Item 3 - Addendum 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: 12/17/2020
ITEM: 3
ADDENDUM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: December 16, 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 15 contains comments from Committee Members.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with the 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 the July 16, 2020 Desk Item Report:
3. Committee Member Comments
Attachments previously received with the 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 the September 3, 2020 Addendum Report:
7. Committee Member Comments
8. Staff Responses to Committee Member Comments
Attachment previously received with the September 3, 2020 Desk Item Report:
9. Committee Member Comments
Attachment previously received with the September 17, 2020 Staff Report:
10. Committee Member Comments
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Draft of the Mobility Element
December 16, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\12-17-20\Item 3 - Addendum.docx
Attachment previously received with the September 17, 2020 Desk Item Report:
11. Committee Member Comments
Attachments previously received with the December 17, 2020 Staff Report:
12. Second Revised Initial Draft of the Mobility Element
13. Comment Response Summary Table
14. Committee Member Comments
Attachments received with this Addendum Report:
15. Committee Member Comments
Mobility Element Comments—Kathryn Janoff
Minor Edits only:
P. 4-3
Intro, Third sentence from the end, “Town’s VMT standard.”
Last two sentences are sort of convoluted. Suggest the following:
The transportation impact of future development projects can be measured against this
standard, allowing the Town to adopt strategies to achieve VMT targets.
Are we retaining LOS? If so, reword second paragraph to be clear that LG is retaining
LOS. Delete language referring to “jurisdictions” in general.
Last intro paragraph: Revise first sentence, which has a whopping six verbs!!
“The VMT approach aims to reduce vehicle miles traveled.”
MOB-1.1: Move last sentence, which is explanatory and not policy, to follow the last
sentence of the last paragraph in the intro.
P. 4-4
MOB-1.3” . . . mechanisms may be required . . .” Are they or aren’t they? Suggest
deleting this sentence as it undercuts the “shall” of the first part of this policy.
MOB-1.4: delete parentheses around “with over 100 employees”
4.2: First paragraph: Eliminate the last three sentences as this immediately dates the
section. Including this data implies either we are proud of what we have (and don’t
need more) or this is where we are and we want to add bikeways throu gh 2040. If the
first is the case, delete this (the data is in the master plan). If we want to add bikeway
miles, include a policy and an implementation program.
Third paragraph: delete “is safe and” and add “provides safe access”
Fifth paragraph, delete the parenthetical revision dates and move this paragraph to the
end of the third paragraph.
P. 4-7
MOB-2.16: can “adequate width” be specified? Is there a code requirement?
ATTACHMENT 15
2
P. 4-8
MOB-3.5: delete hyphen between “pass through”
P. 4-9
4.3, First paragraph: second sentence, replace “using” with “accommodating”
And delete last three sentences. These concepts are already captured in goals MOB -4,
MOB-5 and MOB-2
MOB-4.4: “Limit widening of all roadways for vehicular use “
P. 4-10
MOB-5.1: Replace the last phrase with “other forms of personal mobility that are energy
conserving and non-polluting”
P. 4-11
Last sentence under the VTA Extension, is adequate funding a VTA budget or LG
budget issue? Both? Clarify which.
P. 4-13
MOB-6.4: delete comma and “to”: “service for Los Gatos and increase ridership.”
MOB-6.9” End policy after the word “lighting.”
MOB-6.10: Reword. As-written, it says we want a mobility hub that does good things,
but not if it impacts neighborhoods . . .” mixed message.
4.5: Modify last phrase: “and abilities, without exceeding the system’s capacity.”
P. 4-19: MOB-10.4: delete the word “flow” and insert hyphen between traffic-calming
MOB-12.1: Do we have jurisdiction to say this? Or is a matter of LG i nfluencing Caltrans
decisions?
P. 4-21
4.7: Struck me that this section is out of order. Suggest parking it at the end . . . as 4.8.
3
Memo
To: General Plan Update Advisory Committee 2040
Fr: Carol Elias Zolla
Corrections/Comments to the Mobility Element
Page 4-1, last sentence. Remove the comma, after “including”.
Page 4-2, Cut Through Traffic section. Change “get to their destination” to “get to a
driver’s destination.”
Page 4-3, MOB 1.1 - Second sentence. Not clear if the developer or the Town
implements the program.
Page 4-6, MOB 2.4 - you have “increased sidewalk width”, but not “increase the number
of sidewalks”. [Note: that goal is included in Implementations #G.]
Page 4-10, Section 4.4, Local Bus Traffic. Third sentence. “Existing Routes 48 and 49
were…” not “where”.
Page 4-13, MOB 6.3 - isn’t a “streetcar” the same as “light rail”?
Page 4-19, MOB 11.2 - Last sentence. “condition of approval of the project” not “on”.
Page 4-21, MOB 14.3 - “peak drop off” not “dop”.
Page 4-26, Implementations #G, last row needs to be aligned with the other rows.
4
General Plan Advisory Committee
Memo
To: Chairperson Hanssen and Members of the Committee
From: Steve Piasecki
Date: December 17, 2020
Re: Revised Draft of the Mobility Element
4. Mobility Element
Policy Overview
Walking is the surest way that Los Gatos residents and visitors can reduce their VMT. Neighbors can
meet and greet each other while walking thereby promoting a greater sense of community.
Enhancing walkability should be one of the primary aims of the mobility element and it should be
given equal weight with bicycling or driving. As presently worded many of the policies separate
pedestrians from bicycles and vehicles. For instance MOB-2.2 and MOB-2.5 discuss improving and
avoiding negative impacts on bicycling in town. These policies should include walkability.
Page 4-2
KEY TERMS
“Cut-Through Traffic”
The definition of cut-through traffic incudes “vehicle trips that pass through a neighborhood.” The
primary users of neighborhood streets are most likely local residents. We don’t need this wording to
discourage outside commuters from using neighborhood streets because the trip is still a cut-through
trip whether they use a neighbor street or stay on the arterial streets. Also, it could be used by one
neighborhood to claim neighbors from adjacent neighborhoods are cutting through their street. The
only “solution” will likely be to shift the burden from their street to another neighborhood street.
I suggest that we delete the reference “or vehicle trips that pass through a neighborhood as a short
cut to using arterial streets to get to their destination” and focus the goal on true cut-through traffic
from outside the town.
5
Page 4-3
Policy MOB-1.1
We don’t need the second sentence starting with “the Town shall consider,” since the first sentence
already states “require all developments…” The final sentence cites examples of TDM which can be
placed into the definition of TDM on page 4-2.
Page 4-4
Introduction 3rd paragraph and 5th paragraph
We should remove references to the years that any policy document was adopted, updated or
revised. In 10 to 20 years nobody is going to care when a policy was originally adopted or first
revised.
Page 4-6
All Policies under Goal MOB-2
We should include pedestrians and walking with all references to bicycles through-out thie Mobility
Element. For instance MOB-2.1 should be titled “Roads for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Vehicles.
MOB-2.3 should read “Improve Walking and Bicycling in the Town.”
Policy MOB-2.11
Add the wording “parking in all parking lots town-wide” to the to the end of MOB-2.10 and remove
MOB-2.11.
Page 4-7
MOB-2.16
Add the words “and safety” to the end of the policy.
MOB-3.4
Add the words “bicycle and pedestrian facilities” at the end.
Page 4-9
I think we can design our major arterials to reflect a “small-town” character (maximum of four lanes)
with vehicles traveling at slower speeds while accommodating traffic from existing and new
development. Six lane arterials are not “small-town.”
To achieve this I would like the Town policy to explore reducing the number of lanes on Los Gatos
Blvd. to four lanes with interconnected signal timing. This may cause some congestion during peak
periods that will have the effect of discouraging cut-through traffic while platooning traffic at slower
speeds. Obviously this needs to be modeled on the computer prior to adoption to ensure that we can
reasonably achieve the desired goals.
Suggested New Policy:
MOB-4.5 Evaluate the feasibility of reducing the number of through travel lands on Los Gatos
Boulevard with interconnected signal timing and devoting the reclaimed travel-lane space to
enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank