By Niki Cervantes
Staff Writer

March 10, 2016 -- Members of the Santa Monica City Council are considering floating a ballot measure to counter LUVE, an initiative that would require voter approval of most developments taller than two floors, The Lookout has learned.

Sponsors of the measure, one council member and several local political observers, told the Lookout Wednesday that there is talk among the Council's seven members of drafting a competing ballot measure.

Although Council members have remained quiet about their intentions, three of the seven -- including two who are considered slow-growth advocates -- have expressed their opposition to LUVE, the Land Use Voter Empowerment initiative that began circulating this weekend.. ("Proposed LUVE Initiative Getting Little Support from Santa Monica Council Members," March 9, 2016)

Armen Melkonians, the head of Residocracy, said he was told by one council member that there is talk of a competing measure among the council.

"It's an attempt to thwart the will of the voters," Melkonians said. "It's sneaky and it would just be a way to confuse the voters."

"Why do it to begin with?" he asked. "They make the law. All they have to do is change their (development) policies to be more reasonable. (A ballot) measure by the council would show they're not concerned with what the electorate really wants."

Mayor Pro Tem Ted Winterer said he, too, has heard talk of a "possible Council-backed initiative which might empower voters but be less restrictive than LUVE."

"However," he said, "it seems premature to contemplate such an option until we know if LUVE qualifies for the ballot."

"There are a lot of passionate, energetic folks behind LUVE," Winterer added, "but I know from my own experience gathering signatures for Prop T in 2008 that it's a daunting task, so one step at a time."

Prop T, which like LUVE sought to cap development, failed at the ballot box. Although most council members and civic leaders opposed the measure, known as the Residents Initiative to fight Traffic (RIFT), the Council did not place a competing measure on the 2008 ballot.

In 2014, however, the Council did place an alternative to the pro-airport measure D on the ballot. The council's measure was overwhelmingly approved by voters despite heavy spending by aviation advocates.

Political observers told The Lookout that it is likely the City Council would wait to gauge public sentiment about LUVE before deciding whether to place a rival measure before voters. Opinion polls, likely funded by opponents, are expected to be conducted before May.

If the City Council decides to place a competing measure on the ballot, the process is far less onerous than it is for the sponsors of citizen-initiated measures, who must gather the signatures of at least some 6,500 registered voters that must be verified by the LA County Registrar.

The Council, on the other hand, can approve a ballot measure as late as July, giving it plenty of time to weigh voter sentiment.

Residocracy began circulating petitions for LUVE on Sunday at an event of about 300 supporters. Most left with petitions, Melkonians said. Another 30 supporters have taken out petitions since then.

Residocracy expects to have the necessary signatures in two weeks, Melkonians said.

If enough signatures are deemed valid, the City Council is required either to adopt LUVE itself or put it on the November ballot.

Council members generally have been either unsupportive or quiet about LUVE.

The initiative overrides most of the council's authority over development by requiring a public vote when the Council approves a development taller than two floors, as well as all projects that require a development agreement because it exceeds zoing standards.

A public vote also would be needed on changes to land-use and planning policy documents. Exemptions are included for affordable and moderate-income housing, 100 percent senior citizen housing projects and single-unit dwellings.

Opposed to the measure are Winterer and council members Kevin McKeown, considered a staunch slow-growth advocate, and Pam O'Connor, who is generally viewed as pro-development.

Council Member Sue Himmelrich, a majority member, has expressed reservations about LUVE in the past.

The council's opponents contend the measure gives developers unintended power by allowing them to wage expensive election campaigns to win the vote for their projects, or that LUVE undermines the city's need for housing.

Residocracy contends LUVE elections would prompt developers to think twice before submitting proposals, and either make sure plans are compatible with the community or convince them to go elsewhere.

Although a relative newcomer to Santa Monica's development wars, Residocracy has successfully flexed its political muscle with the City Council before.

Two years ago, the organization collected more than 13,000 signatures calling for a ballot measure challenging the council's approval of the controversial Bergamot Transit Village development in the City's industrial zone.

The council reversed it vote approving the project before the signatures could be verified by the County Registrar.

Jorge Casuso contributed to this report.