Voters in local jurisdictions in 13 different California counties decided 45 local ballot measures on November 5, 2019. They approved 36 and defeated nine measures.
In 2019, Ballotpedia covered local measures that appear on the ballot for voters within the top 100 largest cities in the U.S. Ballotpedia also covered all local measures in North Carolina, all local measures in California, and all statewide ballot measures.
An average of 64 local measures appeared on November ballots in the previous three odd-numbered years in California.
By topic
Below is a breakdown by topic of the 45 local measures on the November 5 ballot:
- 14 parcel tax measures, 10 approved and three defeated
- nine sales tax measures, eight approved and one defeated
- four local hotel tax measures, all approved
- four measures that would make city clerks, city treasurers, or both appointed instead of elected, three approved and one defeated
- two marijuana tax measures, both approved
- two local spending limit increases, both approved
- two measures concerning development and land use, both approved
- two local business taxes, including a tax on ride-share companies in San Francisco, one approved
- two measures concerning affordable housing (bonds and zoning/development regulations), both approved
- a campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements measure in San Francisco, approved
- a vaping authorization and regulation measure in San Francisco, defeated
- a charter amendment in San Francisco concerning the city’s disability and aging services commission, approved
- a measure to increase the minimum wage for hospitality workers in Rancho Palos Verdes, defeated
Local ballot measures by county
Alameda County
- See also: Alameda County, California ballot measures
• Measure G: Piedmont Unified School District Parcel Tax Extension 
a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of extending the district's parcel tax through June 30, 2028.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against extending the district's parcel tax, thereby ending the tax on June 30, 2021.
|
• Measure H: Piedmont Unified School District Special Parcel Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of enacting an annual special parcel tax of $0.25 per square foot of building improvements through June 30, 2028.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against enacting an annual special parcel tax.
|
Calaveras County
- See also: Calaveras County, California ballot measures
• Measure C: Angels Camp Hotel Tax Increase a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of increasing the city's transient occupancy tax, also known as a hotel tax, from 10 percent to 12 percent.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against increasing the city's transient occupancy tax, also known as a hotel tax, thereby keeping the tax at 10 percent.
|
• Measure D: Angels Camp Appointed City Clerk and Treasurer a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of changing the city clerk and city treasurer from elected positions to appointed positions.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against changing the offices from elected positions to appointed positions, thereby keeping the city clerk and city treasurer as elected positions.
|
Contra Costa County
- See also: Contra Costa County, California ballot measures
• Measure H: El Cerrito Parcel Tax Extension a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of making a parcel tax–first approved in 2000–to fund the city's parks and recreational facilities permanent (or until voters repeal the tax).
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against making a parcel tax to fund parks and recreational facilities permanent, thereby allowing the tax to expire on June 30, 2020.
|
• Measure L: Brentwood 815-Acre Development Project 
d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing an 815-acre development project located on Brentwood’s western border.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing an 815-acre development project located on Brentwood’s western border.
|
Fresno County
- See also: Fresno County, California ballot measures
• Measure S: Parlier Sales Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of creating a city sales tax of 1 percent ($1 per $100), thereby increasing the total sales tax rate in Parlier from 7.975 percent to 8.975 percent.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against creating a city sales tax of 1 percent ($1 per $100), thereby keeping the existing total sales tax rate in Parlier at 7.975 percent.
|
Imperial County
- See also: Imperial County, California ballot measures
• Measure N: Salton Community Services District Fire Protection Parcel Tax d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing a special parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value— of $10 for unimproved property and $75 for improved property per taxable parcel to help fund the fire department for ten years.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing a special parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value— to help fund the fire department for ten years.
|
• Measure O: Salton Community Services District Annual Appropriations Limit a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing an increase in the annual appropriations limit by the amount of revenues received in each fiscal year from the special tax for Fire Protection Services.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing an increase in the annual appropriations limit by the amount of revenues received in each fiscal year from the special tax for Fire Protection Services.
|
Lake County
- See also: Lake County, California ballot measures
• Measure N: Northshore Fire Protection District Special Tax to Fund Emergency Medical and Fire Services d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the Northshore Fire Protection District to impose an annual parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value— of $126 per parcel to fund emergency medical and fire services until ended by voters.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the Northshore Fire Protection District to impose an annual parcel tax of $126 per parcel to fund emergency medical and fire services until ended by voters.
|
Los Angeles County
- See also: Los Angeles County, California ballot measures
• Measure CR: Claremont Sales Tax Increase d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city of Claremont to enact a 0.75% sales tax for general usage, thereby increasing the city sales tax rate from 9.5% to 10.25%.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city of Claremont to enact a 0.75% sales tax for general usage, thereby keeping the city sales tax rate at 9.5%.
|
• Measure H: Hermosa Beach City Hotel Tax Increase a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of increasing the hotel tax from 12% to 14%, to be imposed on guests staying at Hermosa Beach City hotels for periods of 30 days or less.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against increasing the hotel tax by an additional 2%, thereby leaving the city's hotel tax rate at 12%.
|
• Measure CC: Hermosa Beach Appointed City Clerk a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of making the city clerk an appointed position (to be appointed by the city council) rather than an elected position.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against making the city clerk an appointed position, thereby continuing to elect city clerks.
|
• Measure I: Irwindale Sales Tax Increase a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city of Irwindale to enact a 0.75% transaction and use tax (similar to a sales tax) for general usage, thereby increasing the total sales tax rate in the city from 9.5% to 10.25%.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city of Irwindale to enact a 0.75% transaction and use tax for general usage, thereby keeping the total sales tax rate in the city at 9.5%.
|
• Measure PS: Lynwood Sales Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of removing the sunset provision from Measure PS of 2016—which authorized a temporary additional sales tax of 1%, thereby allowing the total sales tax rate in the city to remain 10.25% until terminated.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against removing the sunset provision from Measure PS of 2016, thereby keeping the sunset provision in place to automatically reduce the total sales tax rate in the city to 9.5% in 2026.
|
• Measure K: Monrovia City Sales Tax Increase a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city of Monrovia to enact a 0.75% sales for general usage, thereby increasing the total sales tax rate in the city from 9.5% to 10.25%.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city of Monrovia to enact a 0.75% sales tax for general usage, thereby keeping the total sales tax rate in the city at 9.5%.
|
• Measure B: Rancho Palos Verdes Minimum Wage Increase and Working Condition Regulations for Hospitality Employees d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of increasing the minimum wage for hospitality employees to $15 per hour and enacting certain regulations regarding hospitality employees' working conditions such as:
- limiting square footage a worker can clean per day;
- limiting working hours; and
- requiring panic buttons for emergency situations.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against increasing the minimum wage for hospitality employees to $15 per hour and enacting certain regulations regarding hospitality employees' working conditions such as:
- limiting square footage a worker can clean per day;
- limiting working hours; and
- requiring panic buttons for emergency situations.
|
• Measure SM: San Marino Public Safety Parcel Tax Extension a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of extending the city's public safety parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—which was first enacted in 1980, until 2025.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against extending the city's public safety parcel tax, which was first enacted in 1980, until 2025.
|
• Measure S: Sierra Madre Sales Tax Increase a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city of Sierra Madre to enact a 0.75% sales tax for general usage.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city of Sierra Madre to enact a 0.75% sales tax for general usage.
|
• Measure A: South Pasadena Sales Tax Increase a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city of South Pasadena to levy an additional sales tax of 0.75% for general purposes, thereby increasing the total sales tax rate in the city from 9.5% to 10.75%.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city of South Pasadena to levy an additional sales tax of 0.75% for general purposes, thereby keeping the total sales tax rate in the city at 9.5%.
|
• Measure C: South Pasadena City Appointed City Clerk a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of making the city clerk an appointed position (to be appointed by the city council) rather than an elected position.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against making the city clerk an appointed position, thereby continuing to elect city clerks.
|
Marin County
- See also: Marin County, California ballot measures
• Measure E: Reed Union School District Parcel Tax Renewal a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of renewing the existing $589 annual parcel tax for 12 years with a 3 percent increase per year to raise an estimated $2.5 million annually for the Reed Union School District.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against renewing the existing $589 annual parcel tax, thereby allowing the tax to expire in 2022.
|
• Measure F: Fairfax Special Municipal Services Parcel Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of extending Fairfax's municipal services parcel tax of $195 for 11 years with a $5 annual increase on every business and occupancy unit to fund police and fire services, public works, youth and senior programs, and the Citizens Oversight Committee.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against extending Fairfax's municipal services parcel tax of $195, thereby allowing the current tax to expire.
|
• Measure M: San Anselmo Parcel Tax for Memorial Park d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing an annual tax of $98 per residential unit or per 1,500 square of non-residential use for 30 years to raise revenue to restore and maintain Memorial Park.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing an annual tax of $98 per residential unit or per 1,500 square of non-residential use for 30 years to raise revenue to restore and maintain Memorial Park.
|
Orange County
- See also: Orange County, California ballot measures
• Measure A: Stanton Future Cannabis Business Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing a tax on future cannabis or hemp businesses to raise revenue for municipal services according to the following rates:
- $12 per square foot used for cultivation,
- 6 percent of all retail sales, and
- 4 percent on all other cannabis or hemp businesses.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing a tax on future cannabis or hemp businesses at the following rates:
- $12 per square foot used for cultivation,
- 6 percent of all retail sales, and
- 4 percent on all other cannabis or hemp businesses.
|
• Measure B: Stanton Hotel Tax Increase a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of increasing the existing hotel tax from 8 percent to 12 percent to raise revenue for municipal services.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against increasing the hotel tax rate to 12 percent, thereby maintaining the existing 8 percent tax.
|
San Francisco
- See also: San Francisco City and County, California ballot measures
• Proposition A: San Francisco Bond Issue for Affordable Housing a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city to increase its debt by issuing up to $600 million in bonds to fund affordable housing, with an estimated average property tax rate for repayment of $0.019 per $100 in value and a repayment period of 30 years.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing $600 million in bonds for affordable housing and leaving the city's property tax rates unchanged.
|
• Proposition B: San Francisco Disability and Aging Services Charter Amendment a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of changing the name of the city's Aging and Adult Services department and commission to Disability and Aging Services and requiring one member of the seven-member commission to be above 60 years old, one member to be disabled, and one member to have served in the U.S. military.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against this measure, thereby leaving the name of the city's Aging and Adult Services department and commission unchanged and leaving registration as a San Francisco voter as the only qualification requirement for the commission members.
|
• Proposition C: San Francisco Authorize and Regulate Sale of Electronic Cigarettes and Vapor Products Initiative d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of this initiative to do the following:
- authorize the sale of electronic cigarettes and other nicotine vapor products in the city;
- partially overturn 2019 city laws designed to ban vapor products not reviewed by the FDA (which currently includes all e-cigarette products) and flavored vapor products;
- require additional licensing and permitting for businesses selling vapor products, including online sales;
- enact additional age verification requirements, including scanned IDs, and maximum product sale restrictions; and
- enact rules regarding the advertisement of vapor products with regard to minors.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against this initiative, thereby leaving in place city laws designed to ban vapor products not reviewed by the FDA (which currently includes all e-cigarette products) and flavored vapor products starting in 2020 and leaving current regulations and restrictions on vapor product vendors and advertisements.
|
• Proposition D: San Francisco Ride-Share Business Tax to Fund Muni, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Services and Infrastructure a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of enacting a tax on ride-share companies, such as Uber and Lyft, at a rate of 1.5% of total fares on shared rides and rides in zero-emission vehicles and 3.25% of total fares on private rides, with revenue dedicated to improving and maintaining public transportation services and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against enacting a tax on ride-share companies such as Uber and Lyft, so that the city would continue to have no business tax on ride-share companies.
|
• Proposition E: San Francisco Reduced Zoning Restrictions for Affordable Housing and Educator Housing Projects a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of allowing residential development consisting of 100% affordable housing or educator housing on public zoning districts, reducing the zoning requirements and restrictions for such projects, and requiring expedited reviews.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against this measure to reduce restrictions and requirements on 100% affordable housing and educator housing, thereby continuing to prevent any kind of residential development in public zoning districts and leaving the existing residential development and zoning rules in place.
|
• Proposition F: San Francisco Campaign Contribution Restrictions and Advertisement Disclaimer Requirements a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of establishing the following requirements for campaign advertisement disclaimers and restrictions on campaign contributions:
- a ban on limited liability companies or partnerships contributing to candidate committees;
- a ban on contributions to a city supervisor, the mayor, the city attorney, or any candidates for these positions from someone with certain levels of financial interest in any matter concerning zoning, city planning, or land-use changes; and
- requirements that specify how advertisements must display funding and what donation threshold requires a disclaimer.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against changing the city's campaign contribution restrictions and advertisement disclaimer requirements, thereby leaving the current laws in place.
|
San Mateo County
- See also: San Mateo County, California ballot measures
• Measure B: Brisbane Hotel Tax Increase a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city to increase its hotel tax from 12% to 14%, raising an estimated additional $200,000 to fund general city services.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the district to increase its hotel tax, thereby leaving the rate at 12%.
|
• Measure C: Brisbane Liquid Storage Facility Business Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of revising the city's liquid storage facility tax to allow a tax of up to $0.06 per barrel capped at $400,000 per year and resolving a civil suit by Kinder Morgan against the city. As of 2019, Kinder Morgan was the only liquid storage business in the city.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against revising the city's liquid storage facility tax to allow a tax of up to $0.06 per barrel capped at $400,000 per year, thereby continuing the existing tax of $115.28 per cubic feet of storage capacity per year and not resolving a civil suit by Kinder Morgan against the city.
|
• Measure E: Brisbane Marijuana Business Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city to impose a marijuana business tax of up to 6% of gross receipts, with actual rates set by the city council depending on the type of business, to fund general city services.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city to impose a marijuana business tax of up to 6%.
|
• Measure G: San Bruno Sales Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city to levy an additional sales tax of 0.5% with an estimated annual revenue of $4 million to fund general city services, thereby increasing the total sales tax rate in the city from 9.25% to 9.75%.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city to levy an additional sales tax, thereby leaving the total sales tax rate (state and local) in the city at 9.25%.
|
• Measure H: Redwood City School District Parcel Tax d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the school district to impose for 12 years an annual parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—of $149 per parcel, raising an estimated $3.45 million per year.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the school district to impose an annual parcel tax of $149 per parcel for 12 years.
|
• Measure I: Cabrillo Unified School District a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the school district to impose for eight years an annual parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—of $150 per parcel, raising an estimated $1.6 million per year.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the school district to impose an annual parcel tax of $150 per parcel for eight years.
|
Sonoma County
- See also: Sonoma County, California ballot measures
• Measure B: Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary Extension and Modification a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of extending the city's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) restrictions on land use regarding community separators, agricultural land, and open space for 20 years and exclude 80 acres south of Valley House Drive and west of Petaluma Hill Road from the UGB restrictions.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against extending the city's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) restrictions on land use regarding community separators, agricultural land, and open space for 20 years, thereby allowing it to expire on June 30, 2020.
|
• Measure C: Occidental Community Services District Parcel Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the district to impose an annual parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—at the following rates and raise the districts spending limit for four years in the amount of the additional revenue:
- $200 per parcel for residential use plus an additional $100 per additional residential unit on the parcel;
- $300 per parcel for lodging parcels plus $50 per additional unit;
- $300 per commercial, industrial, and warehouse parcel plus $0.14 per sq. ft. of building space; and
- $100 per parcel for other land. The district estimated the tax would generate $250,000 in revenue each year.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the district to impose an annual parcel tax and raise the districts spending limit for four years in the amount of the additional revenue.
|
• Measure D: Bodega Bay Fire Protection District Spending Limit Increase Continuation a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the district to continue its previously increased spending limit for an additional four years.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the continuation of the district's existing spending limit, thereby allowing the spending limit to decrease in 2020.
|
• Measure E: Gold Ridge Fire Protection District Parcel Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the district to impose an annual parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—at the following rates and raise the districts spending limit for four years in the amount of the additional revenue:
- $200 per parcel for residential and lodging use plus an additional $100 per additional unit on the parcel;
- $50 per parcel of pasture land;
- $300 per commercial, industrial, and warehouse parcel plus $0.14 per sq. ft. of building space; and
- $100 per parcel for agricultural or vacant parcels. The district estimated the tax would generate $1.2 million in revenue each year.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the district to impose an annual parcel tax and raise the districts spending limit for four years in the amount of the additional revenue.
|
• Measure F: Graton Fire Protection District Parcel Tax a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the district to impose an annual parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—at the following rates and raise the districts spending limit for four years in the amount of the additional revenue:
- $250 per parcel for residential use plus an additional $100 per additional residential unit on the parcel;
- $250 per parcel for agricultural parcels;
- $300 per commercial, industrial, and warehouse parcel plus $0.14 per sq. ft. of building space; and
- $100 per parcel for other land. The district estimated the tax would generate $800,000 in revenue each year.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against authorizing the district to impose an annual parcel tax and raise the districts spending limit for four years in the amount of the additional revenue.
|
Stanislaus County
- See also: Stanislaus County, California ballot measures
• Measure H: Oakdale Sales Tax Extension for City Services a
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of extending the 0.5 percent sales tax for an additional 11 years to help fund city services, including police and fire departments, senior programs, and park maintenance.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against extending the 0.5 percent sales tax for an additional 11 years, thereby allowing it to expire in April 2020.
|
• Measure I: Oakdale City Clerk Appointment Measure d
|
|
A yes vote was a vote in favor of appointing the city clerk.
|
|
|
A no vote was a vote against appointing the city clerk, thereby maintaining it as an elected position.
|
Additional elections on the ballot
State legislature
- See also: California state legislative special elections, 2019
A special election for District 1 of the California State Assembly was called for November 5, 2019.
Municipal
- See also: Local 2019 municipal elections in California
Ballotpedia covered elections for various offices in seven cities and three counties with items on the ballot for voters in one of the top 100 largest U.S. cities in 2019.
The city of San Francisco, California, held general elections for mayor, city attorney, district attorney, public defender, sheriff, treasurer, the District 5 seat of the board of supervisors, and one community college district seat on November 5, 2019.
School board
- See also: California school board elections, 2019
Ballotpedia covered November 5 school board elections in California for four school districts within the top 200 largest districts in the U.S. by enrollment.
See also
