Trends in Local Land Use Ballot Measures,

Trends in Local Land Use Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 An analysis of city, county and statewide trends Research by William Fulton President, Solimar ...
Author: Angel Robbins
1 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size
Trends in Local Land Use Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 An analysis of city, county and statewide trends Research by

William Fulton President, Solimar Research Group Editor & Publisher, California Planning & Development Report Paul Shigley Managing Editor, California Planning & Development Report Alicia Harrison Research Associate, Solimar Research Group Peter Sezzi Research Assistant, Solimar Research Group

Release date October 2, 2000 Updated

December 2000

973 East Main Street Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: 805/643-7700 Fax: 805/643-7782 Email: [email protected] Web: www.solimar.org

Trends in Local Land Use Ballot Measures TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... Page 1 I.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... Page 3

II.

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... Page 5

III.

OVERALL TRENDS............................................................................................................... Page 8

IV. OVERALL TRENDS BY 5-YEAR PERIODS ...................................................................... Page 11 V.

AGGREGATE OF CITY AND COUNTYWIDE RESULTS................................................ Page 14

VI. TYPES OF TECHNIQUES RESULTS................................................................................. Page 25 VII. RESULTS BY CITY ................................................................................................................ Page 27 VIII. COUNTYWIDE RESULTS .................................................................................................... Page 45 IX. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................... Page 51

i

Trends in Local Land Use Ballot Measures LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Regions of California ............................................................................................. Page 7 Map 2: Total Ballot Measures, Measured as Aggregate of City and Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ................................................................................................................. Page 14 Map 3: Total Pro-Growth Measures, Measured as Aggregate of City and Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ...................................................................................................... Page 16 Map 4: Total Slow-Growth Measures, Measured as Aggregate of City and Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ...................................................................................................... Page 17 Map 5: Percent Passed Pro-Growth, Measured as Aggregate of City and Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ...................................................................................................... Page 20 Map 6: Percent Passed Slow-Growth Measured as Aggregate of City and Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ...................................................................................................... Page 21 Map 7: Total Ballot Measures by City, 1986 - 2000 .................................................................. Page 27 Map 8: Bay Area and Sacramento: Total Ballot Measures by City, 1986 - 1990 ................. Page 28 Map 9: Bay Area and Sacramento: Total Ballot Measures by City, 1991 - 1995 ................. Page 29 Map 10: Bay Area and Sacramento: Total Ballot Measures by City, 1996 - 2000 .............. Page 29 Map 11: Southern California: Total Ballot Measures by City, 1986 - 1990 ........................... Page 30 Map 12: Southern California: Total Ballot Measures by City, 1991 - 1995 ........................... Page 31 Map 13: Southern California: Total Ballot Measures by City, 1996 - 2000 ........................... Page 31 Map 14: Bay Area and Sacramento: Ballot Measure Types by City, 1986 - 1990................ Page 33 Map 15: Bay Area and Sacramento: Ballot Measure Types by City, 1991 - 1995................ Page 34 Map 16: Bay Area and Sacramento: Ballot Measure Types by City, 1996 - 2000................ Page 34 Map 17: Southern California: Ballot Measure Types by City, 1986 - 1990 ........................... Page 35 Map 18: Southern California: Ballot Measure Types by City, 1991 - 1995 ........................... Page 36 Map 19: Southern California: Ballot Measure Types by City, 1996 - 2000 ........................... Page 36 Map 20: Bay Area and Sacramento: Ballot Measure Results by City, 1986 - 2000 ............ Page 37

ii

Map 21: Southern California: Ballot Measure Results by City, 1986 - 2000.......................... Page 41 Map 22: Total Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ....................................................... Page 45 Map 23: Total Countywide Pro-Growth Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ................................. Page 47 Map 24: Total Countywide Slow-Growth Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ............................... Page 48 Map 25: Percent Passed Pro-Growth, Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ............. Page 49 Map 26: Percent Passed Slow-Growth, Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 .......... Page 50

iii

Trends in Local Land Use Ballot Measures LIST OF CHARTS Chart 1: Total Ballot Measures by Year, 1986 - 2000 .............................................................. Page 8 Chart 2: Pro-Growth vs. Slow-Growth Results, 1986 - 2000 ................................................... Page 9 Chart 3: Total Ballot Measures by 5-Year Period, 1986 - 2000 .............................................. Page 11 Chart 4: Percent Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results by 5-Year Period ........................... Page 12 Chart 5: Ballot Measure Types by Region, 1986 - 1990 .......................................................... Page 18 Chart 6: Ballot Measure Types by Region, 1991 - 1995 .......................................................... Page 19 Chart 7: Ballot Measure Types by Region, 1996 - 2000 .......................................................... Page 19 Chart 8: Pro-Growth vs. Slow-Growth Results by Region, 1986 - 1990 ................................ Page 23 Chart 9: Pro-Growth vs. Slow-Growth Results by Region, 1991 - 1995 ................................ Page 24 Chart 10: Pro-Growth vs. Slow-Growth Results by Region, 1996 - 2000 ............................. Page 24 Chart 11: Urban Growth Boundary and SOAR Measures, 1990 - 2000 ................................ Page 25 Chart 12: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results for Counties in the Bay Area Region, 1986 - 1990 ..................................................................................................................................... Page 39 Chart 13: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results for Counties in the Bay Area Region, 1991 - 1995 ..................................................................................................................................... Page 40 Chart 14: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results for Counties in the Bay Area Region, 1996 - 2000 ..................................................................................................................................... Page 40 Chart 15: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results for Counties in the Southern California Region, 1986 - 1990 ...................................................................................................................... Page 43 Chart 16: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results for Counties in the Southern California Region, 1991 - 1995 ...................................................................................................................... Page 44 Chart 17: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results for Counties in the Southern California Region, 1996 - 2000 ...................................................................................................................... Page 44

iv

Trends in Local Land Use Ballot Measures LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results by 5-Year Period ......................................... Page 13 Table 2: Counties with the Most Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ............................................. Page 15 Table 3: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results by Region, 1986 - 2000 .............................. Page 22 Table 4: Urban Growth Boundary/SOAR Measures, 1986 - 2000 ......................................... Page 26 Table 5: Cities with the Most Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ................................................... Page 32 Table 6: City Ballot Measure Results for Bay Area and Sacramento, 1986 - 2000 ............. Page 38 Table 7: City Ballot Measure Results for Southern California, 1986 - 2000 ......................... Page 42 Table 8: Counties with the Most Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 ....................... Page 46

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last few decades, California has become a showcase for “ballot-box zoning”. Several states offer citizens easy access to the ballot, and voters in other states have sometimes decided on statewide growth controls. But only in California do voters so commonly decide on local land use policies and specific development proposals. Using a running database compiled by California Planning & Development Report, we have documented 671 local land use ballot measures in California since 1986, including 61 from the November 2000 ballot. While land use ballot measure activity represents only a small minority of actual land use ordinances at the local level, as documented by Glickfeld and Levine1, the measures often generate significant publicity and represent heated policy debate in the particular locality hosting the measure. Thus, land use ballot measure activity and trends over time can be a particularly telling story about a community's response to urban growth. These trends are especially interesting when ballot measure activity is on the rise, as it is now. By aggregating and mapping ballot measure totals, types, and results for California cities and counties over the last 15 years, we have begun to identify trends in local land use measures. Overall, our findings reveal the following: §

During our 15-year study period, there have been substantially more Slow-Growth measures on the ballot than Pro-Growth measures.

§

Counting the results of all measures, the electorate has voted to limit growth 57% of the time.

§

Although the total number of local land use ballot measures has decreased since the high period of 1986 through 1990, ballot measures activity is on the rise again — especially this year. The San Francisco Bay Area has experienced substantial ballot measure activity since 1996.

§

Ballot measure activity appears to correspond with periods of economic recession and prosperity in California. Ballot measure activity was greatest during the boom years of 1986 through 1990, subsided during the recession period of 1991 through 1995, and picked up as the economy strengthened from 1996 through 2000. Voters appear more willing to limit urban growth during times of economic prosperity.

§

However, ballot results have not followed the same trend. Slow-Growth ballot victories have declined over time. From 1986 through 1990, the Slow-Growth position won 60% of the time. This figure dropped to 56% from 1991 through 1995, and it dropped further to 54% from 1996 through November of 2000. This drop has

1

Glickfeld, Madelyn and Ned Levine. Regional Growth…Local Reaction: The Enactment and Effects of Local Growth Control and Management Measures in California. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992.

1

occurred mostly because Pro-Growth measures have passed more often, not because Slow-Growth measures have failed more often. §

Overall, ballot measure activity in Southern California decreased by approximately half during our 15-year study period. The number of ballot measures also decreased in the Bay Area, but not as sharply as in the southern part of the state.

§

City and countywide measures have been most common in urban coastal areas, and there has been minimal migration of land use ballot measures to other regions. In the Bay Area, ballot measures have historically concentrated in the East Bay and South Bay; however, activity has spread to the North Bay since 1996. In Southern California, ballot measure activity that was concentrated in Los Angeles and Orange counties during the 1986 to 1990 period has spread to Ventura and San Bernardino counties.

§

San Diego and Los Angeles counties had the most ballot measures (when counting both city and countywide measures). Those two counties have accounted for nearly 22% of all local land use ballot measures in the state since 1986. The cities of San Francisco and San Diego had more land use ballot measures than any other cities. Contra Costa and San Luis Obispo counties had the most countywide ballot measures.

§

Thirty-seven Urban Growth Boundary/SOAR-like measures have appeared on local ballots around the state since 1986, including 11 from the November 2000 ballot. Of the 25 legitimate measures that appeared between 1990 and March 2000, only one failed. Out of the 11 measures on the November 2000 ballot, four failed. Twenty of the 37 measures have appeared in just two counties, Ventura and Sonoma. Six more have appeared in Alameda County.

§

In the November 2000 election, the electorate voted to limit growth 66% of the time. The Southern California region had the most ballot measures and a Slow-Growth passage rate close to 80%. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Slow-Growth passage rate was closer to 60%. San Diego and Sonoma counties had the most overall ballot measure activity.

2

I.

INTRODUCTION

While California hosts a significant amount of land use ballot measure activity, little effort has been put forth recently to understand the changing dynamics of local, county and statewide trends. The California Ballot Monitor by the California Association of Realtors documented ballot measure activity from 1971 through 19922. A report by Madelyn Glickfeld, LeRoy Graymer, and Kerry Morrison, based in part on this database, documented ballot measure trends up to 19873. Finally, two reports by Madelyn Glickfeld and Ned Levine document a closer look at local growth control enactment from 1988 through 1996, though these reports covered measures enacted by local governing bodies, not just via the ballot4. At the same time, California Planning & Development Report has continued to maintain a large, though not comprehensive, database since then. The goal of this report is to use the CP&DR database to lessen this gap of understanding by documenting land use ballot measure activity and trends over time throughout California. Gathering information and results from all primary and general ballot measures from 1986 through 2000 (June and November elections, but March ballot measures for 1996 and 2000), Solimar Research Group has assembled a local land use ballot measure database. Using this database, our report addresses the following ballot measure trends, both geographically and over time: § § § §

Frequency of ballot measures; Geographical concentration of ballot measures; The passage and failure of Slow- and Pro-Growth measures; Migration of ballot measures.

The report assesses these trends over the 15-year period from 1986 through 2000, as well as over consecutive 5-year periods: 1986-1990, 1991-1995, and 1996-2000. The period from 1991 through 1995 was, generally speaking, a recession period, whereas the other two were periods of prosperity. To analyze the trends, we categorized the ballot measures into three categories based on their effect on growth or future development potential. The three categories are: ProGrowth, Slow-Growth, and Neutral. Based on these type categories, we then classified the ballot measure results accordingly.

2

California Association of Realtors. California Ballot Monitor: A Guide to Local Land Use and Taxation Measures (1992). 3 Glickfeld, Madelyn, LeRoy Graymer, and Kerry Morrison. "Trends in Local Growth Control Ballot Measures in California." UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, Volume 6, No. 2 (1987). 4 Glickfeld, Madelyn and Ned Levine. Regional Growth…Local Reaction: The Enactment and Effects of Local Growth Control and Management Measures in California. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (1992), and Glickfeld, Madelyn, Ned Levine and William Fulton. Home Rule: Local Growth… Regional Consequences (1996).

3

To understand the trends geographically, the report assesses local ballot measure activity by region. The regions include the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, San Diego, Central Coast, Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, North Coast, and Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties region. We did not categorize the local land use ballot measures by type of technique, except for our trend assessment of Urban Growth Boundaries and SOAR-style measures.

4

II.

METHODOLOGY

The goal of this report is to document land use ballot measure activity and trends in California from 1986 through 2000. While no recent previous analysis exists, there are three earlier reports that have documented land use ballot measures in California. The Solimar report is essentially an update of these previous ballot measure reports, building upon similar but more simplified themes. The report is not comprehensive, however. It only includes ballot measures from June, November and some March elections, as gathered by California Planning & Development Report staff from 1986 through 2000. March ballot measures were included for 1996 and 2000 because primary elections were held at that time. Overall though, many ballot measures, especially those in the spring municipal elections, are not included in this analysis. Ballot measures gathered by CP&DR prior to 1992 were double-checked against the CAR California Ballot Monitor. Ballot Measure Categories For the purpose of this analysis, we classified the land use ballot measures into three different categories depending on their effect on growth and potential for future development. The three categories are: Pro-Growth, Slow-Growth, and Neutral. Slow-Growth measures are those that slow down or halt growth or future development potential. Slow-Growth measures include limits on population, development caps or moratoria, urban growth boundaries and urban limit lines, regulations on the intensity of land use, and requiring voter approval for certain land use decisions. We have also included all open space preservation measures, from buying land to contain development to forming open space districts. In addition, we have categorized referenda as SlowGrowth because a referendum on an approved project is a response to slow down growth. Pro-Growth measures promote growth or serve to ease restrictions that currently exist, thereby promoting future development potential. Pro-Growth measures include lifting a population or development cap, expanding urban limit lines, increasing density, or approving a specific development project. In addition, we have judged that redevelopment activity, advisory measures on state and federal prisons, and gaming measures are Pro-Growth. Neutral measures have a neutral effect on future growth and development potential, meaning they neither deter nor promote growth. Some examples of measures that we classified as Neutral include general plan approvals that were not directly or obviously Pro-Growth as well as measures for local jails and landfills. Types of Techniques We did not categorize the local land use ballot measures by type of technique, as many previous studies have done, because we do not have enough detailed information to make a fine-grained cut. The one exception, however, is our trend assessment of Urban Growth

5

Boundary and SOAR-like techniques. Using our database, we were able to identify trends for all Urban Growth Boundary ballot measures throughout the state over the last 15 years. Ballot Measure Results For each ballot measure, we have documented a singular and aggregate result. Each ballot measure in the database received one of the following singular responses: § § § § § §

Slow-Growth No (Slow-Growth measure that did not pass) Slow-Growth Yes (Slow-Growth measure that did pass) Pro-Growth No (Pro-Growth measure that did not pass) Pro-Growth Yes (Pro-Growth measure that did pass) Neutral Pass (A Neural measure that did pass) Neutral Fail (A Neutral measure that did not pass)

We then aggregated these singular results by city, county, region, and state to clarify whether the overall response for each area was to promote growth or slow it down. Aggregate results are defined by the following: Pro-Growth (Aggregate of "Pro-Growth Yes" and "Slow-Growth No" results) Slow-Growth (Aggregate of "Slow-Growth Yes" and "Pro-Growth No" results) Overall, the trends based on aggregation appear to generally hold similar to the trends based on singular results, across the ballot measure categories, and therefore provide a more simplified, yet consistent way to look at ballot measure results. Ballot Measure Trends Overall, the main purpose of this report is to investigate and further clarify the following trends, both over time and geographically: § § § §

Frequency of ballot measures; Geographical concentration of ballot measures; The passage and failure of Slow- and Pro-Growth measures; Migration of ballot measures.

The report assesses these trends over the 15-year period as well as over 5-year periods: 1986-1990, 1991-1995, and 1996-2000. The period from 1991 through 1995 was, generally speaking, a recession period, whereas the other two were periods of prosperity. Overall, we found that the most ballot measure activity occurred during periods of prosperity. Measures that slowed growth were more likely to pass during these times also.

6

The report also assesses these trends by region. As shown in Map 1, the regions include the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, San Diego Area, Central Coast, Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, North Coast, and Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties region.

7

III.

OVERALL TRENDS

Total Ballot Measures From 1986 through 2000, we identified 671local land use measures statewide, including 61 from the November 2000 ballot. As shown in Chart 1, ballot measure activity has fluctuated significantly throughout the state over the last 15 years. Activity slowed down during the 1990's period of recession, but increased again from 1996 through 2000. This trend is consistent with a previous finding that growth management activity lags predictably behind economic ups and downs5. With 61 land use measures on the November 2000 ballot, it appears that ballot measure activity is on the rise again in California, with 2000 being the busiest ballot year since 1990. Chart 1: Total Ballot Measures By Year, 1986 - 2000 110 99 100 93

90

78

80 70 60 54

55

50 46

43

45

40 39 30

27

20

26

19

20

15

12

10

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

0

Total Ballot Measures

Chart 1 also reveals the difference between odd and even election years. Even election years are almost always busier than odd years, perhaps because of major elections. This finding, however, could be skewed by the lack of March/April municipal elections, many of which occur in odd years.

5

Glickfeld, Madelyn, Ned Levine and William Fulton. Home Rule: Local Growth...Regional Consequences. (1996)

8

Types of Ballot Measures Overall, Slow-Growth measures have been more frequent over the 15-year period. Of the total 671 ballot measures, 229 (34%) of them are Pro-Growth and 389 (58%) are SlowGrowth. Another 53 (8%) are Neutral. Slow-Growth measures were also more frequent on the November 2000 ballot. Of the 61 ballot measures on the November 2000 ballot, 22 (36%) were Pro-Growth, 34 (56%) were Slow-Growth, and 5 (8%) were Neutral. Ballot Measure Results As shown in Chart 2, Slow-Growth measures passed more frequently than Pro-Growth measures up through 1993. From 1994 and 1997, however, this pattern shifted, and ProGrowth results either tied or exceeded Slow-Growth results. Historic patterns returned from 1998 through 2000, with 2000 showing a significant increase in the number of Slow-Growth results, as well as an increase in the margin of Slow-Growth results over Pro-Growth results. Overall, 57% of all ballot measure results were Slow-Growth (either "Slow-Yes" or "Pro-No") and 43% of all ballot measures were Pro-Growth (either "ProYes" or "Slow-No") over the 15-year period. Chart 2: Pro-Growth vs. Slow-Growth Results, 1986 - 2000 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Pro-Yes; Slow-No

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

0

Slow-Yes; Pro-No

9

November 2000 Ballot Measure Results In the November 2000 election, the electorate voted to limit growth 66% of the time. This shift toward limiting growth has greatly influenced the balance between Slow- and ProGrowth results, contributing to a significant lead of Slow-Growth results over ProGrowth results in 2000, as shown in Chart 2. This was not the trend before the November 2000 election.

10

IV.

OVERALL TRENDS BY 5-YEAR PERIODS

As stated above, land use ballot measure activity has fluctuated significantly over the last 15 years. This fluctuation is even more evident with the total measures broken down into 5-year time periods: 1986-1990, 1991-1995, and 1996-2000. The period from 1991 through 1995 was, generally speaking, a recession period, whereas the other two were periods of prosperity. Overall, we found that the most ballot measure activity occurred during periods of prosperity. Slow-Growth measures were more likely to pass during these time periods also, although Pro-Growth passage rates significantly increased from 1996 through 2000. Types of Ballot Measures As shown in Chart 3, the most ballot measure activity occurred during periods of prosperity, from 1986 through 1990 and from 1996 through 2000. In addition, from 1986 through 1990, Slow-Growth measures significantly outnumbered Pro-Growth measures. The following two periods had significantly fewer ballot measures and did not show as much differentiation between ballot measure types.

Chart 3: Total Ballot Measures by 5-Year Period 350

328

300

250 219

Total Ballot Measures

202

Slow-Growth

200

Pro-Growth Neutral

150 124

124

106 100

77 63 46

50 20

18

15

0 1986 - 1990

1991 - 1995

1996 - 2000

11

Ballot Measure Results As shown in Chart 4, overall Slow-Growth results — as measured in five-year periods — have declined steadily since 1986. The passage rate for Slow-Growth measures decreased from 60% to 54 % over the 15-year period. The drop in Slow-Growth victories over the last few years occurred because of a significant change in the Pro-Yes results from 1996 through 2000. Prior to 1996, Pro-Yes was consistently represented by a 41% passage rate. After 1996, however, this passage rate increased to 56 %. As shown in Table 1, this shift changed the overall result balance for the period. The passage rate of Slow-Yes measures has remained more or less the same during these five-year periods (between 54% and 60%) Chart 4: Percent Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results by 5-Year Period 70%

60%

50%

Pro-Yes; Slow-No

40%

Slow-Yes; Pro-No 30%

20%

10%

0% 1986 - 1990

1991 - 1995

1996 - 2000

12

Overall, more Slow-Growth measures passed during the period of prosperity from 1986 through 1990. This trend slowed down during the period of recession. And from 1996 through 2000, the passage of Slow-Growth measures increased again, yet the passage rate for Pro-Growth measures also increased. Interestingly, Slow-No results were consistent across all time periods, while Pro-Yes and Pro-No results changed significantly following the recession period.

Table 1: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results by 5-Year Period 5-Yr Period 1986 - 1990 % 1991 - 1995 % 1996 - 2000 % Total

Total Pro & Slow 308 109 201 618

Pro-Yes 43 41% 19 41% 43 56% 105 46%

Pro-No 63 59% 27 59% 34 44% 124 54%

Slow-Yes 122 60% 34 54% 75 60% 231 59%

Slow-No 80 40% 29 46% 49 40% 158 41%

Pro-Yes; Slow-Yes; Slow-No Pro-No 123 185 40% 60% 48 61 44% 56% 92 109 46% 54% 263 355 43% 57%

13

V.

AGGREGATE OF CITY AND COUNTYWIDE RESULTS

Total Ballot Measures Overall, the most ballot measure activity (measured as the aggregate of city and countywide measures) has historically been concentrated in counties in the Bay Area, Metropolitan Los Angeles, and San Diego County. As shown in Table 2, San Diego County (82 ballot measures) had the most ballot measures over the 15-year period, almost 15 more than the second highest county, Los Angeles County (68 ballot measures). San Diego and Sonoma counties had the most overall ballot measure activity on the November 2000 ballot.

14

Table 2 also shows that over half of all ballot measures from 1986 through 2000 were concentrated in 8 counties, all of which are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, or San Diego County. 90% of all ballot measures were concentrated within the top 20 counties, with very few ballot measures located outside of the three major metro areas. Table 2: Counties with the Most Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 County

Top 4 San Diego County Los Angeles County Orange County Santa Clara County Top 8 Contra Costa County Alameda County Ventura County San Mateo County Top 12 Sonoma County Riverside County San Francisco County San Joaquin County Top 16 San Luis Obispo County Monterey County Marin County San Bernardino Top 20 Stanislaus County Santa Barbara County Yolo County Napa County Total Measures

Total Measures 235 82 68 43 42 373 38 35 33 32 479 29 26 26 25 560 24 21 18 18 606 15 12 10 9 671

Percent of Total Measures 35.0%

55.6%

71.4%

83.5%

90.3%

Looking at only counties that are within the Bay Area, aggregate total ballot measures represent 35% of total statewide ballot measures. Looking at the Southern California region, including counties in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area and San Diego County, aggregate total ballot measures represent nearly 40% of total statewide ballot measures. Combined, the two regions represent 495 ballot measures, or 75% of all statewide ballot measure activity from 1986 through November 2000.

15

Types of Ballot Measures Pro-Growth ballot measures are concentrated more in the South Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area, coastal areas of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area and Central Coast, and San Diego County. Pro-Growth measures are more geographically dispersed in the Central Valley than the distribution of Slow-Growth measures.

16

Slow-Growth ballot measures are concentrated in the North and East Bay areas of the San Francisco Bay Area, coastal areas of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, northern areas of the Central Coast, and San Diego County. Overall, there are significantly more SlowGrowth measures in the Bay Area, Southern California, and the Central Coast compared to Pro-Growth measures. Also, Slow-Growth measures are more common in the Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties than Pro-Growth measures.

17

By aggregating county totals into regions, we are able to identify regional differences in ballot measure activity over time. As Chart 5 shows, Slow-Growth measures represent the most measures from 1986 through 1990 in all regions except for the Central Valley. In Southern California, San Diego and the San Francisco Bay Area, Slow-Growth measures represent more than double the number of Pro-Growth measures. Chart 5: Ballot Measure Types by Region, 1986 - 1990 70

60

50

40 Pro-Growth Slow-Growth 30

20

10

0 Southern California

San Diego

Central Coast Central Valley

Upper Sacramento/ Mountain Counties

North Coast San Francisco Bay Area

From 1991 through 1995, the large difference between total Pro- and Slow-Growth measures lessened significantly in both Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area, with ballot measure types in the Bay Area actually evening out. As Chart 6 shows, totals in both the Central Valley and the Central Coast showed reverse trends from the earlier period, with Slow-Growth more frequent in the Central Valley and Pro-Growth more frequent in the Central Coast. From 1996 through 2000, the overwhelming difference between ballot measure types in both Southern California and the Bay Area returned, with Slow-Growth on top once again, although the Bay Area had significantly more ballot measures overall. As shown in Chart 7, ballot measure types in San Diego showed a significant change to Pro-Growth, while the Central Coast flipped back to Slow-Growth and the Central Valley evened out. The Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties region has maintained relatively the same balance over the entire 15-year period, and the North Coast region had very little activity.

18

Chart 6: Ballot Measure Types By Region, 1991 - 1995 25

20

15

Pro-Growth Slow-Growth 10

5

0 Southern California

San Diego

Central Coast

Central Valley

Upper Sacramento/ Mountain Counties

San Francisco Bay Area

Chart 7: Ballot Measure Types by Region, 1996 - 2000 50

40

30 Pro-Growth Slow-Growth 20

10

0 Southern California

San Diego

Central Coast Central Valley

Upper Sacramento/ Mountain Counties

North Coast San Francisco Bay Area

19

Ballot Measure Results Overall Pro-Growth results (over 50%) are concentrated primarily in the Central Valley and Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties region. In Central and Southern California, Pro-Growth results are concentrated in Santa Barbara, Riverside and San Luis Obispo counties. However, the majority of counties show that Pro-Growth results represent less than 50% of total measures passed. Pro-Growth results from the November 2000 ballot are concentrated in the Central Coast, Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties region.

20

Overall Slow-Growth results (over 50%) are concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area, northern Central Coast and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, with the exception of Riverside County. Slow-Growth results also occurred in a few counties in the Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties region and the Central Valley. Overall, a majority of the counties show that over 50% of all ballot measures passed Slow-Growth. SlowGrowth results from the November 2000 ballot are concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles Metropolitan Area and Central Valley region.

21

As shown in Table 3, over the 15-year period, Southern California, San Diego, the Central Valley, the Central Coast, and the Bay Area showed overall Slow-Growth results. The Upper Sacramento, Mountain and North Coast counties all showed concentrations of overall Pro-Growth results. Table 3: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results by Region, 1986 - 2000 Region Southern California

Total Pro & Slow 174

Pro-Yes

Pro-No

Slow-Yes Slow-No

Pro-Yes; Slow-Yes; Slow-No Pro-No

26 53% 15 44% 11 52% 11 31%

23 47% 19 56% 10 48% 25 69%

80 64% 23 53% 25 63% 12 48%

45 36% 20 47% 15 38% 13 52%

71 41% 35 45% 26 43% 24 39%

103 59% 42 55% 35 57% 37 61%

San Diego

77

Central Coast

61

Central Valley

61

Upper Sacramento/ Mountain Counties

25

3

3

5

14

17

8

8

50% 4 80%

50% 1 20%

26% 2 67%

74% 1 33%

68% 5 63%

32% 3 38%

212

35

43

84

50

85

127

45%

55%

63%

37%

40%

60%

105 46%

124 54%

231 59%

158 41%

263 43%

355 57%

North Coast San Francisco Bay Area

Total

618

November 2000 ballot measure results showed that nearly 80% of all measures passed Slow-Growth in the Southern California region and close to 75% passed Slow-Growth in the Central Valley. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Slow-Growth passage rate was closer to 60%. The Central Coast, Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties regions favored ProGrowth results, both with over a 70% passage rate. Overall, ballot measure activity has decreased by nearly half in the Southern California area, from 93 ballot measures from 1986 through 1990 to 52 ballot measures from 1996 through 2000. Activity in the Bay Area region has also decreased, but not by nearly as much — from 99 ballot measures from 1986 through 1990 to a total of 89 from 1996 through 2000.

22

By aggregating county totals into regions, we are able to identify regional trends over time with respect to ballot measure results. As Chart 8 shows, Slow-Growth ballot measure results dominated in all regions except for the Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties region from 1986 through 1990. The largest differences were in the Southern California region and the San Francisco Bay Area, where the passage of measures promoting slow growth were close to double the passage rate of Pro-Growth measures. The other regions showed moderate differences between overall Pro- and Slow-Growth results. Chart 8: Pro-Growth vs. Slow-Growth Results By Region, 1986 - 1990 60

50

40 Pro-Yes; Slow-No 30

Slow-Yes; Pro-No

20

10

0 Southern California

San Diego

Central Coast Central Valley

Upper Sacramento/ Mountain Counties

North Coast San Francisco Bay Area

From 1991 through 1995, overall Slow-Growth measures again won most frequently in the Southern California, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast and Central Valley regions. The margin by which Slow-Growth measures passed over Pro-Growth measures, however, decreased significantly in the Bay Area, while it stayed relatively the same in Southern California. As shown in Chart 9, the trend in San Diego reversed, with overall Pro-Growth results taking the lead. From 1996 through 2000, the most ballot measure activity was concentrated in the Bay Area region. The margin of Slow-Growth passage over Pro-Growth passage was again close, but larger than in the previous period. In the San Diego region, the trend reversed with Slow-Growth results taking the lead. And in Southern California, Slow-Growth results were still in the lead, but Pro-Growth results were close behind.

23

Chart 9: Pro-Growth vs. Slow-Growth Results By Region, 1991 - 1995 30

25

20

Pro-Yes; Slow-No

15

Slow-Yes; Pro-No

10

5

0 Southern California

San Diego

Central Coast

Central Valley

Upper Sacramento/ Mountain Counties

San Francisco Bay Area

Chart 10: Pro-Growth vs. Slow-Growth Results By Region, 1996 - 2000 50 45 40 35 30

Pro-Yes; Slow-No 25

Slow-Yes; Pro-No

20 15 10 5 0 Southern California

San Diego

Central Coast Central Valley

Upper Sacramento/ Mountain Counties

North Coast San Francisco Bay Area

24

VI.

TYPES OF TECHNIQUES RESULTS

Urban Growth Boundaries and SOAR-like initiatives — an approach that imposes or reaffirms local urban growth boundaries that cannot be changed without a vote — have proven to be a fast-growing and popular approach to ballot box zoning in California. Using our local land use ballot measure database, we were able to identify trends in this movement over the last 15 years. We did not, however, categorize any other local land use ballot measures by type of technique, like previous studies have done, because we did not have enough information to make a fine-grained cut. As shown in Chart 11, the majority of activity has occurred over the last five years, with only four measures appearing on the ballot prior to 1995. Chart 11: Urban Growth Boundaries and SOAR Measures, 1990-2000 14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

As shown in Table 4, our figures indicate that 37 Urban Growth Boundary and SOARlike measures have appeared on local ballots around the state since 1986, including 11 from the ballot in November 2000. The numbers suggest two important points. First, UGB/SOAR-like measures are extremely popular. Of the 25 measures6 that appeared between 1990 and March 2000, only one failed. Out of the 11 measures on the November 2000 ballot, four failed. Second, voter-controlled growth boundaries are even more geographically compressed than land-use ballot measures as a whole. Twenty of the 37 measures have appeared in just two counties, Ventura and Sonoma. Six more have appeared in Alameda County. 6

One UGB was developer-sponsored and did not represent a true boundary election.

25

Table 4: Urban Growth Boundary/SOAR Measures, 1986-2000 County Ventura Sonoma Alameda Solano San Luis Obispo Contra Costa Los Angeles Marin Monterey Napa Santa Clara Yolo Totals

Total Passed 10 8 10 10 6 5 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 31

Failed 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Pass Rate Exceptions 80.0% 0 100.0% 0 83.3% 0 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 0 86.1% 1

26

VII.

RESULTS BY CITY

By mapping ballot measures by city over time (does not include countywide measures), we were able to identify the changing patterns and migration of ballot measures throughout the state. Overall results indicate that from 1986 through 2000 ballot measure activity has: § § § §

Concentrated in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, Bay Area, and San Diego County; Occurred closer to coastal areas than inland regions; Located near older cities; Spread out more in Southern California compared with the Bay Area.

27

San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento In the Bay Area region, ballot measure activity is primarily concentrated in the East and South Bay counties, with varying concentrations over the 15-year period. Over the last four years, however, ballot measure activity has increasingly extended into more North Bay counties. In particular, ballot measure activity has appeared in Sonoma County with 6 city measures on the November 2000 ballot, as shown in Map 10. Overall, there seems to be a tighter concentration of ballot measure activity in the Bay Area compared with Southern California.

28

29

Southern California In the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area activity started out more closely concentrated around Los Angeles County from 1986 through 1990, but then pushed out significantly, especially from 1991 through 1995. More distant localities in Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties began to experience more ballot measure activity during this time, a trend that has continued in recent years.

30

31

By city, the highest concentrations of ballot measure activity do not seem to follow a geographical pattern, as shown in Table 5. Many of the different state's regions, coastal and inland, are represented. As expected, however, from 1986 through 2000, San Francisco and San Diego experienced the most ballot measure activity.

Table 5: Cities with the Most Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 City San Francisco San Diego Hermosa Beach Lodi Pleasanton Escondido Morro Bay Simi Valley Modesto Pacifica

County San Francisco San Diego Los Angeles San Joaquin Alameda San Diego San Luis Obispo Ventura Stanislaus San Mateo

Total Measures 26 23 17 16 11 11 10 9 8 8

Total Pro 13 15 6 16 0 8 5 3 7 7

Total Neutral

Total Slow 10 7 11 0 11 2 5 6 1 1

3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

For some of the other cities listed in Table 5, significant ballot measure activity occurred due to a series of particular projects or actions that were brought to public vote. In Hermosa Beach, for example, 7 of the 17 ballot measures were due to many attempts to rezone the controversial oceanfront Biltmore site. In Lodi, a series of 8 single family and other development projects were all on the same ballot in November 1987. In Escondido, 8 of the 10 measures appeared on the November 2000 ballot for general plan amendments and zoning changes required under a 1998 proposition. And in Modesto, all 8 of the measures were about extending trunk sewer service to developing areas of Modesto. Ballot measures in the other cities were more varied.

32

Types of Ballot Measures Over the 15-year period, Slow-Growth measures have been more concentrated in the coastal communities of the South Bay and East Bay region of the Bay Area. Pro-Growth measures are generally more spread out geographically. From 1986 through 1990, communities in Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara counties saw a significant number of Slow-Growth measures. The period from 1991 through 1995 followed the same pattern, but with much less activity. From 1996 through 2000, however, ballot measure activity, particularly Slow-Growth measures, moved outward to the North Bay region, especially Sonoma County.

33

34

In the Southern California area from 1986 through 1990, Slow-Growth measures have primarily concentrated in the coastal communities in Orange and San Diego Counties, as well as coastal and inland communities in Los Angeles County. Pro-Growth measures mostly concentrated in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. However, from 1991 through 1995 ballot measure activity began to spread. More and more measures occurred farther away from coastal cities, and during this period they were primarily Pro-Growth. This trend continued through 1996 to 2000, with more distant counties such as Ventura and San Bernardino showing increased activity, particularly Slow-Growth measures.

35

36

Ballot Measure Results for the Bay Area and Sacramento Region In the Bay Area, both Slow-Growth and Pro-Growth results concentrated in the coastal communities. Overall, Pro-Growth results were more geographically dispersed in the East Bay and South Bay and Slow-Growth results were more geographically dispersed in the North Bay.

37

By aggregating the city results by county, we are able to identify ballot measure result trends for the Bay Area region. As shown in Table 6, the counties with the highest passage rate of Slow-Growth measures were Santa Cruz, Napa, Solano, and Yolo counties. Counties with the highest passage rate of Pro-Growth measures were Stanislaus, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties. Overall, 41% of all measures in the region were passed to promote growth, while 59% were passed to slow growth down.

Table 6: City Ballot Measure Results for Bay Area and Sacramento, 1986 - 2000 County

Santa Cruz

4

San Joaquin

25

Stanislaus

13

0 0% 4 22% 5 56% 0 0% 4 67% 0 0% 2 50% 1 33% 6 46% 6 50% 9 47% 0 0% 4 80%

0 0% 14 78% 4 44% 1 100% 2 33% 3 100% 2 50% 2 67% 7 54% 6 50% 10 53% 1 100% 1 20%

4 100% 1 14% 3 75% 5 71% 18 67% 9 41% 5 63% 0 0% 8 80% 8 67% 9 56% 1 50% 12 75%

0 0% 6 86% 1 25% 2 29% 9 33% 13 59% 3 38% 0 0% 2 20% 4 33% 7 44% 1 50% 4 25%

0 0% 10 40% 6 46% 2 25% 13 39% 13 52% 5 42% 1 33% 8 35% 10 42% 16 46% 1 33% 8 38%

4 100% 15 60% 7 54% 6 75% 20 61% 12 48% 7 58% 2 67% 15 65% 14 58% 19 54% 2 67% 13 62%

41 44%

53 56%

83 61%

52 39%

93 41%

136 59%

8

Alameda

33

Contra Costa

25

Marin

12

Napa

3

San Francisco

23

San Mateo

24

Santa Clara

35

Solano

3

Sonoma

21

TOTAL

229

Slow-Yes Slow-No

Slow-Yes; Pro-No

Pro-Yes

Yolo

Pro-No

Pro-Yes; Slow-No

Pro & Slow

38

Looking at only the Bay Area counties over time, we can also see how ballot measure activity and results have shifted around the region. As shown in Chart 12, from 1986 through 1990, Slow-Growth results were either even with or exceeded Pro-Growth results in all counties except for Sonoma. Slow-Growth results were the most frequent in Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. Overall, the most ballot measure activity was concentrated in the South Bay and East Bay regions. Chart 12: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results For Counties in the Bay Area Region, 1986 - 1990 12

10

8 Pro-Yes; Slow-No Slow-Yes; Pro-No

6

4

2

0 Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin County

Napa County

San Francisco

San Mateo Santa Clara

Sonoma

From 1991 through 1995, the passage of Pro-Growth measures took the lead in Contra Costa and Marin counties. As shown in Chart 13, San Mateo County showed the most Slow-Growth results, while Contra Costa showed the most Pro-Growth results. Alameda and San Francisco counties, which had high Slow-Growth results in the previous time period, showed even ballot measure results from 1991 through 1995. Overall, ballot measure activity continued to concentrate in the South Bay and East Bay regions. From 1996 through 2000, there was a decrease in activity in many of the high activity counties identified previously, and a switch to Pro-Growth in previously Slow-Growth dominated counties: San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Especially with the activity in Sonoma, Slow-Growth results migrated to the North Bay during this period.

39

Chart 13: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results For Counties in the Bay Area Region, 1991 - 1995 7

6

5

Pro-Yes; Slow-No

4

Slow-Yes; Pro-No 3

2

1

0 Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin

San Francisco

San Mateo

Santa Clara

Chart 14: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results For Counties in the Bay Area Region, 1996 - 2000 12

10

8 Pro-Yes; Slow-No Slow-Yes; Pro-No

6

4

2

0 Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin

Napa

San San Mateo Francisco

Santa Clara

Solano

Sonoma

40

Ballot Measure Results for Southern California In Southern California, overall Slow-Growth results were more concentrated in coastal communities and inland Los Angeles County cities. Overall Pro-Growth results were more geographically dispersed.

41

By aggregating the city results by county, we are able to identify ballot measure result trends for the Southern California region. As shown in Table 7, the passage of Pro- and Slow-Growth measures is pretty even across the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area counties. Slow-Growth passage rates range from 52% to 68%. Pro-Growth passage rates range from 32% to 48%. Counties with the highest passage rate of Slow-Growth measures were Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Counties with the highest passage rate of Pro-Growth measures were Riverside, Ventura and San Diego Counties. Overall, nearly 41% of all measures in the region were passed to promote growth, while 59% were passed to slow growth down. This shows the same Pro-Growth and SlowGrowth passage rates for Southern California as in the Bay Area.

Table 7: City Ballot Measure Results for Southern California, 1986 - 2000 Slow-Yes Slow-No

Slow-Yes; Pro-No

Pro & Slow

Pro-Yes

Los Angeles

58

Orange

37

Riverside

21

San Bernardino

15

Ventura

29

San Diego

71

12 60% 1 14% 3 43% 4 80% 4 57% 15 45%

8 40% 6 86% 4 57% 1 20% 3 43% 18 55%

28 74% 19 63% 7 50% 8 80% 13 59% 21 55%

10 26% 11 37% 7 50% 2 20% 9 41% 17 45%

22 38% 12 32% 10 48% 6 40% 13 45% 32 45%

36 62% 25 68% 11 52% 9 60% 16 55% 39 55%

39 49%

40 51%

96 63%

56 37%

95 41%

136 59%

231

Pro-No

Pro-Yes; Slow-No

County

42

Looking at the counties within the Southern California region we can assess how ballot measure activity and results have shifted around the region. As shown in Chart 15, from 1986 through 1990, Slow-Growth results dominated in all counties except for Ventura County. Los Angeles County showed the most frequency in Slow-Growth results, as well as the largest margin over Pro-Growth results. Chart 15: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results For Counties in the Southern California Region, 1986 - 1990 25

20

Pro-Yes; Slow-No

15

Slow-Yes; Pro-No

10

5

0 Los Angeles

Orange

Riverside

San Bernardino

Ventura

San Diego

From 1991 through 1995, the passage of Pro-Growth measures took the lead in San Bernardino and San Diego counties. As shown in Chart 16, Los Angeles County again showed a significant margin between passage of Slow-Growth measures over ProGrowth measures, but during this time period, Orange County had the most Slow-Growth measures pass. Overall, ballot measure activity continued to concentrate in the coastal counties. From 1996 through 2000, there was a decrease in activity in many of the high activity counties identified previously, and a switch to Pro-Growth results in previously SlowGrowth dominated counties, Orange and Riverside counties in particular. As shown in Chart 17, Slow-Growth results took the lead in San Diego County, while Ventura County experienced a significant increase in ballot measures overall, and the passage of SlowGrowth measures over Pro-Growth, in particular.

43

Chart 16: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results For Counties in the Southern California Region, 1991 - 1995 10 9 8 7 Pro-Yes; Slow-No

6

Slow-Yes; Pro-No 5 4 3 2 1 0 Los Angeles

Orange

Riverside

San Bernardino

Ventura

San Diego

Chart 17: Pro-Growth and Slow-Growth Results For Counties in the Southern California Region, 1996 - 2000 20 18 16 14 Pro-Yes; Slow-No

12

Slow-Yes; Pro-No 10 8 6 4 2 0 Los Angeles

Orange

Riverside

San Bernardino

Ventura

San Diego

44

VIII.

COUNTYWIDE RESULTS

Total Ballot Measures Countywide measures (does not include city ballot measures) are also concentrated in the Bay Area and Metropolitan Los Angeles regions, but they are much more frequent in counties along the Central Coast and in the Central Valley. Overall, the most ballot measure activity was from 1986 through 1990 and 1996 through 2000, when activity concentrated primarily in the Central Coast and Bay Area counties.

45

As shown in Table 8, Contra Costa County (10 ballot measures) and San Luis Obispo County (9 ballot measures) had the highest frequency of ballot measure activity over the 15-year period. The range, however, is not nearly as broad as ballot measure activity by city, so the second and third highest are close behind. Overall, the 16 counties with the most ballot measure activity represent 70% of the 134 total countywide ballot measures.

Table 8: Counties with the Most Countywide Ballot Measures, 1986 - 2000 County Contra Costa San Luis Obispo San Diego Sonoma Marin Monterey Napa San Mateo Sutter El Dorado Orange Placer Riverside Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Ventura Total (16 Counties Above) Total (All Countywide Measures) Percent of Countywide Total

Total Measures 10 9 8 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 94 134 70%

Total Pro 1 3 1 1 0 3 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 22 38 58%

Total Slow 3 5 5 6 5 3 1 3 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 56 74 76%

Total Neutral 6 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 16 22 73%

46

Types of Ballot Measures Similar to the ballot measure description by city, countywide Slow-Growth measures are more concentrated in coastal counties, and countywide Pro-Growth measures are more geographically diverse. Pro-Growth measures are primarily concentrated in the Central Coast counties, but also extend into the North Coast, upper Central Valley, and North Bay Area counties.

47

Slow-Growth measures are mostly concentrated in the coastal counties throughout the state: the Central Coast, Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, as well as San Diego County. Slow-Growth measures are present in both the North and South Bay regions of the Bay Area.

48

Ballot Measure Results Overall countywide Pro-Growth results (over 50%) are primarily concentrated in the Upper Sacramento and Mountain Counties regions. And in Central and Southern California, Pro-Growth results occurred in Santa Barbara, Orange and Riverside counties. However, most counties show less than a 50% passage rate for Pro-Growth measures.

49

Overall countywide Slow-Growth results (over 50%) are concentrated in the Central and Southern California coastal counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties. Slow-Growth results are also concentrated in the South Bay and North Bay Areas of the San Francisco Bay Area region.

50

IX.

CONCLUSION

By aggregating and mapping ballot measure totals, types, and results for California cities and counties over the last 15 years, we have begun to identify trends in local land use measures. Overall, our findings reveal the following: §

During our 15-year study period, there have been substantially more Slow-Growth measures on the ballot than Pro-Growth measures.

§

Counting the results of all measures, the electorate has voted to limit growth 57% of the time.

§

Although the total number of local land use ballot measures has decreased since the high period of 1986 through 1990, ballot measures activity is on the rise again — especially this year. The San Francisco Bay Area has experienced substantial ballot measure activity since 1996.

§

Ballot measure activity appears to correspond with periods of economic recession and prosperity in California. Ballot measure activity was greatest during the boom years of 1986 through 1990, subsided during the recession period of 1991 through 1995, and picked up as the economy strengthened from 1996 through 2000. Voters appear more willing to limit urban growth during times of economic prosperity.

§

However, ballot results have not followed the same trend. Slow-Growth ballot victories have declined over time. From 1986 through 1990, the Slow-Growth position won 60% of the time. This figure dropped to 56% from 1991 through 1995, and it dropped further to 54% from 1996 through 2000. This drop has occurred mostly because Pro-Growth measures have passed more often, not because SlowGrowth measures have failed more often.

§

Overall, ballot measure activity in Southern California decreased by approximately half during our 15-year study period. The number of ballot measures also decreased in the Bay Area, but not as sharply as in the southern part of the state.

§

City and countywide measures have been most common in urban coastal areas, and there has been minimal migration of land use ballot measures to other regions. In the Bay Area, ballot measures have historically concentrated in the East Bay and South Bay; however, activity has spread to the North Bay since 1996. In Southern California, ballot measure activity that was concentrated in Los Angeles and Orange counties during the 1986 to 1990 period has spread to Ventura and San Bernardino counties.

§

San Diego and Los Angeles counties had the most ballot measures (when counting both city and countywide measures). Those two counties have accounted for nearly 22% of all local land use ballot measures in the state since 1986. The cities of San

51

Francisco and San Diego had more land use ballot measures than any other cities. Contra Costa and San Luis Obispo counties had the most countywide ballot measures. §

Thirty-seven Urban Growth Boundary/SOAR-like measures have appeared on local ballots around the state since 1986, including 11 from the November 2000 ballot. Of the 25 legitimate measures that appeared between 1990 and March 2000, only one failed. Out of the 11 measures on the November 2000 ballot, four failed. Twenty of the 37 measures have appeared in just two counties, Ventura and Sonoma. Six more have appeared in Alameda County.

§

In the November 2000 election, the electorate voted to limit growth 66% of the time. The Southern California region had the most ballot measures and a Slow-Growth passage rate close to 80%. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Slow-Growth passage rate was closer to 60%. San Diego and Sonoma counties had the most overall ballot measure activity.

Through varying degrees of ballot measure activity at the city, county and regional level, local land use measures are shown to have dynamic trends over time. The trends are not only interesting, but help to paint the "big picture" of ballot-box land use planning in California.

52

Copyright © 2000 Solimar Research Group Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any information contained herein may not be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of Solimar Research Group Inc.

Suggest Documents