CALIFORNIA COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION OUTCOMES. County Offices and Ballot Measures

CALIFORNIA COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION OUTCOMES 1999 ELECTIONS County Offices and Ballot Measures Institute for Social Research Center For California Studies California State University, Sacramento

CALIFORNIA COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION OUTCOMES: CANDIDATES AND BALLOT MEASURES, 1999 ELECTIONS COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES Timothy A. Hodson, Ph.D., Director, Center for California Studies Carole Barnes, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Social Research Center for California Studies California State University, Sacramento 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6081 (916) 278-6906 FAX: (916) 278-5199 Institute for Social Research California State University, Sacramento 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6101 (916) 278-5737 FAX: (916) 278-5150

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... i 1999 County, City and School District Election Dates by County... viii 1999 ELECTION SERIES SUMMARY: ELECTION OUTCOMES FOR COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT MEASURES AND CANDIDATES... 1 Table A Table B Table C Summary of Outcomes for All County, City and School District Ballot Measures by Type of Measure and County, 1999... 3 Summary of Outcomes for All County, City and School District Ballot Measures by Topic of Measure and County, 1999... 5 Summary of Election Outcomes for All County, City and School District Offices, 1999... 7 PART 1 VOTE TOTALS, ELECTION OUTCOMES AND TEXT FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES... 9 Table 1.1 Vote Totals for County Ballot Measures by County, 1999... 11 Table 1.2 Text for County Ballot Measures by County, 1999... 14 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Summary of Election Outcomes for County Ballot Measures by Type of Measure and County, 1999... 17 Summary of Election Outcomes for County Ballot Measures by Topic of Measure and County, 1999... 17 PART 2 VOTE TOTALS FOR COUNTY OFFICE CANDIDATES... 19 Table 2.1 Vote Totals for County Office Candidates by County and Election Date, 1999... 21 Table 2.2 Summary of Election Outcomes for County Offices, 1999... 26

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS DATA ARCHIVE INTRODUCTION The California Elections Data Archive (CEDA) is a joint project of the Center for California Studies and the Institute for Social Research, both of California State University, Sacramento and the office of the California Secretary of State. The purpose of CEDA is to provide researchers, citizens, public agencies and other interested parties with a single repository of local election data. With over 6,000 local jurisdictions in California, the task of monitoring local elections is nearly impossible for individuals. CEDA addresses this problem through the creation of a single, cost-effective and easily accessible source of local election data. CEDA includes both candidate and ballot measure results for county, city, community college, and school district elections throughout the State. CEDA thus represents the only comprehensive repository of local election results in California. Election data are collected periodically throughout the year. This enables CEDA to incorporate results from special elections as well as all regularly scheduled elections. Election results from counties, cities, and community college and school districts are entered in the CEDA database from which three standard CEDA reports are generated. These reports include: County Elections: Candidates, ballot designations, and vote totals for all elected county offices; vote totals and text for county ballot measures. City Elections: Candidates, ballot designations, and vote totals for all elected city offices; vote totals and text for all city ballot measures. Community College and School District Elections: Candidates, ballot designations, and vote totals for all elective community college and school district offices; vote totals and text for all district ballot measures. Ballot measures for all jurisdictions are coded according to type (e.g., charter amendment, bond measure, initiative, etc.) and to subject (e.g., taxes, education, public safety, governance, etc.). THE CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA STUDIES Located at California State University, Sacramento, the Center for California Studies is a public policy, public service and curricular support unit of the California State University. The Center s location in the state Capital and its ability to draw upon the resources of the entire State University system give it a unique capacity for making contributions to public policy development and the public life of California. Center programs cover four broad areas: administration of the nationally known Assembly, Senate, Executive, and Judicial Administration Fellowship Programs; universitystate government liaison and applied policy research; civic education and community service through forums, conferences and issue dialogues; and curricular support activity in the interdisciplinary field of California Studies.

ii CALIFORNIA ELECTION OUTCOMES INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH Established in 1989, the Institute for Social Research (ISR) is an interdisciplinary center serving the research needs of federal, state and local government agencies, non-profit organizations and university administration, faculty and students. These services include research and sampling design, measurement, coding and data entry, computer assisted telephone and field interviewing, mailed surveys, focus groups, data base management, statistical analysis and report production. ISR has completed numerous contracts with over 40 state and community agencies, several private firms and many administrative units of the university. Faculty affiliates of the Institute offer expertise in a wide variety of disciplines, including the social sciences, health and human services, engineering and education. CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE The Secretary of State is, among other duties, California's chief elections officer with the responsibility of administering the provisions of the Elections Code. The Secretary must compile state election returns and issue certificates of election to winning candidates; compile the returns and certify the results of initiative and referendum elections; certify acts delayed by referendum and prepare and file a statement of vote. Recent legislation permits but does not mandate that the Secretary of State compile local election results. 1999 ELECTION DATA The year 1999 was the sesquicentennial year of state elections in California. In 1849, General Bennett Riley, the military commander of American forces in California and, with the cession of California from Mexico to the United States, the acting governor, called a convention to draft a constitution for the state of California. That convention, whose forty-eight delegates included Mariano Vallejo and seven other Californios, produced a document that was approved by the voters in November 1849. The election to ratify the new constitution was also the election to elect a Governor, 36 members of the Assembly and 16 of the Senate as well as other constitutional officers. No such elections for state officers were held in 1999, but the California Republic again demonstrated its vitality by choosing among 2,293 candidates to elect 1,039 county supervisors, city council members, school board trustees and other local government officials. Although the initiative did not become part of the state constitution until 1910, the spirit was there in the judgment of General Riley and the Monterey Convention that the voters should decided, directly and at the polls, whether the new constitution would be ratified. That spirit of direct democracy was alive and well in 1999 with California voters passing judgement on 283 ballot measures. BALLOT MEASURES The 283 measures on California ballots in 1999 included 33 county ballot measures, 119 city measures and 131 school district measures. The total number of ballot measures was less than half the number voted on in 1998, which is not surprisingly given that 1999 was an off year with no state or federal elections and the long trend of local jurisdictions consolidating their elections with

1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES iii state elections in even-numbered years. Moreover, of the 282 measures in 1999, only about ten percent were placed on the ballot by action of the people (i.e., through the initiative, referendum or recall). The bulk of the measures were on the ballot by action of a county board, city council or school board. More than half of 1999 s local ballot measures were bonds (108 or 38.1 percent) or tax measures (54 or 19.0 percent). Bond measures were generally successful with a 59.2 percent approval rate. The 64 bonds which passed equaled over $2 billion ($2,180,673,000). Another $1,842,448,000 in bonds were defeated. Tax measures were only slightly less successful with 31 such measures passing (59.2 percent) and 23 being rejected by the voters (42.6 percent). Education was the most popular subject of ballot measures with 119 or 42.0 percent of all local ballot measures falling in this category. The 29 land use measures represented 10.2 percent of all measures and one of the less successful records with only 41.3 percent passing and 58.6 percent failing. County Measures. 1999 saw a comparatively small total of 33 county ballot measures. There were no elections of any type in 13 counties and of the 45 that did have elections at some level, only 12 had county ballot measures. Bay Area counties accounted for nearly half (16 or 48.4 percent) of all county measures (i.e. Marin, Napa and the city and county of San Francisco (which CEDA treats as a county). The success rate of all county measures was significant with two-thirds gaining voter approval (the Bay Area approval rate was 87.5 percent). Only one county bond was offered in 1999 and that was passed ($299 million in San Francisco for replacement of Laguna Honda Hospital). Far more common were tax measures (16 or 48.4 percent or which exactly half passed and half failed); ordinances (8 or 24.2 percent with 5 passing); and charter amendments (4 or 12.1 percent; all in San Francisco and all successful). The tax measures typically asked for increases of special taxes in improvement zones (e.g., Measure J-99 in San Luis Obispo County, which raised taxes for road improvements in the Harvey Street Road Improvement Zone) or for taxes supporting paramedic and fire services. Voters in Imperial County reject a county sales tax increase. Among the most interesting county measures were Proposition F in San Francisco which passed, prohibited ATM fees; Proposition S in Trinity County which passed advising the Board of Supervisors that new sales tax revenues should be allocated to crime and fire prevention; and Measure K in San Francisco, which passed, setting voluntary campaign spending limits on candidates for the Board of Supervisors. City Measures. Voters in 66 California cities passed judgment on 119 separate ballot measures. Of these, 63 or 52.9 percent were approved and 56 or 47.0 percent failed. Thus municipal measures fared considerably poorer than county measures. City bond measures enjoyed marked success with 3 of 4 being adopted, including Measure C, a $8 million bond for the construction of a new police station, Arcadia in Los Angeles County. The only failed city bond was a $36.7 million bond for construction of new police facility in Santa Barbara. In contrast, the 27 municipal measures dealing with taxes, 14 or 51.8 percent passed while 13 or 48.1 percent failed. Less than ten percent of all city measures were placed on the ballot through the initiative process (10 or 8.4 percent of the total). Moreover, the measures were less successful with only 4 being approved by the voters, for a 40 percent pass rate.

iv CALIFORNIA ELECTION OUTCOMES The two most common subjects for city measures were governance issues (45 or 37.8 percent of all city measures) and land use issues (29 or 24.3 percent). Governance issues ranged from cutting the salaries of the mayor and city council members in Inglewood (passed) to a $400 a month pay raise for the mayor of Modesto (failed) to term limits on the Council members in Apple Valley (failed) to three measures in Redondo Beach seeking to change elective offices into appointed ones (all failed). Governance issues also included eight recall elections, all of which were successful (three Council members in Apple Valley; two in Montague, two in San Jacinto and one in Weed. Land use issues involved numerous efforts to make rezoning and growth decisions subject to voter approval. Ten measures directly addressing growth issues, of which 6 passed and 4 were defeated. Of particular interest were 5 measures (3 passed, 2 failed) which sought to make various land use decisions subject to voter approval. For example, with the passage of Measure U in Chino Hills, any increase in the number of housing units permitted under the city s general plan and any conversion of non-residential zoning to residential now requires voter approval. Under Measure A in Napa, any change to the city s rural urban limit line now must be approved by the voters or a fourth-fifths vote of the city council. In Agoura Hills, with the passage of Measure B, any change to land currently designated as open space now requires a two-thirds vote of the voters. On the other hand, Measure F in San Ramon, which would have made various land use decisions subject to voter approval, failed as did Measure D in Pleasanton which would have required voter approval for any project involving ten or more residential units. School Measures. In 1999, as in previous years, school district measures mean bond measures. School district voters faced a total of 131 ballot measures of which 103 or 78.6 percent were bond measures. Of those bond measures, 60 were approved and 43 rejected by the voters for a pass rate of 58.2 percent. Thus voters approved more than $1.8 billion dollars in school bonds. Successful bonds ranged from $248 million in the Foothill-De Anza Community College District in the heart of the Silicon Valley to $700,000 in Merced River Union Elementary School District in Merced County. The largest bond measure that failed was a $150 million effort by Livermore Valley joint Unified School District in Contra Costa County. School district measures also included six recall efforts, four of which were unsuccessful (all in Farmersville Unified in Tulare County) and two successful (one in Willows Unified in Glenn County and Chualar Union Elementary in Monterey County). All recall efforts were in comparatively smaller school districts. Other governance issues, which accounted for 9.1 percent of all school ballot measures, included annexation, consolidation, creation and/or unification measures (6 measures of which four were approved); increasing the size of district boards (2 measures, both passed) and providing that board measures be elected from trustee areas (4, both passed) CANDIDATE ELECTIONS A total of 2,293 Californians presented themselves to the judgment of their fellow citizens by running for one of the 1,039 elective county, city or school district positions. Of the 1,039 elected to office, 511 were non-incumbents and 528 were incumbent office-holders successful in their efforts to be reelected. Thus, of all the people elected to local government positions in 1999, 52.8 percent were incumbents and 49.2 percent were non-incumbents. Thus incumbents seeking reelection

1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES v were quite successful with a 76.7 percent reelection rate (528 of 688). The difference between a 76.7 percent reelection rate and the 52.8 percent of successful candidates who were incumbents is a function of both the 160 incumbents who were defeated and the number of incumbents who chose not to or were prohibited from running again. County races. Elections for county offices are held in even-numbered years, with the exception of the city-county of San Francisco. Thus there was little electoral activity at the county level and of that, the most interesting was the continued emergence of county-based Community Service Districts (CSD) and the election of CSD Directors. In 1999, 109 candidates vied for 61 CSD director positions. Of the 109, 42 or 38.5 percent were incumbents. Of the incumbents running for reelection, 32 won giving incumbents a 76.2 percent reelection rate. Overall, however, of the 61 winners, the 32 incumbents represent only 52.5 percent. City races. California voters faced in 1999 the task of electing 244 city council members, 22 mayors, 18 city clerks, 18 city treasurers and 2 city attorneys. A total of 738 candidates vied for these 304 positions. Overall, incumbents did well with a reelection rate of 80.6 percent (186 incumbents ran for reelection, 150 won and 36 lost). However, of the 304 positions filled at the ballot, only 49.3 percent were incumbents while 154 or 50.7 percent were non-incumbents. Incumbent city treasurers and city attorneys were especially successful with 100 percent reelection rates. Incumbent city clerks fared somewhat less well with 14 of 15 being reelected (93.3 percent). Mayoral incumbents had a reelection rate of 63.2 with 12 of 19 incumbent returned to office by the voters. Incumbent members of city councils enjoyed a reelection rate of 79.6 percent with 109 out of 137 incumbents being successful in their bids for reelection. Non-incumbents were most successful in city councils races with 55.3 percent of council winners being new to office. School District Races. School district offices equaled 64.2 percent of all local elected positions so it is not surprising that 61.7 percent of all local government candidates in 1999 ran for school board. The 1,417 candidates running for 668 school positions included 455 incumbent school board members seeking reelection. Of these 341 or 74.9 percent were successful. This reelection rate is below both the overall incumbent reelection rate of 76.7 percent and the reelection rate of 80.6 for city incumbents candidates. Once again, however, it is important to note that incumbent reelection rates do not automatically equate to incumbent domination of school boards as of the 688 candidates elected only 341 or 51.0 percent were incumbent trustees. TRENDS With five full years of reporting beginning in 1995, the reduced numbers of ballot measures and candidates in odd-numbered years begins to look like a dependable trend. There are roughly half as many measures and candidates in 1995, 97 and 99 as there are in 1996 and 1998 -- between 252 and 343 ballot measures in the former, 572 and 573 in the latter; and between 2293 and 2498 candidates in the odd-numbered years compared with 5530 and 5502 in the even-numbered years. Overall pass rates for the ballot measures remain steady at 59% in 1999, varying between 57 and 61% for the five-year period. The proportion of incumbents in 1999 (30%) was consistent with the figures for 1997 and 1998 (30 and 32% respectively), showing a marked increase over 1995 and 1996 (27 and 26% respectively).

vi CALIFORNIA ELECTION OUTCOMES BALLOT MEASURES The proportion of bonds among ballot measures has remained relatively constant in the three oddnumbered years, varying between 36 and 38%, declining noticeably during the even-numbered years (to 11% and 26% in 1996 and 1998). Pass rates for bonds, however, have remained extremely consistent for the past four years, at 58 to 59%. Tax measures were more common during 1996 through 1998, making up 25 to 29% of the ballot measures during those years. They were only 10% of all measures in 1995 and dropped to 19% of all measures in 1999, with pass rates noticeably higher in the past three years (48 to 57% compared with 35 to 40% in 1995 and 1996). Ordinances and charter amendments are other frequently occurring types of measures, their proportions varying widely from year to year with no apparent pattern. In 1997, there was only 1 ordinance on the ballot, while there were 176 in the preceding year and 68 in 1999. Tax measures made up a fifth of the ballot measures in 1995 and 1996, but only 9 and 7% in 1997 and 1999. Pass rates for both have been pretty constant, with ordinances passing 57 61% of the time and charter amendments, with the exception of 1999, passing at least three-fourths of the time. Education continues to dominate as the topic of ballot measures, particularly in odd-numbered years. Governance issues over-shadowed education in 1996 (210 measures to 94) and came closer to parity in 1998 (125 to 164 for education) than the more typical two to one ratio, or better, in the other three years. Pass ratios for Education measures have stabilized in the 59 67% range for the past four years, with governance issues in a similar range for the same time period (63 67%). Though much less frequent, land use issues have ranked third as a topic of ballot measures for each of the five years. They are more common in years with statewide elections and, until 1999, have enjoyed healthy pass rates, varying between 56 and 70%. This year, only 41% of the 29 land use measures passed. Like land use, public safety issues are also more common in years with statewide elections. There were 39 and 37 in 1996 and 1998, but only 12 in 1995 and 1997 and 14 in 1999. Pass rates for public safety measures are generally lower than for education, governance and land use. School districts and cities account for most of the ballot measures each year. School district measures account for roughly half (46 to 51%) of the ballot measures in the odd-numbered years, while city measures account for half or more during the even-numbered years (50 to 65%). County measures make up 20% or less of all ballot measures, with more in the years with statewide elections (1996 and 1998) and as few as 7% in the odd-numbered years (7% in 1995 and 1997). As odd-numbered years go, 1999 s 17% was uncharacteristically high. A total of 33 measures appeared on 1999 county ballots. The increase can be explained by the increase in community service districts (CSDs). CSDs are typically created to provide services to a particular area within a county and thus allow parcel tax, bonds and other such measures to be voted upon only by the people directed affected, as opposed to the entire county. A third of the 1999 county measures were CSD measures (e.g., Measure G in Marin, Measure G in Riverside and all five measures in San Luis Obispo County). Without those CSD measures, the number of county would have been a normal 7.7% of the total number of measures in 1999. County measures. Consistent with the other odd-numbered years, there were few charter amendments in 1999 (4). The fact that all passed is consistent with generally high pass rates for this type of measure. Tax measures and ordinances are the most common types of county ballot measures. They occur in larger numbers in the years with statewide elections, but there were an unusual number of both in 1999 for an odd-numbered election year (16 and 8 respectively, when there are typically a half dozen or less). Pass rates for the ordinances were typical 63% vs. 54

1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES vii and 72 in 1996 and 1998 while they were a little high for the tax measures (50% vs. 29 and 38% in 1996 and 1998, when there were a sufficient number to percentage). The 50% cannot be seen as unusual since there were only 16 tax measures in 1999. City measures. Most city measures are ordinances (40%), tax issues (23%) or charter amendments (13%). Cities, like counties, offer more of these types of measures in the evennumbered years. Pass rates for charter amendments were very high in four of the five years (between 75 and 94%), but uncharacteristically low (38%) in 1999. This may be an artifact of the unusually small number of charter amendments (16) in 1999. Pass rates for ordinances and tax measures have been consistently lower (in the 40 50% range). Governance issues dominated in all five years with land use or general services a distant second. School district measures. While cities and counties crowd the ballot with their measures during the even-numbered years when statewide elections are held, school districts account for roughly half of all ballot measures in the odd-numbered ones. Bonds are by far the most common with tax issues a distant second and ordinances and recalls third. Pass rates on bonds have held steady the past three years at 57 59% while taxes have enjoyed healthy pass rates for the past four, varying between 63 and 100%. Ordinances and recalls have generally high pass rates, but the numbers are small and therefore unreliable. CANDIDATE ELECTIONS While county elective offices are largely determined in the even-numbered years with 93% of all candidates on the ballot in 1996 and 1998 -- not quite two-thirds of all candidates for city offices (64%) run during those years and only half (51%) of those running for school boards. The proportion of incumbents running is consistently highest for school boards (between 28 and 33%), somewhat lower for city offices (18 26%) and lowest for county office holders (0 27%). The proportion of incumbents running for school boards has been higher the past three years (32 33%) and for city offices, the last four (23 26%). Very few or no incumbents run for county offices during the odd-numbered years when few candidate elections are held.

1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES viii 1999 COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION DATES BY COUNTY NO ELECTIONS 1/12 2/2 2/23 3/2 3/9 3/16 3/23 4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 6/8 7/13 7/20 7/27 8/10 8/17 8/24 9/14 9/21 9/28 10/5 10/19 11/2 11/9 12/7 12/14 Alameda 3 3 3 Alpine 3 Amador 3 Butte 3 3 Calaveras 3 Colusa 3 Contra Costa 3 3 3 Del Norte 3 El Dorado 3 3 3 Fresno 3 Glenn 3 3 Humboldt 3 3 3 3 3 Imperial 3 3 Inyo 3 Kern 3 3 3 3 Kings 3 3 Lake 3 3 Lassen 3 Los Angeles 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Madera 3 3 3 Marin 3 3 3 Mariposa 3 Mendocino 3 3 3 Merced 3 3 3 Modoc 3 Mono 3 Monterey 3 3 3 3 Napa 3 3 3 Nevada 3

1999 COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION DATES BY COUNTY NO ELECTIONS 1/12 2/2 2/23 3/2 3/9 3/16 3/23 4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 6/8 7/13 7/20 7/27 8/10 8/17 8/24 9/14 9/21 9/28 10/5 10/19 11/2 11/9 12/7 12/14 Orange 3 3 3 3 3 Placer 3 Plumas 3 Riverside 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sacramento 3 3 3 3 3 3 San Benito 3 San Bernardino 3 3 3 3 3 San Diego 3 3 3 3 3 3 San Francisco 3 3 San Joaquin 3 3 3 3 3 3 San Luis Obispo 3 3 San Mateo 3 3 3 3 3 Santa Barbara 3 3 Santa Clara 3 3 3 Santa Cruz 3 3 3 3 Shasta 3 3 3 3 Sierra 3 Siskiyou 3 Solano 3 3 Sonoma 3 3 3 3 3 Stanislaus 3 3 3 Sutter 3 Tehama 3 Trinity 3 Tulare 3 3 3 3 Tuolumne 3 Ventura 3 3 3 3 Yolo 3 Yuba 3 1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES ix

1999 ELECTION SERIES SUMMARY: ELECTION OUTCOMES FOR COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT MEASURES AND CANDIDATES

TABLE A SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES FOR ALL COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT MEASURES BY TYPE OF MEASURE AND COUNTY, 1999 CHARTER BONDS ADVISORY INITIATIVE GANN LIMIT ORDINANCE TAXES RECALL ALL MEASURES AMENDMENT PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL TOTAL Alameda 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 6 4 10 Butte 0 3 0 3 3 Contra Costa 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 5 3 8 El Dorado 1 1 1 1 2 Fresno 1 0 2 0 3 0 3 Glenn 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 Humboldt 3 1 0 1 3 2 5 Imperial 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 4 4 Inyo 1 0 1 0 1 Kern 2 2 1 0 3 2 5 Kings 1 1 1 1 2 Lake 1 0 1 0 1 Lassen 0 1 0 1 1 Los Angeles 6 5 0 3 2 4 0 2 8 14 22 Madera 2 0 2 0 2 Marin 6 1 3 0 4 1 13 2 15 Mendocino 1 1 0 1 1 2 3 Merced 2 0 2 0 2 Monterey 3 1 1 0 1 0 5 1 6 Napa 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 2 7 Nevada 1 0 1 0 1 Orange 3 1 4 2 0 1 7 4 11 Placer 3 0 3 0 3 Riverside 1 0 0 1 1 0 5 2 5 7 2 0 14 10 24 Sacramento 1 4 1 4 5 San Bernardino 3 3 1 0 0 1 6 4 1 0 3 0 14 8 22 San Diego 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 7 9 1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES PAGE 3

CALIFORNIA ELECTION OUTCOMES 4 TABLE A SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES FOR ALL COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT MEASURES BY TYPE OF MEASURE AND COUNTY, 1999 CHARTER BONDS ADVISORY INITIATIVE GANN LIMIT ORDINANCE TAXES RECALL ALL MEASURES AMENDMENT PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL TOTAL San Francisco 1 0 4 0 5 1 10 1 11 San Joaquin 0 5 2 0 2 5 7 San Luis Obispo 1 2 5 0 6 2 8 San Mateo 3 2 2 2 4 2 9 6 15 Santa Barbara 1 3 0 1 1 4 5 Santa Clara 6 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 9 2 11 Santa Cruz 1 0 0 2 1 2 3 Shasta 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 Siskiyou 3 0 3 0 3 Solano 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 3 Sonoma 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 4 Stanislaus 2 6 2 0 1 0 5 6 11 Sutter 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 Trinity 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 Tulare 1 2 1 0 0 4 2 6 8 Tuolumne 0 1 0 1 1 Ventura 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 2 5 Yolo 2 0 1 0 3 0 3 All Counties 63 44 10 10 4 1 4 6 5 0 39 29 31 23 10 4 166 117 283

TABLE B SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES FOR ALL COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT MEASURES BY TOPIC OF MEASURE AND COUNTY, 1999 EDUCATION LAND USE PUBLIC SAFETY GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC FACILITIES GENERAL SERVICES HOUSING OTHER ALL MEASURES PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL TOTAL Alameda 3 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 6 4 10 Butte 0 3 0 3 3 Contra Costa 2 1 0 1 3 1 5 3 8 El Dorado 1 1 1 1 2 Fresno 2 0 1 0 3 0 3 Glenn 2 0 2 0 2 Humboldt 3 1 0 1 3 2 5 Imperial 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 4 Inyo 1 0 1 0 1 Kern 2 2 1 0 3 2 5 Kings 1 1 1 1 2 Lake 1 0 1 0 1 Lassen 0 1 0 1 1 Los Angeles 5 5 1 0 1 1 1 6 0 2 8 14 22 Madera 2 0 2 0 2 Marin 7 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 13 2 15 Mendocino 1 1 0 1 1 2 3 Merced 2 0 2 0 2 Monterey 4 1 1 0 5 1 6 Napa 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 5 2 7 Nevada 1 0 1 0 1 Orange 3 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 7 4 11 Placer 3 0 3 0 3 Riverside 1 0 2 1 6 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 14 10 24 Sacramento 1 4 1 4 5 San Bernardino 3 3 2 3 8 1 1 1 14 8 22 San Diego 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 7 9 1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES PAGE 5

CALIFORNIA ELECTION OUTCOMES 6 TABLE B SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES FOR ALL COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT MEASURES BY TOPIC OF MEASURE AND COUNTY, 1999 EDUCATION LAND USE PUBLIC SAFETY GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC FACILITIES GENERAL SERVICES HOUSING OTHER ALL MEASURES PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL TOTAL San Francisco 4 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 10 1 11 San Joaquin 0 5 2 0 2 5 7 San Luis Obispo 1 2 5 0 6 2 8 San Mateo 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 9 6 15 Santa Barbara 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 4 5 Santa Clara 6 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 9 2 11 Santa Cruz 0 2 1 0 1 2 3 Shasta 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 Siskiyou 3 0 3 0 3 Solano 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 3 Sonoma 3 0 1 0 4 0 4 Stanislaus 2 5 1 0 2 0 0 1 5 6 11 Sutter 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 Trinity 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 Tulare 1 6 1 0 2 6 8 Tuolumne 0 1 1 1 Ventura 1 0 2 2 3 2 5 Yolo 3 0 3 0 3 All Counties 70 49 12 17 8 6 39 23 2 4 7 1 3 1 7 6 1 0 17 10 166 117 283

1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES 7 TABLE C SUMMARY OF ELECTION OUTCOMES FOR ALL COUNTY, CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES, 1999 County Supervisor Other County Offices 1 City Council Other City Offices School Board Member Total Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Incumbent Candidates Non- Incumbent Candidates Winning Candidates Losing Candidates All Candidates Win 0.0 0 78.7 37 79.6 109 83.7 41 74.9 341 76.7 528 Lose 0.0 0 21.3 10 20.4 28 16.3 8 25.1 114 23.3 160 Total 100.0 0 100.0 47 100.0 137 100.0 49 100.0 455 100.0 688 Win 20.0 1 33.7 29 29.0 135 22.1 19 34.0 327 31.8 511 Lose 80.0 4 66.3 57 71.0 331 77.9 67 66.0 635 68.2 1,094 Total 100.0 5 100.0 86 100.0 466 100.0 86 100.0 962 100.0 1,605 Incumbent 0.0 0 56.1 37 44.7 109 68.3 41 51.0 341 50.8 528 Non-Incumbent 100.0 1 43.9 29 55.3 135 31.7 19 49.0 327 49.2 511 Total 100.0 1 100.0 66 100.0 244 100.0 60 100.0 668 100.0 1,039 Incumbent 0.0 0 14.9 10 7.8 28 10.7 8 15.2 114 12.8 160 Non-Incumbent 100.0 4 85.1 57 92.2 331 89.3 67 84.8 635 87.2 1,094 Total 100.0 4 100.0 67 100.0 359 100.0 75 100.0 749 100.0 1,254 Incumbent 0.0 0 35.3 47 22.7 137 36.3 49 32.1 455 30.0 688 Non-Incumbent 100.0 5 64.7 86 77.3 466 63.7 86 67.9 962 70.0 1,605 Total 100.0 5 100.0 133 100.0 603 100.0 135 100.0 1,417 100.0 2,293 1 Includes outcomes for San Francisco County/City Attorney and Mayor.

PART 1 VOTE TOTALS, ELECTION OUTCOMES AND TEXT FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES

TABLE 1.1 VOTE TOTALS FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES BY COUNTY, 1999 COUNTY DATE MEASURE TITLE TYPE OF MEASURE TOPIC OF MEASURE VOTE IN FAVOR TOTAL VOTE PERCENT OF VOTE PASS OR FAIL ALAMEDA No County Measures ALPINE No County Measures AMADOR No County Measures BUTTE No County Measures CALAVERAS No County Measures COLUSA No County Measures CONTRA COSTA No County Measures DEL NORTE No County Measures EL DORADO No County Measures FRESNO No County Measures GLENN No County Measures HUMBOLDT No County Measures IMPERIAL 11/2/99 Measure W Ordinance Governance: Benefits/Compensation 5,340 13,244 40.3% Fail Measure X Sales Tax General Services 2,231 12,979 17.2% Fail INYO No County Measures KERN No County Measures KINGS No County Measures LAKE No County Measures LASSEN No County Measures LOS ANGELES No County Measures MADERA No County Measures MARIN 3/2/99 Measure F Property Tax Other: Tax Creation/Increase/Continuation 653 768 85.0% Pass T Measure G Gann Limit Other: Appropriation Limit Increase 633 765 82.7% Pass 11/2/99 Measure L Gann Limit Other: Appropriation Limit Increase 417 437 95.4% Pass Measure M Gann Limit Other: Appropriation Limit Increase 1,886 2,311 81.6% Pass MARIPOSA No County Measures MENDOCINO 11/2/99 Measure C Property Tax Safety: Fire 376 712 52.8% Fail T MERCED No County Measures MODOC No County Measures T Indicates that the measure required a two-thirds vote to pass. All other county measures required a majority vote. MONO No County Measures 1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES PAGE 11

CALIFORNIA ELECTION OUTCOMES PAGE 12 TABLE 1.1 VOTE TOTALS FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES BY COUNTY, 1999 COUNTY DATE MEASURE TITLE TYPE OF MEASURE TOPIC OF MEASURE MONTEREY No County Measures VOTE IN FAVOR TOTAL VOTE PERCENT OF VOTE PASS OR FAIL NAPA 6/8/99 Measure F Property Tax Safety: Fire 2,530 4,338 58.3% Fail T NEVADA No County Measures ORANGE No County Measures PLACER No County Measures PLUMAS No County Measures RIVERSIDE 7/13/99 Measure F Property Tax Environment: Parks/Recreation 167 284 58.8% Fail T Measure G Property Tax Safety: Police 260 326 79.8% Pass T 9/21/99 Measure I Property Tax Environment: Parks/Recreation 413 811 50.9% Fail T SACRAMENTO No County Measures SAN BENITO No County Measures SAN BERNARDINO No County Measures SAN DIEGO 3/16/99 Measure L Sales Tax Facilities: Libraries 167,110 332,692 50.2% Fail T SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure A GO Bond Facilities: Health Facilities 139,210 190,019 73.3% Pass T Measure B Charter Amendment Governance: Benefits/Compensation 127,897 179,080 71.4% Pass Measure C Charter Amendment Governance: Organization 123,196 171,459 71.9% Pass Measure D Charter Amendment Governance: Benefits/Compensation 138,672 182,918 75.8% Pass Measure E Charter Amendment Transport: Agencies 110,079 180,192 61.1% Pass Measure F Ordinance Other 124,615 187,593 66.4% Pass Measure G Ordinance Other 97,156 166,242 58.4% Pass Measure H Ordinance Transport: Mass Transit 123,623 178,374 69.3% Pass Measure I Ordinance Other: Revenue Use/Limits 97,386 179,209 54.3% Pass Measure J Ordinance Transport: Mass Transit 86,236 182,067 47.4% Fail Measure K Ordinance Governance: Political Reform/Term Limits 140,882 176,537 79.8% Pass SAN JOAQUIN No County Measures SAN LUIS OBISPO 11/2/99 Measure J-99 Property Tax Transport: Roads 15 15 100.0% Pass T Measure H-99 Property Tax Transport: Roads 8 9 88.9% Pass T Measure G-99 Property Tax Transport: Roads 2 2 100.0% Pass T Measure I-99 Property Tax Transport: Roads 9 10 90.0% Pass T SAN MATEO No County Measures Measure F-99 Property Tax Transport: Roads 6 6 100.0% Pass T

TABLE 1.1 VOTE TOTALS FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES BY COUNTY, 1999 COUNTY DATE MEASURE TITLE TYPE OF MEASURE TOPIC OF MEASURE SANTA BARBARA No County Measures VOTE IN FAVOR TOTAL VOTE PERCENT OF VOTE PASS OR FAIL SANTA CLARA No County Measures SANTA CRUZ No County Measures SHASTA No County Measures SIERRA No County Measures SISKIYOU No County Measures SOLANO No County Measures SONOMA No County Measures STANISLAUS 6/8/99 Measure B Sales Tax Facilities: Libraries 25,872 31,906 81.1% Pass T SUTTER 11/2/99 Measure TT Ordinance General Services: Various Services/Maintenance 143 428 33.4% Fail TEHAMA No County Measures TRINITY 11/2/99 Measure S Advisory Other: Revenue Use/Limits 1,658 3,079 53.8% Pass Measure T Sales Tax General Services 1,013 3,099 32.7% Fail TULARE No County Measures TUOLUMNE 11/2/99 Measure S Property Tax Environment: Parks/Recreation 276 418 66.0% Fail T VENTURA No County Measures YOLO No County Measures YUBA No County Measures 1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES PAGE 13

PAGE 14 CALIFORNIA ELECTION OUTCOMES TABLE 1.2 TEXT FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES BY COUNTY, 1999 IMPERIAL 11/2/99 Measure W Fail Shall the Imperial County Fair Pay for Public Safety Act of 1999, which requires Imperial County, every year in October, commencing in 1999, to conduct wage comparison surveys of 12 other public agencies and to pay certain Imperial County public safety employees not less than 95% of the comparable-position survey average, be adopted? Any survey-based pay adjustments take effect the January following each survey, except the first adjustment, which is paid over 3 years. IMPERIAL 11/2/99 Measure X Fail Shall Imperial County Ordinance No. 1300, which imposes a transactions and use tax (i.e. sales tax) of 0.5 percent (0.5%), upon retail transactions within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County of Imperial, be adopted? The proceeds of the tax shall be used for general county governmental purposes. MARIN 3/2/99 Measure F Pass (2/3 required) Shall Ordinance No. 13 be amended increasing the special tax for paramedic services effective July 1, 1999 in an amount not to exceed $53.00 per year for each living unit, and a maximum of seven cents per square foot with a flat tax limit of $500.00 per one cent levied for each non-residential structure? MARIN 3/2/99 Measure G Pass Shall the appropriations limit for Marinwood Community Services District be increased in the amount of the special tax for fiscal years beginning July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2003? MARIN 11/2/99 Measure L Pass Shall the increase in appropriations limit equal to the proceeds of the special tax authorized by the voters on June 4, 1985 continue in effect for fiscal years 2000-2001 through and including 2003-2004? MARIN 11/2/99 Measure M Pass Shall the increase in appropriations limit equal to the proceeds of the special tax authorized by the voters on November 1995 continue in effect for fiscal years 2000-2001 through and including 2003-2004? MENDOCINO 11/2/99 Measure C Fail (2/3 required) Shall Ordinance No. 110 of the Brooktrails Township Community Services District increasing the Special Tax for Fire Protection and Prevention, including ambulance service, commencing within the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2000, be approved? NAPA 6/8/99 Measure F Fail (2/3 required) Should Napa County Ordinance 1149 be approved which will establish and impose a special tax on certain real property in the unincorporated areas of Napa County, the proceeds of which shall only be used to continue providing fire engines and related types of fire equipment? RIVERSIDE 7/13/99 Measure F Fail (2/3 required) Shall the County of Riverside be authorized to establish a Special Tax of $35.00 per parcel per year, plus a one time charge of $5.00 for the cost of this election, on all parcels within Zone "B" (Pine Cover, Mountain Center and Stone Creek areas) of CSA 153 to finance Recreation Services? RIVERSIDE 7/13/99 Measure G Pass (2/3 required) Shall the Santa Rosa Community Services District be authorized to levy a Special Tax not to exceed $13.50 per acre for fiscal year 1999-2000 and to increase this tax by an amount not to exceed 10% for fiscal years 2000-12001 and 2001-2002 only to pay for extended sheriff services to the District? RIVERSIDE 9/21/99 Measure I Fail (2/3 required) Shall the County of Riverside be authorized to levy a new Special Tax of $30.00 per parcel per year on all parcels within CSA 143 Vail Ranch to finance the operations and maintenance of a new Swim and Tennis Club? SAN DIEGO 3/16/99 Measure L Fail (2/3 required) To improve community and branch libraries: build and repair local libraries; purchase books and materials; extend service hours; modernize with computers and new technology; expand youth reading and homework programs; enhance literacy and senior services, shall an ordinance be approved to (1) adopt for five years only a 1/4 of 1% sales tax exclusively for the purposes stated herein, and (2) establish a strictly audited appropriations limit for library purposes only? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure A Pass (2/3 required) Shall the City and County incur bonded debt and/or other evidences of indebtedness and/or undertake lease financing, in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $299,000,000, for the acquisition, improvement, construction and/or reconstruction of a new health care, assisted living and/or other type of continuing care facility or facilities to replace Laguna Honda Hospital, and reduce the property tax impact by requiring the application of available tobacco settlement revenues received by the City and County that are required to be used to fund these facilities, (a) to finance the acquisition, improvement, construction and/or reconstruction costs of such facilities, and (b) to pay the principal and redemption price of, interest on, reserve fund deposits, if any, and/or financing costs for the obligations authorized thereby? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure B Pass Shall firefighters and police officers who transferred to the Tier 2 retirement plan in 1981 receive improvement retirement benefits given other Tier 2 members since then if they meet certain repayment conditions? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure C Pass

1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES PAGE 15 TABLE 1.2 TEXT FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES BY COUNTY, 1999 Shall the City make changes in how it defines the districts that will be used to elect members of the Board of Supervisors? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure D Pass Shall City employees be allowed to donate sick leave or vacation credits to a pool for City employees who are catastrophically ill, and to donate vacation credits to be used by City employees to care for catastrophically ill spouses, domestic partners, and dependents? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure E Pass Shall the City create a Municipal Transportation Agency with expanded powers and duties to run the Municipal Railway and the Department of Parking and Traffic? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure F Pass Shall the City prohibit banks and other financial institutions from charging a fee to persons who do not have an account with that bank for use of the bank's automated teller machines in San Francisco? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure G Pass Shall the City make changes in the requirements and procedures regarding public access to City records and meetings provided in the Sunshine Ordinance? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure H Pass Shall the City pursue extending Caltrain from the Fourth and Townsend Streets station to a new or rebuilt station on the site of the Transbay Terminal, as well as other improvements in Caltrain facilities and services? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure I Pass Shall the City use the proceeds from any sale of excess Central Freeway right-of-way property to fund the Octavia Boulevard Plan and related transportation improvements, support construction of housing and mixed uses on the right-of-way property, and prohibit widening of the existing elevated freeway structure? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure J Fail Shall the City repeal 1998's Proposition E and authorize Caltrans to retrofit and widen the lower deck of the Central Freeway to provide a four-lane, single deck structure over Market Street from South Van Ness Avenue to Oak and Fell streets, and prepare an annual transit plan? SAN FRANCISCO 11/2/99 Measure K Pass Shall the City set voluntary spending limits for candidates running for the Board of Supervisors by district at $75,000 for the general election and $20,000 for a runoff election? SAN LUIS OBISPO 11/2/99 Measure J-99 Pass (2/3 required) Shall the County of San Luis Obispo, commencing Fiscal Year 2000/2001, and annually thereafter, impose, levy and collect a special tax on real property within Ash Street Road Improvement Zone of County Service Area No. 21, to provide road improvements within said Zone, with the Special tax to be at an initial rate not exceeding Sixteen Dollars ($16.00) per front foot of improvement per parcel having a separate County Assessor's Parcel Number and increasing not more than two percent per year thereafter? SAN LUIS OBISPO 11/2/99 Measure H-99 Pass (2/3 required) Shall the County of San Luis Obispo, commencing Fiscal Year 2000/2001, and annually thereafter, impose, levy and collect a special tax on real property within Harvey Street Road Improvement Zone of County Service Area No. 21, to provide road improvements within said Zone, with the Special tax to be at an initial rate not exceeding Sixteen Dollars ($16.00) per front foot of improvement per parcel having a separate County Assessor's Parcel Number and increasing not more than two percent per year thereafter? SAN LUIS OBISPO 11/2/99 Measure G-99 Pass (2/3 required) Shall the County of San Luis Obispo, commencing Fiscal Year 2000/2001, and annually thereafter, impose, levy and collect a special tax on real property within Jean Street Road Improvement Zone of County Service Area No. 21, to provide road improvements within said Zone, with the Special tax to be at an initial rate not exceeding Sixteen Dollars ($16.00) per front foot of improvement per parcel having a separate County Assessor's Parcel Number and increasing not more than two percent per year thereafter? SAN LUIS OBISPO 11/2/99 Measure I-99 Pass (2/3 required) Shall the County of San Luis Obispo, commencing Fiscal Year 2000/2001, and annually thereafter, impose, levy and collect a special tax on real property within London Lane Road Improvement Zone of County Service Area No. 21, to provide road improvements within said Zone, with the Special tax to be at an initial rate not exceeding Sixteen Dollars ($16.00) per front foot of improvement per parcel having a separate County Assessor's Parcel Number and increasing not more than two percent per year thereafter? SAN LUIS OBISPO 11/2/99 Measure F-99 Pass (2/3 required) Shall the County of San Luis Obispo, commencing Fiscal Year 2000/2001, and annually thereafter, impose, levy and collect a special tax on real property within Marlborough Lane Road Improvement Zone of County Service Area No. 21, to provide road improvements within said Zone, with the Special tax to be at an initial rate not exceeding Sixteen Dollars ($16.00) per front foot of improvement per parcel having a separate County Assessor's Parcel Number and increasing not more than two percent per year thereafter? STANISLAUS 6/8/99 Measure B Pass (2/3 required) Shall an ordinance, identical to the one previously adopted by the voters in 1995, authorizing a limited transaction and use tax of one-eighth of one percent for a

PAGE 16 CALIFORNIA ELECTION OUTCOMES TABLE 1.2 TEXT FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES BY COUNTY, 1999 period not more than five years commencing on July 1, 2000, exclusively for maintaining county-wide library hours, purchase of books, maintain story-times, children and teen programs, access technology, telephone reference and other programs be enacted so that the current tax can be extended until June 30, 2005? SUTTER 11/2/99 Measure TT Fail Should Sutter Community Services District exercise the following powers in addition to providing water service: the collection, treatment or disposal of sewage waste of the district and its inhabitants; public recreation for the district's inhabitants; and street lighting within the district. TRINITY 11/2/99 Measure S Pass To advise the Board of Supervisors that any new sales tax revenues should be spent only on the crime prevention and fire prevention purposes as stated in the text of Measure S. TRINITY 11/2/99 Measure T Fail To authorize a one percent sales tax within the County of Triniity to be used for general county purposes. TUOLUMNE 11/2/99 Measure S Fail (2/3 required) Shall there be imposed a special tax for park and recreation improvements on each parcel within the District in the amount of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) per parcel per year for each year beginning July 1, 2000 and continuing through June 30, 2015?

TABLE 1.3 SUMMARY OF ELECTION OUTCOMES FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES BY TYPE OF MEASURE AND COUNTY, 1999 CHARTER BONDS ADVISORY GANN LIMIT ORDINANCE TAXES ALL COUNTY MEASURES AMENDMENT PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL TOTAL Imperial 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 Marin 3 0 1 0 4 0 4 Mendocino 0 1 0 1 1 Napa 0 1 0 1 1 Riverside 1 2 1 2 3 San Diego 0 1 0 1 1 San Francisco 1 0 4 0 5 1 10 1 11 San Luis Obispo 5 0 5 0 5 Stanislaus 1 0 1 0 1 Sutter 0 1 0 1 1 Trinity 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 Tuolumne 0 1 0 1 1 All Counties 1 0 4 0 1 0 3 0 5 3 8 8 22 11 33 TABLE 1.4 SUMMARY OF ELECTION OUTCOMES FOR COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES BY TOPIC OF MEASURE AND COUNTY, 1999 PUBLIC SAFETY GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC FACILITIES GENERAL SERVICES OTHER ALL COUNTY MEASURES PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL PASS FAIL TOTAL Imperial 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 Marin 4 0 4 0 4 Mendocino 0 1 0 1 1 Napa 0 1 0 1 1 Riverside 1 0 0 2 1 2 3 San Diego 0 1 0 1 1 San Francisco 4 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 10 1 11 San Luis Obispo 5 0 5 0 5 Stanislaus 1 0 1 0 1 Sutter 0 1 0 1 1 Trinity 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 Tuolumne 0 1 0 1 1 All Counties 1 2 4 1 0 3 7 1 2 1 0 3 8 0 22 11 33 1999 COUNTY OFFICES AND BALLOT MEASURES PAGE 17

PART 2 VOTE TOTALS FOR COUNTY OFFICE CANDIDATES