E: No, 63.6% (slow growth—yes)

• Voters approved a proposal to amend the general plan and development control system to allow up to 100 additional residential units in the downtown core, and speed up development of downtown projects that conform with a downtown plan. Measure F: Yes, 52.2% (pro growth—yes)

Santa Cruz County

• Voters overwhelmingly backed a “sustainable growth” initiative (Measure I) prohibiting the city from providing services for UC, Santa Cruz, growth unless the university fully mitigates all impacts. A related measure (Measure J) requires voter approval for the city to extend sewer and water services beyond current city boundaries, including to the UC campus. Measure I (mitigation of UC impacts): Yes, 76.1% (slow growth—yes) Measure J (extension of services): Yes, 79.9% (slow growth—yes)

Shasta County

• An initiative to rezone an area of town now zoned for three housing units per acre to permit only one house per 2 acres failed. The initiative was an attempt to block a plan from developer Jaxon Baker to build 170 units on 120 acres, a project the city approved after the initiative qualified for the ballot. Measure C: No, 52.6% (slow growth—no)

Solano County

• Voters said they do not want to extend the Orderly Growth Initiative, which they first approved in 1984. The policy prohibits most development on land zoned for agriculture, watershed or open space, which is most of the unincorporated county. Measure J: No, 52.7% (slow growth—no)

Sonoma County

• An extension of an existing quarter-cent sales tax to fund acquisitions by the county’s Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District won approval. Measure F: Yes, 75.0% (2/3 vote required) (slow growth—yes)

• A quarter-cent sales tax to build and operate a 70-mile commuter rail line through Sonoma and Marin counties won in Sonoma County. However, the tax failed in Marin County, killing the plan. Measure R: Yes, 69.3% (2/3 vote required)

• Voters backed a City Council advisory measure asking whether the city should “take all lawful steps to oppose” a casino proposed by the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians on 277 acres of farmland outside the city. Measure H: yes, 78.7% (slow growth—yes)

Stanislaus County

• A half-cent sales tax for transportation for 30 years failed. Nearly all of the measure’s $1 billion would have gone for highways and roads. Measure K: No, 42.1% (2/3 vote required)

• In an Article 34 election, voters authorized developers and public agencies to acquire or develop 50 units of housing for low- and moderate-income households. Measure T: Yes, 52.5% (pro growth—yes)

Tulare County

• The county’s first half-cent sales tax for transportation barely won approval. The tax will generate about $650 million over 30 years. Measure R: Yes, 67.2% (2/3 vote required)

• Voters authorized the district, originally formed to operate the Veterans Memorial Building, to own and operate parks. Voters also backed an annual parcel tax of $8.50. The measures are intended to save Springville Park, which a public utilities district says it can no longer afford to maintain. Measure X (authorization): Yes, 85.4% Measure Y (tax): Yes, 70.5% (2/3 vote required)

Ventura County

• In an Article 34 election, voters refused to authorize the city’s Housing Authority to develop or acquire up to 150 units for persons of low- and very low-income. Measure K: No, 51.6% (pro growth—no)

• Voters approved an initiative that requires voter approval for residential or commercial development projects on at least 81 acres. The city attempted to keep the initiative off the ballot, but the Second District Court of Appeal ordered the city to conduct an election. Measure L: Yes, 61.7% (slow growth—yes)

Yolo County

• Voters approved an amendment to city big-box regulations to permit construction of a 136,000-square-foot Target store. Measure K: Yes, 51.5% (pro growth—yes)