Los Angeles, California, Changes to Laws Governing the General Plan and Development, Measure S (March 2017)

* Competing initiatives
* Text of measure
* Support
* Opposition
* Background
* Path to the ballot
* More
* Local ballot measures
* State ballot measures
* Local politics

Measure S: Los Angeles Changes to Laws Governing the General Plan and Development

The basics
Election date:
March 7, 2017
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
Local zoning, land use and development
Related articles
Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot

* * *

March 7, 2017 ballot measures in California

* * *

Los Angeles County, California ballot measures

* * *

Local housing on the ballot
See also
Los Angeles, California
An initiative to change the city's laws governing changes to the general plan and development projects, Measure S, was on the ballot for voters in Los Angeles, California, on March 7, 2017. It was defeated.

This initiative was called the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative by supporters.

|  A yes vote was a vote in support of imposing a moratorium on construction that increases development density for up to two years, prohibiting project-specific amendments to the city's general plan, requiring a public review of the city's general plan every five years, requiring city staff—not developers or project applicants—to perform environmental impact reports, and establishing other changes to the city's general plan laws.

|

|  A no vote was a vote to reject the initiative, leaving the city's zoning and development laws unchanged.

|

Los Angeles voters approved another development-related citizen initiative, Measure JJJ, in November 2016. Measure S conflicted with some of the provisions in Measure JJJ.

On March 7, 2017, Los Angeles city voters also voted on three other city measures, a county measure, mayoral and city council races, the city attorney, the city controller, school board member candidates, and three community college board of trustees.

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 2.1 What did supporters and opponents say?
* 2.2 State of the campaigns
* 3 Initiative design
* 3.1 The moratorium
* 3.2 Prohibition of spot-zoning for specific projects
* 3.3 Public review of general plan
* 3.4 Environmental impact reports
* 3.5 Parking requirements
* 4 Text of measure
* 4.1 Ballot question
* 4.2 Impartial analysis
* 4.3 Financial impact statement
* 4.4 Ballot summary
* 4.5 Full text
* 5 Support
* 5.1 Supporters
* 5.2 Arguments in favor
* 5.2.1 Official arguments
* 5.3 Campaign videos
* 6 Opposition
* 6.1 Opponents
* 6.2 Arguments against
* 6.2.1 Official arguments
* 6.3 Campaign ads
* 7 Campaign strategies
* 7.1 Support
* 7.1.1 Eviction notice fliers
* 7.1.2 Use of city seal
* 7.1.3 Image of Mayor Eric Garcetti
* 7.2 Opposition
* 7.2.1 Ballot argument lawsuit
* 8 Campaign finance
* 8.1 Support
* 8.1.1 Top donors
* 8.2 Opposition
* 8.2.1 Top donors
* 8.3 Methodology
* 9 Background
* 9.1 Political contributions from developers
* 9.2 City council ordinances
* 10 Measure JJJ vs. Measure S
* 10.1 Labor and business interests
* 11 Path to the ballot
* 11.1 Election date change
* 12 Other elections
* 12.1 Municipal elections
* 12.2 School board elections
* 12.3 City measures
* 12.4 County measure
* 13 Related measures
* 13.1 Housing in 2016
* 13.2 Development in 2016
* 14 Recent news
* 15 See also
* 16 External links
* 16.1 Support
* 16.2 Opposition
* 17 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Measure S

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 288,012| 70.4%
Yes|  121,101|  29.6%

Election results from Los Angeles County Elections Office

## Overview[edit]

### What did supporters and opponents say?[edit]

Supporters:

Proponents of Measure S argued that the existing zoning and project approval system in Los Angeles allows developers to give political contributions to city officials in return for approval of their large development projects, which, according to Measure S supporters, increase traffic, ruin neighborhood integrity, and result in the eviction of residents—including senior citizens and low-income households. The support campaign said, "Measure S is one of the best ways to fix systemic corruption at City Hall. The initiative dramatically curtails the ability of LA politicians to give spot zoning favors to developers. As a result, LA politicians will have little to sell to developers, and developers, therefore, will have little to buy from the politicians."[1][2]

Opponents:

Opponents of Measure S argued that the proposed moratorium and restrictions on project approval would put a stop to most development projects in the city, resulting in an even greater housing shortage, economic decline, the loss of thousands of jobs, and the loss of millions in tax revenue for education, parks, and other city services. Opponents also argued that none of the provisions in Measure S directly address corruption in the city planning process or developer contributions.[3]

### State of the campaigns[edit]

One committee registered in support of Measure S, and two registered in opposition. One of the opposing committees was a repurposed committee that was registered to support Measure JJJ, which was approved in November 2016. As of March 15, 2017, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation provided 99 percent of the support campaign's $6.1 million in contributions. Most of the opposition campaign's $7.4 million in contributions were provided largely by development and labor interests.

## Initiative design[edit]

### The moratorium[edit]

The initiative would have established a temporary ban on all development projects requiring:[4]

* zoning that lifts land-use restrictions or increases permitted building heights;
* zoning changes that increase the allowed density or height of buildings; or
* a net loss of land dedicated to open space, agriculture, or industry.

Expiration:

This moratorium on certain development projects was designed to end after two years or when the city council passed "(1) an updated General Plan Framework and (2) an updated community plan text and zoning map for a particular community plan area," whichever came first.[4]

Exceptions:

Measure S was designed to grant exceptions from this two-year moratorium in the following cases:[4]

* Any development project that is restricted entirely to affordable housing units and that could be completed through zoning or height limit changes without amending the city's general plan.
* Any permit required to comply with an order from the Department of Building and Safety to rebuild a structure after destruction by a natural disaster—such as a fire or an earthquake.
* Development or construction projects that have a vested right under state or city law.

To qualify as affordable housing, each residential unit in the development would have had to be affordable to a household that generally makes no more than 80 percent of the area's median household income, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.[5]

As of May 24, 2016, Los Angeles County's median household income for a family of four was $64,800. A residential unit is considered affordable according to rules established by state law, which requires housing to cost no more than about 30 percent of a household's income level.[5][6]

### Prohibition of spot-zoning for specific projects[edit]

Measure S would also have established a permanent prohibition against project-specific amendments to the city's general plan. This provision would have prevented changes to the general plan unless they applied to “an area which has significant social, economic, or physical identity.” The initiative defined such areas as:[4]

“  |

* An entire community or district plan area;
* An entire area that has been included in a specific plan;
* An entire named neighborhood council area;
* An area no less than 15 acres.[7]

|  ”

|
|

This provision was designed to prevent changes to the city's zoning laws that accommodate a specific development project without taking into consideration the entire community or neighborhood in which that project was proposed.[4]

### Public review of general plan[edit]

Measure S would have established a requirement that the city's general plan go through a public review process every five years, including a review of the city's 35 Community Plans and the Port and Airport District Plans. Measure S was also written to require public hearings during this review period to take place in the evening or on weekends to increase accessibility. The initiative would have also required that at least one public hearing be held concerning any proposed changes to a Community Plan or District Plan within the affected community.[4]

### Environmental impact reports[edit]

Measure S would have required city staff to perform environmental impact reviews and author environmental impact reports for proposed development projects. The initiative was designed to prevent developers and project applicants—or third parties hired by applicants—from performing the environmental impact reports for their own projects.[4]

### Parking requirements[edit]

Going into the election, city law allowed the City Planning Commission to, upon application or appeal, reduce the amount of on-site parking required for a given area—often to accommodate development. Measure S would have amended this provision to allow reduction in on-site parking requirements by no more than one-third.[4]

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The following summary was prepared by the Los Angeles City Attorney's office for inclusion on the signature petition forms for this initiative:[8]

“  |

BUILDING MORATORIUM; RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS; REQUIRED REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN. INITIATIVE ORDINANCE S. Shall an ordinance amending City laws related to the General Plan, including to: 1) impose a two-year moratorium on projects seeking General Plan amendments or zone or height-district changes resulting in more intense land use, an increase in density or height, or a loss of zoned open space, agricultural or industrial areas, with exceptions including for affordable housing projects and projects for which vested rights have accrued; 2) prohibit geographic amendments to the General Plan unless the affected area has significant social, economic or physical identity (defined as encompassing an entire community or district plan area, specific plan area, neighborhood council area or at least 15 acres); 3) require systematic, public review of the General Plan every five years; 4) prohibit project applicants from completing environmental impact reports for the City; 5) require the City make findings of General Plan consistency for planning amendments, project approvals and permit decisions; and 6) prohibit certain parking variances; be adopted?[4][7]

|  ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of Measure S was prepared by the office of the Los Angeles City Attorney:[9]

“  |

This citizen-initiated ordinance, if adopted, will amend City law to impose a maximum two-year moratorium on certain development projects, with specified exceptions; restrict General Plan amendments; require periodic review of the General Plan and Community Plans; impose requirements on General Plan review and environmental impact report preparation; and, limit reduction of required parking. It would also restrict the City’s ability to issue building or demolition permits for previously approved projects which meet certain criteria.

This ordinance would impose a maximum two-year moratorium on the approval of new projects seeking General Plan amendments or zone and height district changes which would result in a more intense land use, such as a less restrictive zone or the construction of a higher structure; an increase in floor area ratio, density or height; or, a net loss of land zoned for open space, agricultural, or industrial areas.

Similarly, the ordinance would impose a maximum two-year building moratorium by prohibiting the issuance of a building or demolition permit on a previously approved project that the City granted a General Plan amendment, zone or height district change that resulted in a more intense land use; an increase in floor area ratio, density or height; or, a net loss of land zoned for open space, agricultural or industrial areas.

Exceptions to the two-year moratorium would be provided for projects with 100% affordable housing that apply for a zone or height change but do not seek a General Plan amendment; projects necessary to comply with a City-issued order relative to an unsafe or substandard condition; projects for which a vested right has been obtained under state law or the Municipal Code; and, certain residential projects.

If approved, this ordinance will restrict General Plan amendments to areas meeting one or more of the following criteria: (1) entire community or district plan area; (2) entire area included in a specific plan; (3) entire Neighborhood Council area; and/or (4) an area of 15 acres or more. The ordinance would establish a public process for the systematic review and possible amendments to the General Plan, 35 Community Plans and the Port and Airport District Plans every five years. The City would be required to adopt a schedule in advance for this public review process.

The preparation of environmental clearances is also proposed to change if the ordinance is approved, wherein it will require the City or its third party consultant to prepare any required environmental impact report, rather than the applicant, subject to possible reimbursement. The ordinance proposes to limit allowable reductions in on-site and off-site parking requirements for projects located in transit corridors to no more than one-third of the number required by City codes. If approved, the ordinance will require City decision makers to make findings that the project is consistent with the General Plan.

This measure would become effective with a majority vote.[7]

|  ”

|
|

### Financial impact statement[edit]

The following fiscal impact statement was provided by Miguel A. Santana, the Los Angeles City Administrative Officer:[9]

“  |

This measure will amend City laws related to the General Plan, void inconsistent zoning laws, and impose a two-year building moratorium, with certain exceptions, on projects seeking amendments, zone or height-district changes.

This measure will cost the City millions of dollars in lost revenue from permits, licenses, and other fees charged to impacted projects. Additionally, services and community benefits funded through associated mitigation impact fees and other exactions related to development will decrease by millions of dollars. To offset this revenue loss, the City may have to reduce existing staffing levels. The decrease in building, planning, and public works activity in the City during and immediately after the building moratorium will determine the extent of the revenue loss and staff reductions. The number of projects that will be subject to the moratorium after the effective date of this measure and their impact on the local economy is unknown.[7]

|  ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

Measure S Ballot Summary

|  “  |

TITLE:

BUILDING MORATORIUM; RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS; REQUIRED REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN (INITIATIVE ORDINANCE).

THE ISSUE:

Shall a citizen-initiated ordinance be adopted to impose a building moratorium on certain development projects; restrict General Plan amendments; require periodic review of the General and Community Plans; impose requirements on General Plan review and environmental impact report preparation; and limit reduction of required parking.

THE SITUATION:

General Plan amendments may be initiated by the City, provided the area involved has significant social, economic, or physical identity. Zone, height district, and parking changes are reviewed by the City on a project by project basis.

THE PROPOSAL:

This initiative would:

• Impose a maximum two-year building moratorium on projects seeking General Plan amendments or zone or height district changes resulting in: a more intense land use; an increase in floor area ratio, density or height; or a net loss of open space, agricultural or industrial areas. Provide exceptions, including for certain projects providing 100% affordable housing that do not seek a General Plan amendment.

• Limit General Plan amendments to an entire Community or District Plan, Specific Plan, Neighborhood Council, or other area no less than 15 acres.

• Require public review and possible update of the City’s General Plan (including Port and Airport District Plans) and 35 Community Plans every five years.

• Prohibit project applicants from preparing their own environmental impact reports and require the City to prepare such reports.

• Provide that on-site and remote off-site parking requirements may not be reduced by more than one-third.

A YES VOTE MEANS:

You want to directly amend City law to impose a building moratorium and restrictions on General Plan amendments, prohibit project applicants from preparing environmental impact reports, limit parking reductions and make other changes regarding City planning.

A NO VOTE MEANS:

You do not want to directly amend City law to impose a building moratorium and in the manner described above. [7]

|  ”

|
|

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the initiative is available here.

## Support[edit]

Note: This measure competed with Measure JJJ, the development initiative approved in November 2016. Supporters of Measure S opposed Measure JJJ.

### Supporters[edit]

The Coalition to Preserve L.A. (CPLA) was behind Measure S.[1][10]

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation backed the initiative effort.[11]

The following individuals put their names on the petition filing paperwork for Measure S or signed the official argument in support of Measure S:[4]

* Michael Weinstein
* Albert K. Ruiz
* Peter Reis
* Marijane Jackson
* Gerard Kensica
* Richard J. Riordan, Former Mayor of Los Angeles
* Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D., Chairman of The Transit Coalition

* Rev. Alice Callaghan, Founder of Las Familias del Pueblo Skid Row
* Mabel Chang, Former President of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission
* Gloria Romero, Former California State Senate Majority Leader
* Opal M. Young, president of the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Homeowners Coalition
* Sean Chandra, Esq., Los Angeles Tenants Union
* Grace Yoo, co-founder of the Environmental Justice Collaborative

|

The Vote Yes on S campaign website listed the following endorsements of Measure S:[12]

* Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan
* Former U.S. Congresswoman Diane Watson
* Carmen Trutanich, Los Angeles City Attorney (Ret.)
* Gloria Romero, California State Senate Majority Leader (Ret.)
* Mabel Chang, Past President, Los Angeles City Planning Commission
* Joyce Foster, Past President, Board of Los Angeles Building and Safety Commissioners; Past President, West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission
* Elena Popp, Eviction Defense Network, Co-Founder and Executive Director
* Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority Board of Directors
* Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains
* Los Angeles Tenants Union
* Los Angeles Audubon Society
* Grace Yoo, Co-Founder/Attorney, Environmental Justice Collaborative, Koreatown
* Rev. Alice Callaghan, Founder, Las Familias del Pueblo Skid Row
* Southern California Americans for Democratic Action, Board of Directors
* Jeff Dietrich, Co-Founder, Catholic Worker Homeless Services
* Ballona Wetlands Institute
* Terrence Gomes, President, Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC)[13]
* Richard Platkin, Los Angeles City Planner (RET.)
* Dr. Ken Alpern, Chairman, Transit Coalition; Board Member, Mar Vista Community Council[13]
* Richard Close, President, Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association[13]
* Robert Farrell, Los Angeles City Council Member, Planning and Land Use Committee (RET.)
* Lydia Grant, Former Los Angeles City Commissioner, Board of Neighborhood Commissioners; Education Advocate
* Dr. Gloria Zuurveen, Editor and Publisher, Pace News; Recipient of the NAACP's Ida B. Wells-Barnett Journalism Award; Member of the Los Angeles Press Club Board of Directors[13]
* Xavier Hermosillo, Global Government and Emergency Services; LAPD Police Commission Administrative Law Hearing Examiner (RET.)
* Kim Lamorie, President, Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc.
* Dennis Zine, Los Angeles City Council Member (RET.)
* Opal Young, President, Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw Homeowners Coalition[13]
* Cindy Cleghorn, Co-Founder, Board Member, United Chambers of Commerce San Fernando Valley[13]
* Karen Zimmerman, Board of VOICE, Volunteers Organized in Conserving the Environment[13]
* Dan Wright, Founding Member, Los Angeles General Plan Consistency Coalition
* Gustavo Flores and Manuel Flores, Co-Founders, Westlake Advocates
* Damien Goodmon, Founder, Crenshaw Subway Coalition; and Deputy, Coalition to Preserve LA
* Robert Silverstein, California Environmental Quality Act Attorney
* Sabrina Venskus, California Environmental Quality Act Attorney
* Frank Angel, California Environmental Quality Act Attorney
* Noel Weiss, California Environmental Quality Act Attorney
* Elysian Valley/Riverside Neighborhood Council Board of Directors
* Westwood Neighborhood Council Board of Directors
* Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council Board of Directors
* United Neighbors for Los Angeles, Board of Directors
* Jack Humphreville, Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council Ratepayer Advocate; DWP Advocacy Committee President
* Sandy Brown, Vice President, Westwood Neighborhood Council; and President, Holmby-Westwood Property Owners Association[13]
* Xochitl Gonzalez, Board Member, West Los Angeles-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council [13]
* Richard Courtney, Board of Governors, Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council[13]
* Marisa Stewart, Past President, Palms Neighborhood Council; and Neighborhood Watch member[13]
* Jeff Lynn, President, Van Nuys Neighborhood Council[13]
* Robin Rudisill, Past Chair, Venice Land Use & Planning Committee; Past Member, Venice Neighborhood Council Board Member; Past Member, Venice Neighborhood Council Neighborhood Committee, Safety Committee and Disaster Preparedness Committee
* Baldwin Neighborhood Homeowners Association
* Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association
* Brentwood Hills Homeowners Association
* Beachwood Canyon Neighborhood Association
* Holmby-Westwood Property Owners Association
* Homeowners of Encino
* Neighbors of Chase Knolls
* Oxford Triangle Association of Venice
* Hollywoodland Homeowners Association
* Pacific Palisades Residents Association
* Venice Stakeholders
* Cindy Chvatal, President, Hancock Park Homeowners Association[13]
* Paul Hatfield, President, Valley Village Homeowners Association[13]
* Diann Corral, President, Laurel Grove Neighborhood Association[13]
* Sean Chandra, attorney, and Member of LA Tenants Union[13]
* Jacquie Shabel, Founder-President, Hollywood Alliance[13]
* Gerald A. Silver, Ventura Boulevard Citizens Advisory Committee (Ret.); and President, Homeowners of Encino
* Joe Vitti, President, Valley VOTE[13]
* Marcia Hanscom, Executive Director, Ballona Wetlands Institute; and Westside Liaison, Coalition to Preserve LA
* Preserve Benedict Canyon
* Rex Frankel, Founder, Progressive Resource Center
* Playa del Rey Guardians Society Board of Directors
* Robina Suwon, Founder, California Safe Schools, San Fernando Valley[13]
* Clint Simmons, P.E., Member, Expo Communities United[13]
* John Malpede, Founder-Director, Skid Row Theater, Los Angeles Poverty Department[13]
* Westsiders Opposed to Overdevelopment
* Downsize Sunkist Expansion
* Stop the Millennium Hollywood
* Old Granada Hills Residents’ Group
* Greg Sutter, Co-Founder, Save 750 Edinburgh[13]
* Bill Cooper, Realtor and President, Society for the Preservation of DTLA [13]
* Rory Barish, Co-Founder, Save Sunset Boulevard[13]
* Jacky Surber, President, Association of Professional Landscape Designers, LA District[13]
* Melissa Hebert, Founder, 2UrbanGirls Radio
* Debra Hockemeyer, Brentwood Community Advocate
* Dianne Lawrence, Publisher, The Neighborhood News
* Aaron Epstein, Founder and Owner, Artisan's Patio, Hollywood
* Bret Marcus, Former Award-Winning KCET SoCal Connected Executive Producer[13]
* Diego Velasco, Academy Award-Nominated Filmmaker, Silver Lake
* Linda Deutsch, Award-winning Associated Press Court Reporter and Author
* John Griffiths, US Weekly TV Critic; President, Gay and Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association
* Nina Royal, Publisher and Editor, North Valley Reporter

|

### Arguments in favor[edit]

Coalition to Preserve LA, "Measure S In MLK Parade Gets Big Support"

The Vote Yes on S website featured the following argument in support of the initiative:[1]

“  |

The Coalition to Preserve LA is a citywide, citizen-driven movement that aims to reform L.A.’s broken, rigged and unfair planning and land-use system through Measure S, which has been placed on the March 7 ballot.

For too long, deep-pocketed developers have controlled City Hall by shelling out millions in campaign contributions to L.A. politicians, who, in return, grant 'spot-zoning' approvals for mega-projects that are not normally allowed under city rules.

Residents suffer the consequences — increased gridlock traffic, the destruction of neighborhood character and the displacement of longtime residents, including senior citizens on fixed budgets and lower-income Angelenos.[7]

|  ”

|
|

Supporters argued that, by using piecemeal general plan amendments, the city has allowed developers to overcrowd the city and ruin the integrity of neighborhoods and unique communities.[14]

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said, “Planning and zoning is meant to maintain the integrity of communities. And what's happening in Los Angeles — in Hollywood, in downtown and other areas — is destroying the character of communities.”[14]

#### Official arguments[edit]

The following argument was submitted in support of Measure S for inclusion on the ballot:[9]

“  |

Los Angeles is Worth Fighting For. VOTE YES on S. Join the good government, environmental, homeowner, social justice, neighborhood council and tenant groups from all across LA saying

YES on S. Save Our Neighborhoods!

Billionaire Developers are Ruining LA — Towering Buildings, Traffic, Destruction of RentControlled Housing. We can stop them only through Change at City Hall. Records show that billionaire developers shower City Hall leaders with millions of dollars. Then in backroom meetings, our leaders work out plans with these billionaires. In the end, billionaire developers get to skip around our protective zoning rules. At terrible cost to you and your family. Mayor Garcetti agrees that these rewards to developers “must become the rare exceptions.” But the L.A. Times has uncovered major corruption, now being investigated by our LA District Attorney: A luxury complex got built between warehouses, where it’s not allowed, after vast amounts of money flowed to City Hall politicians’ pockets. The “Sea Breeze” scandal shows how developers bypass our land-use rules. “Pay to play” is wrong. Buying votes is wrong. It’s destroying LA.

Yes on S is our best hope for controlling the Manhattanization of LA and the mega-developments that clog our streets with traffic, disrupt stable neighborhoods and create congested canyons of luxury towers.

Yes on S empowers all of us to shape the future of our communities, not just billionaire developers. City Hall has blindly allowed 22,000 rent-controlled units to be destroyed, displacing our seniors and working-class. They’ve jammed skyscrapers into once-affordable communities. On a nearly weekly basis, City Hall breaks the rules — to reward billionaire developers. They’re destroying our open space, severely increasing traffic and overwhelming our water, sewer and emergency services.

Yes on S. Save Our Neighborhoods by ending this politically rigged system. Yes on S establishes a reasonable 2-year ban on “spot zoning” that will halt the rule-breakers who build 5% of LA’s buildings. This small pool of politically connected developers cause a huge negative impact on our neighborhoods.

Yes on S Encourages Affordable Housing! Housing, new shops, restaurants will all flourish. And the vast majority of affordable housing plans will be protected under this moratorium. Meanwhile, after years of billionaire developer influence, voters will require City Hall to sensibly plan ahead for LA’s growth.

Yes on S. For Accountability and Transparency. Yes on S stops billionaire developers from writing their own self-serving environmental reports, which far too often downplay the traffic and environmental damage their mega-developments cause. And Yes on S forces City Hall to hold key Community Planning hearings in the communities at night — not Downtown during the day, when lobbyists usually dominate.

Yes on S. We Deserve Politicians Who Work for Us, Not Billionaire Developers. In 2005, our City Council quietly voted to abandon its core duty of updating the blueprint for LA, called a General Plan. In every great city, this Plan is updated every 5 years to adapt to change.

But thanks to our irresponsible City Council, much of our Plan is 20 years old — and our embarrassing infrastructure “plans” are far older.

Yes on S says: “City Council, follow the rules and do your job!”

To quote Attorney Grace Yoo, Co-founder of the Environmental Justice Collaborative, “They promised us a park in our neighborhood. But we got a huge luxury complex instead. If it can happen to our neighborhood, it can happen to yours. Please vote Yes on S.” Vote Yes on S. Your Yes Vote Ensures that LA’s Future Belongs to All of Us, Not the Billionaire Developers![7]

|  ”

|
|

### Campaign videos[edit]

Coalition to Preserve LA, "LA City Hall Lied About Much-Needed Park For Koreatown Residents"

Coalition to Preserve LA, "Developer Tries to Evict Echo Park Woman with Stage 3 Cancer"

Coalition to Preserve LA, "L.A. Residents Urge Passage of 'Measure S' on March 7, 2017"

More videos can be revealed below:

Yes on S, "Who is Endorsing Measure S?"

Yes on S, "What is Measure S?"

Yes on S, "Navy veteran Law Collins Supports Measure S"

## Opposition[edit]

Note: This measure competed with Measure JJJ, the development initiative approved in November 2016. Supporters of Measure JJJ oppose this initiative.

### Opponents[edit]

The following individuals signed the official arguments in opposition to Measure S:[9]

* Rusty Hicks, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
* Frank Lima, President, Los Angeles County United Firefighters of Los Angeles City
* Elise Buik, President & CEO, United Way of Greater Los Angeles
* Paavo Monkkonen, Professor of Urban Planning UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Gary Toebben, President & CEO, Los Angeles Area of Chamber of Commerce
* Jonathan Parfrey, Executive Director, Climate Resolve
* Alan Greenlee, Executive Director, Southern California Association Of Non-Profit Housing
* Carol Newman, Secretary, Lake Balboa Neighborhood Council
* Anne Miskey, Chief Executive Officer, Downtown Women’s Center
* Jay Handal, Treasurer, West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) endorsed a "no" vote on Measure S.[15]

The Vote No on S website listed the following organizations and individuals as opposed to Measure S:[16]

* Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
* United Way of Greater Los Angeles
* Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
* Eli Broad, Philanthropist
* Los Angeles County Democratic Party
* Republican Party of Los Angeles County
* Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
* Bill Bedrossian, President and CEO, Covenant House California
* Herb Smith, President and CEO, Los Angeles Mission
* Downtown Women's Center
* Inner City Law Center
* Midtown Los Angeles Homeless Coalition
* Hope of the Valley Rescue Mission
* Bet Tzedek
* Chrysalis
* Shelter Partnership, Inc.
* Imagine LA
* The People Concern - OPCC and Lamp Community United
* Homeless Health Care Los Angeles
* PATH Ventures
* Housing Works
* Abundant Housing
* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Southern California
* Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles
* Neighborhood Housing Services of Los Angeles County
* Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council AFL-CIO
* Laborers' Union Local 300
* IBEW Local 11
* UNITE HERE Local 11
* Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
* Los Angeles Police Protective League
* United Firefighters of Los Angeles City
* American Institute of Architects/Los Angeles Chapter
* National Organization for Women (NOW), Hollywood
* Coalition for Economic Survival
* Natural Resources Defense Council
* Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters
* Climate Resolve
* Tony Cardenas, Member of Congress
* California State Assemblymember Richard Bloom
* California State Assemblymember Raul Bocanegra
* California State Assemblymember Mike Gatto
* California State Assemblymember Laura Friedman
* Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl
* Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas
* Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis
* Los Angeles City Controller Ron Galperin
* Los Angeles City Council President Herb Wesson
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Joe Buscaino
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Gil Cedillo
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Mitchell Englander
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Krekorian
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Nury Martinez
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Mitch O'Farrell
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Curren Price
* Los Angeles County Assessor Jeffrey Prang
* Daniel Tenenbaum, Commissioner, Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles[13]
* Mike Fong, Member, Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees[13]
* Kelly Candaele, Former Member, Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees[13]
* Mike Woo, Los Angeles City Councilmember (Ret.) and Dean of College of Environmental Design, Cal Poly Pomona
* Ruth Galanter, Los Angeles City Councilmember (Ret.) and Coastal Commissioner
* Kent Wong, Director, UCLA Labor Center
* Central Hollywood Coalition
* Hollywood Property Owners Alliance
* Council of Infill Builders
* Friends of Hollywood Central Park
* Ground Control LA
* Rail Passengers Association of California
* Carpenters and Contractor's Cooperation Committee
* East Hollywood Business Improvement District
* Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE)
* Los Angeles County Business Federation
* Westside Coalition of Chambers of Commerce (WC3)
* Building Industry Association
* Central City Association
* Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
* San Pedro Chamber of Commerce
* Atwater Village Chamber of Commerce
* LAX Coastal Chamber of Commerce
* Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce
* Southland Regional Association of Realtors
* Los Angeles and Beverly Hills Greater Association of Realtors
* Valley Industry and Commerce Association
* Los Angeles Business Council
* Alan Bell, Deputy Director, LA City Planning Dept. (Ret.)
* Gary Toebben, President and CEO, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
* Ron Miller, Executive Secretary, LA/OC Building and Construction Trades Council
* James Valentine, Guitarist, Maroon 5
* Robin Hughes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Abode Communities, affordable housing provider
* Anne Miskey, Chief Executive Officer, Downtown Women's Center
* Brent Gaisford, Partner, Upwell R/E and community advocate for affordable housing
* Eva Williams, Director, CSH (Corporation for Supportive Housing) Los Angeles
* Mark Vallianatos, Abundant Housing
* Steve PonTell, President and CEO, National Community Renaissance (Nation CORE)
* Dora Leong Gallo, CEO, A Community of Friends[13]
* Andrew Cipes, President, Clifford Beers Housing
* Mike Alvidrez, CEO, Skid Row Housing Trust[13]
* Larry Gross, Executive Director, Coalition for Economic Survival
* Helen Leung, Co-Executive Director, LA-Mas
* Javier Angulo, Co-Founder, HONOR PAC[13]
* Ruth Schwartz, Executive Director, Shelter Partnership, Inc.
* Mark Loranger, President and CEO, Chrysalis
* John Maceri, Executive Director, The People Concern - OPCC and Lamp Community United
* Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, Board Member, LA Metropolitan Transportation
* Captain Frank Lima, President, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City
* Martin Wachs, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Brian D. Taylor, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Michael Lens, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Joan Ling, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Michael Manville, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Paavo Monkkonen, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Vinit Mukhija, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Chris Tilly, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Dr. Richard Jackson, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health
* Dr. David Eisenman, Professor of Medicine and Public Health, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health
* Stephanie Pincetl, Director and Professor-in-Residence, California Center for Sustainable Communities at UCLA[13]
* Dana Cuff, Director of cityLAB-UCLA and Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, UCLA
* Paul Ong, Professor of Urban Planning, Social Welfare, and Asian American Studies, UCLA
* Marcus Anthony Hunter, Professor of Sociology and African-American Studies, UCLA
* Jonathan Zasloff, Professor, UCLA School of Law[13]
* Ethan Elkin, Director for Environmental and Business Sciences, UCLA and UC Berkeley Schools of Law
* Marlon Boarnet, Professor and Chair of the Department of Urban Planning and Spatial Analysis, USC Price School of Public Policy
* Manuel Pastor, Director, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at USC
* Christian Redfearn, Borstein Family Endowed Professor of Real Estate, USC Price School of Public Policy
* Juan De Lara, Professor of American Studies and Ethnicity, USC
* James E Moore, Professor of Urban Planning and Vice Dean for Academic Programs, USC Price School of Public Policy
* Dowell Myers, Professor of Urban Planning, USC Price School of Public Policy
* Jan Breidenbach, Adjunct Professor, USC Price School of Public Policy
* Martha Matsuoka, Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy, Occidental College
* Henrik Minassians, Professor of Urban Planning, CSUN
* Palms Neighborhood Council
* Panorama City Neighborhood Council
* Scott Epstein, Chairman, Mid City West Community Council[13]
* Emily Kantrim, Mid City West Community Council[13]
* Scott Sale, Midtown LA Homeless Coalition[13] and Mid City West Community Council[13]
* Marc Sinnott, Communications and Outreach Committee Chair, Mid City West Community Council[13]
* David Sobel, Board Member, Mid City West Community Council[13]
* Paul Motschall, Renter's Representative, Mid City West Community Council[13]
* Jay Handal, Treasurer, West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council[13]
* Eric Shabsis, Schools Representative, Westside Neighborhood Council[13]
* Andres Cuervo, Vice President, Palms Neighborhood Council[13]
* Luke Klipp, Board Member, Los Feliz Neighborhood Council[13]
* Bryant Edwards, Secretary, Los Feliz Neighborhood Council[13]
* Jonathan Deutsch, Vice President for Communications, Los Feliz Neighborhood Council[13]
* Danny Cohen, Chair of the Transportation and Mobility Committee, Los Feliz Neighborhood Council[13]
* Hector Huezo, Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council[13]
* Beatriz Zaragoza, Community Seat, Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council[13]
* Margarita Amador, Area 3 Seat, Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council[13]
* Patti Berman, DTLA Neighborhood Council[13]
* Dan Curnow, Center City East Resident Director, DTLA Neighborhood Council[13]
* Amber Maltbie, DTLA Neighborhood Council[13]
* Ariana Nussdorf, DTLA Neighborhood Council[13]
* Joshua Albrektson, Radiologist and Area Wide Board Member, DTLA Neighborhood Council[13]
* Miguel Vargas, Los Angeles 32 Neighborhood Council[13]
* Kathy Leal, Los Angeles 32 Neighborhood Council[13]
* Jackie Carillo, At Large Director, Los Angeles 32 Neighborhood Council[13]
* Maribel Munoz, Community Interest Director, Los Angeles 32 Neighborhood Council[13]
* James Baeza, President, Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council[13]
* Brian Vassallo, Vice President, Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council[13]
* Eli Lipmen, Commissioner, Board of Neighborhood Councils and Member, Palms Neighborhood Council[13]
* Scott Campbell, Former President, Central Hollywood Neighborhood Council[13]
* Ishraq Ali, Tenant Representative, East Hollywood Neighborhood Council[13]
* Jeff Zarrinnam, Treasurer, East Hollywood Neighborhood Council[13]
* Sheila Irani, Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council[13] and Hollywood United Neighborhood Council[13]
* Lisa Kable-Blanchard, President, Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council[13]
* Matt Hemingway, Sub District 4 Director, Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council[13]
* Jackelyn Valladares, Echo Park Neighborhood Council[13]
* Melanie Freeland, At Large Director, Highland Park Neighborhood Council[13]
* Scott Plante, Architect and Member, Silver Lake Neighborhood Council[13]
* Heather Denehy, Board Member, Wilshire Center Koreatown Neighborhood Council[13]
* Fred Mariscal, Former Board Member, Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council[13]
* Angus Beverly, Student Director, Westwood Neighborhood Council[13]
* Michael Menjivar, Treasurer and Chair of Planning and Land Use Committee, North Hollywood North East Neighborhood Council[13]
* Alex Morales, President, Pacoima Neighborhood Council[13]
* Carol Newman, Lake Balboa Neighborhood Council[13]
* Adelina Ruth Sorkin, Bellevue Park Advisory Board[13]
* Christine Aghassi, Former Member, South Robertson Neighborhood Council[13]
* Doug Fitzsimmons, President, South Robertson Neighborhood Council[13] and Chair, Westside Regional Alliance of Councils[13]
* Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice
* Father Richard Estrada, Jovenes Inc.
* Father Tom Carey, Church of the Epiphany Lincoln Heights
* Pastor Omar Perich, Victory Outreach Los Angeles
* Rev. K.W. Tulloss, Vice President, Baptist Ministers Conference of Los Angeles and Western Regional Director, National Action Network and South LA resident
* Rev. Andy Schwiebert, Associate Pastor, First Congregational Church of Pasadena
* Rabbi Jonathan Klein, Executive Director, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE)[13]
* Laurie Goldman, President, Hollywood Media District Property Owners' Association
* Elise Swanson, Executive Director, San Pedro Chamber of Commerce
* Jonathan Parfrey, Executive Director, Climate Resolve
* Dr. Joseph K. Lyou, President and CEO, Coalition for Clean Air[13]
* Zoe Elizabeth, Associate Director, California Center for Sustainable Communities and Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability[13]
* Darrell Clarke, Environmental Activist
* Roxana Tynan, Executive Director, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE)
* Lois Arkin, Founder, Cooperative Resources and Services Project[13]
* Matthew Haas, Principal, Infinite Urban Solutions[13]
* Curt Johansen, President, Council of Infill Builders
* Mott Smith, Principal, Civic Enterprise
* Ward Economic Development Corporation
* Enterprise Community Partners
* RailLA
* MOVE LA
* Jimmie Woods-Gray, Los Angeles Fire Commissioner[13]
* Shawn Landres, Chair, City of Santa Monica Social Services Commission[13]
* Hector Perez Pacheco, Lincoln Heights Activist and commission appointee under Mayor Garcetti and Supervisor Solis
* Rocky Delgadillo, former Los Angeles City Attorney
* Bill Roschen, Historic Preservation Architect and former President of the LA City Planning Commission
* Gwynne Pugh, Board Member, American Institute of Architects and former Santa Monica City Planner
* Christopher Pak, AIA, Chief Architect and President/CEO, Archeon Group and former Los Angeles City Commissioner under Richard Riordon, James Hahn and Antonio Villaraigosa
* Project Narnia
* Streets are for Everyone (SAFE)
* Youth Policy Institute
* LA Walks
* Bike the Vote, LA
* Don Ward, Founder, Wolfpack Hustle[13]
* Investing in Place
* People for Parks
* Leadership for Urban Renewal Network (LURN)
* LA Thrives
* LA Voice
* Trust for Public Land
* From Lot to Spot
* Lehrer Architects
* Santa Monica Forward
* Taglyan Cultural Center
* Little Tokyo Service Center
* Asian Business Association
* Thai Community Development Center
* Chanchanit Martorell, Executive Director, Thai Community Development Center
* Asian Pacific Community Fund
* Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council (A3PCON)
* Mark Masaoka, Policy Director, Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council (A3PCON)
* Lisa Fu, Research Manager, Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, Advocacy and Leadership (APPEAL)
* Connie Chung, Executive Director, Korean American Family Services[13]
* Hyepin Im, President, Korean Churches for Community Development[13]
* Sandra Figueroa-Villa, Executive Director, El Centro Del Pueblo[13]
* Richard Zaldivar, Executive Director, The Wall - Las Memorias
* Heberto Sanchez, Founder and President of the Latino Educational Fund and Co-Founder, Latino Diabetes Association[13]
* Marta Segura, Founder and CEO, GOLD (Grassroots Organizational Leadership and Development)
* Lisa Cleri Reale, Board Member, United Way and Arts for Los Angeles
* Hollywood Network Coalition
* Cecilia Estolano, Former CEO, Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency[13]
* John Perfitt, Executive Director, Restore Neighborhoods LA
* Ed Avila, Board Chairman, Alliance for a Better Community
* Emilia Crotty, Policy and Program Manager, Los Angeles Walks[13]
* Dixon Slingerland, President and CEO, Youth Policy Institute
* Craig Collins, Board Member, Silver Lake Forward
* Ira Belgrade, Advocate for Accessory Dwelling Units, YimbyLA!
* Lenore Wax, Community Activist
* Najee Ali, Director, Project Islamic Hope and Community Activist
* Sam Yebri, Attorney and Founder, 30 Years After
* Carlos Vasquez, Executive Board Member, Homeboy Industries
* Joy Atkinson, Executive Director, L.A. African American Women's Public Policy Institute[13]
* Gabriel Rose, Chief Strategy Officer, Parent Revolution
* Nathaniel Aragon, President, Grand Mas USA
* Bert Ball, Executive Director, L.A. SHARES
* Steve Dunwoody, Vet Voice Foundation
* Michael Lehrer, Lehrer Architects
* Benjamin Lehrer, Lehrer Architects
* Roberto Sheinberg, Lehrer Architects
* East Area Progressive Democrats
* San Fernando Valley Young Democrats
* North Valley Democratic Club
* Miracle Mile Democratic Club
* Stonewall Democratic Club
* Ilissa Gold, President, Miracle Mile Democratic Club
* Marilyn Grunwald, Secretary of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
* Casey H. Robinson, Elected Delegate, AD50 California Democratic Party
* Marcos Sanchez, Vice President of Administration, Los Angeles County Young Democrats
* Angie Jimenez, Organizer, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 770
* Joe Linton, Editor, Streetsblog
* Urbanize LA
* Raul Claros, Executive Director, American Red Cross[13]
* Hospital Association of Southern California
* Pamela Hope, President, Giving Hope Today
* Don Garza, Homeless Advocate
* Michelle Gastelum, President, Summit Consulting and Engineering
* Greg Fischer, Board Member, Historic Society of Southern California and CEO, LA 1781 Inc.
* Charlie Woo, CEO, Mega Toys
* Alita Bernal, West Adams Community Resident
* Tracy Stone, Architect and Elysian Valley Community Resident
* Cassandra Card, Vice President of Administration, Occidental Entertainment[13]
* Arthur Melkonyan, Owner, Crispy Crust
* Andy Hasroun, President, Atwater Village Group, Inc.
* Jon Blanchard, Ace Hotel and SoHo House
* Vinent Jones, Social Entrepreneur/Philanthropist
* Victor Griego, President, Diverse Strategies for Organizing
* Brian Chase, General Counsel, Found Animals[13]
* Nirad Gupta, Founder and Principal, BitSift Networks
* Steven Appleton, Artist and Social Entrepreneur
* Brandon Abraham, Teacher, LAUSD/UTLA
* Olman Valverde, Attorney, Luna and Glushon and Koreatown resident[13]

|

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor also opposed Measure S.[11]

### Arguments against[edit]

Opponents argued that the initiative would prevent development that is key to the city's economy and to filling housing needs.[11]

The Vote No on Measure S website listed the following arguments in opposition to Measure S:[3]

“  |

1. New studies out of Harvard show Los Angeles needs to build 382,000 new units just to meet current demand. If the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative passes, it will make it virtually impossible to build those units.
2. Homeless advocates like the Inner City Law Center point out that most new homeless are a result of skyrocketing rents and lack of available housing units. The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative will restrict housing even more, driving homeless numbers up and pushing families onto the streets.
3. The Southern California Association of Governments predicts L.A.'s population will increase by 500,000 over the next two decades, adding a city the size of Long Beach to our already impacted housing market. The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative will make it impossible to meet that demand, driving up demand and rents.
4. The harmful initiative bans virtually all new housing and construction in the City of L.A. Nowhere in the initiative language does it ban developer contributions or address corruption.
5. The LA Times calls the so-called Neighborhood Integrity Initiative 'a recipe for higher housing costs, more homelessness and greater inequality.' With vacancy rates at an extreme low, our city cannot afford this damaging ban on housing.
6. Does our city planning need to be fixed? Yes, but this initiative goes too far! A ban on housing will only make our housing crisis much, much worse by severely restricting housing supply, driving up rents, accelerating gentrification and mansionization, and costing the city millions in lost tax revenue for police, firefighters, parks, and other vital public services.
7. According to the New York Times, studies show that laws like the so-called Neighborhood Integrity Initiative 'contribute to racial segregation and deeper class disparities. They also exacerbate inequality by restricting the housing supply in places where demand is greatest.'
8. Recent studies indicate rent in Los Angeles is rising at a much higher rate than incomes. With high demand coupled with limited housing units, a ban on housing will only further drive up rents. Our city desperately needs to be adding as many housing units as possible, not banning their creation.
9. Experts agree that the creation of all types of housing is imperative to the long-term solution of our current housing crisis. The so-called Neighborhood Integrity Initiative only adds to the problem by indefinitely banning the creation of virtually all housing in our city.
10. According to City of Los Angeles data, 90% of all planned opportunity sites for affordable and permanent supportive housing projects would come to an immediate halt under the Housing Ban initiative.[7]

|  ”

|
|

#### Official arguments[edit]

The following argument was submitted in opposition to Measure S:[9]

“  |

“Measure S is a poorly written measure that goes too far. It will cost our city billions in economic activity, block voter-approved efforts to build affordable and homeless housing, and drive our city back into recession. That’s why a broad coalition of people and organizations from across Los Angeles say Vote NO on Measure S.”

-Jay Handal, Treasurer, West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council*

Economic studies show Measure S will not fix our planning process but will instead destroy 24,000 jobs, eliminate $3.8 billion in economic activity, and drive our city back into recession. According to economists and other experts, this poorly written and complicated measure will:

• destroy 24,000 jobs, costing workers $1.28 billion in lost wages

• eliminate $3.8 billion in economic activity, and drive our city back into recession

• block the building of voter-approved affordable and homeless housing

• cost taxpayers $140 million in lost revenue needed for police, firefighters, and other vital city services

(source: Beacon Economics, “Economic Analysis: Measure S”, December 2016)

That’s why so many responsible community leaders and organizations say vote NO on Measure S. The United Way of Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles firefighters, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, environmentalists, and nonprofit groups that advocate for affordable housing and the homeless all agree Measure S is bad for Los Angeles. Even the L.A. Times called Measure S “a recipe for higher housing costs, more homelessness and greater inequality.”

(source: LA Times Editorial; “Housing for the homeless is a crisis.”, May 17, 2016)

“We need to fix L.A.’s planning process, but Measure S goes too far and will destroy jobs, immediately harm our fragile economic recovery, and stop efforts to build affordable housing and address the homelessness crisis. Vote NO on S, it is a poorly written law that goes too far and hurts our city and residents.”

-Alan Greenlee, Executive Director, Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing

* Titles for identification purposes only[7]

|  ”

|
|

### Campaign ads[edit]

No on S campaign videos can be viewed here.

The videos could not be added to Ballotpedia's article.

## Campaign strategies[edit]

### Support[edit]

#### Eviction notice fliers[edit]

A campaign flier used by the Yes on Measure S campaign was designed to look similar to an eviction notice from the sheriff's department. The flier was representing the campaign's position that large development projects approved by the city were causing evictions and the disruption of neighborhoods and that Measure S would protect the integrity of neighborhoods and prevent some projects that otherwise would displace residents. The opposition campaign criticized these fliers as a misleading scare tactic. An image of one of the fliers with notes about how to tell it apart from a real eviction notice was provided by the sheriff's department. This image is below:[17]

Image of campaign flier marked up by the sheriff's department

In late February 2017, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department sent a cease-and-desist order to the campaign. The Yes on Measure S campaign responded by saying that county and city officials should not get involved in the campaign and that the fliers were protected by free speech. The campaign stated, "While we respect the work and the mission of the Sheriff’s Department, we are disappointed that they and the Los Angeles County Counsel have inserted themselves into a political campaign in an apparent attempt to influence the outcome.”[17]

Image of campaign flier featuring city seal

#### Use of city seal[edit]

Some mailers sent out by the Yes on S campaign also contained the city's official seal. Opponents criticized this move as an effort to mislead voters into thinking city officials endorsed Measure S. On March 2, 2017, the Los Angeles City Attorney's office sent a letter to the Yes on S campaign leaders calling on them to stop using the city's seal on campaign fliers.[18]

The Yes on S campaign responded by saying, "This campaign is about empowering our neighborhoods, and clearly we have awakened the City Hall establishment, and they're uncomfortable because they're being called out." Yes on S director, Jill Stewart, also stated on March 2, 2017, that the campaign was not using these particular fliers anymore.[18]

#### Image of Mayor Eric Garcetti[edit]

Image used by Yes on S

The Measure S support campaign also received criticism from Mayor Garcetti and his office for using his image and name in mailers. The official argument in support of Measure S stated, "Mayor Garcetti agrees that these rewards to developers 'must become the rare exceptions.'" Garcetti's office argued that these campaign tactics were misleading since they implied that the mayor supported Measure S when, in fact, he opposed it. The Measure S campaign responded by saying that the fliers were designed to represent the fact that Garcetti expressed support for the idea that project-specific zoning changes should not occur regularly, which was one of the main tenets of the Yes on Measure S campaign.[9][18]

### Opposition[edit]

#### Ballot argument lawsuit[edit]

In December of 2017, supporters of Measure S filed a lawsuit against the opposition campaign over the official arguments submitted in opposition to Measure S for inclusion on the ballot. Specifically, the lawsuit contended that the argument was false and misleading when it stated that Measure S would "destroy as many as 120,000 jobs, eliminate $3.8 billion in economic activity … and cost taxpayers $700 million in lost revenue.” These numbers were based on a study commissioned by Measure S opponents from Beacon Economics. Yes on S campaign manager stated, “The biggest whoppers by Beacon are its ginned-up claims of massive job losses, based on a fake-news gambit that stretches the two-year moratorium contained in Measure S from two years to a false ‘10 years.’” Ultimately, the two campaigns settled on an agreement in which the opposition campaign agreed to change the projections to a loss of 24,000 jobs instead of 120,000 and a loss of $140 million in tax revenue instead of $700 million. The opposition campaign also agreed to remove the word "independent" from its description of the study by Beacon Economics.[19][20]

Total campaign contributions:

Support: |  $6,102,521.13
Opposition: |  $7,365,588.12

## Campaign finance[edit]

One committee registered to support Measure S, and two registered to oppose it. Contributions in support of the measure amounted to about $6.1 million. Contributions in opposition totaled about $7.4 million.[21]

The top donor in support of the measure was the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which provided 99 percent of support funding.[21]

The top five donors in opposition to Measure S provided 56.88 percent of opposition contributions. The committees in opposition to Measure S received a large amount of its funding from development companies and labor unions. At least 36 donors had provided $25,000 or more in opposition to Measure S.[21]

### Support[edit]

| Committees in support of Measure S

Supporting committees| Cash contributions| In-kind services| Cash expenditures
Coalition to Preserve LA, Sponsored by AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Yes on S| $5,291,373.55| $811,147.58| $4,655,757.58
Total| $5,291,373.55| $811,147.58| $5,235,687.10
| Totals in support

Total raised:| $6,102,521.13
Total spent:| $6,046,834.68

#### Top donors[edit]

Below are the top donors in support of Measure S:[21]

Donor  |  Cash  |  In-kind  |  Total

|
|
|

AIDS Healthcare Foundation |  $5,250,323.20  |  $795,824.38  |  $6,046,147.58
Aaron Enstein  |  $5,030.00  |  $0.00  |  $5,030.00
Patio Property Company  |  $4,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $4,000.00

### Opposition[edit]

| Committees in opposition to Measure S

Opposing committees| Cash contributions| In-kind services| Cash expenditures
Coalition to Protect LA Neighborhoods and Jobs, No on S| $3,790,549.57| $141,443.02| $3,472,928.30
No on S, Build Better LA[22]| $3,373,539.99| $60,055.54| $3,059,264.55
Total| $7,164,089.56| $201,498.56| $6,532,192.85
| Totals in opposition

Total raised:| $7,365,588.12
Total spent:| $6,733,691.41

#### Top donors[edit]

Below are the donors that gave over $100,000 in opposition to Measure S:[21]

Donor  |  Cash  |  In-kind  |  Total

|
|
|

CH Palladium, LLC  |  $3,042,449.57  |  $12,000.00  |  $3,054,449.57
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters  |  $350,000.00  |  $10,111.31  |  $360,111.31
So. Ca. District Council of Laborers  |  $325,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $325,000.00
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America  |  $250,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $250,000.00
Westfield DD&C, LLC  |  $200,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $200,000.00
National Association of Realtors  |  $200,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $200,000.00
California Association of Realtors  |  $168,900.00  |  $0.00  |  $168,900.00
IBEW No. 11  |  $150,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $150,000.00
Southern CA Pipe Trades District  |  $150,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $150,000.00
Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition  |  $125,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $125,000.00
International Union of Operating Engineers  |  $100,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $100,000.00
Live Nation  |  $100,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $100,000.00
Pamela Equites Corp.  |  $100,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $100,000.00
UFCW Local 770  |  $100,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $100,000.00
Midvale Corporation  |  $100,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $100,000.00

### Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

## Background[edit]

### Political contributions from developers[edit]

Measure S was proposed, in part, as a way to prevent developers from using political contributions to help them gain approval of their proposed projects.

In October 2016, the Los Angeles Times found that, between 2008 and 2015, more than $600,000 in campaign contributions were provided to Los Angeles politicians by individuals with connections to Samuel Leung, a developer who was lobbying city hall to authorize a large apartment complex development project. Ultimately, Leung's $72-million project—known as Sea Breeze—was approved despite resistance from the city's planning commission and key involvement by Mayor Eric Garcetti and the city council.[23]

Developer Rick Caruso applied for approval of a 20-story residential building on La Cienega Boulevard in an area zoned for a maximum building height of 45 feet. Donors related to Rick Caruso have provided $476,000 to city politicians or measures backed by city politicians over the last five years.[24]

The Leung Sea Breeze project and Caruso's residential development are two of several project applications in 2016 from large donors or from developers affiliated with large donors, according to the Los Angeles Times.[24]

Speaking about the city's system allowing for project-specific changes to zoning rules, Michael Manville, an assistant professor of urban planning at UCLA, said, “If you have a system that relies so heavily on [those changes] to get things built, then you are going to get lots of campaign contributions. Because you’re shifting a lot of power away from the Planning Department and toward the elected officials.” Manville said that this situation prevents many residents from having confidence in the city's planning process.[24]

Caruso stated that the city's planning process was not corrupt, but very transparent and democratic. He said, “I’ve never believed for one minute that any contribution I’ve given has changed the opinion of any elected official.” Mayor Garcetti also stated that any project approval decisions made by Los Angeles officials are not connected to campaign contributions. He said, “Projects should be assessed on their merits and nothing else."[24]

### City council ordinances[edit]

Regulating campaign contributions from area developers in Los Angeles city elections became a point of action for some city councilors and citizen groups in 2017. The city's planning structure, which allows for one-off zoning changes by the city council, has led to concerns that campaign contributions to councilors influence which plans are and are not approved. In January 2017, council members David Ryu, Paul Krekorian, and Joe Buscaino introduced an ordinance that would prohibit campaign contributions to city races from developers with projects before the council. The idea was seconded by Councilman Paul Koretz, and Councilman Mike Bonin also voiced his support for the measure. Buscaino, Bonin, and Koretz were up for re-election in 2017.[25]

The push to restrict the potential influence of developers came after local reporting revealed a broad pattern of donations from particular developers to almost all of the city's elected officials. Councilman Ryu voiced his support for the council's measure, saying, "By introducing sweeping reforms, we will work to restore Angelenos’ faith in the city’s ability to fairly review and approve major development projects. We need a campaign finance system that limits the influence of big-pocketed developers, and instead empowers thousands of small donors to have their voices heard."[26][27][28]

Any entities holding city contracts or registered as lobbyists with the city are already prevented from making contributions. While such restrictions on campaign finance have been upheld in the past, concerns have been expressed about whether or not a restriction applying to those who are only under consideration for contracts might be seen as limiting free speech and contradicting the verdict of Citizens United. Additionally, any such ban would face difficulties in precisely defining how long developers are banned from donating before or after a project comes before the body, as well as who could be included in the list of banned persons, such as spouses or employees of the developers.[29]

District 11 Councilman Mike Bonin proposed another way to address public concerns over campaign finance later in January 2017: creating a fully publicly funded option. The city currently provides a public funding option of up to $225,000 for city council candidates who meet certain requirements. "Instead of tweaking the system, let’s fix it and replace it with a better one," Bonin said, contrasting his idea to the proposed ban on developer funds.[30]

The city council motion from January 10, 2017, to ban campaign contributions from property developers. Scroll in the box to read the entire document.

## Measure JJJ vs. Measure S[edit]

See also: Build Better LA Initiative, Measure JJJ and Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, Measure S

Two Los Angeles initiatives with conflicting provisions related to development and housing were filed in late 2015 and early 2016, respectively. Proponents of both had until mid-June 2016 to collect enough signatures to put the measures on the November 2016 ballot. The Coalition to Preserve L.A. (CPLA), which was behind the Measure S (known as the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative), were cleared to begin circulating its initiative on January 4, 2016. The group announced, however, that it would target the election on March 7, 2017, instead of the November 2016 election, citing the fact that the November 2016 ballot was crowded with federal and state legislative races and 17 statewide ballot measures.

Measure JJJ was written to leave the project approval system intact, but to impose minimum affordable housing requirements, training standards, and labor and wage regulations on development projects. Measure S was designed to restrict development projects for a temporary period and change the project approval process to prevent project-specific changes to the General Plan of the city. Supporters of Measure S said it would help eliminate corruption in the city planning process and prevent large developers from using political contributions to motivate city officials to change zoning rules to allow large, incongruous development projects. Provisions included a moratorium on density-increasing construction requiring zoning code changes for up to two years. A coalition of labor unions, transit advocates, and affordable housing proponents filed the other measure. This Build Better LA initiative was filed with city elections officials on February 17, 2016, and was successfully certified for the November 2016 ballot as Measure JJJ. It was approved.[31]

### Labor and business interests[edit]

Many business interests and labor advocacy groups were united by opposition to the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative when it was first proposed. Opponents included the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. Business and labor interests were divided, however, by the competing initiative, Measure JJJ. In fact, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor sponsored the initiative. Valley Industry and Commerce Association President Stuart Waldman said, "The labor initiative is just going to kill small and mid-sized apartment projects in the city of Los Angeles. They're just not going to get built."[11]

Mott Smith, a real estate developer, summed up the situation by saying, "It puts business in a tough spot because labor is probably the most important ally in fighting the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. But if you are pro-housing production … you probably have to oppose this [union measure] too, which would alienate labor."[11]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

* Petitioners filed this initiative with election officials on November 5, 2015.[32]
* The initiative petition was approved for circulation on January 4, 2016.[32]
* To qualify their measure for the November 2016 ballot, petitioners needed to gather 61,486 valid signatures, which was 15 percent of the votes cast for mayor in the preceding mayoral election.
* Initiative filings in Los Angeles remain active for two years after they are cleared for circulation. All signatures used to qualify the measure for the ballot must be collected within a 120-day time span, however.
* To reach the November 2016 ballot, signatures needed to be submitted by mid-June 2016.
* The group behind this initiative decided to target the election on March 7, 2017, instead of the November 2016 election and succeeded in qualifying Measure S for the ballot.

### Election date change[edit]

* On March 15, 2016, the group behind Measure S announced that it was targeting the election on March 7, 2017, instead of the one in November 2016.

Concerning the election date change, Neighborhood Integrity Initiative Campaign Director Jill Stewart said the following:[31]

“  |

Our initiative is too important to be buried at the tail-end of this November’s ballot — which is beginning to look like it will be historically long and confusing. The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative is a watershed movement that deserves the undivided attention of the city’s voters and its media. ... The next election is March 7, and it will be exclusively focused on L.A. city issues and candidates. Although we have lost some time, a March 7 election is a perfect fit for our measure. We want our measure to be a serious referendum on Los Angeles’ future.[7]

|  ”

|
|

Postponing the initiative also allowed petitioners to amend the measure, shortening it from 23 pages to eight pages. For details about the provisions in the initiative, see the summary above.[31]

## Other elections[edit]

### Municipal elections[edit]

* Municipal elections in Los Angeles, California (2017) \- Primary election
* Mayor
* Eight city council seats
* City attorney
* City controller
* Three community college board of trustees members

### School board elections[edit]

* Los Angeles Unified School District elections (2017) \- three out of seven school board positions

### City measures[edit]

• Measure P: Los Angeles Harbor Department Leases Maximum Length Increase Charter Amendment a
• Measure N: Los Angeles Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Initiative d
• Measure M: Los Angeles Marijuana Regulation and Taxation a

### County measure[edit]

* Measure H: Los Angeles County Sales Tax for Homeless Services and Prevention

## Related measures[edit]

### Housing in 2016[edit]

• Measure A1: Alameda County Affordable Housing Bond Issue \- California a
• Measure Z1: Berkeley Additional Low-Rent Housing Allowance \- California a
• Measure AA: Berkeley Owner Move-In Eviction Changes \- California a
• Measure R: Burlingame Rent Control \- California d
• Affordable Housing Construction: Chicago \- Illinois a
• Measure T: Encinitas Compliance with State Housing Law \- California d
• Measure O: Eureka Low Income Housing Limits \- California a
• Measure R: Growth Management Ordinance \- California d
• Measure V: Mobile Home Rent Stabilization \- California a
• Measure JJJ: Los Angeles Affordable Housing and Labor Standards Initiative \- California a
• Measure Y: Nevada City Short-Term Home Rental Ordinance \- California d
• Measure M: Richmond Real Estate Transfer Tax \- California d
• Measure L: Richmond Rent Control \- California a
• Measure M: San Diego Increase in Affordable Housing \- California a
• Proposition C: San Francisco Affordable Housing Requirements Charter Amendment (June 2016) \- California a
• Proposition M: San Francisco Housing and Development Commission Establishment Amendment \- California d
• Proposition U: San Francisco Income Qualifications for Affordable Housing \- California d
• Proposition P: San Francisco Minimum Three-Proposal Requirement for Affordable Housing Projects on City Property \- California d
• Measure A: Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Bonds \- California a
• Measure K: Tuolumne County Authorization for Development of Rental Housing \- California a

|

### Development in 2016[edit]

• Measure N1: Albany Measure D Parking Requirement Amendment \- California a
• Measure HH: Beverly Hills Hilton Condominium Tower Initiative \- California d
• Measure F: Calabasas Canyon Oaks Zoning Referendum \- California d
• Measure J: Camarillo Modification and Extension of City Urban Restriction Boundary \- California a
• Measure B: Cameron Estates CSD Zoning Change Advisory Vote \- California d
• Measure A: Carlsbad Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan \- California d
• San Diego Stadium Proposal for the Chargers \- California
• Measure AA: Costa Mesa Changes in Use at Fairview Park be Subject to Voter Approval \- California a
• Measure BB: Costa Mesa Prohibit Athletic Fields at Fairview Park \- California d
• Measure Z: Costa Mesa Ratification of Land Use Regulations and Development Impact Fee \- California a
• Measure Y: Costa Mesa Require Voter Approval On Certain Development Projects \- California a
• Measure Q: Cotati Urban Growth Boundary \- California a
• Measure C: Cupertino Development and Building Heights \- California d
• Measure D: Cupertino Vallco Town Center Development \- California d
• Measure GG: Cypress Town Center and Commons Plan \- California d
• Measure H: Dana Point Town Center Plan and Parking Citizen Initiative \- California a
• Measure I: Dana Point Town Center and Public Parking City Council Referral \- California d
• Measure A: Davis Nishi Property Land Use Designation and Development Project \- California d
• Measure R: Del Mar Voter Approval of Commercial Development Initiative \- California d
• Measure G: El Dorado County Zoning and Land Use Policies Initiative \- California d
• Measure E: El Dorado County Road and Traffic Policies Initiative \- California a
• Measure T: Fairfield Land Preserve \- California a
• Measure G: Fillmore Extension of City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) through 2030 \- California d
• Measure A: Fillmore Extension of the Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) through 2050 Extension \- California a
• Measure U: Fort Bragg Initiative to Ban Social Service Organizations in the Business District \- California d
• Measure H: Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Line Addition \- California a
• Measure R: Growth Management Ordinance \- California d
• Measure H: Indian Wells Voter Approval Requirement for Coachella Valley Link \- California a
• Measure FF: Livermore Golf Course Open Space \- California a
• Measure JJJ: Los Angeles Affordable Housing and Labor Standards Initiative \- California a
• Measure I: Milpitas Extension of Expiring Urban Grown Boundary \- California a
• Measure J: Milpitas Hillside Property Land Use Amendments \- California a
• Measure K: Parkland Rezoning Voter Approval Requirement \- California a
• Measure E: Moorpark Extension of SOAR through 2050 \- California a
• Measure S: Morgan Hill Residential Development Control System Extension \- California a
• Measure K: Oxnard Extension of SOAR through 2030 \- California a
• Measure L: Extension of SOAR through 2050 \- California a
• Measure X: Pacific Grove American Tin Cannery Site Zoning Change Initiative \- California a
• Measure W: Pacifica Rockaway Quarry Residential Development \- California d
• Measure MM: Pleasanton Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone Changes \- California d
• Measure K: Pleasanton Lund Ranch Development Project Referendum \- California a
• Measure Y: Pomona Billboard Zoning Ordinance Amendment \- California d
• Measure W: Poway Maderas Golf Course Hotel \- California d
• Measure K: Redondo Beach Residential Care Facilities Amendment \- California a
• Measure N: Richmond Riviera Residential Development Initiative \- California d
• Measure P: San Buenaventura Open Space Ordinance \- California a
• Measure C: San Diego Football Stadium Initiative \- California d
• Measure D: San Diego Hotel Tax and Qualcomm Stadium Initiative \- California d
• San Diego One Paseo Development Project Veto Referendum \- California
• Measure B San Diego County Lilac Hills Residential and Commercial Development \- California d
• Proposition P: San Francisco Minimum Three-Proposal Requirement for Affordable Housing Projects on City Property \- California d
• Proposition O: San Francisco Office Development in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point \- California a
• Proposition Q: San Francisco Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks \- California a
• Proposition X: San Francisco Replacement Space Requirement for Development Projects \- California a
• Measure R: Santa Clara Protection of Parkland and Open Space \- California a
• Measure LV: Santa Monica Voter Approval Requirement for Certain Development Projects \- California d
• Measure U: Santa Paula Expansion and Extension of City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) through 2050 \- California a
• Measure Z: Simi Valley Extension of City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) through 2050 \- California a
• Measure K: Sonoma County Community Separators Voter Approval of Changes Requirement \- California a
• Measure T: South Lake Tahoe Initiative to Prevent City Support for the Tahoe Transportation District \- California a ot
• Measure M: Sunnyvale City Property and Land Transfer Voter Approval Requirement \- California d
• Measure H: Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District Hospital Lease \- California a
• Measure W: Thousand Oaks Extension of City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) through 2050 \- California a
• Measure C: Ventura County Extension of Zoning and Development Plan through 2050 \- California a
• Measure F: Ventura County Open Space 2036 Extension \- California d
• Yuba County Magnolia Ranch Referendum \- California

|

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Los Angeles Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Los Angeles, California, Changes to Laws Governing the General Plan and Development, Measure S (March 2017) - Google News

## See also[edit]

Local measures

* Local measures in 2017
* Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot
* Local housing on the ballot
* Los Angeles County measures

California

* March 7, 2017 measures in California
* Local ballot measures, California
* Los Angeles, California

News and analysis

* State and local preemption conflicts
* Measures advancing national agendas

|
|

## External links[edit]

|  Suggest a link

|

* Los Angeles County Elections Office website
* Text of the Initiative

### Support[edit]

* Vote Yes on S website
* Vote Yes on S Facebook
* Vote Yes on S Twitter
* Vote Yes on S YouTube

### Opposition[edit]

* Vote No on Measure S website
* Vote No on Measure S Facebook
* Vote No on Measure S Twitter

|

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Vote Yes on S, "About the Coalition to Preserve LA," accessed January 17, 2017
2. ↑ Vote Yes on S, "Measure S Reforms Pay-to-Play Culture at LA City Hall," January 14, 2017
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Vote No on Measure S, "Get the Facts," accessed January 17, 2017
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Los Angeles City, "Text of Measure S," accessed January 17, 2017
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, "State Income Limits for 2016," accessed January 17, 2017
6. ↑ California State Legislature, "HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - HSC," accessed January 17, 2017
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
8. ↑ Los Angeles County Elections Office, "CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS MARCH 7, 2017: MEASURES APPEARING ON THE BALLOT," accessed January 8, 2017
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Los Angeles County Elections Office, "Sample Ballot for Election on March 7, 2017," accessed February 2, 2017
10. ↑ California Planning and Development Report, "Ballot Initiative Takes Aim at Planning in Los Angeles," February 2, 2016
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Los Angeles Times, "Labor and business groups in L.A. are united against one housing measure — and divided by another," February 22, 2016
12. ↑ Vote Yes on S, "Endorsements," accessed January 17, 2017
13. ↑ 13.000 13.001 13.002 13.003 13.004 13.005 13.006 13.007 13.008 13.009 13.010 13.011 13.012 13.013 13.014 13.015 13.016 13.017 13.018 13.019 13.020 13.021 13.022 13.023 13.024 13.025 13.026 13.027 13.028 13.029 13.030 13.031 13.032 13.033 13.034 13.035 13.036 13.037 13.038 13.039 13.040 13.041 13.042 13.043 13.044 13.045 13.046 13.047 13.048 13.049 13.050 13.051 13.052 13.053 13.054 13.055 13.056 13.057 13.058 13.059 13.060 13.061 13.062 13.063 13.064 13.065 13.066 13.067 13.068 13.069 13.070 13.071 13.072 13.073 13.074 13.075 13.076 13.077 13.078 13.079 13.080 13.081 13.082 13.083 13.084 13.085 13.086 13.087 13.088 13.089 13.090 13.091 13.092 13.093 13.094 13.095 13.096 13.097 13.098 13.099 13.100 13.101 Note: This was an individual endorsement; the organization is listed for identification purposes.
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Los Angeles Times, "Activists seek ballot measure for moratorium on L.A. 'mega projects,'" November 18, 2015
15. ↑ Daily Breeze, "Gov. Jerry Brown comes out against L.A.’s Measure S ‘slow-growth’ initiative," February 23, 2017
16. ↑ Vote No on S, "Coalition," accessed January 17, 2017
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 MyNewsLA.com, "Measure S campaign won’t stop sending fake eviction notices," February 27, 2017
18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 89.3 KPCC, "Measure S: A brief illustrated history of campaign mailers," March 2, 2017
19. ↑ Los Angeles Business Journal, "Supporters of Anti-Development Measure S File Lawsuit over Opponents' Ballot Argument," December 21, 2016
20. ↑ Los Angeles Business Journal, "Measure S Opponents Agree to Change Ballot Argument Language," January 4, 2017
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 Los Angeles Ethics Commission, "Ballot Measure Committee Campaign Disclosure Statements," accessed February 8, 2017
22. ↑ The Build A Better LA committee was registered to support Measure JJJ before it was registered to oppose Measure S. Ballotpedia did not count campaign funds that were spent prior to the election on Measure JJJ unless they were reported as explicitly used to oppose Measure S.
23. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "A $72-million apartment project. Top politicians. Unlikely donors." October 30, 2016
24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Los Angeles Times, "Political donations flow as Rick Caruso seeks approval for a 20-story tower near the Beverly Center," December 28, 2016
25. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Editorial: Ban developer contributions to City Hall," January 14, 2017
26. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Political donations flow as Rick Caruso seeks approval for a 20-story tower near the Beverly Center," December 28, 2016
27. ↑ LA Weekly, "Should L.A. Limit Campaign Contributions From Developers?" January 11, 2017
28. ↑ EGPNews, "Los Angeles City Council Introduces Campaign Finance Reform," January 12, 2017
29. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Column: When it comes to political donations in L.A., what's legal can be worse than what's not," January 11, 2017
30. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "L.A. Councilman Mike Bonin proposes full public funding for city campaigns," January 16, 2017
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 Neighborhood Integrity Initiative Communications Director, "NEIGHBORHOOD BALLOT PLAN'S SUPPORTERS AIM FOR MARCH 2017 CITY ELECTION," March 15, 2016
32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Los Angeles City Clerk, "Ordinance Initiatives," accessed February 24, 2016

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

2021|

March 2 • May 4 • June 8 • June 29 • August 31

* * *

2020|

March 3 • April 14 • May 5 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • November 3

* * *

2019|

February 26 • March 5 • March 19 • March 26 • April 9 • May 7 • June 4 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2018|

January 23 • January 30 • February 27 • March 6 • June 5 • November 6

* * *

2017|

January 10 • February 28 • March 7 • March 28 • April 4 • April 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June 6 • July 11 • August 22 • August 29 • October 17 • November 7

* * *

2016|

January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • April 12 • April 19 • May 3 • June 7 • November 8

* * *

2015|

January 6 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 • April 14 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • September 1 • October 6 • November 3 • November 17

* * *

2014|

February 4 • February 11 • March 4 • April 8 • May 6 • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November 4

* * *

2013|

March 5 • March 12 • April 2 • April 9 • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June 18 • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2012|

February 7 • March 6 • March 13 • April 6 • April 10 • May 1 • May 8 • June 5 • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6

* * *

2011|

January 25 • March 1 • March 8 • April 5 • April 12 • May 3 • June 7 • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22

* * *

2010|

January 12 • February 2 • February 23 • March 2 • March 9 • April 13 • May 4 • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July 13 • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November 2

* * *

2009|

January 13 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • August 25 • August 28 • November 3 • November 17 • December 8 • December 15

* * *

2008|

February 5 • March 4 • April 8 • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November 4

* * *

2007|

March 6 • May 7 • November 6

* * *

2006|

March 7 • April 11 • May 2 • June 6 • November 7

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy