Item 4 - Staff Report 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
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: September 11, 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:
The General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) began the review and discussion of the
initial draft of the Mobility Element at their July 16, 2020 meeting and continued that review
with a revised version on September 3, 2020. Because the September 3, 2020 meeting ran
long, the decision was made to request written comments from the Committee Members and
continue the discussion of the revised version (Attachment 4) to September 17, 2020.
Attachment 10 contains additional comments from Committee Members. Any additional
comments received by 11:00 a.m. on September 17, 2020 from Committee Members or the
public will be provided with an addendum or desk item report.
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
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Draft of the Mobility Element
September 11, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\09-17-20\Item 4 - Staff Report.docx
Attachment previously received with September 3, 2020 Desk Item Report:
9. Committee Member Comments
Attachment received with this Staff Report:
10. Committee Member Comments
ATTACHMENT 10
Revised introductory language for the Mobility Element – Kathryn Janoff
4.1 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
In planning for a vehicle transportation system, the State of California now requires
municipalities to use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). contemporary This planning practices are
shifting from looking at the number of vehicles on any given roadway segment to instead
looking at evaluates the total VMT within the community versus the number of vehicles on a
given roadway. The Town’s goals are well-aligned with the State’s intent in making this switch.
Those goals are to promote:
• The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
• The development of multimodal transportation networks (i.e., networks that serve a variety
of users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and drivers)
• A diversity of land uses (i.e., neighborhoods and cities with housing, jobs, shops and services
in close proximity to each other).
Looking at Using the VMT approach helps to focus on creating a community that aims to reduce
vehicle miles traveled. provides a balance of land uses and promotes alternative modes of
travel, such as walking, bicycling, or using transit. In order To adequately address the Town’s
current reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, the Town must focus on creating strategies and
incentives to reduce vehicle usage and encourageing alternative modes of transportation. One
method to achieving a less for reducing vehicle-centric community VMT is to incorporate a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) model. TDM is the application of strategies to
reduce vehicle travel, with an emphasis during peak periods of travel, in order to reduce
congestion, and improve traffic flow without having to increase the capacity or physical size of
transportation infrastructure, and reduce overall reliance on vehicles and vehicular trips.
2
Comments on the Mobility Element – Ryan Rosenberg
Mob 5, 5.1, and 5.2
I felt like we are losing the idea of a walkable downtown. I know this is something people in the
town care about (a lot), plus there are actually things that can be done to make a downtown
walkable. So I like the idea of calling this out as a separate goal.
I’m fine with that being in the pedestrian part though.
I also felt that Mob 5.1 and Mob 5.2 were very close and should probably be combined into
one.
Mob 6.3
Is there a definition of what “wide sidewalks” means? This falls into the “Objective Standards”
area.
I’m still a little fuzzy when you want an objective standard and when you don’t. I certainly see
Joels point that putting a specific number in here does not make sense, and there is not one
number anyway. Plus Jennifer points out the various documents shift around.
Alternatively we should say some thing like “wide sidewalks” as defined in town ordinances
(without specific which ordinances we are talking about)
But maybe I'm overthinking this. If there is no issue here we can just leave it alone.
Mob 9.2
I did not know what is meant by “transportation capacity”? Is that defined somewhere? I
looked at the front in the list of terms but “transportation capacity” did not show up. Maybe
we should add it?
Mob 15.3
I’m not sure why this in there about residential permit parking expansion? Are we currently
considering an expansion of residential parking permits? Is one needed?
It seems like this goal might have been left over from the past and could be removed.
Mob 16.1
I believe there is an error in this one. The first sentence does not make sense. It reads:
3
Stand-alone parking facilities in the Downtown. All parking facilities shall exhibit excellence in
design, minimize impacts on adjacent properties, and be consistent with the Town's
character. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-14.3, modified]
Implementation Plans
I don’t see an implementation program for dealing with passthrough traffic. I realize there was
some controversy about including that but it was voted on as a goal and it should get
an implementation program too. Maybe it should be ongoing.
I would like to see a program to encourage walkable downtown as well.
4
Comments and Suggested Edits: Mobility Element – Marcia Jensen
Page 4-1: Introductory Paragraph:
“The Mobility Element is designed to address all aspect s of the movement…”
“This Element presents a more holistic…”
“It also addresses more typical aspects…”
Page 4-3:
4.0:
“…strategies and incentives to reduce vehicle usage while encouraging alternative modes of
transportation. One means of achieving…”
MOB-1.4: The acronym “TIF” is not defined (and has not been defined previous to its use here)
Page 4-7:
MOB-3: The entire goal, in particular MOB-3.4, needs to be clear about when and how the
identified action items are to be accomplished. E.g., MOB-3.4 calls for removal and relocation of
various landscaping and infrastructure, along with modification of roadway infrastructure – this
would be cost-prohibitive (among other things) along North Santa Cruz Avenue.
Page 4-9:
MOB-4.9: Remove bullet 1. There should be no consideration of existing homes in the
placement and nature of trails.
Page 4-10:
MOB-5.4: Include TDM as an option
Page 4-11:
MOB-5.4: Include TDM as an option
MOB-6.3: “Require wide sidewalks…” Where? Hillsides where there are no sidewalks?
Downtown streets where residents have affirmatively demanded that there be no sidewalks?
Retrofitting required? Etc.,
Page 4-12:
4.3 “Local Bus Transit” – delete 2nd paragraph. There is no School Bus Pilot.
Page 4-16:
MOB-9.1: Include TDM as an option
MOB-9.2: “Development shall not exceed transportation capacity.” How is “transportation
capacity” defined?” A neighbor says there will be too much traffic? As determined in an EIR to
create no substantial unmitigated impact? In short – this could mean anything as currently
written.
Page 4-19 and 4-20:
MOB-11: I strenuously object to the inclusion of this entire “cut-through traffic” goal. It is NOT
an appropriate issue for a General Plan designed to look to the future – it is a reactionary
response to current unhappiness of some residents.
More specifically:
MOB-11.2: HOW is it possible to “limit cut-through vehicle traffic without impacting the
freedom of movement of residents (query whether a goal confined to benefiting residents ONLY
on public streets is even legal) or diverting vehicle traffic to other neighborhood streets.” ANY
diversion on one street will divert traffic to another street – as proven in the very next sentence
5
– which suggests “traffic diverters” – divert to where???? Unless cars can fly, they are being
diverted to “other neighborhood streets.”
MOB-11.4: “Minimize opportunities for regionally generated cut-through vehicle travel in the
Town as part of new roadway projects…”
• Legal? One imagines here that Los Gatos would erect barriers, etc., so that drivers
essentially could not get off the freeway
• How is “regionally generated” vehicle travel to be identified?? My mother comes to visit
from Saratoga – “regionally generated?” My Amazon package is delivered from a
warehouse in San Jose – “regionally generated?”
MOB-11.5: “Require that all new development demonstrates, and is conditioned, so that
commercial traffic flow through residential neighborhoods does not occur.” There goes my
Amazon delivery….
MOB-12.1: TDM should be included as an option
MOB-12.2: Rather than “confirm[ing]” that transportation and parking proposed in new
developments can “accommodate” demand – why not simply require circulation, parking, etc.,
to meet state and local standards???
Page 4-22:
MOB-15.1: New development should be required to do nothing more than meet applicable
standards. Avoiding “adverse affect” on neighboring properties should not be a goal.
Page 4-23:
MOB-15.3: Absolutely, strenuously, object to the inclusion of this section. Residential permit
parking should not only not be expanded, it should be eliminated. Failing elimination – any
residential parking plan, permit or otherwise, should simply be required to be governed by the
findings and recommendations of the Comprehensive Parking Study.
MOB-15.6: Wayfinding should simply be consistent with the Comprehensive Parking Study.
MOB-16.1: This is edited incorrectly. The first sentence now reads” “Stand -alone parking
facilities in the Downtown.”
MOB-16.2: Include TDM as an option.
6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank