Supplemental Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for November 8, 2016 General Municipal ElectionCity of
Santa Monica
SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLE BALLOT
and Voter Information Pamphlet
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016
POLLS OPEN at 7 A.M.
AND CLOSE at 8 P.M.
www.smvote.org
Proof: 9-20-2016
BG 1
and Santa Monica Community College District
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SAMPLE BALLOT ................................................................................................................................................... 1
CANDIDATE STATEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL ............................................................................................................................................ 3
RENT CONTROL BOARD ........................................................................................................................... 8
COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD .............................................................................................................10
MEASURES
MEASURE GS ............................................................................................................................................12
MEASURE GSH .........................................................................................................................................15
MEASURE LV .............................................................................................................................................23
MEASURE SM ...........................................................................................................................................44
MEASURE V ...............................................................................................................................................48
SantaMonicaCovers_1108_English.indd 1 9/21/2016 1:19:33 PM
VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLET
The following pages contain:
CANDIDATE STATEMENTS
Each Candidate’s Statement in this pamphlet is volunteered by the candidate and is printed at
the City’s expense. A complete list of candidates appears on the sample ballot page of this
pamphlet.
BALLOT MEASURES, ANALYSIS, ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS
ANALYSIS: The Impartial Analysis is an impartial summary of the results of the proposed
measure or proposition.
ARGUMENTS: Arguments and/or rebuttal arguments in support of or in opposition to the
proposed laws are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any
official agency.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
General Voter Information
To view your sample ballot, find your
polling place, and/or verify your
voter registration status, go to:
http://www.lavote.net
Santa Monica /VP-E
SantaMonicaCovers_1108_English.indd 4 9/21/2016 1:19:33 PM
Santa Monica / A
SAMPLE BALLOT
6'44;1 &#;%QWPEKNOGODGT'PXKTQPOGPVCN'ZGEWVKXG
,#/'569#6510(KPCPEKCN/CPCIGT
6'&9+06'4'4/C[QT2TQ6GORQTG
610;8#<37'</C[QT'FWECVKQPCN%QPUWNVCPV
/'0&'5/+6*9TKVGT#WVJQT
15%#4&'.#6144'5CPVC/QPKEC/CNKDW7PKHKGF5EJQQN&KUVTKEV$QCTF/GODGT
).'#/1.+8+#+5
5CPVC/QPKEC%QWPEKNOGODGT
6'4'0%'.#6'42TQFWEGT
#4/'0/'.-10+#05%KXKN'PXKTQPOGPVCN'PIKPGGT
,10/#004GVKTGF2CTQNG#IGPV
%*4+5612*'4&9#.610+PEWODGPV
'.#+0')1.&'0)'#.'40QPRTQHKV#UUQEKCVKQP'ZGEWVKXG
#0#56#5+#(156'4#RRQKPVGF+PEWODGPV
%#41.+0'/61415+5%QPUWOGT2TQVGEVKQP#VVQTPG[
/GODGTQHVJG
4GPV%QPVTQN
$QCTF
8QVGHQTPQOQTG
VJCP6YQ
/GODGTQHVJG
%KV[%QWPEKN
8QVGHQTPQOQTG
VJCP(QWT
;'5)5 01
/'#574' )5 #&8+514; 816' 10.; +H C NQECN VTCPUCEVKQPU CPF
WUG VCZ KU GPCEVGF KP 5CPVC /QPKEC UJQWNF JCNH KVU TGXGPWG DG
WUGF VQ KORTQXG CPF OCKPVCKP NQECN RWDNKE UEJQQNU KPENWFKPI
CVVTCEVKPI CPF TGVCKPKPI JKIJSWCNKV[ VGCEJGTU GZRCPFKPI CEEGUU VQ RTGUEJQQNU
CUUKUVKPI CVTKUM UVWFGPVU CPF KORTQXKPI UEJQQN VGEJPQNQI[ CTVU OWUKE OCVJ CPF UEKGPEG KPUVTWEVKQP CPF
JCNH VQ JGNR RTGUGTXG CPF GPUWTG JQWUKPI KP 5CPVC /QPKEC VJCV KU CHHQTFCDNG RTQVGEV TGUKFGPVU HTQO
FKURNCEGOGPV D[ TKUKPI JQWUKPI EQUVU CPF TGFWEG JQOGNGUUPGUU!
;'5)5*01
/'#574' )5* 6Q OCKPVCKP CPF KORTQXG 5CPVC /QPKEC EQOOWPKV[
UGTXKEGU KPENWFKPI UWRRQTV HQT RTGUGTXCVKQP QH CHHQTFCDNG JQWUKPI
TGFWEKPI JQOGNGUUPGUU UEJQQN TGRCKT CPF KORTQXGOGPV GFWECVKQP
QH 5CPVC /QPKEC EJKNFTGP CPF UVWFGPVU CPF QVJGT IGPGTCN HWPF UGTXKEGU UJCNN CP
QTFKPCPEG DG CFQRVGF VQ KPETGCUG D[ QPGJCNH RGTEGPV 5CPVC /QPKEC U VTCPUCEVKQPU CPF WUG VCZ UWDLGEV VQ
KPFGRGPFGPV CPPWCN CWFKVU CNNHWPFU WUGF NQECNN[ PQ OQPG[ IQKPI VQ5CETCOGPVQ TCKUKPI CRRTQZKOCVGN[
OKNNKQP CPPWCNN[ WPVKN GPFGF D[ VJG XQVGTU!
%106+07'816+0)100':62#)'
5#06#/10+%#%+6;)'0'4#./70+%+2#.'.'%6+10
5#06#/10+%#%+6;52'%+#./70+%+2#.'.'%6+10
%+6;
SantaMonicaCovers_1108_English.indd 1 9/21/2016 1:19:34 PM
BT 11
Santa Monica / B
SAMPLE BALLOT
/#4)#4'637+010'52'4'<5CPVC/QPKEC%QNNGIG6TWUVGG2TQHGUUQT
5+1041;%QNNGIG2TQHGUUQT2J[UKEKCP
41$)4''056'+04#&'45CPVC/QPKEC%QNNGIG6TWUVGG2TQHGUUQT
575#0#/+01((5CPVC/QPKEC%QNNGIG6TWUVGG2TQHGUUQT
/GODGTQHVJG
$QCTFQH6TWUVGGU
8QVGHQTPQOQTG
VJCP6JTGG
;'5801
5#06# /10+%# %1..')' %.#55411/ 4'2#+4 %#4''4
64#+0+0) *+)*'4 '&7%#6+10 #%%'55 /'#574'6Q KORTQXG
NQECN CEEGUU VQ CHHQTFCDNG JKIJGT GFWECVKQP HQT JKIJ UEJQQN
ITCFWCVGUCFWNVUXGVGTCPU KORTQXG GFWECVKQPECTGGT VTCKPKPI KP OCVJ UEKGPEG
YTKVKPI CTVU DWUKPGUU UJCNN 5CPVC /QPKEC %QOOWPKV[ %QNNGIG &KUVTKEV KUUWG KP DQPFU CV NGICN
TCVGU YKVJ EKVK\GPU QXGTUKIJVCPPWCN CWFKVU VQ TGRCKT WRITCFG EQPUVTWEV OQFGTPK\G GSWKR HCEKNKVKGU HQT
VGEJPQNQI[ UEKGPEGDKQVGEJ EQNNGIG TGCFKPGUU TGRCKT CIKPI NGCM[ EN CUUTQQOU TGOQXG CUDGUVQU WRITCFG
FKUCDNGF CEEGUU UGKUOKE CPF ECORWU UCHGV[!
'0&1($#..16
;'55/01
/'#574' 5/ 5JCNN #TVKENG ::++ QH VJG %KV[ %JCTVGT DG COGPFGF
VQ COQPI QVJGT VJKPIU GZRCPF VJG RTQJKDKVKQP CICKPUV MKEMDCEMU CU
TGYCTFU HQT EGTVCKP QHHKEKCN CEVKQPU ETGCVG CP GZGORVKQP HQT
XQNWPVGGTU UGTXKPI EGTVCKP %KV[HWPFGF PQPRTQHKVU ENCTKH[ VJG CRRNKECVKQP QH VJG
#TVKENG U RTQJKDKVKQPU VJG%KV[#VVQTPG[ U CWVJQTKV[ CPFGPHQTEGOGPV TGURQPUKDKNKVKGU CPFVJGUEQRG QHCXCKNCDNG
TGOGFKGU!
;'5.8 01
/'#574' .8 5JCNN VJG %KV[ U )GPGTCN 2NCP CPF /WPKEKRCN %QFG DG
COGPFGF VQ TGSWKTG C PGY RGTOKV RTQEGUU HQT OCLQT FGXGNQROGPV
RTQLGEVU GZEGGFKPI DCUG UK\GU QT JGKIJVU QH HGGV YKVJ
GZEGRVKQPU UWEJ CU UKPING WPKV FYGNNKPIU CPF UQOG CHHQTFCDNG JQWUKPI RTQLGEVU
XQVGTCRRTQXCN QHOCLQTFGXGNQROGPV RTQLGEVU CPFFGXGNQROGPV CITGGOGPVU GZENWFKPI CHHQTFCDNG JQWUKPI CPF
OQFGTCVG KPEQOG CPF UGPKQT JQWUKPI RTQLGEVU COQPI QVJGTU CPF XQVGT CRRTQXCN QHEJCPIGU VQ%KV[ NCPF WUG
CPF RNCPPKPI RQNKE[ FQEWOGPVU
5#06#/10+%#%1//70+6;%1..')'&+564+%6
5#06#/10+%#%1//70+6;%1..')'&+564+%652'%+#.'.'%6+10
%+6;
5%*11.
5#06#/10+%#%+6;52'%+#./70+%+2#.'.'%6+10
SantaMonicaCovers_1108_English.indd 2 9/21/2016 1:19:34 PM
2
!625/1!SANTA MONICA
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TERRY O’DAY Male – Age: 42
Occupation: Environmental Executive
E-Mail Address: today@terryoday.com
Website Address: www.terryoday.com
For over six years my decisions as your Councilmember have been
guided by putting people first. I have been a strong voice for residents
and human scale neighborhoods. I have led the Council to:
• Keep Big Blue Bus fares low
• Support senior housing programs and services
• Keep water rates low while achieving water conservation goals
• Increase school funding
• Improve bike and pedestrian safety
• Impose tough traffic restrictions on new development
• Support our police and firefighters to keep our community safe
As the cofounder of successful green businesses, I have cultivated the
tools to make our city the national standard for sustainability, human-
scale neighborhoods, regional traffic solutions, and green jobs. My BA
in Public Policy from Stanford and MBA from UCLA have helped me
make responsible, informed decisions to balance the City’s budget,
cut waste and still protect the well-being of all residents – from cradle
to career, and beyond.
As a parent, homeowner, and activist for renters’ rights and housing,
I seek re-election to keep Santa Monica a place where all of our
children thrive.
I am endorsed by a broad coalition of Santa Monicans, including six
former mayors and Assemblymember Richard Bloom. I would be
honored to have your vote too.
/s/ Terry O’Day
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JAMES T. WATSON Male – Age: 37
Occupation: Financial Manager
E-Mail Address: jamestwatsonSM@gmail.com
As a long time resident of Santa Monica, it is important to me to
represent the voices within our community, whether it is in relation
to our family neighborhoods or local businesses. My goal in running
for City Council is to continue to respect, preserve, and responsibly
improve our city and community in a fair and equitable manner.
A brief summary of my education and qualifications are as follows:
- Double Major in Finance and Accounting at the University of
Vermont.
- Community outreach, communication, and an optimistic
approach in all that I do.
- Financial & Accounting Management professional with 16 years
of career experience ranging from managing multi-billion dollar
asset portfolios to owning a successful consulting company,
with expertise in financial, budgetary, and administrative
management.
- I bring with me a fair mind for accommodating both residents
and businesses alike.
I believe in RENT CONTROL and keeping Santa Monica an
affordable place to live, preserving our beaches and community,
being environmentally responsible, supporting sustainable business
practices, welcoming entrepreneurship, improving education, resolving
homelessness, reducing pollutions of all kinds, and encouraging
everyone who lives in Santa Monica to do all they can to make our
city the best it can be!
/s/ James T. Watson
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 1 9/21/2016 1:39:37 PM
3
!625/2!SANTA MONICA
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TED WINTERER Male – Age: 59
Occupation: Marketing
E-Mail Address: ted@tedforcouncil.com
Website Address: www.tedforcouncil.com
I’ve lived in Santa Monica for 24 years, am a proud father of two kids
attending our public schools and have been honored to serve the voters
as Councilmember and now Mayor Pro Tem over the last four years.
Santa Monica is a great place to live, but we can make it even
better by preserving and protecting our past and preparing for
our future. I will work to:
• Protect our residential neighborhoods from commercial
intrusions and overdevelopment.
• Preserve existing housing to keep Santa Monicans in Santa
Monica.
• Maintain our diversity by protecting low-income tenants and
seniors.
• Address our most important challenge: improving mobility on
our congested streets.
• Incentivize adaptive reuse of our historic buildings.
• Continue and enhance our commitment to education.
• Support robust public safety budgets.
• Reduce homelessness.
• Assure a safe, reliable supply of local water.
• Add 15 acres of parks to the 8 recently created.
• Convert the airport to a great park.
• Support locally owned small businesses.
• Assure the economic engine of our downtown thrives in a
manner sensitive to community standards.
Congressman Ted Lieu, State Senator Ben Allen and many others
endorse my reelection. I hope you will also support me with your vote.
/s/ Ted Winterer
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TONY VAZQUEZ Male
Occupation: Mayor/Education Consultant
It has been a privilege serving you these past 4 years. As Mayor, I have
one simple and fundamental goal; to get things done, and I am very
proud of our accomplishments. Among them:
• Oversaw the completion of the Metro Expo Line extension,
reconfigured our Big Blue Bus routes, and started the Breeze
Bike Share program
• Approved one of the strongest minimum wage ordinances
in the country
• City won major Appeals Court victory to assert local control
at Santa Monica Airport
• Instituted “best practices” in hiring, ethics and government
transparency
I am now seeking re-election to finish the projects we have already
started but yet to complete.
• Secure sustainable funding to increase affordable housing
options
• Protect our neighborhoods by ensuring “smart growth”
development while balancing the needs of our thriving
business community
• Support our “Learn + Thrive” program in providing a quality
education for all our children
• Form a coalition of all concerned stake-holders in formulating
the Downtown Community Plan
I am committed to meeting each and every challenge with careful
planning, responsible oversight, and innovative programs that address
the needs of all residents.
Respectfully, I ask for your continued support.
Thank you.
www.VoteVazquez4Council.com
/s/ Tony Vazquez
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 2 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
4
!625/3!SANTA MONICA
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MENDE SMITH Female – Age: 43
Occupation: Writer/Author
E-mail Address: mende@mendesmith.com
Website Address: www.mendesmith.com
As you consider who will do a better job for Santa Monicans, please
consider Mende Smith: poet, environmentalist, journalist and
community activist.
My philosophy is simple - listen to the community and enact policies
that meet our basic needs. I stand for more parks and open space,
affordable housing and environmental sustainability.
I believe we can promote living wages and economic opportunity for all,
without overdeveloping the city and without ruining our neighborhoods.
I also believe in an ethical government that helps those who don’t have
the basics, enabling them to provide for themselves, their families,
and to contribute positively to their communities.
The political revolution happening nationally can also happen here
in Santa Monica.
In addition to these goals, I want to continue Santa Monica’s new
vision of proposing aggressive climate action, restoring our kelp beds,
and enact a “Green Hour” in our city where kids engage in outdoor
activities daily.
I’m ready to bring creative solutions to our daily and long-term
challenges, and to strengthen our local democracy by giving you a
greater voice in your local government.
/s/ Mende Smith
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OSCAR DE LA TORRE Male – Age: 45
Occupation: Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District,
School Board Member
E-Mail Address: vote@oscar4council.com
Website Address: www.oscar4council.com
As a lifelong resident of Santa Monica’s Pico Neighborhood, I have
DEEP ROOTS in Santa Monica. While serving as Student Body
President at Santa Monica High I decided to commit my life to public
service. I have a MA DEGREE in public administration and 14 years
of governance experience on the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School
District Board of Education.
A father of two children, I have a personal commitment to advancing
public safety and the well-being of ALL Santa Monican’s. I am
FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of a youth center and I serve on
Community Corporation of Santa Monica’s board working daily to
expand affordable housing, educational and economic opportunity
for the residents of our City.
I am a PROVEN LEADER who will:
• STOP OVER DEVELOPMENT, and protect renter’s from
gentrification and displacement.
• Keep Santa Monica DIVERSE!
• Challenge the culture of corruption at City Hall that
promotes profit over people.
• Ensure resident needs and concerns are given priority over
tourists.
• Fight for social & economic justice, environmental & racial
justice.
Santa Monica needs a resident voice on the City Council that has a
proven record of holding our government accountable. Elect OSCAR
DE LA TORRE, a leader we can trust to move Santa Monica forward!
Visit: www.oscar4council.com
/s/ Oscar de la Torre
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
_SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 3 9/29/2016 2:07:54 PM
5
!625/4!SANTA MONICA
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
GLEAM OLIVIA DAVIS Female – Age: 60
Occupation: Santa Monica Councilmember
E-mail address: gleam.davis@gmail.com
Website Address: www.gleamdavis2016.com
As your councilperson, I have worked to preserve and create more
affordable housing, and to protect livable neighborhoods that
provide a safe and stable community for all residents – especially
children and seniors.
If re-elected, I will continue to focus on:
• Promoting a safer and more sustainable Santa Monica that is
pedestrian and bike friendly;
• Expanding educational opportunities for all;
• Partnering with business to build a modern and robust local
economy that provides good jobs and good wages;
• Looking for innovative solutions to traffic and parking
problems;
• Encouraging the development of more open space and
recreational facilities including conversion of Santa Monica
Airport to a great park;
• Working for the wellbeing of seniors;
• Reducing the number of homeless persons;
• Supporting increased employment and educational
opportunities for all residents to help everyone reach their full
potential;
• Helping all residents reach their full potential.
I am endorsed by:
- Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights-SMRR
- Congresswoman Julia Brownley
- State Senator Ben Allen
- Assemblymember Richard Bloom
- Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl
- Former Santa Monica Mayors Nat Trives, Michael Feinstein,
and Judy Abdo
I am pleased to have such a broad base of support and would be
honored to have your vote on November 8.
/s/ Gleam Olivia Davis
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TERENCE LATER Male
If anyone understands Santa Monica and all of her majesty on a deeply
rooted level it’s me. I am a Santa Monica born, third generation Santa
Monica citizen and have lived here all my life. My family and myself
have helped build this city to greatness and have contributed both
fiscally and physically and have ties to many of Santa Monica’s longest
standing businesses and 91,000 citizens.
I attended Will Rogers, John Adams, Lincoln, Olympic, Samohi, SMC
and UCLA and have lived in neighborhoods from Santa Monica to
Ocean Park to north of Montana as a renter and business owner. I
have tremendous pride for our school district, our parks, our beaches
and every community that makes up our wonderful city.
Over the years I have seen Santa Monica grow from a little seaside
town into a thriving metropolis. This growth has come with its upside
and downside. When elected I will strive to make Santa Monica a
cleaner, greener, safer place to raise our families.
I will strive for transparency and government accountability to make
sensible expenditure of taxpayer funds as I did in for Prop W in 2006.
Safety in schools and recreation areas along with a proposed dog
beach are high on my campaign list.
/s/ Terence Later
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
_SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 4 9/29/2016 2:07:54 PM
6
!625/5!SANTA MONICA
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ARMEN MELKONIANS Male – Age: 45
Occupation: Civil/ Environmental Engineer
E-mail Address: armen@residocracy.org
Website Address: www.armenourman.org
Santa Monica is facing an over-development and leadership crisis and
together we can make a real change on November 8th.
That’s why I co-authored Measure LV, the Land Use Voter
Empowerment (LUVE) Initiative.
That’s why I led the all-volunteer Residocracy effort to gather 10,000+
signatures to place Measure LV on the ballot - giving residents a voice.
That’s why I wrote the Hines Development Referendum and led
the successful Residocracy effort to gather 13,000+ signatures to
veto our City Council’s approval of the massive 765,000 square foot
development project that would have added 7,000 daily car trips to
Santa Monica.
That’s why I founded Residocracy.org.
Every election year, we hear empty campaign promises to protect
Santa Monica from over-development and increased traffic congestion,
but virtually every proposed development project continues to get
approved at City Hall.
Over-development is not only destroying Santa Monica’s character and
adding traffic, it is resulting in the demolition of existing rent-controlled
apartments, displacement of long-term residents, and the destruction
of our neighborhoods.
It’s time to elect a leader who puts residents first for a change.
It’s time to elect someone who doesn’t just make promises, but
delivers.
I would be honored to have your Vote.
/s/ Armen Melkonians
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JON MANN Male – Age: 70
Occupation: Retired Parole Agent
E-Mail Address: net_democracy@yahoo.com
Website Address: www.jonathanmannsmartvoter.org
There once was a candidate named Mann
15 times for City Council he ran
Virtual Town Hall
Democracy for all
Transparency/Accountability the plan
I’m running for City Council to end cronyism, conflict of interest and
revolving door politics.
I want to lower building heights all over the City, to be determined by
city residents.
I’M JON MANN AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE!
/s/ Jon Mann
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
_SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 5 9/29/2016 2:07:54 PM
7
!625/6!SANTA MONICA
FOR MEMBER OF THE RENT CONTROL BOARD
CHRISTOPHER D. WALTON Male
I am one of the 99%. I’ve occupied my rent controlled apartment for
over 3 decades. Without rent control, I could not afford to live here.
I’m proud of all we’ve accomplished during my first term of office.
We implemented Measure GA. During my tenure as Chairman of the
Board, we had one of the lowest annual rent increases ever. We also
implemented Measure FS which requires landlords to pay a fair share
of the annual rent control fees. This reduced the tenant’s share of
fees by 50%.
The interests of landlords and tenants continue to collide with
unhappy results. During my first term, we’ve applied the rule of law
fairly to deliver justice and equity. Dancing on the racer’s edge that
separates the rights of landlords and tenants requires special skills
and commitment to noble outcomes. I’ve proven that I have those
skills and commitment.
I am running on my successful record of service. The battle for
Renter’s Rights continues. Please re-elect me and give me the honor
of continuing to serve as your Rent Control Commissioner. I remain
your faithful, fearless warrior.
/s/ Christopher D. Walton
FOR MEMBER OF THE RENT CONTROL BOARD
ELAINE GOLDEN-GEALER Female
Occupation: Nonprofit Association Executive
Website Address: www.elaine4rentboard.com
Email Address: elaine@elaine4rentboard.com
RENT CONTROL IS HERE TO STAY – Now What?
Elect the TOP Candidate for a Change!
The only candidate with a TENANT OWNERSHIP PLAN
Elaine Supports:
1. Legislation allowing tenants to purchase their apartments!
Tenants who purchased their apartments in the 1990’
averaged a 1,000% return on their downpayment when
selling!
Keep renting or buy if you and your landlord can make
a deal
One TOP sale can prevent your entire building from being
Ellised
2. The LUVE Ballot Measure – Can protect your home
Discourages big developers from Ellising & tearing down
smaller older apartment buildings
Limits overdevelopment and gridlock
Interesting Facts:
• Employees yearly salary and benefits average OVER $170,000
(about $109 per hour)!!!
• Public servants? I don’t think so!
• I will not be a rubber stamp vote for bloated salaries and benefits!
Elaine:
• Nonprofit Association Executive
• Founder Coldwell Banker Condominium Division - Over 2,000
Condo sales
• Master’s Degree in Social Work – Majored in Community
Organizing.
• Will make Rent ‘Bored’ Meetings Exciting Again.
• Support Diversity – Elect an OUTCUMBENT for a change!
Elect the TOP Candidate
The only candidate with a TENANT OWNERSHIP PLAN
Elect Elaine Golden-Gealer
/s/ Elaine Golden-Gealer
R
E
N
T
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
R
E
N
T
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
_SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 6 9/29/2016 2:07:54 PM
8
!625/7!SANTA MONICA
FOR MEMBER OF THE RENT CONTROL BOARD
ANASTASIA FOSTER Female
Occupation: Broadcaster/Businesswoman
E-mail Address: ARFoster888@gmail.com
I am a strong and joyful advocate for renters’ rights in Santa Monica.
Driving Meals on Wheels for over 5 years has shown me the challenges
that face many of our most vulnerable friends and neighbors in every
corner of this city. I, myself, am a 10-year renter who has worked
the tenant hotline at Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, which gives
an incredible education on our rent control law, tenant harassment
ordinance and city code enforcement. I’ve participated in the SMRR
Housing Committee and “Housing California” in Sacramento, seeking
ideas and policies that will keep our citizens in their homes in the face
of vacancy decontrol and Ellis evictions.
I feel so strongly about my work with tenants’ rights that I sought and
achieved appointment to the Rent Control Board this past February
where I am an active policymaker and a responsible and well-prepared
commissioner.
Apartments are not just a stopover on the way to somewhere else.
Apartments are our homes. Our citizens deserve to be treated with
respect, and that’s why I feel so strongly about serving another term
on the Rent Control Board.
I thank you for your support.
/s/ Anastasia Foster
FOR MEMBER OF THE RENT CONTROL BOARD
CAROLINE M. TOROSIS Female - Age: 30
Occupation: Consumer Protection Attorney
Email Address: ctorosis@gmail.com
Website Address: torosis2016.com
My name is Caroline Torosis, and I am running for the Rent Control
Board because I believe that protecting renters’ rights protects the
integrity of our community. Tenants and landlords are entitled to fair
and reasonable rent controls, which is why serving on the Rent Control
Board is so deeply important. We must ensure that those controls
remain in place and that our laws are enforced.
I am a consumer rights attorney and currently work to pass laws and
regulations that protect consumer rights, protect tenant rights, and
promote a fair and vibrant rental marketplace. As a certified mediator,
I have personally mediated hundreds of Unlawful Detainer cases
where I successfully helped tenants and landlords reach an amicable
resolution and avoid eviction proceedings.
As a member of the Rent Control Board, I will work to ensure that
(1) everyone is afforded habitable premises in which to live, (2) local
control is given back to Santa Monica to decide when units can be
removed from the rental market, and (3) the supply of rent controlled
units in Santa Monica is maintained. I would be honored to have your
vote for the Rent Control Board.
/s/ Caroline M. Torosis
R
E
N
T
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
R
E
N
T
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
_SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 7 9/29/2016 2:07:54 PM
9
!625/8!SANTA MONICA
FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
SION ROY Male
Occupation: Physician (cardiologist)
Email: roy4santamonica@gmail.com
Website: www.roy4santamonica.com
I’m running because the importance of education is personal for my
wife Kathy and me. I’m a first generation American and the son of a
college professor. A great education allowed my immigrant parents
to make a better life for themselves in this country, and allowed me
to achieve my dreams as a professor and cardiologist helping the
underserved at Harbor UCLA, a county hospital.
I’ve been an education advocate in Santa Monica as chair of our
school district’s Health and Safety committee, vice chair of the college’s
bond committee, and as adjunct faculty at the college; where I learned
about the everyday challenges in the lives of SMC students, faculty,
staff, and surrounding community. I’ve also served on the California
and LA County Medical Association boards, and am a union member.
I’ll advocate for:
- Expanding medical curriculum because healthcare offers
the jobs of the future
- Increased ties between the college and school district, so that our
local students show up at SMC with the basic skills for success
- Hire more fulltime faculty, because this is a student equity issue
I hope to bring a new voice with a positive vision to the SMC board.
/s/ Sion Roy
FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
DR. MARGARET QUINONES-PEREZ, Ed.D, M.S.ED Female
Occupation: Santa Monica College Trustee, Professor - Military
Veteran Counselor
Margaret Quinones-Perez is an experienced, committed, and
passionate community college leader that believes in serving Santa
Monica/Malibu residents and all students with excellence. Dr.
Quinones-Perez has been a Trustee for 16 years and a former Board
of Governor for all 113 California Community colleges. She wants to
give back to the College that has been so supportive to her when she
was a Santa Monica College student, her children and the community.
Margaret Quinones-Perez Accomplishments:
• Promoted equitable compensation for faculty and staff
• Supported student success, transfer and graduation of SMC
students making sure the college met the goals of the State’s
Student Support Services Program (SSSP)
• Guided facilities planning and construction to the 21st Century
• Increased financial aid and scholarships for students
Margaret Quinones-Perez Goals:
• Preserve fiscal stability including prudent use of bond funds
• Support Emeritus College and high school dual enrollment
programs
• Increase student success through orientation, support services,
and 100% completion of student education plans
• Expand work force programs and career opportunities for students
• Develop Community College programs at SMC for Students on
the Autism Spectrum
/s/ Margaret Quinones-Perez
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
_SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 8 9/29/2016 2:07:54 PM
10
!625/9!SANTA MONICA
FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
ROB GREENSTEIN RADER, J.D., M.A. Male - Age: 49
Occupation: Santa Monica College Trustee; Law Professor,
Pepperdine; General Counsel, Ovation TV Network
Email Address: rader4smc@earthlink.net
Website Address: www.VoteRobRader.com
As the first in my family to graduate college straight through, I
believe all students deserve the same opportunity.
My community experience includes:
• Director, KCRW
• Chair, Malibu Public Facilities Authority
• Secretary/Treasurer, Downtown Santa Monica Inc. (Third Street
Promenade)
• Chair, Wilshire/Montana Neighborhood Coalition
• Professor, Pepperdine
I am General Counsel for Ovation TV network (50 million households)
and former MGM vice-president. I attended Harvard for my
undergraduate/law degrees and Stanford for my master’s. I raise two
amazing kids – Dash (11) and Zora (8).
I am proud of our accomplishments:
• Expanded vocational/technical programs (e.g., Recycling, Solar
Installation, LA HI-TECH).
• Established Broad Stage with Dustin Hoffman and Placido
Domingo.
• Maintained services at Emeritus College.
• Continued tradition as number one transfer school.
• Pioneered new ways to deliver remedial/distance education.
• Founded Public Policy Institute with Sheila Kuehl.
• Brought light rail to Santa Monica.
• Started B.A. degree in Interaction Design.
• Chose new president Dr. Kathryn Jeffery.
My goals include:
• Preserve academic excellence.
• Increase opportunities for local students.
• Improve results for all students and close the equity gap.
• Support local economy through LA HI-TECH training.
• Ensure efficient bond/operating budgets.
I’m excited about what we can accomplish together! Please re-elect
me as Santa Monica College Trustee.
/s/ Rob Greenstein Rader
FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
SUSAN AMINOFF, Ph.D. Female
Occupation: Santa Monica College Trustee/ Professor
I am running for re-election to ensure that our unique community
college stays on track as SMC implements initiatives to prepare our
students for today’s careers. My leadership as a trustee and classroom
experience as a community college professor have helped SMC to:
• Remain the #1 Community College in California for transfers to
the UC.
• Become an important community resource to residents
throughout the district.
• Create partnerships with our schools and exceptional
programming at SMC’s Performing Arts Campus where I serve
on the Broadstage Board.
• Preserve state funding for Emeritus College
• Earn accreditation for our newly created Baccalaureate program
in Interaction Design.
• Expand Workforce Development programs that are responsive
to the business and technology needs of our community.
• Ensure that SMC continues to operate with strong fiscal
management.
• Obtain approvals to begin construction on SMC’s new Malibu
campus.
I am proud to share some of my endorsements, including:
• State Senator Ben Allen
• State Assembly member Richard Bloom
• Supervisor Sheila Kuehl
I hope to have your support for another term.
/s/ Susan Aminoff
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
_SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 9 9/29/2016 2:07:54 PM
11
!625/10!SANTA MONICA
Measure GS is an advisory measure related to measure GSH. See the full text of Measure GSH.
CITY ATTORNEY’S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE GS
ADVISORY MEASURE ON USE OF REVENUES FROM THE TRANSACTION AND USE TAX INCREASE
This is an advisory measure placed on the ballot by the City Council. It relates to, but is separate from, the Transaction and Use Tax Measure
that is on the same ballot. That Transaction and Use Tax Measure would increase by one-half percent (1/2%), the City’s current Transaction
and Use Tax, which is collected on the sale of goods that are not exempt from sales taxes. A separate impartial analysis has been prepared
for the Transaction and Use Tax Measure.
This advisory measure allows voters to provide advice to the City Council on how voters prefer the additional tax revenues to be used if the
voters approve the proposed change in the Transaction and Use Tax. Specifically, this advisory measure asks whether half of the additional
revenue should be used to improve and maintain local public schools and whether half of the additional revenue should be used to improve and
maintain affordable housing, protect residents from housing displacement and reduce homelessness. It is anticipated that the tax increase if
adopted by the voters would raise revenue by approximately $16 Million annually.
Because this measure is advisory, its passage would not legally require the City Council to expend the revenues in any particular way. Instead,
the advisory measure would supply information to the City Council about how the voters prefer any additional revenues are to be spent.
/s/ MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE, City Attorney
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 10 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
12
!625/11!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE GS
Vote Yes on Measure GS.
Santa Monica is a special place to live. We all take pride in our
wonderful community. We have exciting opportunities, but we also
face serious challenges. It has become difficult for many longtime
residents to afford to stay here. And, limited State funding challenges
our schools. Measures GSH & GS are a package of measures that
work together to help address these issues.
Together, Measure GSH & Measure GS provide funding to be shared
equally between our local public schools -- an essential resource
for Santa Monica families -- as well as proven programs to protect
renters, seniors and working families from losing their homes and
falling into homelessness and to provide housing for struggling low-
income residents.
Tourists and visitors will contribute a large share of this revenue.
Our terrific local public schools operate on inadequate budgets and
face uncertain State funding every year. Measure GSH and Measure
GS will provide locally-controlled funds for our schools that State
government cannot touch. This funding will help maintain rigorous
academic programs, prepare students for college and high-demand
careers, and help ensure safe, 21st century learning environments.
State government also recently eliminated funding Santa Monica used
for affordable housing. Measure GSH and Measure GS will provide
locally-controlled funds to help rent-burdened residents, often seniors,
stay in their homes through their golden years, and help local workers
find homes near jobs -- strengthening both our community’s diversity
and economy while reducing traffic.
Measure GS tells our City Council – and future City Councils – we
want to protect and maintain both exceptional schools and a diverse
community for all Santa Monicans.
Join EDUCATION LEADERS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING and HOMELESS
ADVOCATES, and BUSINESS AND CIVIC LEADERS in voting YES on
both Measures GS and GSH. We need both to pass to protect our
schools and our residents.
/s/ Sarah Braff, President, Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom
Teachers Association
/s/ Michael Soloff, Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission
/s/ Jennifer Smith, President, Santa Monica-Malibu Council of PTAs
/s/ Patricia Hoffman, Co-chair, Santa Monicans for Renters Rights
/s/ Barry Seid, District Coordinator, AARP
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE GS
Vote No on GS. The Giant Structure Initiative!
Giant buildings will be everywhere - San Vicente, Montana, Wilshire,
Ocean Park - you name it. And, it will be current renters who are
displaced as their buildings are torn down to make way for these
new projects.
There is no halo on this anything goes, over-development scheme.
We have already paid, in the declining quality of our daily life as
thousands of new housing and commercial units go up only to over-
crowd Santa Monica. And, now they ask us to pay, with our checkbooks,
to build more!
Your tax dollars will be used solely to fund City Hall’s favorite developers
in producing large, high-density projects anywhere City Hall wants.
The City has taken away your right to review or protest all development
funded by this tax. It will be built in your immediate proximity - you
cannot object.
In the past, the City promised “housing” for our community - teachers,
first responders, disabled people, even seniors- but never delivered.
City projects are built for non-residents who have no connection to
Santa Monica. Now the City even claims these projects will “reduce”
traffic!! Really? Do you believe that?
Say no to City Hall - no blank check to build large, high-density
developments of any kind, wherever the bureaucrats want.
/s/ Roberto Rodriguez, Santa Monica Renter
/s/ Scott Kelso, Union Member
/s/ Donald Gray, Former Chair, Pico Neighborhood Assn.
/s/ Clara Benrey, Retired School Teacher
/s/ Robert Kronovet, Former Rent Board Commissioner
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 11 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
13
!625/12!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE GS
The city has promised housing to teachers, first responders,
city workers and seniors to get your vote in past elections but
never delivered. City-funded housing has gone to non-Santa Monica
residents. This pattern will continue.
Giving City Hall a blank check to build large, high-density developments
of any kind, anywhere in the City is a mistake.
You have no say where these projects are sited. No say in their size.
No say in their design. No say in the density/numbers of units. Your
right to review, comment and object has been taken away by those
now wanting your tax dollars to build their pet projects.
The City zoning code gives developers of these buildings height and
density bonuses plus reduced parking requirements. Large, over-
crowed, under parked projects will be common in your neighborhood.
Stop over development and taxing yourself to pay for it! Vote NO!
The City has huge pension obligations that, as a matter of law, they
HAVE TO fund. This advisory is non-binding and will become an empty
promise at the City Council’s whim.
Don’t believe false promises. Vote NO!
/s/ Roberto Rodriguez, Santa Monica Renter
/s/ Clara Benrey, Retired School Teacher
/s/ Donald Gray, Former Chair, Pico Neighborhood Assn.
/s/ Scott Kelso, Union Member
/s/ Robert Kronovet. Former Rent Board Commissioner
REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE GS
Opponents of Measures GS & GSH are the same people who oppose
every school funding and affordable housing initiative, and they have
their facts wrong – wildly wrong.
Measures GS & GSH have NOTHING to do with relaxing development
standards or making parking worse.
FACT: Voting YES on Measures GS & GSH directs our City government
to help ensure great schools and affordable housing in Santa Monica.
FACT: Measures GS & GSH provide local funding to improve classroom
instruction, support great teachers and maintain our local schools.
FACT: Measures GS & GSH provide local funding to assist long-term
residents from losing their homes due to rising rents. Measures GS
& GSH also will help build and renovate existing buildings to provide
affordable housing for Santa Monica families and residents.
FACT: The state government has taken millions of dollars from Santa
Monica and other cities and depleted funds for both schools and
affordable housing programs.
FACT: Without locally controlled funds, Santa Monica schools will
be forced to make cuts in programs. And school facility repairs and
upgrades will only become more costly as the state provides little to
no school facility maintenance funding.
FACT: Without Measures GS & GSH Santa Monica families in need of
affordable housing will not get the assistance they need.
Please vote Yes on Measures GS & GSH to protect Santa Monica
schools, families and senior citizens and support the diversity and
quality of life that make our city a great place to live.
VOTE YES on Measures GS & GSH.
/s/ Sarah Braff, President, Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom
Teachers Association
/s/ Michael Soloff, Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission
/s/ Jennifer Smith, President, Santa Monica-Malibu Council of PTAs
/s/ Patricia Hoffman, Co-chair, Santa Monicans for Renters
Rights
/s/ Barry Seid, District Coordinator, AARP
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 12 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
14
!625/13!SANTA MONICA
MEASURE GSH
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ENACTING A ONE-HALF PERCENT INCREASE IN THE TRANSACTION AND USE TAX,
TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, SUBJECT TO ADOPTION BY THE ELECTORATE
WHEREAS, all redevelopment agencies in California, including the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency, were dissolved on February
1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency generated nearly $40 million per year that was used for Santa Monica community
priorities such as seismic safety improvements to public buildings, affordable housing, and capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the dissolution of the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency severely diminished the funds available to address Santa
Monica community priorities; and
WHEREAS, many residents live in the City of Santa Monica because the City invests in community priorities, offering extensive
services and programs that substantially enhance quality of life; and
WHEREAS, residents depend upon the City to continue to protect their quality of life and effectuate community priorities, but with the
loss of redevelopment funds, the City must seek other resources; and
WHEREAS, creating and preserving local revenue sources will help ensure that the City can maintain and improve the quality of life
that residents expect and effectuate community priorities; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a transaction and use tax ordinance on July 13, 2013, which authorized the City to impose a retail
transaction and use tax in the amount of one-half of one percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal
property sold at retail within the territory of the City; and
WHEREAS, increasing the City’s transaction and use tax by one-half percent would partially fill the revenue gap left by the loss of
redevelopment funds; and
WHEREAS, all City revenues are subject to annual independent audits with public review of the City Budget being widely available,
including at City Hall, on-line and at the public libraries; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code Parts 1.6 and 1.7, Sections 7251 et seq. and
Section 7285.9, the City of Santa Monica is authorized to enact a transaction and use tax; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica proposes to enact a one-half-percent increase in the transaction and use tax as permitted by law;
and
WHEREAS, under applicable law, to enact a transaction and use tax, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica must adopt the
transaction and use tax ordinance and the electorate of the City of Santa Monica must also adopt it upon majority vote at an election.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 6.62 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX
Section 6.62.010 TITLE
This ordinance shall be known as the City of Santa Monica Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance.
Section 6.62.020 DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases shall be defined as set forth in this Ordinance, except that any term or phrase not defined in this
Ordinance shall have the same meaning as that term or phrase is defined in Parts 1.6 and 1.7 of the State of California Revenue and Taxation
Code:
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 13 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
15
!625/14!SANTA MONICA
(a) “City” means the City of Santa Monica
(b) “Operative date” means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this
ordinance by vote of the electorate on November 2, 2010 8, 2016.
(c) “Ordinance” means the City of Santa Monica Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance.
(d) “State” means the State of California.
Section 6.62.030 PURPOSE
This Ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and the Ordinance shall be interpreted liberally in order
to accomplish all of its lawful purposes:
A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax to be applied throughout the entire territory of the City to the fullest extent permitted
by law and in accordance with the provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7251 et seq., and 7285.9, which authorizes
the City to adopt this Ordinance if a majority of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called
for that purpose.
B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law
of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division
2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure that can be administered and
collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation
from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the
California State Sales and Use Taxes.
D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree
possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the
transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions
of this ordinance.
E. To provide transactions and use tax revenue to the City to be used for the general governmental purposes of the City and with
any transactions and use tax revenue received being placed into the City’s general fund.
Section 6.62.040. CONTRACT WITH STATE
Prior to the Operative Date, the City shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the
administration and operation of this Ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior
to the Operative Date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter
following the execution of such a contract.
Section 6.62.050 TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE
For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a transactions tax is imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory
of the City at the rate of 0.50% 1% of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail within the
territory of the City on and after the Operative Date of this Ordinance.
Section 6.62.060 PLACE OF SALE
For the purposes of this Ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible
personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his or her agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an
out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from the sale shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and
use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more
than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to
be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 14 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
16
!625/15!SANTA MONICA
Section 6.62.070 USE TAX RATE
An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from
any retailer on and after the Operative Date of this Ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in the territory of the City at the rate of
0.50% 1% of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to State sales or
use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.
Section 6.62.080 ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division
2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code are adopted, incorporated and made a part of this Ordinance as though fully set forth in it.
Section 6.62.090 LIMITATIONS ON ADOPTION OF STATE LAW AND COLLECTION OF USE TAXES
In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code:
A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of the City of Santa Monica shall be
substituted. However, the substitution shall not be made when:
1. The word “State” is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of
Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;
2. The result of the substitution would require action to be taken by or against the City or any agency, officer, or employee
thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this
Ordinance;
3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of
California, where the result of the substitution would be to:
a. Provide an exemption from the taxes of this Ordinance with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption
of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from the tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain
subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or;
b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would
not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code.
4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the California Revenue and
Taxation Code.
B. The word “City” shall be substituted for the word “State” in the phrase “retailer engaged in business in this State” in Section
6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.
Section 6.62.100 PERMIT NOT REQUIRED
If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional
transactor’s permit shall not be required by this Ordinance.
Section 6.62.110 EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax
imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law
or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.
B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from:
1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed
principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons
or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government;
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 15 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
17
!625/16!SANTA MONICA
2. Sales of property to be used outside the City, which is shipped to a point outside the City pursuant to the contract of sale by
delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the
purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied:
a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing
with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and
undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-City
address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of
residence; and
b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of
perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.
3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract
entered into prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.
4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor
is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this Ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed
not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right
to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this Ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this City of
tangible personal property:
1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions
and use tax ordinance;
2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly
and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public
convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition
to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California;
3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the
Operative Date of this Ordinance;
4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is
a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a
lease prior to the Operative Date of this Ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or
exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period
of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not
such right is exercised.
6. Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax
from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City or participates within the City in
making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business
of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under the authority of the
retailer.
7. “A retailer engaged in business in the City” shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to
registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with
Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the
Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at
an address in the City.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 16 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
18
!625/17!SANTA MONICA
D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for
transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.
Section 6.62.120 AMENDMENTS
All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating
to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all
amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become adopted and a part of
this Ordinance without further action of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica or the City’s electorate, provided however, that no such
amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance. The City Council may amend this Ordinance to comply with
applicable law or as may be otherwise necessary in order to further the Ordinance’s stated purposes.
Section 6.62.130 PROHIBITION ON ENJOINING COLLECTION
No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against
the State or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division
2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected under this Ordinance.
Section 6.62.140 SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application of it to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance
and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Section 6.62.150 EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of a transactions and use tax and shall take effect without second reading by the
City Council of the City of Santa Monica in accordance with the City Charter Section 619 (c), except that also in accordance with applicable law,
no tax imposed by this Ordinance shall take effect unless this Ordinance is adopted by the electorate at an election to be held on November 2,
2010 8, 2016.
SECTION 2. Any provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions
of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the
same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 17 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
19
!625/18!SANTA MONICA
CITY ATTORNEY’S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE GSH
BALLOT MEASURE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX BY
AN ADDITIONAL ONE-HALF PERCENT OF THE SALE PRICE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
This measure proposes to raise local City of Santa Monica revenues by amending the Municipal Code to increase the City’s transactions and
use tax by an additional 0.50%, from 0.50% to 1%, of the sales price of personal property.
This kind of tax is generally called a “sales” tax. However, it is a legally different tax that is collected along with sales taxes and administered
by the State Board of Equalization. However, all revenues generated would be paid into the City’s general fund, and none would go to the state.
The increase in the City’s transactions and use tax would only apply to goods and services that are subject to the existing tax. Items exempt
from the City’s transactions and use tax include, among other things, purchases of prescription medications and food store items. These would
not be taxed. It is anticipated that the tax increase would raise approximately $16 Million annually. It would remain in effect until the voters
decide to repeal or amend it.
The City Council voted by more than a two-thirds majority to approve the proposed increase to the existing transactions and use tax; but the
tax increase can only go into effect if it is also approved by a majority of voters at the November 2016 election. The current transactions and
use tax was approved by Santa Monica voters in 2010.
If the measure is passed by the voters, the services and programs that potentially could receive funding include, but are not limited to: education,
afterschool programs, affordable housing, police, fire, paramedic and emergency 911 response, public transit, environmental and library services.
Accompanying the transactions and use tax measure is a non-binding advisory measure, asking voters for their preference on how the additional
revenue should be used if the voters approve the measure. In particular, voters are asked whether, if the measure passes, their preference is
for half of the additional revenues to be used to improve and maintain public schools, with remaining half to improve and maintain affordable
housing, protect residents from displacement and reduce homelessness.
If the transactions and use tax increase passes, the City Council may be guided by the voter’s decision on the advisory question in deciding how
to use the revenue. However, the City Council is not legally bound by the outcome of the vote on the advisory question. The City Council can
use the revenue collected as a result of the measure for any lawful City purpose.
The City Council placed this measure on the ballot.
/s/ MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE, City Attorney
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 18 9/21/2016 1:39:38 PM
20
!625/19!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE GSH
Measure GSH will bring critically needed resources to protect renters,
seniors and working families from losing their homes and help keep
our excellent schools strong and able to serve our community for
years to come.
Every penny from Measure GSH will stay in Santa Monica and cannot
be taken away by Sacramento.
Voting Yes on GSH is a vote to maintain and protect the quality of our
local schools while also ensuring that rent burdened residents, often
seniors, are able to age in place and providing local workers with
homes near jobs, reducing local traffic.
Santa Monica had a proven, effective affordable housing program in
place until Sacramento raided city budgets. Measure GSH will help
offset those funding cuts and fund programs to provide stability for
long-term residents.
Santa Monica has great schools, but State funding is unreliable and
doesn’t provide adequate funds to maintain them.
Passage of Measure GSH will help our local schools attract high quality
teachers, assist at-risk students, improve instruction in the arts, music,
math, and science, and provide ongoing maintenance at our schools,
reducing the cost of expensive repairs.
In addition, half of the funds from Measure GSH will be used for
preserving existing buildings as affordable housing for current and
future tenants, and for providing rental assistance and other affordable
housing opportunities to low-income families and seniors.
Measure GSH is a half-cent sales tax -- paid largely by tourists
and visitors -- to generate critically needed funds for City services,
especially for our schools and for programs to keep low income rent-
burdened Santa Monicans in their homes.
Measure GSH is supported by parents, grand parents, elected officials,
civic leaders, and local business leaders who know that high-quality
schools and a stable and diverse community are important.
Please vote Yes on Measure GSH.
/s/ Sarah Braff, President, Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom
Teachers Association
/s/ Michael Soloff, Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission
/s/ Jennifer Smith, President, Santa Monica-Malibu Council of PTAs
/s/ Patricia Hoffman, Co-chair, Santa Monicans for Renters Rights
/s/ Barry Seid, District Coordinator, AARP
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE GSH
Vote no on GSH! This is a Growth Stimulating Hormone plan to increase
development!
This measure is an increase to a sales tax we just approved in 2010.
City Hall wants even more money to spend for even more high-
density development! The sales tax never expires guaranteeing
over-development as our future!
This scheme is shocking for its audacity. This measure means that we
not only suffer the development pain, but must shoulder the financial
burden, as well.
Millions of dollars yearly will pour into the general fund. Behind
closed doors the money will be given to the City’s favorite developers
for more large, high-density projects that are ruining the low scale
beach community we want Santa Monica to remain. To add insult to
injury, Santa Monica residents do not have priority for the low-income
housing!
It gets worse.
Projects funded by this unprecedented tax are given extra height,
density and lower parking requirements. Plus - there is no public
review! You are powerless.
These high-density giants can be built next door to you … or on the
corner … or down the block. You will live in shadow filled streets with
no available parking.
If you care for the wonderful quality of life you enjoy and want to
protect that environment Vote No on TAX Measure GSH. The Growth
Stimulating Hormone Development Tax!
If you care that your tax dollars are spent to shape a better community
and not an over-development nightmare Vote No on TAX Measure GSH.
/s/ Roberto Rodriguez, Santa Monica Renter
/s/ Scott Kelso, Union Member
/s/ Donald Gray, Former Chair, Pico Neighborhood Assn.
/s/ Clara Benrey, Retired School Teacher
/s/ Robert Kronovet, Former Rent Board Commissioner
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 19 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
21
!625/20!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE GSH
Vote NO on tax increase measure GSH.
Do you want MORE development in Santa Monica?
Do you want to GIVE DEVELOPERS YOUR MONEY to over build
our city?
1. This is a sales tax slated to fuel and accelerate even more high
density, multi-floor development.
2. This tax does not expire and thus insures development given
extra height and density will continue forever, burdening infrastructure
(exacerbating water and traffic problems), eroding quality of life and
overcrowding schools.
3. You will have no say where these large, high-density projects
will be built. The city has removed your right to review or protest all
development funded by this tax.
4. New federal guidelines insure that projects must be placed
in all areas of the city. Even Sunset Park and north of Montana
will experience high-density development. All residential and all
commercial property will be targeted for these large buildings that
exceed normal zoning rules and are allowed reduced parking.
5. This tax amount is exorbitant and is a regressive tax on lower
income residents. It will lead to higher housing costs, higher rents,
and higher prices for nearly everything you buy.
6. This is yet another local increase to a sales tax voters approved
in 2010. With additional County increases on this ballot; you will pay
10.5% - 11% on all purchases!
Measure GSH funds more development with your money.
Vote NO and save our city!
/s/ Roberto Rodriguez, Santa Monica Renter
/s/ Clara Benrey, Retired School Teacher
/s/ Donald Gray, Former Chair, Pico Neighborhood Assn.
/s/ Scott Kelso, Union Member
/s/ Robert Kronovet, Former Rent Board Commissioner
REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE GSH
Arguments made by opponents of Measures GS & GSH are simply
wrong.
Measures GS & GSH will accomplish two important goals: provide
locally-controlled funds to keep our excellent schools strong, and
protect proven, effective affordable housing programs needed by
long-term residents, especially seniors and disabled persons.
If voters approve both Measures GS & GSH, half the funds will support
local schools to improve instruction in math, science, music and the
arts, support our great teachers, and maintain classrooms and schools.
The other half of funding from Measures GS/GSH will support long-term
Santa Monica residents, who are at risk of losing their homes due to
the rising cost of housing. Measures GS & GSH will also help enable
working families to live closer to their jobs, reducing traffic.
Measure GSH will add just 50 cents to a $100 purchase, with groceries,
medicine, gasoline and other essential items exempt.
Measures GS/GSH are SUPPORTED by teachers, school board
members, and PTA leaders because they are essential to ensure our
schools are not forced to cut academic programs and school building
maintenance.
Measures GS/GSH are SUPPORTED by slow-growth champions,
advocates for community preservation and renters’ rights, homeowners
and local business owners who care about preserving neighborhoods
and maintaining economic diversity in Santa Monica.
It’s ridiculous to say that Measures GS/GSH will increase development.
They do not relax zoning restrictions or development standards. That
claim is false.
Measures GS/GSH will help ensure great schools and affordable
housing.
Please vote YES.
/s/ Sarah Braff, President, Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom
Teachers Association
/s/ Michael Soloff, Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission
/s/ Jennifer Smith, President, Santa Monica-Malibu Council of PTAs
/s/ Patricia Hoffman, Co-chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’
Rights (SMRR)
/s/ Barry Seid, District Coordinator, AARP
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
G
S
H
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 20 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
22
!625/21!SANTA MONICA
MEASURE LV
The proposed amendments read as follows:
Section I: TITLE
This initiative measure may be known and referred to as the “Land Use Voter Empowerment Initiative” or “LUVE Initiative.”
Section II: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
The People of the City of Santa Monica find as follows:
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica love the beauty of the open skies and ocean breezes of their low-rise City and want to
protect them for future generations;
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica rely on the goals of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), adopted by our City Council
in 2010, to “maintain our City’s character” and “protect our neighborhoods;”
WHEREAS, the 2010 LUCE permitted the construction of taller and larger buildings with a three-tiered approach to development by
exchanging so-called “community benefits” for increased height above the Tier 1 base height;
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica currently have no say, other than public input at public hearings, as to what “community
benefits” would justify the impacts of taller and larger buildings on our quality of life;
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica have repeatedly expressed concern about City Hall policies that incentivize increased height
in both commercial and residential developments throughout the city;
WHEREAS, elected officials continue to make campaign promises to protect our city from overdevelopment but, once elected, choose
instead to approve taller and larger buildings;
WHEREAS, the voters of Santa Monica wish to have the final word on whether “community benefits” exchanged for increased height
above the Tier 1 base will outweigh the impacts on our quality of life;
WHEREAS, the voters of Santa Monica wish to have the final word on major modifications to the City’s land use planning documents;
WHEREAS, providing housing opportunities to a broad range of Santa Monica residents, including persons and families of low and
moderate income, and including senior citizens, is an important objective for Santa Monica;
WHEREAS, nothing in this Initiative is intended to prevent the City from meeting its regional fair share of housing needs, nor to prevent
the approval and construction of affordable or senior housing projects;
WHEREAS, the voters of Santa Monica have a long history of being informed and engaged while actively working to protect the city
we love;
NOW THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, the People find and declare that the Land Use and Circulation Element and the
Zoning Ordinance be amended by this Initiative to provide an opportunity for the people of the City to vote upon major development projects and
significant changes to land use planning documents that will directly affect the quality of life in the City of Santa Monica, as set forth herein.
Section III: AMENDMENT OF LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
A. Section 2.1 of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica is amended as follows (new
text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
ACHIEVING COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The essence of the LUCE land use policy is to identify an allowable building height for each land use as a baseline. Proposed development
that requests additional height above the base will be subject to discretionary review, possible voter approval as established by ordinance,
and additional requirements consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals. This approach is defined in three tiers;
the base tier (ministerial up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance) and two discretionary tiers. In most
commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and portions of Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards,
the maximum base height (Tier 1) for a project without providing community benefits is 32 feet (two stories). In these areas, a project with
housing is eligible for a height bonus above the base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the percentage of required
affordable housing units on-site or within close proximity along the transit corridors. Thus the base height generally ranges from 32 to 36 feet.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 21 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
23
!625/22!SANTA MONICA
To be above the base height, new development must provide community benefits for the City and the neighborhood. Under the LUCE,
an applicant for a commercial or mixed-use project requesting additional height above the base, known as Tier 2, will need to provide community
benefits that will be considered through a discretionary permit or Development Agreement. Heights identified as Tier 3 require additional
community benefits. Projects seeking Tier 2 or Tier 3 approvals may also be subject to voter approval requirements, as established by ordinance.
Several land use designations have a lower base height (Tier 1), a lower maximum height for Tier 2 and no Tier 3. The exceptions are
called out later in this chapter in the discussion of each land use designation.
The community identified the following five priority categories of Community Benefits.
1. Trip Reduction and Traffic Management
The LUCE specifies that all new development will be measured and evaluated with respect to its ability to reduce vehicle trips in Santa
Monica which are a source of numerous environmental impacts, including air quality degradation, increased congestion, and exacerbation of
global climate change. Projects above the base height will be required to provide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) trip reduction
measures to reduce congestion and GHG emissions.
These measures – which are intended to encourage walking, biking and transit use in the City while deemphasizing use of the
automobile – could include:
• Bicycle Facilities
• Dedicated Shuttles
• Car-sharing
• Transit Passes
• Parking “Cash-out”
• Shared Parking
• Pricing Parking Separately from Housing Units
2. Affordable and Workforce Housing
The LUCE outlines requirements for housing that is affordable to lower-income residents. Projects that include a significant amount
of such housing achieve the highest level of community benefit. The Plan also incentivizes workforce housing to provide additional units for
employees who are increasingly priced out of our community. To continue to foster diversity, it is important to create the conditions which
allow employees to live in the City. This reduces commuting, which contributes to air pollution, traffic congestion, and global climate change.
Workforce housing is an emerging sustainable policy for the City. Being able to live near employment and transit significantly reduces vehicle
miles traveled. Thus, this housing should be located near transit and near existing job centers (e.g., hospitals, Santa Monica College, school
district offices, and entertainment industry centers). Businesses are encouraged to provide workforce housing for which priority is given to
employees. Residential or mixed-use projects that provide affordable and workforce housing will be eligible for height over the base of 32–35
feet in recognition of the environmental and social benefits of such housing.
3. Community Physical Improvements
In certain parts of the City, the community benefits could address necessary or desired physical improvements such as:
• Reconnecting the street grid with Green Streets
• Quality pedestrian, biking, and Green Connections
• Community gathering and green open spaces
• Recreational open space
• Neighborhood-serving retail and services
4. Social and Cultural Facilities
In addition to the traffic mitigation and housing, the LUCE also specifies a range of community benefits that may be applied to residential or
nonresidential projects. Incentives may be achieved by incorporating some of the following community benefits into the project:
• Support for arts and cultural facilities and uses such as providing public art and/or gallery space within the building
• The creation of child care, senior, or youth facilities as part of the project
5. Historic Preservation
A community benefit could also include the preservation of historic structures, and/or adaptive reuse of cultural buildings as part of or near to
the project, or participation in a Transfer of Development Rights program.
(See chapter 3.2 Community Benefits for further information on the desired list of community benefits.)
B. Section 2.1, Goal LU10 of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica is amended as
follows (new text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE
GOAL LU10: Community Benefits- Require new development to contribute directly to the community’s core social, physical and transportation
goals through mechanisms such as community benefits.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 22 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
24
!625/23!SANTA MONICA
POLICIES
LU10.1 Maximum Allowable Base Height. Establish a maximum allowable building height and density for each commercial land use designation
as a baseline, which is ministerial up to the discretionary thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance.
LU10.2 Benefi ts Tied to Community Values. Require new development that requests height above the base to provide measurable benefi ts
to foster complete neighborhoods and support the goals of the LUCE, including reducing vehicle trips and GHG emissions, maintaining diversity,
and promoting affordable and workforce housing.
LU10.3 Affordable and Workforce Housing. Focus on additional affordable and workforce housing with an emphasis on employment centers
close to transit facilities.
LU10.4 Discretionary Review. Require a discretionary review process with community input for projects above the base height except for 100
percent affordable housing projects. Inclusion of community benefi ts and specifi c fi ndings will be required for conditional approval above the
base height and density. A vote of the people of the City shall be required for certain projects above the base height, as shall be established by
ordinance.
C. Section 3.2 of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica is amended as follows (new
text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
Community Benefi ts
Traditional planning has long required development to meet minimum community standards. Developers of private property are key
participants in shaping the City’s form, characteristics and amenities, and through this development they can contribute to a shared community
vision. The LUCE articulates and clarifi es the community’s future vision and expectations. What is innovative about the LUCE is the requirement
that when a developer seeks to develop property at a height greater than the City’s ministerial standard, the developer must include in the
project certain preferred uses or benefi cial project design features, or meet other development standards that serve the community’s core needs
– those standards that contribute directly to the community’s fundamental social, cultural, physical, transportation and environmental goals.
This approach provides the City and the community with the ability to shape how projects contribute to the City as a whole, ensuring
that new buildings will be rich additions to the urban fabric, creating special places in the City that enhance its unique character and quality of
life. This regulatory approach also strives to ensure that local services are located within walking distance of both existing and new uses so as
to create complete neighborhoods that increase livability, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and relieve congestion.
THE COMMUNITY IDENTIFIES CORE VALUES FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The community’s vision of desired community benefi ts has evolved through an extensive participation process. Through the LUCE’s
three-year community outreach process, a continuing and interactive dialogue identifi ed the core values of the community. Participants responded
to the question of “what makes a livable city?” For Santa Monicans, it is preservation of the vibrant, beach town atmosphere, the enhancement
of the sense of community, the conservation of unique and diverse neighborhoods, and the ability to enjoy walkable streets, easy access to
transit, green streets and open space, and a range of housing choices for all income levels. The community identifi ed the overarching principle
of maintaining the City’s unique attributes while enhancing and enriching neighborhood livability, including housing that is affordable to people
of all income levels, ages and cultural backgrounds.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The LUCE addresses the following questions about development projects:
• Does this project contribute to the community?
• Does the project protect and enhance the neighborhood?
• Is the project in the right location to reduce automobile dependence?
• Does the project contribute to the City’s overall traffi c reduction and management strategy?
• Does the project adversely impact or enhance the current or future open space and community gathering spaces?
• Does the project contribute to the City’s long-term sustainability?
Five Priority Categories of Community Benefi ts:
The community identifi ed the following fi ve priority categories of community benefi ts:
1. New Affordable and Workforce Housing
For all projects in which a developer seeks to develop a project that is greater in height than the base height of 32 feet, affordable housing or a
contribution to the affordable housing fund shall be required. The objective is to incentivize housing along the City’s commercial corridors where
there is transit, local-serving retail and an enhanced pedestrian environment, facilitating a complete neighborhood for a range of socioeconomic
levels. While affordable housing is identifi ed as a primary community benefi t, the provision of a signifi cantly higher percentage of workforce
housing units is also a community benefi t.
A project developer who chooses to provide affordable housing as part of the base project in accordance with the percentage requirements
specifi ed in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program will be entitled to receive a height bonus of 3 feet for a total height of 35 feet.
2. GHG Emissions and Future Congestion Reduction Requirement
A developer who seeks to develop projects above the base height shall also be required to provide additional Transportation Demand Management
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 23 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
25
!625/24!SANTA MONICA
(TDM) trip reduction measures to address congestion and GHG emission reduction. TDM incentive programs could include: bicycle facilities,
shower facilities, dedicated shuttles, flex cars, transit passes, parking cash-out programs, car-sharing programs, on-site transportation
information, and shared parking programs.
3. Community Physical Improvements
In certain parts of the City, the community benefits could address necessary or desired physical improvements such as: reconnecting the street
grid; quality pedestrian, biking and green connections; and additional ground level open space, trees and wider sidewalks. It could also include
improvements, such as gathering places, recreation open space and the provision of neighborhood-serving retail and services.
4. Social, Cultural and Educational Facilities
This category of benefits could include space for preferred uses such as child care, senior care, youth and teen services and educational uses.
The community also endorsed incentives for the provision of artist workspaces and additional cultural venues celebrating Santa Monica’s arts
and cultural heritage.
5. Historic Preservation
This category of benefits could include adaptive reuse, sensitive restoration and treatment, compatible new construction, and participation in
a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
There are numerous factors in assessing the type and extent of community benefit that must be provided. Benefits that merely meet or go
slightly beyond standard requirements for all projects, such as TDM or Green Building requirements, would not qualify as community benefits.
Benefits that are for the immediate neighborhood should also be considered in addition to those that apply citywide.
HOW THE LUCE ACHIEVES COMMUNITY BENEFITS
In addition to articulating the community’s long-term vision, the LUCE establishes the broad goals and policies that set the framework
for community benefits. In each land use designation, the Plan sets a base height and allowable development intensity which permits quality
lower-scale, generally ministerial development. Using the citywide vision for urban form, the Plan then sets a maximum height and intensity,
even with provision of community benefits, along with sensitive transitions to homes and neighborhoods. The specific standards and procedures
for providing community benefits will be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance using the LUCE concepts.
The LUCE land use policy establishes a baseline building height for nonresidential land use designations. Any proposed development
that seeks to build above the base height in these nonresidential areas of the City, except for 100 percent affordable housing projects, will be
subject to a public review process, which may include a vote of the people of the City, and additional requirements consistent with the community’s
broader social and environmental goals. These additional requirements shall consist of the provision of preferred uses, the incorporation of
beneficial project design features, and/or compliance with additional development standards. These design features and development standards
may be traditional aesthetic zoning requirements or, in many instances, be reasonably related to the amelioration of increased burdens placed
on the City due to the increased height. In most commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and
portions of Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards, the maximum height for a project without providing community benefits is 32 feet or two
stories (the base height can go to three stories if a percentage of affordable housing is included). Above the baseline height, new development
must provide community benefits for the City and the neighborhood. Depending on the project type and height, an applicant may pursue either
a Major Development Review Permit or its equivalent or a Development Agreement (DA).
COMPONENTS OF THE PROCESS
Transparency and Early Community Involvement
The LUCE provides for early community input on new projects. Changes to the existing development review process will create a
framework to ensure that projects will be consistent with the City’s vision, focus on quality outcomes and contribute to the community’s qualify of
life. An early concept phase prior to submission of a formal development application will allow the City and community to review and comment
on the appropriateness of the proposed land use and design and address the City policies and priorities identified in the LUCE.
The Community Shapes the Future: A Three-Tiered Approach
The Plan defines a comprehensive program that incentivizes permits new development above the 32-foot established base. A three-
tiered approach, based on increments of height and floor area, defines additional requirements consistent with the community’s broader social
and environmental goals. Consistent with the Plan’s goals and objectives of obtaining community input into development decisions, the people
of the City shall review all projects above the 32-foot established base, with limited exceptions to be established in the Zoning Ordinance, by a
vote of the people of the City in a general or special election.
Tier 1- Base Height
The LUCE establishes a base height of 32 feet (2 stories). A project will receive a height bonus above the base height, allowing for an
additional floor of housing, by providing the required affordable housing units on-site, or within close proximity along the boulevard, in accordance
with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program. While the 32-foot base accommodates 2
stories, the height available with this incentive allows 3 stories. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established
by the Zoning Ordinance. Even these ministerial projects may be subject to discretionary review such as use permits, architectural review,
historic resource review, etc.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 24 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
26
!625/25!SANTA MONICA
Tier 2- Height Above Base Height
In order to seek additional 1 [sic] height above the base, a project will be required to provide additional community benefits. By
maintaining discretionary control for a project over the ministerial base height, the City is better positioned to ensure compliance with LUCE
principles. The process will differ slightly depending on the type of land use and the specific project as described below.
Commercial Projects
Unless a developer seeks a Development Agreement, a discretionary process will apply to all commercial projects and mixed-use
projects. Under the LUCE, applicants will be required to undergo a community participation process. Approval of the project will require affirmative
findings, including, but not limited to: (1) the project will promote the general welfare of the community, (2) the project will not have unacceptable
adverse effects on public health or safety, and (3) in exchange for the privilege of being given additional height, the proposal must provide the
City with enumerated community benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter.
Residential Projects and Mixed Use Projects
Except for deed-restricted 100 percent affordable housing projects, housing projects and mixed-use housing projects shall be processed
through a Development Agreement or a discretionary review process.
Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on-of off-site. The proposal must
also provide the City with enumerated community benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits”
section of this chapter.
An alternative to this approach would be the establishment of an objective point-based incentive system. However, this approach has not been
recommended in the LUCE.
Tier 3- Additional Height
In the few areas where additional project height above Tier 2 may be requested, the required process is a Development Agreement to
allow the City Council to ensure that these significant projects provide community benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories
of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Compared to the development review process, the Development Agreement process has greater
public review and participation, allows more flexibility to create high-quality projects and achieve greater community benefit, providing the
greatest discretionary control of the City. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage affordable units
either on- or off-site. Other projects above the base height will contribute applicable project mitigation fees, including affordable housing fees.
One Hundred Percent Affordable Housing Projects
One hundred percent affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) of 50 or fewer units will be
processed ministerially.
Preservation of Historic Resource
When the project would preserve a City-designated landmark or structure of merit, the project may be reviewed by a discretionary
review process other than development agreement so long as project does not exceed the FAR for Tier 2 projects.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THIS APPROACH
Financial feasibility testing has documented that there is sufficient site value created by additional height over the base to fund the
required community benefits. Economic analysis of various development scenarios determined that the requirement of an increased level of
benefits corresponding to increased heights are realistic, even with a reasonable return on investment for the project, due to the land values
along the City’s respective corridors. Each height tier increases the site value above the base. A portion of the value enhancement is available
for community benefits. This analysis shows that the community benefits concept is economically feasible.
D. Chapter 5.0 of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica is amended as follows (new
text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
IV. ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP REVISIONS
The Zoning Ordinance and associated Zoning Map are critical tools for implementing the LUCE. The City will prepare a comprehensive
revision to the Zoning Ordinance and Map, consistent with the vision, goals and policies of the LUCE to include, among other things, the land
use classifications and development standards outlined in the LUCE. The updated Zoning Ordinance will be a central regulatory mechanism that
must be carefully prepared and work in concert with the LUCE in order to achieve the City’s and community’s goals. Innovative LUCE concepts
to be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance include, but are not limited to:
Mixed-Use
• The creation of mixed-use boulevards and districts that reorient regional commercial areas toward housing for a range of income levels
• Ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses and standards that encourage local-serving goods and services and community-serving amenities
• Ground floor residential uses that are oriented towards the street within areas designated as Mixed-Use Boulevard Low on Santa Monica
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 25 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
27
!625/26!SANTA MONICA
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Broadway allowing new development to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character;
the residential development should be designed to engage the street with street-facing doors and fenestration, ground floor open space,
porches or stoops.
Affordable and Workforce Housing
• Continuation of the City’s effective implementation of the Affordable Housing Production Program in compliance with Proposition R
• Additional opportunities to provide a greater share of housing for all income levels including very low, low, moderate and above moderate,
including housing for employees of area businesses.
Neighborhood Conservation
• Modified development standards in the residential zoning districts to achieve greater conservation of residential quality, type and character
• Modified development standards to require projects to be of a compatible scale and character with the existing neighborhood; provide
respectful transitions between new and existing structures; conform to building envelopes that preserve access to light and air and require
appropriate setbacks along neighborhood streets; and provide ground level open space
• Modified demolition process that considers neighborhood defining character issues such as aesthetic, social and cultural attributes
• Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts to address conservation of distinctive neighborhood features, streetscape, and site planning;
protections for unique properties, sites or building types
• Programs for addressing transportation and parking issues starting in areas with the greatest on-street parking scarcity.
Community Benefits
• Complete neighborhoods achieved through a program for community benefits that responds to the community’s broader social and
environmental goals
• Maximum by-right base height and intensity for new development
• Incorporate [sic] of special rules for new development that requests to build above the base height or intensity; such new development will
be subject to a Major Development Review Permit or its equivalent or a Development Agreement, subject to voter approval as established by
ordinance, with those additional requirements consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals.
Enhanced Public Engagement Process
Changes to the development review process to allow for early public review and input during the conceptual phase of a project. The purpose
of early consultation is two-fold:
• It provides an opportunity for residents to gain a clear understanding of the timing and steps involved in the development review process
• It takes place at a time when the project concept is still flexible, providing the community the greatest opportunity to actuate change in
the project components. These concept review meetings will also increase certainty for the neighborhood and developer and reduce costly
changes during the entitlement process.
Transportation Demand Management and Circulation Standards
• Incorporation of requirements for TDM into the Zoning Ordinance that will be applied to project review in order to achieve the City’s goals for
GHG reduction and climate change prevention.
• Coordination of TDM provisions with potentially reduced or shared parking requirements to maximize land efficiency and minimize disruption,
while still providing adequate parking for area uses.
• Consideration for shared and reduced parking requirements for projects with comprehensive TDM programs located near transit.
• Updating the Municipal Code, as appropriate, with the Circulation Element actions and programs in Section VI of this Chapter.
V. REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
Development proposals that conform with stated goals and policies of the LUCE are the implementation tools that have the most direct
influence on the City’s ability to achieve complete communities, housing opportunities, and integrated transportation and land use. Exacting
review is the primary method by which the City ensures that individual projects achieve the vision, goals, and standards of the community. The
vision is set by the General Plan, and the standards are established in the Zoning Ordinance. Although Santa Monica has limited vacant land,
it is anticipated that over the time horizon of this Plan, some properties in the City will redevelop as existing structures reach the end of their
useful life, and/or as property owners seek more effective use of their sites.
Objective Standards and Criteria
By stating the goals and policies for each land use designation and each neighborhood, boulevard, district, and activity center, the
LUCE creates certainty for residents and developers and establishes how development projects can positively affect the character, form, and
quality of the city.
Objective standards and criteria rooted in community priorities and measures to mitigate the impacts of new development will be the
method by which all administrative projects will be reviewed. Review of discretionary projects that involve new construction will be guided by
a new incentive system that places significant emphasis on inclusion of affordable housing and other community benefits with the objective
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 26 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
28
!625/27!SANTA MONICA
that new development should contribute to the city’s physical, environmental, and cultural goals. Types of review for new projects are described
below and include:
• Ministerial review for projects that fall within established base height and FAR limits
• Planning Commission and/or City Council review for projects that exceed base height and FARs, with voter approval required for certain
projects as established by ordinance
• Development Agreements, subject to voter approval for certain projects as established by ordinance
Maximum Ministerial Base Height and FAR and Provisions for Increases when Projects Offer Community Benefits
The LUCE establishes a maximum ministerial base height of 25–35 feet. As an incentive, additional height and FAR above the base
may be granted, subject to a discretionary review process, if it meets community benefit criteria. A Development Agreement may be required
for these increases in height and FAR. (See chapter 3.2 Community Benefits for further information.)
E. Chapter 1.0 the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica is amended as follows (new
text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
Require Community Benefits
Traditional planning has long required development to meet minimum community benefit standards. The LUCE proposes a comprehensive
approach to benefits designed to serve the community’s core needs—new affordable housing opportunities, cultural and social facilities,
employee housing, preservation of historic resources, and the creation of quality “places.”
The LUCE establishes a review process which conditions new development above a base height to provide community benefits. This
approach provides the City and the community with the capability to shape how individual projects contribute to the City as a whole. This will
ensure that new buildings will be rich additions to the urban fabric while creating special places in the City that enhance its unique character
and quality of life.
To accomplish this, the Plan establishes a base height of 32 feet for new development (ministerial up to the discretionary review thresholds
established by the Zoning Ordinance), initiating a Major Development Review Permit or Development Agreement process for development
beyond this height. This approach incentivizes certain major projects to create benefits for the City, such as affordable and employee housing,
historic preservation, quality pedestrian and biking connections, new gathering places, neighborhood-oriented retail, shared parking solutions,
or space for social services such as child or senior care. Future projects must also exhibit compatibility in scale, setting and transitions to
residential neighborhoods.
Section IV: AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.40
Article 9, Division 4, Chapter 9.40 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (deleted text is shown by strikeout).
Chapter 9.40 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
9.40.010 Purpose
A Development Review Permit is intended to allow the construction of certain projects for which the design and siting could result in an adverse
impact on the surrounding area. The permit allows for:
A. Review of the location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure on the site;
B. The location of proposed uses within the project;
C. An evaluation of the project with regard to fixed and established standards; and
D. A determination of whether the proposed siting and design should be permitted by weighing the public need for the benefit to be derived
from the proposed site plan use against the impact which it may cause. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.40.020 Applicability
A. Except as provided in subsection (B), a Development Review Permit approved by the Planning Commission shall be required prior to issuance
of any building permit for the development if any of the following occurs:
1. Any project that exceeds Tier 1 maximum limits; Repealed;
2. All new construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 10,000 square feet of floor area located in Residential Districts
or more than 7,500 square feet of floor area in Neighborhood Commercial and Oceanfront Districts;
3. All new construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 15,000 square feet of floor area located in Nonresidential Districts
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 27 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
29
!625/28!SANTA MONICA
not specified in subsection (A)(2);
4. Notwithstanding subsection (A)(3) above, all new construction of more than 30,000 square feet of floor area of a development project
containing no more than 15% commercial floor area located in Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2);
5. Notwithstanding subsections (A)(2)—(4) above and until the adoption of a Pico Neighborhood Plan, all new construction and new additions
to existing buildings of more than 7,500 square feet of floor area located in the Pico Neighborhood Area.
FIGURE 9.40.020.A: PICO NEIGHBORHOOD AREA (AS OUTLINED)
B. The following types of projects are exempt from Development Permit Review requirements:
1. Single unit dwellings; and
2. 100% Affordable Housing Projects of 50 units or less. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.40.030 Application
Application for a Development Review Permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in Section 9.37.020,
Application Forms and Fees. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.40.040 Procedures
A. Upon receipt in proper form of a Development Review Permit application, a meeting with the Architectural Review Board shall be set to
receive a recommendation on the design of the proposal.
B. Following receipt of a recommendation of the Architectural Review Board, a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set
and notice of such hearing given in a manner consistent with Section 9.37.050, Public Notice. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted
June 23, 2015)
9.40.050 Required Findings
Following a public hearing, the Director shall prepare a written decision which shall contain the Planning Commission’s findings of fact upon
which such decision is based. The Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall approve or conditionally approve a Development Review
Permit application in whole or in part if all of the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location
of proposed uses within the project are consistent with applicable standards and are both compatible and relate harmoniously to surrounding
sites and neighborhoods;
B. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos, bicycles, pedestrians, and multi-modal transportation methods, including adequate parking
and access;
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 28 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
30
!625/29!SANTA MONICA
C. The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g., utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development;
D. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan;
E. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant environmental impacts or any potentially significant
environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of mitigation measures incorporated in the project or a
Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted;
F. The project promotes the general welfare of the community;
G. The project has no unacceptable adverse effects on public health or safety; and
H. The project provides Community Benefits consistent with Chapter 9.23.
9.40.060 Conditions
In granting a Development Review Permit, the Review Authority or the Review Authority on appeal shall require that the use and development
of the property conform with a site plan, architectural drawings, or statements submitted in support of the application, or in such modifications
thereof, as may be deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and secure the objectives of the General Plan
and this Ordinance, and may also impose such other conditions as may be deemed necessary to achieve these purposes and to support the
findings of approval.
9.40.070 Term, Extension, Revocation, and Appeal
The term of permit, exercise of rights, extension, revocation, and appeal for Development Review Permits shall be in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures.
Section V: ADDITION OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.51
Article 9, Division 4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new Chapter 9.51 as follows:
CHAPTER 9.51 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
9.51.010 Purpose
A Major Development Review Permit is to provide a means for the City Council to approve and impose conditions upon those projects for which
the City Council concludes that the provision of community benefits outweighs the adverse impact of increased height and density over that
allowed in baseline Tier 1 zoning.
9.51.020 Applicability
A. Except as provided in subsection (B), a Major Development Review Permit approved by the City Council shall be required prior to issuance
of any building permit for any project that exceeds Tier 1 maximum limits.
B. The following types of projects are exempt from Major Development Permit Review requirements:
1. Single unit dwellings;
2. 100% Affordable Housing Projects of 50 units or less;
3. Projects that satisfy requirements for Tier 1 including On Site Affordable Housing in compliance with the Affordable Housing Production
Program; and
4. Projects that exceed Tier 1 baseline standards only due to height or density bonuses granted for the provision of affordable housing pursuant
to state law requirements.
9.51.030 Application
Application for a Major Development Review Permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in Section 9.37.020,
Application Forms and Fees.
9.51.040 Procedures and Planning Commission Hearing
A. Upon receipt in proper form of a Major Development Review Permit application, a meeting with the Architectural Review Board shall be set
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 29 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
31
!625/30!SANTA MONICA
to receive a recommendation on the design of the proposal.
B. Following receipt of a recommendation of the Architectural Review Board, a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set
and notice of such hearing given in a manner consistent with Section 9.37.050, Public Notice.
C. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the Major Development Review Permit to the City
Council. Such recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendation, and the findings related to the criteria for the issuances of
a Major Development Review Permit in section 9.51.060, and shall be transmitted to the City Council.
9.51.050 City Council Hearing and Action
A. After receiving the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold a duly-noticed public hearing. The notice
shall include a summary of the Planning Commission recommendation. If the Planning Commission does not recommend approval of a Major
Development Review Permit, the City Council is not required to take any further action unless an interested party files a written request for a
hearing with the City Clerk within 14 days after the Planning Commission action.
B. After the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may approve, modify, or deny the proposed Major Development Review Permit.
9.51.060 Required Findings
The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not approve or conditionally approve a Major Development Review
Permit unless the following findings can be made:
A. The project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of the General Plan;
B. The approval of the project is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner
and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare;
C. The project is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the project is located;
D. The project will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on health and safety; and
E. The Community Benefits provided by the project meet, at a minimum, the benefits identified in Chapter 9.23, and the provision of such
benefits outweighs any negative impacts to the environment due to the increased height or density that results from the construction of a
project that exceeds Tier 1 baseline limits.
9.51.070 Conditions
In granting a Major Development Review Permit, the City Council shall require that the use and development of the property conform with a site
plan, architectural drawings, or statements submitted in support of the application, or within such modifications thereof, as may be deemed
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and secure the objectives of the General Plan and this Ordinance, and may
also impose such other conditions as may be deemed necessary to achieve these purposes and to support the findings of approval.
9.51.080 Term, Extension, Revocation, and Appeal
The term of permit, exercise of rights, extension, revocation, and appeal for Major Development Review Permits shall be in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures.
9.51.090 Voter Approval Required
Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of Chapter 9.69, no Major Development Review Permit shall be effective until it has been approved
by a simple majority vote of the voting electorate of the City of Santa Monica, as set forth in Chapter 9.69, Land Use Voter Empowerment.
Section VI: AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER .9.60
Article 9, Division 6, Chapter 9.60 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (deleted text is shown by strikeout,
new text is shown by underline).
Chapter 9.60 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
9.60.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish procedures and regulations for Development Agreements.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 30 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
32
!625/31!SANTA MONICA
9.60.020 Authority and Scope
This Chapter is adopted pursuant to Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution and pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq.
All Development Agreements entered into after the effective date of this Chapter shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of this
Chapter. In performing his or her functions under this Chapter, the Planning Director shall act under the direction of the City Manager.
9.60.030 Application Forms
The Planning Director shall prescribe the form of each application, notice and documents provided for or required under this Chapter for the
preparation, processing, and implementation of Development Agreements. The application shall include a fiscal impact statement on the proposed
development. The Planning Director may require an applicant for a Development Agreement to submit such information and supporting data as
the Planning Director considers necessary to process the application.
9.60.040 Qualified Applicant
An application for a Development Agreement may only be filed by a person who has a legal or equitable interest in the real property for which
a Development Agreement is sought or the authorized representative of such a person.
9.60.050 Proposed Agreement
Each application shall be accompanied by the form of Development Agreement proposed by the applicant.
9.60.060 Filing of Application
The Planning Director shall endorse on the application the date it is received. The Planning Director shall review the application and may reject
the application if it is not completed in the manner required by this Chapter.
9.60.070 Review of Application
The application shall be reviewed by the Planning Director. After reviewing the application and any other pertinent information, the Planning
Director shall prepare a staff report. The staff report shall analyze the proposed development and shall contain a recommendation as to whether
or not the Development Agreement proposed or in an amended form should be approved or disapproved.
9.60.080 Processing
A. The Planning Commission shall consider the proposed development agreement and make a recommendation thereon to the City Council
in the manner set forth in this Chapter. The Planning Commission shall conclude its consideration of and make its recommendation on the
proposed development agreement within ninety days of the time specified for the public hearing in the notice of intention. The applicant may
agree to extend this ninety-day review period.
B. In addition to formal consideration of the proposed development agreement by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Section, the City
Council may establish procedures for early conceptual review of the development agreement proposal by the City Council and City Boards and
Commissions or a combination thereof preceding the Planning Commission’s formal consideration.
9.60.090 Notice of Intention
Upon completion of the staff report required by Section 9.60.070, the Planning Director shall give notice of intention to consider adoption of a
Development Agreement. The notice shall contain:
A. The time and place of the public hearing.
B. A general explanation of the Development Agreement including a general description of the property proposed to be developed.
C. Other information that the Planning Director considers necessary or desirable.
9.60.100 Notice Requirements
A. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement at the time and place specified in the notice.
B. All notice required by this Chapter shall be given in the following manner:
1. Mailing or delivery to the applicant and to all persons, including businesses, corporations or other public or private entities, shown on the
last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within 500 feet of the property which is the subject of the development agreement.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 31 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
33
!625/32!SANTA MONICA
2. Mailing or delivery to all tenants of property within 500 feet of the property which is the subject of the development agreement.
3. Mailing by first class mail to any person who has filed a written request therefor with the Planning Director.
4. Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City.
C. The failure to receive notice by any person entitled thereto by law or this Chapter does not affect the authority of the City to enter into a
Development Agreement.
9.60.110 Required Findings
The Planning Commission shall make its recommendation to the City Council in writing. The recommendation shall include whether or not the
proposed Development Agreement:
A. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan;
B. Is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located;
C. Is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices;
D. Will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare;
E. Will adversely affect the orderly development of the property; and
F. Will have a positive fiscal impact on the City.
9.60.120 Hearing by City Council
After the recommendation of the Planning Commission or after the expiration of the time period specified in Section 9.60.080, the Planning
Director shall give notice of a public hearing before the City Council in the manner provided for in Section 9.60.100.
9.60.130 Decision by City Council
A. After it completes the public hearing and considers the recommendation, if any, of the Planning Commission, the City Council may accept,
modify or disapprove the proposed Development Agreement. It may, but need not, refer the matters not previously considered by the Planning
Commission during its hearing back to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. The Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on matters referred back to it by the City Council.
B. The Development Agreement may not be approved unless the City Council finds that the Development Agreement is consistent with the
general plan and any applicable specific plan.
9.60.140 Approval of Development Agreement, Effective Date
The Development Agreement shall be approved by the adoption of an ordinance. Upon the adoption of the ordinance, the City shall enter into
the Development Agreement by the execution thereof by the City Manager. Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of Chapter 9.69, no
Development Agreement shall be effective until it has been approved by a simple majority vote of the voting electorate of the City of Santa
Monica as set forth in Chapter 9.69.
9.60.150 Amendment and Cancellation
A. Either the City or the applicant or successor in interest thereto may propose an amendment or cancellation in whole or in part of the
Development Agreement.
B. The procedure for proposing and approving an amendment to or cancellation in whole or in part of the Development Agreement shall be
the same as the procedure for entering into a Development Agreement.
C. Except as provided for in Section 9.60.180, the development agreement may only be amended or cancelled in whole or in part by the
mutual consent of all parties to the Development Agreement.
9.60.160 Recordation
No later than ten days after the City enters into the development agreement the effective date of a Development Agreement, the City Clerk shall
record with the County Recorder a copy of the Development Agreement.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 32 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
34
!625/33!SANTA MONICA
9.60.170 Periodic Review
A. The City Council shall review the Development Agreement at least every twelve months from the date the development agreement is entered
into effective date of the Development Agreement.
B. The Planning Director shall give the applicant or successor in interest thereto at least ten days’ advance notice of the time at which the
City Council will review the Development Agreement.
C. The applicant or successor in interest thereto shall demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement.
D. If, as a result of such periodic review, the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the applicant or
successor in interest thereto has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Development Agreement, the City Council may
commence proceedings to enforce, modify or terminate the Development Agreement.
9.60.180 Modification or Termination
A. If upon a finding under Section 9.60.170, the City Council determines to proceed with modification or termination of the Development
Agreement, the City Council shall give notice to the applicant or successor in interest thereto of its intention to do so. The notice shall contain:
1. The time and place of the hearing;
2. A statement as to whether or not the City Council proposes to modify or terminate the development agreement;
3. Any proposed modification to the development agreement; and
4. Other information which the City Council considers necessary to inform the applicant or successor in interest thereto of the nature of the
hearing.
B. At the time set for the hearing on the modification or termination, the City Council may take such action as it deems necessary to protect
the interests of the City.
9.60.190 Irregularity in Proceedings
No action, inaction, or recommendation regarding the proposed development agreement shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by a court
by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission as to any matter pertaining to the application, notice, finding, record, hearing,
report, recommendation, or any other matters of procedure whatsoever unless after an examination of the entire record the court is of the
opinion that the error complained of was prejudicial and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred or existed.
Section VII: ADDITION OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.69
Article 9, Division 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 9.69, to read as follows:
CHAPTER 9.69 LAND USE VOTER EMPOWERMENT
9.69.010 Purpose
The purpose of Land Use Voter Empowerment is to provide for public input into major development decisions in the City of Santa Monica by
requiring a public vote on specified development projects or significant changes to the land use planning documents of the City. Therefore, no
Development Agreement, Major Development Review Permit, or Major Amendment to the City’s Planning Policy Documents shall be effective
until the majority of voters of the City of Santa Monica voting in a general or special election approve the Development Agreement, Major
Development Review Permit, or Major Amendment to the City’s Planning Policy Documents.
9.69.020 Applicability to Development Projects
All Development Agreements or Major Development Review Permits are subject to the provisions of this Chapter, except those issued for:
A. 100% Affordable Housing Projects and 100% Moderate Income Housing Projects;
B. 100% Senior Citizen housing projects;
C. In the Coastal Zone, any project that is consistent with the applicable height and density limitations in the certified Local Coastal Program
(LCP), including any future amendments to the certified LCP; and
D. Projects at the sites identified on Table A, at the density indicated on Table A, until 2021, or until a new Housing Element is adopted.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 33 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
35
!625/34!SANTA MONICA
TABLE A
Downtown Specific Plan Area
(maximum FAR = 2.50 with 80% minimum Residential)
1216 5th Street
1235 5th Street
1311 5th Street
1313 5th Street
1327 5th Street
1415 5th Street
1423 5th Street
1427 5th Street
1445 5th Street
1552 5th Street
1218 6th Street
1240 6th Street
1437 6th Street
1213 7th Street
1217 7th Street
1227 7th Street
1238 7th Street
1244 7th Street
1313 7th Street
1314 7th Street
1317 7th Street
1331 7th Street
1407 7th Street
1427 7th Street
1448 7th Street
1453 7th Street
1524 7th Street
1547 7th Street
1557 7th Street
510 Arizona Avenue
519 Arizona Avenue
624 Arizona Avenue
625 Arizona Avenue
702 Arizona Avenue
408 Broadway
500 Broadway
501 Broadway
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 34 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
36
!625/35!SANTA MONICA
609 Broadway
525 Colorado Avenue
631 Colorado Avenue
1443 Lincoln Boulevard
1650 Lincoln Boulevard
1660 Lincoln Boulevard
311 Wilshire Boulevard
315 Wilshire Boulevard
317 Wilshire Boulevard
419 Wilshire Boulevard
424 Wilshire Boulevard
427 Wilshire Boulevard
601 Wilshire Boulevard
611 Wilshire Boulevard
626 Wilshire Boulevard
Bergamot Plan Area (Bergamot Transit Village)
(Maximum FAR = 2.5 with minimum 40% Residential)
1655 26th Street
1681 26th Street
2700 Pennsylvania
Bergamot Plan Area (Mixed Use Creative)
(Maximum FAR 2.2 with minimum 50% Residential)
2848 Colorado Avenue
3025 Olympic Boulevard
1703 Stewart
Memorial Park Plan Area
(Maximum FAR = 2.0 with minimum 60% Residential)
1654 14th Street
1660 14th Street
1415 Colorado Avenue
1431 Colorado Avenue
1501 Colorado Avenue
1519 Colorado Avenue
Mixed Use Boulevards
(Maximum FAR = 2.0 with minimum 60% Residential)
2050 Broadway
2043 Colorado Avenue
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 35 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
37
!625/36!SANTA MONICA
2225 Colorado Avenue
2601 Lincoln Boulevard
2723 Lincoln Boulevard
2809 Lincoln Boulevard
1122 Pico Boulevard
1802 Santa Monica Boulevard
1301 Wilshire Boulevard
1317 Wilshire Boulevard
1401 Wilshire Boulevard
1501 Wilshire Boulevard
3105 Wilshire Boulevard
9.69.030 Planning Policy Documents
The following documents or types of documents are the Planning Policy Documents that require approval by a majority of the voters of the City
of Santa Monica in order to effectuate a Major Amendment:
A. General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element;
B. Any Specific Plan, except that any Specific Plan prepared for development of lands currently used by Santa Monica Airport shall not require
voter approval if the plan provides exclusively for park and open space use;
C. Any Neighborhood Area Plan
D. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, as set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Article 9; and
E. The Official Districting Map of the City.
9.69.040 Major Amendments
A “Major Amendment” of any of the Planning Policy Documents means any amendment that results in any of the following changes to the
development standards for any parcel of land affected by the proposed amendment:
A. Increases the maximum allowable number of residential units that may be constructed on any parcel or group of parcels;
B. Changes zone type for a parcel or parcels from Parks and Open Space, Institutional/Public Lands; or Civic Center to a different zone type;
D. Changes a parcel or parcels from any residential land use to allow any non-residential land use;
E. Increases the allowed maximum height of development or changes how height is measured such that additional height could be permitted
than was previously permitted;
F. Increases the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage for a parcel or group of parcels;
G. Adopts a new Specific Plan or Neighborhood Area Plan, or similar planning document; or
H. Repeals any of the Planning Policy Documents.
9.69.050 Voter Approval Process
A. No Development Agreement or Major Development Review Permit that is not otherwise exempted from the requirements of this Chapter,
or Major Amendment to a Planning Policy Document, shall be effective unless and until it is approved by a simple majority vote of the voting
electorate of the City of Santa Monica voting “YES” on a ballot measure proposing the Development Agreement, Major Development Review
Permit, or Major Amendment of a Planning Policy Document at a regular or special election.
B. The ballot pamphlet for any election required by this Chapter shall include the following, at a minimum:
1. A summary prepared by the City Attorney of the proposed Major Amendment, Major Development Review Permit, or Development Agreement.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 36 9/21/2016 1:39:39 PM
38
!625/37!SANTA MONICA
The summary shall include a website address where the full text of the Major Amendment, Major Development Review Permit, or Development
Agreement can be viewed by a voter. The full text of the Major Amendment, Major Development Review Permit, or Development Agreement
must also be made available at City Hall for any voter who requests it;
2. An easily readable map of the geographic area affected by the Major Amendment, Major Development Review Permit, or Development
Agreement; and
3. In the case of a Major Development Review Permit or Development Agreement, the summary prepared by the City Attorney shall include
the square footage, floor to area ratio, and height of the proposed project, the floor to area ratio and height permitted for a Tier 1 project at the
location, and, in 12 point bold font, the proposed community benefits for the proposed project.
C. Any ballot measure required by this Chapter may be voted upon at a general or special election, on a date consistent with those provided for
by the California Elections Code as permitted by law. The cost of any special election on a ballot measure seeking approval of a Development
Agreement or Major Development Review Permit shall be borne entirely by the applicant or applicants for the Development Agreement or Major
Development Review Permit.
D. In addition to the specific requirements of subsection (B), the provisions of the California Elections Code and Article 11 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code shall apply to any election on any ballot measure required by this Chapter, including those provisions regarding ballot arguments
and rebuttal arguments, ballot order, and public examination of ballot information.
Section VII: AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.52
Article 9, Division 5, Chapter 9.52 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended to insert the following Terms and Definitions.
Section 9.52.010 List of Terms
The following terms are added to the list of terms, which is otherwise unchanged:
120% Income Household
100% Moderate Income Housing Project
Section 9.52.020 Definitions
The following definitions are added to section 9.52.020, and all other definitions in that section are unchanged:
9.52.020.0041 120% Income Household. A household whose gross income does not exceed 120% of the area median income, adjusted
for household size, as published and periodically updated by HUD. 120% income households includes 80% Income Households.
9.52.020.0051 100% Moderate Income Housing Project. Housing projects with 100% of units deed restricted or restricted by an agreement
approved by the City for occupancy by 120% Income Households or less.
Section VIII: IMPLEMENTATION
A. The date the notice of intention to circulate this initiative measure was submitted to the City’s elections official is referenced herein as
the “submittal date.” The City General Plan, its Specific Plans, and Zoning Ordinance in effect on the submittal date and the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance as amended by this Initiative comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the City.
In order to ensure that nothing in this initiative measure would prevent the General Plan and its Specific Plans from being integrated, internally
consistent, and compatible statements of the policies of the City, as required by state law, and to ensure that the actions of the voters in enacting
this initiative are given effect, any amendment to the General Plan, or new Specific Plan, that is adopted between the submittal date and the
date that the General Plan is amended by this Initiative shall, to the extent that such interim-enacted amendment or Specific Plan is inconsistent
with the General Plan provisions of this initiative, be amended as soon as possible and in the manner and time required by state law to ensure
consistency between the provisions adopted by this initiative and other elements of the General Plan.
B. The City Council is hereby authorized and directed to amend the General Plan, the Land Use and Circulation Element, all specific plans,
and the Zoning Ordinance, and any other ordinance and policies, in order to implement this Initiative and to the extent any of the foregoing are
affected by this Initiative as soon as possible and in the manner and time required by any applicable state law, to ensure consistency between
the policies adopted in this Initiative and other elements of the foregoing laws and policies.
Section IX: EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Initiative shall be considered to be adopted on the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body, and
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 37 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
39
!625/38!SANTA MONICA
shall go into effect as specified in Elections Code section 9217.
Section X: SUNSET DATE
The provisions of this Initiative shall remain in force until 20 years from its Effective Date.
Section XI: AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Once this Initiative becomes effective, no provision of this initiative may be amended or repealed except by a majority of the voters of the
City of Santa Monica voting on the amendment or repeal in a special or general election.
Section XII: CONFLICTING PROPOSITIONS
If any other proposition, appearing on the same ballot as this proposition, addresses the subject matter in a way that conflicts with the
treatment of the subject matter in this proposition, and if each proposition is approved by a majority vote of those voting on each proposition,
then as to the conflicting subject matter the proposition with the highest affirmative vote shall prevail, and the proposition with the lowest
affirmative vote shall be deemed disapproved as to the conflicting subject matter.
Section XIII: SEVERABILITY
This Initiative shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. If any section, subsection,
subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion of this Initiative is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases and portions shall remain in full force and effect, and to this
end the provisions of this Initiative are severable. The voters thus declare that they would have passed all sections, subsections, subdivisions,
clauses, sentences, phrases and portions of this Initiative without the section, subsection, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion held
unconstitutional or invalid.
Section XIV: JUDICIAL ENFORCMENT OR LEGAL DEFENSE
The proponents of this Initiative shall have the right to maintain an action for equitable relief to restrain any violation of this Initiative,
to enforce the duties imposed on the City by this Initiative, or to defend the Initiative in the event of a legal challenge to the Initiative after it is
approved by the voters.
Section XV: PRIORITY
Once this Initiative becomes effective, its provisions shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the Municipal Code, ordinances,
resolutions, and administrative policies of the City of Santa Monica which may be in conflict with any provisions of this measure.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 38 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
40
!625/39!SANTA MONICA
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
CITY ATTORNEY’S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE LV
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.
/s/ MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE, City Attorney
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 39 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
41
!625/40!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE LV
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.
/s/ Armen Melkonians, Founder of Residocracy;
Civil and Environmental Engineer
/s/ Kate (Kathleen) Bransfield, Board Member-Wilshire Montana
Neighborhood Coalition; Residocracy Board Member
/s/ Zina Josephs, President-Friends of Sunset Park;
Residocracy Board Member
/s/ Ellen Hannan, Treasurer-Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors;
Residocracy Board Member
/s/ Richard Hilton, Vice chair/ former chair Santa Monica City Housing
Commission; Executive Director, West LA Council for Seniors
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE LV
The proponents of Measure LV chose not to describe what their
initiative really does: sets an arbitrary and extreme two-story height
limit citywide, even in downtown.
Why hide that basic fact? Because their concept is reckless, and
overrides good public process.
We in Santa Monica have all had a voice, agreeing on a new
neighborhood-protecting general plan and zoning ordinance. Measure
LV dismisses ten years of hard work and forces us to start over, building
by building, with ballot-box zoning.
Proponents list a number of proposed projects as a scare tactic. None
is even close to getting built, so they certainly haven’t caused our
traffic problems. Only one listed project has even been approved, and
that’s housing near a transit stop, with significant new affordability!
In fact, the referendum-rejected “Hines project” wouldn’t have needed
voter approval under Measure LV, one of many disturbing loopholes.
Measure LV does not protect renters. Its lack of income restrictions
on exempted senior housing encourages luxury condos, replacing
apartment buildings.
Measure LV will not reduce traffic. Not one car will be removed
from our streets.
Thoughtful long-term planning includes light rail, better bus transit,
bikeshare, improved parking options, and strict traffic demand
management programs for developers and employers.
Measure LV replaces effective, coordinated action with many individual
political campaigns. Will piecemeal planning give us the city we want?
If an extreme two-story limit is a good idea, why weren’t the proponents
of Measure LV more upfront about it?
NO on Measure LV.
/s/ Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, Former Mayor
/s/ Barbara Inatsugu, President, League of Women Voters
of Santa Monica
/s/ Linda J. Sullivan, Member Santa Monicans for
Renters’ Rights Steering Committee
/s/ Nathaniel Trives, Former Mayor of Santa Monica
/s/ Harry Keiley, Teacher-Former President, Santa Monica
Malibu Classroom Teachers Association
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 40 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
42
!625/41!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE LV
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.
/s/ Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, Former Mayor
/s/ Barbara Inatsugu, President, League of Women Voters
of Santa Monica
/s/ Linda J. Sullivan, Member Santa Monicans for Renters’
Rights Steering Committee
/s/ Nathaniel Trives, Former Mayor of Santa Monica
/s/ Harry Keiley, Teacher-Former President, Santa Monica
Malibu Classroom Teachers Association
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE LV
Measure LV isn’t “too extreme”, doesn’t go “too far”, and isn’t “full of
unintended consequences.”
Measure LV won’t make “traffic problems worse,” “increase outside
special interest money,” lead to “voter fatigue,” or prevent us from
rebuilding if disaster strikes.
In fact, Measure “LV” does one thing: It gives voters a voice and
the final say on how much development is right for Santa Monica.
It allows voters to say NO to over-development and increased traffic
congestion.
We need that voice because our city does not belong to developers,
their lawyers and lobbyists. It belongs to all of us.
It’s time to change course before we’re overwhelmed by a tsunami of
development projects. We don’t want to lose what’s left of our blue
skies, ocean breezes, and our quality of life.
A YES on Measure LV allows us to ensure that future projects maintain
the character and scale of Santa Monica, create truly affordable
housing, provide real community benefits, and are planned together
with the neighborhoods.
A YES on Measure LV allows us to ensure that our existing rent-
controlled buildings are not demolished to make way for new and
larger buildings that are exempt from rent-control.
Measure “LV” is simple and sensible.
You can protect Santa Monica by giving the voters the right to decide.
Vote YES on Measure LV.
/s/ Armen Melkonians, Founder of Residocracy;
Civil and Environmental Engineer
/s/ Kate (Kathleen) Bransfield, Board Member-Wilshire
Montana Neighborhood Coalition; Residocracy Board Member
/s/ Zina Josephs, President-Friends of Sunset Park;
Residocracy Board Member
/s/ Ellen Hannan, Treasurer-Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors;
Residocracy Board Member
/s/ Richard Hilton, Vice chair/ former chair Santa Monica City Housing
Commission; Executive Director, West LA Council for Seniors
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
L
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 41 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
43
!625/42!SANTA MONICA
MEASURE SM
CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED MEASURE TO AMEND CITY CHARTER ARTICLE XXII -THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TAXPAYER PROTECTION AMENDMENT OF 2000 – SO AS TO EXTEND AND TO CLARIFY ITS PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to place before the voters a measure that would amend City Charter Article XXII, the City of Santa Monica
Taxpayer Protection Amendment of 2000, also sometimes referred to popularly as the “Oaks Initiative”, to strengthen and to better effectuate
the provisions of Article XXII.
NOW, THEREFORE,
Section 1. Article XXII of the Santa Monica City Charter is amended as follows:
2202. Definitions.
(a) As used herein, the term public benefit does not include public employment in the normal course of business for services rendered,
but includes a contract, benefit, or arrangement between the City and any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or other person
or entity to:
(1) provide personal services of a value in excess of $25,000 over any 12 month period,
(2) sell or furnish any material, supplies or equipment to the City of a value in excess of $25,000 over any 12 month period,
(3) buy or sell any real property to or from the City with a value, in excess of $25,000, or lease any real property to or from the City with
a value in excess of $25,000 over any 12 month period,
(4) receive an award of a franchise to conduct any business activity in a territory in which no other competitor potentially is available to
provide similar and competitive services, and for which gross revenue from the business activity exceeds $50,000 in any 12 month period,
(5) confer a land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to a pre-existing master plan or land use ordinance pertaining to
real property where such decision has a value in excess of $25,000,
(6) confer a tax abatement, exception, or benefit not generally applicable of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12 month period,
(7) receive cash or specie of a net value to the recipient in excess of $10,000 in any 12 month period.
(b) Those persons or entities receiving public benefits as defined in Section 2202(a)(1)-(7) shall include the individual, corporation, firm,
partnership, association, or other person or entity so benefiting, and any individual or person who, during a period where such benefit is received
or accrues,
(1) has more than a ten percent (10%) equity, participation, or revenue interest in that entity, or
(2) who is a trustee, director, partner, or officer of that entity. or of another entity that owns or controls the entity receiving the public
benefit, excepting persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under
Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6) of the Internal Revenues Code. However, this exception shall not apply if the organization is a political committee
or controls political committees as defined by California Government Code Section 82013 or 2 U.S.C. Section 431(4) or successor provisions.
(c) As used herein, the term personal or campaign advantage shall include:
(1) any gift, honoraria, emolument, or personal pecuniary benefit of a value in excess of $50;
(2) any employment for compensation;
(3) any campaign contributions for any elective office said official may pursue.
(d) As used herein, the term public official includes any elected or appointed public official acting in an official capacity. This includes,
but is not limited to: City Council members, Planning Commission members, and the City Manager and Department Heads and their designees
who confer “public benefits” as defined in this section.
2203. City public official shall not receive personal or campaign advantage from those to whom they allocate public benefits.
(a) No City public official who has exercised discretion to approve and who has approved or voted to approve a public benefit as defined
in Section 2202(a) may receive a personal or campaign advantage as defined in Section 2202(c) from a person as defined in Section 2202(b)
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
M
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
M
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 42 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
44
!625/43!SANTA MONICA
and no person or entity who has received a public benefit may confer a personal or campaign advantage upon a public official who exercised
discretion to confer that public benefit for a period beginning on the date the official approves or votes to approve the public benefit, and ending
no later than:
(1) two years after the expiration of the term of office that the official is serving at the time the official approves or votes to approve the public
benefit;
(2) two years after the official’s departure from his or her office whether or not there is a pre-established term of office; or
(3) six years from the date the official approves or votes to approve the public benefit; whichever is first.
(b) Section 2203(a) shall also apply to the exercise of discretion of any such public official serving in his or her official capacity through a
redevelopment agency, or any other public agency, whether within or without the territorial jurisdiction of the City either as a representative or
appointee of the City.
(c) No City public official who has exercised discretion to approve and who has approved or voted to approve a public benefit as defined in
Section 2202(a) may receive a personal or campaign advantage as defined in Section 2202(c) from a person as defined in Section 2202(B) in
any geographic location, including within and outside the geographic boundaries of Santa Monica.
2206. Penalties and enforcement.
(a) In addition to all other penalties and remedies which might apply, any knowing and willful violation of this Article by a public official or a
person or entity receiving a public benefit as defined in Section 2202(b) constitutes a criminal misdemeanor offense.
(b) A civil action may be brought under this Article against any person public official who violates this articlereceives a personal or campaign
advantage in violation of Section 2203. A finding of liability shall subject the public official violator to one or more of the following civil remedies:
(1) restitution of the personal or campaign advantage received, which shall accrue to the general fund of the City;
(2) a civil penalty of up to five times the value of the personal or campaign advantage received;
(3) injunctive relief necessary to prevent present and future violations of this Article;
(4) disqualification from future public office or position within the jurisdiction, if violations are willful, egregious, or repeated.
(c) A civil action under subdivision (b) of this section may be brought by any resident of the City. In the event that such an action is brought by
a resident of the City and the petitioner prevails, the respondent public official shall pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing
petitioner. Civil penalties collected in such a prosecution shall accrue 10% to the petitioner, and 90% to the City’s general fund.
(d) When the City Attorney receives a complaint containing a violation of this Article from any person or entity, the City Attorney must promptly,
for the purposes of assessment and prosecution, either:
(1) Refer the complaint to the Chief Deputy of the Criminal Division or another attorney in the City Attorney’s Office; or
(2) Refer the complaint to an independent investigator hired by the City.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this measure is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise legally
invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity and force of the remaining portions of this
measure. The City Council hereby declares that it would have placed this City Charter amendment before the voters, and the voters declare
that they would have adopted this Charter Amendment and each portion thereof regardless of the fact that any portion may be subsequently
declared invalid.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
M
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
M
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 43 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
45
!625/44!SANTA MONICA
CITY ATTORNEY’S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE SM
BALLOT MEASURE AMENDING ARTICLE XXII OF THE CITY CHARTER, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE “OAKS INITIATIVE”,
TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, EXPAND THE PROHIBITION AGAINST RECEIVING PERSONAL OR CAMPAIGN ADVANTAGES
AS REWARDS FOR CERTAIN OFFICIAL ACTIONS, CREATE AN EXEMPTION FOR VOLUNTEERS SERVING CERTAIN
CITY-FUNDED NON PROFITS, CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE PROHIBITION,
THE CITY ATTORNEY’S ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE AVAILABLE REMEDIES
This measure would amend Article XXII of the City Charter, which was adopted by the voters in 2000, and which is commonly known as the
“Oaks Initiative”.
Article XXII prohibits a “public official”, who has voted or who has exercised discretion to award someone a “public benefit”, as defined in the
Article, from later receiving a “personal or campaign advantage” from that person. Thus, Article XXII’s purpose is to prevent conflicts of interest
and corruption by prohibiting a public official from receiving a “personal advantage”, whether a kickback, reward or other favor in return for
official actions. For example, the measure prohibits a Council member, who has voted to award a contract to a person, from later accepting a
campaign contribution from that person for a specified period of time.
In response to concerns about the application, enforcement and available remedies for violations of the measure, the City Council is proposing
amendments to Article XXII. The City Council has placed this proposed measure on the ballot.
The amendments would expand Article XXII’s prohibitions. If this measure is adopted by the voters, the prohibitions would apply not only to
“public officials”, who receive “personal or campaign advantages”, but Article XXII’s prohibitions would also apply to those persons giving them.
Thus, both receiving and giving advantages would be prohibited. In the example given above, the proposed amendments would prohibit the
contractor from making the campaign contribution while in addition prohibiting the Council member from accepting it.
The proposed amendments would also clarify the application of the Article XXII prohibitions by: defining the term “public official” to include City
Council members, Planning Commissioners, the City Manager, Department Heads and their designees who exercise discretion to confer “public
benefits”. The proposed amendment expressly states that the prohibition against receipt of “personal or campaign advantages” applies outside
of the City’s geographic boundaries. This would mean, for example, that a Department Head, who exercised discretion to award a contract,
might violate Article XXII if the Department Head later accepted a job from the contractor in another city.
The proposed amendments would also add an exception to the current prohibitions for certain volunteers serving nonprofits organizations in
specified capacities. For example, many community members volunteer for nonprofits that receive City funding. This exception makes clear
that Article XXII does not apply to persons who volunteer to serve, without compensation, on specified tax exempt nonprofit organizations’
boards of directors.
Article XXII also expands remedies against violators and delineates the City Attorney’s enforcement responsibilities. The proposed amendment
specifies that remedies are cumulative against any violator.
/s/ MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE, City Attorney
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
M
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
M
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 44 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
46
!625/45!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE SM
Measure SM will strengthen Santa Monica’s anti-corruption law known
as Oaks. SM was put on the ballot as the result of the recommendations
of respected ethics attorney and Enron prosecutor John Hueston, to
make Oaks easier to enforce and provide broader protections for the
public.
The original Oaks Initiative was put on the ballot in 2000 to prohibit
city officials from awarding public benefits, such as development
agreements and contracts, to individuals or entities and then receiving
a personal benefit such as campaign contributions or employment from
the public benefit recipient. Oaks was aimed at lessening even the
appearance that public officials are expecting future personal benefits
when carrying out the people’s business. It passed by almost 60%.
Oaks has never been enforced by the City. THIS WILL CHANGE IN
NOVEMBER IF YOU VOTE FOR MEASURE SM.
Measure SM expands Oaks, and enables its enforcement by:
--Placing enforcement responsibility in the hands of the independent
Criminal Division of the City Attorney’s office or a special prosecutor
who have no conflict
--Permitting criminal and civil prosecutions of any violator, including
developers or contractors who violate the law
--Clarifying exactly which public officials are covered by Oaks (City
Council, City Manager, Planning Commissioners, Department Heads,
and their designees)
--Clarifying that receiving a campaign contribution or personal
advantage in any location, including outside of Santa Monica, is
prohibited
--Requiring companies receiving public benefits to disclose who really
owns them, so they cannot hide behind shell companies.
Measure SM also creates an exception for volunteer members of non-
profit entities other than PACs or entities controlling PACs.
IT’S TIME TO ENFORCE THE ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURE THAT
WE THE PEOPLE ENACTED IN 2000 AND REAFFIRMED IN 2006.
Vote YES on Measure SM.
/s/ Tony Vazquez, Santa Monica Mayor
/s/ Mary L. Marlow, Chair Santa Monica Transparency Project
/s/ Carmen Balber, Consumer Watchdog, Executive Director
/s/ Diana Gordon, Co-chair, Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
/s/ Sue L. Himmelrich, Santa Monica City Councilmember
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
M
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE SM
None Filed
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
M
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 45 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
47
!625/46!SANTA MONICA
MEASURE V
FULL TEXT BALLOT PROPOSITION
OF THE SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
BOND MEASURE ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 8, 2016
SANTA MONICA COLLEGE CLASSROOM REPAIR, CAREER TRAINING, HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS MEASURE. To improve local access to
affordable higher education for high school graduates/ adults/ veterans; improve education/ career training in math, science, writing,
arts, business; shall Santa Monica Community College District issue $345,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, with citizens oversight/
annual audits, to repair, upgrade, construct, modernize, equip facilities for technology, science/ biotech, college readiness; repair
aging, leaky classrooms, remove asbestos, upgrade disabled access, seismic and campus safety?
PROJECT LIST
The Board of Trustees of the Santa Monica Community College District certifies that it has evaluated the District’s urgent and critical capital
needs, including school and student safety issues, enrollment trends, class size reduction, overcrowding, energy efficiency and computer
technology, seismic safety requirements, and aging, outdated or deteriorating school buildings in developing the scope of projects to be funded.
In developing the scope of projects, the District has prioritized the key health and safety and sustainability needs so that the most critical school
site needs are addressed. The Board conducted an evaluation at all District sites and received input in developing the scope of projects to be
funded. In approving this Project List, the Board of Trustees determines that the District should:
Adhere to specific COMMUNITY ACCOUNTABILITY safeguards such as these:
(a) All bond expenditures are subject to review by a Citizens Oversight Committee which reports to the public, as provided in
Education Code Section 15278 et seq.
(b) The District will involve faculty, staff and students in curriculum development at financed facilities throughout the life of the
bond construction program.
(c) The District will provide an opportunity for input from community and neighborhood residents during the development of
projects to be funded by this bond measure.
(d) The District will apply energy-saving and sustainability standards to all repairs and improvements.
(e) The District will enter into or extend Cooperative Use Agreements with the City of Santa Monica, the City of Malibu and the
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District in order to make the most efficient use of bond funds whenever feasible.
The Project List includes the following types of projects:
All $345 million of bond proceeds will be spent within the Cities of Santa Monica and Malibu or at sites that share a boundary and
are contiguous with the Cities of Santa Monica or Malibu.
None of the bond proceeds can be taken away by the State of California.
All projects funded by bond proceeds will be available for educational and public uses authorized in this Project List.
Replacement safety and modernization projects were identified by means of an independent facilities assessment. Replacement
projects and projects to meet new educational needs have been presented to and approved by the District Board of Trustees and are included
as priority items in the District’s Capital Improvement Plan on file with the State Chancellor’s Office.
The items proposed for financing in whole or in part with the proceeds of the District’s general obligation bonds include the following
capital projects at any or all District facilities:
• provide facilities, classrooms and/or equipment for career education programs in such fields as nursing, computer technology, new
media, early childhood education, business, graphic design and other occupations in more than 80 fields of study;
• development and implementation of facilities master plans and related requirements such as environmental impact reports and soils
testing, architectural, engineering and similar planning costs;
• demolition of temporary and/or obsolete and unsafe facilities;
• installation and/or upgrading of emergency lighting, fire alarm and security systems;
• installation, upgrade or repair of roadways, walkways, grounds, parking lots and garages;
• entrance improvements; upgrade facilities to comply with Federal mandated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) handicap accessibility
requirements and State of California seismic standards;
• signage for safety and public information;
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 46 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
48
!625/47!SANTA MONICA
• upgrade and/or construction of new and existing restrooms;
• installation, repair and/or replacement of heating, air conditioning and ventilation systems; upgrade of facilities for energy efficiency
and to reduce fire risks;
• repair and replacement of worn-out and leaky roofs, windows, walls, doors and drinking fountains;
• installation of wiring and electrical systems to safely accommodate computers, technology and other electrical devices and needs;
• resurfacing or replacing hard courts, turf and irrigation systems and campus landscaping;
• building new and/or renovating existing athletic laboratories and lockers;
• upgrading or replacing inadequate libraries, and administrative spaces;
• installing interior and exterior painting and floor covering; installing covered walkways; construction of various forms of storage and
support spaces;
• replacing water and sewer lines and other plumbing systems;
• financing/refinancing of real property leases; financing/refinancing of previously approved bond-financed projects;
• acquiring related furnishings and equipment for all renovation, improvement and/or new and existing construction project components;
• the relocation and/or acquisition of temporary facilities during the renovation, improvement and/or new construction of project
components as necessary to maintain education programs in operation during construction;
• acquiring, refinancing and/or entering into arrangements for the use and/or joint use of real property for existing and future classrooms,
student services, child care and/or other uses; making site improvements, building infrastructure and/or constructing additional facilities
for the purpose of expanding instructional programs to meet future educational demands of District students.
SAFETY AND MODERNIZATION PROJECTS
Science and Math Extension. Santa Monica College is renowned for its science and allied health programs; however, the existing
labs for Life, Physical and Earth Sciences are at capacity; also, the current facility for the Math Department consists of temporary trailers and
lacks the infrastructure for smart classrooms or support for the use of modern technology for instructional use. Consolidating Math and Science
programs into a new Science Extension building supports interdisciplinary interaction. The building extension would qualify for up to $40 million
in State funding, which requires a local match. The building will contain an upgraded planetarium and a community lab for all ages, including
a nutrition and culinary lab in support of the College’s nutrition program.
Replacement of Temporary Classrooms. Bond proceeds would be used to replace the 1994 temporary trailer Math Village classroom
complex with permanent First Year Experience classrooms, student support study space and instructional support labs. These trailers were
rushed into service following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and have exceeded their time of usable service. Additionally, proceeds would
be used to replace the 1984 modular English as a Second Language classroom building. This modular building lacks fire sprinklers, is poorly
ventilated and has also exceeded its time of usable service.
Upgrading, Renovation or Replacement of Two 1950’s Buildings. The 1952 Liberal Arts building has the poorest Facility Condition
Index rating on the College’s main campus, lacks fire sprinklers and does not have an elevator. The 1952 Letters & Science building has the
second poorest Facility Condition Index rating on the main campus, and also lacks both fire sprinklers and an elevator.
Renovation of Business Building. The 1981 Business Building is overdue for renovation. The building houses a large number of
computer classrooms and labs.
Replacement of Campus Police Station. The current police facility is antiquated and undersized. Applying bond proceeds to the
replacement, construction, renovation and relocation of the campus police station and including a public space for community and neighborhood
use will improve public and campus safety.
Upgrading, Renovation or Replacement of Art Building. An upgraded, renovated or newly constructed art structure will replace
aging building systems and improve space distribution for the many disciplines within the Art Department. The College is eligible to receive up
to $10 million in State funding for this project, which requires a local match.
Landscaping/ Water Conservation Improvements and Completing Pico Boulevard Frontage Improvements. Applying bond
proceeds for landscaping improvements, including landscaping improvements to complete the main campus Pico Boulevard frontage, will
improve water conservation through water reclamation and installation of drought resistant landscaping.
Completing Master Plan Improvements at the Santa Monica College Performing Arts Center Campus. Construction at the
Performing Arts Center campus has proceeded in phases, in coordination with available funding. The first phase added the Broad Stage and
the Edye Second Space theaters. The second phase has added an East Wing rehearsal hall and music performance labs. The final phase, to
be funded from bond proceeds, will include an underground three-level parking structure to replace most of the existing surface parking, along
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 47 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
49
!625/48!SANTA MONICA
with an above-ground art gallery and green-space plaza. The theaters at the Performing Arts Center are among the most heavily used theaters
in Los Angeles County.
Designing and Installing an Outdoor Classroom. The design, construction, installation and improvement of a venue for outdoor
plays and class lectures.
Converting Library Interiors. Conversion of existing Library floor space used for book stacks to construct and install additional
student study areas, tutoring and collaborative learning spaces that will support student success.
Making Environmental Performance Improvements. Bond funds will be used to upgrade District facilities to achieve energy or
resource use efficiency and water conservation and achieve sustainability for District operations.
Upgrading Technology Infrastructure. Bond proceeds will be applied to renovate, replace, upgrade, acquire, install and integrate
major site, building and utility systems, equipment and related infrastructure, including lighting, electrical, wiring and related infrastructure for
modern technology, classroom instructional technology, communications and security technology (including security cameras and monitoring
systems), data, voice, public address and audio-visual communication, energy efficiency, management monitoring systems, networks, fixtures,
controls and equipment, cable infrastructure, network expansion, wireless access points and other communications and administrative systems.
COMMUNITY JOINT USE PROJECTS
Providing for a Joint Use Project with the City of Santa Monica. The College will provide up to $20 million in bond funds for the
expansion of the City of Santa Monica’s Memorial Park to accommodate soccer and/or other field sports for use by College students and the
general public.
Providing for a Joint Use Project with the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. The Johns Adams Middle School
Auditorium, adjacent to the College’s main campus, has suffered earthquake damage and is no longer in service. The College will make available
bond funds as needed to assist the School District in renovating or replacing the auditorium with a seating capacity of approximately 750, for
joint use.
Providing for City of Malibu Infrastructure and Community Educational Facilities. The College will provide up to $25 million in
funding enhancements to its instructional presence in Malibu in partnership with the City of Malibu.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
The allocation of bond proceeds may be affected by the District’s receipt of State matching funds and the final costs of each project.
In the absence of State matching funds, which the District will aggressively pursue to reduce the District’s share of the costs of the projects,
the District may undertake fewer than all of the projects listed above. Some projects may be undertaken as joint use projects in cooperation
with other local public or non-profit agencies.
Necessary site preparation/ restoration may occur in connection with new construction, renovation or remodeling, including ingress
and egress, removing, replacing or installing irrigation, storm drain, and utility lines, trees and landscaping, relocating fire access roads, and
acquiring any necessary easements, licenses, or rights of way to the property. Proceeds of the bonds may be used to pay or reimburse the
District for the costs of District staff when performing work on or necessary and incidental to bond projects. Bond proceeds shall only be
expended for the specific purposes identified herein.
NO ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES. PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE BONDS AUTHORIZED BY THIS PROPOSITION SHALL BE USED
ONLY FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OR REPLACEMENT OF DISTRICT FACILITIES, INCLUDING
THE FURNISHING AND EQUIPPING OF FACILITIES, AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, INCLUDING TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES
OR PENSIONS OR OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES.
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY. THE EXPENDITURE OF BOND MONEY ON THESE PROJECTS IS SUBJECT TO STRINGENT FINANCIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS. BY LAW, PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL AUDITS WILL BE PERFORMED ANNUALLY, AND ALL BOND
EXPENDITURES WILL BE MONITORED BY AN INDEPENDENT CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (EDUCATION CODE SECTION 15278 ET SEQ.)
TO ENSURE THAT FUNDS ARE SPENT AS PROMISED AND SPECIFIED. THE CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MUST INCLUDE, AMONG OTHERS,
REPRESENTATIVES OF A BONA FIDE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION AND A SENIOR CITIZENS ORGANIZATION. NO
DISTRICT EMPLOYEES OR VENDORS ARE ALLOWED TO SERVE ON THE CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
NOTICE TO VOTERS
Approval of Measure V does not guarantee that the proposed project or projects in the Santa Monica Community College District that are the
subject of bonds under Measure V will be funded beyond the local revenues generated by Measure V. The district’s proposal for the project or
projects may assume the receipt of matching state funds, which could be subject to appropriation by the Legislature or approval of a statewide
bond measure.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 48 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
50
!625/49!SANTA MONICA
TAX RATE STATEMENT CONCERNING MEASURE V
TAX RATE STATEMENT
REGARDING PROPOSED
$345,000,000
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
An election will be held in Santa Monica Community College District (the “District”) on November 8, 2016, for the purpose of submitting
to the electors of the District the question of issuing bonds of the District in the principal amount of $345 million. If such bonds are authorized
and sold, the principal thereof and interest thereon will be payable from the proceeds of taxes levied on the taxable property in the District. The
following information regarding tax rates is given to comply with Section 9401 of the California Elections Code. This information is based upon the
best estimates and projections presently available from official sources, upon experience within the District and other demonstrable factors.
Based upon the foregoing and projections of the assessed valuations of taxable property in the District, and assuming the entire debt
service on the bonds will be paid through property taxation:
1. The best estimate from official sources of the tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue during the first fiscal
year after the first sale of the bonds, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of the filing of this statement, or on a projection
based on experience within the District or other demonstrable factors, is $18 per $100,000 of assessed valuation of all property to be taxed in the
year 2019-20.
2. The best estimate from official sources of the tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue during the first fiscal
year after the last sale of the bonds and an estimate of the year in which that rate will apply, based on estimated assessed valuations available at
the time of the filing of this statement, or on a projection based on experience within the District or other demonstrable factors, is $25 per $100,000
of assessed valuation of all property to be taxed in the year 2025-26.
3. The best estimate from official sources of the highest tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue and an
estimate of the year in which that rate will apply, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of the filing of this statement, or on
a projection based on experience within the District or other demonstrable factors, is $25 per $100,000 of assessed valuation of all property to be
taxed in the year 2021-22.
Attention of voters is directed to the fact that the foregoing information is based upon projections and estimates. The actual timing of
sales of the bonds and the amount to be sold at any time will be governed by the needs of the District and other factors. The actual interest rates
at which the bonds will be sold, which will not exceed the maximum permitted by law, will depend upon the bond market at the time of sale.
The actual assessed valuations in future years will depend upon the value of property within the District as determined in the assessment and
the equalization process. Therefore, the actual tax rates and the years in which those tax rates will be applicable may vary from those presently
estimated and stated above.
The District estimates, based on current assumptions that total debt service on the bonds would be $722,483,675.
/s/ Kathryn E. Jeffery
Superintendent/President
Santa Monica Community College District
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 49 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
51
!625/50!SANTA MONICA
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE V
by
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel
Approval of Measure V (“Measure”) would authorize the Board of Trustees (“Board”) of the Santa Monica Community College District (“District”),
which placed the Measure on the ballot by Resolution No. 2, to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $345,000,000.
Proceeds from the sale of the bonds authorized by the Measure shall be used only for the purposes specified in the Measure, including, but not
limited to, making capital improvements at any or all District facilities for classrooms and equipment for career development programs; upgrading
safety and security systems; upgrading for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance; upgrading or constructing restrooms; installing, repairing,
or replacing heating, air conditioning, ventilation and electrical systems, and roofs, windows, walls, and doors; resurfacing or replacing hard
courts, turf, irrigation, and landscaping; building or renovating athletic laboratories and lockers; consolidating, constructing, replacing, extending,
upgrading, completing, or renovating various buildings for programs in math, science, liberal arts, business, art, and performing arts; replacing
the campus police station; making landscaping improvements to increase water conservation; designing and installing an outdoor classroom for
plays and lectures; converting library book-shelving areas into additional study, tutoring, and collaborative learning spaces; upgrading facilities
to improve energy and resource efficiency; upgrading technology infrastructure; providing a joint-use athletic field at the City of Santa Monica’s
Memorial Park; providing a joint-use auditorium at the John Adams Middle School; and enhancing the District’s instructional presence in the City
of Malibu. Bond proceeds may not be expended on teacher and administrator salaries and pensions and other operating expenses.
The Board shall cause independent performance and financial audits to be conducted annually to ensure that bond proceeds are spent only
for the projects identified in the Measure. The Board shall appoint an independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee in accordance with the Education
Code to ensure that bond proceeds are spent as specified in the Measure and as provided by law.
The maximum rate of interest on any bond shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by law. Bonds issued pursuant to Education Code
section 15264 et seq. shall have a maturity not exceeding twenty-five (25) years, and bonds issued pursuant to the Government Code shall have
a maturity not exceeding forty (40) years. For compound interest bonds, the maturity shall not exceed twenty-five (25) years. According to the
District’s Tax Rate Statement, the best estimate of the highest tax rate required to fund the bonds, and an estimate of the year in which that rate
will apply, is $25 per $100,000 of assessed valuation of all property to be taxed in the year 2021-22. The estimate is based on estimated assessed
valuations available when the District filed its Tax Rate Statement, or on a projection based on experience within the District, or other demonstrable
factors.
This Measure requires a fifty-five percent (55%) vote for passage.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 50 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
52
!625/51!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE V
Vote Yes on Measure V!
For 87 years Santa Monica College has been the premier Community
College in California. SMC is number one in transfers to the University
of California and provides over 100 affordable fields of study and job-
training programs.
50% of Santa Monica High School students attend SMC. SMC
serves 1,000 veterans each year.
As technology changes the workplace and the cost of higher education
soars, access to a high quality Community College education with safe,
modern, and efficient facilities adaptable to changes in technology is
more important than ever.
Measure V allows SMC to better meet the needs of our community by
completing the 2010 Master Plan:
- Renovating, replacing or modernizing aging and inadequate facilities
on the main campus, including replacing classroom trailers from the
1994 earthquake
-Providing a new Science Extension building
-Removing asbestos and bringing facilities up to current seismic,
accessibility, and safety standards
-Upgrading for improved information and communications
technologies, and greater energy efficiency and water conservation
- Implementing joint use projects including expanding Santa Monica’s
Memorial Park, renovating the School District’s John Adams Middle
School Auditorium, and enhancing community educational facilities in
Malibu
All funds must be used locally. None of the bond proceeds can be taken
away by the State. Independent audits are required.
It is the power of the student-teacher connection and the breadth
and depth of the program that create the formula for SMC’s success.
Its career and transfer oriented programs rival the nation’s best
universities.
SMC has served more than 27,000 Santa Monica and Malibu
residents in the past decade. More members of our community take
classes at SMC than do residents of other districts at their community
colleges. That’s why Measure V is supported by educators, parents,
and local business and community leaders throughout our community.
Vote Yes on Measure V!
/s/ Dr. Louise Jaffe, Chair, Santa Monica College Board of Trustees
/s/ Tony Vazquez, Mayor, City of Santa Monica
/s/ Lou LaMonte, Mayor, City of Malibu
/s/ Denny Zane, Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters Rights
(SMRR); Former Santa Monica Mayor
/s/ Laurie Lieberman, President
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE V
SMC says “show me the money.” We have 4 times.
Why raise our taxes a 5th time when we’re not getting the straight
story?
What’s missing?
The amount of accumulated SMC bond debt previously approved for
similar purposes -- fix or replace aging buildings -- each new request
in sharply escalating amounts.
How this bond will differ from the 4 already passed. Most buildings
have already been replaced. Some, funded from a past bond, have yet
to be built. Vague descriptions for improvements and land acquisition
are inadequate and unconvincing.
There’s no accounting of expenditures from previous bonds.
How were they spent? What’s left? Why?
Why were previous approved bonds not enough?
The true amount of indebtedness for this bond is NOT $1.60/month
for renters and $8.65/month for property owners as claimed. We’ll pay
$722,483,675 in addition to the past 4 SMC bonds – an astonishing
$2 billion -- that won’t be paid until 2046.
The true number of local high school students who attend SMC full-time
is a very small percentage despite the misleading statistics the College
reports. Yet we are being asked to underwrite the cost of more facilities
benefiting mostly out-of-district students. The state recognized that it
has responsibility to help fund the open door policy of our community
colleges, so Prop 51 on this same ballot, if passed, will provide billions
of dollars for state community colleges, including SMC.
We’ve done our research.
Make an informed choice.
Vote NO on Measure V it’s Very excessive.
/s/ Doris Sosin, Former SM Recreation & Parks Commissioner,
Founder & former chair, North of Montana Association
/s/ Robert T. Holbrook, Former Mayor, City of Santa Monica,
Former Pres., SM-Malibu Unified School District Board
/s/ David Yuguchi, Board member, Northeast Neighbors
/s/ Peter Tigler, Former SM City Charter Review Commissioner,
Former Chair, Pico Neighborhood Association
/s/ Colin Maduzia, Former SM Landmarks Commissioner,
Former Board Member, Friends of Sunset Park
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 51 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
53
!625/52!SANTA MONICA
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE V
$2 BILLION in Bond Obligations Is Too Much. VOTE NO on
MEASURE V
Supporting higher education is NOT the issue here. If this bond
measure passes, Santa Monica and Malibu property owners and
tenants will be saddled with up to $2 billion tax obligations until the
year 2046!
And this debt must be paid locally, even though only 4% of the over
30,000 SMC students are graduates of Santa Monica and Malibu high
schools.
The 2015/2016 L.A. County Civil Grand Jury cautions that we spend
too much on bonds before we have even repaid earlier ones.
Remember these SMC bonds? Here’s why the well is dry.
1992: $23 Million (Not paid off until 2022)
2002: $160 Million (Not paid off until 2032)
2004: $135 Million (Not paid off until 2034)
2008: $295 Million (Not paid off until 2038)
+2016: $345 Million (proposed) (Not paid off until 2046)
Total tax obligations (including interest) = up to $2 Billion
SMC is exempt from local land-use laws. It can build more buildings
and generate more traffic without any municipal review. The SMC 2010
Facilities Master Plan estimated 5,600 new daily car trips, increasing
traffic congestion at 36 intersections.
The $130 million Student Services building remains a huge hole in
the ground since 2009. The new $24 million glass-walled Information
Technology building was apparently built without air conditioning.
The Main Campus Quad cost $11 million. The Early Childhood Education
Center near City Hall, budgeted at $7 million, will provide child care
primarily for 110 children of City Hall, RAND, and SMC employees,
many of whom are not local residents.
SMC must wisely spend the money we have generously given
four times in recent years, recruit more local students, and be fully
transparent and accountable.
Then we can talk about another bond.
/s/ Lorraine Sanchez, former member, SMC Citizens’ Bond Oversight
Committee; former Vice President, Friends of Sunset Park;
Pico neighborhood resident
/s/ Nancy Coleman, former member of the 2013-2014 Los Angeles
County Civil Grand Jury; north of Montana resident
/s/ Ruthann Lehrer, former Santa Monica Landmarks Commissioner;
Secretary, Northeast Neighbors neighborhood organization
/s/ Sherrill Kushner, former Board member, Santa Monica Public
Library and Friends of the Library; Chair of the successful
Library Bond Initiative campaign; north of Montana resident
/s/ Laurence Eubank, Former construction, real estate, corporate,
and international development executive; Wilmont resident
REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE V
Yes on Measure V.
Opponents’ claims against Measure V are simply false. Supporting
education is the issue here.
All neighboring communities are committing to the same level of
support for their community colleges as proposed by Measure V.
Repairing and modernizing Santa Monica College classrooms protects
our community’s investment in SMC and gives our local residents
facilities designed for a 21st Century education.
SMC has the State’s best faculty. Failing to repair our classrooms risks
losing great teachers in future years.
SMC has kept its promises:
REDUCED CAR TRIPS:
- Award-winning public transit program, in place since 2008 = reduced
car trips 30%
- Reduction of planned footprint by 20% due to new online education
offerings = reduced car trips 10%
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY:
- All SMC facilities are reviewed locally.
- Santa Monica College passed a County review of all school bond
programs with honors.
- The Student Services building, now under construction with a new
design, is saving taxpayers $30 million.
LOCAL PRIORITIES:
- The planned child care facility guarantees priority for Santa Monica
residents.
- 5O% of Santa Monica High School students attend SMC.
- More than 27,000 Santa Monica and Malibu residents have attended
Santa Monica College in the past decade.
SMC remains number one in transfers to the University of California,
UCLA and USC.
Measure V is supported by educators, parents, and local business and
community leaders.
Have more questions? Call Dr. Kathryn Jeffery, SMC President,
310-434-4200 or visit VoteYESforSMC.com for more details and
background.
SMC is Valued.
SMC is Vibrant.
SMC is Very Affordable.
Vote Yes for Measure V.
/s/ Barbara lnatsugu, President, League of Women Voters of Santa
Monica; Sunset Park resident
/s/ Jennifer Ferro, President, KCRW
/s/ Oscar de Ia Torre, Co-Chair, Pico Neighborhood Association;
Executive Director, Pico Youth & Family Center; Board Member,
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
/s/ Tony Vazquez, Mayor, City of Santa Monica
/s/ Lou LaMonte, Mayor, City of Malibu
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
V
SantaMonica_110816_English TEXT.indd 52 9/21/2016 1:39:40 PM
54
Vote by Mail!
Go to www.lavote.net
It’s Easy!
It’s Convenient!
It’s Weatherproof!
SantaMonicaCovers_1108_English.indd 5 9/21/2016 1:19:34 PM
55
SantaMonicaCovers_1108_English.indd 6 9/21/2016 1:19:34 PM
BT 1 56
Mark your calendar.
Don’t forget to vote on November 8, 2016!
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
October, 2016
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
November, 2016
Last day to
register to
vote for this
election
Last day to
request a
Vote-by-Mail
ballot
ELECTION
DAY
WARNING ! ! ! Your POLLING PLACE for this CITY ELECTION may
be different from the polling place you went to for the last County
Election.
SantaMonicaCovers_1108_English.indd 7 9/21/2016 1:19:34 PM
57
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK1685 MAIN ST RM 102
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-3248
310/ 458-8211
POLLS OPEN AT 7 A.M.
AND CLOSE AT 8 P.M.
TAKE THIS SAMPLE BALLOT TO YOUR
POLLING PLACE FOR REFERENCE
19-625 - 1
BALLOT TYPE
POSTMASTER DELIVER TO:
FOR ELECTION AND CAMPAIGN
FINANCING INFORMATION,
GO TO
WWW.SMGOV.NET
NOTE: Your POLLING PLACE LOCATION, and the COMPLETE SAMPLE
BALLOT, and the VOTE BY MAIL APPLICATION, are being mailed under
separate cover as required by the COUNTY REGISTRAR’S OFFICE,
which is conducting this election.
PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No. 2259
Long Beach, CA
SantaMonicaCovers_1108_English.indd 8 9/21/2016 1:19:34 PM