Santa Monica, California, Voter Approval Requirement for Certain Development Projects, Measure LV (November 2016)
| Measure LV: Santa Monica Voter Approval Requirement for Certain Development Projects |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Defeated
|
| Topic: |
| Local zoning, land use and development |
| Related articles |
| Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Los Angeles County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Santa Monica, California |
A measure concerning development restrictions was on the ballot for Santa Monica voters in Los Angeles County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of enacting a citizen initiative to require voter approval of major development projects. |
| A no vote was a vote against enacting a citizen initiative to require voter approval of major development projects. |
Election results
| Measure LV | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 24,475 | 55.3% | ||
| Yes | 19,786 | 44.7% | ||
- Election results from Los Angeles County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
MEASURE LV: Shall the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code be amended to require: a new permit process for major development projects exceeding base sizes or heights of 32-36 feet, with exceptions such as single unit dwellings and some affordable housing projects; voter approval of major development projects and development agreements, excluding affordable housing and moderate income and senior housing projects, among others; and voter approval of changes to City land use and planning policy documents?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Santa Monica City Attorney:
| “ |
BALLOT MEASURE AMENDING THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A NEW PERMIT REQUIREMENT, OF ALL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, AND OF CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE CITY’S LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED EXEMPTIONS This measure would amend the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and Zoning Ordinance by adding new requirements for voter approval of “major” development projects, all development agreements and certain changes to planning policy documents. These requirements would last 20 years. The measure's new permitting process would require a “Major Development Review Permit” (Major DR) for projects exceeding the LUCE’s Tier 1 height, which generally ranges from 32-36 feet in different parts of the City. Permit processing would include Architectural Review Board design review, Planning Commission recommendations, and Council approval. If Council approved the project, the permit would not become effective until the voters approved the project in a general or special election. Likewise, all development agreements would not become effective until voter approval. The measure would require developers to pay special election costs. Some projects would be exempt from the new permit requirements. Exemptions include single unit dwellings, 100% affordable housing projects of 50 units or less, Tier 1 projects meeting on-site affordable housing production requirements, and projects exceeding Tier 1 height and density limits due to state density bonus mandates. Exemptions from the voter approval requirement include 100% affordable and moderate income housing, 100% senior housing, projects in the coastal zone complying with a certified Local Coastal Program, and projects on certain housing sites. Because the LUCE has no tier system in the Downtown Core and Civic Center Specific Plan areas, proposed projects within these areas would not be subject to the Major DR permit system. However, as long as the City's interim zoning ordinance remains in effect, Projects exceeding 32 feet in height within the Downtown Core would require a development agreement and voter approval. Voter approval would also be required for “Major Amendments” to the LUCE, Zoning Ordinance, Districting Map, and Neighborhood and Specific Plans. Portions of this measure potentially conflict with existing law and might not be enforceable if adopted. Legal challenges might occur. For example, court decisions state that "administrative actions" are not subject to voter approval. If a Major DR is an administrative action, voter approval of it may not be allowed. The measure may conflict with state law requirements both concerning the approval process of development agreements, and concerning limitations placed on a city's ability to deny housing projects. The measure may conflict with the City Charter which sets ordinance adoption rules. The measure states that if any part is invalidated, the remainder will remain in effect. A court would decide how to implement this if the measure was successfully challenged. This initiative measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters.[2] |
” |
| —Santa Monica City Attorney[3] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[4]
- Armen Melkonians, Founder of Residocracy; Civil and Environmental Engineer
- Kate (Kathleen) Bransfield, Board Member-Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition; Residocracy Board Member
- Zina Josephs, President-Friends of Sunset Park; Residocracy Board Member
- Ellen Hannan, Treasurer-Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors; Residocracy Board Member
- Richard Hilton, Vice chair/ former chair Santa Monica City Housing Commission; Executive Director, West LA Council for Seniors
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[4]
| “ |
Vote YES on LV to protect Santa Monica from overdevelopment and increased traffic congestion. Measure LV is the Land Use Voter Empowerment (LUVE) Initiative. Two years ago, Santa Monica residents resoundingly rejected the massive Hines development project and told developers, lobbyists, and politicians at City Hall: "Santa Monica is not for sale." Somebody didn’t get the message. City Council continues to approve massive developments, ignoring the will of residents and destroying Santa Monica’s character and livability. Many large projects await Council approvals, including multiple 20+ story hotel/ luxury condo projects on Ocean Avenue, the demolition of a public parking structure to be replaced with a movie theatre complex (with no parking), and the development of a 12-story office/ hotel/ mixed-use project on publicly-owned land. Measure LV gives voters back our voice. Measure LV gives voters back our voice to ensure that Santa Monica is not transformed into an extension of West Los Angeles. It simply states that the voters must approve projects negotiated by our City Council exchanging “community benefits” for increased heights and densities. It also requires voters to approve major changes to Land Use Policy documents so there is real community buy-in. Measure LV ensures that future development will protect our quality of life. It permits sensible growth, protects existing neighborhoods, prevents resident displacement, all while permitting truly affordable housing that would not require voter approval. Measure LV protects our existing rent-controlled apartments. Measure LV takes away the incentives given to developers to tear down smaller buildings and replace them with massive buildings. Too much has already been approved. Just one recently approved project - 500 Broadway - could add more than 4,400 additional daily car trips to our already congested city. Measure LV gives voters the ability to protect Santa Monica from overdevelopment and increased traffic congestion. Vote YES on LV.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[4]
- Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, Former Mayor
- Barbara Inatsugu, President, League of Women Voters of Santa Monica
- Linda J. Sullivan, Member Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Steering Committee
- Nathaniel Trives, Former Mayor of Santa Monica
- Harry Keiley, Teacher-Former President, Santa Monica Malibu Classroom Teachers Association
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[4]
| “ |
Why do most responsible community leaders and organizations say Measure LV is too extreme? Because a one-size-fits-all height limit of two stories citywide goes too far, and Measure LV is full of unintended consequences. While it claims to reduce traffic, Measure LV may make our unbearable traffic problems worse by reducing housing for workers, forcing them to commute and clog our streets. Measure LV would increase outside special interest money in Santa Monica politics because, under Citizens United, developers could spend unlimited money on campaigns for their projects. The League of Women Voters says Measure LV would not result in real voter empowerment. Voter involvement on very large projects may be appropriate, but requiring an election for almost anything over 32 feet will only cause voter fatigue, and even more campaign flyers in your mailbox. Measure LV would jeopardize the ability of individual neighborhoods to decide their own futures, with protective neighborhood and preservation plans having to survive a citywide vote. Measure LV is 23 pages long, and its complexity hides many loopholes. Our new downtown fire station and a recent school science building would require elections, but massive mixed-use projects in exempted locations would not need your vote. Income limits for “senior housing” were left out. Luxury condos for seniors, under Measure LV, could be built without an election, displacing renters and meaning less affordable housing for working families and young people. After an earthquake, Measure LV would compound the disaster. It may conflict with state law on rebuilding. Imagine if your damaged apartment building couldn’t be repaired or replaced without going to court, or to a ballot. If Measure LV passes, all its unintended consequences would be locked in place for 20 years, and could be remedied only by another costly election. Vote NO on Measure LV. [2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Santa Monica Local zoning, land use and development. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, "Measures Appearing on the Ballot," accessed November 1, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Los Angeles County Elections, "Santa Monica Sample Ballot: 2016 General Election," November 5, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Voter's Edge, "Los Angeles County Ballot Measures: Measure LV," accessed November 5, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
