Item 2 - 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: 09/03/2020
ITEM: 2
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: September 3, 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.
BACKGROUND:
Attachment 9 contains additional comments from a Committee Member.
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 previously received with July 16, 2020 Desk Item Report :
3. Committee Member Comments
Attachments previously received with September 3, 2020 Staff Report:
4. Revised Initial Draft of Mobility Element
5. Comment Response Summary Table
6. Public Comment received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 28, 2020
Attachments previously received with September 3, 2020 Addendum Report:
7. Committee Member Comments
8. Staff Responses to Committee Member Comments
Attachment received with this Desk Item Report:
9. Committee Member Comments
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 9
COMMENTS ON DRAFT OF THE MOBILITY ELEMENT – Lee Quintanta
Comments on Addendum: Attachment 7:
I concur with the majority of Kathryn Janoff’s comments. (Attachment 7 pages 1-6) I concur
with all of Barbara Spector's comments (Attachment 7 page 7.) with the following question
regarding MOB-13.5. Hasn’t the Council already supported widening 17 between Highway 85
and Highway 9 to eliminate the merge lanes? If that is correct, modify MOB-13.5.
I have the following Comments and Questions on the Mobility Element
The revision is moving in the right direction overall, but I still have the following concerns:
The connection between vehicle travel and climate change is still not clearly articulated.
The organization of the Element leads to repetition.
Maintaining the use of LOS and the current road classification system results in inconsistencies
within the Element and within the General Plan.
List all triggers for a TDM program together in one place Clarify how all the change from LOS to
VMT affects the Town’s Traffic Mitigation Fees program.
Page 4-2: Key Terms:
Multiple Use Trails. Delete: equestrian trails and Add: Also see Bikeway types
Transit Stop (vs. major transit stop)
TIF
Page 4-3: 4.0 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled: Note MOB 1.1 and MOB 1.2: Look at combining
these policies
MOB 1.4:
Will TDM be required only if near a “major transit stop”? Define “near”. Suggest deleting
“major” and add minimum headways.
What does “all types of trips” refer to?
Too many concepts here: major transit stop, what TDM may include, in-lieu fees, TIF, Townwide
TDM program etc.
NOTE: Various triggers for a TDM are scattered throughout the Element. Suggest combining
them all in one spot.
Page 4-4:
MOB- 4.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities introduction: Move the next to last paragraph up as
the second paragraph.
Page 4-6 and 4-7:
Regroup policies as follows:
Policies relating to bike network MOB-(2.1, MOB- 2.4, 2.7 and MOB-2.8 Policies that address
facilities: (MOB-2.6, MOB= 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) Policies relating to education: (MOB- 2.2,
MOB-2.14 )
2
NOTE: As a general rule, throughout this and other Elements group related polic ies together.
MOB-2.3: Delete, it is the same as MOB- 2.2)
MOB-2.2: Not clear what this means. Does it mean to pursue grants to enable planning and
design? What does “enforcement of programs” mean?
MOB-2.5: Delete? Or modify similar to MOB-3.6 (page 4-8) Is it the intent of the Town to fund
specific plans and master plans? In the past the Town has waited for a development to fund
Specific Plans or Master Plans.
MOB-2.7: What is a typical block? How many acres or square feet?
MOB-2.9: Who is responsible? Town, new developments…?
MOB 2.10: Does this apply to both new and existing development?
MOB 2.11 and 2.12: Why only required in Downtown? Does this apply to both new and existing
development?
MOB=2.13: Why not require bicycle valet parking at large events as part of the permit
condition?
MOB 3.1: Modify as follows:
Require all developments to provide pedestrian connections between the development sites
and existing and planned pedestrian facilities, including those as identified in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan and other relevant plans and documents.
MOB-3.2: What defines a “key locations” ?
MOB-3.3 What is the definition of adequate clearance? Does this apply to existing as well as
new unimproved roadways? Doe unimproved roadway mean roadways without sidewalks?
MOB-3.4: Too many many concepts included in one policy. Divide into separate policies or at a
minimum provide a list. Consider moving Establish sidewalk standards….. to implementation
section.
MOB-3.7: In non-hillside areas does this mean enhance the level of existing lighting? Or provide
lighting (a minimal level needed for safety) in areas where it does not already exist? In hillside
areas is lighting allowed if it is necessary for safety? Or is all street lighting prohibited in the
hillsides?
Page 4-8
3
MOB-4.2: Why “should” e “shall”? Does this refer to the Town’s Master Plan and/or the
County Trails Plan? Does the Ped/bicyle Master Plan identify priorities?
MOB-4.6 and MOB-4.7: Could these be moved up under MOB-4.1? Or added as bullets under
MOB-4.1?
MOB-4.7: Can the Town REQUIRE rather than encourage HOA’s to maintain trails that pass
through a new subdivisions or planned development? If so, change to Require
Page 4-9:
MOB-4.8, MOB-4.9, MOB-4.10: How does this relate to Class I bikeways and to MOB-2.4?
MOB-4.11: Does this apply to multi-use trails not in the hillside? Or are there no multi-use trails
identified outside of the hillside area?
MOB-4.12 and MOB-4.13: Could these be combined?
Page 4-12: 4.3 Transit Service….
Local Bus Transit: “ …….and includes several transit route improvements changes
in the Town of Los Gatos.
Delete second paragraph
Figure 4-2, Page 4-13:
Add to Legend after Future VLR and Future Vasona Junction Stati on: On indefinite hold Incicate
that Route 27 connects with Winchester Light Rail Station
Page 4-17: Note to Reviewer:
I recommend that the GPAC request a more refined street topology be included in future drafts
of the Mobility Element.
Page 4-24:
MOB-17 and MOB-17.1 to MOB-17.3: Suggest that the movement of goods be incorporated
into the Complete Streets section.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank