|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View is taking steps towards implementing a citywide ordinance that would reduce the number of vehicles on the road and incentivize people to use alternative forms of transportation to get around the city.
The City Council weighed in on a framework for a Transportation Demand Management ordinance at a study session Tuesday evening, expressing support for a plan to cut down on traffic congestion and parking demand in the city.
But they also expressed concern about whether a citywide ordinance would create an undue burden for developers and property owners who would be expected to roll out strategies to get people to use sustainable transportation options, like carpooling, biking or taking public transit.
“We want people to be able to get around without necessarily driving alone in their car,” said Council member Lucas Ramirez at the June 10 meeting. “But we also want to make sure that we’re able to build, that we’re able to develop projects so we can impose our TDM obligations.”
A citywide TDM ordinance would apply to all new developments, including properties that have a change of use or undergo renovations that result in 200 net new average daily trips. It would not apply to already approved projects, according to Assistant Public Works Director Allison Boyer.
Currently, Mountain View imposes TDM requirements on individual developments, resulting “in a piecemeal approach and varying levels of trip reduction targets,” Boyer said.
The City Council expressed strong support for a standardized process that would create more consistency and transparency, so that traffic reduction strategies could be implemented effectively and equitably.
“I think it’s really important that we stop doing this piecemeal and that we move forward with a broad ordinance that will standardize everything across projects,” said Council member Chris Clark. “Everyone knows what the rules of the game are and it provides some level of certainty.”
But Clark also noted that a citywide ordinance could create hardships for smaller projects, like condominiums with around 50 residential units or downtown retail spaces that have less square footage than other kinds of developments.
According to the council report, the ordinance is aiming for a 30% average daily trip reduction for small projects (those that result in 200-299 average daily trips), 40% for medium projects (those that result in 500-999 average daily trips) and 50% for large projects (those that exceed 1,000 average daily trips). Small projects would need to report trip data for three years, while large projects would need to report data for 15 years.
Transit-oriented development projects would have a lower threshold for daily trip reductions, given their likelihood for generating fewer single-occupancy vehicle trips, the report said.
Clark advocated for taking out small projects altogether from the ordinance, arguing that the focus should be on large office complexes and apartment developers. “They’re really going to move the needle in terms of TDM,” he said.
Smaller projects also likely would have more difficulty complying with the annual reporting requirements, Clark said.
Similarly, Council member John McAlister expressed doubt that a citywide TDM ordinance would be monitored effectively. “I always hate putting in requirements if we don’t follow up on them,” he said. If something is required, it should have consequences, otherwise don’t do it because it will be a waste of time, he added.
There were no public comments at the study session, although two letters were submitted that provided feedback on the proposal for a TDM ordinance.
Kristina Kalcic, on behalf of The Pillar Group, a real estate operating company, raised concerns that small to medium sized businesses would be unfairly burdened by the ordinance. She noted that TDM measures could make it difficult to lease out buildings to potential tenants at market rate rents who instead might prefer to seek out spaces outside of Mountain View.
“As a small company, while we may be able to somewhat influence and encourage changes in vehicle trips, we are unable to control the commuting patterns of our tenants’ employees,” Kalcic said. The letter also noted that the penalties for non-compliance could be cost prohibitive.
On the issue of noncompliance, the city took the stance that the TDM ordinance was not meant to be onerous or punitive.
“We want to work with the developers and with the developments to make sure they’re actually achieving their targets,” said Public Works Director Jennifer Ng. “When we think of penalties, typically we think of money, and it’s not the city’s goal in this instance to make money. The city’s goal in this instance is to reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway.”
James Kuszmaul, on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY, a prohousing advocacy group, came out in support of the ordinance in a letter to the city. Kuszmaul noted that the TDM strategies would encourage the use of multimodal transportation and disincentivize “unnecessary car infrastructure” like parking spaces and garages that prioritize vehicle storage over housing.
However, the letter also cautioned that the ordinance should not stifle development. “One of the most important TDM strategies is density itself – in many cases, simply encouraging that dense housing, office, and retail space is built near transit can do more to reduce car traffic than any specific city program,” the letter said.
The implementation of a TDM ordinance is also part of the city’s housing element requirement, Kuszmaul said, an issue raised by several council members as well.
“As long as we’re meeting our housing obligations, I think the TDM ordinance will land in a very good place,” Ramirez said.
The TDM ordinance is expected to return to the City Council for adoption next year, with opportunities for the public to weigh in on a draft of the ordinance before then.
Mountain View moves forward with $4.6M plan to fix eroded banks at Stevens CreekMay 5, 2026 11:19 am
City council needs to build transportation infrastructure paid for by a parking tax.
Much easier TDM plan.
I live near downtown. If I want to go to a restaurant, there are plenty within walking distance. But for other things I hop in the car. Lots of housing approved close by — maybe focus on bringing in retail to those neighborhoods.
Obviously Mountain View wants to deprive its restaurants of business where people drive by themselves to meet a friend or business associate(s).
Didn’t I just read a profile of restaurants complaining that their lunch traffic is now down to 2 tables?
Which consultant with no local knowledge who’s never bothered to talk to residents or local businesses came up with this idiocy?
I wish I could use my bike more. Riding an e-bike is a breeze. But bike theft ruins everything. What’s the point of all the bike lanes and restrictions if nothing has been done to prevent theft?
I take the shuttle or walk as much as possible for trips within the city, but I have free time and no obligations so I can afford to spend 30-45 minutes each way (I don’t live near downtown). For most people that isn’t very practical. And if you need to commute or run errands in another city, public transit is woefully insufficient so forgoing a car is gonna be challenging for people that don’t live + work + spend all their time in the same town.
I’ve greatly reduced my local car trips by simply buying everything on line! No trips to the store other than food and occasionally for clothes or hardware. The stuff comes in electric delivery vehicles (except the post office) and has cut my shopping trips to almost nothing. Also I don’t have to go to (say) the hardware store only to find they don’t have what I need or worse yet go to a big box and find the box has been opened and parts pilfered, resulting in another wasteful trip and a lot of wasted time. If you can plan ahead you can find exactly what you need online.
We still need food and services locally but the excess retail space can be converted to housing with some intelligent planning. We’re obviously planning to bulldoze anything along El Camino that isn’t housing (with a little retail on the street level) so more of those buildings can go to needed housing.
I’m confused.
“The City Council weighed in on a framework for a Transportation Demand Management ordinance at a study session Tuesday evening, expressing support for a plan to cut down on traffic congestion and parking demand in the city.”
What exactly IS the framework? The hyperlink on the word “framework” takes me to an article published in March which said “City staff plan to present a draft of the ordinance to the City Council at a study session in June.”
So the draft was presented in June, but I don’t see much in this article explaining what exactly is in that draft.
I see these words in the article:
“The City Council expressed strong support for a standardized process that would create more consistency and transparency, so that traffic reduction strategies could be implemented effectively and equitably.”
which strike me as being in the same vein as the City Council is in favor of “motherhood and apple pie”. I don’t think such a stance is controversial. The devil is always in the details. What exactly are the details proposed in the “standardized process.” That is the meat of the problem, and a topic on which people might disagree.
“The city’s goal in this instance is to reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway.” Okay, I get that. But what is the proposal to actually accomplish that?
The article concludes with “The TDM ordinance is expected to return to the City Council for adoption next year, with opportunities for the public to weigh in on a draft of the ordinance before then.”
Wait the next stop is adoption?
I’m sorry, but I see a whole lot of fancy dancing going on here.
The YIMBY letter said, “One of the most important TDM strategies is density itself – in many cases, simply encouraging that dense housing, office, and retail space is built near transit can do more to reduce car traffic than any specific city program”. They have the right to their opinion of course, but as many of us see
things quite differently.
DENSITY ITSELF is the PROGRAM that will INCREASE traffic congestion and parking demand in the city.” To say that it will DECREASE traffic congestion and parking demand strikes me as nothing but absurd.
I would also like to respectfully point out that creating most new housing with insufficient parking is anti-family. I would like to see reporting on 5 or 10 families with children that don’t own a car, and only use public transportation for all of their daily activities. Achieving that task would have exceeded my capabilities when raising my family. Children require trips to the doctor, an increased amount of groceries, a way to get to sporting and after school activities, etc. Taking a bus requires time to walk to the bus stop, wait for the bus, travel to another bus stop, and then walk to one’s final destination. I don’t see how there are enough hours in the day to accomplish those tasks with our current transportation system. How can the city be trying to wean people off their cars when there is NOT another feasible alternative for many families, ESPECIALLY families with children. Are such families no longer welcome in MV?
MV has and likely always be anti-family. If they wanted to reduce congestion, they would have a school bus system. That alone creates a lot of unnecessary traffic. Oh yes, lets just expect young children to cross Central by themselves to attend a choice school, because the local one has a very low rating.