Some FAQs about Proposition T and some that aren’t so frequently asked

Q: So, I don’t have time to read this whole blog, tell me again, why you’re against this?

A: Because it won’t solve the traffic problem, and it will cost this city and SMMUSD much needed net revenue.

Q. Whoaa!! The Yes on T folks say it won’t cost the City any money, and that the City Attorney’s own estimate says it will negligible.

A. Well the City’s independent analysis forecasts a 9.4 million dollar deficit in 2008 dollars to the City, close to one-half million to SMMUSD, and about 100,000 to SMC. I guess it’s a case of competing analyses. However, I put my money on the independent analysis, as that firm does this kind of analysis for a living. The City Attorney’s specialty is not making these estimates.

Q. Yes, but wasn’t that analysis done by a consultant that works for developers?

A. Yes, they also work for cities and states. Of course they work for developers, too. Everyone who does this kind of work, and who has any credibility, works for developers. These firms do not fudge the numbers if they want to stay in business. Their reports go to lending institutions, debt rating agencies, etc. If their numbers can’t be believed, they won't be around for long. Their professionalism, and absolute commitment to impartial analysis is their calling card.

Q. Okay, say I do believe their numbers. By 2023, the city’s budget will be close to 1 billion dollars. What’s 9 million compared to that number?

A. Well let’s compare apples and apples. I’m looking at today’s budget which is half that number. So if we want to adjust for inflation, then let’s do that across the board, in which case this number comes close to 20 million dollars, about 2% of the city’s budget. Still doesn’t sound like a lot, but given the amount of fixed costs the city has, this could be the money the city provides to SMMUSD for things like music and arts programs.

Q. Okay, enough about finances, I get it. It will have an impact. You say Prop T won’t work. What do you mean?

A. Well it won’t reduce traffic.

Q. Yes, but the Pro-T forces admit that. They just say it will slow the rate of traffic increase.

A. Okay. If you think the problem is bad now, and this measure offers a solution that makes it get worse slower, do you think that’s a solution?

Q. Well, no, but it’s better than nothing.

A. I’m not advocating doing nothing. Nor, is the city's own General Plan as reflected in the LUCE document. I’m advocating a comprehensive plan of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) solutions, which include “parking cash-outs,” car-pooling, taking public transportation, etc. For more on this you’re going to have to read the rest of the blog.

Q. Well why not both: TDM and Prop T?

A. Because part of TDM is creating land-use diversity, which ensures that the most residents can walk or bike or take public transit to jobs and retail services. When you bias the development playing field to a predominant housing mix you lose much of the potential for TDM.

Q. Okay, okay, but still, I’m so sick of the “over-development” of Santa Monica. Isn’t this a step in preventing that?

A. No. It’s a step in limiting commercial development only. Most of that will be replaced by housing development.

Q. Well, doesn’t housing generate less traffic?

A. Again, it goes back to the mix, I just spoke of. Nature abhors a mono-culture, as does urbanism. All housing, and no commercial, not only make a city a dull place, but it also makes the traffic worse.

Q. Still, I’m so sick of these out-of-town developers from Beverly Hills and San Francisco proposing these six-story buildings that are destroying what’s left of my little beach town.

A. Wow, a lot of anger, there. Let’s take this one step at a time. Prop T will do nothing to prevent six-story buildings, particularly if they are composed of residences. Second, if those six-story building are composed exclusively of affordable housing (which I would argue is not necessarily a good thing; creating another mono-culture), then the ground floor can still have commercial space that is exempt from the 75,000 square foot cap. Measure T won’t affect that. So if the issue is protecting what’s left of the beach town, why not look at LUCE, which is the city’s land use component of its new General Plan. It addresses the issue comprehensively, acknowledging, that Santa Monica, itself has many neighborhoods and districts (some beachy, some not) and plans for them accordingly.

Q. Well, I don’t know, the city hasn’t done anything about this problem. At least this is something.

A. From my own perspective, I’d argue that the city has been treading water for the last few years while LUCE was being developed. LUCE has hours upon hours of citizen input from across the political spectrum. It is an extraordinary document which everyone should read. It would be tragic if now when it is ready for implementation, it had its heart cut out.

Q. You have said that this measure will actually hurt the city’s efforts to combat global warming. Isn’t that an absurd statement, like Ronald Reagan saying, “trees cause pollution?”

A. Well you do have to read the post for the full explanation, but the gist of the argument is this: Prop T will not help the current traffic situation. Proponents claim the traffic will get worse slower than doing nothing. However, new businesses that wanted to be here will simply go to Venice, West LA or Marina Del Rey. Folks will simply go through S.M. to get to those businesses, and Santa Monicans themselves will drive farther to get to these destinations. The reduction in TDM that this measure allows further reduces the chance for overall trip reduction, thus increasing driving.

Q. Well, why should I believe you any of what you say? You’re an architect. You work for developers. It even says on your internet profile that you do “transit-oriented development and design.” Aren’t you just protecting your own interests?

A. Actually, I work about equally for cities and developers. One of the things I do for cities is to help to negotiate these very complex development issues between different resident constituencies as well as developers. I challenge both sides to arrive at creative win-win solutions. As a result, I actually know something about this issue. I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I love what I do. That’s why I have gotten so active in this issue. Interestingly enough, a majority of developers I work with are housing developers, who would not be affected by Prop T at all. In fact, they might be helped by it. And yes, I do have a bias for transit-oriented development as I believe it is a key piece to achieve traffic reduction and reduce global warming.

Proposition T in Santa Monica is my Candidate for the Worst Urban Planning Idea of the Year.

I know you are thinking. This title demonstrates a wee bit of hyperbole, that it’s a tad exaggerated. Well let me explain my reasoning:

Last Spring, an earnest and eager young man approached me as I was walking out of my local Trader Joe’s, shopping bags in hand, and asked, “Would you like to fight traffic in Santa Monica? We’re gathering signatures to stop, ‘over-development’ by limiting commercial development in the future. It’s the Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic (RIFT).” Well none of us wants to be overwrought, overweight, or overtaxed, but those are so difficult to control, so, while I didn’t sign the petition, I imagine the prospect of not being ‘overdeveloped,’ sounded pretty good to most of my neighbors, because a measure has shown up on the ballot in Santa Monica, this November under the innocuous sounding name, Proposition T.

My biggest problem with the measure, which caps commercial development (retail and office combined) in the city to 75,000 square feet per year (about half of the current average), is that it wont’ work. Read the rest of this blog as to why I think why that's true.

Reason #1. Reducing commercial development to 75,000 square feet per year will not reduce traffic and may even increase it.

Actually, Proposition T don’t claim that RIFT will reduce traffic, only that it will slow the rate of traffic increase. So, of course, we’ll never know if it has worked or not, because there is no base line. How do we know how fast traffic would have increased if the measure hadn’t passed? How do we know if Proposition T reduced that rate of traffic growth by 10%, 50%, none at all, or even made matters worse?

Another way to frame their argument it seems to me, is that traffic in Santa Monica is terrible, and and that RIFT is a measure that will allow it to get worse slower than it would have otherwise gotten worse. Sounds amazingly half-baked. I think my six-year old framed it best when he said, “that’s just dumb.” I mean if you went to a doctor, with a chronic and debilitating disease, and she offered you a therapy that would slow your rate of decline, but you knew that other therapies existed that, over time, would actually allow you to see an improvement, wouldn’t you fire that doctor?

The Proposition T literature loudly proclaims, in bold type, “Our city's own traffic consultant says we can’t fit any more cars on our gridlocked streets,” How is a measure that acknowledges a problem, but then fails to provide anything resembling an adequate solution acceptable? (By the way the City uses a lot of traffic consultants, so I’d like to know which one made such an inane and unprofessional remark).

In other words, why doesn’t this measure attack the root cause of the problem, which is how people get around to work, to shop or to play? We know that there are cities with far greater density with less traffic burdens. The reason, this measure doesn’t attack the root cause, is that by doing so, the Prop-T advocates would acknowledge the value of appropriately designed mixed-use development to the long term health of the city. This measure uses the traffic as a Trojan horse to fight something more at the heart of every development issue in the city, which is that the Prop T backers simply do not want to see any more growth. Proposition T backers, would like to put a wall around this city and freeze it as is.

How do I know? Well again, look at the literature from a recent “Yes Prop T” mailing: “And more development is coming, Lots more. Our City Council just voted to INCREASE new building heights on all of our major boulevards from Wilshire to Pico to as high as six stories tall.”

So what does this have to do with Proposition T? Not one thing. Proposition T does not in any way affect the building heights in the city. This is just a scare tactic. It is intended to get the reader to distrust all developers, those interlopers “(some from San Francisco and Beverly Hills),” who would continue to do work in this city, and contribute to its evolution and its tax base.

Moreover, residential development, which is unaffected by Prop T, will probably increase as a result. So if you think voting for Proposition T will somehow change or overturn what the Council has just passed than you are in for a disappointment. All that will happen is that you will assure that this six-story development is almost exclusively residential. But you respond, well doesn’t residential development generate less traffic than commercial development? Not necessarily; it depends on the context.

“Okay, so maybe Prop T won’t affect traffic at all, where’s the harm?” you ask, “how could Prop T actually increase traffic (at least more so than not endorsing Prop T)?” Simply put, because it is fundamentally contrary to the smart growth principles that affect mobility and travel impacts that so many progressive cities, cities that are attempting to be as green as Santa Monica are incorporating. And please don’t take my word for it, go to:
http://www.smartgrowthplanning.org/ForecastMeasure.html, a web site put out by Fehr and Peers, one of the largest and most respected transportation planning firms in the nation.

The literature identifies five key measures:

1. Transit Proximity
2. Density of Development
3. Diversity of Development
4. Design of Development
5. Destination Accessibility of Development

Let’s highlight three of them:

Density of Development: Higher numbers of residents and jobs per acre are often a Smart Growth planning objective, and are effective at reducing travel and other impacts, especially when accompanied by high levels of regional accessibility, mix of uses, and quality urban design. Development density is a useful indicator of Smart Growth plans, and is usually measured in terms of total population and employment per acre. Density also reduces the need to convert exurban land to urban uses.

Diversity of Development: Land use mix measures the relative balances of jobs and housing as well as the mix of retail and non-retail jobs within walking/ biking distance or, secondarily, short driving distance. Diversity is correlated with reductions in vehicle trips and vehicle miles, and is therefore an indicator of a Smart Growth plan.

Design of Development: Smart Growth concepts often involve walkable neighborhoods. When measured in terms of connectivity and density of the street and pedestrian networks and sidewalk completeness, walkable urban designs are correlated with reduced vehicle travel, and represent a useful indicator of Smart Growth.

So if you think substituting residential development for commercial development is the right way to go because you think the former will generate less traffic than you are being duped for a second time. As I’ve said before, it all depends on context.

Reason #2. There are more effective ways to fight traffic congestion. This method is like using a chain saw to do heart surgery.

One of the things I learned in high school art class was that skilled craftsman know what tools to use for a particular task. The more tools in one's tool-box and the more skillful one is in using those tools, the more likely it is that one would consider a variety of ways to craft an object. By the same rule, "if the only tool in your box was a hammer, every problem would look like a nail."

It is pretty clear to me that if the well intentioned folks who crafted Proposition T had spent the time constructing a truly effective traffic reduction methodology, they would not have chosen such a blunt instrument. Their tool is the product of a methodology born in the 1960's and refined slightly, over the next several decades, until its ossification in publications put out by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), that have been, dare I say it, fundamentally discredited by contemporary practitioners of the art and practice of City and Town Planning.

The ITE's methodology, based on empirical data from the suburbs, required every 250 square feet of office space and every 200 square feet of retail space to require at least one parking space and to generate two or more car trips. As I've stated in previous posts, no mitigating factors were assumed (such as the fact that someone might walk between stores, or from home to work, etc). As a result, statistics like those displayed below, which are national averages were also assumed to apply to all areas equally. It also assumed that all parking would be free to the driver (at least seemingly free. See, The High Cost of Free Parking, by Donald Shoup, for a complete disputation of that assumption).
Given the ITE's logic, it stands to reason that reducing the amount of commercial space would reduce car trips, no? Well, no, actually. It's not that simple. It wasn't then and it isn't now. Yet, so mindless was this characterization that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy that was codified nearly identically in zoning manuals from Portland Maine, to Portland, Oregon. You'd think there would be regional differences, but no, there is a surprisingly similarity. The reality is that the amount of "internal capture" (a planner's term for those within a study area who stay in the area) within cities varies widely. For example, Annapolis, MD enjoys upwards of a 50% capture rate between jobs and housing. Having lived there one summer, I can tell you I saw lots of folks walking from home to work. (And you thought I was going to use New York as the example, didn't you?). To achieve that kind capture, you must have a very robust mix of uses within close proximity.

This obvious little fact is one of many tidbits of reality that transportation planners have learned (well I should say, relearned) over the last couple of decades. There are indeed a lot of things that affect "trip generation rates," not the least of which is density and land-use mix, among others. I would call such urban form-making strategies, "naturally occurring Transportation Demand Management Techniques." However, urban form (which not only includes such considerations as land use and density, but also walkability, block size, roadway width, and at least a couple of dozen other considerations), constitutes only one set of tools within the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) toolbox (an important set, to be sure, but not the only one). What are some of these other techniques? Simply put, TDM includes a variety of strategies that change travel behavior, for example by encouraging more efficient travel patterns, such as shifts from peak to off-peak periods and parking "cash-out" offers which encourage shifts from automobile to alternative modes (e.g., shifting from riding alone, to car-pooling, bicycling and/or walking). The Victoria Transport Policy Institute in Victoria, BC has an extraordinary website called the TDM encyclopedia that has more than you'll ever want to know about this subject http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm12.htm. From the website:

Many factors affect people’s transport decisions including the relative convenience and safety of travel modes (such as whether streets have sidewalks and bikepaths, and the quality of transit services available), prices (transit fares and the price of parking at destinations); and land use factors (such as whether or not schools, parks and shops are located close to residential neighborhoods).

There are numerous TDM strategies using various approaches to influence travel decisions. Some improve the transport options available; some provide incentives to change travel mode, time or destination [i.e. parking "cash-outs where employees are paid not to bring their car]; others improve land use accessibility; some involve transport policy reforms and new programs that provide a foundation for TDM.

Municipalities that have successfully utilized TDMs have done so by negotiating with developers prior to a project's approval. In such cases, the developer commits to a percentage of employees that will arrive in something other than a single-occupancy vehicle, and posts bonds to guarantee compliance, which is checked annually by the municipality. Jurisdictions have been able to achieve a reduction of 50 to 60% or more, of ride-alone commuters.

So now I hear you say, "Gee, utilizing TDM sounds like a good idea. Why not pass Prop-T and use TDMs," as many have written to me, privately? The simple answer is because RIFT's arbitrary and capricious cap on commercial development makes the the use of TDMs much more difficult. While LUCE does include a fairly strong set of recommendations for TDMs, it also assumes a certain amount of traffic reduction through that "naturally occurring Transportation Demand Management" that occurs as a result of land-use mix and density. RIFT represents a strategic and tactical blunder of the highest order by disregarding that careful balance. Put another way, if one utilizes a chain saw to perform heart surgery, regardless of how skillful the heart surgeon is, it will be very difficult to sew the patient back up again.

More on the Revenue Implications of RIFT

Mr. Robert Moskowitz has posted a comment on this blog, complaining that the reasons that I've cited for opposing RIFT are unfair and in some cases, wrong. Ouch!!

His biggest complaint with my reasoning seems to be that,

"Proposition T will not reduce revenues, merely limit the growth of revenues in the future by limiting development in the future."

And technically Mr. Moskowitz is correct, as indicated in the analysis done for the city. And if I wasn't completely clear in my explication of this fact in my posting under Reason #4, than I am sorry. Mr. Moskowitz wins that point. But this is a Pyrrhic victory, since the underlying objection I, and many opponents of the measure have on this point, is not that this will cause a decline in revenues per se, but that it will result in a net revenue loss. Under Proposition T, revenues will grow, as Mr. Moskowitz correctly points out, but not as fast as expenses, so the net result will be a loss of over five and one-half million dollars per year. How can this be you ask? Well, commercial uses pay the freight in this town, subsidizing those of us who live here. If you're looking at your property tax bill just now, you're probably thinking I'm out of my mind, but businesses pay even more taxes and utilize less services. That's the way it works in virtually every city in this nation, and though we may sometimes think otherwise, we are no different here in Santa Monica.

So not only will Proposition T not work relative to its stated intention, to reduce traffic (more on that tomorrow), it will have the added effect of damaging the City's fiscal health -- sort of akin to a good old fashioned bloodletting to fight disease.

More on the idea of Humanizing Lincoln and Pico Boulevards

A Mr. or Ms. Anonymous posted a comment on Reason #6, below; dismissing the idea that one could "humanize" Lincoln Boulevard, with redevelopment, claiming my suggestion would result in more traffic and higher rents for merchants. So I thought I'd share some images of what I meant, from another city attempting to humanize their own arterial highway.

The city of Oceanside, CA is going through a visioning exercise on what to do about their "Main Street," which in this case is Coast Highway, or US-101. While not as busy as Lincoln, it shares similar characteristics, i.e., a prepondernence of shops catering to the used-car sales, car-repair, liquor stores, and artery-clogging fast-food businesses. Below is an exercise in "visioning" showing what the Coast Highway is like today:

and what it could become with, additional building setbacks to allow for wider sidewalks, selected "bulb-outs" for the stormwater infiltration and the planting of shade trees, and a continuous street wall with buildings scaled and oriented to the pedestrian:On Pico, where a "road diet" might be possible, i.e., a lane removed, even more could be accomplished. Here's the same street again in Oceanside on a road diet and a bike lane added:

(images courtesy of Torti Gallas and Partners, Inc.)

Lincoln and Pico Boulevards present their own unique challenges, and what's good for one city may not be good for another, but clearly something must be done to those streets. The status quo is unacceptable, and yet that is exactly what Proposition T aims to freeze in place.

Reason #3. This measure will not increase pedestrian safety.

One of the more specious arguments that the RIFTies have made in support of Proposition T is that passage of this measure will make the streets safer for pedestrians. The theory is a simple one: less commercial=less traffic=fewer pedestrians killed. Indeed here is what the Prop T proponents have argued:

"....Prop T will make our city more safe, not less, by reducing the growth in city traffic. ... Traffic is making our city less safe in tangible and dangerous ways. Pedestrians are killed by vehicles on our roads at more than twice the national and state averages, a rate that has increased with traffic congestion..."

There's just one problem with this statistic, Santa Monica has way more than twice the amount of pedestrians than the national average, and pedestrian activity has increased faster than traffic congestion. For this to be a fair measure, one has to look at fatalities/pedestrian a number that is not tracked very well, since most cities do not factor pedestrian counts as part of their traffic counts.

When it comes to pedestrians, the truth is, it's not the amount of traffic that's important, it's the velocity of that traffic. To quote a 60's phrase, "Speed kills." And that's particularly true when a moving vehicle hits a pedestrian.

"Traveling at 40 mph, the average driver who sights a pedestrian in the road 100 feet ahead will still be traveling 38 mph on impact: driving at 25 mph, the driver will have stopped before the pedestrian is struck." (Source: McLean AJ, Anderson RWG, Farmer MJB, Lee BH, Brooks CG. Vehicle Speeds and the Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions - Volume 1. Federal Office of Road Safety, Australia.)

As the chart below indicates, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle going 20mph has a 95% chance of survival, (and 30% suffer no injuries) whereas that same pedestrian struck by a car going 40mph has roughly less than a 20% chance of making it home alive.

(Source: Limpert, Rudolph. Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Cause Analysis. Fourth Edition. Charlottesville, VA. The Michie Company, 1994, p. 663)

So that would lead one to think that we should focus less on the quantity of traffic, but the need for traffic calming, i.e., for streets to be configured so that cars naturally go slower. Ironically, traffic itself, can be a great traffic calmer, as are street trees, parallel parked cars, and an active retail environment. But to prevent that traffic from spilling over to neighborhood streets look at the example provided by the City of Berkeley's traffic calming plan (below) for the Willard /Bateman /LeConte Neighborhood. You'll see many devices in use such as street narrowing, traffic circles (in green), and pinch points (opposing yellow triangles). Other options include short medians as Santa Monica has used north of Wilshire between 2nd and 4th streets and even "woonurfs," (a Dutch term for streets with a contrived s-curve along the length of the block to slow traffic)

Sometimes even signage can help. Look at this example marking a residential street in the Netherlands. Of course that sign comes with a host of other traffic calming measures that support the idea that this is not a street on which to speed.

So, once again, when we drill down to the issue at hand, in this case, pedestrian safety, we see that there are lots of tools in the box than can and should be used. Proposition T is not one of them.

Reason #4. This measure will require cuts in services, increase in taxes, or some both to maintain a balanced budget.

If Proposition T were adopted in to law, and didn't work, it would be bad enough.

If the measure were adopted into law and prevented the construction of the Purple line, and affected our ability to concentrate development where it is most needed and appropriate, it would be worse.

If RIFT were to become law and precluded any chance for the transformation of Lincoln, Pico and Olympic into humane, walkable and sustainable boulevards, it would be even more disappointing still.

If RIFT were in opposition to efforts to promote affordable living, and reduce global warming it would be outdated.

But if Proposition T were to become law and it didn't work at reducing traffic, and all those possibilities for social and environmental progress were precluded or prevented, and THE PROPOSITION WOUND UP COSTING THE CITY BADLY NEEDED REVENUE, that would be a catastrophe!

So, in June, an independent analyst completed their evaluation of the initiative. I encourage you to review this study for yourself, because there are lots of good bits in it that are quite interesting:

http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080624/s2008062403-A-1.pdf

Here are some of the highlights of this analysis:

First the report comments on the present condition, by noting that the city of Santa Monica:

• [Enjoys] A healthy balance between revenues and expenditures, due to a diverse economy and multiple revenue streams, and careful budget management;
  
• [That it is] One of very few cities in the U.S. with a triple-A bond rating from all three securities rating agencies
• [is one where] Residents, businesses and visitors enjoy an unusually high level of service, but
• [the] Finance Department warns of looming structural deficits in coming years and Public Safety Departments have requested significant additional resources

And here's the thing -- throughout the country, commercial development brings in more revenue than residential development and requires much less in services, and that dear RIFTies is no less true in Santa Monica than anywhere else. In most cities, commercial development is a net postive to the city's coffers, while residential development is a net negative, i.e., commercial development subsidizes the residents.

But the RIFTies have stated that this city has many revenue streams; it does not depend on developer fees for its financial health. That's true enough, but the revenue sources the city does depend on are not from developer fees per se, they include: sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, business license taxes and parking facilities taxes, all of which are exclusive of residential development. Furthermore, the commercial development cap is likely to significantly effect the value of underdeveloped commercial property, reducing property taxes from those properties.

Okay, you say, but Proposition T, doesn't stop development, it merely slows down commercial development. The city will still see growing revenues under RIFT.

The analysis compares the base-line (as development occurs today) with LUCE (the land use element that the city has been working on and we citizens have been participating in and paying for these last few years) with RIFT. Here's what the analysis shows:

• In 2023, when all projected space is built, RIFT projection generates $11.4 million less than LUCE ; and
• RIFT's projection of property tax revenue to SMMUSD and SMC is also significantly reduced over LUCE, say to the tune of $4.2 million/year to the public schools and roughly $880,000 to the college.

With LUCE, by the year 2023 (the expiration date of RIFT) the city is looking at an increase of net revenues (increased revenue - increased costs) of $3.4 million. With RIFT, by that same year, the city is facing a decrease in net revenues of $5.9 million. So the overall difference to the city (in 2008 dollars) is $9.3 million. Again, let me spell this out -- that's net, i.e., after all revenues have been collected and expenses have been paid.

The report concludes:

RIFT’s negative fiscal results would require cuts in services, increase in taxes, or some of both, to maintain a balanced City budget.

Now supporters of RIFT argue that:

....studies, [which ones?] including one done by our own city, [that's interesting, as that's the one I've been quoting, so which are the other studies...I mean really, I want to see them] show that the revenues generated by new commercial projects DON'T MAKE UP FOR their greater environmental costs in electricity, water, waste, and public services."

A curious remark indeed, as page 28 of the study provides an easy to read little bar chart showing the LUCE alternative: $29 million in new revenue - 25.6 million in new expenses associated with that new development= $3.4 million; and the RIFT alternative: $17.6 million in new revenue - $23.5 million in new expenses associated with that new develompent =$ -5.9 million.

By my estimates, this could be as much as 3% of the city's revenue. Given the amount of fixed costs any city has (interest on bond debt, rent, salaries for essential employees, etc.) that's a huge loss for the City. An additional hit will be felt by SMMUSD and SMC. Is it any wonder that teachers, school administrators, school board members, police, fireman and the like are all against this?

RIFT is a revenue sink hole, and tragically, it still won't work.

Reason #5. This measure, will effect the ability to redevelop abandoned industrial sites in the city particularly along Olympic Avenue

Santa Monica has 400-acres of industrial land, some of it with vacant and rusting buildings occupying its terrain. The largest chunks of that land are along Olympic, a verdant, yet otherwise, pedestrian unfriendly thoroughfare, where among other things a “Paper Mate” factory once operated. Opened in 1958, it housed the company’s large stationery products operation where they made, among other things, ball-point pens, and those ubiquitous, “Flairs.”* At its heyday, its work force numbered more than 1,000, but at its closing in 2005, that number had dwindled to 214. The factory was the last significant remnant of our “beach town’s" industrial past (of the type which produced a utilitarian object), which also included Louver Drapes and Merle Norman cosmetics (and of course, the big kahuna, Douglas Aircraft, which I’ve written about in a previous post).

So what should happen to that land along Olympic? Well, for a city that prides itself on sustainability, nothing short of a street that accommodates pedestrians and cyclists as well as cars would seem appropriate. And if you look at LUCE, the land use component of the City’s new General Plan, http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/PDF/luce_docs/LUCE_districts.pdf, developed after a long, arduous and highly transparent process, and turn to pages 40-50, you’ll see a very thoughtful set of policies and strategies on everything from the mixing of uses, to the “graining” of the street grid (more on that below) as well as to the character of the streets and public realm. And while LUCE’s vision for Olympic doesn’t sound very beachy, heck, this area isn’t on the beach, and never was part of that scene.

Now some of the proponents of RIFT argue that with amount of existing commercial space already in the area, and the credit that RIFT provides for re-use there should be no problem providing enough local serving retail and services on the ground floor of residential uses. Well first of all, that assumes that a residential - only district (with local serving retail) is smart policy on a site within walking distance of a new light rail stop. As I’ve argued earlier, I don’t agree. Nor do I think it is smart from a market perspective to have so much of one use (housing) on any one site (too many eggs in one basket) and that fact alone will discourage most developers capable of taking on such a redevelopment.

But here’s the other rub even if a housing only policy was thought to be wise, RIFT won’t even allow for significant local serving retail unless the housing that is built is exclusively “affordable.” Look at what Proposition T says about the re-use of commercial space:

Projects that are subject to the limit but replace or remodel existing buildings could receive a “credit” for some or all of the existing building’s floor area. This credit would reflect the fact that the site already generates traffic. Availability of this credit would depend upon a comparison of traffic to be generated by the new building and traffic generated by the existing building. The measure establishes the formula for comparison.

So the details are in the formula, eh?

“Using the most recently available trip generation methodology and data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)…” [So right there we start off with a whopping problem. As we’ve seen previously, in Reason #10, this methodology has been the subject of serious, if not fatal, critiques], “or a comparable source used by jurisdictions of comparable size to Santa Monica…” [I can just hear that debate now,] “…the city shall ascertain the number of vehicle trips per week (on a gross basis without adjustments for trip generation) [So right there, we establish that such things as Transportation Demand Management techniques, or credits for mixing uses, etc. will not be counted – sort of the opposite of an incentive]…associated with (a) the buildings to be remodeled or replaced (based on the size, design and primary use of the building for the past two years), and (b) the new building (based on the approved size, design and all conditions of approval affecting the use of the building). Each number shall be divided by the square footage of the building to ascertain for the purposes of this policy only, the projected trips per square foot for each building”

For more go to: http://www.smclc.net/PDF/RIFT/RIFT-filing.pdf

In other words, for the purposes of this ordinance, a factory of 2,000,000 square feet that once employed over 1,000 people, but that has sat vacant for 3 years is considered to have never existed! If by some bizarre set of occurances, the owners wanted to start making things there again, say films or video games or some other creative activity, they’d have to go through this ITE formula to see how much credit they could secure, which is probably about 12% of what’s there now. And as I said earlier, all this is assuming that this land should be utilized exclusively for housing. But why does that make any sense when it is only blocks from a transit stop? Why shouldn’t the city benefit from the asset by achieving the increased tax revenue that the commercial uses would provide, even while providing ample space for affordable, work-force and market rate housing. Why shouldn’t someone be able to walk to work? For example, LUCE spells out a vision for the Paper Mate site and surrounding area that reads in part:

Creative arts uses and spaces for artists to work shall be preserved and enhanced. This includes, but is not limited to, the development or adaptive reuse of small, flexible and affordable performance venues and visual arts spaces.

Sounds like a good idea, no? But as we’ve seen, the adaptive re-use of existing spaces, would count as new space, which will compete against medical office, and fast food restaurants.

Further to the east in what is now, essentially a set a distribution centers, composed of warehouse spaces and small manufacturing spaces:

The Mixed Use Creative District is envisioned as a mixed use commercial / residential neighborhood where opportunities for creative arts jobs are balanced with a variety of market and affordable housing and neighborhood serving retail and services. These uses will provide support for the Exposition light rail line by bringing jobs and housing closer to high-frequency transit service. [Note that] Land intensive uses, such as automobile dealerships and their associated operations, are not appropriate for the District.

Note that LUCE makes a distinction between commercial uses, because different uses are, well different, something that RIFT does not.

Part of the neighborhood vision is a new retail “Main Street” along the western end of Nebraska Avenue and northward along Stanford Street. This area should contain local serving retail and services on the ground floor of mixed use buildings or in stand-alone retail buildings.

Oh my God, stand alone retail!!! But read the rest of the document to discover that such retail will be of the urban type. So let’s say a Target store, or its ilk (one that doesn’t sell merchandise produced by abused or underpaid workers) were to come into the mix (which we’ve seen from examples throughout the nation can fit quite comfortably in an urban environment)? Think of the traffic that would generate. To which I would ask, how much traffic currently originates in Santa Monica and leaves in order to find such services? If you’re a Santa Monican, where do you go now to get to a store like that?

One of the things the pro-RIFTers, like the Friends of Sunset Park, complain about is a proposed 200,000 additional sq ft of commercial/office proposed for the area claiming 2,000 additional daily car trips through Pico neighborhood and Sunset Park. Well, 200,000 square feet of office may sound like a lot, but it's chump change compared to what’s at the old factory. What device will be used to clean that old factory site up? Who will pay to haul that scrap metal away? In addition, 2,000 car trips a day, is a ridiculous, suburban one. Given that this is near the future expo line, and given various TDMs, I can easily imagine, that number being halved, (without breaking a sweat).** My gosh, how did the workers at Paper Mate get to work? With creativity, I can see the overall number of car trips to be kept at near zero. You don't believe me...Stanford University was able to add 2,000,000 sf of R&D, and office space without adding one car trip!!!

But let’s face it, if the 200,000 squre feet of space that were added were anything like the Water Gardens site immediately adjacent to the west, that would be a crime. That project, a stand-alone single-use, office park, with no internal street grid, is the very epitome of what NOT to do.

And look what LUCE has to say in that area:

Affordable and workforce housing are highly desirable in this area. …Clear edges are envisioned for the northeast portion of the district to assure an appropriate interface with the adjacent existing residential neighborhood.

Key to the success of this neighborhood will be the creation of new streets to provide ninterconnectivity with the existing grid. The grid will connect to the new street system in the Bergamot Transit Village District and streets such as Stanford Street, Berkeley and Franklin Street should extend to the south and intersect with Olympic Boulevard….The combination of increased connectivity and local-serving retail and offices within walking or biking distance will tie into an overall trip reduction strategy for the neighborhood.

Earlier, I wrote of the LUCE’s strategy for the graining of the streets. One of the big advantages for the redevelopment of these lands as as an urbane, mixed use redevelopment is that it allows for a fine grained street grid to replace what is now a very coarse grained network of thoroughfares. This finer grain, allows multiple routes to any destination thus relieving the burden on any one street, like Cloverfield. It also allows narrower, more pedestrian friendly streets. Moreover, a fine grain is more pedestrian friendly (a number of studies have proven a link between small block size (fine grain) and "walkability," and allow for a much easier way to distribute a hierarchy of uses. This is a key element in the traffic reduction strategy, but it won’t happen without such a redevelopment, and RIFT will likely set that back decades. Proposition T is really bad policy.

* Paper Mate was owned by Gillette until its sale in 2001. If for some reason you’re interested in reading more about the Paper Mate factory (though not much more) see Gordon McKibben, Cutting Edge: Gillette's Journey to Global Leadership, Harvard Business Press, 1998.

** A detailed analysis of RIFT versus the status quo and LUCE can be found at:
https://exchange.tortigallas.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2d513188f4ef46248f5b06e8905ff904&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww01.smgov.net%2fcityclerk%2fcouncil%2fagendas%2f2008%2f20080624%2fs2008062403-A-2.pdf