[0:28] e e
[8:49] good evening welcome to the planning and
[8:51] Transportation Commission regular
[8:53] meeting of November 18th tonight um we
[8:57] have four Commissioners present one
[8:59] commissioner excused out sick
[9:02] unfortunately so um before we get
[9:04] started I wanted to double check to see
[9:07] if we have got connectivity with the
[9:10] zoom
[9:12] meeting
[9:13] um good evening chair Clemens hello
[9:19] hello good evening lyette is that you
[9:22] yes can you hear me loud and clear yes
[9:24] we can hear you is zoom uh working and
[9:27] do we have any attendees on Zoom this
[9:29] even evening not yet okay I'm sure folks
[9:33] will come as we go all right great so we
[9:36] called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. um
[9:40] item two on the agenda the
[9:42] teleconference requests per AB 2449 we
[9:46] don't have any this evening so we can
[9:48] move on to item three the Pledge of
[9:55] Allegiance Al to the flag of the United
[9:59] States of America and to the Republic
[10:02] for which it stands one nation under God
[10:06] indivisible liberty and justice for
[10:12] all thank you I'll ask Andrea for the
[10:15] roll call
[10:17] please commissioner Bundy present
[10:20] commissioner anund present commissioner
[10:23] CA present Vice chair Garvey is excused
[10:26] and chair Clemens present thank you
[10:30] now we're on to item five on tonight's
[10:32] agenda the approval of minutes from the
[10:35] October 7th uh commission
[10:38] meeting uh do any Commissioners have
[10:41] comments or requested edits to the
[10:43] minutes no okay with that could I get a
[10:46] motion
[10:48] please I move that the commission
[10:51] approve the October 7th
[10:54] 2024 planning and Transportation
[10:56] Commission meeting minutes thank you and
[11:01] second thank
[11:03] you a roll call commissioner Bundy I
[11:08] commissioner
[11:09] anund yes commissioner castan yes Vice
[11:14] chair Garvey is excused and chair
[11:15] Clemens yes thank
[11:18] you okay tonight we have a public
[11:21] hearing and then we have new business a
[11:24] new draft plan and then a study session
[11:27] so a lot of meaty things this evening
[11:29] I wanted to um call out the procedure
[11:32] for the public hearing first staff will
[11:35] present a report on the history physical
[11:37] features on the application followed by
[11:40] recommendations and then if they would
[11:42] like to the applicant can then present
[11:45] and thereafter interested members of the
[11:47] community may speak on the proposal when
[11:50] all interested parties have had an
[11:51] opportunity to be heard the hearing will
[11:53] be closed and no further discussion from
[11:55] the floor can be held the commission
[11:58] will then consider the the evidence and
[11:59] make its
[12:00] recommendation and be mindful please if
[12:03] you challenge a public hearing item in
[12:04] court you may be limited to raising only
[12:06] those issues that you or someone else
[12:09] raised at the public hearing described
[12:11] in this notice in the public notice or
[12:13] in written correspondence delivered to
[12:15] the city at or prior to this public
[12:17] hearing speakers if there are any
[12:19] speakers from the public please um and
[12:21] would like to speak please fill out a
[12:23] speaker card in the rear and um and hand
[12:27] it to the recording secretary thank
[12:29] thank you uh before you address the
[12:31] commission so we can keep track of
[12:32] people's names the the speaker can then
[12:35] come up to the microphone and we'll have
[12:36] two minutes to speak and they'll be
[12:39] recorded um and that'll help us prepare
[12:42] the minutes so with that we go to um a
[12:46] public hearing on 782 Elm Street this is
[12:49] a request for a new vesting tentative
[12:52] map to create four attached town home
[12:54] units with atg grade covered parking
[12:59] and we have a presentation from staff
[13:01] yes thank you thank you um good evening
[13:03] Commissioners my name is Laura richstone
[13:05] and I'm a senior planner with current
[13:07] development and as you heard this
[13:09] evening I will be presenting an
[13:11] application for a new vesting tentative
[13:13] map at 782 Elm
[13:17] Street oh goodness
[13:34] sorry about
[13:35] that
[13:37] okay um the request for tonight is to
[13:40] consider a new vesting tentative map to
[13:42] create four attached town home units
[13:45] with Associated atg grade parking at 782
[13:49] Elm a previous tentative map was uh
[13:52] approved pln
[13:55] 2017-18 3 that map was approved in 2018
[13:59] but has since
[14:00] expired staff will go over and touch
[14:03] upon the Project's background later in
[14:05] the
[14:05] presentation uh however staff would like
[14:08] to note that the current application for
[14:11] the tenative map uh proposes the same
[14:13] map
[14:14] configuration as the 2018 map with no
[14:18] changes to the number of units or to the
[14:20] size of those
[14:22] units so tonight staff will present an
[14:25] overview of the project its background
[14:28] history requested entitlements and
[14:31] conformance with the city regulations
[14:33] and then the item will end with
[14:35] questions comments and an action from
[14:37] the
[14:39] commission so at a granular level the
[14:43] project site outlined here in pink is
[14:46] located on Elm Street near the
[14:48] intersection uh with Olive Street and
[14:51] sits about a uh and sits on a block
[14:53] developed with multifam and single
[14:56] family structures
[15:00] moving to a wider perspective the
[15:03] project site sits about a block south of
[15:06] the library City Hall complex and is
[15:10] located uh two lots south from the elm
[15:12] Terrace condos if you're familiar and is
[15:15] within walking distance of our
[15:18] downtown from a zoning perspective the
[15:21] project site is zoned RM 100 multif
[15:24] family which can be seen here in the
[15:26] orange coloring
[15:31] the project parcel is 7,000 square ft in
[15:35] size and proposes a an F of one excuse
[15:39] me 1.59 or 2.0 is the max um eight cover
[15:44] eight covered parking
[15:45] spaces uh a height of 40t 11 in where 50
[15:50] ft is the maximum and is SQL exempt
[15:53] under Section 15303 new construction or
[15:56] conversion of small structures
[16:02] so getting into the background on
[16:05] December 18th the previous uh applicant
[16:08] Viv was granted approval for a design
[16:10] review vesting tentative map prot
[16:13] protected tree removal and conditional
[16:15] use permit for the subject property to
[16:18] demolish an existing single story single
[16:21] family home and construct uh and to
[16:25] construct for a new four story for unit
[16:28] town home building and Associated outg
[16:30] grade
[16:31] parking the original entitlement was set
[16:34] to expire in December 2020 24 months
[16:37] after after issuance as per usual
[16:41] however during this time uh it was the
[16:44] covid-19 pandemic and the state granted
[16:47] all housing projects an additional
[16:49] 18month uh Lifan
[16:52] lifespan so this uh this extended the
[16:55] entitlement for this project until June
[16:57] 2022
[17:00] after entitlement building permits were
[17:02] issued in November
[17:04] 2020 the project was then sold from the
[17:07] original applicant to the current
[17:09] applicant in April
[17:13] 2022 and the current applicant began
[17:16] acting on the issued building permits
[17:18] and demolished the existing or the
[17:20] previous single family structure in June
[17:23] 20122 after some structural revisions in
[17:26] order to accommodate a stick build
[17:29] uh construction type construction be
[17:31] began on site uh February
[17:37] 2023 as the new applicant began
[17:39] preparations uh to file the final
[17:42] Subdivision map in
[17:43] 2023 it was discovered that the original
[17:46] map expired in June of the previous year
[17:49] in
[17:50] 2022 as no map extension was filed
[17:53] before that original map expired a new
[17:56] vesting tenative map is now required
[17:59] however since the building permits were
[18:01] issued in 2020 when the original vesting
[18:04] tenative map was still valid the
[18:07] applicant by virtue of the issued
[18:09] building permits continues to have
[18:11] vested rights uh and does not need to
[18:13] secure additional entitlements or
[18:15] approvals for the property use or the
[18:18] design of the structure and that comes
[18:20] from the um uh map act the state map
[18:26] act so the request for the planning and
[18:29] Transportation uh commission is to
[18:32] review and take action on a new vesting
[18:34] tenative map to create four new town
[18:37] home units eligible for individual sale
[18:39] and
[18:40] ownership as this project is consistent
[18:43] with the standards of the municipal code
[18:45] the Planning Commission will be the
[18:46] final approving body unless this project
[18:49] is appealed to city
[18:53] council seen here is the proposed
[18:56] vesting tentative map to create the four
[18:58] new town home units for individual sale
[19:00] and ownership the tenative map includes
[19:03] a shared driveway along the south side
[19:04] of the property shared open spaces at
[19:07] the rear and front of the property and
[19:10] atg grade individual two-car garages for
[19:13] each unit the map has been reviewed by
[19:16] the Department of Public Works and meets
[19:18] all subdivision and storm water
[19:23] requirements the site plan reflects the
[19:25] proposed Subdivision map and includes
[19:27] the same elements such as the S driveway
[19:30] here in purple landscape landscaped open
[19:33] spaces at the front and the rear in
[19:35] green and a pathway along the north uh
[19:38] side of the structure in
[19:43] blue although the design of the
[19:45] structure is not under
[19:47] consideration staff has included
[19:48] elevations to provide the commission
[19:50] some contacts for the overall project
[19:53] and pictured here is the North or right
[19:55] side of the project
[20:00] here is the South SL left side of the uh
[20:03] project where the shared driveway and
[20:05] atg atg grade garages are located and
[20:08] they
[20:09] are highlighted in
[20:14] pink here is the front of the structure
[20:17] as viewed from Elm and as viewed from
[20:19] Elm only one unit is
[20:24] visible and here is the reare
[20:31] overall landscaping for the project
[20:33] includes two Street trees in front of
[20:35] the project and landscaped areas
[20:37] highlighted in green at the front and
[20:39] the rear of the property all of the
[20:41] front yard is common shared space and
[20:45] half of the rear yard is shared common
[20:46] space the remainder of the other half of
[20:49] the rear yard uh is private open space
[20:51] for the rear
[20:56] unit open space is also provided through
[20:59] decks on the top floor of the
[21:01] structure um facing the share driveway
[21:05] and you can see them here highlighted in
[21:07] dark orange the deck facing Elm Street
[21:10] is unoccupied and is not accessible by
[21:13] any of the
[21:17] units public Outreach for this project
[21:19] included mail notices to residences
[21:22] within 300 ft a posted notice on site
[21:26] and notices and a notice in the
[21:27] newspaper all notices occurred at least
[21:30] 10 calendar days before the date of this
[21:35] meeting should the commission decide to
[21:37] move forward here is the motion before
[21:41] you and staff would also like to excuse
[21:45] me oh staff would also like to make
[21:51] a um a correction uh to formally correct
[21:55] an error in the staff report and clarify
[21:57] that the deadline to file approval for
[21:59] this project would be 5:00 p.m. on
[22:01] Monday December 2nd um if the project is
[22:04] approved the original staff report and
[22:06] notice had a date of November 28th
[22:09] however that falls on Thanksgiving so to
[22:12] allow for the holiday the appeal date
[22:14] has been extended to the following
[22:16] Monday thank you that that concludes our
[22:18] my presentation and I am available for
[22:20] any questions thank you very much Laura
[22:23] appreciate it um before we go on to
[22:27] questions for Laura I wanted to see if
[22:29] the applicant was present and wanted to
[22:32] make a
[22:36] presentation great and you're with craft
[22:39] builders welcome thank you great um and
[22:43] so for that with that let's go to
[22:46] clarifying commissioner questions and
[22:49] then um and then public comments so um
[22:53] I'll start over to my right commissioner
[22:56] Anand would you like to ask any
[22:58] clarifying questions yes I just have one
[23:01] thank you for the presentation that was
[23:03] very clear um Elm Street is very narrow
[23:06] yes um and there are cars parked I I go
[23:09] through that street almost every day and
[23:11] there are cars parked on both sides
[23:12] there are Big Trees so it's just um a
[23:15] comment or rather a request if you could
[23:18] when when these cars will come out of
[23:20] the driveway either go left or right the
[23:22] visibility is poor and there are blind
[23:25] spots on that street so if some sort of
[23:27] a mirror can be installed to assist with
[23:30] exiting cars there are what eight cars
[23:33] in the driveway and it's going to be
[23:36] fairly like the intersection is going to
[23:38] be used fairly like quite a lot with
[23:40] like maybe children playing school kids
[23:43] crossing so it's just some extra
[23:45] assistance will be helpful on that
[23:46] narrow street where the visibility may
[23:48] not be the best yes um to help address
[23:52] this those uh issues uh and concerns
[23:55] when projects are reviewed we do look at
[23:57] the site train triangle to make sure
[23:59] that there aren't any obstructions
[24:01] within that to make sure that your ESS
[24:03] and Ingress can see vehicles and what
[24:06] what have you but I also believe that
[24:08] the trees have been removed um at the
[24:11] project site I was they have and then um
[24:14] the applicant can address if he would
[24:15] like to is dra put reques great thank
[24:22] you great thank you any other clarifying
[24:24] questions no no okay we'll move on to
[24:27] commissioner cast Ana no questions thank
[24:31] you commissioner
[24:32] Bundy um I think this question has been
[24:35] answered but just regarding the
[24:36] California Water Service right of way
[24:39] that was shown just would like to hear
[24:41] kind of where that stands yes so um the
[24:45] original survey noted an easement for
[24:49] cow water um this easement was non
[24:51] plottable meaning that I didn't say
[24:53] where it was on site it just that the
[24:55] site was encumbered by this easement um
[24:57] it was noted by our Department of Public
[24:59] Works and as a condition um they added a
[25:02] condition I believe it's condition
[25:03] number 12 to the report to require
[25:06] either that the easement be expunged or
[25:08] removed from the site or that the
[25:11] applicant uh
[25:13] get um the a letter from calwater saying
[25:17] that there are no conflicts um so that
[25:20] is a condition and then I was speaking
[25:22] to the applicant prior and he says he
[25:24] already has a letter of approval um from
[25:27] calwater but we would check that again
[25:29] before the filing of the final map thank
[25:31] you very
[25:33] much thank you that was actually my
[25:35] question which is what is a non
[25:36] plottable water easement so that was
[25:38] exciting um and I just wanted to clarify
[25:41] that entitlements are in place they are
[25:43] vested everything adhered to the 2018
[25:47] laws or or we made exceptions but um
[25:51] just wanted to clarify it sounds like
[25:53] the map is being brought the because the
[25:55] map was not recorded today standards
[25:57] apply
[25:58] and so the storm water regulations that
[26:01] have gone into effect since
[26:03] 2018 now are being added to the map
[26:06] conditions is that correct yes 100%
[26:09] correct thank you one other quick
[26:12] question is um because these are for
[26:14] sale units is a condition of the permit
[26:16] that an HOA was formed and papers filed
[26:20] with the state is that made explicit in
[26:22] the conditions for the permit or is that
[26:25] just required under state law so you
[26:27] don't have to really stated again so the
[26:29] conditions require that um they the
[26:32] applicant submit ccnr um and then for
[26:36] submitting the HOA I believe that's just
[26:38] handled by the state and we don't see
[26:40] that um but I'm not 100% sure um but
[26:44] usually we don't see the HOA just the
[26:47] ccrs okay yeah all right thank you
[26:49] thanks very much okay with that um no
[26:52] other clarifying questions right so
[26:55] we'll go on to comments from the public
[26:58] public if you are joining via zoom and
[27:01] would like to address the uh the
[27:03] commission please raise your hand at
[27:05] this time on Zoom I'd like to take the
[27:07] remote ones first um once we begin
[27:10] taking public comments on Zoom we will
[27:13] not be allowing additional commenters to
[27:15] join the queue so we're going to open
[27:17] the queue for a limited time and then
[27:19] close the queue on Zoom so this is your
[27:23] chance to now raise your hand so you can
[27:25] get into the queue on Zoom to speak
[27:29] um Lynette do we have anyone with a
[27:31] raised hand on Zoom there are
[27:35] no there are no hands raised okay thank
[27:38] you so why don't we go to anyone in the
[27:41] public Chambers here while we keep open
[27:44] for another minute or so the um the zoom
[27:47] possibility that someone wants to raise
[27:49] her hand is there anyone in uh in
[27:51] Chambers here that would like to make a
[27:53] comment in
[27:55] person no I didn't have any speaker
[27:57] cards so I just wanted to double check
[27:59] all right thanks uh Lynette any hands on
[28:02] Zoom there are none okay um but there
[28:06] are our attendees on Zoom is that right
[28:09] yes we have three okay great um welcome
[28:12] to everyone uh I'm gonna like soft Sho
[28:15] pedal soft pedal for 30 more seconds to
[28:17] see if anyone wants to raise their
[28:24] hand uh we do have one hands raised
[28:27] excellent excellent thank you um so they
[28:31] figured out how to do the raise hand
[28:33] icon so I don't have to read this on the
[28:35] screen um so uh speaker you can go ahead
[28:39] and if you can identify yourself and you
[28:41] have two minutes thank you it's simpler
[28:44] than that this is Rees Krishna no
[28:47] comment just didn't want you to worry
[28:48] about it all is
[28:51] well thank you for that reassurance from
[28:53] Zoom I appreciate
[28:55] that okay great um
[28:58] well with that there don't seem to be
[28:59] any public comments so I need a motion
[29:01] to close the
[29:05] hearing I move that we close public
[29:08] comment thank you oh yeah I think that's
[29:11] better stated close public comment uh do
[29:13] we have a second for that I second the
[29:16] motion thank you we have the roll call
[29:19] commissioner Bundy yes commissioner
[29:22] Anand yes commissioner castanada yes
[29:25] Vice chair Garvey is excused and chair
[29:27] Clement yes thank you okay public
[29:30] comment period is closed and so let's go
[29:33] ahead with discussion on uh commissioner
[29:36] comments I why don't we start down to my
[29:38] left with commissioner Bundy thank you
[29:41] um I think that the findings of this um
[29:45] staff report are well substantiated I
[29:47] think this is a really interesting
[29:48] project it's great to see the addition
[29:49] of the three Net units um in conformance
[29:53] with the zoning code it's a very
[29:55] thoughtfully designed project and I'm
[29:57] supporting
[30:00] great thanks commissioner
[30:02] castan I agree that the findings with
[30:05] the findings um I also uh appreciate
[30:09] this project and that the size of the
[30:11] units is going to accommodate families
[30:14] which I think is a nice feature
[30:16] especially in this particular area I
[30:19] have visited the site and I think it's a
[30:21] very nice uh design so I approved the
[30:24] project thanks commissioner commissioner
[30:27] Anand
[30:29] I agree with my fellow Commissioners and
[30:31] I I really like the idea that this is
[30:33] more so that this is closer to the
[30:34] downtown which will encourage people to
[30:36] walk um and pull out their carless often
[30:39] and yeah I look forward to hosting more
[30:41] families in San Carlos so I approved
[30:43] this
[30:44] project great and um my comment um is
[30:48] similar um I really like how much of an
[30:50] infill project this is it doesn't look
[30:53] like many units from the street looks
[30:54] like one unit but really we're getting
[30:56] four units in that space so um at a good
[31:00] neighborhood scale and um and I thought
[31:03] I just wanted to commend Laura that I
[31:05] thought the council or the commission
[31:07] memo was very clearly written to
[31:09] distinguish what was at hand today what
[31:12] was not that was what was already
[31:15] decided in 2018 so I appreciate the
[31:17] staff work on
[31:18] that um and so with that do we have a
[31:26] motion thank you Laura
[31:30] I move that the planning and
[31:31] Transportation Commission approved the
[31:34] request for a vesting tentative map to
[31:37] allow for the construction of a new
[31:39] 4unit four-story multifam residential
[31:43] Town Home Building at 782 Elm Street APN
[31:50] 0501
[31:52] 512000 based on the findings and for the
[31:55] reasons Incorporated in the staff
[31:58] report right and a
[32:01] second a second the
[32:03] motion excellent roll call commissioner
[32:07] Bundy yes yes sorry commissioner Anand
[32:11] yes commissioner castanada yes Vice
[32:13] chair gy is excused and chair Clemens
[32:16] yes thank you
[32:19] congratulations um and nice project I
[32:22] want to say that yeah thank you I did
[32:26] want to note that the appeal period
[32:28] um uh if somebody is interested in
[32:31] appealing the planning Transportation
[32:32] commission's action will be final unless
[32:35] it is appeal to the city council within
[32:37] 10 days of the date of the action and
[32:39] again the correction from the staff memo
[32:42] is that the deadline to file an appeal
[32:43] is 5:00 pm on Monday December
[32:46] 2nd uh
[32:48] 2024 thank you Laura thank you
[32:53] all great so now we're moving on to new
[32:57] business
[32:58] and we are going to hear tonight about
[33:00] the St Carlos local roadway safety plan
[33:04] and the action that is before the
[33:05] commission is to
[33:08] recommend um or comment on the um the
[33:11] fact that we would like Council to adopt
[33:14] the countywide and the city um L lrsp
[33:18] and the vision zero goals so that's what
[33:20] the commission's as being asked to
[33:23] do and we have a staff report hello good
[33:26] evening chair commissioner ERS my name
[33:28] is Han hushi and I'm the senior traffic
[33:30] engineer with our public works
[33:31] department uh very excited to be here
[33:34] tonight to present to you our proposed
[33:35] local roadway safety
[33:38] plan um this slide uh kind of goes over
[33:41] the presentation topics and it's um
[33:43] somewhat uh an overview of what the plan
[33:45] is itself so first we'll go over uh
[33:49] defining what a local roadway safety
[33:51] plan is um then we will discuss our
[33:54] commitment to Vision zero uh I'll
[33:56] explain how the plan was developed and
[33:58] the safety analysis that went into it
[34:01] how the projects were prioritized what
[34:03] recommendations come out of the plan and
[34:05] where we go next from
[34:08] there what is a local roadway safety
[34:10] plan a local roadway safety plan
[34:12] identifies actions that an agency can
[34:15] take to align itself with a Safe Systems
[34:19] approach as you see on the right side of
[34:21] the slides a safety A Safe Systems
[34:24] approach um focuses on five elements the
[34:27] two that are most uh commonly controlled
[34:30] by uh any agency are safe speeds and
[34:33] safe roadways uh the two that are less
[34:36] commonly controlled by the agency but
[34:38] are are still relevant to the work are
[34:40] safe road users and postc crash care uh
[34:44] the one element that is uh typically
[34:46] handled legislatively and is outside of
[34:48] the purview of the city uh is safe
[34:51] vehicles but that's still relevant to
[34:53] this
[34:54] work local roadway safety um plan also
[34:58] um identifies historical and existing uh
[35:02] Benchmark uh in answering the question
[35:04] of what is leading to death and severe
[35:06] crashes on our roadways it also defines
[35:10] a series of actions projects and
[35:13] partners to help us carry out solutions
[35:16] to reduce death and severe crashes on
[35:18] our roadway
[35:21] Network in early 2023 uh City and County
[35:25] Association of government seag
[35:28] uh embarked on an effort to create a
[35:30] countywide unified local roadway safety
[35:33] plan uh for um the entire County as well
[35:37] as for the 10 cities in its jurisdiction
[35:41] that did not have a local roadway safety
[35:43] plan we in St Carlos are one of the 10
[35:46] that still don't have one um it is now
[35:50] required by a lot of Grant uh sources
[35:53] that every agency has a local roadway
[35:56] safety plan and commits to Vision zero
[35:58] goal to be eligible so having this plan
[36:01] will help us um position us to be able
[36:04] to apply to a number of Grants such as
[36:06] obac calr HP Grant US Department of
[36:09] Transportation Safe Streets for all
[36:11] Grant among others what you see on the
[36:14] right is a snapshot of a comparison of
[36:18] where the 21 cak cities uh kind of rank
[36:22] against each other in Crash history in
[36:24] the past 5 years where the study period
[36:27] was
[36:28] uh you can see that St Carlos kind of
[36:30] falls in the middle we're not doing too
[36:32] terribly but we're not really great
[36:34] either in the 5-year study period we
[36:37] experienced 281 surface crashes on our
[36:40] roadway Network unfortunately 32 of
[36:43] those were fatal SL severe injury and as
[36:46] we all know one is too
[36:51] many cag's um commitment to V Vision
[36:55] zero collectively as a County is to
[36:58] eliminate or significantly reduce fatal
[37:01] and severe crash injuries by 2050 this
[37:04] aligns us with state and federal
[37:06] requirements and it the plan also
[37:08] includes some recommendations on how to
[37:10] Kickstart to get us out of the status
[37:13] quo on safety on our roadway network uh
[37:16] particularly to City of St Carlos our
[37:18] commitment is to eliminate all traffic
[37:20] fatalities and reduce the number of
[37:22] non-fatal crashes by 50% by the year
[37:25] 2050
[37:28] we'll now move on to discuss how the
[37:30] plan was developed cak started the
[37:32] effort by creating a very um cohesive
[37:36] and large group of stakeholders in an
[37:38] Advisory Group um all the agencies you
[37:41] see on this slide are participants in
[37:43] this effort um the staff from St Carlos
[37:47] participated from the very beginning in
[37:50] um the technical analysis data
[37:52] collection um all the public engagement
[37:55] efforts we collaborated in creating the
[37:57] plan we reviewed all the deliverables
[38:00] and um the final draft of the
[38:04] plan uh the public was also very
[38:07] instrumental in providing input to the
[38:09] project I'm sorry if you're not quite
[38:11] able to read everything on the slide but
[38:13] essentially it summarizes all the
[38:15] Outreach efforts that were done in 2023
[38:18] and 2024 the St Carlos particular effort
[38:21] in addition to all the social media and
[38:24] virtual um efforts the inperson event in
[38:27] St Carlos occurred on August 27th of
[38:30] last year um last year this year August
[38:34] 27th of this year um during our um block
[38:40] party event in downtown the public was
[38:43] encouraged to provide comments in um the
[38:47] engagement events they attended they
[38:48] were also directed to this very cool
[38:51] interactive map where they could pick a
[38:53] point put their comment um on the map
[38:56] where they had had concerns or comments
[38:58] or questions and cag's team did a
[39:01] wonderful effort they responded to every
[39:04] single comment and all of those comments
[39:06] and responses are attached as an
[39:08] appendix to the plan uh happy to report
[39:12] that city of St Carlos we managed to win
[39:14] the prize on the most participation
[39:16] among all the cities involved so we were
[39:19] uh our our thoughts are very very well
[39:22] represented in the
[39:24] plan uh in the next slides um I will
[39:28] move give you a a high level overview of
[39:31] the technical analysis that went into
[39:32] the plan uh based on a 5-year crash
[39:35] history and the patterns associated with
[39:37] those the plan developed a countywide
[39:39] high Injury Network for vehicles uh a
[39:43] high Injury Network for pedestrians and
[39:45] one for bicyclists through this effort
[39:48] it also identified some emphasis areas
[39:51] uh that are characteristics that
[39:53] contribute um and are most associated
[39:56] with severe and fatality uh crashes
[39:59] these emphasis areas are uh pedestrian
[40:02] and bicycle safety nighttime low
[40:05] visibility uh having unsignalized
[40:07] intersection on major roadways um
[40:10] vulnerable user groups such as a youth
[40:12] and elderly uh High vehicle speeds um
[40:15] roadways that are um posted as the
[40:17] highest speed limits at 35 miles or
[40:19] above and alcohol
[40:22] consumptions uh we then uh took all
[40:25] these um uh High injury networks to a
[40:30] local level and identified some priority
[40:33] project locations uh the three factors
[40:36] that uh were used as inputs to identify
[40:39] the specific locations were first crash
[40:42] history um you know what locations
[40:44] experience the highest frequency and
[40:46] most SE severe types of crashes uh
[40:49] social Equity what location and what
[40:52] projects would most benefit uh
[40:54] disadvantaged populations and set us for
[40:56] success ESS uh in Grant applications as
[41:00] well as systemic factors these are
[41:02] roadway Lane use characteristics
[41:04] associated with crash frequency and
[41:06] severity one thing to note here is that
[41:09] projects were prioritized and ranked in
[41:12] each agency individually uh so that we
[41:15] will not compare to other cities that
[41:18] potentially have had uh bigger problems
[41:21] uh so you're you're competing against
[41:24] yourself um to be fair
[41:29] out of those priority locations they
[41:32] they then came up with a list of
[41:34] treatment uh at intersections and
[41:37] roadway segments to increase safety at
[41:39] those priority locations the list is
[41:41] very comprehensive and not only applies
[41:44] to those specific locations but it also
[41:47] can be applied proactively to other
[41:49] locations that have
[41:51] similarities um it also um picked the
[41:54] highest priority projects in each
[41:56] category and developed a preliminary
[41:58] scope for them this sets us up for uh
[42:01] future concept design and Grant
[42:03] application and projects that are
[42:05] identified on a local roadway safety
[42:07] plan typically have carry a lot of
[42:09] weight on Grant
[42:12] applications lastly in keeping in line
[42:15] with uh A A Safe Systems approach the
[42:19] the plan also has some non-engineering
[42:22] recommendations these include uh
[42:24] coordinating with our partners with law
[42:26] enforcement to increase speed
[42:29] enforcement to install more radar
[42:31] feedback signs to bring more speed
[42:33] awareness to the driver uh collaborating
[42:36] with our um School District to have more
[42:38] education around safety on the road um
[42:42] dedicating more funding to safety
[42:44] projects coordinating at the plan level
[42:47] more safe rust to school projects more
[42:50] uh speed management around school zones
[42:52] things like that that collectively
[42:53] increase um safety on our roadway
[42:56] network but aren't necessarily
[42:57] engineering
[43:02] designs what are the next steps uh cak
[43:05] recommended that upon their adoption of
[43:08] the countywide plan in June of this year
[43:12] um they local jurisdictions adopt a
[43:15] local resolution co-signing the
[43:18] countywide um effort agreeing with the
[43:22] vision zero goals and plans as well as
[43:24] adopting a local resolution that that
[43:27] adopts the local chapter in our case St
[43:30] Carlos local roadway safety plan once
[43:33] the plan is adopted we uh will be
[43:35] eligible for for a slew of grant
[43:38] opportunities which will apply uh for uh
[43:42] the projects identified in the plan uh
[43:44] once the projects are funded we can
[43:46] start implementing them and and track
[43:48] our progress on how we're doing in the
[43:50] plan uh CAG has committed to updating
[43:53] this plan every five years or so um so
[43:56] they will um
[43:57] uh shepher the effort and this will be a
[43:59] living
[44:03] document that brings us to the ask um
[44:06] tonight from the commission uh we
[44:08] request that you recommend to city
[44:10] council that they adopt um the
[44:13] countywide and the local St Carlos uh
[44:15] local roadway safety plan uh and the
[44:18] accompanying Vision zero
[44:21] goals this concludes my presentation
[44:23] thank you for your time and attention
[44:25] and I will take any questions you may
[44:26] have
[44:27] thank you honey I appreciate it that was
[44:29] a very helpful presentation um I wanted
[44:32] to see if Commissioners had any
[44:34] clarifying questions um before we go to
[44:37] questions for members of the public so
[44:39] we'll start down here with commissioner
[44:42] Bundy no questions quite
[44:46] yet Mr
[44:48] castan um I have I have a question about
[44:52] um the scope of the plan and how the
[44:57] plan affects us as an individual city is
[45:00] our signing on to this
[45:02] plan um commit us to any
[45:06] particular um actions or is it is it
[45:10] advisory it is advisory so the goals
[45:13] that we're committing to in redu
[45:14] significantly reducing or eliminating
[45:16] crashes by a certain
[45:18] date excuse me we cannot be legally held
[45:21] to it it's meant to be an ambitious goal
[45:24] but we are not held to it okay and then
[45:28] will this in any way we we have many
[45:30] other
[45:31] Partnerships um with many other
[45:34] organizations involved in transportation
[45:37] is this going to streamline any of that
[45:40] process will will we then be eliminating
[45:43] some of these
[45:45] other um overlaps or something is it um
[45:49] I don't know if necessarily it o it
[45:51] eliminates any overlapping but it
[45:54] simplifies a lot of the process for us
[45:57] um um a lot of the grant applications
[46:00] now require you to have an adopted local
[46:02] roadway safety plan and a commitment to
[46:04] Vision zero or you're not even eligible
[46:06] to apply to begin with this is on a lot
[46:09] of U federal and state monies um but a
[46:13] lot of local monies come from those
[46:15] sources as well so if we don't have this
[46:18] uh we cannot apply for that many grants
[46:21] out there anymore okay I I do want to
[46:24] also commend you for such a thorough
[46:26] report was very good information thank
[46:30] you thank you and commissioner Anan do
[46:32] you have any clarifying questions yes um
[46:36] thank you for a comprehensive report the
[46:38] one data though that I was looking for
[46:40] was um some statistics related to rental
[46:44] car fatalities or rental car crashes
[46:47] because these are people who come from
[46:48] out of state out of country um if if
[46:52] they are getting confused if the signage
[46:54] is not very clear it clearly means that
[46:57] we're not we're not doing a good job at
[46:59] kind of making this more I I saw stats
[47:02] related to people of color but at the
[47:04] same time we're not doing a doing a good
[47:06] enough job to let people from outside
[47:09] understand our signage for example bike
[47:11] lens what color like maybe we can color
[47:13] them as specific colors they're like
[47:16] more eye-catching or or two-way stop
[47:18] signs like you know so just like some
[47:21] some stats on um out of state and out of
[47:24] country Rentals the incidents would be
[47:27] um would have been greatly helpful but
[47:29] at the same time I am amazed by the by
[47:33] the amazing graphics and I I would
[47:36] encourage some part of it to be shared
[47:38] with the over overall community of San
[47:40] Carlos just so people are more aware of
[47:43] this yes we will publish it upon
[47:45] adoption on our website and uh cak has
[47:48] already published the countywide and
[47:50] individual jurisdictions on their
[47:52] website along with the interactive maps
[47:54] and all the comments everything is
[47:55] available on their website it but we
[47:57] will also make it available on our
[47:58] website that would be very helpful thank
[48:02] you thank you honey I had a couple of
[48:05] questions
[48:06] um
[48:09] the you talked about you know I
[48:11] appreciate you clarifying how the um how
[48:16] you said that the jurisdictions were not
[48:18] competing against other jurisdictions as
[48:20] we assessed you know what our needs are
[48:22] and um how they were looked at um and
[48:26] pack at page 136 it did cite crash
[48:29] history social equity and systemic
[48:32] factors
[48:34] um is there any frame about how much you
[48:37] wait each one of those now you I
[48:40] understand it's only us waiting against
[48:42] our own correct but even with within our
[48:45] own um each one of those categories has
[48:48] a different weight so if you look in the
[48:50] local roadway safety plan St Carlos
[48:52] chapter it explains how each category is
[48:55] weighted against the other and they did
[48:58] this big big whole statistical analysis
[49:01] to come up with what the breakdown
[49:02] should be and that's all explained in
[49:05] the countywide um chapter but if you go
[49:08] to the local chapter it tells you this
[49:10] carries this percent weight this carries
[49:13] that percent weight and why and what did
[49:16] the analysis look at and they looked at
[49:18] each jurisdiction individually they
[49:20] looked at each jurisdiction individually
[49:22] how would you know if social equity for
[49:24] instance was a big was a big driver here
[49:27] should be a big area of prioritization
[49:29] versus systems in San Carlos it really
[49:33] is not because we are a very affluent
[49:36] City uh For Better or For Worse and um
[49:41] this is why it's great that it doesn't
[49:42] compare everybody in one pot because
[49:44] then we would be at the very bottom of
[49:46] the pot I was thinking the same thing
[49:48] yeah so uh for that sense we are
[49:52] unlikely to win a lot of big competitive
[49:55] federal grants because we don't have the
[49:57] equity but even within San Carlos there
[49:59] are parts that are um less privileged
[50:03] than others so they need to be
[50:05] considered right thank you for that um
[50:08] couple more questions the there were
[50:10] several
[50:11] actions in the
[50:13] resolution um to and what the
[50:16] recommendation would be if we suggested
[50:18] the council that they should say yes to
[50:20] this yes to pursue all the policies to
[50:23] refer the prioritized locations to
[50:26] participate
[50:27] um in the tsac L iag and to adopt the
[50:32] plan and Implement an inequitable so all
[50:35] of those issues were was that driven by
[50:39] CAG resolution you're going to pass okay
[50:42] that was helpful um and then finally
[50:44] Vision zero plans as you said most
[50:46] jurisdictions have them already or are
[50:48] getting them um nobody's gotten to zero
[50:53] no and so I appreciated the emphasis
[50:57] areas for our safety improvements um
[51:01] here and there I was just wondering if
[51:03] the
[51:05] plan had any analysis as to what the
[51:08] problems what were the um impediments to
[51:11] trying to get to zero and the places
[51:13] that do have Vision zero yes so that's
[51:15] where the emphasis areas are so there is
[51:17] emphasis areas for the county and then
[51:19] there's emphasis areas for individual
[51:22] cities um so whatever is the most common
[51:25] contributing factor in that City
[51:27] is identified so we have a list of
[51:29] factors particular to St Carlos so we
[51:32] would be looking at those and how to
[51:34] eliminate them or reduce them in an
[51:37] attempt to reach the
[51:39] Zero thanks for that um those are my
[51:42] only questions any other clarifying
[51:44] questions yeah commissioner Bundy yeah I
[51:45] did have one question I appreciated the
[51:49] robust scoping of the two projects that
[51:51] were included um but noted that the Alam
[51:54] was out of scope for the consultant's
[51:56] and just wanted to you know is there an
[51:59] opportunity once that project is scoped
[52:00] to get it into the plan to make it
[52:02] competitive for funding yes it will be
[52:04] uh hopefully in the next round I really
[52:06] tried to get it on this plan but they
[52:09] ran out of budget they even tried to see
[52:10] if they could get budget from less
[52:12] participating cities to dedicate to it
[52:14] but at the end of the day they just ran
[52:16] out of money uh so that project is very
[52:19] high priority for us uh so we're we're
[52:22] pushing to get it on because being on
[52:24] this plan means a lot in the grant
[52:26] worlds so we will definitely make an
[52:28] effort to get it on there next time
[52:30] thank
[52:32] you I have a question oh yes
[52:35] commissioner um so I as I understand
[52:37] that the idea is here to kind of compare
[52:39] different different cities in the county
[52:41] and kind of learn some best practices
[52:43] from each other is that one of the ideas
[52:45] of this um at the end of the
[52:48] um this phase I guess we could call it a
[52:51] phase when it's time to update it cak
[52:53] will look into each individual agent and
[52:56] see how they have done so we're all
[52:58] required to track our progress and they
[53:01] will do another run of the accident
[53:02] numbers to see how you were now and how
[53:05] you are 5 years from now and see what
[53:08] practices in What cities were more
[53:10] successful and I guess those will be
[53:12] recommended more is there is there an
[53:14] opportunity to look outside samto County
[53:17] for some best practices so I'll give you
[53:19] an example for example the Google campus
[53:21] in Mountain View there are hundreds of
[53:23] bikers there every day there are
[53:24] pedestrians and there are cars so
[53:26] there's something right that they're
[53:27] doing so if we can like is is is is it
[53:30] within the scope of this plan to kind of
[53:32] learn from such Pockets um they can look
[53:35] at other agencies that have local
[53:37] roadway safety plans but not probably
[53:40] not private entities because the there's
[53:43] no statistics on crashes or uh speeding
[53:48] tickets or anything like that on
[53:49] Google's campus for example come under
[53:52] Mountain View jurisdiction I would say
[53:54] right but they they don't collect that
[53:56] that data on private property um so any
[53:59] roadway that is within um a private
[54:02] property the information just does not
[54:04] get recorded in the system okay thank
[54:06] you sure thank you okay we'd like to
[54:09] open it up to comments from the public
[54:12] um if anyone is in the chambers would
[54:14] like to speak on this um if you could
[54:16] fill out a speaker card bring it up I
[54:18] don't have any speaker cards at the
[54:20] moment but wanted to check in with
[54:22] Lynette um again if you're joining via
[54:25] zoom and would like to address the
[54:27] commission please raise your hand at
[54:29] this time um we're going to keep that
[54:32] open for a minute or two um and then
[54:35] we'll close the opportunity for Zoom
[54:38] folks to make comments so um right now
[54:42] um we'll begin taking public comments on
[54:44] zoom and then we'll close the queue is
[54:47] there anyone Lynette with their hand
[54:49] raised at this time yes we have one
[54:52] Sonia okay great so um given that we
[54:55] have no commenters in public in the in
[54:59] person why don't we go ahead uh to Sonia
[55:01] then Sonia thank you for joining you've
[55:04] got two minutes thank you I really
[55:06] appreciate the uh planning
[55:08] Transportation Commission um hearing
[55:11] this and all that the work the city has
[55:13] done to bring this to uh this project
[55:16] forward um in the interest of of
[55:19] protecting everyone who uses our
[55:22] roadways um I'm a oh my name is Sonia
[55:25] Elks I'm a safe to school and active
[55:27] Transportation safety Safe Streets
[55:29] advocate in St Carlos for a number of
[55:32] years and I just wanted to take this
[55:35] moment with on this topic to um let your
[55:40] the Commissioners and City staff who may
[55:43] not know and any public who's listening
[55:45] um know that we uh host this in the
[55:49] conjunction with the week of the famili
[55:51] St Carlos bikes and uh Service Groups
[55:54] and other many other organizations in
[55:56] this city we come together uh during
[55:58] week of the family and this we it's
[56:00] February 2nd for a road safety um
[56:04] bicycle pedestrian safety um event a
[56:08] family bike fair at Central Middle
[56:09] School and we would love any CI any
[56:12] residents who are interested in this
[56:14] topic uh who want to help educate kids a
[56:17] lot of kids have ebikes now um anybody
[56:20] who wants to help educate and his
[56:21] passionate or interested in this topic
[56:23] um check out s Carlos bikes. org if I'm
[56:25] allowed to say that and um volunteer for
[56:29] this event to um increase because really
[56:32] I think what it comes down to there can
[56:34] do so much with signs and infrastructure
[56:36] but we also have to have people who know
[56:39] the rules of the road especially kids
[56:41] who are riding on ebikes and and have
[56:43] not taken their drivers tests yet and
[56:46] don't know all these rules of the road I
[56:48] think those are there's a big
[56:50] opportunity being missed there um so
[56:52] anybody who wants to participate in that
[56:53] please please join us um and thank you
[56:56] for taking my comment thank you Sonia
[57:00] thank you for calling in and just I
[57:03] would note that Sonia's emphasis it um
[57:06] is tied to the plan because vulnerable
[57:08] age groups are one of the areas that we
[57:10] are trying to Target here in Stan Carlos
[57:13] so thank you for that
[57:14] Sonia um Lynette are there any other
[57:16] hands raised on
[57:18] Zoom none at the moment okay um we'll
[57:22] just give it another couple of
[57:24] seconds and no other speaker cards here
[57:28] in
[57:30] Chambers has uh any other hands raised
[57:33] on Zoom linet there are none okay with
[57:36] that we'll close the queue on zoom and
[57:40] um also I need a vote to close public
[57:46] comment I move that we close public
[57:48] comment thank you in a second I second
[57:52] that thank
[57:54] you on a roll call commissioner Bundy
[57:58] yes commissioner Anand yes commissioner
[58:00] castanada yes Vice chair Garvey is
[58:03] excused and chair Clemens yes thank you
[58:07] okay now we can go to the commissioner's
[58:09] comments and discussion um is any who
[58:13] would like to
[58:14] start we'll put it up commissioner cast
[58:17] I'll
[58:18] start um thank you again for this great
[58:22] presentation and I do understand that
[58:25] this is certainly to our advantage to be
[58:28] in this County plan particularly since
[58:31] it is also advisory and I think it's
[58:34] going to offer us a lot of access to
[58:36] information and opportunities for
[58:39] funding I was particularly pleased to
[58:42] see that we will be able to get
[58:44] information about automated ve vehicles
[58:48] uh from this uh particular by joining
[58:51] this plan and um also that we'll be
[58:54] getting Cal
[58:56] plans and updates which I think is is
[58:59] necessary thank
[59:01] you thank you commissioner commissioner
[59:05] Bundy thank you so much for the staff
[59:07] report I really value these Regional
[59:09] Frameworks I know it's not easy to pull
[59:11] together this many agencies including uh
[59:14] Caltrans and others and really
[59:16] appreciate the time that both staff and
[59:17] the Consulting team have put in to P
[59:19] this together um I thought that the
[59:21] number of fatalities and severe injuries
[59:24] that we've experienced in the last 5
[59:26] years was a really sobering statistic
[59:28] and really points to the importance of
[59:30] these types of efforts I thought the
[59:33] vision and goals were really
[59:34] welldeveloped I appreciated San Carlos
[59:37] you know eliminating fatalities I
[59:39] thought that ours our goal was one that
[59:41] stood out as um being really aggressive
[59:44] and trying to eliminate the
[59:47] fatalities I thought the methodology was
[59:49] easy to understand and the
[59:50] prioritization process was really clear
[59:52] and appreciate that sort of transparency
[59:54] and identifying those projects and
[59:56] pulling together the scoping and how
[59:58] Equity was pulled into the
[1:00:00] conversation um like you very proud that
[1:00:02] San Carlos had significant participation
[1:00:04] in the engagement process it really
[1:00:05] helps support the the findings of the
[1:00:08] plan um I like the menu of engineering
[1:00:10] strategies I think that's a really good
[1:00:12] place to go to it's a a compendium that
[1:00:14] we can be using as other projects come
[1:00:16] up and appreciated the the scoping of
[1:00:19] the two priority projects so um and
[1:00:21] finally I thought that the inclusion of
[1:00:23] the measures of success to really hold
[1:00:25] ourselves accountable to achieving those
[1:00:27] goals is a really important part of the
[1:00:29] plan so I'm really supportive and
[1:00:30] appreciate all the work that you guys
[1:00:32] have done
[1:00:33] okay thank you commissioner
[1:00:37] Anand yes um the timing of this plan I
[1:00:41] feel couldn't have been better uh we are
[1:00:43] emerging from the pandemic when people
[1:00:44] hardly ventured out and now we are kind
[1:00:47] of adjusting to a whole new lifestyle um
[1:00:49] SOS is also a climate conscious City so
[1:00:51] then we see like multi modes of
[1:00:53] transportation there's ebikes there's
[1:00:55] regular motorcycles there's cars
[1:00:58] self-driving cars as well so I'm I'm
[1:01:01] glad that we are creating a more
[1:01:03] inclusive Road Safety plan here um the
[1:01:07] other thing that makes me very hopeful
[1:01:09] is that with the development of downtown
[1:01:11] where again we'll see some traffic
[1:01:13] shifts plus the new development on the
[1:01:15] east side with new businesses coming in
[1:01:17] where we will expect more pedestrians
[1:01:19] and bike traffic we are undertaking this
[1:01:21] so thank you for for your comprehensive
[1:01:24] report and for initiating this thank
[1:01:27] you um my comments are similarly
[1:01:30] supportive uh I like that all the
[1:01:33] smaller jurisdictions are banding
[1:01:34] together to do a regional approach that
[1:01:37] has some consistency but I also really
[1:01:40] appreciate the jurisdiction specific
[1:01:42] data that tells us what we need to focus
[1:01:44] on and how we need to seek grant funding
[1:01:47] and and direct our own Capital
[1:01:49] Improvement dollars um with that I also
[1:01:53] thought you know if there is a
[1:01:55] jurisdiction that needs to focus on it
[1:01:58] well I was also dismayed at the high
[1:02:01] number relative to our population of
[1:02:03] fatalities I was very surprised by that
[1:02:06] I think it was 32 you said over five
[1:02:08] years which you know we've got small
[1:02:12] Parcels we have some smaller roads
[1:02:14] there's a lot of different multimodal
[1:02:17] activity and so I'm heartened that we
[1:02:20] are spending resources and attention on
[1:02:22] how to make our community as safe as we
[1:02:24] can and I think that is also um you know
[1:02:28] part and parcel of how we grow we have
[1:02:31] ambitious housing Improvement or housing
[1:02:33] increased goals and we have a lot of
[1:02:35] businesses anticipated um for growth and
[1:02:38] establishment um so I I think also as we
[1:02:43] make um uh more areas more mix of uses I
[1:02:48] think the importance of how these uses
[1:02:49] work together and still result in a safe
[1:02:52] Community is of primary importance so um
[1:02:55] I uh fully support this effort and I'm
[1:02:58] glad that St Carlos is bending with
[1:03:00] others to do this work but getting our
[1:03:02] work done and um seeing how we can um
[1:03:05] access some grant funding to help with
[1:03:07] that so thank you Ana thank you I think
[1:03:10] with that if we could put up great the
[1:03:12] motion someone would like to make the
[1:03:17] motion I move that the planning and
[1:03:20] Transportation Commission adopt a
[1:03:22] resolution recommending the city council
[1:03:25] approve Pro the countywide and the City
[1:03:27] of St Carlos local roadway safety plan
[1:03:31] and the accompanying Vision zero
[1:03:34] goals thank you and a second I second
[1:03:38] the motion great thank you a roll call
[1:03:40] please Andrea commissioner Bundy yes
[1:03:43] commissioner Anand yes commissioner
[1:03:45] castanada yes Vice chair Garvey is
[1:03:48] excused and chair Clemens yes thank you
[1:03:51] thank you hania great work and good luck
[1:03:58] with that we are on to agenda item eight
[1:04:02] a study session for the transportation
[1:04:05] demand management and parking reform
[1:04:08] project which has lots of interesting
[1:04:10] pieces to it so um looking forward to
[1:04:14] that and again just to be clear this is
[1:04:16] a study session and so our role here is
[1:04:19] to listen learn advise ask questions
[1:04:24] okay thank you um um and I'll turn it
[1:04:26] over to staff welcome great thank you
[1:04:29] good evening chair Clemens uh members of
[1:04:31] the Planning Commission my name is
[1:04:32] Rundle buos I am a senior planner in the
[1:04:35] advanced planning Division and here to
[1:04:38] provide um an introduction to the TDM
[1:04:41] and parking reform
[1:04:44] project so for an overview of tonight's
[1:04:47] agenda item South will start with a
[1:04:50] brief introduction to the project team
[1:04:52] as well as the purpose of this effort
[1:04:55] will then receive a de more detailed
[1:04:57] presentation from our consultant team um
[1:05:00] on the topics of parking and TDM and
[1:05:02] we'll then respond to commissioner
[1:05:04] questions as well as receive public
[1:05:06] comments followed by commissioner input
[1:05:09] and again as a study session no formal
[1:05:10] action is being requested this
[1:05:13] evening so to introduce the core team um
[1:05:17] involved in this project for City staff
[1:05:20] the project team includes a mix of
[1:05:22] advanced planning staff current planning
[1:05:25] staff as well as public work staff
[1:05:27] because TDM and parking overlap um these
[1:05:30] multiple disciplines and we all play a
[1:05:32] role in administering these requirements
[1:05:35] we're also joined by our technical e
[1:05:36] experts which is our consultant team
[1:05:38] from W trans and Nelson niggard Brian
[1:05:41] canipa and Phil Olstead respectively and
[1:05:44] they will also be Pro uh providing their
[1:05:46] presentation on these
[1:05:50] topics so to provide the commission with
[1:05:52] some context and to kind of underscore
[1:05:55] the purpose of of this effort um this
[1:05:57] effort began in June of this year with
[1:06:00] the purpose of reforming the city's
[1:06:02] parking requirements and TDM
[1:06:05] requirements which is transportation
[1:06:06] demand management requirements as a
[1:06:08] response to various local and Regional
[1:06:12] Frameworks the first being the city
[1:06:14] council strategic goal as shown in this
[1:06:17] slide which is a par which I'll
[1:06:19] paraphrase um generally has to do with
[1:06:21] actively pursuing strategies to improve
[1:06:24] mobility and reduce Reliance on single
[1:06:26] occupancy
[1:06:27] vehicles um there's also a series of
[1:06:30] local planning documents that exist
[1:06:31] currently such as the general plan um
[1:06:34] and others that make reference to
[1:06:36] improving mobility throughout the
[1:06:38] city and lastly which the city the
[1:06:41] consultant team rather will um speak to
[1:06:43] in Greater detail um there are a series
[1:06:46] of state and Regional policies and laws
[1:06:48] such as ap2 097 which restricts parking
[1:06:51] requirements um the CAC TDM policy and
[1:06:55] mtc's to policy that have set a series
[1:06:58] of policies regarding parking and TDM
[1:07:01] that are um Regional and are causing
[1:07:03] various cities to proactively update
[1:07:05] their parking and TDM
[1:07:09] requirements and as with any planning
[1:07:12] policy effort Civic engagement is
[1:07:14] integral to this effort so given the
[1:07:17] technical nature of parking and TDM um
[1:07:20] our Outreach is a bit more focused and
[1:07:22] engaged with folks who will Implement
[1:07:24] and interact with TDM and parking
[1:07:26] requirements but still to keep the
[1:07:28] general public engaged we're having the
[1:07:30] Planning Commission itself um serve as
[1:07:33] our technical advisory committee um and
[1:07:35] meet with the commission multiple times
[1:07:38] throughout this process to give the
[1:07:40] general public um as well as the
[1:07:42] commission multiple opportunities to
[1:07:43] speak on this
[1:07:45] item um in addition to the commission we
[1:07:48] plan on bringing this item to the city
[1:07:49] council subcommittee um infrastructure
[1:07:52] Innovation and Improvement subcommittee
[1:07:54] and lastly terms of um various
[1:07:56] stakeholder groups the consultant team
[1:07:59] has held focus group meetings um just
[1:08:01] last week with um developers
[1:08:03] Transportation Advocates and
[1:08:05] professionals as well as the gesc and
[1:08:07] large employers throughout the city and
[1:08:10] throughout the consultant presentation
[1:08:12] they'll be touching on some of the
[1:08:13] feedback that they've heard at the
[1:08:15] various
[1:08:16] meetings and with that I'll pass it to
[1:08:19] Brian canipa with W TR to discuss more
[1:08:22] about the project
[1:08:27] a little bit all right thank you Randall
[1:08:30] uh chair Clemens members of the
[1:08:32] commission pleasure to have pleasure to
[1:08:35] be here this this evening with you I'll
[1:08:37] be talking about the parking piece of
[1:08:39] this so just a division of
[1:08:40] responsibilities for this project W
[1:08:42] trans is really focusing on the parking
[1:08:44] piece with Nelson Ard focusing on the
[1:08:46] transportation demand management that's
[1:08:47] kind of our division of responsibilities
[1:08:49] and duties I will also note just uh
[1:08:52] before I dive into the presentation
[1:08:54] where we are in this proc process right
[1:08:56] now we are we have as you can see from
[1:08:58] the schedule we've literally just
[1:08:59] finished talking with some of the
[1:09:00] stakeholders very recently and we're in
[1:09:03] the process of completing our existing
[1:09:05] conditions review and uh best practices
[1:09:07] so we're really kind of in the initial
[1:09:09] stages here and which is why we want to
[1:09:11] bring this to the commission to get your
[1:09:13] initial thoughts before we dive into
[1:09:16] developing framework and strategies so
[1:09:18] we haven't gotten to that yet that's
[1:09:19] really why we're here this evening is to
[1:09:21] to go over these um issues with you and
[1:09:23] see if there's particular areas that we
[1:09:24] should should should not be focusing on
[1:09:26] as part of our
[1:09:28] work so a little bit about the parking
[1:09:30] piece of this so we are conducting a
[1:09:33] really comprehensive review of the on
[1:09:36] and off street parking policy and code I
[1:09:40] mean this is also inclusive any shared
[1:09:42] parking Provisions as well and we're at
[1:09:44] throughout this process we're relying on
[1:09:46] best practices um primarily around here
[1:09:49] in the Bay Area um and looking at
[1:09:53] understanding this in the current
[1:09:54] context of Carlos but also the future
[1:09:56] context given all the development growth
[1:09:58] as anticipated with the general plan
[1:10:00] through
[1:10:01] 2045 we are also as part of this keeping
[1:10:04] in mind that this is not only an
[1:10:05] exercise in local policy but
[1:10:08] understanding Regional and state laws as
[1:10:11] well um I'll uh renle mentioned earlier
[1:10:14] the MTC Transit oriented communities
[1:10:17] policy for those of you who are not
[1:10:19] familiar with it on the parking side um
[1:10:22] it essentially provides certain maximum
[1:10:24] parking requ requirements that must be
[1:10:26] implemented in order for the city of
[1:10:28] Stan Carlos to be to remain eligible for
[1:10:31] one Bay Area Grant funds so if those
[1:10:34] criteria are not met as long as as a
[1:10:36] host of other ones then you lose your
[1:10:38] eligibility for those funds so something
[1:10:40] we need to keep in mind and I'll be
[1:10:41] coming back to that again the
[1:10:44] presentation um and also understanding
[1:10:47] that there are not only
[1:10:48] a2097 but a whole host of other state
[1:10:51] laws that have impacted parking in
[1:10:53] recent years so not only the elimination
[1:10:54] of minimum parking requirements your
[1:10:56] transit station areas but the
[1:10:58] daylighting law um
[1:11:00] a413 um shared parking law AB 894 all
[1:11:04] things that affect parking Supply within
[1:11:07] the city um and so we'll be keeping
[1:11:10] those in mind as we as we develop our
[1:11:14] recommendations so again in the process
[1:11:16] here just to touch on this again we're
[1:11:18] just wrapping up the best practices and
[1:11:20] existing conditions we're bringing this
[1:11:21] to you right now after we receive your
[1:11:24] input we'll be kind of going back back
[1:11:25] to the drawing board at that point or
[1:11:27] starting the drawing board I should say
[1:11:28] and really diving into developing
[1:11:30] framework and strategies for these
[1:11:32] different elements with that I'll turn
[1:11:34] it over to Phil
[1:11:36] elead we're gonna have to keep raising
[1:11:38] and lowering this
[1:11:39] [Laughter]
[1:11:41] yeah uh good evening chair and
[1:11:43] commission members in San Carlos
[1:11:45] Community uh my name is Phil Olstead
[1:11:48] with Nelson nigar Consulting Associates
[1:11:50] and as Brian mentioned we'll be leading
[1:11:52] up the TDM portion of this work um as we
[1:11:55] work with I I'll start with a quick
[1:11:56] overview of why we're doing this with
[1:11:58] this effort um and what we're hoping to
[1:12:00] achieve um as we worked with staff to
[1:12:03] Define our scope a number of key goals
[1:12:05] uh and objectives consistently emerged
[1:12:08] one the existing TDM
[1:12:10] ordinance and program needs a refresh a
[1:12:13] lot has changed within the community uh
[1:12:16] uh from a development and growth
[1:12:18] standpoint and what you all want to be
[1:12:20] as a city and as Brian mentioned as
[1:12:22] we'll discuss more a lot has changed on
[1:12:24] the macro policy level uh in the region
[1:12:26] and in the State uh so we need to take a
[1:12:29] step back and uh update your TDM policy
[1:12:32] and approach so that is helping your
[1:12:33] community meet its larger Transportation
[1:12:35] goals and quality of life goals
[1:12:38] especially uh as you anticipate so much
[1:12:41] future growth um uh and we need to be in
[1:12:44] lock step with the parking side so even
[1:12:46] though we're we're both looking at two
[1:12:48] different things parking and TDM really
[1:12:50] go hand inand as I've said to staff many
[1:12:52] times before the best TDM policies and
[1:12:55] programs are founded uh and anchored in
[1:12:58] good parking policy and good parking
[1:13:00] management uh let's see so on the TDM SI
[1:13:03] what are we producing at the end of this
[1:13:05] project there are two key final TDM
[1:13:08] deliverables one is the actual TDM
[1:13:11] policy in the code so this is the
[1:13:13] straightforward the concise and precise
[1:13:16] language you will adopt to codify a new
[1:13:18] TDM policy and the second is what you
[1:13:21] know we're calling uh affectionately at
[1:13:23] this point is kind of the Playbook or
[1:13:24] implement mentation plan uh so this is
[1:13:27] really the supporting information that
[1:13:29] developers or employers or institutions
[1:13:31] property property managers and also your
[1:13:34] staff really need to implement the TDM
[1:13:36] policy I kind of think of it as the
[1:13:38] how-to
[1:13:40] guide uh much like Brian we are this is
[1:13:44] our basic process in where we're at now
[1:13:45] we've done some existing conditions work
[1:13:47] some best practices work and really
[1:13:49] checking in with you all to make sure
[1:13:51] that we've identified all the issues and
[1:13:53] opportunities uh with you all and our
[1:13:56] next two phases are really developing
[1:13:59] the TDM policy framework its specific
[1:14:01] elements uh and then drafting those
[1:14:03] deliverables and of course anchored in
[1:14:05] all that or a through line through all
[1:14:07] that is the public engagement work uh
[1:14:09] and making sure that we're checking in
[1:14:10] with you all along the way uh and I'll
[1:14:12] bounce it back to
[1:14:17] Brian all right apologies you'll see me
[1:14:19] and Phil jumping up and down during this
[1:14:21] presentation but before we dive into the
[1:14:25] of the Lessons Learned we did want to
[1:14:26] put up these these questions for you
[1:14:28] first to kind of keep in mind and kind
[1:14:30] of percolate a little bit as we go
[1:14:32] through the presentation um on the
[1:14:34] parking side really thinking closely as
[1:14:36] we kind of move through
[1:14:38] this excuse me thinking about how our
[1:14:42] project can and should balance the needs
[1:14:45] of mtc's uh Toc policy and obag funding
[1:14:48] versus development of feasibility
[1:14:50] looking at managing on and off street
[1:14:52] parking for all uses um and shared par
[1:14:55] parking and on the TDM side really
[1:14:56] thinking through about you know what
[1:14:58] goals and metrics are really guiding
[1:15:00] should be guiding this process and what
[1:15:03] measures you feel might be kind of best
[1:15:05] suited for our work and also keeping an
[1:15:08] eye on the end of the day about that
[1:15:11] Transportation demand management often
[1:15:12] requires monitoring and there is a
[1:15:16] certain judgment call there needed to
[1:15:17] determine the kind of the appropriate
[1:15:19] amount at the end of the
[1:15:20] day so we'll come back to these again so
[1:15:25] Lessons Learned so we'll focus first on
[1:15:26] lessons learned from our kind of
[1:15:27] internal existing conditions analysis so
[1:15:29] this is of San Carlos itself and excuse
[1:15:34] me um we kind of divided this up into
[1:15:37] sort of challenges and opportunities and
[1:15:39] again this is not an exhaustive list I'm
[1:15:41] sure there are others but these are some
[1:15:43] of the key ones that we identified um
[1:15:46] the first of which being that we we're
[1:15:48] living in an interesting world right now
[1:15:50] the past 10 15 years because there's
[1:15:51] this paradigm shift that's happened
[1:15:54] right for most
[1:15:55] of the or good chunk of the 20th century
[1:15:57] you know minimum parking requirements
[1:15:59] more or less dictated how parking was
[1:16:02] constructed and how the transportation
[1:16:03] system functioned and because of local
[1:16:07] and Regional and state changes it's
[1:16:09] really shifting from minimum parking
[1:16:11] requirements to maximum parking
[1:16:13] requirements for very good reasons
[1:16:15] because um of the impacts that minimum
[1:16:17] parking requirements have on housing
[1:16:18] affordability on sustainability on
[1:16:20] equity and a whole host of other things
[1:16:23] and so part of this is that with this
[1:16:27] shift away from minimums to maximums
[1:16:29] There's an opportunity to really look at
[1:16:32] it and say what does the market want to
[1:16:34] provide which is great it also is kind
[1:16:36] of challenging in a way because it or an
[1:16:39] opportunity I should say because it also
[1:16:40] means that if we don't have parking
[1:16:42] minimums it puts a lot more importance
[1:16:45] on the public parking Supply right if
[1:16:48] there's if potentially there's no
[1:16:49] minimums being uh no minimum amount
[1:16:51] parking be created off Street What
[1:16:52] Becomes of the on street parking
[1:16:55] so that's the first the second has to do
[1:16:58] with this growth that we're anticipated
[1:17:01] seeing again kind of going back to that
[1:17:03] Paradigm model you know traditionally
[1:17:05] developments have been looked at or
[1:17:07] viewed as kind of a one by one every
[1:17:10] parcel can't takes care tries to take
[1:17:12] care of its own transportation needs
[1:17:14] often times not very well and oftentimes
[1:17:17] very inefficiently um because we're not
[1:17:20] pooling our resources as best we can and
[1:17:22] sometimes that can be difficult but need
[1:17:25] to keep it in mind so with the
[1:17:26] significant growth that we're seeing
[1:17:28] here in future years we can say with
[1:17:31] pretty good certainty that given the
[1:17:33] growth forecasts if the city of Stan
[1:17:34] Carlos were to develop using status quo
[1:17:38] policies and and regulations that you
[1:17:41] would have an immense amount of traffic
[1:17:43] for example right because it essentially
[1:17:45] kind of produces that sort of result and
[1:17:48] so part of what we want to be able to
[1:17:50] look at here are again solutions that
[1:17:53] can be implemented where feasible where
[1:17:55] maybe you treat things like looking at
[1:17:56] parking districts or transportation
[1:17:58] management association the mtct policy
[1:18:02] actually allows for a parking District
[1:18:03] approach rather than individual parcels
[1:18:06] and this can lead to much greater
[1:18:08] efficiencies at the end of the
[1:18:10] day looking at private parking so this
[1:18:13] is not atypical but most cities in the
[1:18:16] US um your private parking is reserved
[1:18:19] for that particular use um that's great
[1:18:22] for the particular use but again it
[1:18:23] creates um um a lot of inefficiencies
[1:18:26] because other people cannot use that
[1:18:27] parking at other hours um we know from
[1:18:30] our work in the downtown study that
[1:18:33] roughly 40% of the parking in the
[1:18:35] downtown is private um and which is a
[1:18:38] considerable amount when you think about
[1:18:39] at the end of the day and that just
[1:18:41] poses challenges for for its
[1:18:43] utilization so what we want to be able
[1:18:46] to look at here is well what are what is
[1:18:48] the system what are the incentives for
[1:18:51] creating more publicly accessible shared
[1:18:54] parking um and these can be it be
[1:18:56] voluntary or it could be required um I
[1:18:59] say both ways because most people are
[1:19:02] relatively familiar with voluntary
[1:19:04] assured parking agreements and those
[1:19:05] also can be facilitated by the city it
[1:19:07] also could be required most people are
[1:19:09] not aware of this but under AB 2097 the
[1:19:12] City by right has the power to require
[1:19:14] that any parking provided within a half
[1:19:17] mile of these major Transit stops be
[1:19:19] publicly accessible some or all the time
[1:19:22] this provision I I believe is rarely
[1:19:25] utilized but I do want to make you aware
[1:19:27] of it and it's something that we want to
[1:19:29] keep in mind as we work through
[1:19:32] this um four has to do with employee and
[1:19:35] Resident permits um so right now really
[1:19:38] the only District uh within San Carlos
[1:19:41] that actively uses residential parking
[1:19:42] permits is greater East San Carlos um we
[1:19:45] actually did have an opportunity to meet
[1:19:47] with them uh the other day and it was
[1:19:49] great we had a really robust
[1:19:50] conversation about kind of the pros and
[1:19:52] cons of the system we were actually very
[1:19:53] encouraged to hear that the residential
[1:19:55] parking permit system seems to be
[1:19:57] relatively working well um for the most
[1:20:00] part I think there were some comments to
[1:20:02] say that there are areas for improvement
[1:20:05] like a local Brewery had moved in and
[1:20:06] there's maybe some people parking in the
[1:20:08] neighborhood during off hours things of
[1:20:10] that sort and so there's an opportunity
[1:20:12] here to look at not only as this how
[1:20:16] this permit Pro program applies here but
[1:20:19] potentially elsewhere in St Carlos in
[1:20:21] terms of what makes a permit program
[1:20:23] successful how are they priced what's
[1:20:26] the availability of permits um you know
[1:20:28] how does this change over time and so
[1:20:32] forth um and the last challenge I'll
[1:20:34] focus on is basically is really the
[1:20:36] process itself for parking management
[1:20:39] and this is kind of a little bit hard
[1:20:41] sometimes for people to wrap their heads
[1:20:42] around but right now as happens in St
[1:20:45] Carlos as many cities in the US is that
[1:20:47] whenever parking management changes are
[1:20:49] proposed or needed often times they have
[1:20:51] to go to council for approval every
[1:20:54] single change needs to go through
[1:20:56] Council for approval and often times
[1:20:58] this process leads to parking being
[1:21:01] somewhat of a political football rather
[1:21:03] than an actual technical topic um and
[1:21:06] one of the PO potential opportunities
[1:21:08] from this is really to shift to A system
[1:21:11] that is not a caseby casee basis for for
[1:21:15] Council but one which is really directed
[1:21:18] by Council desired outcomes so the
[1:21:20] council and you as Commissioners would
[1:21:22] say these are the outcomes we're really
[1:21:24] aiming for here are kind of the limits
[1:21:26] we want to set to this so you can work
[1:21:28] within these bumpers so we're nice and
[1:21:29] safe and then allowing staff the
[1:21:32] flexibility to make changes over time
[1:21:34] without continually having to come back
[1:21:36] when we've seen that it's often a really
[1:21:38] great successful model used by other
[1:21:41] communities and with that I'll turn it
[1:21:43] back over to Phil and raise the mic
[1:21:46] right we've also been doing a lot of
[1:21:49] existing conditions work um we won't go
[1:21:51] into all the details but a few kind of
[1:21:53] key trends and challenges have emerged
[1:21:56] um much like Brian said the regulatory
[1:21:59] or the state and Regional policy around
[1:22:00] TDM has changed so for example CAG
[1:22:03] adopted their new TDM requirements or
[1:22:05] updated their requirements in 2022 the
[1:22:08] TOC policy also priori prioritizes TDM
[1:22:12] strategies near
[1:22:13] Transit you all are very close I believe
[1:22:16] to adopting new Transportation study
[1:22:18] guidelines that really elevates TDM as a
[1:22:21] key mitigation element for for projects
[1:22:24] and as part of that process alas your
[1:22:27] TDM policy uh is out of date and not
[1:22:30] fully in line with with some of that
[1:22:32] local and Regional work so that's a
[1:22:34] challenge but it's also a great
[1:22:35] opportunity um those local and Regional
[1:22:38] efforts really give you an opportunity
[1:22:40] and and really serve as a catalyst to
[1:22:41] redefine what you want from your TDM
[1:22:43] policy again in light of the new growth
[1:22:45] that you're
[1:22:48] anticipating um within that context when
[1:22:51] we look at your current code it's it's
[1:22:53] not fully with those policies and what
[1:22:56] we would see as best practice so the
[1:22:58] required trip reduction is below
[1:23:01] Regional standards it's really a
[1:23:03] one-size fits-all policy it's of 20%
[1:23:06] regardless of project size or where you
[1:23:08] are in the city uh doesn't really
[1:23:11] comprehensively speak to your
[1:23:13] transportation Vision or Mobility
[1:23:15] approach and services or or even parking
[1:23:17] policy and
[1:23:18] management uh on the positive uh again
[1:23:21] this project is really an opportunity to
[1:23:23] be more proactive more robust more
[1:23:25] flexible uh we can give developers and
[1:23:28] employees more CH employers more Choice
[1:23:30] with the with the policy but also make
[1:23:32] sure that what they decide to implement
[1:23:34] will work it's not just a check the box
[1:23:37] exercise uh and be appropriate for the
[1:23:40] project type and location within your
[1:23:44] community uh having a strong robust and
[1:23:47] impactful TDM policy and program is hard
[1:23:51] um many cities do the policy well uh but
[1:23:54] implementation and uh and but you know
[1:23:57] struggle with the implementation and
[1:23:59] consistent follow-through if we don't
[1:24:01] measure um the TDM efforts we don't know
[1:24:04] if it's working and the best TDM
[1:24:06] programs are living efforts uh they need
[1:24:09] constant monitoring and adjustment over
[1:24:11] time uh that's easier said than done it
[1:24:13] takes time and effort uh one of the
[1:24:15] things we're really digging in with on
[1:24:17] staff is to really understand and find
[1:24:18] out more about the specific process that
[1:24:20] your TDM plans go through what staff do
[1:24:24] what what information is most impactful
[1:24:27] for you as Commissioners or Council to
[1:24:29] really understand if the plan will work
[1:24:31] um and where what are the specific
[1:24:33] barriers after the plan is approved to
[1:24:36] successful implementation so as we go
[1:24:39] through the project we're really going
[1:24:40] to explore with staff and you all you
[1:24:42] know are there new processes that we can
[1:24:44] try are there new tools that are
[1:24:45] available that can really streamline
[1:24:47] that and make that more effective um but
[1:24:50] it will uh eventually come down to
[1:24:52] resources the best municipal TDM
[1:24:54] programs and policies are well resourced
[1:24:57] um and often have dedicated staff
[1:24:59] directly uh allocated to TDM
[1:25:03] work uh again requiring TDM is the easy
[1:25:07] part implementing it for the user in an
[1:25:09] effective way is really hard a key
[1:25:11] challenge here like many communities in
[1:25:14] the pen on the peninsula is that many of
[1:25:16] the TDM strategies that reduce Drive
[1:25:18] alone trips or encourage multimodal
[1:25:21] travel um are on the shoulder of lots of
[1:25:25] different entities from the developer to
[1:25:28] the employer to the property manager to
[1:25:30] Regional agencies uh and sometimes the
[1:25:33] city uh this can be confusing it often
[1:25:35] leads to ad hoc implementation I think
[1:25:39] the last thing you want as a
[1:25:41] community uh is each project or
[1:25:43] developer or project uh project um
[1:25:47] property manager or District doing their
[1:25:49] own thing uh doing their own shuttle
[1:25:52] service or own Bike Share or own TD TMA
[1:25:54] we need
[1:25:55] coordination um so now it's the time
[1:25:57] this is a great again another
[1:25:59] opportunity for this project to really
[1:26:01] work with all these folks to Define who
[1:26:03] does what where and
[1:26:05] when uh we did get our hands on and
[1:26:09] staff shared with us about 30 TDM plans
[1:26:11] that have been approved in the last 10
[1:26:13] years or so we reviewed them we mapped
[1:26:16] them so this is a map the the gray
[1:26:18] polygons or are the footprints of those
[1:26:21] TDM plans uh and then where they're
[1:26:23] located almost all are within um a
[1:26:27] couple Transit zones so the transit
[1:26:29] priority areas for
[1:26:31] CAG the TC areas for MTC and then a lot
[1:26:35] of them fall within one of these key
[1:26:37] planning areas uh within your city so
[1:26:41] the key is how we calibrate again I
[1:26:43] mentioned one size fits all right now
[1:26:45] how do we calibrate the TDM policy for
[1:26:48] these different locations and different
[1:26:50] project types without getting in the
[1:26:52] Trap of being overly precise or false
[1:26:57] Precision um I don't want you to squint
[1:26:59] too hard at this what we're showing here
[1:27:01] is these are all the different
[1:27:03] strategies listed in your TDM plans and
[1:27:06] what share of projects included them so
[1:27:09] it's a lot of different things so the Y
[1:27:11] AIS shows kind of what percent of
[1:27:13] projects included this specific TDM
[1:27:15] measure I think there's two key points
[1:27:18] to highlight not all of the ones
[1:27:21] commonly included are always the most
[1:27:24] impactful at reducing vehicle trips and
[1:27:27] some of the ones that are most impactful
[1:27:29] are often not included um second the
[1:27:32] current monitoring process um doesn't
[1:27:34] really allow staff to really see the
[1:27:37] implementation details on a lot of these
[1:27:39] strategies and how they're actually
[1:27:40] coming to fruition so what does the
[1:27:43] website look like what is the TDM
[1:27:44] coordinator actually doing how many
[1:27:47] subsidized Transit passes went out um so
[1:27:50] it's it's a challenge with the with the
[1:27:51] current program
[1:27:54] uh implementation also falls to a lot of
[1:27:56] different froes as again these are what
[1:27:58] was stated in the TDM plans and how
[1:28:01] they're being implemented so on the left
[1:28:03] who's implementing them and it's a lot
[1:28:05] of different folks and then on the right
[1:28:07] you know how they're being monitored um
[1:28:11] as you know a lot of them list an annual
[1:28:13] report trip counts travel surveys uh but
[1:28:16] you know right now staff don't really
[1:28:18] have a cost-effective way or a system of
[1:28:20] tools or platforms to track this down
[1:28:24] I'll kick it back to Brian and we'll go
[1:28:26] through some of the best practices and
[1:28:28] what other communities are doing um to
[1:28:30] kind of uh Benchmark where youall are
[1:28:37] at all right so moving on from s caros
[1:28:40] to our best practices um mostly here in
[1:28:44] the Bay Area but again some that are not
[1:28:47] um and the way we did this with we
[1:28:48] looked at various communities and we
[1:28:50] looked at it in terms of specific how
[1:28:51] they deal with specific topics there
[1:28:54] related to parking or Transportation man
[1:28:56] management so for example for parking
[1:28:59] maximums looking excuse me looking at
[1:29:01] these communities from Alama Redwood
[1:29:04] City San Bruno and Sacramento Sacramento
[1:29:07] tends to be a larger example but we'
[1:29:09] included them for very specific reasons
[1:29:11] because certain um management techniques
[1:29:13] they have a considerable amount of
[1:29:15] experience there but what we found
[1:29:17] looking at parking maximums is you know
[1:29:19] this is again is nothing new many
[1:29:22] communities have had parking maximums
[1:29:23] for quite a while um and they vary a bit
[1:29:27] you know you can see from the examples
[1:29:29] here that for residential it can be one
[1:29:31] to one and a half spaces per unit you
[1:29:33] know in Alama you could have
[1:29:35] non-residential anywhere from 2 and a
[1:29:37] half to 7 per thousand so you have a lot
[1:29:40] of of variation in there um you know we
[1:29:44] at w trans and Nelson Ard are actually
[1:29:46] jointly working on a project in the city
[1:29:47] of Sacramento right now I'll be there on
[1:29:49] Thursday because we're completely
[1:29:51] revamping their parking code for the
[1:29:52] whole city um and we've worked we were
[1:29:56] able to use a lot of their development
[1:29:58] data we also worked with staff here to
[1:29:59] look at development data here to
[1:30:01] determine how much parking entitled
[1:30:04] projects are actually providing and we
[1:30:06] know from at least the areas in
[1:30:08] Sacramento that have had maximum parking
[1:30:10] requirements the vast majority of
[1:30:12] projects that have been built and
[1:30:14] entitled actually do so underneath the
[1:30:16] maximum they don't even go to the
[1:30:18] maximum now again that can vary from
[1:30:20] Project to project um but it's an
[1:30:23] interesting data point
[1:30:24] nonetheless but we did find in talking
[1:30:26] one of our stakeholder groups that we
[1:30:28] did talk with were developers we said
[1:30:30] gosh you know what what do you see here
[1:30:31] in St Carlos as being you know
[1:30:33] constraining or not and again not
[1:30:36] surprisingly what we heard from the
[1:30:37] development Community was we want to be
[1:30:38] able to build what we want to build to
[1:30:40] whatever the market demand is whatever
[1:30:42] we feel that market demand is and so
[1:30:45] part of what we want to look at as part
[1:30:47] of this process and of course we would
[1:30:48] need to confirm this as part of the MTC
[1:30:50] policy is is there a flexibility that
[1:30:54] can build into those maximums and still
[1:30:56] be in compliance with the TOC policy so
[1:30:58] for example in Alam they allow that
[1:31:01] maximum to be exceeded with a certain
[1:31:03] permit we're proposing the same thing in
[1:31:05] Sacramento as well so long as some
[1:31:08] Community benefit is provided um in
[1:31:11] Sacramento the cas is you can exceed
[1:31:13] that maximum if those spaces are the
[1:31:15] maximum are publicly accessible right so
[1:31:17] there's something given in
[1:31:19] return um the second thing that we
[1:31:21] looked at was car sharing this is
[1:31:23] something that that has been had kind of
[1:31:25] a varying degrees of success over the
[1:31:27] years um several codes for a while were
[1:31:30] requiring car share spaces in different
[1:31:32] developments um it's car sharing as we
[1:31:36] found is very difficult to make it work
[1:31:37] in pencil financially um so
[1:31:40] incorporating those same sort of
[1:31:41] stringent standards that occurred in
[1:31:43] some codes before might not necessarily
[1:31:46] be in the best interest here you want to
[1:31:48] be able to encourage car sharing and we
[1:31:50] found good ways to do that like in on
[1:31:51] Street spaces but trying to incorporate
[1:31:54] requirements into a city code or use the
[1:31:56] provisions with an a2097 may not be
[1:31:59] necessarily the best Avenue for
[1:32:02] it looking at residential permits um now
[1:32:05] you can see we've kind added Palo Alta
[1:32:07] to the fifth the fifth list here um
[1:32:09] because they've had an RPP program in
[1:32:11] place for quite a while um RPP programs
[1:32:14] again very significantly across the
[1:32:17] country and within the state about how
[1:32:18] they're implemented they could be very
[1:32:20] strong or not one of the more common
[1:32:22] problems that these cas studies some of
[1:32:24] these case studies have encountered is
[1:32:27] that they don't necessarily match the
[1:32:29] number or pricing of permits to the
[1:32:31] actual demand in the area if you give
[1:32:34] away unlimited permits for example that
[1:32:36] are free it's not surprising that there
[1:32:39] might not be enough spaces on Street to
[1:32:40] be able to accommodate demand you've
[1:32:42] given out free pizza to everyone and so
[1:32:43] everyone wants it um so some of the best
[1:32:47] examples that we've seen in other
[1:32:48] communities is for example limiting the
[1:32:51] number of permits per household
[1:32:52] depending on how many spaces you have on
[1:32:55] street or how many households Etc um and
[1:32:58] being able to often times price it
[1:33:00] accordingly um such that maybe if you're
[1:33:03] going to have multiple uh permits
[1:33:05] available maybe it's on a scaled
[1:33:07] approach so that if you want to park all
[1:33:08] four cars on Street maybe that costs
[1:33:10] more than if you want to park one or
[1:33:13] two um but at the end of the day we want
[1:33:16] to be cognizant of this over permitting
[1:33:18] that's really the key issue here often
[1:33:20] times looking at on street parking
[1:33:22] pricing on on street parking pricing
[1:33:24] obviously doesn't currently exist here
[1:33:26] in Stan Carlos but it is one of the most
[1:33:29] effective ways to be able to manage um
[1:33:31] on street parking demand particularly in
[1:33:33] obviously in commercial
[1:33:34] areas um other communities have had this
[1:33:37] in place for years and have done it
[1:33:39] successfully so Redwood City would
[1:33:41] probably be the most commonly known
[1:33:43] example here um where not only did they
[1:33:46] establish a system of pricing but they
[1:33:48] actually Managed IT in such a way to set
[1:33:50] it towards a specific Target Donald chup
[1:33:53] oftentimes known as kind of the guru of
[1:33:56] parking parking reform you know has
[1:33:59] helped identify this 85% occupancy
[1:34:01] threshold where it's like the ideal set
[1:34:04] you you set your prices to um reach a
[1:34:06] certain occupancy on street so it's not
[1:34:08] too hot not too cold what we've seen in
[1:34:11] programs and pricing programs that have
[1:34:13] failed in other communities is when
[1:34:15] they've tried to make pricing about
[1:34:16] Revenue rather than about actual
[1:34:18] management of parking um and so hence
[1:34:21] theot rightful skepticism uh of parking
[1:34:24] pricing as a practice because it's often
[1:34:26] uh been misused in the past other places
[1:34:29] I will note like in Palo Alto try to get
[1:34:32] around this problem in other ways we're
[1:34:34] currently working with the city of
[1:34:35] paloalto right now um and you know they
[1:34:39] if you're familiar with their program
[1:34:40] they have kind of these colored zones
[1:34:41] within the downtown and you can kind of
[1:34:43] move from one zone to another so long as
[1:34:45] you stay a certain amount of time but
[1:34:46] you can stay all day if you pay
[1:34:48] $15 um it creates a lot of issues it
[1:34:52] basically it's a recipe for shuffling um
[1:34:54] and what I mean by shuffling is you
[1:34:56] almost have an active incentive to
[1:34:57] basically keep moving your car every 2
[1:34:59] to 3 hours so you know from these
[1:35:01] examples we can kind of see the the pros
[1:35:04] and cons of the of these
[1:35:06] models and lastly looking at bicycle
[1:35:08] parking I should note this is not just
[1:35:10] about Vehicles as in cars and vans and
[1:35:13] trucks but it's also about bicycles um
[1:35:15] and that almost every modern code these
[1:35:18] days has really robust bicycle parking
[1:35:20] requirements built into it for new
[1:35:22] developments that are coming online and
[1:35:24] those pertain to both long-term and
[1:35:27] short-term bicycle parking but they go
[1:35:29] beyond that now often times going into
[1:35:32] design standards right going into the
[1:35:34] varing different types of two- wheeled
[1:35:38] vehicles that are available it's not
[1:35:40] simply just a bicycle anymore it's a
[1:35:41] cargo bike it's an ebike it might be a
[1:35:43] micr Mobility device um you might have
[1:35:46] design standards that are specifically
[1:35:49] designed because you might not be able
[1:35:51] to reach up on a wall and be able to
[1:35:54] pull down a bicycle if it's hanging
[1:35:55] vertically so things of this nature that
[1:35:58] we want to be able to incorporate and
[1:36:00] have been done in other
[1:36:02] communities and with that I'll turn it
[1:36:04] back over to
[1:36:06] Phil all right I promise we're almost
[1:36:09] done drink from the fireos here um so
[1:36:12] yeah we also did a scan of best
[1:36:14] practices around uh what other
[1:36:16] communities are doing with their TDM
[1:36:17] Frameworks we looked at four key or five
[1:36:20] core areas uh first was how is the
[1:36:22] program structured
[1:36:24] is it simply an ordinance or Does it
[1:36:26] include a set of complimentary
[1:36:28] guidelines uh kind of a how-to
[1:36:30] guide second was whoops second was
[1:36:34] applicability what projects uh and land
[1:36:37] uses are subject to the policy versus
[1:36:39] exempt uh do the do the policies vary by
[1:36:42] type or location such as proximity to
[1:36:46] Transit uh what are the specific uh
[1:36:48] third was what are the specific targets
[1:36:50] what strategies or items are required
[1:36:52] versus optional
[1:36:54] fourth is what are the metrics for
[1:36:56] success and how is monitoring done and
[1:36:58] by whom and finally what is the
[1:37:01] compliance and enforcement process we
[1:37:04] looked mostly also at areas uh in your
[1:37:07] region and uh as well as one National
[1:37:10] example I think it represents an
[1:37:12] interesting approach with some
[1:37:13] long-standing
[1:37:14] results uh and I'll highlight a few
[1:37:16] theme a key themes across these uh uh
[1:37:20] cities one of the trends we're seeing uh
[1:37:22] in terms of structure
[1:37:24] is a clear concise ordinance
[1:37:26] complemented by a set of guidelines that
[1:37:28] are Standalone uh the guidelines really
[1:37:31] allow cities to provide more detail
[1:37:33] again it's that implementation how to uh
[1:37:36] for the developer employers employers
[1:37:38] property managers and staff and one of
[1:37:40] the key benefits of that is it's easier
[1:37:42] to update over time if your strategies
[1:37:45] change or targets change or methods
[1:37:46] change you don't have to go back and
[1:37:48] update the ordinance every
[1:37:51] time uh second is a pla
[1:37:53] applicability U most cities tier their
[1:37:56] requirements recognizing that projects
[1:37:59] of certain land uses sizes or locations
[1:38:03] have greater potential to generate more
[1:38:05] vehicle trips and therefore uh likely
[1:38:08] need to do more to mitigate those trips
[1:38:10] so for example South San Francisco has
[1:38:12] four tiers uh the highest tier being
[1:38:15] office and R&D development above 400,000
[1:38:18] ft they're subject to the highest TDM
[1:38:21] requirements many es also allow for
[1:38:24] exemptions so for example Brisbane has
[1:38:27] Exempted 100% affordable housing
[1:38:30] projects multif family projects uh
[1:38:33] multif family residential projects less
[1:38:35] than 20 units and single family
[1:38:37] residential projects less than 10
[1:38:39] units more and more TDM policies set a
[1:38:42] Target threshold of trip reduction so
[1:38:45] for yall right now it's that 20% one
[1:38:47] siiz fits all um that can be again
[1:38:49] tiered by or uh calibrated by the
[1:38:52] specific tiers but of often it's a
[1:38:53] percent reduction or a point
[1:38:56] threshold um South San Francisco again
[1:38:58] for example has a point target ranging
[1:39:00] from 20 to 50 depending on what tier
[1:39:04] your project falls into and then
[1:39:06] projects can pick from a menu of
[1:39:08] strategies that have assigned Point
[1:39:11] values uh representative of their
[1:39:14] ability to reduce trips so things that
[1:39:17] reduce vehicle trips more have higher
[1:39:19] Point values thus you want to pick more
[1:39:22] impact trip production strategies worth
[1:39:25] more points um and this really allows
[1:39:27] for flexibility for developers who don't
[1:39:29] want to be mandated to do one specific
[1:39:32] thing um but they can pick and choose
[1:39:35] the strategies for their potential
[1:39:37] tenants um but they can't just say oh
[1:39:39] we'll put in you know a kiosk and some
[1:39:42] bike parking and call it a day right
[1:39:44] there's some meat um and there's some
[1:39:46] meat on the bones of of the of the
[1:39:48] actual
[1:39:50] plan uh mon the monitoring requirements
[1:39:53] vary some are self-report by the
[1:39:56] developer or property owner or employer
[1:39:59] but some are more stringent and often
[1:40:02] have staff-led efforts um the methods
[1:40:05] also vary uh some are mode split travel
[1:40:09] mode surveys of tenants or employees uh
[1:40:12] sometimes we do driveway counts seeing
[1:40:14] how many vehicles are coming in and out
[1:40:15] of a driveway um and often there's an
[1:40:18] annual reporting process uh aligned with
[1:40:21] that a key point I think to drive home
[1:40:22] on the monitoring front is that it does
[1:40:25] take a lot of time um and it's costly
[1:40:28] and the best programs really strike a
[1:40:30] balance between getting lots of data
[1:40:33] important information about how the plan
[1:40:35] is performing but also recognizing that
[1:40:37] it is a resource allocation challenge
[1:40:38] whether it's for uh being overly
[1:40:41] burdensome on the property owner or
[1:40:43] employer or your own staff and finally
[1:40:46] uh what happens in these cities if you
[1:40:49] aren't doing what you said you would do
[1:40:52] uh
[1:40:54] most cities really try and find a kind
[1:40:56] of a balance between having teeth and
[1:40:58] being overly punitive um really
[1:41:02] ultimately defaulting to be a
[1:41:04] collaborative partner often we we kind
[1:41:05] of call it a three strikes model you
[1:41:07] know hey you're not doing well you're
[1:41:09] not doing what you said you do what can
[1:41:10] we work with you to update your plan hey
[1:41:13] you're still not doing well what can we
[1:41:15] do and then kind of The Last Resort is
[1:41:17] is many cities have Financial penalties
[1:41:19] and those can scale um based on size or
[1:41:22] how far away you are from hitting your
[1:41:24] target those types of things so I think
[1:41:27] that's I think that's our presentation
[1:41:29] we threw a ton of stuff at you I realize
[1:41:32] um here is our questions again um
[1:41:35] seeking your feedback on other
[1:41:37] challenges and opportunities any
[1:41:39] questions you had on best practices or
[1:41:41] where we might look a little bit more
[1:41:44] and then as Brian went through earlier
[1:41:46] um we threw out some questions and ideas
[1:41:49] um of where we're looking feedback but
[1:41:50] certainly open to a good conversation
[1:41:53] with
[1:41:54] yall oh sorry and rendle is going to
[1:41:57] close us out just
[1:42:02] one thank you Brian and thank you Phil
[1:42:05] one more slide just to bring our
[1:42:07] presentation to a close just some um
[1:42:09] next steps are listed here which that
[1:42:11] we'll receive your feedback this evening
[1:42:13] and then following this meeting the
[1:42:14] consultant team will then start to
[1:42:16] develop actual reforms um in response to
[1:42:19] your feedback and our stakeholder
[1:42:21] feedback um with the intent of BR this
[1:42:23] item back for additional feedback um in
[1:42:25] L later on in
[1:42:27] 2025 and lastly just for the benefit of
[1:42:30] the public some ways to provide input
[1:42:32] throughout this project um the project
[1:42:35] website's listed here with staff contact
[1:42:37] information on the site as well as the
[1:42:39] email listed here so this concludes
[1:42:42] staff's presentation and the
[1:42:43] consultant's presentation happy to take
[1:42:45] questions thank
[1:42:48] you thank you that was really really
[1:42:52] interesting for anyone who doesn't know
[1:42:54] if parking or Transportation demand
[1:42:57] management is interesting it that was
[1:42:59] crazy interesting
[1:43:01] um I took a lot of notes so um yeah I
[1:43:06] just wanted to open it up to
[1:43:07] Commissioners um with comments questions
[1:43:11] but I think you know the major goal is
[1:43:12] to get some feedback from us as to um
[1:43:17] you know items that we that could help
[1:43:19] answer these questions um our opinions
[1:43:22] but uh who would like to start
[1:43:24] commissioner
[1:43:25] castanada oh yes thank you for that
[1:43:28] great presentation um I mean obviously
[1:43:33] we want to do an update that is going to
[1:43:36] incorporate the changes in law I mean to
[1:43:39] start with of course we want to do that
[1:43:42] but I'm wondering if you could share
[1:43:44] with us the input that you got from the
[1:43:47] focus groups that you talked to on uh
[1:43:50] November the 11th the developers the
[1:43:52] large and employers and and the
[1:43:55] professionals and and the workshop too I
[1:43:58] mean do you have any specific
[1:44:00] recommendations to give us at this
[1:44:03] time I don't think we're at that exact
[1:44:06] stage yet um staff wasn't in attendance
[1:44:08] of every stakeholder meeting
[1:44:11] intentionally um to provide a more open
[1:44:13] forum for developers and large employers
[1:44:15] particularly um I think overall the
[1:44:18] feedback was varied with different
[1:44:19] highlights from each group given their
[1:44:21] interests in parking and seating
[1:44:23] but I'll look to Brian if you wanted to
[1:44:25] add any kind of highlights from the
[1:44:27] various stakeholder
[1:44:30] meetings
[1:44:31] sure were there were there specific uh
[1:44:34] stakeholder groups that you were
[1:44:35] interested in or just in
[1:44:37] general um well I was thinking of the
[1:44:40] the large employers particularly and the
[1:44:42] developers okay I'll I'll we'll kind of
[1:44:45] tag tag team this some of the groups
[1:44:46] were more interested in the parking
[1:44:48] aspects and some were a little bit more
[1:44:49] interested in the transportation demand
[1:44:51] management um not surprisingly I'll I'll
[1:44:53] speak to the developers and I'll turn
[1:44:55] over to Phil to speak to the to the
[1:44:56] large employers so when we talk to the
[1:44:58] developers we had both residential and
[1:45:01] non-residential in the room and I kind
[1:45:05] of maybe alluded to this a little bit
[1:45:06] earlier because we've also done similar
[1:45:08] exercises in other communities but when
[1:45:10] we bring these sorts of issues to
[1:45:11] developers often times what we hear is
[1:45:13] yes we understand these are you know the
[1:45:15] city's goals and what they're they're
[1:45:16] working towards but developers are often
[1:45:19] times keeping an eye on the bottom line
[1:45:21] um and not want
[1:45:23] anything to uh interfere with that at
[1:45:27] the end of the day um looking at what we
[1:45:30] saw here there was a realization that on
[1:45:33] the residential side that your parking
[1:45:35] ratios for example can vary based on
[1:45:38] your placement within the city right so
[1:45:39] if you are closer to the Cal TR station
[1:45:42] or in that that Transit oriented
[1:45:44] District maybe one space per unit can
[1:45:46] can work and it also can might vary a
[1:45:48] bit I think depending on whether it's uh
[1:45:51] below market rate or market rate housing
[1:45:54] um on the non-residential side I think
[1:45:58] there was a understanding that the the
[1:46:02] mtct TC policy which is at 2 and a half
[1:46:05] per
[1:46:06] thousand can work for offices I think or
[1:46:09] sorry R&D research and development but
[1:46:12] there was some hesitation about whether
[1:46:14] that can easily transition to to office
[1:46:17] or other more intense
[1:46:18] uses um okay the question I'll say one
[1:46:22] one last thing and I'll switch over to
[1:46:23] Phill but in terms of the shared parking
[1:46:26] I think residential developers were
[1:46:27] pretty clear that shared parking would
[1:46:29] be very difficult to to function which
[1:46:32] is not uncommon um but even from
[1:46:34] non-residential developers it was it
[1:46:36] there was some hesitancy around it um
[1:46:39] again so I think there would need to be
[1:46:40] adequate um protections kind of built
[1:46:43] into
[1:46:46] it know thank you commissioner great
[1:46:48] question uh we heard a lot of amazing
[1:46:50] feedback I think a couple highlights one
[1:46:53] was definitely a recognition that TDM
[1:46:56] and transportation demand management is
[1:46:58] needed uh concerns about traffic impacts
[1:47:01] partic particularly as we look towards
[1:47:03] the amount of development that um the
[1:47:05] city is is moving towards um it's on
[1:47:09] things are balanced now things are kind
[1:47:11] of working now but again kind of
[1:47:13] concerns about you know it will that
[1:47:15] will things get out of balance
[1:47:17] particularly with our policy and and a
[1:47:18] lot of the new development coming in uh
[1:47:20] we had some great feedback from um some
[1:47:24] of the smaller employers saying we'd
[1:47:26] love to do this stuff but we don't have
[1:47:27] the resources to do it so it speaks to
[1:47:30] how can the city as a whole uh help
[1:47:34] collaborate and help um stitch together
[1:47:37] some programs that support some of the
[1:47:39] smaller businesses that can't maybe
[1:47:42] can't afford to hand out Transit passes
[1:47:44] or can't stand up uh a a big TDM program
[1:47:48] on their own uh I think uh others are
[1:47:53] recognize that they this is something
[1:47:55] that they need to do from a development
[1:47:56] perspective but really want to make sure
[1:47:59] that the burden is reasonable and that
[1:48:02] the process is user friendly right now
[1:48:05] you essentially have two TDM ordinances
[1:48:07] you have the regional one that
[1:48:09] developers need to go through and you
[1:48:11] have your TDM ordinance and they aren't
[1:48:14] in they aren't totally aligned so it's
[1:48:16] it kind of doing two things so I think
[1:48:17] there's a desire for a streamline
[1:48:20] process and streamline tools to do that
[1:48:22] and then finally I think in terms of
[1:48:24] specific strategies there's a desire for
[1:48:27] flexibility right don't tell us we have
[1:48:30] to do a b CDE e for every single project
[1:48:34] give us that menu of choice and make and
[1:48:37] let us figure out kind of the best thing
[1:48:40] that'll serve our tenants um I think on
[1:48:42] the city side right you have to again
[1:48:44] make sure that that combination of
[1:48:46] things that they're picking is going to
[1:48:48] meet that the meet the goals that you
[1:48:49] all set okay so that that those are some
[1:48:52] highights okay that's good thank you
[1:48:55] thank you U the only thing i' I'd just
[1:48:58] say in followup is
[1:49:01] um I want to see as much flexibility in
[1:49:05] a plan as we could get and that includes
[1:49:07] with the numbers uh with ranges with you
[1:49:10] know plus or minuses and also I think
[1:49:15] and I think you pointed this out that
[1:49:17] there there are going to have to be
[1:49:19] different rules for for different
[1:49:20] densities different different areas is
[1:49:23] those are certainly things that that I
[1:49:25] would like to
[1:49:27] see so I'll let turn it over to someone
[1:49:30] else now thanks commissioner
[1:49:33] commissioner
[1:49:35] anad thank you for the presentation um
[1:49:38] I'm wondering if this project involved
[1:49:40] or involves schools um in particular
[1:49:43] there's a pocket in San Carlos where we
[1:49:44] have about five schools in the same
[1:49:47] location and it's a nightmare
[1:49:48] traffic-wise be it public or private
[1:49:50] transportation so how how how are
[1:49:52] schools um featured in this project or
[1:49:55] if they are in the scope of
[1:50:00] this so the bulk of this project is
[1:50:02] really focused on new development right
[1:50:05] so we're changing the code most of that
[1:50:07] will affect new development the question
[1:50:08] has come up from City staff and that's
[1:50:11] that we would we absolutely welcome your
[1:50:13] feedback on this um is whether or not
[1:50:16] these policies particularly
[1:50:17] Transportation demand management should
[1:50:18] apply to existing development very few
[1:50:20] communities do this but it is possible
[1:50:23] um so in terms right now the way we're
[1:50:25] looking at in terms of schools it would
[1:50:27] be mostly affected by the management of
[1:50:28] on street parking right you have an
[1:50:30] existing School we're not necessarily
[1:50:32] proposing that they change their off
[1:50:34] street parking but we might recommend um
[1:50:37] different uh a different framework for
[1:50:39] how they manage their on street parking
[1:50:41] but if you do have other desires like
[1:50:44] you know managing TDM programs for
[1:50:46] existing development we'd love to hear
[1:50:47] that as well or if you would oppose that
[1:50:50] so does it mean that if there's a new
[1:50:52] development coming coming up where there
[1:50:53] is a school nearby the on street parking
[1:50:57] uh ordinances might
[1:50:58] change yes so I mean so the idea here
[1:51:01] with the on street parking and what
[1:51:02] we're kind of leaning towards right now
[1:51:04] is to allow flexibility so that if you
[1:51:07] do have a new development and you are in
[1:51:08] a school zone that you have maybe
[1:51:10] different rules and procedures put in
[1:51:12] place than you would perhaps in a
[1:51:15] residential area or whatever the case
[1:51:16] happens to be so yes that that that
[1:51:18] element would be built in thank you
[1:51:23] commissioner
[1:51:24] Bundy lots of topics here um first of
[1:51:28] all I really appreciate this refresh you
[1:51:30] know bringing together an integrated
[1:51:31] framework that's incorporating the new
[1:51:34] legislative requirements and the
[1:51:35] policies and plans and parking can be
[1:51:38] such a lightning rod issue as new
[1:51:40] development projects come before us and
[1:51:42] so I think it's really important that
[1:51:43] we're really intentional about this um
[1:51:46] and appreciate that this is like a data
[1:51:48] driven process it's incorporating
[1:51:50] stakeholder feedback and best practices
[1:51:52] from around the region and and your own
[1:51:54] expertise working across the country so
[1:51:56] really appreciate that aspect of it I
[1:51:59] guess focusing in on your questions I
[1:52:00] think you're posing a tension here
[1:52:02] between the MTC obag grants and
[1:52:05] development feasibility and could you
[1:52:07] elaborate Enlighten us a little bit more
[1:52:09] on what you see as that tension that
[1:52:11] we're we're trying to
[1:52:14] balance sure um so to be a little bit
[1:52:17] more specific you know I'll give you
[1:52:19] actually firm numbers to deal with here
[1:52:21] so when we looked at
[1:52:23] developments um I'll use multi-unit
[1:52:27] residential here so the mtct policy pegs
[1:52:30] it at one space per unit the maximum and
[1:52:32] that can be on an individual lot basis
[1:52:34] or parking District this is only within
[1:52:36] a half a mile by the way of like for
[1:52:38] example the Cal Train Station looking at
[1:52:41] the developments that have been built
[1:52:42] within the past five years here your
[1:52:46] average multi-unit market rate
[1:52:50] development has 1.7 space is built per
[1:52:53] unit your below market rate has
[1:52:56] 7 um based on those ratios if I'm a
[1:52:59] developer coming in and I want to build
[1:53:00] those ratios that could be problematic
[1:53:02] right and so the the tension that I'm
[1:53:04] speaking to here is if we do pursue and
[1:53:08] we say yes we do want to maintain oag
[1:53:10] funding for the city and set it at one
[1:53:13] one per
[1:53:15] unit um is you know we have to realize
[1:53:19] how that affects potential devel
[1:53:21] development feasibility That Could That
[1:53:23] Could materialize in different ways also
[1:53:25] because it's based on a per unit basis
[1:53:27] you could it could incentivize
[1:53:28] developers I don't know to build more
[1:53:31] one bedrooms and Studios rather than two
[1:53:34] or three bedroom units we also plan on
[1:53:36] having a conversation with MTC to see
[1:53:38] what flexibility is available within the
[1:53:41] TOC policy the way it reads right now
[1:53:44] just literally is just there's not a lot
[1:53:47] there um so we want to better understand
[1:53:49] for example can we build in you know
[1:53:51] provision Serv to say yes you can exceed
[1:53:54] this if you provide some sort of
[1:53:56] community benefit um but that's we want
[1:53:59] to be cognizant of this of this tension
[1:54:01] between setting maximums that are
[1:54:04] potentially too low um and threatening
[1:54:07] housing Supply especially when the city
[1:54:08] is on the hook for making its Arena
[1:54:10] targets and other things of that sort
[1:54:12] and are oag grants what kinds of
[1:54:15] projects are they funding how
[1:54:16] substantive are they in the funding
[1:54:18] stream for the types of projects that
[1:54:21] they cover that would be a City question
[1:54:23] I'm not sure what um how you've used oag
[1:54:25] funding in the
[1:54:27] past I'll come
[1:54:31] up yeah sorry I just can't I can't speak
[1:54:33] to
[1:54:39] that thank you for the question
[1:54:41] commissioner uh Lisa poris planning
[1:54:43] manager Advanced planning division so
[1:54:44] the city has received one Bay Area
[1:54:46] grants obat grants in the past to to the
[1:54:49] tune of about 3.5 million over the
[1:54:51] course of I'd say maybe four or five
[1:54:54] years um and a lot of them have been
[1:54:57] used as capital projects to improve um
[1:55:00] Street conditions for example we
[1:55:02] received a wbe area Grant to impr
[1:55:03] improve a portion of El Camino Real near
[1:55:06] the or Royo uh Avenue intersection um so
[1:55:11] um the way that staff is looking at the
[1:55:13] one Bay Area Grant opportunity and again
[1:55:16] they are changing their eligibility
[1:55:18] criteria so they've started meeting with
[1:55:20] local jurisdictions very far in Advance
[1:55:22] you know there's nine counties in the
[1:55:24] Bay Area region many many cities so um
[1:55:28] we in conversations with our Public
[1:55:29] Works Division and in recognition of a
[1:55:32] lot of the initiatives that are underway
[1:55:34] improvements to the downtown and a lot
[1:55:36] of other Capital Improvements the city
[1:55:38] would like to undertake um we are very
[1:55:41] um interested in making sure that the
[1:55:43] city is eligible but we want to like
[1:55:46] Brian mentioned have conversations with
[1:55:49] um abag and MTC staff to see if there is
[1:55:51] that Flex abbility but at this point um
[1:55:54] it is um something that we're aiming
[1:55:56] towards we think it would be great for
[1:55:58] the city to be competitive and to be
[1:56:00] able to get grant funding for the
[1:56:02] projects that we need or for the
[1:56:03] projects that we are planning for thank
[1:56:06] you very much
[1:56:09] yeah anything else Comm bendy yeah I
[1:56:11] mean I guess my thoughts on that that
[1:56:13] definitely exploring that flexibility
[1:56:16] you know I think if the oag numbers stay
[1:56:19] in place region wide then the new
[1:56:21] housing stock sort of regionally you
[1:56:23] know starts to shift in that way so um
[1:56:26] you know by giving up land for parking
[1:56:28] we are giving up land for units so I
[1:56:30] think it you know understanding that
[1:56:32] flexibility um and continuing to to poke
[1:56:35] on that question seems like a good
[1:56:38] direction to
[1:56:40] head thanks um I have a a couple
[1:56:43] questions and some comments but um I I'm
[1:56:47] assuming for the parking strategy we may
[1:56:49] be also looking at how the city-owned
[1:56:53] parking is being used um and are we
[1:56:56] doing any um parking surveys for how
[1:57:00] much the privately owned parking is
[1:57:02] being used and and how we can think
[1:57:04] about things perhaps in a in a zone or a
[1:57:07] region or small region um for you know
[1:57:11] like a Downtown parking um plan if you
[1:57:14] will excellent question uh I'm actually
[1:57:18] the project manager for the Downtown
[1:57:19] parking management plan uh which is a
[1:57:22] separate project um and so we do
[1:57:24] actually have comprehensive occupancy
[1:57:27] and inventory data for the downtown got
[1:57:30] it um we actually you know conducted
[1:57:32] data counts on you know a few different
[1:57:34] days several hours and so forth so we do
[1:57:36] have that data for the
[1:57:38] downtown for the city as a whole sorry
[1:57:40] I'm G I'm going to back up to one of the
[1:57:42] previous Graphics here just so you can
[1:57:43] see it on the screen um here these zones
[1:57:48] that we had identified within the city
[1:57:50] you know obviously the entire city is
[1:57:52] important and we'll be crafting or
[1:57:54] ordinances to accommodate that but this
[1:57:56] is really where the bulk of future
[1:57:58] development could take place and we want
[1:58:01] to be cognizant of that and so what we
[1:58:02] did was we already have the occupancy
[1:58:04] and inventory data for downtown Stan
[1:58:06] Carlos we just completed an essentially
[1:58:11] a review of the parking inventory for
[1:58:14] all of these districts um and I
[1:58:17] literally just got those numbers about
[1:58:18] an hour ago um and so I think if I'm not
[1:58:21] mist staken there's about 21 half
[1:58:23] thousand parking spaces um that are um
[1:58:27] visually accessible which means there's
[1:58:30] more um so we do have a sense of how
[1:58:33] much parking is there um this is data
[1:58:36] that will be folded into the existing
[1:58:37] conditions report because it also gives
[1:58:39] a scale on how much
[1:58:42] um land and resources is devoted to
[1:58:45] parking within the city of Stan Carlos
[1:58:47] and kind of gives a perspective on
[1:58:50] it thanks
[1:58:53] um you know it seems to me that with for
[1:58:56] a city that has a small footprint tight
[1:58:59] sites the idea of first Regional parking
[1:59:03] um and then second shared parking it
[1:59:06] seems kind of like a natural fit I do
[1:59:08] think um obviously we need to be really
[1:59:11] cognizant of what we hear from the
[1:59:14] development community and perhaps The
[1:59:16] Lending community directly as to what
[1:59:19] their tolerance is for parking to day
[1:59:22] and again this will change over time but
[1:59:25] I I think I think I mean big picture the
[1:59:30] um the the TOC standards in my
[1:59:34] experience that I have looked at from a
[1:59:36] housing perspective are really
[1:59:38] aspirational they are not standard they
[1:59:40] are not common and so I know they're
[1:59:43] trying to you know drive everyone in a
[1:59:46] certain direction but I don't
[1:59:49] think I I do think that conversations
[1:59:52] about being more specific and being and
[1:59:55] getting them to add some flexibility
[1:59:58] especially for parking ratios in
[2:00:00] different kinds of markets I mean can
[2:00:01] you imagine like San Ramone having these
[2:00:04] conversations like yes they may have a
[2:00:06] Transit Center but come on everyone uses
[2:00:08] cars in certain places folks are not you
[2:00:12] know all in downtown San Francisco where
[2:00:14] they're choosing not to have own cars so
[2:00:17] I I think it's important that they have
[2:00:19] some more
[2:00:20] flexibility um or or else I I just feel
[2:00:23] like we're going to have communities
[2:00:25] vowing and putting in place things to
[2:00:27] get funding and then that just won't be
[2:00:29] successful we're not going to see the
[2:00:30] housing production that we need and I do
[2:00:33] think that that concern is real um from
[2:00:35] the development
[2:00:37] Community um I think it makes a ton of
[2:00:41] sense to copy um you know other
[2:00:43] jurisdictions if they've got menus of
[2:00:45] TDM options that have you know score by
[2:00:49] impacts it makes sense to just do what
[2:00:52] other people have done um and and to try
[2:00:55] to do it well because if you've got the
[2:00:56] standardized list then you're going to
[2:00:57] get standardized data from the list
[2:01:00] right and be able to monitor it better
[2:01:01] so that makes a ton of sense to
[2:01:03] me um I work in San Jose we do have and
[2:01:08] we did um I did coordinate with our um
[2:01:10] Department of Transportation to create
[2:01:13] kind of a pass on TDM analysis for 100%
[2:01:16] restricted affordable properties they
[2:01:19] were able to make the findings for that
[2:01:21] because um Folks at lower incomes are
[2:01:23] more likely to use Transit and so um the
[2:01:28] way that our policy works there is that
[2:01:31] the um the impact is assessed and then
[2:01:34] the question of the offsets or the
[2:01:37] amelioration of the impact if that
[2:01:40] cannot be afforded and oftentimes these
[2:01:42] are projects the city is subsidizing
[2:01:45] right and so you know you can have them
[2:01:48] do all kinds of bells and whistles
[2:01:49] really that's just going to come
[2:01:50] potentially from public funding sources
[2:01:53] um in the end um so they're assessed but
[2:01:57] then if they cannot afford some of the
[2:02:00] offsets or they cannot afford the
[2:02:02] monitoring then kind of a pass is given
[2:02:05] so it's recognizing that everybody has
[2:02:08] impacts um I do think that you know as
[2:02:12] we look at TDM and monitoring obviously
[2:02:17] there are certain kinds of businesses
[2:02:19] more able and more and owners more able
[2:02:21] to accommodate um the costs of
[2:02:25] monitoring and the costs of delivering
[2:02:27] the offsets right so the I think it's
[2:02:31] really important to kind of get that
[2:02:33] feedback early um you know R&D versus
[2:02:36] little small businesses obviously crazy
[2:02:39] different in terms of their ability to
[2:02:41] afford different um different uh
[2:02:44] features for their
[2:02:47] projects so I think I I do think it's I
[2:02:51] think it's an intriguing question which
[2:02:53] is is there something um I is there the
[2:02:58] opportunity for some contribution from
[2:03:02] um Community benefits dollars that could
[2:03:06] go for you know small businesses in the
[2:03:08] downtown um could they as an example
[2:03:11] could the city help fund like an echo
[2:03:13] pass or whatever the program would be
[2:03:15] for Sam trans um and to have that kind
[2:03:18] of subsidy for the workers in the
[2:03:20] downtown um that the city can help work
[2:03:23] with the regional government to um get
[2:03:26] the discount for people so um either
[2:03:30] with its own budget or with payments
[2:03:32] from Community benefits agreements that
[2:03:35] could go for these kinds of uses um so I
[2:03:39] think investigating that is all very
[2:03:42] interesting and um finally there are
[2:03:45] just so many things to talk about here
[2:03:46] so I'll stop after this but I do um I do
[2:03:50] support the collection of some fees to
[2:03:53] monitor the outcomes there's no way to
[2:03:56] for TDM um and maybe for parking too but
[2:03:59] there's no way to put these things in
[2:04:01] place and then not fund staff to be able
[2:04:04] to analy collect the data and analyze
[2:04:06] the data that just that defeats the
[2:04:08] purpose of having the program at all
[2:04:09] right so I do support um analysis for
[2:04:13] what it would take for staff to either
[2:04:15] do the analysis themselves or to hire
[2:04:18] Consulting assistants to do that in a
[2:04:20] certain way with a certain free
[2:04:21] frequency and just see what that looks
[2:04:24] like um if it's spread widely enough on
[2:04:29] and it gets to your question of is this
[2:04:31] just for new developments are these
[2:04:33] requirements for new developments or is
[2:04:34] it you know more Global for the TDM um
[2:04:39] if it's spread among more parties then
[2:04:41] it would be you know less per party to
[2:04:43] pay so I'm I'm kind of interested as to
[2:04:47] what that might look like for you know
[2:04:50] existing properties as well I don't know
[2:04:52] I don't know how out there how extreme
[2:04:55] that is or how many communities do that
[2:04:57] for existing properties
[2:04:59] but um so I you know finally I just I
[2:05:03] think this is an a really exciting
[2:05:05] project and I I do see how the parking
[2:05:07] strategy and the TDM go together because
[2:05:10] of the push and pull on the public
[2:05:12] resources which we all have given free
[2:05:14] of charge for parking at the curb and
[2:05:16] parking on our streets and intentionally
[2:05:19] not charging for parking in the downtown
[2:05:21] and I I'm glad that we're looking at all
[2:05:23] of it kind of
[2:05:24] holistically and um and looking you know
[2:05:28] taking obviously a really fact-based
[2:05:29] approach to what works I think you know
[2:05:33] if you if you talk to downtown owners or
[2:05:36] you talk to Residents and they'll be
[2:05:37] like I love my free parking right that
[2:05:41] is totally valid and there's a
[2:05:43] perception that it's important and it
[2:05:44] drives business and I think the question
[2:05:46] is um could charging a very small amount
[2:05:50] like Redwood City does
[2:05:52] help the cars cycle through so you
[2:05:54] actually get more business potentially
[2:05:57] um in you know over the over the hours
[2:06:00] so it you know I think just taking a
[2:06:02] fast fact-based approach to how these
[2:06:04] are working in other communities is
[2:06:05] going to be really helpful for us
[2:06:07] because we all want to drive traffic so
[2:06:10] to speak foot traffic um business to our
[2:06:13] businesses so anyway those are some of
[2:06:16] my thoughts this is really an exciting
[2:06:19] project so I appreciate you coming to us
[2:06:21] and um I personally look forward to
[2:06:24] working some more on this as overtime as
[2:06:27] we are the TAC I guess so that's
[2:06:30] great those are my thoughts any other
[2:06:32] commissioner thoughts before we wrap
[2:06:35] yeah commission a couple more um I mean
[2:06:38] first of all I think this idea of
[2:06:40] incentivizing the most impactful
[2:06:41] measures be that through a points based
[2:06:43] system or the design guidance I think
[2:06:46] that's um really a valuable approach and
[2:06:49] then the monitoring is something I'm
[2:06:51] really interested in I think you know
[2:06:53] what is the true value of the
[2:06:54] self-reported monitoring how burdensome
[2:06:56] is it what are we doing with the
[2:06:58] information like we shouldn't just be
[2:06:59] reporting for reporting sake um so
[2:07:02] really you know looking at what those
[2:07:04] thresholds should be for different
[2:07:05] project types and I think particularly
[2:07:07] the multif family development of 10
[2:07:09] units or more that feels like a kind of
[2:07:11] low threshold um particularly if we're
[2:07:14] seeing that the measures they've
[2:07:15] included are ones that we know to have
[2:07:17] been effective and then the other
[2:07:19] question I think it's important to um
[2:07:21] consider like the wheelchair users and
[2:07:24] disability groups and how they're
[2:07:25] impacted by these policies so just over
[2:07:27] time if you could share how you're
[2:07:30] getting input from those user groups um
[2:07:32] I imagine we're already doing things in
[2:07:34] San Carlos that are serving those user
[2:07:36] groups and learning what best practices
[2:07:38] are just to ensure that we're not you
[2:07:40] know sort of I see that a lot you know
[2:07:42] next door and whatnot as far as you know
[2:07:44] I'm elderly and I need to be able to run
[2:07:46] into the cleaners so how are we really
[2:07:49] making sure those those user groups are
[2:07:51] accommodated as we uh reinv Vision the
[2:07:53] parking strategies so that's just
[2:07:55] comments for the future commissioner can
[2:07:58] I just ask a clarifying question on one
[2:07:59] of your comments um you mentioned the
[2:08:02] 10un threshold can you just clarify kind
[2:08:05] of your where your thoughts lie on kind
[2:08:08] of that that level of threshold whether
[2:08:10] it's too high too low you'd like to
[2:08:12] see it it raise to exempt projects that
[2:08:17] are 15 units or maybe you don't know yet
[2:08:19] but I just kind of wanted that
[2:08:20] clarifying yeah I don't have a number
[2:08:22] for you today a 10un um multif Family
[2:08:26] development that requires annual
[2:08:28] monitoring reports I just I wonder if
[2:08:31] that is um an overly burdensome
[2:08:33] requirement for you know the sort of
[2:08:35] long-term of the project particularly if
[2:08:38] you know it's it's within the half mile
[2:08:40] of the transit we've Incorporated the
[2:08:43] housing maximum you know if there's
[2:08:45] other measures that are sort of proven
[2:08:47] um what is the real value to us in
[2:08:51] requiring that and how burdensome is
[2:08:53] that you know in a in perpetuity to
[2:08:55] these developments it's a so I would say
[2:08:57] that my impulse is that it feels low um
[2:09:01] and that I would be interested in
[2:09:04] understanding if there's a you know a
[2:09:05] more reasonable threshold you know maybe
[2:09:07] if it's like one developer who owns many
[2:09:10] 10un thresholds that's a different
[2:09:12] question than a single developer so I
[2:09:14] think that that's one that I thought the
[2:09:17] burden might be outsized yeah many of
[2:09:20] the communities that we highlighted in
[2:09:21] our best practices have have higher
[2:09:24] thresholds about 20 units is typically
[2:09:26] both both the city and the CAG
[2:09:29] requirement recognizing again that those
[2:09:32] projects have lower impact on the
[2:09:35] transportation
[2:09:37] Network thank you thanks commissioner
[2:09:41] let me I just wanted to note one more
[2:09:43] thing while we're thinking of it um I
[2:09:45] did have the same thought um that you
[2:09:49] had done uh Brian that
[2:09:52] parking standards that are go by unit
[2:09:55] rather than by bedroom drive to smaller
[2:09:59] units and that may or may not have
[2:10:01] anything to do with what we need here
[2:10:03] for housing stock in St Carlos and I I I
[2:10:06] find that to be strangely non-specific
[2:10:11] so I encourage us to um you know pursue
[2:10:15] more conversations with with MTC on the
[2:10:18] TOC and I I I know a lot of
[2:10:20] jurisdictions are having questions um
[2:10:22] and conversations with them and again
[2:10:25] the level of detail on some of the
[2:10:27] program requirements I it's not just
[2:10:30] like do you have a program that does X
[2:10:32] it's that you do you have a program that
[2:10:33] does X in the following way that's
[2:10:35] consistent in the following time like
[2:10:37] all the many many details maybe don't
[2:10:40] all hang together for a lot of
[2:10:42] jurisdictions and still make a lot of um
[2:10:44] organ you know a lot of cities eligible
[2:10:46] for funding which I I don't I think it a
[2:10:50] little defeats the purpose of trying to
[2:10:52] improve things if no one can access the
[2:10:53] funds to improve things so so I
[2:10:56] encourage those conversations as well
[2:10:58] absolutely we we that was one of the
[2:10:59] questions we had for them is because it
[2:11:01] only reads as a per unit could be per
[2:11:03] bedroom which is oftentimes a better
[2:11:06] judge of parking demand I will note just
[2:11:09] for because I failed to I omitted this
[2:11:11] in my presentation but mtc's and its Toc
[2:11:14] policy there are four tiers of categor
[2:11:17] so they don't necessarily apply the same
[2:11:18] category for every Community here in St
[2:11:20] Carlos it's tier three okay so in other
[2:11:23] communities it could be tier one which
[2:11:25] is like downtown San Francisco in which
[2:11:27] the maximums are very very low um but
[2:11:29] again I think that was their attempt to
[2:11:31] try to match the requirements with
[2:11:36] appropriate development feasibility
[2:11:38] again that's I think we need to kind of
[2:11:39] work through that a little bit with MTC
[2:11:41] to see how it actually functions yeah
[2:11:43] thank you for that and I I would just
[2:11:45] say development feasibility changes
[2:11:46] every minute of the day and so you know
[2:11:49] to try to second guess what the market
[2:11:51] will produce today versus 3 months from
[2:11:53] now versus two years from now is very
[2:11:55] hard so I do think flexibility um is
[2:11:58] warranted and and I I would say that
[2:12:01] housing production is really a Paramount
[2:12:04] objective this is we've spent so much
[2:12:06] time trying to do a housing element that
[2:12:08] will result or like you know increase
[2:12:10] the likelihood of more housing and we we
[2:12:13] really need it so I have two more quick
[2:12:16] things good good so sorry um one is the
[2:12:19] idea of continuing to explore the shared
[2:12:21] parking I think 40% of the units are
[2:12:24] shared and I know that I certainly have
[2:12:26] driven the back alleys and there's
[2:12:28] parking that's very empty and I can't
[2:12:30] park there because I'm not going to that
[2:12:31] specific business so um I think
[2:12:34] exploring that and then I'm also very
[2:12:35] interested in that parking District
[2:12:37] concept and would like to learn more
[2:12:40] about where it's working how it's
[2:12:42] working um I think I'm somewhat familiar
[2:12:44] with Mission Rock and how they you know
[2:12:46] Incorporated some shared parking
[2:12:48] structures and the district approach so
[2:12:50] it would be great to learn you know from
[2:12:52] others how that's playing out I think
[2:12:54] that given the um small geographic area
[2:12:58] we're looking at that is a real
[2:12:59] opportunity for us yeah absolutely I'll
[2:13:02] just quickly comment on both of those
[2:13:04] but the shared parking I think we're
[2:13:05] going to be looking at it both from um
[2:13:08] how it could apply to existing
[2:13:10] development and and our future so we
[2:13:12] might have different mechanisms for both
[2:13:14] depending on where it is um and then on
[2:13:17] the district based approach that's
[2:13:19] something that we want to to look at not
[2:13:22] only in terms of just generally Like a
[2:13:24] downtown district and how you can better
[2:13:26] pull your resources but also for for
[2:13:28] existing development but also how that
[2:13:31] could work from an MTC Toc policy
[2:13:34] compliance because according to them you
[2:13:36] can treat it as one big District but one
[2:13:39] of the points I came up with the
[2:13:40] developers is to say well that's great
[2:13:42] let's say you have 10,000 parking spaces
[2:13:44] that are available in the district does
[2:13:47] that just mean that the first
[2:13:48] development's in get to use up most of
[2:13:49] them and then everyone else is kind of
[2:13:51] doesn't or how does that function and so
[2:13:53] again another toing talking point for
[2:13:55] MTC and clarifying how their District
[2:13:57] approach would
[2:13:59] work right can I ask a question pleas um
[2:14:03] I'm curious how did how does the
[2:14:05] electric vehicle uh parking spots
[2:14:09] feature in this whole
[2:14:11] study sure I I'll actually um I'm going
[2:14:14] to expand upon the question to actually
[2:14:16] answer two there two related questions
[2:14:19] regarding electric vehicles
[2:14:21] generally It's relatively simple you
[2:14:23] want to be in compliance with Cal green
[2:14:25] standards um Cal green standards are
[2:14:27] updated periodically it includes a whole
[2:14:30] host of requirements in terms of number
[2:14:32] of spaces type of spaces and so forth
[2:14:34] and so that I wouldn't necessarily say
[2:14:36] we're going to look at as part of your
[2:14:37] code more than just to say stay in
[2:14:39] compliance with that in terms of on
[2:14:43] Street accessible disabled spaces right
[2:14:46] now the federal government or I should
[2:14:48] say the Department of Transportation is
[2:14:50] considering adoption of the
[2:14:52] public
[2:14:53] RightWay accessibility guidelines proag
[2:14:56] thank you Phil um and uh the proag the
[2:15:00] guidelines there essentially determine
[2:15:02] there's a whole host of things that
[2:15:03] includes in there one of the things that
[2:15:05] includes is mandating a a minimum number
[2:15:09] of accessible on Street spaces per block
[2:15:13] face so it's not just off street it's
[2:15:14] also on Street certain has been adopted
[2:15:17] by some agencies but not by the
[2:15:19] Department of Transportation yet we're
[2:15:20] waiting for that to happen in
[2:15:22] 2025 with the change of administration I
[2:15:24] don't know how that's going to affect it
[2:15:26] um hopefully we'll still get adopted but
[2:15:28] again if it we will be keeping close eye
[2:15:31] on that and make sure that if it does
[2:15:33] get adopted obviously it'll be
[2:15:34] incorporated into everything that we
[2:15:36] do thank
[2:15:39] you yeah I just have one final point
[2:15:42] when we're thinking about um timing and
[2:15:46] pricing and trying to optimize turnover
[2:15:49] of parking that when we're considering
[2:15:52] our downtown commercial area I I want us
[2:15:55] to do the best job we can to make sure
[2:15:58] that the merchants are going to have
[2:16:00] parking spaces so you know optimizing
[2:16:03] the turnover time so that people have
[2:16:05] time to go can go in and park and shop
[2:16:08] and then get out of there so the next
[2:16:10] person can come in I think is just
[2:16:11] essential for our downtown area great no
[2:16:15] and and that's really one of the key
[2:16:17] elements of this but again whatever we
[2:16:20] propose as as part of this again because
[2:16:22] this is kind of the 30,000 foot level
[2:16:23] and we're talking about a framework
[2:16:25] that's exactly the sort of input we want
[2:16:26] to hear because you're saying that is an
[2:16:28] outcome that we want to see right we're
[2:16:30] trying to identify like high turnover in
[2:16:32] these sorts of area these business
[2:16:34] districts so thank you for
[2:16:36] that thank you um and I I neglected to
[2:16:39] say one more thing before we go to next
[2:16:41] steps which is I we do hear a lot of
[2:16:44] residents that live close to the
[2:16:47] downtown I'm really asking about
[2:16:49] residential permit stickers right so I I
[2:16:52] think this is a good opportunity to kind
[2:16:54] of look at how that how that could work
[2:16:57] well I'm glad to hear that the gesc
[2:17:00] stickers are working and um and I do
[2:17:03] think it may make sense for some other
[2:17:05] community some other neighborhoods that
[2:17:07] align Laurel at least and maybe St
[2:17:10] Carlos um to also be considering that
[2:17:13] and to see if that could make a
[2:17:14] difference um so thanks with this um
[2:17:20] have we taken public comment we have not
[2:17:22] sorry about that one at this point
[2:17:25] there's no one here in Chambers for
[2:17:27] public comment Lynette I wanted to see
[2:17:29] if anybody as we open a public comment
[2:17:32] um is interested in making a comment on
[2:17:35] zoom we're on session um item 8A the
[2:17:38] study session on Transportation demand
[2:17:40] management and parking reform um Lynette
[2:17:43] do we have any people on Zoom who would
[2:17:46] like to raise their hand and make there
[2:17:48] are no hands raised at the moment
[2:17:51] okay thanks we're going to hold it open
[2:17:54] for another half minute or so we'd like
[2:17:56] to create this cue on Zoom for folks who
[2:18:00] would like to speak and then um and have
[2:18:03] waited to do so thank you for your
[2:18:05] patience if anyone might like to um you
[2:18:07] could have two minutes um soft pedaling
[2:18:11] here uh is anyone now with their hand
[2:18:15] raised on Zoom Lynette there are none
[2:18:18] okay with that um will um ask for a
[2:18:22] motion gu to close public
[2:18:25] comment I move that we close public
[2:18:28] comment thank you and a second I second
[2:18:32] thank you R call for Andrea commissioner
[2:18:36] Bundy commissioner Anand yes
[2:18:38] commissioner castanada yes Vice chair
[2:18:41] Garvey is excused chair Clemens yes
[2:18:44] thank you would any Commissioners like
[2:18:46] to um uh leave any parting final
[2:18:49] thoughts I know we could have taken
[2:18:51] public comment earlier I apologize for
[2:18:53] that but any last thoughts or
[2:18:56] questions yeah commissioner Anand I'm
[2:18:59] just going to end with the with the fact
[2:19:01] about me I'm a big fan of Simplicity but
[2:19:03] I would advocate for complexity in this
[2:19:06] case um because our it I am also a fan
[2:19:10] of learning from other successes so
[2:19:12] thank you for doing that but our city is
[2:19:14] also very unique in and of itself so we
[2:19:17] have pockets that are dense with schools
[2:19:19] or we have more Senior Care centers or
[2:19:21] we have a pocket line with condos or
[2:19:23] with the new affordable housing units
[2:19:24] coming up so just um as we review things
[2:19:28] and as we create new ordinances or plans
[2:19:33] um I would just advocate for being a
[2:19:35] little more mindful of the neighborhood
[2:19:38] as we create that just so we don't
[2:19:39] generalize it too much and and leave
[2:19:42] behind a certain set of populations and
[2:19:45] thank you for all your
[2:19:48] work yeah I Echo that thank you very
[2:19:50] much to staff and um to our Consultants
[2:19:54] so randelle Brian Phil thank you so much
[2:19:56] for this evening's information
[2:19:58] appreciate
[2:20:00] it okay with that we are on to agenda
[2:20:03] item nine reports correspondence and
[2:20:05] general information um first report on
[2:20:08] any recent city council actions Andrea
[2:20:11] thank you uh on October 28th the council
[2:20:13] adopted a resolution uh to enter into
[2:20:16] design and Engineering drawings for
[2:20:17] phase one of the downtown uh implement
[2:20:21] exciting news moving along with that and
[2:20:24] that is all I have to
[2:20:26] report great thank you Item B planning
[2:20:28] and Transportation Commission comments
[2:20:30] or
[2:20:32] reports none at this time okay item C
[2:20:38] correspondence there is no
[2:20:39] correspondence this evening okay thank
[2:20:41] you and planning staff comments reports
[2:20:44] and updates of current projects so just
[2:20:46] wanted to update the commission that the
[2:20:48] meeting scheduled for December 2nd has
[2:20:50] been been canceled we do not have any
[2:20:51] items for that um we are planning on
[2:20:54] having a meeting on the 16th um where PG
[2:20:57] is coming forward um with their facility
[2:20:59] on Industrial um for some improvements
[2:21:02] in that area and I believe our principal
[2:21:04] planner um rucha Dand will be uh running
[2:21:07] the meeting that evening thank
[2:21:09] you thank you we'll be we'll welcome
[2:21:14] pg& very interesting and we are on to
[2:21:17] agenda item 10 which is public comment
[2:21:20] um public comment at this point is
[2:21:21] limited to items that are not on
[2:21:23] tonight's agenda the commission may
[2:21:25] briefly respond to statements made or
[2:21:27] questions posed as Allowed by the brown
[2:21:28] act which is government code section 549
[2:21:32] 54.2 however the commission's general
[2:21:35] policy is to refer items to staff for
[2:21:37] attention or to have a matter placed on
[2:21:39] a future commission agenda for a more
[2:21:41] comprehensive action or
[2:21:44] report um so I don't see anyone in
[2:21:48] Chambers that wants to make a public
[2:21:50] comment
[2:21:51] but those on Zoom if you would like to
[2:21:54] make a public comment you would have two
[2:21:55] minutes and you can raise your hand at
[2:21:58] this time um or if you're joining by
[2:22:00] phone you can press star n and Then star
[2:22:03] six to unmute Lynette are there any
[2:22:05] hands raised on Zoom for a public
[2:22:07] comment there are none
[2:22:10] okay um do we still have attendees um on
[2:22:14] Zoom at this time we have one okay well
[2:22:19] we'll just pause for a minute in case
[2:22:20] that one would like to make a public
[2:22:25] comment okay any hands
[2:22:28] up none none at this time thank you okay
[2:22:32] we will close that and on to adjournment
[2:22:36] thank you all for being here tonight we
[2:22:37] are
[2:22:49] adjourned
[2:23:19] e e