Item 1 - Desk Item and Attachment
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 7/16/2020
ITEM: 1
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: July 16, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of the Initial Draft of the Mobility Element.
REMARKS:
Attachment 3 contains written comments provided by Committee Members.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with July 16, 2020 Staff Report:
1. Initial Draft of Mobility Element
2. Comments from Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Safe Routes to School
Attachment received with this Desk Item Report:
3. Committee Member Comments
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Kathryn Janoff comments, Mobility Element
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Has this draft been reviewed by BPAC?
Comment: Lately, we might have forgotten the impacted parking problem in Town. But the Pandemic
will be behind us, and access to parking will be exacerbated once again. Shouldn’t we address increased
parking or expanded shuttles from distant lots or encouraging ridesharing use?
Comment MOB in general: shouldn’t the concept of reducing car use be more explicitly discussed
and/or encouraged. Might there be incentives to eliminate or consolidate car use? Section 4.2 addresses
Los Gatos high rate of single drivers as a general fact, but more discussion of alternatives/encouraging
alternatives seems appropriate.
Also, would it be appropriate to mention the use of goods-delivery services such as Amazon Prime,
InstaCart or Google delivers?
Question: MOB-9.7: Is this in conflict with the requirement for MOB-5.5, lighting in the Hillside areas?
Question: MOB-12.4: Does this need to be limited to “Major Employers”?
Implementation Programs: Look to reduce/consolidate this list (same comments as the previous
element). Eliminate programs, particularly those marked ongoing, that are someone’s (or a
department’s) normal job responsibilities.
********************************************
Minor corrections and edits: In general, eliminate unnecessary words to improve clarity.
Pg 4-1, First paragraph:
Change
The Mobility Element is designed to address all aspect of movement of people and goods.
To
The Mobility Element is designed to address all aspects of moving people and goods.
MOB-1: change to: “transportation systems”
MOB-1.2: Change to “their long-term maintenance costs.”
MOB-2.4 add period: “users.”
MOB-3.3 change to add hyphen: “project-affected”
What does MOB-3.4 mean? Is there an existing ratio that can be referred to?
MOB-3.6: pro-rata share of what?
Change to “pro-rata share of the cost. . .”
ATTACHMENT3
MOB-3.7: delete words “opportunities for”
MOB-4.2: insert: “Highway 17 and” in front of Blossom Hill
MOB-4.4: delete “as appropriate.”
MOB-5.2: If this is a SCCFD requirement, it doesn’t need to be in the General Plan, unless the second
sentence is a stricter requirement.
4.2 Multimodal System
(Second paragraph) commas needed--
change:
“forms of “micro-mobility” like electric . . . (e-bikes) have”
to
“forms of “micro-mobility,” such as electric . . . (e-bikes), have”
MOB-6: delete “alternative” and remove parentheses around “non-driving”
MOB-7.1: Change “like” to “such as”
MOB-7.2: insert “non-driving” before “forms of mobility.”
MOB-7.4: replace “that would reduce” with “to reduce”
MOB-7.5: what about also encouraging the addition of retail conveniences too? E.g., dry cleaner,
sandwich shop, convenience store?
MOB in general: Might there be incentives to eliminate car use? And would it be appropriate to
mention the use of goods-delivery services such as Amazon Prime, InstaCart or Google delivers?
Goal MOB-8: Run-on sentence. Suggest stopping at “all users” and moving the “including” users to the
discussion above, second paragraph. Eliminate the parentheses and insert list of users here.
MOB-8.5: Awkward wording. Suggest
Limit height of fence, hedge, and landscape at driveway entrance/exit adjacent to sidewalk and shared
use path to reduce vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle conflict. Require modification to existing fence,
hedge, and landscape sidewalk and/or shared use path to meet current code requirements and/or as
directed by Town Engineer for adequate sight clearance.
MOB-8.6: confusing. The second phrase is obvious. Suggest ending after “pedestrian facilities.”
MOB-8.11 (and throughout the entire General Plan): The use of “of installation of” is cumbersome
and not modern language use.
Replace with “of installing”
Question: MOB-9.7: Is this in conflict with the requirement for MOB-5.5, lighting in the Hillside
areas?
MOB-10.1: modern language use
replace “the maintenance and construction of” with “maintaining and constructing”
MOB-10.2: “Ensure trails are . . .”
MOB-10.7: multiple fixes: suggest
“Encourage homeowner associations to maintain trails that pass through their subdivisions. Encourage
formation of new homeowner association as part of new subdivisions or planned developments to
maintain trails passing through their area.”
MOB-11.5: just say “where feasible” eliminating “to the greatest extent”
MOB-11.6: Comprehensive is better and sufficient.
delete “complete and”
MOB-11.8: replace “effects” with “negative impacts”
MOB-11.9: hyphenate through-access (two places)
GOAL MOB-12: delete “that”
Question: MOB-12.4: Does this need to be limited to “Major Employers”?
MOB-12.6: reword to simplify:
Encourage bicycle parking in all private and public parking lots in the Downtown.
Delete MOB-13.1: who is to provide and to whom and how???
This is already covered in MOB-13.2
Pg. 4-8, 4.6, second paragraph: replace “ran” with “run”
MOB-14.3: missing a word before Los Gatos. Within, for ?
MOB-14.6: Require all new developments to provide and maintain bus shelters to encourage use of
transit.
MOB-15.1: insert “ . . . project, to increase ridership to the Town”
MOB-21.3: simplify: “consider expanding”
Mobility Element: Edits, Comments and Questions
Committee Member Marcia Jensen
July 15, 2020
My comments regarding the draft Mobility Element appear in pink below, and are keyed to
Page number, goals and policies.
Page 4-1 Introduction
“The Mobility Element is designed to address all aspects surrounding the movement of people
and goods, [delete next clause] including roadways, transit [] and goods movement.”
The goals, policies, and actions in this Element are consistent with and interdependent upon
all other Elements of the General Plan.”
Page 4-2: Key Terms
Complete Streets: A transportation policy and design approach requiring that all streets be
maximized for access to all modes of transportation and to all users, regardless of mode
choice, age, and ability.
Development: [ ] All vacant and redeveloped land within the Town of Los Gatos [ ].
Level of Service (LOS): ….flow characteristics and performance relative to …’
Multimodal: [ ] A transportation planning approach which considers a variety of travel modes,
including …and connections among and between modes.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): A comprehensive strategy or strategies
designed to manage traffic flow through demand reduction, which may be used to reduce
traffic impacts without the necessity of alteration or improvements to physical infrastructure.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A system designed to measure the total amount of vehicular
travel within specific geographic areas which is used to analyze air quality and specifically as
an analytical tool mandated for use in evaluating environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
MOB 1.1: “shall not exceed transportation capacity” – if left undefined – can mean anything? Is
there a measure intended, e.g. LOS, VMT? Or is an anecdotal complaint that “there is too
much traffic” enough?
MOB 1.2: “…fiscal impacts..”
MOB 1.3: “…traffic-carrying capacity”
Why add “all ages and users?” Why not just “all roadway users.”?
4.1 Roadways
Paragraph 2:
“There are three major roadways which run through the Town of Los Gatos; State Route 9
(also known as Los Gatos-Saratoga Road), and State Routes 17 and 85 (major freeways).
Three freeway interchanges serve the town, at Lark Avenue to the north, and at State Route
9/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, and South Santa Cruz Avenue, both to the south.”
Characterization and Definitions of Street Types (why not called out as “key terms?”)
• Weren’t these all changed by the Town Council recently in an effort to affect Waze
routing????
• “Special design streets” – I DO NOT believe that North Santa Cruz is in any way a
“special design street,” particularly in light of the definition provided. These sound more
like something that would characterize, e.g. a Hillside Planned Development.
Page 4-6: MOB-2
MOB-2.1: Why not “Support the safety of all roadway users.”?
MOB-2.7: Personal Opinion/Comment: This should be deleted. It cannot be accomplished, and
who is to determine what is “cut through” and what is not – particularly in light of the fact that
these are public streets.
MOB-3: Delete “Prevent”
Page 4-7:
MOB-3.1: Why does this include mandatory “shall?” What if improvements and dedications are
NOT necessary?
MOB-3.3: “.. operation will remain at an acceptable level” Define “acceptable.” How and by
whom is it determined?
MOB-3.7: Cut-through traffic already discussed above at MOB-2.7. Don’t duplicate. (and in my
opinion, do not include at all).
MOB-4 (Highway 17) Why are we including this at all given recent changes made by the
Council and the potential for different interchanges at Highway 9??
Page 4-8
MOB-5 (Hillsides) Fire Hazard, Evacuation, etc., should be addressed throughout
consistent with the most current Town Codes.
MOB-5.5: The Chief of Police determines that there are “recurring safety issues” based on
what??
Page 4-9
4.2 Multimodal System
• I believe the entire introduction needs to be rewritten or aggressively edited.
• While I understand that we might want to point out that there is generally greater single -
occupancy vehicle” travel in LG, I do not understand why we would ever use a phrase
like “Not surprisingly….tend to use public transit less than the county average.” 1. It
makes an assumption in a planning document; and 2. It does nothing to elucidate or
support the goals
• In my mind, this should be a single paragraph that states simply and clearly that the
goal of General Plan is to increase multimodal transportation options and access in LG
and leave it at that.
MOB-7.1, and throughout: Why call out e-scooters? Who knows what may develop? Why
limit definitions and examples?
MOB-7.3: Is this intended to encourage private entities to develop and maintain transportation
facilities as a general matter or as part of a new development?
Page 4-10
MOB-7.5: When referring to development of transportation alternatives, etc., the Plan should
always include references to TDMs and Transit Passes.
4.3 Complete Streets
The introductory paragraphs are written very poorly and need to be completely redone.
Page 4-11
MOB-8.2: Delete “rather than relying solely on enforcement.” Unnecessary.
MOB-8.6: Needs to be carefully examined for consistency with fire safety requirements,
especially in hillsides.
MOB-8.7: Anything can increase traffic flow through residential neighborhoods – ADU,
remodel, etc., Remember, people are getting Amazon deliv eries – these could come by drone,
e.g.
MOB-8.8 and 8.9: I am opposed to any policy that is directed toward the “prevention” of cut-
through traffic.
MOB-8.10: Traffic calming should be achieved through Town policies and regulations. There
should not be a phrase that suggests or implies that the General Plan is designed to “solv[e]”
citizen “traffic concerns.”
Page 4-12
4.4 Pedestrian Facilities
Introductory Paragraphs:
Paragraph 2: I absolutely disagree that Downtown Los Gatos is walkable. The sidewalks are
narrow and cluttered. This paragraph should be deleted.
Generally – throughout the Plan introductory paragraphs should be eliminated, particularly
when they express subjective – and disputable opinions – they should be used, if at all, to
simply state, e.g., the overall goal of the policy section.
Page 4-13
MOB-9.6: Is the intent to require improvements to be made, or simply to identify where they
might be appropriate?
MOB-10.2: “Trails should be safe, continuous, interconnected, and designed for a wide variety
of users in compliance with all applicable Town Planning documents.”
Page 4-14
MOB-10.9: Delete bullet point 1. The trail should go where the trail should go.
MOB-10.11: Define “feasible.”
Page 4-17
MOB-11: “Provide continuous, safe, and efficient bikeways between and through town
neighborhoods, parks….”
MOB-11.3: “Develop and implement infrastructure improvements designed to promote
opportunities for bicycling throughout the Town, in coordination with education and
enforcement strategies to maximize safety.
MOB-11.4: I think this is in direct conflict with other Plan strategies dealing with Traffic
Calming.
Page 4-18
MOB-12.2: This should both identify the Town Safe Routes to School organization and not be
limited to solely the Los Gatos Union School District. It needs to include the High School and
private schools (e.g. Hillbrook – which already participates in SR2S – I think St. Mary’s does
too….)
MOB-12.6: OK. As of when?? Who installs? Retroactive requirement? Attached to
development, etc., etc.
MOB-13.1: Delete “Information of”
4.6 Transit Services and Facilities
• Again, the Introductory paragraphs are poorly written and need to be redone .
• Paragraph 2 should be deleted. It is factually inaccurate – the School Bus Pilot Program
has been eliminated by the Council.
• VTA routes may change
• Vasona Light Rail funding is on indefinite hold – I would not include any Plan language
related to a future Light Rail station
Page 4-22
MOB-15.4: Shouldn’t this include a nexus requirement?
MOB-17.1: Are we sure we want to include the underlined language? “Highest and best use” is
a legal term of art – and I’m not sure that the phrase here is intended to have the same
meaning. Re-work.
Page 4-23
MOB-18.1: What do we mean “address?” Talk about in an application, or actually include
infrastructure, etc., which accomplishes the identified goal?
Page 4-24
4.7 Goods Movement
Again – eliminate or entirely re-write the introductory paragraph. The information and
assumptions are already out of date.
MOB-19.1 through 19.3
• What is a “truck?” Is a UPS van a “truck?” Is a small FedEx or Trac delivery van a
“truck?”
• What about drones????
Page 4-26
Transportation Demand Management
Delete or rewrite introductory paragraph.
MOB-20.2: Such as????
Page 4-27
4.9 Parking
Delete or rewrite introductory paragraph: any or all of this may change with execution of
Comprehensive Parking Study
MOB-21: Why include the qualifier re impacts on neighborhoods???
MOB-21.3: Personally, I am not in favor of residential (or any) permit parking programs, so I
would delete this paragraph.
MOB-22.1: Why continue to hold out/entertain the possibility of a garage?
(no comment on any of the Implementation Program charts)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank