Item 4 - Desk Item with Attachment
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 09/17/2020
ITEM: 4
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: September 17, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of the Revised Initial Draft of the Mobility Element.
REMARKS:
Attachment 11 contains comments from 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 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 previously received with September 3, 2020 Desk Item Report:
9. Committee Member Comments
Attachment previously received with September 17, 2020 Staff Report:
10. Committee Member Comments
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Draft of the Mobility Element
September 17, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\09-17-20\Item 4 - Desk Item.docx
Attachment received with this Desk Item Report:
11. Committee Member Comments
ATTACHMENT 11
Mobility Element Comments – Barbara Spector
I have previously submitted input to the Mobility Element
(Attachment 8 to the September 3rd meeting). In some
instances, staff provided “Input.” However, that Input did not
address the issue of clarity for future readers of the General
Plan. It simply responded to the issue I was raising.
2
GPAC Chair Comments on Mobility Element (includes other committee
member comments)
NOTE: all sections up to 4.3 were discussed in September 3 meeting.
OVERALL COMMENTS (not specific to a section)
- General organizational comment (Janoff)—show priority of policies
with those having “shall” or “require” be listed first. Chair--Agree with
this.
- Connection between and climate change not clearly articulated
(Quintana). Chair--Agree we need to add this to beginning.
- Repetition in element (Quintana). Chair--this is the nature of the GP
- LOS and road classification system leads to inconsistencies
(Quintana). Chair—GPAC needs to discuss with 4.5. Possibility of
alternate system pg. 4-17
- List all triggers for TDM in one place (Quintana). Chair: best to have
throughout
- Clarify how change from LOS to VMT affects Town traffic impact fees
(Quintana).
- Key terms---define TIF. (Quintana). Chair—agree.
- Opportunities for Objective Standards (Chair)
o VMT—we should reference goals we have in Sustainability
Plan
o Be able to measure/define how we are doing making sure that
traffic doesn’t exceed capacity (MOB 9.2).
INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS
4.0 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
MOB 1.1 and 1.3: maybe clarify that TDM must include ongoing
compliance/monitoring after development is complete (Janoff). Chair:
Agree if feasible
MOB 1.1 and 1.2—Combine these (Quintana)
MOB 1.4 define near major transit (Quintana). Chair: delete “major” as we
have no major transit stops
3
Chair—reduce number of policies. MOB 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are similar.
4.1 —Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Overall—Suggest regrouping policies by area of focus (Quintana). Chair:
agree
MOB-2—Goal regarding Bicycling
Suggest streamlining to “throughout Town” or similar
MOB 2.2 and 2.3—redundant, eliminate one. (Quintana, Chair)
MOB 2.2 and 2.3—explain investments. Also wording is awkward.
(Quintana).
MOB 2.5—Delete Or modify like 3.6 (Quintana). Chair—agree, 3.6 reads
much better than 2.5 but both speak to same idea.
MOB 2.5 If modified, maybe don’t need 2.2 or 2.3. Or create new policy like
3.5—promote walking (Chair).
MOB 2.7—What is block? Quintana. Addressed in last meeting.
MOB 2.9—who is responsible? (Quintana)
MOB 2.10 new or existing or both (Quintana)?
MOB 2.12—why only Downtown? And is new, existing development or
both? (Quintana). Chair—agree.
MOB-3— Goal regarding Pedestrians
Suggest streamlining wording of goal.
MOB 3.2— Which are key locations (Quintana)? Chair—maybe refer to
Bike and Ped master plan
MOB 3.3—what is adequate clearance (Quintana)? Chair: Maybe refer to
standard or plan
MOB 3.4 –too detailed. Put into implementation program. Suggested by
multiple GPAC members.
MOB 3.7—Enhance or add? Why not in hillsides if for safety? (Quintana).
Chair: my street (in hillsides) has walkers and bikers probably 16 hours per
day. Need street lighting for safety. Also need street lighting to protect
residents—deer traversing streets—what if you cannot see them?
MOB-4—goal pertaining to trails
MOB 4.2 and 4.5. Combine these. Janoff, Chair
MOB 4.2 Should or shall? What creates priorities? BikePed plan?
(Quintana)
MOB 4.6 and 4.7—combine with or move to 4.1 (Quintana)? Chair: Agree
or move to implementation.
MOB 4.7 --Can Town require HOA’s to do this? If so, then say it.
(Quintana)
4
MOB 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10—How does this relate to Class I bikeways and to
MOB 2.4?
MOB 4.11—what about trails not in hillsides? (Quintana)
MOB 4.9 and 4.10-- Combine or move to implementation or some design
guideline (Chair)
MOB 4.11 and 4.12—possible to combine? (Chair)
MOB 4.12 and 4.13—combine? (Quintana)
4.2—Multimodal System/Complete Streets
Overall: Maybe move this section to earlier in the document (after VMT) as
it is high level. Multiple GPAC members
MOB-5—emphasizing non-driving modes of transportation
Change wording in goal—walkable should be multimodal or non- driving
(Janoff).Chair—agree. Comment by GPAC member (Rosenberg) to have
goal or policy to encourage walking downtown. Suggest moving to MOB-3
Pedestrian section (Chair).
MOB 5.1 don’t limit to downtown (Spector)
MOB 5.1 and 5.2—combine or modify 5.1 (Multiple GPAC members)
MOB 5.2 E-scooters belong on streets not sidewalks (staff—put in
ordinance) (Spector). Chair—Agree.
MOB 5.4 and 5.5—Opportunity for TDM—specify. (Mayor Jensen), (Chair)
MOB-6—talking about a comprehensive transportation network to
support multi-modal
MOB 6.3 bicycles on sidewalks? (Spector). Chair- agree.
MOB 6.3—“wide” sidewalks is vague. Need to refer to standard if we are
requiring this (Rosenberg).
MOB 6.3—Where? Hillsides have limited/no sidewalks. Downtown streets
where residents have demanded no sidewalks? (Mayor Jensen).
4.3 —Transit Services and Facilities
Overview: delete second paragraph about school bus pilot—multiple GPAC
members
Add legend to map for clarity about VLR and route 27 (Quintana)
Under Vasona Light Rail, clarify that Route 27 connects to Winchester Light
Rail Station. (Quintana). Chair—this is mentioned under Local Bus Transit.
MOB-7—increasing public transit opportunities
5
MOB 7.10—include impact on residents/neighborhoods (Spector). Chair-
agree
MOB-8—reducing development impacts near transit stops/taking
advantage of transit opportunities
MOB 8.2—Define transit stops to exclude transitory bus stops (Spector)
4.4—Transportation Systems
MOB-9—Optimizing transportation systems to meet the needs of all
users
MOB 9.1 Include TDM as an option. (Jensen). Chair--agree
MOB 9.2—how to measure (Janoff). Chair—agree—possible opportunity
for objective standard? Additional comment from Rosenberg and Jensen.
Need to discuss at next meeting.
MOB 9.3—clarify wording (Janoff). Chair—maybe re-write—Decisions
relative to construction and operation of transportation systems must
consider the full fiscal impacts including ongoing maintenance.
MOB 4.5 Roadways
Page 4-17—Note to reviewer mentions again typology vs. classic street
definitions. There is an implementation program related to this. Perhaps
mention that here in this section. (Chair).
Note to reviewer—Suggest GPAC request a more refined street topology
for future drafts(Quintana). Chair—Agree, worth considering
MOB-10—safe, efficient and well-designed roadway network
No committee comments as of 9/3
MOB-11—new goal we voted on during last meeting about mitigating
cut-through traffic
Suggest re-ordering/regrouping the policies—seems to jump from one thing
to another. (Chair)
Object to this goal and policies. (Jensen). Chair—this was voted on by
GPAC and passed by majority.
MOB 11.2—how to limit cut-through traffic without impacting movement of
residents (Jensen). Chair—need to discuss at next meeting.
MOB 11.4—description is too vague—the goal is to minimize cut-through
traffic and this is a policy. (Chair)
MOB 11.4 Is this legal? Also need to define regionally generated. (Jensen)
MOB 11.2 and 11.4—not sure what the difference is between these.
MOB 11.5—Not sure if it is clear what “commercial” means. This shouldn’t
include deliveries. (Chair)
6
MOB-12—mitigate transportation impacts from new development
MOB 12.3—need for objective standard here as well as ongoing
measurement (Janoff—also mentioned for 1.3). Chair—agree but need to
determine to what degree if any LOS will be used going forward.
MOB-13—Highway 17
MOB13.5 --disagree with lanes being deleted. (Spector)
MOB 13.5 didn’t council support widening 17 bet 85 and 9 to eliminate
merge lanes? (Quintana)
MOB-14—Hillside streets
MOB14.2 what about other areas of Town in high fire hazard? (Janoff).
Chair—agree, need to discuss.
MOB 14.5—suggest we modify this to eliminate “recurring” and possibly to
be less specific about the Chief of Police. If public safety issues are
recurring then someone has already been hurt most likely. Also shouldn’t
deciding body include Parks and Public Works? I would also argue this
could be deleted as it is already in the Hillside Design Guidelines and this is
not relating to the goal MOB-14. This policy is about aesthetics. (Chair)
4.6—Parking
MOB-15—general goal parking availability and impacts
MOB 15.2 Seems to belong under 4.7 parking (Janoff). Chair—Not sure I
understand comment.
MOB 15.3—is this needed? (Rosenberg)
MOB 15.3 Object to this policy. Should not be expanded, should be
eliminated. Any plan should be governed by the Comprehensive Parking
Study (Jensen)
MOB 15.6 Wayfinding should be consistent with the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Parking Study. (Jensen)
MOB-16—Downtown parking
I know a number of committee members wanted access to the Downtown
Parking Study which a link for that was provided in the staff report. (Chair).
MOB 16.1—Should we explicitly mention encouraging underground
parking? (chair)
MOB 16.1—wording doesn’t make sense (Rosenberg, Jensen)
MOB 16.2—Include TDM as an option (Jensen). Chair—Agree.
4.7—Goods Movement
MOB-17—Safe and efficient truck/delivery routes
Suggests combining with Complete Streets (Quintana)
7
4.8 Implementation programs
-O should reference policies from MOB-11 (Janoff)
-Parking study recommendations should be included in the Implementation
plans (Janoff). Chair – agree also to avoid duplication. There should be a
review of the Parking Study recommendations and compare it with any
implementation programs in the General Plan so they are consistent.
- Suggest adding an implementation program relative to cut-through traffic
since it is a goal (Rosenberg). Chair—isn’t this what program O is? Maybe
rename it?
-Suggest adding a program to encourage a walkable downtown.
(Rosenberg). Chair--agree
- Program A—is this intended to create an objective standard? Chair
- Program B—if this is the same as the note to reviewer on 4-17, then it
should say that in that section.
- Program I—don’t we have this already? If so, delete. (Chair)
- Program Y—this reads like a goal. If it is, make it a goal. Also, it refers to
policies that don’t exist in the document. There is no MOB 11.7 in the
document nor is there 12.6 or 12.7. If it is an implementation program, then
perhaps make it to develop guidelines for TDM and incentives. (Chair).
8
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank