Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130617 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 17, 2013 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Com.Dev. Work Program Review II. Transportation Mitigation Process 6.17.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 1 of 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: June 14, 2013 MEETING DATE: June 17, 2013 RE: Community Development Department work program review REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo outlines the Community Development Department’s current work program, as well as other priorities previously identified by City Council, P&Z, and staff. Council may wish to re-evaluate the priorities, but based on the department’s staffing levels, realistically the department cannot add new work program items without deleting others. The purpose of this work session is to update City Council on the Community Development Department’s work program in advance of Council’s retreat. No action is requested. SUMMARY: At the beginning of 2012, City Council identified a number of AACP implementation priorities. Many of these fell to Community Development. In addition, Council identified a number of priorities for Community Development as part of the 2012 Council Retreat. In February 2012, City Council prioritized these items along with items suggested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This memo outlines the fifteen (15) projects staff has been actively working on since the February 2013 work session. In addition, the memo outlines work program items that were not selected in as priorities for staff in February, but that Council may be interested in pursuing in the future. CURRENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS: Beyond the general planning services the city provides (processing land use applications, providing walk-in services, etc), community development staff is working on the following items. 1. Permit Process Change. The Community Development Department is working on a complete overhaul of the building permitting process, from initial pre-planning inquiries through the issuance of a CO. This also involves conversion to a new software system and digital plans review. This is a significant effort and involves all Community Development staff and multiple review agencies of the City. Efforts will be ongoing though the end of the year and into 2014. Staff: All of Community Development. 2. Standardized zoning submission. As part of the new process improvements, staff is working on a standard digital format for all zoning reviews. Staff: Chris Bendon and Claude Salter. P1 I. 6.17.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 2 of 7 3. Lodging Development. As part of AACP implementation and Council’s Top Ten Goals, Council directed staff to study lodging and engage the lodging community in a discussion related to the future of our lodging product. Work has included an existing conditions report on lodging and condominium units, a charrette with lodging stakeholders, and consultant reports regarding potential next steps. In December City Council directed staff to move forward with the following items that support this goal: conduct a lodging customer demand survey/study, create report on lodging economics 101, address hybrid condominium/hotels, and explore development assistance for lodge refurbishments. The Lodging Demand and Lodging Economics reports were released in early June, and the June 25th work session is dedicated to getting directions on potential policy changes and code amendments that will support the goal. A copy of all work completed to date is available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community- Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/). Staff: Jessica Garrow and Chris Bendon. 4. Business start-up web site. Staff is working with a web designer to install a web-based guide for new businesses. This will provide information and guidance on how to obtain a business license, sign permits, apply for building permits for physical improvements, and information on local business associations. The project includes a ‘responsive design’ system that will enable all city and county web sites to automatically re-format to tablets and smart phones. Staff: Jim Pomeroy and Chris Bendon. 5. Mitigating Transportation Impacts. In 2012 City Council asked staff to move forward on a Transportation Study to ensure development mitigates its transportation impacts. Staff from Community Development, Engineering, Transportation, and Environmental Health worked together to complete a scope of work for professional assistance related to quantifying the transportation impacts from development. City Council approved the contract in December, and staff continues to work on this project. A Council check-in is scheduled tonight, with project completion anticipated for July. Staff: Jessica Garrow. 6. Rubey Park Remodel. Earlier this year the City began a process to examine remodel options for Rubey Park. The Transportation Department is heading this project, with a number of other city departments sitting on the core project team and assisting with public outreach, technical needs, etc. This phase of the project is anticipated to be complete in the Fall. Community Development Staff Rep: Jessica Garrow. 7. Sign Code Amendments. In 2012, City Council directed staff to update the sign code. Staff has been working on this project for over a year, and amendments were approved on My 24. The department is working on community outreach and user guides to ensure the community understands the new code. Staff anticipates completion at the end of June. Staff: Jim Pomeroy. 8. Commercial Use of Common Areas. For the past few years, City Council has granted temporary use approvals for a retail space to operate out of a common hallway that had not received growth management approval. During the last review, City Council P2 I. 6.17.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 3 of 7 expressed interest in finding a more permanent solution to this issue. City Council approved changes to allow commercial uses in common building areas as well as minor cleanups to the Outdoor Food Vending regulations on June 10th. Staff will work on public outreach related to the changes though early July. Staff: Chris Bendon. 9. Review and Update the SCI Zone District. In April 2013 City Council asked staff to begin work to address the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district. There are four (4) areas of the city in the zone district, each with a unique identity and set of businesses. The zone district lists very specific uses that are allowed (such as Type- setting and Laundromat), rather than using generalized uses (such as Commercial or Service uses). This has created a system that responsive to the immediate needs of the community, allowing Council to hone-in on exactly the “right” uses. But, the uses quickly become dated and unresponsive to businesses that were not contemplated. Staff presented to Council during a work session in April. Since then, staff has had a brief follow-up discussion with representatives of the 465 Mill Street property. No direction or decisions were made. Staff will work with the owners of the Obermeyer Place project to determine if a rezoning of the SCI spaces within the project is an action the owners are interested in pursuing. Staff will do the same with the owners of the Mill Street Station (Clark’s) property. If rezoning applications are pursued, staff expects hearings to be in late summer to the end of 2013. Staff: Chris Bendon and Sara Nadolny. 10. Subdivision Code Amendment. Staff is updating the City’s subdivision standards and is creating a new Chapter of the land use code regarding plats, development agreements, and other recordation documents. This new Chapter requires significant input from professional planners, engineers, etc. The Planning and Zoning Commission and private planners have provided some initial comments on suggested changes to the chapter. Staff will present initial direction and request Council approve formal Policy Direction at a public hearing on June 24th. Depending on the direction received, staff anticipates the amendments will be ready for public hearings in late Summer/Fall 2013. Staff: Chris Bendon. 11. SPA and PUD Code Amendment. Staff is updating the City’s Specially Planned Area (SPA) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) chapters. These sections, like subdivision, have not been updated in many years and an update is needed to ensure the chapters reflect up to date standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission and professional planners have provided some initial comments on suggested changes to the chapter. Staff will present initial direction and request Council approve formal Policy Direction at a public hearing on June 24th. Depending on the direction received, staff anticipates the amendments will be ready for public hearings in late Summer/Fall 2013. Staff: Jessica Garrow. 12. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Code Amendment. Staff is working on an update to the ESA chapter of the Land Use Code. This section requires a heightened review for any project located near our rivers and streams, within an established view plane, located near Hallam Lake, or located within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. This code amendment requires extensive work with other city departments and the P3 I. 6.17.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 4 of 7 development community, which is currently under way. Staff anticipates the amendment will be ready for public hearings in late Summer/Fall 2013. Staff: Jessica Garrow. 13. Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Staff occasionally proposes non-substantive “redline” amendments to the land use code. These are typically corrections of errors, miss-citations, clarifications that have been discovered during everyday business. The next round will be proposed this summer. Staff: Sara Adams. 14. Calculations and Measurements Update Code Amendments. A few quasi-substantive issues have arisen regarding the way the City calculated various development dimensions. The code does not include a provision for how “crawl” spaces are attributed to floor area or for skylights on non-conforming buildings. A few other items may be included in the update. Staff anticipates the amendment will be ready for public hearings this summer. Staff: Sara Adams. 15. Single-Family and Duplex Housing Mitigation. The project proposes to update the fee-in-lieu requirements for single-family and duplex development. The proposal also would eliminate the ADU option consistent with the AACP and previous Council and APCHA direction. The project relies on the not yet adopted fee-in-lieu methodology developed by the Housing Authority. While the basis for the fee would be new, the amount that an applicant would pay does not need to be the full fee stated in the Housing Guidelines. Staff will present various options for Council to consider. Expected timeframe for public hearings is August/September 2013. Staff may request a work session prior to hearings to update the Council and present options. Staff: Chris Bendon. 16. Update Public Noticing Requirements. City Council has expressed interest in updating the public noticing contents to enable the public to better understand land use projects that are before the City’s review bodies. Public notices for all land use cases are posted on the property, published in the Aspen Times, and mailed to property owners with 300 feet of the subject property. Public notices already include contact information for the staff planner, so anyone receiving a mailed notice, or reading the posted or newspaper notice can contact the planner directly to ask questions. Staff is working to update the basic notice form that is mailed to all property owners with 300 feet of a proposed land use application to include a clear summary of the work proposed and how to comment. This is ongoing, and will also be incorporated into the software upgrades. Staff: Jessica Garrow. POTENTIAL NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS: The following are potential new or additional work program items that Council may wish to pursue. These are taken from the list of priorities not chosen during the February 2013 work session, and include items identified by both P&Z and staff. In addition, City Council has identified some potential additional work program items during previous meetings. If City Council is interested in continuing and/or completing work the listed above, not all of the following items can be pursued this year given staff and funding constraints. P4 I. 6.17.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 5 of 7 1. Update Aspen Modern. In 2010 City Council approved the AspenModern program, which allows for voluntary designation of Aspen’s post-war historic resources. The program requires review by the HPC and City Council, with applicants able to request various benefits in exchange for designating their property. City Council has reviewed and approved designation of 5 buildings in 2012-2013 under the program. Because of the voluntary nature of the designations, applicants request various benefits including fee and mitigation waivers, and variations to dimensional requirements. City Council has expressed interest in evaluating the program. The process to create AspenModern took over 2 years and 2 staff members dedicated solely to the project With a scope limited to examining some specific sections of the standards, staff anticipates this would require minimal to moderate financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate community outreach, and could be completed in late 2013 to early 2014. However, given the experiences with the initial creation of the program, staff believes it is more likely to take 18 – 24 months and significant community outreach, financial, and staff resources. Staff does not recommend moving forward with changes to the program at this time. 2. Update Commercial Design Standards. In 2012 City Council approved a code amendment that created a new call-up procedure for all Commercial Design Conceptual approvals. Through that process some City Council members expressed interest in updating certain sections of the standards related to materials and corner elements. With a scope limited to examining some specific sections of the standards, staff anticipates this would require minimal to moderate financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate community outreach, and could be completed in late 2013 to early 2014. 3. Update Residential Design Standards. The City has Residential Design Standards in place that address all single-family, duplex, and multi-family development. These standards have not been updated since their initial creation over ten (10) years ago. Staff believes a re-examination and update to these standards is needed. Much of the work could be completed in-house, with some consultant assistance. Staff anticipates this would require minimal to moderate financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate to significant community outreach, and could be completed in the summer of 2014. 4. Explore Amendments to Vested Rights Extensions. The P&Z has expressed concern that Council grants vested rights extensions without requirements to comply with code changes adopted since the original project approval. Staff does not believe an amendment is needed in this section. City Council reviews all Vested Rights Extensions, and has a review criterion that states, “…Reasonable conditions may be imposed by the City Council, including, but not limited to, compliance with any amendments to this Title adopted subsequent to the effective date of the development order and associated vested rights.” Staff believes this criterion addresses the concerns of P&Z and that no amendment is needed. 5. Explore amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. P&Z has expressed interest in amending the City’s Multi-Family Replacement Program to require only 100% replacement. The City of Aspen has had a Multi-Family Replacement Program since 1989. The basic premise of the program is to prevent the loss of multi- P5 I. 6.17.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 6 of 7 family housing units that have housed local workers. The program works to preserve the City’s housing inventory by addressing the continuing trend of residential units being converted into second homes. The program has evolved over time, but has always required a certain percentage of the units and bedrooms that are demolished to be replaced. The original program required 50% replacement of units and 25% of bedrooms. In the 2000s the program was changed to allow two different forms of replacement – either 50% or 100% of units, bedrooms, and net livable square footage to be replaced as affordable housing. If a developer chooses 100% replacement, they can replace any free-market units with no mitigation. If the 50% replacement option is chosen, affordable housing mitigation is required for any replacement free-market units. The program has been successful in creating affordable housing throughout the community. If the 50% replacement provision is eliminated it would effectively freeze multi-family properties to exactly what currently exists, limiting a property owner’s ability to add to or change the development. Any code amendment that changes the replacement options will require work with the City Attorney to ensure it does not open the city to regulatory takings claims. Staff does not recommend moving forward with this amendment at this time. Staff anticipates that this would require moderate financial resources from the AACP budget, significant community outreach, and could be completed in a 6-12 month timeframe. 6. Amend residential zone districts, and floor area, height, and site coverage calculations. The P&Z has expressed an interest in updating the floor area and gross square footage calculations in the city’s residential zones. This would include a review of current exemptions, the landing of TDRs, and other zone district requirements such as heights and site coverage requirements. At the February work session, City Council stated P&Z could begin work to clarify what changes they are interested seeing. They have met in a few work sessions and continue to work on this issue. Due to the department’s existing work program, staff has not been able to provide assistance to the P&Z. If Council is interested in adopting this as a priority for the department, it will require substantial financial and staff resources to complete. Outreach to the development and real estate communities, as well as individual homeowners and neighborhoods would be needed. In addition, consultant work regarding how calculations could change would be needed. Staff does not recommend moving forward with this amendment at this time. Staff anticipates this will require a significant portion of the AACP budget, significant community outreach, and will take 12 to 18 months to complete. 7. Update parking requirements. P&Z has expressed interest in looking at the parking requirement outlined in the code. The code currently allows less on-site parking for projects located in the core area than projects located outside of the core. The code also allows the payment of cash-in-lieu for some parking requirements. A comprehensive study are parking needs for different land uses may be beneficial, given the section has not been updated in approximately 10 years. There are new trends related to land use review of parking, including establishing a maximum parking requirement rather than a minimum parking requirement (in an effort to encourage use of alternative transportation modes). At the February work session, City Council stated P&Z could begin work to P6 I. 6.17.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 7 of 7 clarify what changes they are interested seeing. They have met in a few work sessions and continue to work on this issue. Due to the department’s existing work program, staff has not been able to provide assistance to the P&Z, but has provided some feedback to them regarding how potential changes relate to existing city policies and the AACP. Staff does not recommend moving forward with this amendment at this time. Staff anticipates that this would require significant financial resources from the AACP budget, significant community outreach, and could be completed in the 12 to 18 months. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The current Community Development work program has been budgeted for and additional work program items identified by City Council will likely require additional monies. Most of the AACP budget has been spent on implementation projects, and staff anticipates using the entire budget to complete existing work program priorities. P7 I. Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Manager Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Program Coordinator RE: Transportation & Development Process Improvement Update ____________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No Council action is required at this time. This work session serves as an update on the City’s Transportation & Development Process Improvement. The project is focused on creating a fair, equitable, and clear process related to understanding and mitigation transportation impacts associated with development. Staff requests direction from Council on a few items, which are outlined below and bolded. PROJECT BACKGROUND: This project focuses on minimizing impacts from cars associated with new development and was one of the top priorities identified by City Council as part of implementation of the AACP. City Council was interested in ensuring fairness and consistency in the development process, particularly as it relates to transportation impacts. Determining a development’s share of responsibility for impacts is currently done on a case-by- case basis, starting with meetings of the City’s Development Review Committee which reviews applications and informally discusses impacts and possible mitigation strategies. Because there is no set of clear guidelines regarding potential mitigation methods, the applicant often relies on the Transportation and Engineering Departments to provide a mitigation strategy for the review process. Currently, a mix of mitigation options is worked out between the applicant, staff, the P&Z and City Council. There are no clear standards that indicate when a traffic study is required and what information it should include. Likewise, there are no set standards for the types of improvements that mitigate transportation impacts. While the city has requested studies for PUDs and SPAs, there is no consistent scope of work for such studies, and the Land Use Code does not provide clear direction that a non-PUD/SPA project in the downtown is required to provide such information. In December, City Council approved a contract with consultant team Fehr & Peers to examine the existing system and update it to be clearer, fairer, and easier to manage and understand. City Council asked staff and the consultant to study the impacts development has on our transportation system, and look to create a system to mitigate those impacts. In addition, Council expressed interest in creating a reliable, defensible system that results in actual improvements, not simply charging an additional fee on development. PROJECT OVERVIEW: This project prioritizes pedestrian, bicycle, and transit transportation infrastructure and service over automobiles. The intent is to mitigate additional car trips resulting from development by improving service and infrastructure of alternative modes of P9 II. Page 2 of 5 transportation, rather than improving infrastructure for cars. For instance, a new development may generate 150 new daily car trips. Rather than increasing street widths or adding a signal, this system would require those trips be mitigated by measures that are likely to prevent those trips from even occurring by proving additional bike racks, adding a carshare vehicle, investing in a transit stop, or improving a crosswalk. The purpose of this project is to create a standardized system for development to mitigate its transportation and air quality impacts, including determining an appropriate “trigger point” for development to mitigate these impacts, determining when a development should provide a traffic study, outlining the parameters for an effective traffic study, and creating a system to ensure proper Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Quality of Service techniques are implemented. The project includes five steps that result in standardizing the development review process by: 1. Establishing a trigger point for the requirement of traffic impact studies; 2. Developing standardized parameters for traffic impact studies; 3. Creating a trip generation model specific to Aspen’s land uses and development pattern; 4. Creating a menu of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation options coupled with a scoring system; and 5. Creating a menu of Multi-Modal Quality of Service and Level of Service (MMLOS) mitigation options coupled with a scoring system. At the end of the project, the City will be in a position to adopt code amendments that identify the trigger point for development to conduct a traffic study, outline the required elements of a traffic study, and adopt a mitigation menu and scoring tool for TDM and MMLOS. Project completion is anticipated in mid-to-late summer, following the completion of summer traffic counts. Question for City Council: Does City Council continue to support the basic goals of the project - requiring new development to mitigate for their share of automobile related impacts through a new, standardized mitigation system focused on improving pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure? PROJECT UPDATE: Progress has been made on each aspect of this project. The key findings are outlined below. It is important to note that Single-family and Duplex development is currently exempt from any physical transportation related requirement, and will remain exempt under any new system. INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL LAND USE PROFESSIONALS/DEVELOPERS: Part of the data gathering that Fehr & Peers conducted were interviews with land owners and planners who have recently been in the development review process. The goal is to hear what’s working and what’s not working with the current system. These interviews are still taking place, but the initial feedback is that a set of clear, written standards outlining what’s required related to transportation mitigation would be a significant improvement. They feel the current process is unpredictable, so a set of written requirements will help a land owner know what is expected of them from the P10 II. Page 3 of 5 outset rather than in the middle of the process as sometimes happens today. ASPEN SPECIFIC TRAFFIC STUDY: In February, a three day traffic counting study was conducted throughout town and was based on Aspen’s different land uses – commercial, lodging, affordable housing, free-market housing, and essential public facilities. Nine (9) different locations were part of the traffic counts, representing all the land uses. This traffic study was a key first step in the process to ensure that any system the City creates is based on Aspen-specific traffic numbers, not national or international standards that may not be relevant. The study found that, with the exception of the affordable housing and essential public facility uses, the initial local traffic counts did vary from the industry standard ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) generation numbers. Some of the larger differences from the ITE generation numbers included 53% higher AM peak trips for one lodge site and 74% lower AM peak trips for one commercial site. Summer traffic counts are being conducted June 19 and 20 to supplement the winter counts to ensure any new program or mitigation requirements are based on a complete and accurate data set. Any requirements for mitigation will be based off of the Aspen-specific numbers. In addition, the consultant is training staff on how to conduct counts in the future, so the numbers can more easily be updated on an annual or bi-annual basis as needed. PROJECT FRAMEWORK: One of the City’s longstanding goals is maintaining traffic levels at the Castle Creek Bridge at 1993 levels. This informs many of the City’s transportation projects and goals, and was reiterated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. The Primary Transportation Goal in the AACP is “Continue to limit Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) to 1993 levels at the Castle Creek Bridge, and strive to reduce peak-hour vehicle trips to below 1993 levels.” This project supports this goal by creating a system that ensures new trips and new impacts created by development are mitigated. Mitigation will be achieved through Transportation Demand Measures (TDM) and by establishing a Transportation Level of Service (LOS) and Multi Modal Level of Service (MMLOS). Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to programs or services that maximize the use of alternative transportation, including buses, carpools, biking, walking, and carshare modes. TDM techniques include programs such as compressed workweeks and telework, as well as outreach and education programs. Built alternatives such as Park and Rides, bike lanes, and bike racks that encourage alternative modes of transportation are also an important element of TDM programs. Finally, economic incentives and disincentives are part of the TDM tool-box, including things like parking cash-out programs where an employee trades the right to free parking at their workplace for a cash payment from the employer. Level of Service (LOS) is a measurement that determines the effectiveness of transportation infrastructure. LOS A would refer to an area has free-flow of traffic with almost no traffic. LOS F would refer to an area where the flow of traffic is backed up and frequent slowing occurs. Typical Level of Service figures only takes vehicle drivers into account. In recent years, Level of Service has expanded to include multiple modes, called Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS). MMLOS takes all mode types – auto, bicycle, transit, walking - into account. Staff is proposing to use both traditional LOS and the newer MMLOS as the basis for mitigating P11 II. Page 4 of 5 project impacts. LAND USE TRIGGERS FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES: An important aspect of this project is establishing the framework for which projects are exempt from the requirements and which need to mitigate their transportation impacts. Staff is working with the consultant team to refine the triggers, but the existing Land Use Code as well as the Aspen-specific traffic counts are being used as a basis. The current direction is to create a tiered system of requirements that would be broken down as: exempt development, minor development, and major development. Staff requests Council feedback on the trigger points listed below: • Exempt Development: All development currently exempt under Growth Management would be exempt from any new transportation mitigation system. This includes adding 250 sq ft or less of commercial space, adding a single residential unit, or adding 2 lodge units to a project. Exempt Development Proposal Residential Units Lodging Units Net Leasable 1 1 or 2 1 sq ft to 250 sq ft o Is City Council supportive of exempting development that is not subject to growth management review? • Minor Development: Development in this category would be required to mitigate for their additional trips by using a checklist of TDM measures. Minor development would not be required to conduct any traffic studies, but would use the Aspen-specific generation numbers to determine how many new trips are generated and need to be mitigated. Then they would use a TDM “mitigation menu” of various infrastructure, programmatic or operational improvements to mitigate those trips. Examples of menu items include bike rack installation, carshare memberships, bus pass provision, etc. The consultant team has proposed that any project generating less than 100 trips constitutes a “minor impact” and should fall into this category. Based on the Aspen trip data, new development of up to 2,000 sq ft of net leasable space, 15 residential units (free-market, affordable, or a combination), and 10 lodge units fall into this category. Minor Development Proposal Residential Units Lodging Units Net Leasable 2 to 15 3 to 10 251 sq ft to 1,999 sq ft o Is City Council supportive of these trigger levels? • Major Development: Major developments would be required to conduct a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that examines the LOS and MMLOS impacts on the surrounding area and mitigate for those impacts using the TDM “mitigation menu.” The larger and more impactful the development, the more menu items would be required. P12 II. Page 5 of 5 Based on the Aspen trip data, new development of 2,000 sq ft or more of net leasable space, 16 or more residential units (free-market, affordable, or a combination), and 11 or more lodge units fall into this category. Major Development Proposal Residential Units Lodging Units Net Leasable 16 or more 11 or more 2,000 sq ft or more o Is City Council supportive of these trigger levels? MMLOS TRIGGERS: MMLOS triggers will be based on those above, with some additional considerations related to physical changes that impact bicycle and pedestrian flows. For instance, a project that changes an access point but does not expand square footage could have a significant impact (positive or negative) on pedestrian safety. Staff believes it is important to capture these types of infrastructure changes as part of the MMLOS program in order to ensure pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure is prioritized over cars. The consultant team and staff will provide an overview of what these triggers might be at the meeting. FINAL PRODUCT: The final work product from the consultant will outline the Land Use Triggers, Transportation Impact Study requirements, and the TDM and MMLOS mitigation menu. The goal is that these are clear, easy to use, and reduce the amount of “process” a project needs to go through when they apply for redevelopment. NEXT STEPS: Staff and the consultant will incorporate Council comments from this meeting into the TDM and MMLOS system. Staff will return with code amendments to incorporate the system into the Land Use Code. P13 II.