Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council briefed on TOC compliance, community‑based transportation plan and housing/economic strategy; staff seeks flexibility and grant funding
Summary
Staff urged the council to pursue MTC TOC compliance and associated grants to fund transit connections and infrastructure; consultants previewed a Community‑Based Transportation Plan for equity priority areas and staff outlined a TCP assessment and economic development analysis to inform possible land‑use and ballot actions for 2028.
City staff briefed the council and planning commission on three interlocking planning items at the Nov. 19 joint meeting: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's "Transporting to Communities" (TOC) policy and the city's recommended compliance path; a consultant preview of a Community‑Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) for equity priority census tracts; and the city's transit corridor/land‑use and economic development assessment intended to inform future housing and land-use decisions.
TOC and parking: Staff summarized the TOC requirements for areas near transit, noting two tiers that set minimum densities and parking maximums in station areas and explained how tier 2 parking maximums (as strict caps) would be difficult for local projects to finance. Staff described a recommended strategy: pursue compliance and grant funding from MTC, while negotiating an exception process that allows projects to demonstrate transportation‑demand-management measures or future repurposing of parking if extra stalls are initially needed to secure financing.
Community‑Based Transportation Plan: The consultant working with San Bruno and South San Francisco explained the CBTP will identify priority improvements, cost and funding strategies and a monitoring plan for designated equity priority areas. Potential interventions discussed include improved pedestrian/bicycle connections to BART and Caltrain (Centennial Trail undercrossing), lighting and safe‑routes‑to‑school improvements, micro‑mobility and shuttle programs, and project monitoring to enable implementation funding.
Housing element, TCP financial assessment and economic strategy: Staff described a Transit Corridor Plan (TCP) assessment and economic analysis intended to identify development potential and financing strategies for public improvements. The staff timeline ties TCP findings, potential land‑use map changes and an EIR to a longer adoption schedule; staff noted that major land‑use changes beyond existing code could require voter approval and that CEQA/EIR timing and consultant capacity affect the schedule and costs.
Why it matters: Amending local rules to meet TOC and to be eligible for MTC discretionary funding could unlock money to build transit access and pedestrian improvements identified in the CBTP. Council members asked for clarity on maps and study boundaries; staff acknowledged some mapping discrepancies with older reports and said they would confirm the census tracts and scope with the consultants and regional agencies.
Follow up: Staff will apply for TOC implementation grants if council concurs with the recommended path and will return with scope details, mapping corrections, and additional financial analysis; staff emphasized limited internal capacity and the need to prioritize consultant scopes and council direction.
