SR-062408-3A~~ lT R Q _~1T
City of City C®U11CII ^\Gp®, i
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: June 24, 2008
Agenda Item: ~"-~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager
Subject: Study Session -Assessment of the qualified Initiative petition entitled
"Residents' Initiative to Fight Traffic (RIFT)"
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council hear a report on potential effects of the qualified
initiative petition entitled "Residents' Initiative to Fight Traffic (RIFT)" and consider its
impacts. A separate staff report is on tonight's agenda with the required electoral
actions which Council must now take.
Executive Summary
At its meeting of April 29, 2008; the City Council directed staff to conduct a study and
report back pursuant to Elections Code 9212 on potential impacts of the RIFT petition,
which proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to establish an
annual limit on commercial development in Santa Monica. The Los Angeles County
Clerk/Registrar Recorder since verified that the petition has the valid signatures
required to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot for a public vote in May. The
Council accepted the qualified initiative petition on May 27, 2008. Per the Elections
Code, staff is required to return with the analysis within 30 days of acceptance of the
petition, or by June 27, 2008.
Staff hired consultants to perform a factual, impartial evaluation of the proposed
ordinance, assessing the potential positive, negative or neutral economic, fiscal and
traffic impacts of the initiative over its duration: January 2008 through December 2023.
Given the limited. time to perform the evaluation, the consultants are presenting their
report tonight in the form of PowerPoint presentations to the Council.
After hearing the presentations, Council must either 1) adopt-the ordinance without
alteration or 2) submit the measure, without alteration, to the voters, through the
adoption of resolutions which are supplied tonight with a separate staff report presented
by the City Clerk.
1
Discussion
Given the very limited time to conduct the evaluation and need for significant knowledge
of baseline,. or current, land use and. circulation trends in the City, staff engaged four
consultants to complete the assessment who are currently working on the Land Use
and Circulation Element Update: Whitney & Whitney, Inc; HR&A Advisors, Inc.; Nelson
Nygaard;. and Fehr & Peers. Their assignment was to consider the Council's comments
made at the April 29, 2008 meeting and conduct a factual, impartial and balanced
assessment of the proposed measure,- highlighting the positive, negative or neutral
impacts of the measure over its duration.
o Whitney & Whitney, Inc. and HR&A Advisors, Inc. were engaged to collaborate on
an economic and fiscal impacts study. Specifically, these consultants Were tasked
with assessing the potential effect on city .revenue generation, public service
expenditures, housing production (affordable, workforce and market-rate) and other
factors. To do this, they estimated the potential rate of development for various
categories of land uses over 16 years under alternative development futures:
baseline or current growth trends; growth under goals consistent with the Land Use
and .Circulation Element update; and growth under the RIFT measure. The
consultants also evaluated potential costs to administer the measure.
o Nelson\Nygaard and Fehr & Peers were jointly tasked with analyzing potential
transportation impacts of the measure by examining relative citywide traffic volumes
generated over the 16 years under the alternative • development futures and a
general assessment of transit usage, -auto trip generation, auto vehicle miles
traveled and through trips under the alternatives.
Given the limited time available to complete these assignments, the consultants will
present PowerPoint reports to the Council at tonight's Council meeting.
Previous Council Actions
Council directed staff to evaluate the impacts of the proposed measure on April 29,
2008. On May 27, 2008, Council accepted the qualified initiative petition.'
2
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The costs related to implementing and enforcing the proposed measure are unknown at
this time.. Other potential fiscal and economic impacts will be discussed by the
consultants in their report. -There are no significant cost related to placing the measure
on the November ballot; election-related costs are included in the FY2008-09 budget.
Prepared by: Mona Miyasato, Deputy City Manager
Approved:
Mona Miyasato U
Deputy City Manager
Forwarded to Council:
Manager
3
RIFT Traffic Analysis
Santa Monica City Council
June 24, 2008
Ne1sQn INyQaard
consulting x ssociaces
FEHR ~t PEERS
K/UN/~S.SOCInTES
Trip Evaluation ,Methodology.
Land Use scenarios
Cut-Through Traffic
LUCE Transportation Initiatives
Trip Generation Estimates
Other Implications
Conclusions
Introduction
Conducted trip generation analysis of potential
land use scenarios for a baseline scenario, LUCE
and RIFT.
City divided into key districts and boulevards.
Trips estimated for seven categories of land use:
residential.,. retail, office, post-production,
medical, hotel, and industrial.
Adjustments made to reflect mixed-use internalization for
districts and surrounding areas.
TOD adjustment made to reflect fixed-rail transit (Expo
line) for ~/ mile area surrounding each of the three
stations.
Demand management adjustment made to reflect
additional TDM measures (e.g., bike network, transit
passes & shuttles, parking management, employer
.transportation management).
Estimated person trips by mode using SCAG and Santa
Monica data.
Estimated l'M peak hour vehicle trips.
o RIFT: Caps non-exempt, non-residential land uses at
75,000 square feet a year (118,000 including
exempt).
o LUCE: Assumes same market conditions as other
two, but implements the shifts in land use pattern and
transportation investments as envisioned in draft
LUCE. Assumes non-residential growth rate of
195,000 square feet a .year, on average.
o Residential. projected to increase by 15% (7,100
units) under all scenarios.
Analyzed three 2023 future scenarios:
o Baseline: Projects existing trends into future.
o .Baseline: 12%
o LUCE: 11
o RIFT: 10%
LUCE adds 1 % more total development than RIFT by
2025.
LUCE
RIFT
Baseline
® Existing Residential
^ New Residential
^ Existing Retail
^ New Retail
^ Existing Ofice/Med/Hotel/PostProd/SChoolGoJt
® New Office/Med/Hotel/PostProd/SchoolOoJt
^ Existing Industrial
New Industrial
20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000
Expected total growth by 2025:
o LUCE: +3 ,123,000 SF +10%
o RIFT: +1 ,$90,000 SF +6%
LUCE adds 4% more total non-residential development
than RIFT by 2023.
Baseline
RIFT
LUCE
®Existing Retail
^ New Retail
^ Existing
Office/Med/Hotel/l
^ New
Office/Med/Hotelll
^ Existing Industrial
®New Industrial
5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000
Expected non-residential growth by 2023:
o Baseline: +3,464,000 SF +11
ao°i°
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
® Baseline
^ LUCE
^ RIFT
LAND USE PERCENT CHANGE BY CATEGORY
1984 PLAN, LUCE & RIFT
Residential Units Retail SF Office SF Post-FYoduction SF Medical SF Hotel SF Industrial SF Non-Residential Total
SF
~,ooo,ooo
° = Biggest differences in the Transit
66oBgBg
Villages and Activity Centers
i ®N
w I
d
t
i
l
e
n
us
r
a
5,000,000 ^ (Bcisting Industrial
®New Hotel
^ &isting Hotel
4 000
000 ' N
M
di
l
, p
ew
e
ca
^ Fxisftng Medical
-. ®NewPosl Roduction
3 OOOp00 '
^ &isting Post Production
^ New Office
I. ^ Fxistmg OfficelGovVSch
2 000
000
~
, n ^ New Retail
. I ,,, , ~. _ , , ®&isting Retail
1,000,000
Civic Bergamot Mxed Ivkmorial dshire/1 St. Johns
Center Transel Use Park Actively Hospelal
Village GeaTrve Area nterlSan District
Ivbnica
FbspBal
Actively
Center
Low
olnlOce~~lshire Santa Santa
'k ACW oulevacd Monica Nanica
Center Mieetl General
(23rd (20th to
east to Lincoln)
Colorado Lincoln
Axed
Use BPod.
(Wilshire
to 110)
Lincoln Pico Ocean
General Boulff~ inlNbnl
50%
45%
40%
35%
> 30%
3
0
`0 25%
e
m
t
:; 20%
x
w
15%
1 o°i°
5°i°
o°i°
Freeway &PCH
Arterials
PM Peak cut-
through on I-10 and
PCH 45% to 48%
PM Peak cut-
through on arterials
22%
®Year 2000 AM Peak Period VMT
^Year 2000 PM Peak Period VMT
^Year2030 AM Peak Period VMT
^Year 2030 PM Peak Period VMT
Arterials with higher than
average cut-through
include: Lincoln, Main,
Ocean, Nielsoh, San
Vicente, 23rd 26th
Source:
SCAG regional travel demand model
EXTERNAL PERCENT OF VMT ON FREEWAYS AND ARTERIALS IN SANTA MONICA
14°/a
12%
10%
~ a%
C
.~
c
m
Ce 6%
0
4%
2%
0%
®Santa Monica
®EMemal .
^ Total
Source:
SCAG regional travel
demand model
2000 TO 2030 CHANGE IN PM PEAK PERIOD VMT
Freeway& PCH Arterials
Las Virg~nes
Jobs
ftesid#ni5
---~ GIly BOUntlaries
Frsxways
9anLa Monica
4
rce:
t
San Gabriel Valley
Ian
"~ ~ Noh Losng~l~s County
xPm 2r
I.
.
•-
.._ ~~
...~
I .....,~ ~ -~.,
~'
~
~ . .. :I
i'
. i ~
~
q
y %
y
g
+~~.. gg
d „g
p 2
tl 8 ~
`
g
1 d ~ ..7
u
t.
_._.
.. t s.
..~~
..~
µ
qr
.
~ ( w J
42}H2T !
~~:
~'.
_ n
'~
HIffR
..jsu.
~
..
~y
InmYCM1U ,
'
I.
s
,..
.. _..
.._ .
i
~
r
J(.
~ -
px'NWa''. i
~ r9 ~ d7. ~ F . a.
-_. _.
Po kc Q.mn
Demand Management Districts
City of Santa IAoniw
Land Use and Circulation E3ement
Higheaf goal
~PSMNIY/.bIMM~rtNNti.l~Yla PMq@I n<~P
P: Highwgoal
eµy~vmms.reewawum.s
4+;~ OlstdcE w.+tle rtrode split goat
ar.mm.c,~
Major tram@ stop mn~
arri°.~n:~ti:~°uwaanm~nu~a ~w~m ~""
LagM Ra] Stop
1~~
~~
Y 4
~N.
6~
~~ ~ _
BTHax
~nrar'.
Fgr
Nefsen~Nygaar~
..,._,., a ,,,~x , ..~.a,~v.~
~.n~r~...~..r ..
... __.___ i~f ~°wml
employers
Screened out errors to analyze 665 employers
Mapped by district and land use type
• Identified employers with good TDM results as benchmarks
Below; Rates of employee driving by land use and district
TDM District
Office
Retail. Med-
ical
Hotel
School Indus-
trial
Overall
Highest Average 74% 54% 87% 63% NA NA 65%
Benchmark 69% 33% 80% 42% NA NA 55%
Higher Average 85% 68% 72% 74% 80% 83% 80%
Benchmark 70% 58% 72% 56% 77% 69% 70%
District-wide Average 89% 61 % 65% 52% 80% 67% 68%
Benchmark 75% 43% 40% 48% 71 % 45% 58%
Coded employee travel data from around 700 Santa Monica
Number of Employees ,~
• 700 or less
® 707 - 750 ~
F Higher Goal District
~
~ R,,~ '
,ti
~ Average Vehicle Trip: 80%
u7 - 200 •
~ ~
l ~ ~;, District Benchmarks: 70%
207 - 300 DistricE-wide Mode Split Goa
e Vehicle Trip Rate: 68%
? Avera 9R m
°sj
`'sr
g ,
y
a
District Benchmarks: 58% ~
301 or more ~ ~„~, ~P . ~ ® ,
Data Source: City of Saata Monica
~ PJ~r , `rte
.
`~P _ P
~~5,r~
~
~
%ofVehicleTrips ,s~
J~e
~
~~ o~
~~~®
~~ ~ ~~-
~ 39%orLess G
w4 ~ ~
~'sr_ t
~ s
~' -
® 40 - 49% r ,; ,.
, ~~ ?'~O~i~S '~4+s s
a ~
` ~'
~' S`
.
® 50-59% s ~
r.
'@?' T o .. P
P
Y
O 70-79% O ~P,~ 2P~~~G.G O' vrc ® ~®_ .
~P~~
~,~G ~
~ ~ ..
~
®~~
i
h P~
'~ r
~~
® bti " ~~ ~p
~
~JC
g
er
® 90%or H _ ~ .
~
~
Date Source_ City of Santa Monica ~ ~ s ~ ~' ~
rl+~, ~
%of Workers
~ ~ ~ ,.
~
0
~~~' a; ,
sr .~~ ~~
r
`~
Who Drove to Work "`'
.7C`Y.~ ~~~' ^ '~ f .
"
39% or Less ®
,`~~ v~
Ho,
•,, ~,
40 ~ 49% `~ ~' ~' , .
~ r
60-69% ~ ~ ~ ~ GEP~~
®~,
,®
80 - 89% ~.~
90°/a or Higher
.
F '~~
Date Source: CTPP Partll Highest Goal District "® O
Average Vehicle Trip Rate: 65%
0~ M District Benchmarks: 55%
oes
.. .. .... ...._ GIS Dala Source: CiN of Santa N
Mix of office, retail,
restaurant and health
club uses
Required to meet TDM
goal
Measured traffic shows
36% fewer car trips than
allowed
Trips are 58% lower than
predicted by conventional
traffic projections
Traffic Study Results (2007)
Largest traffic mitigations are those that focus on
existing trips, since they are >90% of traffic:
o Creating. new Focally serving retail in places
without it (Transit Villages, Activity Centers)
o Transportation Management Organizations
o Impact Fees
RIFT/LUCE
Program Baseline RIFT Hybrid LUCE
SaMoHi transit passes (payment to BBB) $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000
Two new local shuttles $0 $0 $0 $300,000
TMO formation and capacity building (staff) $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000
Parking manager (1 staff) $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000
Safe Routes to School (1 staff and curriculum) $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000
Bicycle program. (1 staff and annual capital program) $0 $0 $550;000 $550,000
Other $0 $0 $100,000 $300,000
Total $0 $0 $1,400,000 $1,900,000
Sample Impact Fee program for each scenario
Home-work vehicle trip reduction: 3% to 20%
(shifts trips to transit, walking and bicycling)
TOD rail transit reduction -app ied to each land use scenario since
Expo light rail is assumed as base condition.
Home-work vehicle trip reduction: up to 7%
(shifts trips to transit)
Demand management reductions -higher levels for LUCE than RIFT;
higher levels for new employers than for existing employers.
Home-work vehicle trip reduction: 3% to 13%
(shifts trips to transit, walking and bicycling)
Potential overall mode shift for home-work trips varies from 6% to
31 %, depending on district density, location, and scenario.
Mixed use internalization -.applied to each land use scenario by
development district, but yields-greater percent reduction for more
dense development.
TOTAL ESTIMATED PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIPS
GENERATED IN CITY OF SANTAMONICA
70,000
60, 000
50, 000
~ 40, 000
30, 000
20, 000
10, 000
0
Baseline LUCE RIFT
® Future
Existing
.ESTIMATED PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIPS BY AREA
50, 000
45, 000
40, 000
35, 000
30, 000
25, 000
20, 000
15, 000
10, 000
5, 000
0
Existing
^ Baseline
^ LUCE
^ RIFT
Districts & Boulevards Residential Neighborhoods
PERCENT CHANGE IN LAND. USE AND
PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
16%
14%
12%
10%
$%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
Residential Units
® Non-Residential Floor Area
^ PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips
By reducing rate of commercial development in Santa
Monica, RIFT generates. ~4% fewer vehicle trips in 2023
than the baseline scenario, all else being equal.
By creating scarcity in the development market, RIFT will
tend to drive up commercial rents slightly.
Higher-value uses such as office and formula, regional
retailers will tend to out-compete local services for new
space.
Result would be a modest increase in vehicle trip rates into
Santa Monica, if local services are displaced by regional
services.
These factors would-offset some traffic reductions of RIFT.
3% from the baseline -- compared to 4% for the.
RIFT.
Assuming a more aggressive demand
management program under the LUCE that is
successful in meeting targets, LUCE is estimated
to cut total traffic 5% from the baseline.
LUCE estimated to cut total traffic a minimum of
Can the lower development .levels of the RIFT be
combined with. the .traffic mitigations of the
LUCE?
Partially, yes. But with these exceptions:
o Impact fees. 39% reduction from LUCE.
o General Fund/Redevelopment: $12..7 million
less each year.
o Activity Centers and Transit Villages. General
Office and Regional Retail will tend to
outcompete local services for limited. space.
Result: higher traffic rates for 80% of trips that
are non-work trips.
RIFT exempts "neighborhood-serving goods, services, or
retail uses that are located on the ground floor of an
affordable housing development in which one hundred
percent of the dwelling units are designated for affordable
housing."
When new uses .replace or re-use an existing building,
RIFT provides credit for existing square footage, but
translates it to new use through ITE Trip Generation
manual or "a comparable source-used by jurisdictions of
a comparable size to Santa Monica."
ITE data are. total vehicle trips for isolated, single-use
buildings with no alternative form of access. Data do not
count "internal capture." That is, a locally serving corner
market is assumed to generate more traffic per square
foot than aregion-serving Whole Foods or regional-
. employer.
firip rate for a corner market is
193. times. higher than a
.manufacturing building.
Jn-actuality, most trips for a
local market would be walk
trips or trips shifted from
elsewhere -not "new" vehicle
trips.
RIFT counts all trips the same
-whether long distance
automobile commute trips or
short walk trips.
Result: Replacement of
industrial uses with local retail
under RIFT could result in a
reduction of actual existing
traffic.
• But: Development market
would likely respond by
discouraging new local retail,
resulting in higher traffic.
• Consider a 100,000 square foot, obsolete .manufacturing building.
® Developer proposes converting to mixed use: Local market, four lunch
restaurants and medical/dental offices.
• Due to trip generation differences, developer only gets "credit" for 2% of
existing building space - or 2,200 square feet of existing 100,000 square
feet.
® 97,800 square feet must be borrowed against 75,000 square feet annual
commercial cap.
• In .actuality, many of these ITE trips would not be "new" trips or vehicle
trips. The local market and restaurants may result in negative vehicle trips
- replacing existing drive trips with new walk trips.
Original Trips per Allowable Sq Ft
Square Feet Weekday Trips Allowed
Former Manufacturing Building I 100,000 I 382
Proposed New Building
Convenience Market 15,000 11,070 331
Four lunch restaurants 35,000 4,450 772
Medical Dental Office 50,000 1;807 1,102
Total 100,000 17,327 2% 2,205
RIFT's use of ITE trip rates
may result in vehicle trip
reduction to the extent
Industrial is replaced by Retail.
But, result may be strong
discouragement of new locally
serving retail and
encouragement of uses with
lower trip rate, such as office
Result may .also be
encouragement of
replacement of single family
homes rather with new
commercial: Developers get
5.8 times as much "credit" per
square foot for displacing a
single family. home than a.
heavy industrial building.
Secondary impacts of RIFT, however, will likely
discourage locally serving retail and favor higher-value,
higher-traffic uses such as office and regional retail,.
reducing the traffic benefits of RIFT.
Moreover, any benefits of both LUCE and RIFT are likely
to be less than .impact of additional cut-through traffic,
which is growing at a faster rate than baseline traffic.
In the worst case, LUCE produces 1 % more traffic than
the RIFT. If TDM programs are successful, LUCE would
create 1 %° less traffic than the RIFT, keeping traffic levels
On the surface, RIFT appears to be successful in creating
a 4% reduction in traffic compared to baseline.
the same as they are today.
~~
/O
z
3
4
in small ministerial projects)
except certain neighborhootl uses
:s, excep[certain neighborhootl uses
Banks
Restaurents
Health facilities
anbcoltural facilities
:in TheaVes
Cinemas
Art galleries
rk commercial space (SgY )
including ceeagve space
Clubs
Foundations
relatetl
Manufacturing
Warehousing/srtorege
"Incubatof'space
Laborelotles/research faclities
HeallhrWellness centers
Resitlential
Schools
AtlulVChild tlay care
Hospitals
Resi homes/wnvalescentfocilities
Religious fdaliges
Government facilities
Neighborhood retail/service uses,
in 100h affortlable housing protects
5
Baseline LUCE RIFF
HisloncgmwN lrentls 99%ol8azetine
WCE Economic Anarysis Projection LDCE Economic Analysis Pmjetlion Space alloca(ion hasetl on
projects untlergoing review
WCE Economic Anaysis Projection ]5%N-6f 6aseline in 2gOBplus alrowance kr
AEminisfrefive Approvals in
WCE Economic Analysis Projection ]5%N-Of Baseline fhe future
Allowance Allowance
Saint John's Devpgml. Saint Johns Dev Agent. Saint John's Dev Agml.
Saml John's Devpgml Saint John's DevAgmf. Saint John's Oev Agent.
l wrta ~a96 ],656 ],D96 -
al Spaae
Retell 550,WD A95.DCD 366A00 (190,W%
Hotel ]35,DDD ]35,060 240,600 (495,W0J
Ofiu 4]2.163 ]]],]30 16D,000 (292.163)
Past-PratluctionlCree6ve ]A5.938 629,550 30D,W0 (40s,936)
IndusNeYOlher 20.ODD 35,000 t6,c00 (60,W0)
M~ 4Relaletl, NOn Exempt - 35D,WD 350,W0
6ubtolal belareHOSpIIaFRelafetl 2,614,tot 2,x]2,260 1.44D,W0 (t,i]4,101]
.w.a
HnagkLErempt 466,60D 4sD.a6D 0600
MedlwFRelaktl, Non Ezempt 350.ODD 350,000 (350,000)
FWUre MedcaHle6ted, NamEVempt X600 X600 f5D.0001
ITAL 0.164,101 ],123,180 1,890,000 (1,5]4.1%)
Annual AVeraOe 318,606 196,14a 118,126 (98.061)
7
9
10
11
~H.~S•m•nwmn
~,m..a.~m rvola~ ~....
~"~.~"~." 1. _ .
I
~\1 v
t ..
"c i ...
i
:. r ~J
5
I~
13
14
15
16
17