|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View is working on an ordinance that would reduce the number of vehicles on the road, while providing more options for people to use alternative forms of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicle trips.
The citywide ordinance would standardize existing policies that require developers to implement measures incentivizing residents and employees to use alternative and sustainable transportation options. The goal is for these measures to boost the number of people carpooling, biking or taking transit.
As of now, the requirements have been inconsistent, resulting in a piecemeal approach and varying levels of trip reduction targets, according to Transportation Planner Ben Pacho, who presented the ordinance update to the Council Transportation Committee on Tuesday, March 5.
The Transportation Demand Management ordinance would apply to most new developments that result in at least 200 new net average daily trips, while also taking into account a project’s size. The city is aiming for a 30% average daily trip reduction for small projects, 40% reduction for medium projects and 50% reduction for large projects, according to the staff report.
Council member Alison Hicks questioned whether these targets were realistic. “Do they really have the 30%, 40%, 50% impact?” she asked.
Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo noted that the goals were impactful when applied thoughtfully, and provided examples of companies incorporating TDM strategies into their projects, like reducing parking while providing commuter benefits.
“The idea is to provide a robust list of TDM strategies for all types of developments, kind of pick and choose, mix and match,” Pacho said. Some common TDM strategies include public transit subsidies, incentives for bicycle commuting, corporate shuttle services and preferential parking spaces for carpool and vanpool.
Hicks also questioned whether the ordinance would impose an undue burden on developers.
City staff responded that the ordinance likely would have the opposite effect, providing more transparency and consistency to the process while reducing transaction costs.
Currently, developers tend to hire outside consultants to help with TDM requirements, Pacho said. A checklist and toolkit would reduce the need for outside expertise, he added.
The city plans to streamline a lot of the monitoring and reporting requirements too. “Right now, it’s just me kind of doing a lot of data entry, so it’s not a sophisticated system,” Pacho said.
Reporting requirements would vary depending on the size of the project, according to the staff report. All projects would need to submit a compliance report and survey its occupants’ travel habits, at least for a few years after completion. Larger projects also would need to submit “daily driveway counts” to verify average daily trip reductions.
Failure to submit these reports could result in a hold on future entitlements and permits for a project site. It also could lead to a fine for medium and large-sized projects, the report said.
Currently, the TDM compliance rate is about 50% and no fines have been collected, Pancho said.
Council member John McAlister supported the city’s plans for a TDM ordinance but also expressed some concern about its implementation and enforceability, given the track record.
“I don’t like laws put out there that aren’t enforced. It just takes away from all the good effort and intentions that we’re trying to do,” he said.
City staff plan to present a draft of the ordinance to the City Council at a study session in June.
Crews extinguish half-acre vegetation fire near Shoreline Park in Mountain ViewJune 15, 2026 2:33 pm
Translation; big projects will have to evaluate their reasonable parking needs, and then the city will require them to build 30-50% too few parking spots for their residents or employees.
a lot of magical thinking here!
This seems like just an excuse to build more cheap housing without parking spaces, like the 100 units planned for San Antonio at California St., which will have only 16 spaces. I am also deeply offended by plans which bar use of the swimming pool by low-income residents. Does that seem equitable to you?
Just another attempt by the left to legislate us out of our cars and force their hysteria upon us. What we will get is a parking nightmare that will make SF look appealing by comparison. Case in point. The 400 Moffett Blvd project proposes 175 apartments with only 175 parking spaces. Even 1BR units need two spaces, nevermind the 2BR and 3BR units. That building should realistically have over 400 spaces. All of the overflow is going pour onto Moffett Blvd, Cypress Point, and Central. Moffett is already congested with overflow parking from the trailer park. How is planning and council not see this?
Yes to a simple single ordinance with a checklist! We make everything more slow and more expensive by debating every project piecemeal.
And perhaps I’m “orangepilled” by video footage of happy, healthy people, young and old, enjoying their quiet, safe, bike-friendly Dutch cities… but there’s no reason that Mountain View couldn’t have some nice neighborhoods like that.
Best set of comments in a long time. I have nothing to add.
Step 1: make cars a status symbol so that all the cool kids want one.
Step 2: plan an entire country around the assumption that everyone’s born with a steering wheel in their hands.
Step 3: don’t allow buildings that serve people who actually don’t drive.
Step 4: don’t fund public transportation because “no one uses it anyway”.
Mixed response here.
Well intentioned
“Everybody votes to feel good about themselves”: Willie Brown. SF Mayor 90s
Impractical
No mention of the unintended side-effects (see rest of comments)
No mention of autonomous vehicles (Category 5 are way behind schedule and robo taxi may have a limited geographic service area)
No mention of how will people use (or not use) public transport or rental cars.
What about the people who don’t drive often, but when they do they make 7 stops in one trip?
No mention of this being just another bucket of laws being imposed on people. But of course, this is CA. We love legislating behavior.
We have a long street of apartment buildings .many families living here .Most families work different times like we do . different cities .I need it for work which is out of mountain view. Groceries .errands doctor appointment .Don’t punish the hard working folks that need there car .Need a place to park .you made the expensive apartments with parking garages .nothing for us That live in the cheaper apartments.Trying to make it get to work .Take care of our families .don’t mess up our lives. Plus restaurants would lose money .Less people would want to visit .If there is no parking available . People might move away .Then they would not fill the apartments .Please don’t mess up our life’s.Make the roads better cheaper rent .free parking garages .