Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsFixme

Citywide Growth Measures On The June 7 Ballot

June 04, 1988|Clipboard researched by Rick VanderKnyff / Los Angeles Times; Page designed by Doris Shields / Los Angeles Times

The Citizens' Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Measure, the slow-growth initiative on Tuesday's ballot, applies only to unincorporated areas in the county. A number of cities have also placed growth measures on their ballots. Those listed below will be decided Tuesday, while the cities of San Juan Capistrano, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Laguna Beach will vote in November.

SAN CLEMENTE

Measure: San Clemente Citizens' Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative.

Effect: Would condition growth on the ability of local roads and public services to handle more traffic, and require improvements wherever traffic flows fail to meet strict standards. The measure would require the improvements to be completed within three years of occupancy of a major development project or within five years of issuance of a building or grading permit.

SEAL BEACH

Measure: Seal Beach Citizens' Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative.

Effect: Like county and San Clemente measures, would condition growth on the ability of local roads and public services to handle more traffic, and require improvements wherever traffic flows fail to meet strict standards.

IRVINE

Measure: Amendment to the Conservation and Open Space and Land Use Element to the City of Irvine General Plan.

Effect: Would transfer 5,000 acres of open land to the City of Irvine for use as parks, trails and nature conservancies (areas include Lomas Ridge, Quail Hill, Shady and Bommer Canyons, and an addition to the San Joaquin Marsh reserve). In exchange, the Irvine Co. will be allowed to engage in more profitable types of building elsewhere in the city, such as higher-density residential and commercial developments.

A HISTORY OF ORANGE COUNTY SLOW-GROWTH SENTIMENT 1987

77% would approve a ballot measure allowing new developments in their city or area only if traffic conditions around the proposed sites meet acceptable standards; 23% would disapprove.

35% would vote yes on a ballot measure halting all development in their city; 62% would vote against it.

74% would support allowing new developments in all of Orange County only if traffic conditions around the proposed sites meet acceptable standards; 21% would reject the plan.

1986

Percent favoring severe, modest or no restrictions on each of the following forms of growth in their city or community?

Severe Modest None Building single-family homes? 8 54 38 Building shops, stores and restaurants? 24 56 20 Building apartments? 35 47 18 Building office and industrial parks? 40 44 16

63% would vote yes on an initiative that would slow the pace of development in their city or community; 37% would vote no. Among those who say "yes," the reason cited most often, by 17%, is "too many people."

1985

60% say the addition of more business parks and commercial areas since 1980 has been a change for the better; 23% say it has been a change for the worse, and 12% say it has made no difference.

Percent who would like to see each of the following occur in Orange County within the next five years:

Don't Yes No Know Building large downtown areas 20 76 4 Policies to encourage apartment construction 44 49 7 A halt to all growth in Orange County 31 66 3

1984

Only 5% would favor a growth policy for their city that would allow no new housing to be built; 78% favor one that would control the amount and type of housing built each year, and 17% support a policy placing s no restrictions on the amount and type of housing built each year.

Percent who would favor more, fewer or the same number of each of the following in their city:

More Fewer Same Industrial parks 19 28 53 Office buildings 18 30 52 Stores and shopping centers 23 17 60 Restaurants and theaters 38 10 52

1983

Percent that would favor limiting growth in each of the following ways:

Would favor: Very much Somewhat Not at all Limiting the number of new apartment buildings 29 44 27 Limit the number of new industries moving in 26 36 38 Limit the building of roads and freeways 26 33 41 Limit the number of high-rise buildings 44 30 26

1982

62% think growth and development should be limited in their city; 33% think it should not, and 5% are unsure.

Percent who would like to limit growth for the following reasons:

Don't Yes No know Avoid increases in government spending 49 49 2 Prevent the environment from deteriorating 84 15 1 Prevent an increase in traffic congestion and overcrowding 95 5 * Maintain present property values 63 34 3

* Less than 1%

Just 7% think government regulations aimed at controlling growth in their city are too strict; 40% think they are about right, and 31% think they are not strict enough. Almost one person in four, 22%, is unsure.

Source: Orange County Annual Survey by Mark Baldassare, UCI

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|