This is an archive of a past election.
See for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Smart Voter
San Bernardino County, CA November 8, 2005 Election
Measure P
Managed Growth
City of Redlands

Majority Approval Required

Fail: 6,848 / 37.26% Yes votes ...... 11,531 / 62.74% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Results as of November 21 6:44pm, 100.00%% of Precincts Reporting (37/37)
Information shown below: Impartial Analysis | Arguments |

Shall the initiative ordinance of the people of Redlands amending the principles of managed growth and the land use, circulation, open space and conservation, health and safety and noise elements of the Redlands General Plan, be adopted?

Impartial Analysis from City Attorney
The Redlands General Plan is a long term, comprehensive plan for the development of Redlands consisting of policies, standards and goals. The proposed initiative measure amends the Principles of Managed Growth and Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Health and Safety and Noise Elements of Redlands' General Plan. A summary of the amendments follows:

Principles of Managed Growth:

  • Subject areas outside the City requesting City services to regulations regarding development agreements, annexation commitments and fee payments.
  • Require annexed properties' conformance with General Plan and City zoning.
  • Retain San Timoteo Creek from the City's southern boundary to Basin 18 of the County Flood Control Project in a natural state.
  • Prohibit reclassification of local residential streets and limit traffic volumes to 500 vehicles trips/day.
  • Require City projects' conformance with General Plan except for fees.
  • Prohibit non-government projects which degrade water resources.
  • Establish restrictions on changing non-residential property to residential uses and density transfers.
  • Require unanimous approval and findings for re-designation of property within 300 feet of residential uses to non-residential use.
  • Require unanimous approval for annexation agreements for residential development outside City sphere and planning areas.
  • Prohibit development that is inconsistent with CC&Rs. • Redefine project exemptions from socioeconomic, noise and traffic studies.
  • Permit fee waivers for non-residential projects generally located downtown.
  • Establish appeals process for City actions.

Land Use Element:
  • Limit buildings to three stories except with certain exemptions. Limit new residential structures to two stories or thirty-five feet.
  • Establish Resource Preservation land classification to restrict density in hillside areas.
  • Prohibit structures exceeding two stories or 35 feet in High Density land use category.
  • Limit annually the approval of new multi-family dwelling units.
  • Prohibit re-designation of Urban Reserve properties to land use densities greater then Estate Residential.

Circulation Element:
  • Designate portions of eleven streets as scenic drives.
  • Prohibit reclassification of local and residential collector streets without voter approval.
  • Restrict trafficways connecting Live Oak Canyon Road and Sunset Drive to emergency vehicle use only.
  • Prohibit new development causing local residential streets to exceed 500 vehicles per day.
  • Prohibit reclassification of local residential streets and construction of roadways exceeding two lanes south of Redlands Boulevard.
  • Prohibit placement of significant additional traffic on Sunset Drive.
  • Retain San Timoteo Canyon Road as two lanes, with a bicycle lane.
  • Delete text encouraging Live Oak Canyon and Alessandro Road upgrades.

Open Space and Conservation Element:
  • Preserve recreational, equestrian and animal uses in residential areas.
  • Encourage retention of specimen oak trees and require findings for development affecting oak trees. Health and Safety Element:
  • Prohibit mineral extraction in San Timoteo and Mill Creek Zanja flood plains.
  • Permit mineral extraction only in Santa Ana River flood plain.

Noise Element:
  • Redefine CNEL measurement for outdoor environment of family residences.

No fiscal analysis of the proposed amendments has been performed by the City, nor has the City Attorney determined the validity of the amendments. If approved, the amendments may not be changed except upon subsequent approval by Redlands' voters.

  Official Information

City of Redlands
Suggest a link related to Measure P
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Measure P Arguments Against Measure P
The Jewel of Redlands is tarnished …

To protect and preserve our community ― to act as stewards of the quality of life for ourselves and for those to come ― the people of Redlands must vote YES to enact this Measure.

The current Redlands General Plan includes provisions enacted by our citizens to preserve and maintain the special quality of life we all cherish. Despite the clear directive of the people, as specified in Measure U, the City Council has "re-interpreted" those provisions in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose.

This proposed Measure will strengthen the Redlands General Plan, including the provisions added by Measure U, ensuring thereby the preservation of our citrus heritage, our canyons and open spaces, our special downtown, the peace and quiet of our neighborhoods, and the quality and safety of our schools.

For more than two decades, Redlands has maintained its unique livability within a Southern California beset by ever-increasing crime, deteriorating and unsafe schools, air and noise pollution and congested roadways. While other towns saw their sense of community disappear beneath the bulldozers of rampant, unmanaged development, the people of Redlands secured our future through Measure U, which was carefully designed to manage the city's growth.

Adoption of this Measure gives our citizens a direct voice in defining the policies that are critical to the future of our city, and the control over the implementation of those policies. Such action is crucial to the future financial viability of our town.

Your YES vote on this initiative Measure will assure the preservation and the enhancement of our special quality of life, treasured by residents of the City of Redlands, while allowing growth to occur in a positive way that benefits all members of this community.

“There is Only One Redlands”

George Riday

Durand F. Jacobs

Jeff A. Owens

James A. Fallows

James H. Stellar

Rebuttal to Arguments For
Vote NO on Measure P. Don’t be fooled by proponents’ feel-good arguments. We all want to protect Redlands and preserve our quality of life.

Promoters of Measure __ wrote a badly-flawed initiative that threatens our financial stability – and our quality of life – while providing little meaningful protection for the things that make Redlands unique.

An editorial in The Sun newspaper referring to promoters of Measure P said it best:

“It's hard to believe anyone is less than ecstatic over the city's good fortune with Citrus Plaza…Such is the case with the anti-development, anti-growth faction in Redlands. Even a cool million dollars [Citrus Plaza sales tax] in the city's pockets hasn't slowed their bellyaching.”

Citrus Plaza has expanded shopping opportunities for residents and given our city more than its fair share of sales tax revenue that formerly went to surrounding cities. Tax dollars from additional retail opportunities in and around Citrus Plaza enhance basic city services such as police and fire protection.

Vote NO on Measure P. It could deny Redlands needed sales tax revenue to help build the Redlands Sports Park, revitalize our downtown, and maintain our parks and trails.

According to a report by the respected Rose Institute, the city’s annual operating budget deficit could balloon from $1 million to $4 million if Measure P is approved, and the city could be forced to enact new taxes to maintain city services.

That’s why police, firefighters, teachers, business and community leaders urge a NO vote on Measure P.

Dan Crow
President, Redlands Professional Firefighters

Chris Catren
President, Redlands Police Officers Association

Darrel Olson
President, Redlands Chamber of Commerce

Carole Beswick
Former Redlands Mayor

Neal Waner
Redlands Business Owner, Certified Financial Planner

Vote NO on Measure P because it could threaten funding for basic City services that maintain Redlands’ quality of life such as police and fire protection, parks and recreation and our schools.

An independent study by the Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College says Measure P could "handcuff" city government and increase the city’s budget deficit to $4 million.

Instead of blocking inappropriate development, poorly-written Measure P blocks desirable, high-quality commercial shopping options such as Citrus Plaza – which is already generating over $1 million per year in revenue to support city services. Citrus Plaza and surrounding areas could eventually generate approximately $7 million per year in badly needed revenue for the city.

Vote NO on Measure P because its financial impacts could threaten the long-awaited Redlands Sports Park and the City’s efforts to preserve historic buildings, maintain parks and trails, and make required improvements to infrastructure that keeps our water clean.

Vote NO on Measure P because it could limit the City’s ability to renew and revitalize our downtown into the pedestrian-friendly city center Redlands deserves, according to respected local economist Dr. John Husing.

Vote NO on Measure P because it could significantly reduce City revenues and force taxpayers to choose between reducing police, fire and other city services or accepting major tax and fee increases to maintain those services.

Vote NO on Measure P because it fails to protect our quality of life, undercuts our City’s financial stability and leaves taxpayers holding the bag.

Join us in voting NO on Measure P. It’s a very BAD DEAL for Redlands.

Signed by:

Dan Crow
President, Redlands Professional Firefighters

Chris Catren
President, Redlands Police Officers Association

Darrel Olson
President, Redlands Chamber of Commerce

Carole Beswick
Former Redlands Mayor

Neal Waner
Redlands Business Owner, Certified Financial Planner

Rebuttal to Arguments Against

The city council has placed the interests of developers above those of the people. Redlands' problems have been created by an irresponsible and untrustworthy council that has deliberately ignored the clearly expressed desire of the people to maintain our quality of life.


  • Water rates up 30 percent
  • Sewer rates 25 percent
  • Increased traffic on pot-holed streets
  • Increased crime, while spending more per citizen for public safety services than other Inland cities.
  • Rezoning to benefit an outside developer in the face of overwhelming community opposition
  • Attempt to impose eminent domain on an unwilling northside community
  • Citizens forced to resort to the initiative process for an unprecedented three times in a single election

Redlands' problem is not lack of money. City spending is up 74 percent in five years, increasing to over $700 per person, more than in other area cities.

Contrary to naysayers' claims, Measure P encourages commercial development downtown. and would not affect city income from the "doughnut hole" or future development there.

You should be concerned. Please read Measure P for yourself. VOTE "YES" to set standards that will recapture those qualities that make our town special.



  • Higher rates for poorer quality water
  • Traffic and noise from degrading our neighborhoods
  • Multi-story apartment buildings downtown
  • Obliteration of our open spaces
  • Houses jammed together
  • Paving over our citrus heritage
  • Our canyons from disappearing under the bulldozer


Durand F. Jacobs

Jeff A. Owens

George E. Riday

James A. Fallows

James H. Stellar

San Bernardino Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: January 28, 2006 14:44 PST
Smart Voter <>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.