> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Measure heads to ballot
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/measure-heads-to-ballot/
- Published: 2008-06-26T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T19:59:05.000Z
- Author: Melody Hanatani
- Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*Study reveals financial impact of RIFT*

CITY HALL A campaign that seeks to limit commercial growth will come before voters in the fall, the measure placed on the ballot by the City Council on Tuesday after hearing a report that the initiative could hurt local revenue streams to the tune of millions of dollars.

A team of consultants retained by City Hall presented the findings of their nearly two-month-long analysis of the Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic (RIFT), the study finding that the ballot measure could negatively impact City Hall’s general fund and unintentionally drive up commercial rent by creating a decline in supply.

Authored by the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, RIFT would place a cap on commercial development to 75,000 square feet annually, the proponents arguing that such growth has gotten out of control in Santa Monica, leading to more traffic into and out of the city as well as congested streets.

The measure specifies that the limit on commercial development would not apply to the following uses: Residential, parking, schools, child and senior day care facilities, hospitals and other specified care facilities, places of worship, and government facilities.

Additionally, the limit is expressly made inapplicable to “neighborhood-serving goods, services or retail uses” located on the ground floor of a housing development if 100 percent of the dwelling units in the development are designated “affordable” by City Hall. Additionally, the limit would be inapplicable to any project that does not require approval of the Planning Commission or City Council under either state law or under local law in effect on Jan. 16, 2008\. The measure includes exemptions for any project with a vested right of development and for any use beyond local voters’ regulatory power. The measure also states that an exemption would apply in any instance where six-sevenths of the council finds that applying the limit would cause an unconstitutional “taking” of the owner’s property.

The initiative qualified for the November election when a petition consisting of more than 10,000 signatures was submitted during the spring, SMCLC spending roughly 10 weeks drumming up support at supermarkets and other locations of public assembly. The council ordered an impact study of RIFT shortly after the petitions were submitted.

If passed, the provisions of the initiative would be written into the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), which will dictate development for 20 years or longer.

While the measure has received support from a large sector of the public, several city officials and business leaders have blasted RIFT as hijacking the public process that has taken place in the formulation of LUCE.

Among the opponents is Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom, who said that RIFT was written by a small group of individuals without any public process, adding that it has divided the community and calling it “the rift.”

“The LUCE on the other hand has been an extraordinary public process,” Bloom said.

Several RIFT supporters pointed out they attended numerous LUCE meetings over the past few years but saw their wishes for a lower-scale city ignored by the process.

“What I come to believe … is there is failure to listen to residents,” Mary Marlow, a board member with the Ocean Park Association, said. “That is why you’re seeing RIFT come up.”

But RIFT could have several unintended consequences, according to a team of economic and traffic analysts who concluded that while the initiative appears to be successful in its intention to reduce traffic, it would discourage small local retail and favor businesses that would generate more traffic, such as offices and chain stores.

The consultants compared the economic and traffic impacts based on three different scenarios, including a “baseline” projection that assumes current conditions imposed on development continues, the passage of RIFT and the adoption of LUCE.

Their findings showed that a system based on RIFT would result in 4 percent fewer vehicular trips in 2023 than the baseline projection, the initiative’s outlook showing that it would generate only one percent fewer traffic than if LUCE was adopted in its current incarnation.

The reason can be attributed to the transportation demand management plan that would be imposed on developers under the LUCE, which makes the pledge of no new net trips, according to the consultants.

Jeff Tumlin, a principal of Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, added that RIFT would cause a scarcity in development, leading to higher rent for businesses.

“As a result, higher value uses such as office and formula retail will tend to out compete local service for new space,” Tumlin said. “The result is that there will be a modest increase in vehicle trip rates in to Santa Monica.”

A loss in commercial development under RIFT could also lead to approximately $11.8 million less in revenue for the general fund as compared to the baseline projections and $11.4 million less compared to LUCE.

The majority of the loss will come from the hotel’s transient occupancy tax, sales tax and business license tax.

“Residential development produces revenue from fewer sources than commercial development and generally speaking, commercial development does a much better job of offsetting public service cost,” Paul Silvern, a consultant with Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc., said.

Several RIFT proponents criticized City Hall for employing consultants who they say represent major developers. They pointed out that the consultants have worked with City Hall on LUCE in the past, including economic analyst Bill Whitney, Silvern and Tumlin.

“The city spent $100,000 of residents’ money to ‘swiftboat’ RIFT,” Diana Gordon, co-chair for the SMCLC, said. “Despite residents pleas for a fair, complete and impartial study, the city paid their insider consultants, who represent major developers and who are promoting a whole lot of new commercial growth for Santa Monica to ‘study’RIFT.

“It’s like paying foxes to do a thoughtful, unbiased study on how best to use hens.”

Councilmembers Pam O’Connor and Bob Holbrook were appointed to draft an argument against the measure while Councilmember Kevin McKeown was tapped to prepare a defense of the measure. Both arguments are due by July 8.

Holbrook expressed some concerns he had with the initiative, particularly its potential effect on hospital construction, pointing out that many people rely on the facilities in Santa Monica.

“Personally, I think it’s a mistake to move authority away from elected council,” Holbrook said.

McKeown said that there is a misperception that LUCE and RIFT are at adds with one another, adding that RIFT doesn’t stop all growth, but rather paces and manages it.

“It doesn’t appear to cripple our local economy, what it does is cut commercial expansion by about half and many people in this community think cutting by half would be a good thing,” McKeown said.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 26, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/062608.pdf?ref=smdp.com)