Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards citywide TDM ordinance with exemptions, monitoring and fee changes
Summary
After presentations from planning, SFMTA and the County Transportation Authority and extensive public comment, the committee accepted a package of amendments that add exemptions for certain nonprofit and small projects, strengthen monitoring and enforcement, and sent the Transportation Demand Management ordinance to the full Board as amended.
The Land Use & Transportation Committee advanced a citywide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance that would require many new development projects to meet project‑specific TDM point targets by selecting measures from a menu designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Planning department staff described the program’s three basic elements: a points target unique to each project; a menu of 66 options with point values tied to expected VMT reductions; and implementation strategies including pre‑occupancy site visits, ongoing monitoring and three‑year audits. Cheryl Brinkman, chair of the SFMTA Board of Directors, urged committee support, stressing accountability and monitoring: “For this to work, developers need to be held accountable,” she said, and touted an interactive online tool to increase transparency.
Public comment included neighborhood groups urging stricter parking penalties, developers asking for adjustments for family‑friendly housing, public‑health advocates supporting VMT reductions, and human‑services providers seeking fee exemptions for city‑funded service spaces. Supervisor Malia Cohen read a set of amendments into the record that included changing grandfathering triggers, removing a pre‑application requirement, a one‑year implementation analysis, making TDM standards effective at development application, adjusting a trigger to 10 bedrooms, exempting buildings of 24 or fewer units from annual monitoring, and exempting city‑funded nonprofits from certain fees. Planning staff said exempting smaller projects would affect only a small share of projects based on recent fiscal years’ applications.
After discussion about enforcement capacity and fee structures, supervisors accepted the package of amendments and moved the ordinance, as amended, to the full Board with a recommendation. The committee record shows the intent to staff the program and to use fee revenues to support dedicated monitoring staff.
