mobility division assessment

This report is intended for the internal use of the City of Santa Monica, and may not be provided to, used, or relied upon by any third parties.

Proprietary & Confidential

FINAL REPORT

City of Santa Monica MOBILITY DIVISION ASSESSMENT

November 9, 2021

Moss Adams LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2800

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 302-6500

Mobility Division Assessment Report

FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

A. Background, Scope, and Methodology 1

B. Summary of Observations and Recommendations 1

Introduction 4

A. Background 4

B. Scope and Methodology 5

C. Commendations 6

Observations and Recommendations 7

A. People and Culture 7

B. Processes 16

C. Systems 24

Appendix A: Peer Analysis 26

Appendix B: TIF Fund Reporting 28

Appendix C: Strategic Goals and Policies Summary 34

Mobility Division Assessment Report | 1

FOR THE INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Santa Monica (the City) Mobility Division (Mobility) leads the City’s transportation policy and programs, plans and designs infrastructure, reviews and issues permits, implements signage and striping modifications, and manages Santa Monica’s traffic signal system. In May 2020, the City adopted a restructuring plan in response to challenges posed by COVID-19 that included citywide reductions. As part of this restructuring, Mobility experienced a 34% staffing reduction and was reorganized from the Community Development Department (formerly the Planning and Community Development Department) to a newly formed Department of Transportation (DOT).

At the request of the City Council’s Audit Subcommittee, Moss Adams LLP (Moss Adams) conducted a performance assessment of the Mobility Division to evaluate the City’s mobility programs and identify opportunities to improve efficiency, effectiveness, expenditure compliance, and progress toward achieving outcomes.

This assessment was designed to evaluate the following:

Program regulations, policies, and relevant Council resolutions to identify intended program outcomes

Whether funds from the prior three fiscal years were collected and expended in accordance with program regulations and intended outcomes, including Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), Transportation Management Organization (TMO), and other mobility program fees

Practices of peer cities to identify leading practices in mobility program management, oversight, outcomes, and reporting

Program performance compared to intended outcomes, and whether the program is making reasonable progress toward achieving outcomes

Opportunities for improving operational efficiency and effectiveness

A summary of our observations and recommendations are listed below, and further detail is provided within the body of this report. Observations are grouped into three areas: People and Culture, Processes, and Systems.

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

People and Culture

1.

Observation Changes in Mobility location and leadership over the last year have resulted in significant disruption, contributing to low staff morale and an unstable working environment.

Recommendation

Continue current efforts to create a strong working relationship between DOT and Mobility leadership, and ensure that the Mobility Manager embodies the characteristics necessary to stabilize the team and build successful relationships across City departments.




2.

Observation

Mobility is guided by the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), multiple action plans, and emergent City Council priorities. However, there is no unified implementation plan or prioritization framework to enable the Mobility team to effectively prioritize work.

Recommendation

A. In the short term, Mobility and DOT should develop a framework to identify key priorities over the next 12 to 18 months.

B. In the long term, DOT should develop an integrated 3 to 5 year strategic plan and targeted set of impactful performance metrics to demonstrate value and communicate progress toward goals in alignment with LUCE.

3.

Observation In response to staff reductions, Mobility has not meaningfully realigned service levels and priorities with current workload capacities or fully leveraged operational support available in the DOT.

Recommendation

A. Coordinate with HR to expedite hiring of open positions.

B. Leverage a unified, prioritized operating plan to right-size employee workloads and communicate tradeoffs to City leadership.

C. Integrate administrative support and assistance with existing support teams in the DOT and establish a cost allocation plan accordingly.

4.

Observation Mobility has not yet embraced operational advantages to its restructuring, which has a negative impact on morale and appetite for future changes.

Recommendation Adopt effective change management practices including values definition, commitment to behavioral changes, and robust communication to encourage a positive team culture that embraces change.

Processes

5.

Observation Process inefficiencies and resource constraints have created challenges to efficiently delivering Mobility-related capital projects.

Recommendation A. Develop a practical process of collaboration and coordination between Mobility and Public Works and align the pursuit of grant-funding opportunities with internal capacities.

B. Consider leveraging TIF funds to temporarily support a Construction Manager position in Public Works that is dedicated to overseeing transportation-related capital projects.

6.

Observation As of June 2021, the Transportation Impact Fee fund had a total balance of approximately $10.6 million; the FY2021–22 budget for this fund identified $7,325,394 in budgeted funds to complete Council-approved projects while up to $5.9 million in funds has been planned for future use by Mobility staff. Staff outside the Division report confusion and concerns as to how this funding is being spent.

Recommendation Continue efforts to communicate funding strategies of Mobility capital projects and improve the detail provided in annual reporting, including a prioritized list of projects, budgets for each project by fiscal year, and whether funds have been earmarked or officially encumbered.




7.

Observation The role of the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) is sometimes unclear to City staff and the contracts do not require standard reporting of outcomes to evaluate performance.

Recommendation Revise the contract with the TMO to define performance measures that align with City goals and better leverage the TMO Advisory Committee to achieve objectives.

8.

Observation Mobility currently struggles to regularly communicate its impact to internal and external stakeholders.

Recommendation Mobility should develop publicly available reports on its work and performance to highlight the importance and value of its work to both internal and external stakeholders.

Systems

9.

Observation Mobility uses a wide range of IT systems to support its work; however, there are system gaps in relation to grant, budget, and project management.

Recommendation A. Coordinate with ISD to evaluate the existing suite of systems for opportunities to consolidate and streamline work.

B. Coordinate system and technology requests through the two DOT-dedicated ISD personnel. New systems should be procured through the IT governance process to support integration and ongoing support.



INTRODUCTION

The City of Santa Monica’s (the City) Mobility Division (Mobility) leads the City’s transportation policy and programs, plans and designs infrastructure, review and issues permits, implements signage and striping modifications, and manages Santa Monica’s traffic signal system. Mobility is organized under the City’s Department of Transportation (DOT) and consists of multiple workgroups across various functional areas:

Permits & Development Review – Responsible for the review of all private property development for implementation of 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) policies and standards for transportation, as well as issuing various public right-of-way permits and the policy and outreach for the preferential parking program.

Capital Projects – Responsible for multi-modal capital projects from development to final design, as well as project development and cost estimations for future projects, grant applications, and the implementation of capital projects including those outlined in adopted strategic plans such as the Bike Action Plan, Pedestrian Action Plan, and Vision Zero.

Programs – Responsible for oversight of shared use mobility pilot programs, as well as data analysis, policy advice, and program management for new mobility initiatives.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – Responsible for reducing vehicle trips into the City through regulation enforcement and encouragement programs, and the implementation of TDM ordinances for employers and developers. In addition, the TDM group is responsible for the coordination and oversight of GoSaMo, the City’s current Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is contracted to increase public outreach related to mobility options and help employers and property managers comply with local transportation regulations.

Traffic Engineering – Responsible for all traffic engineering citywide including striping, signs, signals, curb-space usage, and speed limits.

Traffic Operations – Responsible for maintaining all traffic signs, markings, signals, controllers, cabinets, cameras, fiber optics, and other traffic equipment citywide.

Mobility shares much of its work efforts across all workgroups including grant applications, major events planning, community outreach, and policy and plan development and implementation, and is responsible to several external and internal stakeholders.

In 2020, the City adopted a restructuring plan and adopted budget in response to challenges posed by COVID-19. In the General Fund, where the Mobility budget is located, the changes amounted to a 20% decrease in ongoing General Fund expenditures and a 50% decrease in the capital program, as well as reductions of over 235 permanent full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, and over 103 as-needed FTE positions. Mobility experienced a 34% overall staff reduction, including the loss of multiple traffic engineers, technicians, and analysts, as well as the elimination of several capital projects and funds. For FY2020–21, Mobility is currently budgeted for 23.5 permanent employees and, at the time of report publication, consisted of a staff of roughly 18 (2 of the 5.5 current vacancies are filled with temporary staff).



In May 2021, the City Council’s Audit Subcommittee approved a performance assessment of the Mobility Division to assess the City’s mobility programs and identify opportunities to improve efficiency, effectiveness, expenditure compliance, and progress toward achieving outcomes. This assessment was designed to evaluate the following:

Program regulations, policies, and relevant Council resolutions to identify intended program outcomes

Whether funds from the prior three fiscal years were collected and expended in accordance with program regulations and intended outcomes, including Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), Transportation Management Organization (TMO), and other mobility program fees

Practices of peer cities to identify leading practices in mobility program management, oversight, outcomes, and reporting

Program performance compared to intended outcomes, and whether the program is making reasonable progress toward achieving outcomes

Opportunities for improving operational efficiency and effectiveness

This analysis was informed by employee interviews, document review, and research into best practices for similarly structured departments and organizations. This project was conducted between June and November 2021 and consisted of four major phases:

Project Initiation and Management: This phase concentrated on comprehensive planning and project management, including identifying employees to interview, identifying documents to review, and establishing cadences of regular reports on project status.

Fact Finding: This phase included interviews with stakeholders, document review, and best practice research.

○ Interviews: We conducted interviews with key stakeholders across the City—including the department heads of Transportation, Finance, Public Works, and Information Systems—as well as personnel within Mobility, such as workgroup supervisors, managers, and other department staff.

○ Document Review: We reviewed key supporting documentation including policies, procedures, organization charts, budgets, financial reports, and strategic plans.

○ Peer Analysis: With input from Mobility leadership, we identified ten peer cities to research and review for best practices and insights for Mobility-related functions and organization. Five peer cities (Portland, OR; Pittsburgh, PA; Cambridge, MA; Seattle, WA; and Burbank, CA) agreed to participate and were interviewed for this engagement. Appendix A includes a summary of peer findings.

Analysis: This phase served as the assessment portion of the project where, based on information gathered, we evaluated the importance, impact, and scope of our observations in order to develop recommendations.

Reporting: This phase concluded the project by reviewing draft findings and recommendations with the DOT and Mobility leadership and other key stakeholders (i.e., Finance, Public Works, City Manager’s Office, and Information Services) to validate facts and confirm the practicality of recommendations.



Although the focus of this assessment was to identify opportunities for improvement, it is important to celebrate strengths and existing good practices that can be leveraged for further improvement. The following is a list of commendations that the Moss Adams team would like to note:

Mission-driven staff: Based on interviews, Mobility staff clearly take great pride in their work and employ creative problem solving in the face of challenges. The passion and dedication of staff to the goals of the Mobility Division are demonstrably clear and contribute to increased levels of engagement and a desire for long employment tenures.

Expertise: Mobility staff are incredibly knowledgeable of the challenges and successes within their field and approach a dynamically changing landscape with a high degree of professionalism and commitment to public service.

Intersectionality: The work being done by the Mobility Division is at the nexus of many, often competing, City goals. Staff recognize and value the opportunity to have multiple impacts on residents and add value to many different lines of City business.

Resilience: The Mobility team has continually adapted to challenges in recent months, including new work efforts and constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, additional responsibilities from citywide restructuring, and the uncertainty of changing leadership. Commitment to the work and to each other allows for the continued resilience of the team in the face of adversity.

Grant funding: It was very clear from interviews with staff across the City that the Mobility team is extremely effective at identifying, pursuing, and obtaining grant funding for Mobility-related projects. This is a skill that contributes directly to the success of the Mobility Division and the City and should be developed further and shared with other departments.

We would like to commend Mobility staff and management for their willingness to assist in this assessment process. These strengths within Mobility provide a strong foundation and may improve the potential outcomes of implemented recommendations.




Based on the input gathered from interviews and document reviews, as well as comparisons to peer and best practices, we prepared a set of observations and recommendations, which are presented in three categories: 1) People and Culture, 2) Processes, and 3) Systems. Our goal is to provide Mobility leadership with actionable observations that define opportunities for improvement and recommendations to positively impact operational effectiveness and efficiency.

1. Observation Changes in Mobility location and leadership over the last year have resulted in significant disruption, contributing to low staff morale and an unstable working environment.

Recommendation Continue current efforts to create a strong working relationship between DOT and Mobility leadership, and ensure that the Mobility Manager embodies the characteristics necessary to stabilize the team and build successful relationships across City departments.

In response to citywide budget cuts and restructuring in 2020, Mobility was reorganized under the leadership of the newly formed DOT. On top of turnover in several key leadership positions, including the Chief Mobility Officer in July 2021, disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and increased workloads from reduced staffing have led to reports of low employee morale and concerns about the future of Mobility from staff. Turnover in leadership positions can create unstable working environments where staff must continually adapt to different priorities and management styles. Within this type of environment, it is common for staff members to become disillusioned and wary of new changes.

To optimize staff performance, the City should increase the stability of the Mobility Division Manager position, formerly the Chief Mobility Officer position. Several themes for consideration of new candidates of the position were identified through staff interviews that may contribute to a new Mobility Division Manager’s long-term success and the success of the department. Specific traits included:

Expertise and experience within the mobility environment

Interest and ability to build more collaborative relationships with other City departments such as Finance, Public Works, and Information Services

Capacity to integrate Mobility with the Department of Transportation and support a comprehensive transportation strategy across the City

Ability to effectively communicate trade-offs among competing priorities and focus the team on high-priority projects

Strong change management skills to help staff navigate challenges and regain a sense of stability within Mobility



DOT leadership should focus on ensuring the Mobility Division Manager has appropriate support and authority to be successful over time. DOT leadership will need to continue investing time and energy to create a strong working relationship with this group to support organizational alignment. In parallel, it is also critically important for the Mobility Manager to integrate Mobility with the DOT. The Mobility Division Manager should focus on creating relationships and exploring synergies between the two groups to work within a larger strategy of the Department and be effective (see Recommendation 2).

Leadership collaboration is also critical. Staff interviewed as part of this assessment also reported the desire to build more collaborative relationships with other departments across the City—including Finance, Public Works, and Information Services. Therefore, the Mobility Division Manager should be aligned with and supported by both the Director of Transportation and City leadership, particularly with key stakeholders such as Finance, Information Services, and Public Works. Positive and connected leadership directly impacts culture by creating a shared vision for success and a path for achievement, establishing clear expectations, and working as a united team. By clarifying and supporting the Mobility Division Manager’s position, the City can improve morale and stability within Mobility.

2. Observation Mobility is guided by the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), multiple action plans, and emergent City Council priorities. However, there is no unified implementation plan or prioritization framework to enable the Mobility team to effectively prioritize work.

Recommendation A. In the short term, Mobility and DOT should develop a framework to identify key priorities over the next 12 to 18 months.

B. In the long term, DOT should develop an integrated 3 to 5 year strategic plan and targeted set of impactful performance metrics to demonstrate value and communicate progress toward goals in alignment with LUCE.

The City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) is a comprehensive, long-term plan that defines priorities, drives budgets and annual work plans, and guides ongoing strategic decisions and initiatives. The LUCE encompasses strategic planning for the City’s transportation systems, as well as housing, land use, economic, and community development strategic goals and performance indicators. Within the Circulation Element section of the LUCE, there are 26 transportation-specific goals with overlapping focus on parking, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and automobile planning. Each of these goals has multiple policy considerations for the City which impact Mobility programs and workflow, as well as other policy considerations in other elements such as housing and community development.

In addition to the LUCE, there are multiple action plans with mobility-related policies, goals, and responsibilities including, but not limited to:

Bergamot Area Plan

Bike Action Plan



Bike Action Plan Amendment

Climate Action & Adaptation Plan

Downtown Community Plan

Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway Plan

Pedestrian Action Plan

Vision Zero Safety Plan

Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study

Within the LUCE and each of these action plans are dozens of competing mobility-related priorities and key performance indicators (Appendix C includes a sampling of strategic goals and policies related to the Mobility Division.) In addition, the Mobility team is often at the forefront of emergent needs that become City Council priorities. For example, Mobility was an integral part of the City’s COVID-19 response and took on significant new projects to support this work, such as the parklet program.

Taken as a whole, Mobility is frequently subject to competing priorities and limited resources to accomplish their numerous and varied goals. In this type of environment, staff are required to operate at more of a tactical level than a strategic level, and this limits the Mobility Division Manager’s ability to focus on long-term goals or understand and communicate priorities. Ultimately, challenges in prioritizing work contribute to high staff workloads and potential burnout (see Recommendation 3).

The City needs to place higher focus on creating implementation plans that are integrated, multi-modal, and allow Mobility and DOT to consider transportation needs in a more holistic manner. Several of the peer cities we researched have begun or are in the process of moving towards a holistic planning model. For example, the City of Pittsburgh Mobility and Infrastructure Department is finalizing its unified transportation “Vision Plan” with department-specific goals, metrics, and standards. The City of Burbank also recently moved away from modality-specific planning and has adopted a Mobility Element as part of its strategic planning. The recent reorganization of the Mobility Division within the DOT provides an excellent opportunity for the City to develop an integrated strategic plan for the City’s transportation efforts.

In the short term, to help guide the next 12 to18 months of work, Mobility and DOT should develop a basic prioritization framework to identify key priorities for current work. Mobility staff report that they are currently creating a tool to prioritize unfunded projects, so there may be opportunities to leverage this work. This tool should be used by Mobility and DOT leadership to help right-size staff workloads, more effectively collaborate with other departments, and communicate trade-offs with City leaders when new work emerges.

In the long term, DOT should continue current efforts to develop a 3- to 5-year strategic transportation plan that includes:

Mission, vision, and values of the Department

High-level goals for the Department as a whole as well as each Division (which should be directly informed by the LUCE)

Tactical objectives and strategies broken out by year and Division (which should be directly informed by the various action and implementation plans related to transportation)



Department-level performance measures

Each goal should have time-bound and specific objectives that are tied to specific performance measures that can be regularly monitored to evaluate progress, identify additional required resources, and promote transparency. Most importantly, a strong strategic plan should be practical and actionable to enable all divisions within DOT to develop clear priorities of work and achieve desired outcomes.

In addition to a comprehensive strategic plan, DOT should seek to identify a set of targeted key performance measures and core principles that demonstrate the specific value and purpose of the Mobility Division. Performance measures can be a useful tool to communicate the impact of the team on the City’s transportation environment in targeted ways.

A reasonable number of key performance indicators can be reported in a Mobility dashboard to provide insight into the status and progress of programs and operations. For example, the City of Pittsburgh’s Mobility and Infrastructure Department has identified five central principles for guiding planning, project, and program development, four of which can be quantifiably reported:

No one dies or is seriously injured traveling on city streets

Every household in Pittsburgh can access fresh fruits and vegetables within 20 minutes travel from home without the requirement of a private vehicle

All trips less than one mile are easily and enjoyably achieved by non-vehicle travel

No household must spend more than 45% of household income to satisfy basic housing, transportation, and energy needs

The design, maintenance, and operation of city streets reflects the values of our community

There are also several other commonly accepted performance metrics that represent shared planning and alignment of Mobility and Transportation functions, including:

Pedestrian safety: rate of crashes, injuries, and fatalities

Walkability ratings for development areas and/or transportation

Bicycle travel times and delays

Transit ridership and operating costs

Retail revenues and business growth in response to transportation or mobility programs and projects

Adopted principles such as those above could provide a mission framework for DOT and assist in the development of a holistic transportation approach; performance measures should then stem from these principles in order to accurately reflect community priorities and demonstrate progress toward outcomes.



3. Observation In response to staff reductions, Mobility has not meaningfully realigned service levels and priorities with current workload capacities or fully leveraged operational support available within the DOT.

Recommendation A. Coordinate with HR to expedite hiring of open positions.

B. Leverage a unified, prioritized operating plan to right-size employee workloads and communicate tradeoffs to City leadership.

C. Integrate administrative support and assistance with existing support teams in the DOT and establish a cost allocation plan accordingly.

The Mobility team is currently authorized for 23.5 FTE across six functional areas with 5.5 vacancies as of November 2021; two vacancies are filled with temporary employees. Mobility-related functions within the City are organized as under a single Mobility Division Manager within the Department of Transportation. Appendix A includes a summary of peer organizational structures.



In terms of overall staffing levels, the Division is currently operating with a little over half the number of staff compared to pre-pandemic levels, due to both a 34% reduction in force during the COVID-19 restructuring and the high number of current vacancies.

In our review of peer organizations, staffing levels varied considerably. The City of Cambridge, MA mobility-related staffing consists of only six FTEs with a city population of over 116,000 residents, while the City of Seattle—largest peer organization researched —contains approximately 278 FTE budgeted for mobility related capital and operations programs in a city of over 724,000 residents. Staffing levels for programs like Mobility can vary significantly between organizations because the scope of the responsibilities, local interest and policies, and funding sources vary widely, even across cities with similar population sizes or geographic areas. Therefore, it is difficult to draw comparisons between organizations.

However, multiple staff members and management reported that workloads within Mobility are unsustainably high in relation to the number of current FTEs. Staff are not working to their highest and best use due to a lack of administrative staff and support, and Mobility has not meaningfully realigned service levels and priorities with current workload capacities.

The City should consider three areas of action to improve the situation: expediting hiring of vacant positions, continuing efforts to effectively prioritize work, and leveraging DOT administrative support.

First, Mobility and DOT leadership should continue collaborating with Human Resources to fill vacant budgeted staff positions as quickly as possible to provide operational relief, in particular given the staff morale issues noted in Recommendation 1. Second, as noted in Recommendation 2, the prioritization of work is critical to the short- and long-term success of Mobility. The mobility field experiences regular disruptions from new technologies, changes in behavior, City priorities, and new legislation. In addition, several programs, such as Safe Routes to School, Vision Zero, Bikeshare and the administration of TIF funds, are staffed by employees with multiple duties. It is not feasible for Mobility to take on additional projects without deprioritizing other current work, and continued efforts to regroup and refocus workloads in response to incoming priorities will require strong support from the new Mobility Division Manager and Director of Transportation. Priorities should be defined in an integrated DOT strategic plan that can help create sustainable employee workloads and identify trade-offs when new opportunities or initiatives arise. Mobility and DOT leadership should continue efforts to communicate capacity limitations to City leadership when taking on new work, align priorities if there are competing interests, and ensure that workloads within Mobility are maintainable.

Third, as a compounding effect of the loss of administrative support within both the Mobility Division and other departments, Mobility has taken on duties and functions beyond its expertise and capacity—such as project managers completing procurement and invoicing functions, or designers and planners performing data entry and analysis tasks. Where appropriate, Mobility should leverage other divisions within DOT for assistance and administrative support. Mobility staff report that some coordination is already taking place with the Finance and Administrative Services team. Specific areas of additional support may include, but are not limited to, the items in the following table:

Finance and Administrative Services Planning and Performance

● Assistance in identifying, applying for, and managing grant funding

● Data analysis to inform mobility projects

● Ongoing monitoring and compilation of defined performance measures



Finance and Administrative Services Planning and Performance ● Support in compliance documentation and

reporting

● Capital project oversight

● Procurement support

● Coordination of service levels between Big Blue Bus and mobility to inform transportation planning

In addition, there may also be opportunities to find synergies or restructure functions related to the Parking, Transit Facilities, and Safety and Training divisions. It may be helpful for DOT and Mobility leadership to hold a collaborative work session to determine whether any additional functions could be more effectively accomplished within other Divisions.

Historically, most DOT divisions have been funded primarily through the Big Blue Bus enterprise fund. Therefore, in order to leverage these resources for Mobility support and synergies, the City will need to develop and implement a cost allocation plan to account for the staff time and resources spent on general fund activities. This is a common practice among City divisions and should not present an obstacle to taking advantage of these synergistic opportunities. By leveraging these available resources across the City, Mobility staff should be better able to focus their time on activities that support the achievement of high priority projects and initiatives.

4. Observation Mobility has not yet embraced operational advantages to its restructuring, which has a negative impact on morale and appetite for future changes.

Recommendation Adopt effective change management practices including values definition, commitment to behavioral changes, and robust communication to encourage a positive team culture that embraces change.

As noted previously, Mobility (and the City as a whole) has undergone significant change since the restructuring in 2020. In general, Mobility staff were resistant to the team’s restructuring and have not yet embraced the new opportunities that exist within its new structure in the DOT. Restructuring, particularly due to budget cuts, typically creates short-term uncertainty and anxiety among staff. Many employees were impacted by the recent budget cuts and were either demoted or moved to different roles with new responsibilities, adding a sense of frustration and resentment. While more than a year has passed since the restructuring took place, staff within Mobility continue to experience and express concern over the reorganization and loss of staff.

Mobility and DOT leadership need to chart a path forward in which staff can positively engage in holistic transportation planning (Recommendation 2), leverage operational synergies (Recommendation 3), and rethink traditional operating models. The tone for embracing change and a positive attitude toward new opportunities is set by leadership and trickles down to individual employees. To improve employee morale and promote buy-in, Mobility should adopt effective change management practices for ongoing organizational and culture changes. Some of these practices include:



Define shared values and hold employees accountable to exemplify these values: As part of the DOT’s current mission and visioning process, the department should develop a set of values that resonate with all employees. These values should in turn be reinforced by leadership, as well as formal (recognition or incentives) and informal (social visits, ideation sessions, purpose-driven work) mechanisms.

Focus on two or three critical shifts in behavior: In order to create a positive, collaborative, and innovative work culture, Mobility should define what behaviors and attitude need to be abandoned, reinforced, or adopted. Ideally, this will be a team activity that is led by the Mobility Division Manager and supported by the Director of Transportation. By focusing on a small number of key behaviors or attitudes, employees and teams can create mechanisms to encourage and reinforce changes. For example, one critical shift in behavior may be to look forward at what future opportunities present with integration into DOT rather than looking back at how things once were. This could be reinforced by balancing any reflections on prior operations with a hope or advantage of current operations to help the team accept changes and move forward positively.

Develop transparent, two-way communication protocols: Communication fosters the development of common values and goals, ultimately encouraging a sense of teamwork and collaboration. Frequent, transparent communications about decision making will help build trust between employees across teams within the DOT. Transparency begets accountability, and employees are more likely to be flexible and collaborative if they understand the context for decisions and are brought into the decision-making process at appropriate times. In turn, staff should also understand that their perspective is often more limited to their particular scope of work, and the decision that is ultimately made by management reflects the best interests of the entire organization. Trust on both sides of the employees’ relationship will improve the utilization, efficiency, and effectiveness of operations. It is imperative that communications include the opportunity to discuss not only the business case for changes, but also provide a venue for employees to air emotions associated with changes.

Cultural transformation in the midst of ongoing changes requires commitment and consistency, particularly among management. Most importantly, employees must be willing to let go of past practices and agree to move forward in creating and accepting a work environment that values the diverse experiences, perspectives, and expertise of its workforce to best serve the community. Cultural transformation cannot take place without cooperation across all staff levels.



5. Observation Process inefficiencies and resource constraints have created challenges to efficiently delivering Mobility-related capital projects.

Recommendation A. Develop a practical process of collaboration and coordination between Mobility and Public Works and align the pursuit of grant-funding opportunities with internal capacities.

B. Consider leveraging TIF funds to temporarily support a Construction Manager position in Public Works that is dedicated to overseeing transportation-related capital projects.

The Mobility Division is responsible for the planning and design of Mobility-related capital projects, and Mobility has a strong competence for grant management and track record of aggressively seeking various grants to support City projects and amplify the impacts of City funds. Historically, projects are handed off from Mobility to Public Works for the construction and final phases of the project, and though Mobility staff typically remain involved in the project through its completion, several staff reported the need for a more collaborative planning and implementation process between Public Works and Mobility for Mobility-related capital projects.

The collaboration challenges within the project management and planning process are generally felt on both ends. While Mobility has design and grants-pursuit expertise, it does not necessarily have knowledge of potential construction challenges and engineering issues that can cause delays further into the project. Public Works input is included in the application of many grants, but there is not enough collaboration about potential future challenges in this initial stage. For example, there have not historically been considerations about timelines for the design versus construction phases of the work or potential ongoing impacts to maintain new infrastructure (i.e., sweeping of protected bike lanes). Furthermore, while Public Works has construction management expertise, it often does not have knowledge of specific grant requirements or planning priorities developed on the front end of the project. Mobility staff is involved in projects through construction, but there is not enough end-to-end management to ensure projects progress adequately. Some peer agencies reported similar challenges between their operations and respective Public Works departments; however, other peers reported strong collaboration between teams, which appeared to eliminate these challenges.

Mobility and Public Works should develop a practical process of coordinating between the two groups while applying for grant funding so that both teams can ensure resources will be available to manage a given project. Such a process should include:

Continuing to hold regular coordination meetings between the two departments with project status updates and funding updates, including attending the City Manager’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP) meeting when necessary;

Developing a master project schedule with key deliveries and milestones that includes time in each phase, including funds acquisition, construction bidding and execution, and funds expiration;

Planning for ongoing maintenance and operation of newly completed projects; and



Creating an established timeline for each phase of work to ensure that all parties are aligned around time expectations, and to ensure plans are fully complete prior to the construction phase (so as to minimize the need for costly change orders).

Several project management and scheduling software options exist to assist with this coordination, and Mobility and Public Works should work to consolidate and unify those used by the two groups (see Recommendation 9).

A lack of engineering and construction management staff was also cited as a critical challenge to delivering capital projects, given that Public Works engineering and construction management staff have been similarly reduced as a part of the citywide restructuring. With a reduced capacity to deliver on grant-funded projects, the City risks losing future funds and possibly returning funds already expended. Given the multi-year nature of many capital projects and related grant cycles, the City will likely be in the position of needing to manage more projects than can easily be accomplished given current staffing levels. To address this issue, the City should consider:

Developing a general formula or set of criteria to identify when additional staff resources are needed to ensure that a mobility-related capital project can be completed on deadline.

Consulting with the Legal and Finance Department teams to determine if TIF funds could be used to fund a Construction Manager position (and/or other positions that are critical to project implementation like inspectors) on a limited-term basis to specifically oversee Mobility-related capital projects. The City ordinance which establishes this fund states that it can be used for “direct or indirect costs incurred by the City to construct transportation improvements,” which suggests that this may be a feasible option. If pursued, this position should be in Public Works but dedicated to specifically overseeing transportation-related capital projects. This position therefore has the potential to keep driving Mobility capital projects forward in a timely manner, reducing the overall impact on the City, and improving collaboration by appointing a singular point person with expertise in transportation projects.

Continue current efforts within Mobility to take capacity limitations and workload across all departments into account when pursuing grant funds for Mobility-related capital projects. Mobility should refine its process for seeking grant opportunities, increasing communication and collaboration with Public Works to ensure proposed projects can be sufficiently managed with current staff.

6. Observation As of June 2021, the Transportation Impact Fee fund had a total balance of approximately $10.6 million; the FY2021–22 budget for this fund identified $7,325,394 in budgeted funds to complete Council-approved projects while up to $5.9 million in funds has been planned for future use by Mobility staff. Staff outside the Division report confusion and concerns as to how this funding is being spent.

Recommendation Continue efforts to communicate funding strategies of Mobility capital projects and improve the detail provided in annual reporting, including a prioritized list of projects, budgets for each project by fiscal year, and whether funds have been earmarked or officially encumbered.



The Transportation Impact Fee program, established in 2013 by City Ordinance, is a developer fee imposed by the City based on new development type and location. It is used to fund transportation improvements, such as new sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic signal upgrades, transit, and bicycle facilities, that are necessitated by new trips associated with the new developments to offset the transportation impacts for those projects. According to City’s Municipal Code, TIF funds are designated for:

“The construction and related design and administration costs of constructing transportation improvements identified in the Nexus Study, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the transportation impacts of new development. Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

A. Reimbursement for all direct and indirect costs incurred by the City to construct transportation improvements pursuant to this Chapter, including, but not limited to, the cost of land and right-of-way acquisition, planning, legal advice, engineering, design, construction, construction management, materials and equipment.

B. Costs of issuance or debt service associated with bonds, notes or other security instruments issued to fund transportation improvements identified.

C. Reimbursement for administrative costs incurred by the City in establishing or maintaining the transportation impact fee reserve account required by this Chapter, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies to establish the requisite nexus between the fee amount and the use of fee proceeds and yearly accounting and reports.”

Historically, Mobility has focused on using TIF funds for grant matching and for the design and construction of long-term mobility-related projects such as the Safe Streets for 17th Street project and the Safe Routes to School projects. According to the most recent Annual Mitigation Fee Act Report (AB 1600), as of June 30, 2021 the TIF had an ending fund balance of $10,608,232. The following table shows TIF beginning fund balances, fees collected, interest earned, expenditures, and ending fund balances for the last three fiscal years. Based on a review of these three fiscal years, the ending fund balance has increased by $1,912,264 and expenditures have ranged between 14% and 192% of fees collected in any given year, with the most substantial spend occurring in the most recent fiscal year.

Fiscal Year Beginning

Fund Balance Fees

Collected Interest Earned Expenditures

Ending Fund Balance

FY2018–19 $7,871,979 $1,135,471 $53,675 $365,157 $8,695,968

FY2019–20 $8,695,968 $2,811,459 $104,853 $389,468 $11,222,812

FY2020–21 $11,222,812 $769,632 $100,162 $1,484,374 $10,608,232

Staff report that the majority of TIF funds are earmarked for current and future transportation-related capital projects. While grant matching (the primary use of these funds) typically requires multiple years between when a project is initially identified and when funds are spent, there may be opportunities to increase spending of the TIF funds in some areas to reach City goals more quickly. These efforts could be supported through workload prioritization (Recommendation 3) and leveraging a dedicated Construction Manager (Recommendation 4).



The table below shows the TIF-funded project spend in FY2020–21, which totaled $1,484,374.00.

TIF-funded Project Funds Expended

in FY2020–21 Status

Pedestrian Improvements at Four Schools

$842,927 Construction completed Fall 2021

Vision Zero and Mobility Project Delivery

$462,890 Phases vary by project, but include tools to analyze crash reports to determine safety countermeasures, project design, right of way, required studies, and construction documents to implement improvements on Wilshire Boulevard, 20th Street/Michigan Avenue, and Pico Boulevard

Michigan Avenue Greenway 20th Street Bike Connection

$147,100 Construction to begin July 2022

Bike Transit Center Cargo Bicycle Library Program

$27,563 Procured five cargo electric bicycles, five chain locks, and two child seats for the Bike Transit Center’s cargo bicycle library program

Pico Boulevard/SMC Pedestrian Safety Improvements

$3,894 Construction contract out to bid Fall 2021 with construction expected to start Winter 2021/2022

Total $1,484,374

In addition to this spend, a number of projects have had TIF funds formally budgeted in the amount of $7,323,394. The following table shows the amounts currently budgeted to complete each project.

TIF-funded Project Project Description

Funds Budgeted in FY2021–22 Status

17th Street/SMC/EXPO Bike Path Connection

The 17th Street protected bikeway provides bicyclists a physical separation from vehicular traffic connecting Expo to Santa Monica College and hospitals.

$197,250 Construction began October 2021.

4th Street Enhancements – Expo Linkages – ATP Phase 2

This project improves pedestrian and bicyclist linkages along a 0.2 mile segment of 4th Street to support safer access and connectivity to the Downtown Santa Monica Expo Station

$420,630 Construction to begin Spring 2022

Vision Zero & Mobility Project Delivery

This project provides funding for pedestrian safety enhancements and bicycle protections that advance the City’s Vision Zero initiative.

$4,544,929 Design and contracting phases vary by project (Wilshire Boulevard, 20th Street/Michigan Avenue, and Pico Boulevard)



TIF-funded Project Project Description

Funds Budgeted in FY2021–22 Status

Pico Boulevard & Santa Monica College Pedestrian Safety Improvements

This project enhances pedestrian conditions at five intersections along Pico Boulevard.

$ $282,000 Construction contract went out to bid Fall 2021 with construction expected to start Winter 2021/2022

Michigan Ave Greenway 20th St Bike Connection

This project extends the MANGo corridor east of 20th Street by closing a gap in the bike network.

$183,900 Construction contract goes out to bid Winter 2022 with construction expected to start Summer 2022

Vision Zero Action Plan Projects

This funding continues to advance the City’s goal for achieving “Vision Zero,” which envisions a dramatic reduction in the number of pedestrian and bicycle related fatalities and serious injuries.

$440,737 All remaining funding is currently encumbered for the Multi-Modal Signal Detection Project, which is under construction and expected to be complete by February 2022.

Pearl Street Preliminary Design

This project funds an assessment and preliminary design for improvements to Pearl Street adjacent to John Adams Middle School and Santa Monica College.

$255,000 Project is on hiatus while Santa Monica College studies possible bond measure to include construction funds. Planning phase is expected to resume Summer 2022.

Pico Boulevard Safety & Crossing Plan

This project will create a corridor safety plan for Pico Boulevard from Stewart Street to 33rd Street.

$300,000 Planning phase to begin in Spring 2022.

Pedestrian Improvements at Four Schools

This project provides school access and safety improvements near John Adams Middle School, Lincoln Middle School, Will Rogers Learning Community, and Roosevelt Elementary.

$700,948 Construction completed Fall 2021.

Total Budgeted $7,325,394

Finally, Mobility has planned for the use of up to $5,853,630 on TIF-eligible capital projects across the City over the next one to five years. Staff expect that a portion of these funds will be used to cover contingencies in construction costs as well as construction management fees for several adopted projects that have already been budgeted. The remainder of funds could be used for the implementation of Council adopted plans and priorities including the Wilshire Safety Study, Vision Zero Priority Network, and Bike Action Plan Amendment Protected Bikeway Network. The cost estimates for these projects are subject to change based on a number of factors including inflation, the availability of grant funds, City priorities, and others that may arise. The total for budgeted and potential planned funds over the next five years equals $13,179,024, which exceeds total available TIF balance as of June 2021. Additional TIF revenue collected over the next one to five years are projected to provide additional funding to meet these needs.



Though designated by code, staff outside of Mobility have reported confusion over the types of costs or projects to which TIF funds can be allocated, and the common delays in time from when funds are allocated to when funds are spent, often multiple years, have contributed to concerns that TIF funds are not being maximized to their fullest potential. Additionally, TIF-funded projects do not appear to be integrated into the City’s overall Capital Improvement Program. These concerns were compounded by the practice of previous leadership to attempt to block usage of TIF funds for other transportation-related capital projects besides those in Mobility.

Mobility should continue efforts to communicate their grant matching strategy and timeline for use of funds, including current year budget and budget plans for future years. This should likely include efforts to gain collective buy-in for the grant matching strategy itself. Also, while the general details for TIF fund balances, revenues, and expenditures are included in the Annual Mitigation Fee Act Report (AB 1600), we observed several, more detailed public reports from peer cities. The City of Burbank and the City of Pasadena for example, each report a detailed breakdown of funding and expenditures by project with additional project details such as timelines, fee appropriations to date, and other funding sources. The City of San Diego includes a detailed analysis of appropriations, expenditure, and encumbrance for each project in its Annual report. See Appendix B for samples of annual reporting from peer cities. Reporting specific projects, including spend projections by fiscal year in relation to revenue projections, would increase transparency of how the TIF is used.

Finally, while grant matching—the primary use of these funds—typically requires multiple years between when a project is initially identified and when funds are spent, there may be opportunities to leverage TIF funds in other areas to reach other Mobility-related goals more quickly. As part of the previously discussed recommendation for a unified transportation planning environment, Mobility and DOT should develop a list of prioritized projects to fund through TIF. As noted previously, Mobility should also work with the City’s Legal and Finance teams to determine if TIF funds could be used to fund a full-time or temporary construction liaison position within Public Works to supplement current staffing and accelerate project delivery.

7. Observation The role of the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) is sometimes unclear to City staff and the contracts between the TMO and the City do not require standard reporting of outcomes to evaluate performance.

Recommendation Revise the contract with the TMO to define performance measures that align with City goals and better leverage the TMO Advisory Committee to achieve objectives.

The City contracted in 2016 to create the Santa Monica Transportation Management Organization, GoSaMo. The TMO is contracted to provide transportation resources and information for commuters, residents, and visitors, as well as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) services for employers and developers. The TMO is advised by an Advisory Committee that consists of eight to ten employers, residents, City staff, and other stakeholders. The TDM workgroup within Mobility is responsible for the coordination and oversight of GoSaMo. The City has contracted with GoSaMo for



the past five years and is currently operating with an interim contract effective August 26, 2021 through January 31, 2022 for $125,000.

Among the peer agencies we researched and reviewed, none had the same contracted arrangement as the City. Most other organizations contract with a TMO or Transportation Management Association (TMA) for specific initiatives or services as needed, if at all, and do not contract with a TMO or TMA full time.

Based on our review of previous and current interim TMO contracts, it appears that GoSaMo is performing to the contract standards and providing the agreed upon services, such as holding regular Advisory Committee Meetings, developing TMO work plans, and providing regular reporting of services delivered. However, based on a review of annual reports, GoSaMo appears to conduct somewhat limited performance reporting. For example, the annual report includes some performance-related information such as:

Number of events hosted or attended

Number of Twitter impressions

Number of TAP cards distributed

Number of informational packets distributed to new residents

Number of employers engaged by the organization at least once in the past year

While the City has set aggressive desired outcome measures, such as Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) goals for transportation mitigation, and the TMO is likely a key partner to accomplishing those goals, the contracts do not include any specific performance indicators of outcomes. Therefore, the City should work with GoSaMo to define performance standards and increase reporting to a quarterly basis in order to facilitate any additional support that may be required to help the City achieve its goals. Performance measures should align with key DOT goals and objectives, and may include:

Mode share: The portion of travelers who use each transportation mode

Average Vehicle Ridership: Targeted person trips divided by the number of private vehicle trips

Peak Period Vehicle Trips: Total number of private vehicles arriving at a destination

Vehicle Trip Reduction: Number or percentage of automobiles removed from traffic

Vehicle Miles of Travel Reduced: The number of trips reduced by average trip length

Number of employees engaged in a ridership program

Number and percentage of local employers with ridership programs

Employer fees collected, if any

To take advantage of the professional services being provided by the TMO, the City should include additional compliance standards in future contracts and develop standard key performance and financial reporting requirements (e.g., any applicable fees collected for specific programs, monthly and annual reports on budget-to-actuals, audit results).

While staff report that the overall working relationship with the TMO is strong, some also noted that the purpose and scope of TMO Advisory Committee meetings with the City were not always clear or useful. Therefore, the purpose of the TMO Advisory Committee should be clarified, and the TDM staff should work with the TMO to ensure that Committee meetings are structured and useful for all



stakeholders. Finally, some Advisory Committee members, depending on their role and which organizations they represent, should serve a limited number of terms, which is a best practice to ensure adequate community representation and appropriate coverage of stakeholder interests.

8. Observation Mobility currently struggles to regularly communicate its impact to internal and external stakeholders.

Recommendation Mobility should develop publicly available reports on its work and performance to highlight the importance and value of its work to both internal and external stakeholders.

Mobility’s work intersects with many of the City’s priorities, including safety, managing and reducing traffic effectively, responding to climate change, and providing equitable transportation options for residents. However, employees reported that there is a lack of awareness across City staff and leadership in terms of understanding the scope of Mobility and how it supports City priorities. Mobility currently tracks performance indicators internally for specific program areas, while overseeing annual reporting from the TMO and developing ad hoc reports requested from the City Council. Performance measures from the various strategic plans impacting Mobility are tracked internally, however, the last full report on the Mobility Division’s strategic priorities was given in 2018.

Mobility should continue efforts to tell the Division’s story and demonstrate the current and potential impact of this area of work. Mobility should consider producing an annual report of Mobility goals and progress toward targeted key program outcomes (as defined in the holistic transportation plan per Recommendation 2) and developing a Mobility performance dashboard of key performance indicators. In addition to informing new and current City leadership (including City Council) about Mobility’s work, it would likely assist in establishing priorities of work for the Division as discussed in previous recommendations. Reporting on strategic outcomes and key metrics could additionally be incorporated into annual budget reporting and other progress reports available to the community.



9. Observation Mobility uses a wide range of IT systems to support its work; however, there are system gaps in relation to grant, budget, and project management.

Recommendation A. Coordinate with ISD to evaluate the existing suite of systems for opportunities to consolidate and streamline work.

B. Coordinate system and technology requests through the two DOT-dedicated ISD personnel. New systems should be procured through the IT governance process to support integration and ongoing support.

Mobility uses a wide range of systems to support its work, including:

Accela: General permits (in process of being replaced by Open Counter)

AutoCAD: Plan design

AutoTURN: Vehicle swept path analysis

BlueBeam: Plan mark up

CityGrows: TDM plans, Oversize Load Permits, Block Party Permits, Parklets permits

GuideSIGN: Traffic sign design

MaxView; Traffic coordination and signal monitoring

Projectdox: Plan review (in process of being replaced by Open Counter)

Ride Report: Shared mobility data

Synchro/SimTraffic: Traffic simulation modeling

Tyler MUNIS: Finance, accounting, and budget

Vanguard Professional: Electronic messaging

Given the large number of discrete systems that it currently operates, Mobility should conduct an analysis to define whether any systems could be consolidated or replaced by other systems that the City already owns. For example, as the City works to implement Open Counter for its permitting processes, Mobility should consider whether or not CityGrows can be replaced with Open Counter for its permitting processes, depending on functionality and routing procedures. To support streamlined processes and systems, it is imperative that Mobility select and operate systems strategically.

Additionally, project managers across different City departments use differing project management tools (including PS5, MS Project, and Excel). As a result of these redundancies, it can be challenging to coordinate project timelines between Mobility and Public Works. Mobility and Public Works should work together to develop a singular project management system that accurately portrays the relevant information to complete their work and assign roles and responsibilities.

Mobility staff reported some gaps in the systems that, if addressed, could help support their work:



Grant management system: Grant funding is primarily tracked manually in Excel spreadsheets owned by individual program managers, which presents risk of data loss and creates additional work for employees. Given the multitude of grant funding sources across the City, there may be a citywide solution in Tyler MUNIS or other system that is in use by another department which Mobility could also leverage for a minimal cost. Mobility and Public Works staff report that the current configuration of Tyler MUNIS is not well adapted to their needs (for example, staff note that it cannot easily track projects with multiple funding sources that run across non-standard financial years). However, a full analysis should be completed to determine feasibility of using this system.

Capital project budget management: Division staff report challenges using the Tyler MUNIS system for capital project budgets. Specifically, the system lacks functionality to handle multiple funding sources that may be approved across various CIP years. As a result, CIP funds are often tracked manually via individual spreadsheets. Mobility and Public Works should coordinate with the Information Systems Department (ISD) to evaluate potential solutions to meet their needs.

As noted previously, to be successful, these system decisions should not be made in a vacuum. Instead, Mobility should work with other departments across the City to define business requirements and evaluate system functionality through the IT governance process. This supports reduced costs, integration across teams, and improved system support as ISD is involved in the procurement process.

Finally, Mobility staff report that the Division benefits from increased support from ISD, which also experienced significant staffing cuts as a result of the citywide restructuring in 2020. As a result, staff report that responsiveness has been impacted. However, DOT has two ISD FTEs dedicated and integrated into its structure that Mobility could further leverage. Within the past three months, Mobility has begun regular meetings with these staff members and are actively working together on a technology roadmap project. As Mobility employees encounter system or technology concerns, they should work with the DOT-assigned ISD personnel.



APPENDIX A: PEER ANALYSIS The following table summarizes the results of peer research efforts conducted for this study:

Santa Monica, CA Seattle, WA Cambridge, MA Pittsburgh, PA Burbank, CA Portland, OR

2019 Population 91,577 724,305 116,632 302,205 103,703 645,291

Area (sq. mi.) 8.4 83.8 7.1 58.3 17.4 145

Mobility Organizational Structure

Centralized

Mobility Division within DOT

Hybrid

Multiple Mobility teams within DOT, and Mobility-related functions spread across department, depending on functional area.

Decentralized

No Mobility team/division; Mobility-related programs and functions part of the Department of Traffic, Parking, & Transportation

Centralized

Department of Mobility and Infrastructure created in 2017

3x Bureaus plus administration: Planning, Policy, and Permitting; Transportation Services; Project Design and Delivery

Decentralized

No Mobility team/division; Mobility functions included as part of Department of Community Development – Transportation division.

Hybrid

Focused mobility teams within DOT but planning and delivery spread across multiple sections.

Some organizational units support more than one program area.

Mobility-Functions Staffing

Approx. 18 FTE / 226 in DOT (FY21)



Approx. 97 FTE (FY21) Unknown Approx. 25 FTE / 1091 in DOT (FY21)

Planning and Reporting Environment

Combined Land Use and Circulation strategic plan and multiple specific modal action plans.

No overarching reporting or planning structure; multiple competing strategic and implementation plans, but multi-modal plan in development.

Central strategic planning with 3x sub-committees – bicycle, pedestrian, transit, as well as division-level plans

Interdepartmental teams and standing committees coordinate project

Multiple strategic plans but finalizing unified transportation network “vision plan” with department-specific strategic goals, metrics, and strategies.

Planning ties to 5x central goals; 4x quantifiable.

Mobility-specific implementation plan as part of comprehensive transportation plan; moved away from modality-based planning.

One strategic plan for DOT; tensions over competing goals and priorities.

Moving towards performance-based reporting with activity-specific metrics.



Santa Monica, CA Seattle, WA Cambridge, MA Pittsburgh, PA Burbank, CA Portland, OR and program planning priorities.

Relationship with TMO or TMA

TMO contracted by the City; City provides oversight and coordination.

City’s TDM team works directly with TMO; City subcontracts with TMO for tactical interaction as needed.

None; City oversees implementation and outcome of developer-specific plans.

3x regional TMAs; work with one in central business district.

City works with developers/property owners to develop plans; TMA monitors the implementation.

External; City provides oversight but no contracted fees.

Employers are required to join by ordinance.

Metro regional government acts as TMO and authority to allocate funding, manage growth and demand.

TDM Makeup TDM fees and program managed by City.

Employer TDM programs developed with TMO.

TDM managed in partnership with TMO.

TDM managed internally.

TDM staff coordinator starting 1OCT.

TDM coordinator will train TMA staff; TMA becomes retail service.

TDM fees and program managed externally by TMO.

TDM fees and program managed externally by Metro regional government.

Inter-Departmental Collaboration and Regional Transit Coordination

City operates bus in addition to regional transit planning and operations.

Bus and rail are external to DOT; purchase service hours from regional transit authority(s).

External relationship poses challenges due to ownership of infrastructure vs right-of-way.

Strong focus on integrated planning and cross-department coordination.

Transit owned and operated regionally.

Regular coordination and representation from City.

Transit provided by county; regular coordination and collaboration documented with planning and operational updates.

Work closely with other departments for project implementation.

Work closely with Public Works for project management of Capital projects.

Still developing project management strategies and policies for effective coordination between planning, design, and implementation.

Tension between planning and implementation groups, but mostly integrated project management.

Leadership drives coordination among different teams to develop agenda; able to leverage individual technical skills from external resources.



APPENDIX B: TIF FUND REPORTING The following tables represent examples of annual reporting of Development Impact Fee funds for select peer agencies reviewed in this study.



APPENDIX C: STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICIES SUMMARY The following is a sample of the numerous strategic goals and policies contained within the current planning documents that pertain to the City as a whole (specific areas such as Wilshire, Downtown, and Bergamot excluded) for the Mobility Division—including the Land Use and Circulation Element, Bicycle Action Plan, Pedestrian Action Plan, Vision Zero Action Plan, and Climate Action Adaption Plan.

Adopted July 2010; amended July 2015 and July 2017.

Support public health by promoting active living and supporting walking and safe bike routes throughout the city

Prioritize property access from transit, walking and bicycling over auto access

Create a complete network of high-quality bicycle facilities including a minimum of one new north-south and one new east-west dedicated bicycle path, with the aim of increasing the number of people who use bicycles for everyday transportation

Create a safe, comfortable cycling environment in the City through facility design and public education

Manage local and regional congestion affecting Santa Monica

Create a street network that is accessible to all modes of transportation

Create an integrated transportation and land use program that seeks to limit total peak period vehicle trips with a Santa Monica origin or destination to 2009 levels

Adopted November 2011; amended October 2020.

Increase Journey to Work-Bicycle Usage

Increase bicycle ownership

Increase bike mode share

Increase perception of safety when riding

Decrease bicyclist crash rate

Increase bicycle network completeness “connectivity”

Increase bicycle parking

Adopted February 2016.

Eliminate fatal and severe injury collisions

Increase number of school site access improvements



Number of K-12 students participating in Safe Routes to School activities

Walk Trips as percent of work trips

Percent of Santa Monica employees reporting that they are walking to work

Number of pedestrian-oriented enhancement projects (wayfinding, lighting, parklets, etc.)

Miles of sidewalk network completed

Adopted May 2019.

Convert 50% of local trips to foot, bike, scooter, and skateboard

Convert 25% of commuter trips to transit

Convert 50% of vehicles to electric or zero emission

mobility division assessment

Documents