Item 2 - Addendum and Attachments
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
ADDENDUM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: September 2, 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 7 contains comments from Committee Members.
Attachment 8 contains some initial staff feedback in response to Committee Member
comments and questions.
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
Attachment received with this Addendum Report:
7. Committee Member Comments
8. Staff Responses to Committee Member Comments
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 7
1
Mobility Element Comments—Kathryn Janoff
General organizational question: To show priority of certain policies under a goal, some
with “shall” or “require” language should be elevated to follow the goal statement,
preceding the “encourage” or non-shall policies.
First section-- Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
should be numbered 4.1 (not 4.0). Renumber all subsequent sections
MOB-3.4: There’s a lot in this policy. Should be streamlined or broken into two policies
to cover existing sidewalks and newly developed. Would (presumably) new sidewalk
standards be needed if you already invoke ADA requirements? And do we need all the
detail about what’s removed/relocated?
Combine MOB 4.2 and 4.5
GOAL MOB 5: I know we recommended this wording, but the Goal is not solely about
walking. Change “walkable” to “non-driving”
MOB 7.11: what does this actually mean?
MOB 9.2: How is this to be measured?
MOB 9.3: all circulation and transportation improvements seems overly broad and
vague. Suggest deleting “all”.
Yellow banner on page 4-17: Implementation Program B seems to indicate we are
moving in this direction. Might be appropriate to use typology language.
MOB 15.2 seems to belong in Section 4.7 under parking. Suggest moving and delete
the word “any”. That would be hard to do . . . so suggest “can accommodate increases
in . . .”
MOB 16.1 seems unnecessary
MOB 14.2: There is a lot of the town in high fire hazard areas. Would it be prudent to
include both areas “as necessary.”
Point for discussion. Referencing MOB1.3 and MOB 12.3:
On the Planning Commission, we hear developers paint a favorable picture regarding
no impact on LOS. Residents argue otherwise. (Alberto Way for example.) There is
some concern that the measurement tools used for CEQA are outdated and do not
accurately reflect LG traffic situations. Nonetheless, developers usually “win” because
they are following the Town standard versus anecdotal descriptions usually have
minimal or no data.
ATTACHMENT 7
2
This applies to a project before development happens, so the measurements and
assurances suppositions. I would like to see the General Plan require developers
measure, report and manage traffic after the development is built and occupied—along
the lines of what was requested of Hillbrook School. In this manner, the Town will be
developing its own datasets to compare against the standard currently used and can
determine if what the standards predict are consistent with actual traffic counts. Is this
what is intended by MOB 1.3?
MOB 1.3:
TDM for Development Proposals All major development proposals with more than 10
housing units or over 5,000 square feet of non-residential square footage shall be
required to include a detailed, sustainable, and measurable, verifiable Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program for consideration by the Town during the review
of the development application and implemented and maintained as a condition of
approval on the project.
MOB 12.3:
If a project traffic will cause the current LOS for any project affected intersection to drop
by more than one level for an if the intersection currently at LOS A, B, or C, or to drop at
all if the intersection is at LOS D or below, the project shall construct improvements or
put TDM measures in place mitigate the traffic so that the level of service operation will
remain at an acceptable level. (add) These measures shall be implemented and
maintained as a condition of approval on the project. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.5,
modified]
Implementation Plan O should also reference policies under Goal 11
The Parking Study is not mentioned in the Implementation Plans, but it has reasonable
recommendations that could/should be implemented.
******************************
General edits
Page 4-1
Change: “The Mobility Element is designed to address all aspects of moving people and
goods.”
Re-number sections
Page 4-2
Key Terms:
Change TDM: “pieces” to “section”
page 4-3
1st paragraph: change the word “looking” to measuring or analyzing (2 places)
ATTACHMENT 7
3
Spell out the VMT acronym in its first use in text (second line)
Change: “reduce vehicle usage and encourage alternative . . .”
MOB 1.2
What might those incentives be? And change: “ reduce employee trips . . .”
1.3: Period after “(TDM) program.” Replace remainder of policy with “The program shall
be implemented and maintained as a condition of approval on the project.”
Section 4.1 (to be changed to 4.2), strike last two sentences that describe current state.
Will not be relevant in 20 years.
Page 4-6
Goal MOB-2: delete “Town”
MOB 2.1: delete “facilities”2.2: delete “encouragement and”
MOB-2.2 and 2.3 are duplicated. Is something missing under 2.3?
MOB 2.7: delete comas, hyphenate “through-access”
MOB 2.8: delete “to each of its schools”
MON 2.10: delete “major” ; replace “greater than” with “with 100 employees or more”
Page 4-7
MOB 2-12: delete “private” and public”, to read: “
Require bicycle parking in all parking lots in the Downtown.”
MOB 3.3: replace “behind” with “between”
Page 4-8
MOB 3.6: Street furniture??? What would this be? If benches or seating, say that.
MOB 3.7:
Change: “In non-hillside areas, enhance street lighting for pedestrian safety.”
MOB 4.2: delete “/or” and “be” before consistent
Question: MOB 4.4 and 7.6 is “Special Populations” the preferred term?
ATTACHMENT 7
4
MOB 4.7: revise:
“Encourage existing home owner associations (HOA) to maintain trails that pass
through their subdivisions. Encourage the formation of HOAs for new subdivisions or
planned development to maintain trails that pass through their areas.
Page 4-9
MOB 4.9: Cumbersome reading. Suggest revise:
“The location of multiple-use trails should:
• Not impact existing . . .
• Traverse the open space . . .
• Traverse . . .
• Be built on
Page 4-10
Renumber to 4.3
GOAL MOB 5: I know we recommended this wording, but the Goal is not solely about
walking. Change “walkable” to “non-driving”?
Page 4-11
Revise intro paragraph:
“ . . . encourage non-driving transportation alternatives (e.g., bicycle lockers . . .”
MOB 6.3:
What is meant?
Require (only) wide sidewalks to . . .
Or
Require sidewalks to be wide enough to allow shared . . .
MOB 6.4: replace “”and do not conflict with” with “without impeding”
Revise so intent is clear
Page 4-11
Renumber 4.3 to 4.4
Page 4-14
MOB 7.3: delete “otherwise”
MOB 7.5: revise “determine the feasibility of financing additional shuttles to improve
connections . . .
ATTACHMENT 7
5
MOB 7.6: See comment at 4.4. insert “and” before low income people. Delete “and
other groups with special needs.
MOB 7.7:
“Encourage public transit use . . .”
Page 4-15
MOB 7.10: change to “ . . . hub that provides seamless connections between . . .”
MOB 78.2:
Change “. . . that takes full advantage of existing or future transit opportunities.” Delete
rest of sentence.
Page 4-16
Change Section 4.4 to 4.5
First paragraph:
. . . and how to design a transportation system that accommodates users of all ages
and abilities, but does not exceed . . .”
MOB 9.3: change “. . . to the Town of constructing and operating circulation and . . .
MOB 9.4:
Delete “the needs of”
Page 4-17
Change Section 4.5 to 4.6
Second paragraph and Goal/Policies under MOB 13 refer to Hwy 17 inconsistently. And
elsewhere 17 is referred to as “SR17.” Recommend using Hwy 17 everywhere and
freeway only in association with 85.
Page 4-19
MOB 10.4:
This is one of my pet peeves, when the words are inherently in conflict: Discourage and
provide shouldn’t be used together.
Suggest:
“Discourage single access roads that impede safe and continuous access for all
roadway users.”
ATTACHMENT 7
6
MOB 10.5:
“Street improvements (and is this the “furniture??”) . . . shall be designed to not interfere
with safe movement . . .”
MOB 11: delete “that”
MOB 11.1: hyphenate “traffic-calming”
Page 4-20
MOB 12.2: consider moving the language address parking to MOB 15.1
MOB 12.3 hyphenate project-affected
Page 4-21
MOB 14.2: hyphenate through-access
Page 4-22
MOB 14.5:
Revise to: “New public street lighting shall be prohibited . . .”
Change Section 4.6 to 4.7
Page 4-23
MOB 15.3: change to “Consider expanding residential . . .”
MOB 15.7: insert the word “to” before “support travel”
Page 4-24
Change section to 4.8
Delete “that is” from second line first paragraph
IP Q: hyphenate “through-traffic”
ATTACHMENT 7
7
Mobility Element – Questions/Issues – Barbara Spector
MOB 1.2: Examples of “incentives”?
MOB 5.1: Why limit to Downtown?
MOB 5.2: E-scooters on street as opposed to sidewalk
MOB 6.3: Bicycles on sidewalks? Have created safety issues in the past
Figure 4-2: Identify transit service by date (“New”?)
MOB 7.4: Begin with “Work with….”
MOB 7.5: Reword: replace “of” with “and”
MOB 7.10: Include impacts on “neighborhoods”
MOB 8.2: Define “transit stops” to exclude transitory bus stops
MOB 11.2: What are “alternative street surfacing materials”?
MOB 13.1: What are “efficiency improvements”?
MOB 13.4: Examples of possible “connections”?
MOB 14: What is a “continuous” access within context of hillside
streets?
MOB 16.1: Incomplete sentence
Implementation Programs: Include requirement for annual progress
report
4-27 K: “within the Town”
Mobility Element – Disagree
4-2 Major Transit Stop – exclude temporary such as bus stop
13.5: Disagree on deletion of “lanes” reference.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 8
1
Staff response responses to Committee Member comments shown in read below.
Mobility Element Comments—Kathryn Janoff
General organizational question: To show priority of certain policies under a goal, some
with “shall” or “require” language should be elevated to follow the goal statement,
preceding the “encourage” or non-shall policies.
First section-- Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
should be numbered 4.1 (not 4.0). Renumber all subsequent sections
MOB-3.4: There’s a lot in this policy. Should be streamlined or broken into two policies
to cover existing sidewalks and newly developed. Would (presumably) new sidewalk
standards be needed if you already invoke ADA requirements? And do we need all the
detail about what’s removed/relocated?
Staff response - This could be separated into two as suggested, or converted to
Implementation Programs. New sidewalk standards would likely require more than
what ADA requires. Perhaps streamlining this item to remove the details on poles,
plants, etc and moving that into the establishment of sidewalk standards for new and
existing sidewalks would be a good direction.
Combine MOB 4.2 and 4.5
GOAL MOB 5: I know we recommended this wording, but the Goal is not solely about
walking. Change “walkable” to “non-driving”
Staff response- Multi-modal might be an alternative to “walking”.
MOB 7.11: what does this actually mean?
Staff response – This was intended to encourage shared parking to maximize
availability – the combined parking would provide greater availability than individual lots
that have restrictions.
MOB 9.2: How is this to be measured?
Staff response – Through standard traffic engineering analysis, including roadway
capacity, roadway function, intersection function, etc.
MOB 9.3: all circulation and transportation improvements seems overly broad and
vague. Suggest deleting “all”.
Yellow banner on page 4-17: Implementation Program B seems to indicate we are
moving in this direction. Might be appropriate to use typology language.
MOB 15.2 seems to belong in Section 4.7 under parking. Suggest moving and delete
the word “any”. That would be hard to do . . . so suggest “can accommodate increases
in . . .”
ATTACHMENT 8
2
MOB 16.1 seems unnecessary
MOB 14.2: There is a lot of the town in high fire hazard areas. Would it be prudent to
include both areas “as necessary.”
Point for discussion. Referencing MOB1.3 and MOB 12.3:
On the Planning Commission, we hear developers paint a favorable picture regarding
no impact on LOS. Residents argue otherwise. (Alberto Way for example.) There is
some concern that the measurement tools used for CEQA are outdated and do not
accurately reflect LG traffic situations. Nonetheless, developers usually “win” because
they are following the Town standard versus anecd otal descriptions usually have
minimal or no data.
Staff input – CEQA now requires Vehicle Miles Travelled for data analysis and LOS will
only be applicable for local policies.
This applies to a project before development happens, so the measurements and
assurances suppositions. I would like to see the General Plan require developers
measure, report and manage traffic after the development is built and occupied—along
the lines of what was requested of Hillbrook School. In this manner, the Town will be
developing its own datasets to compare against the standard currently used and can
determine if what the standards predict are consistent with actual traffic counts. Is this
what is intended by MOB 1.3?
Staff input – To some extent this is now occurring. Transportation Demand
Management Plans are now requiring ongoing management and compliance. A
reference to this leaving the methods for monitoring and compliance to the individua l
project may be appropriate. It is staff’s intent to bring revised Traffic Impact Policies to
the Council for consideration as the General Plan update is completed.
MOB 1.3:
TDM for Development Proposals All major development proposals with more than 10
housing units or over 5,000 square feet of non-residential square footage shall be
required to include a detailed, sustainable, and measurable, verifiable Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program for consideration by the Town during the review
of the development application and implemented and maintained as a condition of
approval on the project.
MOB 12.3:
If a project traffic will cause the current LOS for any project affected intersection to drop
by more than one level for an if the intersection currently at LOS A, B, or C, or to drop at
all if the intersection is at LOS D or below, the project shall construct improvements or
put TDM measures in place mitigate the traffic so that the level of service operation will
remain at an acceptable level. (add) These measures shall be implemented and
maintained as a condition of approval on the project. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.5,
modified]
ATTACHMENT 8
3
Staff input – this will be difficult to implement as the improvements are often significant
and costly and need to be incorporated in the project pro forma at the beginning to
determine if the project will work financially for the developer.
Implementation Plan O should also reference policies under Goal 11
The Parking Study is not mentioned in the Implementation Plans, but it has reasonable
recommendations that could/should be implemented.
******************************
General edits
Page 4-1
Change: “The Mobility Element is designed to address all aspects of moving people and
goods.”
Re-number sections
Page 4-2
Key Terms:
Change TDM: “pieces” to “section”
page 4-3
1st paragraph: change the word “looking” to measuring or analyzing (2 places)
Spell out the VMT acronym in its first use in text (second line)
Change: “reduce vehicle usage and encourage alternative . . .”
MOB 1.2
What might those incentives be? And change: “ reduce employee trips . . .”
1.3: Period after “(TDM) program.” Replace remainder of policy with “The program shall
be implemented and maintained as a condition of approval on the project.”
Section 4.1 (to be changed to 4.2), strike last two sentences that describe current state.
Will not be relevant in 20 years.
Page 4-6
Goal MOB-2: delete “Town”
MOB 2.1: delete “facilities”2.2: delete “encouragement and”
MOB-2.2 and 2.3 are duplicated. Is something missing under 2.3?
ATTACHMENT 8
4
MOB 2.7: delete comas, hyphenate “through-access”
MOB 2.8: delete “to each of its schools”
MON 2.10: delete “major” ; replace “greater than” with “with 100 employees or more”
Page 4-7
MOB 2-12: delete “private” and public”, to read: “
Require bicycle parking in all parking lots in the Downtown.”
MOB 3.3: replace “behind” with “between”
Page 4-8
MOB 3.6: Street furniture??? What would this be? If benches or seating, say that.
MOB 3.7:
Change: “In non-hillside areas, enhance street lighting for pedestrian safety.”
MOB 4.2: delete “/or” and “be” before consistent
Question: MOB 4.4 and 7.6 is “Special Populations” the preferred term?
MOB 4.7: revise:
“Encourage existing home owner associations (HOA) to maintain trails that pass
through their subdivisions. Encourage the formation of HOAs for new subdivisions or
planned development to maintain trails that pass through their areas.
Page 4-9
MOB 4.9: Cumbersome reading. Suggest revise:
“The location of multiple-use trails should:
• Not impact existing . . .
• Traverse the open space . . .
• Traverse . . .
• Be built on
Page 4-10
Renumber to 4.3
GOAL MOB 5: I know we recommended this wording, but the Goal is not solely about
walking. Change “walkable” to “non-driving”?
ATTACHMENT 8
5
Page 4-11
Revise intro paragraph:
“ . . . encourage non-driving transportation alternatives (e.g., bicycle lockers . . .”
MOB 6.3:
What is meant?
Require (only) wide sidewalks to . . .
Or
Require sidewalks to be wide enough to allow shared . . .
MOB 6.4: replace “”and do not conflict with” with “without impeding”
Revise so intent is clear
Page 4-11
Renumber 4.3 to 4.4
Page 4-14
MOB 7.3: delete “otherwise”
MOB 7.5: revise “determine the feasibility of financing additional shuttles to improve
connections . . .
MOB 7.6: See comment at 4.4. insert “and” before low income people. Delete “and
other groups with special needs.
MOB 7.7:
“Encourage public transit use . . .”
Page 4-15
MOB 7.10: change to “ . . . hub that provides seamless connections between . . .”
MOB 78.2:
Change “. . . that takes full advantage of existing or future transit opportunities.” Delete
rest of sentence.
Page 4-16
Change Section 4.4 to 4.5
First paragraph:
. . . and how to design a transportation system that accommodates users of all ages
and abilities, but does not exceed . . .”
ATTACHMENT 8
6
MOB 9.3: change “. . . to the Town of constructing and operating circulation and . . .
MOB 9.4:
Delete “the needs of”
Page 4-17
Change Section 4.5 to 4.6
Second paragraph and Goal/Policies under MOB 13 refer to Hwy 17 inconsistently. And
elsewhere 17 is referred to as “SR17.” Recommend using Hwy 17 everywhere and
freeway only in association with 85.
Page 4-19
MOB 10.4:
This is one of my pet peeves, when the words are inherently in conflict: Discourage and
provide shouldn’t be used together.
Suggest:
“Discourage single access roads that impede safe and continuous access for all
roadway users.”
MOB 10.5:
“Street improvements (and is this the “furniture??”) . . . shall be designed to not interfere
with safe movement . . .”
MOB 11: delete “that”
MOB 11.1: hyphenate “traffic-calming”
Page 4-20
MOB 12.2: consider moving the language address parking to MOB 15.1
MOB 12.3 hyphenate project-affected
Page 4-21
MOB 14.2: hyphenate through-access
Page 4-22
MOB 14.5:
Revise to: “New public street lighting shall be prohibited . . .”
ATTACHMENT 8
7
Change Section 4.6 to 4.7
Page 4-23
MOB 15.3: change to “Consider expanding residential . . .”
MOB 15.7: insert the word “to” before “support travel”
Page 4-24
Change section to 4.8
Delete “that is” from second line first paragraph
IP Q: hyphenate “through-traffic”
ATTACHMENT 8
8
Mobility Element – Questions/Issues – Barbara Spector
MOB 1.2: Examples of “incentives”?
Staff input – This will vary and evolve, but may include transit passes, carpool
parking, bike amenities, etc.
MOB 5.1: Why limit to Downtown?
MOB 5.2: E-scooters on street as opposed to sidewalk
Staff input – This could be something addressed in policy or ordinance.
MOB 6.3: Bicycles on sidewalks? Have created safety issues in the past
Staff input – Perhaps change to “multi-use paths”
Figure 4-2: Identify transit service by date (“New”?)
MOB 7.4: Begin with “Work with….”
MOB 7.5: Reword: replace “of” with “and”
MOB 7.10: Include impacts on “neighborhoods”
MOB 8.2: Define “transit stops” to exclude transitory bus stops
MOB 11.2: What are “alternative street surfacing materials”?
Staff input – These are intended to be speed humps or other traffic calming
measures.
MOB 13.1: What are “efficiency improvements”?
Staff input – These would be identified after an engineering study and could
include auxiliary lanes, restriping to minimize merging, etc.
MOB 13.4: Examples of possible “connections”?
Staff input – This would include all interchanges and potential future connections
along Highway 85 for transit or other center median transportation.
MOB 14: What is a “continuous” access within context of hillside streets?
Staff input – This would be access uninterrupted by road closures (intentional or
accidental) such that residents have means of ingress and egress.
MOB 16.1: Incomplete sentence
Implementation Programs: Include requirement for annual progress report
4-27 K: “within the Town”
Mobility Element – Disagree
4-2 Major Transit Stop – exclude temporary such as bus stop
13.5: Disagree on deletion of “lanes” reference.