Item 3 - Staff Report with Attachments
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
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: December 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 and September 17, 2020. Based on the feedback
received at these meetings, staff has worked with the consultants, Mintier Harnish, to present
an updated version of the Initial Draft of the Mobility Element (Attachment 12), along with an
updated table summarizing the comments received, an d how they have been implemented
(Attachment 13).
Attachment 14 contains additional comments from a Committee Member. Additional
comments, whether from committee members or the public, that are received by 11:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, December 16, 2020, will be provided to the GPAC in an Addendum Report that
afternoon so that text changes can be considered by all committee members prior to the
meeting. Any comments received after that time, but before 11:00 a.m. on the day of the
meeting will be provided in a Desk Item.
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
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Draft of the Mobility Element
December 11, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\12-17-20\Item 3 - Staff Report.docx
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
Attachment previously received with September 17, 2020 Desk Item Report:
11. Committee Member Comments
Attachments received with this Staff Report:
12. Second Revised Initial Draft of the Mobility Element
13. Comment Response Summary Table
14. Committee Member Comments
4
4.Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-1
The Mobility Element is designed to address all aspects of moving of people and goods. This Element addresses
a more holistic approach to sustainable transportation methods that focus on strategies for reducing vehicle miles
traveled, enhancing a multimodal transportation system, and enhancing infrastructure for bicyclists, pedestrians,
and transit riders. The goal of this Element is to achieve transportation reductions and promote alternative forms
of transportation that will reduce the local and regional effects of climate change. Los Gatos can do its part by
creating a more walkable community where reliance on the vehicle is reduced and non -driving forms of
transportation will be more feasible. This Element also addresses the typical aspects of a transportation network
including, roadways, parking, and the movement of goods. [Source: Existing General Plan, modified]
The goals, policies, and implementation programs in the Mobility Element are consistent and interdependent with
the other elements of the General Plan. [Source: Existing General Plan, modified]
The Mobility Element includes the following sections:
Contents
Section Title Page
Key Terms .............................................................................................................................................. 2
4.1 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (was 4.8) ............................................................................. 3
4.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (was 4.6 and 4.5) .............................................................. 4
4.3 Multimodal System / Complete Streets (was Sections 4.2 and 4.3) ..................................... 9
4.4 Transit Services and Facilities (was 4.6) ............................................................................. 11
4.5 Transportation Systems (was 4.0) ....................................................................................... 15
4.6 Roadways (was 4.1) ............................................................................................................ 16
4.7 Parking (was 4.9) ................................................................................................................. 21
4.8 Goods Movement (was 4.7) ................................................................................................. 23
4.9 Implementation Programs .................................................................................................... 25
ATTACHMENT 12
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-2 Public Review Draft December 2020
Key Terms
Bikeway Types. Bikeways are typically classified into one of four classes depending on their design and
placement.
▪ Class I bikeways (bike paths) are also described as bike paths, shared paths (shared with pedestrians),
and multi-use paths, and provide a completely separate right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of
bicyclists and pedestrians with minimized vehicle and pedestrian cross -flow.
▪ Class II bikeways (bike lanes) are lanes for bicyclists generally adjacent to outer vehicle travel lanes with
special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage.
▪ Class III bikeways (bike routes) are designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with
pedestrians or motor vehicles but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping.
▪ Class IV bikeways (cycle tracks or protected bike lanes) provide a right-of-way designated exclusively
for bicycle travel within a roadway and which are protected from other vehicle traffic with devices,
including, but not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or parked cars.
Complete Streets. A transportation policy and design approach that requires streets to be planned, designed,
operated, and maintained to enable safe and convenient access for all users regardless of their mode of
transportation (such as vehicle, bicycle, and walking), age, and ability.
Cut-through Traffic. Vehicle trips that pass entirely through the Town without stopping to patronize local
businesses or job centers or vehicle trips that pass through a neighborhood as a short cut to using arterial streets
or regional highways to get to their destination.
Level of Service (LOS). A qualitative measure used to rate a roadway segment’s traffic flow characteristics
during peak hours. LOS acts as an indicator of roadway performance relative to locally established standards for
quality of service based on measures of speed, density, and congestion that are designated using letters from “A”
(good) to “F” (poor). LOS can assist in determining when roadway capacity improvements are needed.
Transit Stop. A hub for multiple transit lines or supports connection between multiple transportation modes
(multimodal travel).
Multimodal. This term refers to transportation planning that considers various modes (such as automobile,
bicycles, walking, public transit) of travel and the connections between these modes.
Multiple Use Trails. Trail systems designed to facilitate multiple modes of use, such as pedestrians, and
bicyclists.
TIF. Traffic Impact Fees.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM). TDM strategies are used to reduce vehicle travel, with an
emphasis on reducing travel during peak periods. TDM is intended to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow
without having to increase the capacity or physical size of a section of transportation infrastructure.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Measures the total amount of vehicular travel by the population of a specific area
and is used to analyze potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. VMT is also the required method used
for the evaluation of environmental impacts as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-3
4.1 Redu ce Vehicle Miles Traveled (was 4.8)
In evaluating environmental impacts related to development, the State of California now requires municipalities to
use Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT), as specified under SB 743. Historically, most cities and towns, including Los
Gatos, evaluated traffic impacts based on roadway segment and/or intersection Level of Service (LOS). The LOS
metric looked at the change in the number of vehicles on a roadway compared to the roadway’s capacity or the
wait time at an intersection to judge capacity impacts. The new VMT metric estimates the total miles traveled as
part of a project and can be assessed by evaluating their impact on the VMT Town’s standard. By measuring
VMT changes relative to the Town’s threshold , jurisdictions can evaluate the transportation impact of future
development projects. This allows for the jurisdiction to adopt strategies that can reduce VMT and help to
achieve VMT targets.
While vehicle LOS is no longer to be used as a measure of transportation impacts for CEQA review of land use
projects and land use plans, jurisdictions may retain a LOS standard in their local transportation policies for
evaluating physical improvements. This way, the LOS analysis could be used as additional information to aid in
the decision-making process that would be outside of the CEQA document.
The Town’s goals for the next 20 years are well-aligned with the State’s intent in switching to VMT. 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); and
▪ A diversity of land uses (i.e., neighborhoods and cities with housing, jobs, shops and services in close
proximity to each other).
Using the VMT approach helps to focus on creating a community that aims to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 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 encourage alternative modes of transportation. One
method for reducing 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, to reduce
congestion, improve traffic flow, and reduce overall reliance on vehicles and vehic ular trips. [Source: General
Plan 2040 Background Report and Town Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session Staff Report from
October 8, 2019]
The following goals and policies address the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.
Reduce vehicle miles and manage vehicle congestion through a complete
transportation network. [New Goal]
Require TDM for Development Proposals
Require all development and redevelopment proposals with more than 10 housing units or over
5,000 square feet of non-residential square footage to include a detailed, sustainable, and
measurable Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The Town shall consider
the program during the review of the development application and implement the program as a
condition of approval on the project. TDM programs could include, but are not limited to,
measures such as alternative work schedules, bicycle parking, showers, and route maps for
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-4 Public Review Draft December 2020
employees, subsidized transit passes, and future measures as programs and technologies
evolve. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.13, modified]
Incentivize Reduced Vehicle Trips
Coordinate with employers to create incentives that reduce employee trips. [New Policy]
Link Development and Transit
Development near transit stops shall provide TDM programs or facilities that encourage transit
use for all types of trips. In-lieu fees, traffic impact fees (TIF), or other funding mechanisms
may be required to provide Townwide TDM programs, such as a public shuttle.
[Source: Existing Policy VLR-9.3, modified]
Employer Shuttle Services
Encourage employers (with over 100 employees) to develop shuttle services (i.e., corporate
busing) to transport employees to and from the worksite. Entities may form transportation
management associations (TMAs) to pool resources to fund TDM measures. [Source: Existing
Policy TRA-10.3, modified]
4.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (was 4.6 and 4.5 )
The Town’s bicycle and pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, bicycle paths and lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian
signals, curb ramps, and street lighting along various roadways within Los Gatos as well as a variety of accessible
trails and pathways. These provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout the Town. The existing
bicycle network in Los Gatos is composed of approximately 13 miles of bikeways. There are about four miles of
Class I bike paths, five miles of Class II bike lanes, and three miles of Class III bike routes. There are currently no
Class IV bikeways in the Town. [Source: General Plan 2040 Background Report, modified]
The Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan synthesizes other local and County plans into a comprehensive 20 -
year cross-county bicycle corridor network and expenditure plan. The long-range countywide transportation plan
and the means by which projects compete for funding and prioritization are documented in the Valley
Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 (adopted in 2014). Santa Clara VTA has adopted the Santa Clara Countyw ide
Bicycle Plan (May 2018), which is a planned bicycle network of 24 routes of countywide or intercity significance.
[Source: General Plan 2040 Background Report]
The Town completed its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in 2017, with a focused update in 2020, which
proposes an enhanced bicycle and pedestrian network that is safe and provides access to key destinations in
Town. The Plan identifies pedestrian improvements, gaps in the pedestrian network, and pedestrian
enhancement prioritization. [Source: General Plan 2040 Background Report]
Overall, pedestrian facilities are primarily included as part of the transportation network along and connecting
arterial, collector, neighborhood, and local streets. The Los Gatos Creek Trail is a notable trail used by
pedestrians to access the Downtown area and parks from residential areas. [Source: General Plan 2040
Background Report, modified]
The Los Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2017; rev. 2020) identifies several network recommendations
and prioritization projects for Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways, which includes numerous Safe Routes to School
Projects. [Source: New Text]
The existing and future bicycle network in the Town of Los Gatos is illustrated on Figure 4-1.
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-5
Bicycle Facilities
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-6 Public Review Draft December 2020
The following goals and policies address bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Los Gatos.
Provide continuous, safe, and efficient bikeways and pedestrian facilities. [New
Goal]
Roads for Both Bicycles and Vehicles
Roads designated as bicycle routes (Class III) shall be constructed to be safe for both bicycles
and vehicles. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-10.5]
Improve Bicycling in the Town
Support planning and design upgrades to bicycling infrastructure, support bicycling education,
and encourage programs to improve bicycling in the Town. [New Policy]
Support Regional Bicycle Network
Support regional partners to create a complete and comprehensive bicycle network connecting
the Town to other regional destinations. [New Policy]
Identify Areas to Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Ensure all planning processes, such as master plans and specific plans, identify areas where
bicycle connections and pedestrian improvements can be made, such as new connections,
increased sidewalk width, improved crosswalks, improved lighting, and new street furniture,
benches, and seating to promote walkable environments. [New Policy]
Avoid Negative Impacts on Bicycle Use
All new development shall be designed to enhance the safety or convenience of bicycle use
through the Town. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-6.4, modified]
Through-Access for Bicyclists
Require all developments with a frontage greater than 300 feet to provide through-access for
bicyclists. [New Policy]
Safe Routes to Schools
Coordinate with all schools that serve Los Gatos to enhance safe bicycling routes. [New Policy]
Bicycle-Friendly Design
Provide median refuges, bike-friendly signals, and wayfinding signage to popular local
destinations along bikeways and at major street crossings. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-10.7,
modified]
Employer Support for Bicycle Commuters
Require employers greater than 100 employees of new or remodeled places of business, to
provide covered and secure bicycle parking and locker facilities for their bicycle commuters.
[New Policy]
Bicycling Amenities for Public Use
Encourage and facilitate the provision of bicycling amenities, such as parking facilities and
lockers, at schools, parks, and shopping areas. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-10.2]
Bicycle Parking
Require bicycle parking in all parking lots Townwide. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-6.5,
modified]
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-7
Bicycle Valet at Large Events
Require all large community and commercial events to include a bicycle valet program as a
permit condition of approval. [New Policy]
Educational Programs on Safe Bicycling
Coordinate with local agencies to provide educational programs on safe bicycling practices for
cyclists of all ages and experience levels. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-10.3]
Pedestrian Connections
Require all development to provide pedestrian connections between sites and existing and
planned pedestrian facilities, including those identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan and other relevant plans and documents. [New Policy]
Enhance Pedestrian Crossings
Enhance and provide pedestrian crossings every half mile on all arterial and collector
roadways. [New Policy]
Safe Pedestrian Access along Unimproved Roadways
Require adequate width of roadway clearance between edge of travel and/or edge of pavement
for pedestrian mobility. [New Policy]
Enhance Street Lighting
Enhance street lighting Townwide to provide for better pedestrian safety. [New Policy]
Downtown Pedestrian Environment
Support pedestrian upgrades to sidewalks and connections between developments to create a
more walkable Downtown. [New Policy]
Provide a well-designed and well-maintained system of trails that connect the
Town and open space areas. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal TRA-12]
Private Sector Involvement
Maximize the involvement of the private sector in the maintenance and construction of trails by
encouraging voluntary groups to assist in trail maintenance in coordination with the Department
of Parks and Public Works. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-12.1]
Safe, Continuous, Interconnected Trails
Trails shall be safe, continuous, interconnected with other trails and parking areas, designed for
bicyclists and/or pedestrians and be consistent with other relevant plans, including the Los
Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-12.2, modified]
Aesthetically Pleasing Trails
Design trails that are aesthetically pleasing, incorporating native landscaping, buffering, scenic
overlooks, and historic elements where possible to provide a variety of experiences.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-12.3, modified]
Consider Special Populations
Consider the needs of people with disabilities, seniors, and children when designing trail
facilities. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-12.4, modified]
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-8 Public Review Draft December 2020
Homeowners Associations
Encourage existing homeowners’ associations (HOA) to maintain trails that pass-through their
subdivisions. Encourage the formation of HOAs for new subdivisions or planned developments
to maintain trails that pass through their areas. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-12.7, modified]
Multiple-Use Trails Specifications
The location of multiple-use trails should:
▪ Traverse the open space areas of subdivisions that have dedicated open space as a
condition of subdivision approval;
▪ Traverse open areas, as opposed to trails bordering roads, wherever possible; and
▪ Be built on the first property to develop, if a trail location is adaptable to either of two
adjacent properties.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-11.3, modified]
Multiple Use Trail Easements
Multiple use trail easements shall be wide enough to contain the trail and prov ide sufficient area
on both sides to buffer surrounding properties from trail users. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-
11.4]
Dedication of Easements for Trails
Require, wherever feasible, the dedication of easements and construction of multiple use trails,
as a condition of approval for all development applications, including any development which
includes a section of trail shown on the latest Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master
Plan. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-11.5, modified]
Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan
Support the latest Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan by implementing the
proposed trail routes within the Town in order to provide critical linkages to the region.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-11.7, modified]
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-9
4.3 Multimodal System / Complete Streets
(was Sections 4.2 and 4.3 )
A true multimodal system emphasizes alternative modes of travel beyond driving. A holistic approach provides a
complete streets model where streets are designed to enable convenient, safe access for everyone and using a
broad range of transportation modes. This includes pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages
and abilities. Complete streets should be part of a comprehensive, integrated, and connected transportation
network. Complete streets should include a balanced design that accommodates all modes of transportation,
varied uses and activities, and diverse, context-sensitive streetscape elements. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
should be safe, efficient, and well-maintained. [Source: General Plan 2040 Background Report]
The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill 1358), as well as recent changes in CEQA and
congestion management law, highlight a need for mobility elements to have a broader focus that emphasizes
other travel modes beyond driving. It requires jurisdictions to provide local streets with facilities that meet the
needs of all transportation system users (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers
of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, youth, and families) when updating
their general plans. [Source: General Plan 2040 Background Report]
The following goals, policies, and actions are intended to improve multimodal transportation and incorporate
complete streets in Los Gatos.
Encourage the development of a comprehensive and integrated transportation
network with infrastructure and design features that allow safe and convenient
travel for all users. [Source: New Goal]
Complete Streets
Apply complete streets principles in transportation projects within the Town as defined in the
Town’s Complete Streets Policy. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-2.8, modified]
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Reduce vehicle speeds using engineering and design techniques, community education, and
evaluation and planning strategies rather than relying solely on enforcement. [Source: Existing
Policy TRA-5.1, modified]
Wide Sidewalks for Shared Use
Require wide sidewalks greater than four feet in width in commercial and mixed-use areas to
allow shared use by pedestrians and non-motorized modes of transportation as directed by the
Town Engineer. [Source: New Policy]
Limit Widening of All Roadways
Limit widening of all roadways and prioritize improvements within the right-of-way for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities to increase roadway capacity without impeding emergency access
requirements. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-5.3, modified]
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-10 Public Review Draft December 2020
Support a non-driving Los Gatos by reducing reliance on the automobile and
promoting alternative modes of transportation. [Source: Existing General Plan,
Goals TRA-6 and TRA-9, modified]
Encourage Non-Driving Transportation Modes
Encourage the use of non-driving transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, transit, a
shuttle system and other forms of personal mobility, like electric vehicles, as energy conserving,
non-polluting modes of travel. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-6.1, modified]
Private Development of Transportation Facilities
Encourage private entities to develop and maintain publicly accessible transportation facilities,
including transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-9.4, modified]
Non-Vehicular Transportation Requirement
New developments that would result in significant increases in air pollution, VMT, or noise shall
be required to incorporate non-vehicular facilities or programs that would reduce the project’s
overall impacts on these resources. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-9.5, modified]
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-11
4.4 Transit Services and Facilities (was 4.6)
Local Bus Transit
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) New Transit Service Plan was officially rolled out at the
end of 2019 and includes several transit route improvement changes in the Town of Los Gatos. Improvements
include an extension of Route 27 to Winchester Transit Center via Los Gatos Boulevard through Downtown.
Existing Routes 48 and 49 where replaced with Route 27, which has increased frequency on weekdays and
Saturdays. Route 61 merged with Route 62 and increased the frequency of buses on weekends and extended
evening operating hours. Also, the last stop of VTA’s Mountain View - Winchester light rail line, Winchester
Station, is approximately one and a half miles from the Town of Los Gatos and is accessible via Route 27.
[Source: General Plan 2040 Background Report, modified]
The existing transit network in the Town of Los Gatos is illustrated on Figure 4 -2.
Vasona Light Rail Extension
VTA’s Vasona Light Rail Extension Project was initially envisioned to extend 6.9 miles from Downtown San Jose
to Los Gatos, with nine stations and four Park and Ride lots. The project was split into two phases during the
planning process. The first phase, a 5.3-mile portion that opened in 2005, extended light rail service from
Downtown San José to the Winchester Station in the City of Campbell. Phase II of the project would extend the
tracks south along Winchester Boulevard to Vasona Junction in the Town of Los Gatos. This second phase is
described as the Future Vasona Light Rail Extension. The Future Vasona Light Rail Extension is uncertain, with
the current plans for the extension on hold indefinitely until there is adequate funding for the project. [Source:
General Plan 2040 Background Report, modified]
The following goals and policies address public transportation and facilities in Town.
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-12 Public Review Draft December 2020
Transit Services
*On indefinite hold. Route 27 connects with Winchester Light Rail Station.
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-13
Increase public transit opportunities for all types of trips. [Source: Existing General
Plan, Goal TRA-8, restated]
Support Vasona Light Rail Extension
Support Santa Clara VTA’s Vasona Light Rail Extension project to the Town if/when allocated
funds are available. [New Policy]
Land Uses at Transit Stops
At transit stops, prioritize land uses and patterns that generate high transit ridership and
encourage affordable housing (senior housing, multi-family housing, mixed-use with housing) in
appropriate locations. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-2.1, modified]
Inter-agency Coordination
Coordinate with appropriate agencies to plan and develop adequate public transit services for
everyone in the Town (e.g., bus, Santa Cruz express bus, rail, shuttle, light rail, streetcar, and
on-demand transit). [Source: Existing Policies TRA-8.1 and TRA-8.2, modified]
Improve Transit Service
Work with the Santa Clara VTA and commercial carriers to improve transit service for Los
Gatos, and to increase ridership. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-6.3, modified]
Public and Private Shuttles
Work with transit agencies and major employers in the region to determine the feasibility of
financing additional shuttles to improve connections to key destinations in the Town and
throughout the region. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-8.3, modified]
Transit for Special Populations
Coordinate with appropriate agencies to provide and expand transit services for seniors, school
children, low-income people, and people with disabilities. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-8.4,
modified]
Encourage Use of Transit
Encourage public transit use by requiring all new developments to provide bus shelters and on-
going maintenance as part of their developments, when appropriate. [Source: Existing Policies
TRA-8.5 and TRA-8.8, modified]
Support Regional Efforts
Support State and County efforts to reduce automobile use and encourage use of public transit.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-8.6, modified]
Santa Clara VTA Services
Work with Santa Clara VTA to facilitate transit services in Los Gatos through the provision of
bus stop amenities, such as basic route and schedule information, bus shelters, seating, and
lighting, as well as other means that facilitate rider comfort. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-8.7,
modified]
Mobility Hub
Design and implement a mobility hub that provides seamless connections between multiple
travel modes, such as transit (buses and shuttles), bicycles, e-scooters, transportation network
companies (e.g. Uber or Lyft), or other modes that serve the Town. This hub should be in a
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-14 Public Review Draft December 2020
place and manner that minimizes impacts on neighborhoods, neighboring businesses, and
other activities. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-6.2, modified]
Shared Parking
Private or public parking developed near transit stops shall be designed to provide reciprocal
access to adjacent parking areas to enhance parking availability at all times. [Source: Existing
Policy VLR-3.7, modified]
Reduce vehicle impacts of residential development near transit stops by taking
advantage of transit opportunities. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal VLR-9,
modified]
Residential Ties to Transit Opportunities
Residential development and redevelopment proposals near transit stops shall address how
they take advantage and support the use of transit. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-9.1, modified]
Maximize Transit Opportunities
The Town shall work with developers, the Santa Clara VTA, and other agencies to ensure that
areas near transit stops (excluding transitory bus stops) are redeveloped in a manner that takes
full advantage of existing or transit opportunities. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-9.2, modified]
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-15
4.5 Transportation Systems (was 4.0)
This section describes the overall transportation system serving the Town of Los Gatos and how to design a
transportation system that accommodates users of all ages and abilities, but does not exceed the capacity that
the system can handle. [Source: Existing General Plan, modified]
The following goals and policies address the design, implementation, and management of transportation systems.
Optimize the Town’s transportation system to provide safe and efficient movement
to meet the needs of all users. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goals TRA-1,
modified]
Consistency between Land Use and Transportation Planning
The Town shall ensure that land use and transportation planning are cohesive, consistent,
mutually supportive, and strive to reduce VMT. This includes:
▪ Promoting land use patterns that encourage people to walk, bicycle, or use public transit
routinely for a significant number of their daily trips;
▪ Promoting Transportation Demand Management (TDM) options;
▪ Using the Town’s provision of public services to direct development to the most appropriate
locations; and
▪ Promoting the infill of vacant land and redevelopment sites.
[Source: New Policy]
Fiscal Implications
Consider the full fiscal impacts including ongoing maintenance relative to the construction and
operation of transportation systems. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-1.4, modified]
Balance Needs of All Roadway Users
Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Los Gatos’s arterials and collectors while
providing multimodal support for users of all ages and abilities. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-
1.5, TRA-2.2, modified]
Regional Transportation Needs
Participate in regional efforts to meet regional transportation needs. [Source: Existing Policy
TRA-1.6, modified]
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-16 Public Review Draft December 2020
4.6 Roadways (was 4.1)
This section describes and plans for the regional highway system and local street circulation system serving the
Los Gatos Planning Area. These circulation systems are broadly described in this section and illustrated on
Figure 4-3. [Source: Existing General Plan, modified]
The three major highways that run through Los Gatos are State Route (SR) 9, also known as Los Gatos -Saratoga
Road within the Town, SR 17, and SR 85. SR 9 is a major surface street while SR 17 and SR 85 are freeways.
There are three freeway interchanges within the Town, one in the northern end of Los Gatos at Lark Avenue and
two towards the southern end at SR 9 and South Santa Cruz Avenue. [Source: Existing General Plan, modified]
The local street system is organized into a hierarchy of six roadway types (functional classifications) according to
the existing Los Gatos Street Design Standards and the 2020 Los Gatos General Plan . The Los Gatos Street
Design Standards classify all streets within the Town according to their functional classification. [Source: Existing
General Plan, modified]
▪ Arterial streets typically accommodate two or more lanes of traffic in each direction, providing access to
the regional highway system, collector roads, and local streets. Examples of arterial streets include Los
Gatos Boulevard and Winchester Boulevard.
▪ Collector streets provide circulation within and between neighborhoods. Collector streets usually serve
short trips from local and neighborhood collector streets and distributing traffic to the arterial network.
Examples of collector streets are Main Street, University Avenue, and North Santa Cruz Avenue.
▪ Neighborhood collector streets predominantly carry traffic generated within a neighborhood and
distributes traffic to collector and arterial streets. Examples of neighborhood collector streets include
Alberto Way, Tait Avenue, and Wedgewood Avenue.
▪ Hillside collector streets serve properties located in hillside areas, carrying traffic to either arterial
streets, collectors, or neighborhood collectors. An example of a hillside collector street is Kennedy Road.
▪ Local streets support local and neighborhood traffic movement. Local streets typically carry traffic from
individual properties to collector and arterial streets and are not designed to accommodate through traffic.
Most local streets are in residential neighborhoods. Examples of local streets are Pine Avenue, Jackson
Street, and Bayview Avenue.
▪ Special design streets are used when warranted by unique land use, circulation, or environmental
conditions. These streets can either be arterial streets, collectors, existing local hillside streets, or scenic
residential streets. An example of a special design street is North Santa Cruz Avenue. [Source: Existing
General Plan, modified]
The following goals and policies address the street and roadway network in Town.
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-17
Roadway Classifications
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-18 Public Review Draft December 2020
Provide a safe, efficient, and well-designed roadway network transportation
system. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal TRA-2, modified]
Safety in Roadway Design and Management
Support the safety of all roadway users of all ages and abilities in the design and management
of roadways. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-2.1, modified]
Ownership of Public Right-of-Way
The Town shall obtain fee title to all land required to be dedicated for public streets and
associated right-of-way. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-2.3, modified]
Driveways and Curb Cuts
New development shall minimize the number of access points (driveway openings or other curb
cuts) along Arterial streets to minimize impacts on circulation flow and safety while providin g for
safe ingress and egress from a location. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-2.4, modified]
Avoid Extended Single Access Roadways
Discourage single access roads that impede safe and continuous access for all roadway users.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-2.5, modified]
See policies under Goal MOB-13 for access in hillside areas.
Street Improvements
Street improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalks, bus stop turnouts, bus shelters, light poles,
traffic signals, benches, and trash containers shall be designed to provide safe movement of all
users and minimize disruption to the streetscape. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-2.6, modified]
Roundabouts
Consider using roundabouts as an alternative to signalized or traditionally controlled
intersections. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-2.7, modified]
Mitigate the impact of cut-through traffic, with the objective of making it easy for
residents to move throughout Town while ensuring Los Gatos remains a welcoming
place for visitors. [New Goal]
Vehicle Traffic-Calming Devices
Consider traffic-calming devices (such as lane narrowing, widening medians, or landscaping) to
discourage cut-through vehicle traffic. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-5.5, modified]
Alternatives to Minimize Cut-Through Vehicle Traffic
Limit cut-through vehicle traffic to the extent feasible, while minimizing the freedom of
movement of residents or diverting vehicle traffic to other neighborhood streets. Consider the
use of alternative street surfacing materials, traffic diverters, special designs, and stop signs to
prevent cut-through traffic on residential streets. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-5.6, modified]
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-19
Neighborhood Traffic-Calming Policy
Assist citizens in solving traffic concerns in residential neighborhoods in accordance wit h the
latest Neighborhood Traffic-Calming Policy. [Source: Existing Policies TRA-5.2 and TRA-5.7,
modified]
Avoid Commercial Vehicle Traffic in Neighborhoods
Require that all new development demonstrates, and is conditioned, so that commercial traffic
(excluding delivery services) flow through residential neighborhoods does not occur. Review
neighborhood traffic impacts of all development projects and require developer participation in
the cost of installation of traffic calming measures as a c ondition of approval, if applicable.
[Source: Existing Policies TRA-5.4 and TRA-5.8, modified]
Regional Traffic on Regional Roadways
Support efforts to keep regional traffic on regional roadways, such as Hwy 85 and SR17,
including opportunities for increased transit and greater roadway efficiency, without expanding
roadway capacity. [Source: New Policy]
Prevent and mitigate transportation impacts from new development. [Source:
Existing General Plan, Goal TRA-3, modified]
Project Traffic
All development proposals shall be reviewed to identify and address project traffic pursuant to
the Town’s Traffic Impact Policy and shall include roadway improvements and dedications.
[Source: Existing Policies TRA-3.1 and TRA-3.11, modified]
Level of Service
If a project will cause the current LOS for any project-affected intersection to drop by more than
one level for an 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 so
that the operation will remain at an acceptable level. These measures shall be implemented
and maintained as a condition of approval on the project. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.5,
modified]
Upgrade Public Improvements
New development shall be required to upgrade public improvements on project frontages to
meet current Town standards. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.8]
Traffic Signal Installation and Signal Modification Costs
Developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to the cost of the future installation of traffic signals
or future traffic signal modifications with a nexus to the project as a condition of approval.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.9, modified]
Ensure that future changes to SR 17 do not negatively impact the quality of life or
character of Los Gatos. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal TRA-4, modified]
SR 17 and Lark Avenue
Improvements to SR 17 should consider efficiency improvements prior to adding capacity
through increased travel lanes. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-4.1, modified]
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-20 Public Review Draft December 2020
SR 17 and Blossom Hill Road
There should not be an interchange at Blossom Hill Road. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-4.2]
SR 17 Connection to Santa Cruz
SR 17 between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz should not be widened or be converted to a
freeway. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-4.3, modified]
Review of SR 17 Modifications
The Planning Commission and Town Council shall review all new or modified connections with
SR 17 within the Town and provide input to the planning process, as appropriate.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-4.4, modified]
Regionally Reduce SR 17 Congestion
Work with other local jurisdictions and the State to develop effective ways to reduce regionally
generated SR 17 congestion and cross-town traffic that does not involve adding freeway
interchanges. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-4.5]
Ensure that hillside streets maintain safe and continuous access. [Source: Existing
General Plan, Goal TRA-7, modified]
Hillside Emergency Vehicle Access
Establish and maintain a hillside road pattern that provides adequate access for residents and
emergency vehicles in both normal and emergency situations without introducing new through
access roads that would invite unwanted traffic into the area, induce further development, or
threaten plant or animal habitats or migration patterns. [Source: Existing Policies TRA-7.1 and
7.4, modified]
Secondary Emergency Access
New discretionary housing approvals in locations that are identified as Very High Fire Hazard
Areas on the Town’s Wildland Fire Severity Zone Map shall provide secondary emergency
access as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Secondary access shall be
provided first by loop roads, then by through-roads, and lastly by long cul-de-sac’s with an
emergency access connection to a public road. If secondary access is not possible or
acceptable, the intensity of land use should be evaluated based on limited access.
[Source: Existing Policies TRA-7.2 and TRA-7.7, modified]
Special Designs for Hillside Area Streets
Specially designed streets that conform to the Town's public hillside road standards shall be
used in hillside areas to preserve scenic and ecological resources (e.g. heritage trees, native
plant and wildlife habitat, prominent geologic formations, and the natural terrain).
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-7.3]
Private Roadway Standards
Require all new or extended private roadways to meet the Town’s public roadway construction
standards. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-7.6, modified]
Streetlights on Hillside Streets
New public streetlighting on hillside streets shall be prohibited except where lighting is required
to address public safety. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-7.8, modified]
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-21
4.7 Parking (was 4.9)
Los Gatos has a variety of parking options throughout the Town, including on -street parking and off-street parking
lots. On-street parking is managed by the Town and can come with restrictions on use. This includes some
areas with time restrictions and some specifically designated residential neighborhoods where a parking permit is
required. The Town also manages several off-street public parking lots, which are controlled relative to time
allowed for parking. The Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department is responsible for the Parking Management
Program for public facilities and streets in Los Gatos. (Source: Existing General Plan)
The following goals and policies address parking availability, management, and siting.
Provide adequate parking availability and minimize impacts on surrounding
residential neighborhoods. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal TRA-13, modified]
Parking for New Development
Require new development to provide an adequate number of parking spaces and encourage
shared parking whenever possible. Parking shall be adequate to avoid adversely affecting
adjacent residential properties. [Source: Existing Policies TRA-13.2 and TRA-13.3, modified]
Efficient Parking Facility Design
Encourage efficient parking facility design that allows for creative reuse if parking demand
decreases in the future. [New Policy]
Parking Availability with Schools
Coordinate with all schools that serve Los Gatos to create and address areas that can serve as
available parking areas during peak dop off and pick up hours. [Source: New Policy]
Pedestrian Safety in Parking Lots
Provide for safe pedestrian travel in parking lots without unnecessarily eliminating parking
spaces. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-13.5, modified]
Wayfinding
Strive to implement an enhanced wayfinding program consistent with the Town’s
Comprehensive Parking Study to minimize the time motorists spend searching for parking and
destinations throughout Town. [New Policy]
Parking Revenue to Support Non-Driving Modes
Seek methods to use parking revenues to pay for maintenance, enforcement, capital
replacement and to support travel by transit, shuttle, bicycle, walking, and other modes.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-14.2, modified]
Accommodate Traffic and Parking Demand Increases
Review development proposals to confirm that the transportation system and on -site or public
parking can accommodate any increase in traffic or parking demand generated by the
proposed development, subject to the considerations and findings required by the Town’s
Traffic Impact Policy. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.2, modified]
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-22 Public Review Draft December 2020
Provide adequate and well managed parking availability in Downtown for
employees, visitors, and shoppers. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal TRA-14,
modified]
Stand-Alone Parking Facilities
Stand-alone parking facilities in the Downtown shall be designed to minimize impacts on
adjacent properties. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-14.3, modified]
Parking Management Downtown
Implement parking management or Transportation Demand Management (TDM) in the
Downtown to address long-term (employee) and short-term (customer) parking demands and
maximize the efficient use of parking. [New Policy]
Curbside Management
Support a curbside management plan for the Downtown to accommodate passenger loading
areas and commercial loading zones to minimize double parking. [New Policy]
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-23
4.8 Goods Movement (was 4.7)
The Town of Los Gatos relies on efficient and reliable truck routes to accommodate and facilitate goods
movement essential for supporting economic growth and quality of life. On-going changes in on-demand goods
delivery services and increases in e-commerce are changing the way members of the community purchase and
receive goods, which changes the nature of mobility for people and freight. Since these types of deliveries are
expected to increase over the coming years, it is important to address the needs of goods movement and the
unique needs of trucks and delivery vehicles in order to limit the impacts associated with e-commerce. [Source:
General Plan 2040 Background Report, modified]
The designated truck routes through the Town of Los Gatos are illustrated on Figure 4-4.
The following goals and policies address the movement of goods, specifically truck traffic.
Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods to support commerce,
industry, and the community. [New Goal]
Minimize Truck Conflicts
Minimize potential conflicts between trucks and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel on streets
designated as truck routes (See Figure 4-4). [New Policy]
Minimize Truck Loading and Unloading Conflicts
Minimize potential conflicts between truck loading and unloading and pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit travel. [New Policy]
Minimize Environmental Impacts
Maximize the efficiency of goods movement while working to minimize related environmental
impacts. [New Policy]
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-24 Public Review Draft December 2020
Truck Routes
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-25
4.9 Implementation Programs
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2030 2031 – 2040 Annual Ongoing A Annual Progress Report
Provide an annual progress report to
measure whether the VMT implementation
measures are successful at reducing the
overall VMT. [New Implementation
Program]
MOB-1
MOB-1.1
Parks and
Public Works ◼ ◼
B Transportation Analysis Guidelines
Develop and adopt transportation analysis
(TA) guidelines that define the VMT analysis
methods, significant impact thresholds,
TDM programs, and mitigation programs
consistent with the requirements of Senate
Bill 743. [New Implementation Program]
MOB-1
MOB-1.1
MOB-5
MOB-5.3
MOB-8.1
Parks and
Public Works ◼
C Nexus Study to Implement the
Transportation Impact Fee Program
Perform a nexus study and implement the
Town’s multimodal transportation impact fee
(TIF) program to mitigate negative
transportation impacts of new developments
and redevelopments where appropriate.
[New Implementation Program]
MOB-1.3 Parks and
Public Works
◼
D Community Shuttle System
Evaluate a community shuttle system to
serve transit needs within the Town limits
that is linked to and coordinated with other
transit services.
[New Implementation Program]
MOB-1.3
MOB-5.1
MOB-6.5
Parks and
Public Works
Town Manager
◼
E Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Update
Update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan every five years. [Source: Existing
Action TRA-11.1, modified]
MOB-2.2
MOB-2.4
MOB-2.14
Parks and
Public Works
◼
F Sidewalk Maintenance Plan
Establish a sidewalk maintenance plan
ensuring hazard free pedestrian sidewalk
surfaces and provision of adequate vertical
and lateral clearance. [New Implementation
Program]
MOB-2.4
MOB-2.14
MOB-2.15
MOB-2.16
MOB-2.18
Parks and
Public Works
◼
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-26 Public Review Draft December 2020
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2030 2031 – 2040 Annual Ongoing G Enhance Pedestrian Sidewalks
Develop standards to enhance pedestrian
sidewalks that include but are not limited to:
▪ Ensure existing sidewalks maintain ADA
compliance;
▪ Remove or relocate objects such as poles,
plants, etc. obstructing pedestrian paths;
▪ Install wide sidewalks and/or detached
sidewalks with a buffer separation from
vehicular traffic;
▪ Modify roadway configuration and or
reacquire right-of-way dedication from new
developments as needed for the
improvements, while minimizing impacts to
existing homes if possible; and
Establish standards and guidelines for
enhancing existing sidewalks and
installation of new sidewalks. [New
Implementation Program]
MOB-2.4
MOB-2.14
MOB-2.18
MOB-4.3
Parks and
Public Works ◼
H Seek Funding
Seek funding for the design and
implementation of transportation facilities to
support all users. [Source: Existing Action
TRA-9.1, modified]
MOB-2.4
MOB-3.2
MOB-5.2
Parks and
Public Works ◼
I “Gap” Analysis
Perform a “gap” analysis to identify major
projects to complete the bicycle and
pedestrian networks. [Source: Existing
Action TRA-11.2, modified]
MOB-2.14
Parks and
Public Works ◼
J Streetlighting Policy and Guidelines
Develop a street lighting policy and design
guidelines balancing the needs for adequate
illumination and reducing light pollution.
[New Implementation Program]
MOB-2.17
Parks and
Public Works
◼
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-27
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2030 2031 – 2040 Annual Ongoing K Obtain Easements
Develop and fund a program (including
provisions for in-lieu fees) to obtain
easements along portions of the designated
trail system where development is
considered unlikely or there is not a nexus
to require dedication. [Source: Existing
Action TRA-12.1]
MOB-3 Parks and
Public Works
Community
Development
◼
L Public Trails on Private Property
Monitor conservation easements for public
trails on private property to ensure that
trails are maintained. [Source: Existing
Action TRA-12.3]
MOB-3.1
Parks and
Public Works
◼
M Trail Design Standards
Develop and adopt detailed trail design
standards that:
▪ Limit all new access to pedestrians and,
where appropriate, equestrians and/or
bicyclists;
▪ Provide multiple use opportunities;
▪ Protect the natural ecology;
▪ Conform to regional trail design standards;
▪ Determine trail width, establish policies
regarding fencing along trails, and detail
the type of fencing to be used;
▪ Incorporate erosion control measures; and
▪ Prohibit motorcycles, motorized off-road
vehicles, and mopeds.
[Source: Existing Action TRA-12.2]
MOB-3.1
MOB-3.5
MOB-3.7
MOB-3.8
Parks and
Public Works
◼
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-28 Public Review Draft December 2020
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2030 2031 – 2040 Annual Ongoing N Transportation Master Plan
Develop and adopt a comprehensive
transportation master plan that identifies a
broad range of multimodal transportation
projects and programs. [Source: Existing
Action TRA-2.6, and Existing Action TRA-
8.1 modified]
MOB-4
Parks and
Public Works ◼
O Standards for Complete Streets
Develop and adopt complete streets
standards and an implementation guide to
reflect General Plan complete streets
policies, Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements, lighting standards, and
landscaping requirements. These standards
shall protect the integrity of the
transportation system and protect
neighborhood streets from the intrusion of
through traffic. [Source: Existing Action
TRA-2.1, modified]
MOB- 4.1
Parks and
Public Works
Community
Development
◼
P Improvement Financing
Explore methods of financing multimodal
infrastructure improvements throughout the
Town. [Source: Existing Action VLR-8.2,
modified]
MOB-4.1
MOB-8.2
MOB-8.3
Parks and
Public Works
Community
Development
◼
Q Protect Residential Neighborhoods
Develop and implement appropriate vehicle
control devices to protect all residential
neighborhoods from the impacts of cut-
through traffic such as safety hazards,
speeding, noise, and other disturbances in
accordance with the adopted Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Policy. [Source: Existing
Action TRA-5.1, modified]
MOB-4.2
MOB 10.1
MOB-10.4
Parks and
Public Works
◼
R Sidewalk and Shared Use Paths
Develop a Sidewalk and Shared Use Path
Policy and Guidelines encouraging and
ensuring safe access for non-vehicular
forms of personal mobility.
[New Implementation Program]
MOB-4.3
Parks and
Public Works
◼
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-29
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2030 2031 – 2040 Annual Ongoing S Shuttle Hub Locations
Review and evaluate potential sites for pick-
up and drop-off point for both public and
private shuttles.
[New Implementation Program]
MOB-6.5
MOB-6.10
Parks and
Public Works
◼
T Street Typologies
Develop and adopt street “typologies” to
better support a multimodal transportation
network. Street typology designates modal
emphasis by street to create a complete
streets network. [New Implementation
Program]
MOB-9.1
MOB-9.2
Parks and
Public Works ◼
U Identify Deficiencies
Monitor vehicle flow and roadway
conditions. Identify deficiencies and develop
improvement measures for roadways and
intersections on a continuous basis.
[Source: Existing Action TRA-1.2, modified]
MOB-9.1
MOB-9.6
Parks and
Public Works
◼
V Traffic Calming
Install traffic-calming devices that
encourage slower, safer through traffic.
[Source: Existing Action TRA-5.4]
MOB 10.1
MOB-10.3
MOB-10.4
Parks and
Public Works
◼
W Publicize, Implement, and Update the
NTC
Publicize the Town’s Neighborhood Traffic
Calming (NTC) Program, implement the
program in those neighborhoods that
request it, and update the NTC periodically.
[Source: Existing Action TRA-5.2]
MOB 10.3
Parks and
Public Works ◼
X Transportation Impact Significance
Develop project evaluation methodology
and transportation impact significance
criteria that assess how well individual
projects contribute to the overall General
Plan goals, as well as how they may
negatively impact the transportation network
[Source: New Implementation Program]
MOB-11
Parks and
Public Works
Community
Development
◼
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-30 Public Review Draft December 2020
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2030 2031 – 2040 Annual Ongoing Y LOS Standards Study
Study current LOS standards and consider
implementation of modified or replacement
regulations to ensure acceptable
functionality of local roads.
[New Implementation Program]
MOB-11.2
Parks and
Public Works ◼
Z Design Guidelines for Hillside
Develop and adopt design guidelines for
hillside streets, including the making of
appropriate findings, to ensure the
preservation of plant and wildlife habitats
and migration corridors. [Source: Existing
Action TRA-7.2]
MOB-13
MOB-13.3
MOB-13.4
MOB-13.5
Public Works
◼
AA Maintain Emergency Access Points
Develop and adopt design standards and
implement a maintenance program for
emergency access points. [Source: Existing
Action TRA-7.1]
MOB-13.1
MOB-13.2
Parks and
Public Works
Town Manager
◼
BB Review Parking Requirements
Periodically review Town Code parking
requirements, standards, and parking
controls to ensure that they are adequate to
meet demand. [Source: Existing Action
TRA-13.3]
MOB-14.1
MOB-14.2
MOB-14.3
Los Gatos-
Monte Sereno
Police
Department
Community
Development
◼
CC Parking Facility Design Criteria
Develop and adopt adequate design criteria
to ensure parking facilities that are
aesthetically pleasing, well designed for
parking maneuverability, properly signed for
ease of use, properly located to attract
traffic as it approaches the Downtown and
made as inconspicuous as possible through
the use of landscaping, berms, screening,
and the like. [Source: Existing Action TRA-
14.3]
MOB-14.2
MOB-14.4
Community
Development
◼
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-31
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2030 2031 – 2040 Annual Ongoing DD Parking Facility Improvements
Develop a plan for implementing
improvements on one or more of the
parking facilities listed below to increase
available parking: Bachman
Avenue/Highway 9 Parking Lot; Royce
Street/Bachman Avenue Parking Lot; Grays
Lane/Royce Street Parking Lot; Station Way
Parking Lot; or Farwell Parking Lot.
[Source: Existing Action TRA-14.2]
MOB-15.1
MOB-15.2
MOB-15.3
Parks and
Public Works
Los Gatos-
Monte Sereno
Police
Department
◼
EE Parking Management Techniques
Implement parking management
techniques, including modifying time limits
and potentially charging for parking, in the
Downtown area to address long-term
(employee) and short-term (customer)
parking and maximize the efficient use of
parking. [New Implementation Program]
MOB-15.2
MOB-15.3
Los Gatos-
Monte Sereno
Police
Department
Parks and
Public Works
◼
FF Downtown Curbside Management Plan
Develop and adopt a curbside management
plan for the Downtown to accommodate
passenger loading areas and commercial
loading zones to minimize double parking.
[New Implementation Program]
MOB-15.3 Los Gatos-
Monte Sereno
Police
Department
Parks and
Public Works
◼
GG Truck Movement
Prioritize truck movement along designated
truck routes and ensure easy access to
individual parcels, particularly for deliveries.
[New Implementation Program]
MOB-16.1 Parks and
Public Works
◼
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-32 Public Review Draft December 2020
Deleted Goal/Policy/Implementation Program Note to Reviewer (if applicable)
All new developments shall be evaluated to determine compliance
with the Town’s level of service policy for intersections. [Source:
Existing Policy TRA-3.3] Combined and covered by New Policy New projects shall not cause the level of service for intersections to
drop more than one level if it is at Level A, B, or C and not drop at all if
it is at D or below. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.4]
Safety shall not be compromised to improve or maintain the level of
service of an intersection. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.6]
All traffic reports shall include analyses of nearby uses with unusual or
unique traffic generation factors or peak hours (e.g. pre-schools, faith
communities, private clubs, quasi-public uses). [Source: Existing Policy
TRA-3.7]
Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy
severe traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems and
all other options, such as demand management and alternative
modes, have been exhausted. Where capacity is increased,
improvements shall balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of
pedestrians and bicyclists. [Source: Existing Policy TRA -3.10]
The maximum level of mitigation measures shall be required for
transportation impacts adjacent to sensitive receptors, including
residences, schools, and hospitals. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-3.12]
Require new development located on single access roads in areas
identified as Very High Fire Hazard Areas on the adopted Wildland
Fire Severity Zone map to demonstrate an acceptable means of
emergency access prior to approval. Emergency access shall
discourage through traffic on hillside roads. [Source: Existing Policy
TRA-7.4]
Moved to the Hazards and Safety Element
Roadways systems shall be designed to provide reliable access to
remote areas both for access by emergency vehicles and egress by
residents fleeing from a disaster. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-7.5]
Dual access is required for all zoning approvals and shall be
provided first by loop roads, then by through -roads, and lastly by long
cul-de-sacs with an emergency access connection to a public road.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-7.7]
Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public
transit use. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-9.1]
Design and implement transportation systems that enhance usability
and safety for the bicyclists, pedestrians, equestrian consistent with
the policies and programs in the Environment and Sustainability
Element. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-9.3, modified]
Encourage the development and use of mass public transportation
systems within the Town and surrounding region. [Source: Existing
Policy TRA-8.1]
Covered by MOB-17.2 (new number).
Where feasible and appropriate, all new projects developments and
redevelopments that are near existing transit services and/or
destinations such as shopping areas, community centers, senior
housing, and medical facilities shall be required to provide covered
and partially enclosed shelters consistent with Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA ) Standards that are adequate to buffer
sun, wind and rain, and have at least one bench at each public transit
stop. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-8.8]
Covered by MOB-17.5 (new number).
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-33
Deleted Goal/Policy/Implementation Program Note to Reviewer (if applicable)
Project applicants shall demonstrate how their projects meet the
specific goals and policies of the Vasona Light Rail Element. [Source:
Existing Policy VLR-1.5]
The Town’s parking standards shall be adequate to meet demand.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-13.1]
Covered by the Zoning Ordinance.
Provide an adequate number of parking spaces in all new
development. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-13.2]
Require adequate parking in commercial areas so as not to impact or
adversely affect adjacent residential properties. [Source: Existing
Policy TRA-13.3]
Provide staff support for administrating the parking program. [Source:
Existing Policy TRA-13.6]
Promote the formation of an assessment district and/or consider the
use of the various parking and business improvement programs
authorized by State law to help finance the construction of parking
facilities and/or alternatives to parking. [Source: Existing Policy TRA -
14.1]
Revenues collected (from fines, fees, meters, and permits) shall
accrue to the district to help pay for maintenance, enforcement,
capital replacement, later phases of the parking district, and parking
alternatives or programs to maximize use of facilities for parking and
alternatives to parking, such as shuttle buses, more employee lots,
bicycles, bus passes, etc. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-14.2]
To the extent possible, locate parking facilities in relation to the
primary approach direction of users in order to minimize internal
circulation within the Central Business District/East Main Street area.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-14.4]
Encourage parcel assembly to provide greater design flexibility and
provide opportunities to minimize driveways where ap propriate.
[Source: Existing Policy VLR-1.4]
To limit the adverse impacts of development within the Vasona Light
Rail area. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal VLR-8]
Removed since the Vasona Light Rail project
is on hold. All associated goals, policies, and
implementation programs have been
removed and covered under new policies,
some are invalid, and others are being re-
located into the Community Design Element.
Development in the Vasona Light Rail area shall facilitate the
upgrading of utilities to the level needed to serve the area when it is
fully developed. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-8.1]
Development projects in the Vasona Light Rail area shall incorporate
design features to buffer dwelling units from the visual and noise
impacts of Highway 17 and Highway 85. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-
8.2]
Require a noise study for all development applications within the
Vasona Light Rail area, identifying degrees of impact and noise
attenuation measures, if necessary, to mitigate noise impacts on
residential neighborhoods. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-8.3]
Development may be phased with the completion of the Vasona Light
Rail. In no case may development exceed transportation capacity.
[Source: Existing Policy VLR-7.2]
Orient development to take advantage of the amenities of the Los
Gatos Creek and the Creek Trail. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-5.2]
This policy is being removed and placed in
the Community Design Element.
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-34 Public Review Draft December 2020
Deleted Goal/Policy/Implementation Program Note to Reviewer (if applicable)
Development in the Vasona Light Rail area shall be designed
and oriented to take advantage of the amenities offered by Los Gatos
Creek and to preserve watersheds, riparian habitats and wildlife
corridors. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-5.3]
Removed since the Vasona Light Rail project
is on hold. All associated goals, policies, and
implementation programs have been
removed and covered under new policies,
some are invalid, and others are being re-
located into the Community Design Element.
New development and redevelopment Projects developed in the
Vasona Light Rail area shall contribute to and enhance the natural
view corridor and landscape of the Los Gatos Creek Trail. [Source:
Existing Policy VLR-5.4]
This policy is being removed and placed in
the Community Design Element.
To work with property owners and prospective developers to
facilitate orderly development. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal
VLR-6]
Removed since the Vasona Light Rail project
is on hold. All associated goals, policies, and
implementation programs have been
removed and covered under new policies,
some are invalid, and others are being re-
located into the Community Design Element.
Encourage innovative designs, phased design schemes, and mixes of
uses in the Vasona Light Rail area that are consistent with the Los
Gatos Boulevard Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines. [Source:
Existing Policy VLR-6.1]
Removed since the Vasona Light Rail project
is on hold. All associated goals, policies, and
implementation programs have been
removed and covered under new policies,
some are invalid, and others are being re-
located into the Community Design Element.
Site plans in the Vasona Light Rail area shall be designed to
minimize traffic impacts and to preserve sufficient open space.
[Source: Existing Policy VLR-6.2]
The siting, scale, and design of buildings in relationship to each other
shall facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity. [Source: Existing
Policy VLR-6.3]
Project applicants shall demonstrate how their projects meet the
specific goals and policies of the Vasona Light Rail Element. [Source:
Existing Policy VLR-1.5]
To encourage affordable housing (senior housing, multi-family
housing, mixed-use with housing) in appropriate locations within the
Vasona Light Rail area to address the Town’s housing needs and take
advantage of the opportunities afforded by mass transit. [Source:
Existing General Plan, Goal VLR-2]
Encourage development of residential rental units throughout the
Vasona Light Rail area. Residential development proposals shall
demonstrate how they address the Town’s unmet housing goals for
affordable housing. [Source: E xisting Policy VLR-2.1]
Proposed mixed-use projects in the Vasona Light Rail area which
include residential uses shall assist the Town in meeting its housing
goals of providing rental units, senior housing, and affordable
housing. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-2.2]
To encourage mixed-use developments that coordinate housing in
proximity to either neighborhood commercial uses or employment
centers. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal VLR-3]
Mixed-use proposals within the Vasona Light Rail area shall address
how the proposed uses would be compatible and synergistic with
each other. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-3.1]
Mixed-use commercial/market rate and/or affordable housing
developments may be considered in the Vasona Light Rail area.
[Source: Existing Policy VLR-3.2]
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-35
Deleted Goal/Policy/Implementation Program Note to Reviewer (if applicable)
Encourage a mix of commercial, office, and light industrial and
recreational uses within the Vasona Light Rail area, especially in areas
less suited to residential development due to noise. [Source: Existing
Policy VLR-3.3]
Encourage mixed-use development of commercial, office, and
medium-high density residential uses in the North Forty area and
along East Los Gatos Boulevard, north of Lark Avenue. [Source:
Existing Policy VLR-3.4]
Removed since the Vasona Light Rail project
is on hold. All associated goals, policies, and
implementation programs have been
removed and covered under new policies,
some are invalid, and others are being re-
located into the Community Design Element.
Projects in the Vasona Light Rail area proposing all commercial, office
or residential uses shall be evaluated to ensure that the Town’s desire
for mixed-use is fulfilled. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-3.5]
If development of air rights in the Vasona Light Rail area is allowed,
coordinate with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
and other agencies to allow development of appropriate uses, such as
affordable housing and neighborhood commercial and businesses that
cater to commuters. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-3.6]
Study amending the Town Code to require bicycle parking in specific
types of projects. [Source: Existing Action TRA-10.2]
Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
Develop and adopt appropriate parking controls to protect Downtown
residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of Downtown
shoppers and employees. [Source: Existing Action TRA-13.2]
Prepare a multimodal improvement plan to support the buildout of
the General Plan, update the Town’s Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) to include, as appropriate, the identified improvements, and
create and adopt a multimodal transportation impact fee (TIF)
program to provide funding for the remaining improvements. [Source:
Existing Action TRA-3.1]
Publish a user’s map of the Town’s trails and bikeways system.
[Source: Existing Action TRA-11.3]
Shared parking for mixed-use projects will be allowed within the
Vasona Light Rail area. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-3.7]
To provide opportunities for a variety of non-residential land uses
within the Vasona Light Rail area. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal
VLR-4]
Develop and implement appropriate traffic controls to protect
Downtown residential neighborhoods from the impacts of through
traffic in terms of safety, speeding, noise, and other disturbances.
[Source: Existing Action TRA-6.1]
Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
Update, as needed, Town standards for street widths, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and electroliers so that new development fits within
existing neighborhoods. [Source: Existing Action TRA-2.3]
Develop and adopt a Specific Plan for the Vasona Light Rail area that
includes standards and guidelines for developments surrounding the
future station. mixed-use design to be used in the review process of
all mixed-use developments in the Vasona Light Rail area. [Source:
Existing Action VLR-3.2 and Existing Action VLR-6.1]
Identify and improve pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks and
crosswalks as needed to make continuous and safe pedestrian
connections. [Source: Existing Action TRA-10.1]
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-36 Public Review Draft December 2020
Deleted Goal/Policy/Implementation Program Note to Reviewer (if applicable)
Development in the Vasona Junction sub -area shall consist of
neighborhood commercial uses that provide services to all residents
of Los Gatos. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-4.1]
Non-residential development projects shall limit impacts on
residential uses. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-4.2]
Adopt street standards that reflect the existing character of the
neighborhood, while taking into account safety and maintenance
considerations. [Source: Existing Action TRA-2.2]
Include all of the projects listed in Section E.2, Local Inter- section and
Roadway Improvements, and E.3, Local Bike-way Improvements,
above, in the Capital Improvements Program [Source: Existing Action
TRA-3.1]
Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
Construct an emergency access to Lark Avenue via the Santa Clara
Valley Water District maintenance road for properties between Los
Gatos Creek and Oka Road through conditions on development
applications. [Source: Existing Action VLR-8.1]
New and redevelopment shall contribute financially to support transit
services strategies improvements, such as (e.g., e-bikes and e-
scooters, or bikeshare) that link the Vasona Light Rail with the rest of
Los Gatos. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-1.3, modified]
Develop and implement signalization improvements to increase traffic
flow at the intersections of Santa Cruz Avenue and Main Street,
University Avenue and Main Street, Santa Cruz Avenue and Los Gatos -
/Saratoga Road, and University Avenue and Los Gatos/Saratoga Road.
[Source: Existing Action TRA-6.2]
Monitor the actions taken to increase transit use to assess their
effectiveness [Source: Existing Action TRA-6.3]
Develop a revenue collection plan. [Source: Existing Action TRA-14.1] Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
Develop and implement a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that will
result in a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network throughout
the Town [Source: Existing Action TRA-11.1]
Develop and adopt a parking management plan to include incentives
and disincentives for appropriate employee parking, including parking
credits for the use of public transit and/or ridesharing. [Source:
Existing Action TRA-13.1]
Perform a “gap” analysis to identify major projects to
complete the trails and bikeways system [Source: Existing Action TRA-
11.2]
Develop and adopt a Transportation Master Plan with multimodal
transportation requirements. [Source: Existing Action TRA-8.1]
Conduct a study to evaluate whether development of air rights at the
Vasona Light Rail station facility should be allowed or could feasibly be
accomplished without creating visual congestion or violating the
small-town character of Los Gatos. [Source: Existing Action VLR-3.1]
Maximize the utilization of existing parking lots and spaces to meet
Downtown business and residential demands. [Source: Existing Action
TRA-14.4]
Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
4. Mobility Element
December 2020 Public Review Draft 4-37
Deleted Goal/Policy/Implementation Program Note to Reviewer (if applicable)
Adopt design guidelines for the Vasona Light Rail area and use them
to review development applications for issues unique to the area such
as gateway features, scenic vistas, and open space provisions.
[Source: Existing Action VLR-6.1]
Promote the development of mass transit links between Los Gatos
Boulevard, particularly any development on the North Forty site, and
the planned Vasona Light Rail station. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-9.5]
No downzoning of residential properties shall be allowed within the
Vasona Junction sub-area until development of the Vasona Light Rail
is planned and funded. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-7.1]
Removing legislative powers through the GP
has legality issues.
Require adequate parking in commercial areas so as not to impact or
affect adjacent residential properties. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-
3.13]
Duplicate of MOB-3.8
To ensure that Los Gatos’s streets are safe for all users, including
drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal
TRA-5]
Design and implement the transportation system to be consistent
with environmental goals and policies, energy conservation, land use,
and small-town character. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-1.2]
There is no need to call out consistency with
the Town Vision when the entire General
Plan aligns with the Vision Statement and
Guiding Principles.
Provide a trail connection for pedestrians and bicyclists to the Los
Gatos Creek Trail along the east side of Los Gatos Creek, north of Lark
Avenue. [Source: Existing Action VLR-5.2]
Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
Evaluate the effects of all circulation and other transportation
improvements on air pollution, noise, and use of energy prior to
issuing any zoning approval. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-1.3]
Circulation Planning activities for the Town shall recognize the
potential for improved mass regional transit connections via the
Vasona Light Rail. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-1.1]
Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
Safety shall not be compromised to improve or maintain the level of
service of an intersection. [Source: Existing Policy TRA -3.6]
Limit cut-through vehicle traffic to the extent feasible, without
impacting the freedom of movement of residents or diverting vehicle
traffic to other neighborhood streets. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-5.2]
Add noses on the medians at intersections to slow left -turning traffic
and provide a pedestrian refuge. [Source: Existing Action TRA-10.4]
Develop a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek through
development fees, grants, and other means available to the Town.
Establish in-lieu fees for new projects that will fund a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek. [Source: Existing
Action VLR-5.1]
Work with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority the Santa Clara
VTA to provide kiosks, bulletin boards and/or signs devoted to
providing local public transit information. [Source: Existing Action
TRA-8.2]
Update Plan Lines and amend the Town Plan Line Ordinance to reflect
this General Plan. [Source: Existing Action TRA-2.4]
Facilities developed for the Vasona Light Rail station shall be safe,
convenient, and attractive for bicycle and pedestrian use. [Source:
Existing Policy VLR-9.4, modified]
Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
Public Review Draft Policy Document
4-38 Public Review Draft December 2020
Deleted Goal/Policy/Implementation Program Note to Reviewer (if applicable)
Ensure that the planning and design review process produces a high-
quality mixture of residential and non-residential uses near major
transit stops. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal VLR-7]
Removed per direction from the GPAC to
reduce the number of goals, policies, and
programs from the July 16 GPAC Meeting.
Developers may be asked to provide surveys, market studies, and
other information deemed necessary to ensure that projects are
consistent with the most recent plans, guidelines and documents Los
Gatos Boulevard Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines. [Source:
Existing Policy VLR-7.3]
Periodically review the Town’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming (NTC)
Program. [Source: Existing Action TRA-5.3]
Projects developed in the Vasona Light Rail area shall contribute to a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek. [Source: Existing
Policy VLR-5.1]
Provide opportunities for the Vasona Light Rail area to address the
recreational and open space needs of the Town. [Source: Existing
General Plan, Goal VLR-5,]
Coordinate and proactively participate with other communities and
agencies in the region to promote transit facility placement and
design that is beneficial and acceptable to the Town. [Source: Existing
Policy VLR-1.2]
Circulation Planning activities for the Town shall recognize the
potential for improved mass regional transit connections via the
Vasona Light Rail. [Source: Existing Policy VLR-1.1]
Expand high-quality regional transit, including Vasona Light Rail, to
improve connection between the Town and the region. [Source:
Existing General Plan, Goal VLR-1]
Review neighborhood traffic impacts of from new all development
projects and require developer participation in the cost of installation
of traffic calming measures as a condition of approval, if applicable.
[Source: Existing Policy TRA-5.8]
Assist citizens in solving traffic concerns in residential neighborhoods
in accordance with the latest Neighborhood Traffic Calming (NTC)
Policy Program. The NTC Program is designed to be an effective,
systematic, and fair method for achieving the most appropriate
solutions. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-5.7]
Consider the use of alternative street surfacing materials, traffic
diverters, special designs, and stop signs to prevent cut-through traffic
on residential streets. [Source: Existing Policy TRA-5.6]
Consider traffic calming devices such as lane narrowing, widening
medians, or heavy landscaping to discourage cut-through vehicle
cross-town commute and short-cut traffic. [Source: Existing Policy
TRA-5.5]
Limit new development that increases commercial vehicle travel
traffic flow through residential neighborhoods. Review neighborhood
traffic impacts of from new all development projects and require
developer participation in the cost of installation of traffic calming
measures as a condition of approval, if applicable. [Source: Existing
Policy TRA-5.4]
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 1 of 29
Mobility Element
The following are comments received by the GPAC and corresponding changes in the Revised Public
Review Draft Element.
*NOTE TO THE REVIEWER: Numerous goals, policies, and programs have been eliminated at the request
of the GPAC to further streamline this element. Goals, policies, and programs that were removed are
located at the end of the element in the comprehensive changes table.
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
GPAC Comments from 7/16/20 Meeting
*Reference numbers to goals, policies, and programs, have changed .*
Need a timeline or Program O for the Community
Shuttle.
This was updated with a timeframe, now under
Implementation Program D. (Page 4-25)
Cut-through is most concerned about weekend
traffic, should have been a goal.
To reflect this comment, there is a new Goal
MOB-10. (Page 4-18)
MOB-1 should be focused on not saying all users,
should only focus on the residents, want to
define what cut-through traffic is.
There is a new definition that addresses cut-
through traffic. (Page 4-2)
Include a new cut-through traffic goal that states
the following, “Do all possible to mitigate the
impact of cut-through traffic, with the objective
of making it easy for residents to move around
Town while ensuring that Los Gatos remains a
welcoming place for those coming to visit.”
This new goal has been slightly modified for
consistency with other policies and is now
incorporated as MOB-10. (Page 4-18)
There should be an overarching goal to reduce
VMT, or an intro paragraph that discusses VMT, it
is not explicitly stated.
The introduction to the element as well as the
revised TDM Section 4.1 introduction, now titled
Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled, have been
updated to reflect this comment. (Page 4-3)
Want a visionary intro tied to VMT. The introduction to the element as well as the
revised TDM Section 4.1, now titled Reduce
Vehicle Miles Traveled, have been updated to
reflect this comment. (Page 4-3)
Maintain “all users” in MOB-1. This terminology was retained in MOB-8. (Page 4-
15)
MOB-1: “Optimize”, instead of “Design and
manage.”
This is now reflected in Goal MOB-8. (Page 4-15)
We need to address cut-through traffic item. Cut-through traffic now includes a stand-alone
goal and policies under MOB-10. (Page 4-18)
ATTACHMENT 13
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 2 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB-4.4: Shall review, needs to have the
standards.
The General Plan is meant to be general and not
include all those standards. Such standards would
be created and listed through a separate process.
MOB-2: Change “Create and maintain” to
“Provide.”
MOB-9 was updated to reflect this comment.
(Page 4-18)
MOB-5: Would prefer to pull out the Hillside SP
and Development Standards and Guidelines
should be a policy. And the Hillside SP is now
obsolete. Should focus just on streets, not rural
atmosphere, that should be in the Community
Design Element when describing hillside
character.
MOB-13 has been updated to reflect this
comment. (Page 4-20)
MOB-5: End the goal at “access.” MOB-13 has been updated to reflect this
comment. (Page 4-20)
MOB-6: Change the emphasis from only on
Downtown to an emphasis of a walkable Los
Gatos, Townwide.
MOB-5, formerly MOB-6, was modified and
updated to focus on a walkable Los Gatos as a
whole, and not specifically Downtown. In order to
maintain Downtown specific references, the title
for Policy MOB-5.1 was updated to include
Downtown. Later comments have resulted in the
removal of “in Downtown” from that title.
Combine MOB-6 and MOB-7. This was updated to reflect the comment. (Page
4-6)
MOB-8: End the goal at “all users,” and move the
description of all users into the first paragraph
where they are listed.
MOB-4 has been updated to reflect this
comment. (Page 4-9)
MOB-12.2: Needs to include all schools, not just
Los Gatos Union School District.
MOB-2.7 has been updated to reflect this
comment. (Page 4-6)
We do not need 5 goals on VLR. Reduce to two
goals and reduce the policies.
VLR related policies and goals were reduced
and/or eliminated.
VLR description in intro needs to state that the
VLR is currently on hold and does not seem likely.
Also add a policy to still allow high-density
housing in the station area if the plan ever comes
to fruition. Add this into the second paragraph
preamble on VLR.
A new conclusion sentence was added to reflect
these comments (Page 4-11).
Elevate Section 4.8 to the front. This section was elevated to the first section and
was revised with a new title called “Reduce
Vehicle Miles Traveled,” Section 4.1 (Page 4-3).
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 3 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Section 4.8 pre-amble, need the section beefed
up.
The introduction to this section was revised to
place a higher emphasis on reducing vehicle trips
and focusing on alternative modes (Page 4-3).
MOB-22: Goal should be focused on parking
Downtown and use “employees” instead of
“commuters.”
MOB-15, formerly MOB-22, has been updated to
reflect this comment. (Page 4-22)
Need a policy about TDM measures for
Downtown, possibly a program for it.
Staff reviewed the idea of a TDM policy specific to
the Downtown. To be impactful, significant
growth through redevelopment would need to
occur in the Downtown in a short amount of time.
Staff believes that a Town wide TDM program
(MOB-1.1) will have a greater overall effect and
be able to serve the Downtown as well as other
parts of the Town. As an example, a TDM funded
shuttle would be able to bring people to and from
the Downtown from other locations. Similarly,
developer contributions to a Townwide bike and
pedestrian network would reduce the reliance on
autos everywhere in Town. Additionally, the
Town Council has begun setting aside the funding
for a Downtown streetscape project that could
advance improvements for bikes and peds in the
Downtown. (Page 4-3)
Reduce and eliminate unnecessary VLR programs. See previous comments on the reduction of VLR
related goals, policies, and programs.
Simplify the number of programs and some
policies prior to our next review.
Several programs and policies were eliminated
and streamlined per the GPAC request.
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 9/3 Meeting
MOB 1.2: Examples of “incentives”? Incentives could include reduction in
development fees for off-setting measures to
reduce VMT, but incentives would be reviewed by
Town Council and included in another Policy
document.
Incentives would include free or discounted
transit passes, encouragement incentives for
carpools, work from home policies, etc. (Page 4-
4)
In planning for a vehicle transportation system,
the State of California now requires
municipalities to use Vehicle Miles Travelled
The following edits have been implemented into
Section 4.1 (Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled).
(Page 4-3)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 4 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
(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
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 5 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
reduce overall reliance on vehicles and vehicular
trips.
MOB 5.1: Why limit to Downtown? Policy MOB-5.1 has been modified to remove the
limitation to only Downtown.
MOB 5.2: E-scooters on street as opposed to
sidewalk.
Former Policy MOB-5.2 has been eliminated.
MOB 6.3: Bicycles on sidewalks? Have created
safety issues in the past.
Policy MOB-2.14 has been modified to remove
the term “bicyclists” to address the comment.
(Page 4-7)
Figure 4-2: Identify transit service by date
(“New”?).
The source tag for the map references the 2019
VTA Plan. (Page 4-12)
MOB 7.4: Begin with “Work with...”. Policy MOB-6.4 has been revised to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-13)
MOB 7.5: Reword: replace “of” with “and”. Policy MOB-6.5 has been revised to reflect the
comment, and further revised based on later
comments. (Page 4-13)
MOB 7.10: Include impacts on “neighborhoods”. Policy MOB-6.10 has been revised to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-13)
MOB 8.2: Define “transit stops” to exclude
transitory bus stops.
Policy MOB-7.2 has been revised to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-14)
MOB 11.2: What are “alternative street surfacing
materials”?
Alternative street (Policy MOB-10.2) surfacing
materials can include concrete, different types of
asphalt, textured street surfaces, or
pavers/bricks. (Page 4-18)
MOB 13.1: What are “efficiency improvements”? An efficiency improvement, as listed in Policy
MOB 12.1, would be other fixes that aid in making
the flow better. Removing street parking,
reducing the number of driveways, limiting left
turns or providing protected turn pockets, or
synchronizing signals (or removing signals in low
use areas). Also includes improvements to lane
configurations, merge onto the mainline, weaving
on ramps, and auxiliary lanes. (Page 4-19)
MOB 13.4: Examples of possible “connections”? At this point the policy (MOB-12.4) should remain
general. If or when a modification or new access
point to Highway 17 is proposed, the policy is
stating that it must be reviewed by Planning
Commission and Town Council. (Page 4-20)
MOB 14: What is a “continuous” access within
context of hillside streets?
Continuous access (MOB-13) to meant to limit
dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs to better
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 6 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
improve mobility and safety access in the
hillsides. (Page 4-20)
MOB 16.1: Incomplete sentence, please revise. Policy MOB-1.1 has been revised to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-3)
Implementation Programs: Include requirement
for annual progress report.
This has been implemented as Implementation
Program A. (Page 4-25)
4-27 K: “within the Town”. Implementation Program D has been revised to
reflect the comment. (Page 4-25)
Mobility Element – Disagree: 4-2 Major Transit
Stop – exclude temporary such as bus stop.
This comment has been reflected in Policy Mob-
7.2. (Page 14.4)
Mobility Element – Disagree: 13.5: Disagree on
deletion of “lanes” reference.
Policy MOB-12.5 has been retained due to
previous Council direction. (Page 4-20)
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.
Town staff believes the policy structure between
“should” vs. “shall” policies should remain to
allow organization based on topic.
First section-- Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
should be numbered 4.1 (not 4.0). Renumber all
subsequent sections.
All sections have been renumbered to reflect the
comment.
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?
Policy MOB-3.4 has been eliminated and is now a
new Implementation Program, Program F. (Page
4-26)
Combine MOB 4.2 and 4.5. Policy MOB-3.5 has been eliminated and merged
with Policy MOB-3.2 to reflect the comment.
(Page 4-7)
GOAL MOB 5: I know we recommended this
wording, but the Goal is not solely about walking.
Change “walkable” to “non-driving”.
Goal MOB-5 has been updated to reflect this
comment. (Page 4-10)
MOB 7.11: What does this actually mean? Policy MOB-6.11 is stating that property owners
must design their parking areas to connect and
enter into shared parking agreements for
potential parking overflow. (Page 4-14)
MOB 9.2: How is this to be measured? Policy MOB-8.2 has been removed since it does
not have a quantifiable measurement. Refer to
Policy MOB-11.2, which describes how Level of
Service (LOS) (Page 4-19).
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 7 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB 9.3: all circulation and transportation
improvements seem overly broad and vague.
Suggest deleting “all”.
This comment has been reflected in Policy MOB-
8.3. (Page 4-15)
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.
This banner has been eliminated.
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…”
Policy MOB-14.7 is already placed under Section
4.7 (Parking). (Page 4-21)
MOB 16.1 seems unnecessary Policy MOB-15.1 has been retained based on
other comments received. (Page 4-22)
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”?
The Town designated Wildland Urban Interface
Fire Area (WUIFA) includes the VHFHAs and
captures other areas with high fire risk in Town
(Policy MOB-13.2). (Page 4-20)
Point for discussion. Referencing MOB1.2 and
MOB 12.2:
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.
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
Policy MOB-1.1 has been retained as written This
is because a developer can't control the baseline
traffic changes that are caused by other factors,
say cut through traffic. (Page 4-3)
Policy MOB-11.3 (formerly Policy MOB-
12.3/MOB-12.2) has been updated to include the
following requirement, “These measures shall be
implemented and maintained as a condition of
approval on the project.”
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 8 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
consistent with actual traffic counts. Is this what
is intended by MOB 1.2?
MOB 1.2:
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 12.2:
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]
Page 4-1
Change: “The Mobility Element is designed to
address all aspects of moving people and goods.”
Re-number sections.
The introduction paragraph has been modified to
reflect the comment. (Page 4-1)
Section numbering has been modified to reflect
the comment.
Page 4-2
Key Terms: Change TDM: “pieces” to “section”.
The key term has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-2)
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).
The 1st paragraph terminology has been modified
to reflect the comment. (Page 4-3)
The acronym has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-3)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 9 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
Sentence rewording has been modified to reflect
the comment. (Page 4-3)
Incentives could include reduction in
development fees for off-setting measures to
reduce VMT. (Page 4-4)
Policy MOB-1.2 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-4)
Policy MOB-1.1 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-3)
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”.
MOB 2.10: delete “major”; replace “greater than”
with “with 100 employees or more”.
Goal MOB-2 was modified to remove the word
Town. (Page 4-6)
Policy MOB-2.1 was modified to remove the term
“facilities.” Policy MOB-2.2 was modified to
reflect the comment. (Page 4-6)
Policy MOB-2.3 was removed due to a duplication
error.
Policy MOB-2.6 was modified for grammatical
changes per the comment and includes a more
objective standard for frontage rather than block
size. (Page 4-6)
Policy MOB-2.7 was modified per the comment.
(Page 4-6)
Policy MOB-2.9 was modified per the comment.
(Page 4-6)
Page 4-7
MOB 2-12: delete “private” and public”, to read: “
Require bicycle parking in all parking lots in the
Downtown.”
Policy MOB-2.11 was modified per the comment
and is now meant to cover Townwide and not
only Downtown. (Page 4-6)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 10 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB 3.3: replace “behind” with “between”. Policy MOB-2.16 was modified per the comment.
(Page 4-7)
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 homeowner 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.
Policy MOB-2.17 was modified per the comment
relating to street furniture. Street furniture is a
better term to include trash, recycle, bike racks,
planters, etc. (Page 4-7)
Policy MOB-2.18 was modified per a previous
comment to cover safe lighting Townwide. (Page
4-7)
Policy MOB-3.2 was modified per the comment.
(Page 4-7)
In Policy MOB-3.4 “Special Populations” was the
preferred term after being reviewed by Town
staff and the Consultant team. (Page 4-7)
Policy MOB-3.5 was modified per the comment.
(Page 4-8)
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…
Policy MOB-3.6 was modified per the comment.
(Page 4-8)
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”?
Section numbering has been revised to reflect the
comment.
Goal MOB-5 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-10)
Page 4-11
Revise intro paragraph:
“…encourage non-driving transportation
alternatives (e.g., bicycle lockers…”.
Policy MOB-4.3 explicitly states…”to allow shared
use”. (Page 4-9)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 11 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
Policy MOB-4.4 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-9)
Page 4-11, Renumber 4.3 to 4.4. Section numbering has been revised to reflect the
comment.
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…”.
Policy MOB-6.3 has been modified per the
comment. (Page 4-13)
Policy MOB-6.5 has been modified per the
comment. (Page 4-13)
Policy MOB-6.6 has been modified per the
comment. (Page 4-13)
Policy MOB-6.7 has been modified per the
comment. (Page 4-13)
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.
Policy MOB-6.10 has been modified per the
comment. (Page 4-13)
Policy MOB-7.2 has been modified per the
comment. (Page 4-14)
Page 4-16
Change Section 4.4 to 4.5
Section numbering has been updated.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 12 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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”.
The Introduction to Section 4.5 has been updated
to reflect the comment. (Page 4-15)
Policy MOB-8.3 has been modified per other
GPAC comments. (Page 4-15)
Policy MOB-8.4 has been modified per the
comment. (Page 4-15)
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.
Section numbering has been updated.
Highway 17 was converted to SR 17 for
consistency with the Background Report and
Alternatives Report. (Page 4-19 and 4-20)
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”.
Policy MOB-9.4 has been updated to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-18)
Yes, Policy MOB-9.5 includes street furniture.
(Page 4-18)
The word “that” has been removed from MOB-
10. (Page 4-18)
Traffic calming has been hyphenated as
requested in the comment (Policy MOB-10.1).
(Page 4-19)
Page 4-20
MOB 12.2: Consider moving the language address
parking to MOB 15.1.
Policy MOB-14.6 has been updated to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-21)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 13 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB 12.3: Hyphenate project-affected.
Project-affected has been hyphenated as
requested in the comment (Policy MOB-11.2).
(Page 4-19)
Page 4-21
MOB 14.2: Hyphenate through-access.
Through-access is no longer a term in Policy MOB-
14.2. But through-access has been hyphenated in
Policy MOB-2.6. (Page 4-6)
Page 4-22
MOB 14.5: Revise to: “New public street lighting
shall be prohibited…”
Change Section 4.6 to 4.7.
Policy MOB-13.5 has been updated to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-20)
Section numbering has been updated.
Page 4-23
MOB 15.3: Change to “Consider expanding
residential…”
MOB 15.7: Insert the word “to” before “support
travel”.
Policy MOB-15.3 has been eliminated.
Policy MOB-14.6 has been reflected to address
the comment. (Page 4-21)
Page 4-24
Change section to 4.8.
Delete “that is” from second line first paragraph.
Section numbering has been updated.
The wording “that is” has been removed from the
second line. (Page 4-23)
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.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment.
The connection between vehicle travel and
climate change is still not clearly articulated.
The organization of the Element leads to
repetition.
The Introduction has been updated to reflect this
comment. (Page 4-1)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 14 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Maintaining the use of LOS and the current road
classification system results in inconsistencies
within the Element and within the General Plan.
Clarify how all the change from LOS to VMT
affects the Town’s Traffic Mitigation Fees
program.
Town staff proposes to maintain the exiting
street classification system. There is a new
implementation measure to evaluate new street
typologies.
VMT will satisfy the CEQA analysis required for
development and projects. VMT tends to have a
bigger picture regional view of the transportation
network, but does not look at the performance of
local roads. Complimentary efforts on LOS, local
policies, and road classifications will be important
tools for managing the entire transportation
network in Town. The TIF program will be
updated in parallel with the GP update to ensure
alignment while maintaining a specific focus on
the functionality of local streets for all users.
Page 4-2: Key Terms:
Multiple Use Trails. Delete: equestrian trails and
Add: Also see Bikeway types
Transit Stop (vs. major transit stop)
TIF
Multiple Use Trails has been updated. (Page 4-2)
Page 4-3: 4.0 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled:
Note MOB 1.1 and MOB 1.2: Look at combining
these policies.
The original Policy MOB-1.1 was eliminated and
merged with MOB-1.2, now Policy MOB-1.1.
(Page 4-3)
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.
The term “major” was removed per other GPAC
comments and Policy MOB-1.3. (Page 4-4)
Page 4-4: MOB- 4.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities introduction: Move the next to last
paragraph up as the second paragraph.
This comment has been reflected in Section 4.2.
(Page 4-4)
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
Town staff proposes retaining the structure as
shown in the Element.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 15 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
2.12) Policies relating to education: (MOB- 2.2,
MOB-2.14).
NOTE: As a general rule, throughout this and
other Elements group related policies together.
MOB-2.3: Delete, it is the same as MOB- 2.2. Policy MOB-2.3 has been eliminated per the
comment.
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?
Policy MOB-2.2 has removed enforcement
programs and the term “investment” based on
other GPAC comments. (Page 4-6)
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.
Policy 3.6 was eliminated and merged with 2.5.
(Page 4-6)
MOB-2.7: What is a typical block? How many
acres or square feet?
The term “block” was removed as requested by
GPAC and replaced with a quantifiable frontage
requirement (Policy MOB-2.6). (Page 4-6)
MOB-2.9: Who is responsible? Town, new
developments…?
The Town would be responsible for these. It
would not hinge on a developer unless added as a
condition of approval (Policy MOB-2.8). (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.10: Does this apply to both new and
existing development?
Policy MOB-2.9 has been updated to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.11 and 2.12: Why only required in
Downtown? Does this apply to both new and
existing development?
Policy MOB-2.11 has been modified to reference
Townwide and not only Downtown. This Policy
would also apply to all development. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.13: Why not require bicycle valet parking
at large events as part of the permit condition?
Policy MOB-2.12 was modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-7)
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.
This comment and text changes have been
reflected (Policy MOB-2.14). (Page 4-7)
MOB-3.2: What defines a “key locations”? Policy MOB-2.15 had “key locations” removed per
other GPAC comments since all locations would
need to be identified. (Page 4-7)
MOB-3.3 What is the definition of adequate
clearance? Does this apply to existing as well as
Policy MOB-2.16: In consultation with Town staff
it has been determine that clearance standards
are to be left out of the Policy Document and
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 16 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
new unimproved roadways? Do unimproved
roadway mean roadways without sidewalks?
should be maintained in the Town engineering
standards. PPW can work on a standard to define
this. This would apply to any roadway, new or
existing, where development occurs. Yes, this
typically refers to roadways without sidewalks.
(Page 4-7)
MOB-3.4: Too 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.
Policy MOB-3.4 has been eliminated and is now a
new Implementation Program, Program F. (Page
4-28)
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?
Policy MOB-2.18 has been modified. (Page 4-7)
Page 4-8
MOB-4.2: Why “should” not “shall”? Does this
refer to the Town’s Master Plan and/or the
County Trails Plan? Does the Ped/bicycle Master
Plan identify priorities?
This comment has been reflected in Policy MOB-
3.2. (Page 4-7)
MOB-4.6 and MOB-4.7: Could these be moved up
under MOB-4.1? Or added as bullets under MOB-
4.1?
Policy MOB-4.6 was eliminated and merged with
other policies. Policy MOB-3.5 includes changes
already made per other GPAC comments.
MOB-4.7: Can the Town REQUIRE rather than
encourage HOA’s to maintain trails that pass
through a new subdivision or planned
development? If so, change to Require.
The term require is being maintained for Policy
MOB-3.5 with modified language to clarify
meaning of policy. (Page 4-8)
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?
Bike Paths (Class 1) are paved rights-of-way
completely separated from streets. Bike paths are
often located along waterfronts, creeks, railroad
rights-of-way or freeways with a limited number
of cross streets and driveways. These paths are
typically shared with pedestrians and often called
mixed-use paths.
Multiple use trails does not necessarily mean a
Class 1, since multiple use trails are not
necessarily paved. (Page 4-8)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 17 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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?
Policy MOB-3.7 has been modified to include all
areas of Town, not just hillsides. (Page 4-8)
Local Bus Transit: “…and includes several transit
route improvements changes in the Town of Los
Gatos.
This comment has been reflected. (Page 4-11)
Delete second paragraph. This comment has been reflected. (Page 4-11)
Figure 4-2, Page 4-13: Add to Legend after Future
VLR and Future Vasona Junction Station: On
indefinite hold Indicate that Route 27 connects
with Winchester Light Rail Station.
This comment has been reflected. (Page 4-12)
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.
It was direction by the GPAC with concurrence
from Town staff to maintain the existing street
classifications and include a new Implementation
Program that studies the creation of new street
typologies.
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.
Policies MOB-16.1-16.3 will remain under Goods
Movement (section 4.8) per other GPAC
comments. (Page 4-23)
GPAC Comments from 9/3/20 Meeting
Move all the shall/require policies first, then the
encourage policies to follow.
Town staff believes the policy structure between
“should” vs. “shall” policies should remain to
allow organization based on topic.
Staff to write new introduction tying VMT to
Climate Change
This comment has been reflected. (Page 4-1)
MOB 1.4: Need to define TIF. The acronym has been added to the Key Terms.
(Page 4-2)
Acronyms need to be listed in the Glossary. This comment has been reflected. (Page 4-2)
Change the vehicle miles traveled in Goal 1, not
vehicle length or vehicle trips.
This comment has been reflected. (Page 4-3)
MOB 1.1 and 1.2, need to clarify who is creating
the incentives, what are there, would like to a
quantifiable figure of reduction by 40% or 50%.
In consultation with Town staff it has been
determined that the Policy Document is not the
appropriate place for quantifiable numbers
pertaining to reductions as noted in the Policy.
MOB 1.1: flexibility of working hours, as a goal or
aspiration of 50% reduction.
Policy MOB-1.1 notes alternative work schedules
as an option. (Page 4-3)
MOB 1.2, the Town encourages the employer to
give incentives, strike existing, need a
quantifiable number.
Policy MOB-1.2 has been modified to remove the
term “existing”. (Page 4-3)
In consultation with Town staff it has been
determined that a percentage is not appropriate
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 18 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
here. This is essentially one element of a
comprehensive TDM plan which will have project
specific targets to manage traffic and VMT.
Provide language for regional transportation
effort including corporate busing, could be
included in a new policy.
Policy MOB-1.4 includes additional language to
clarify the employer shuttles are also known as
corporate busing. (Page 4-4)
Combine 1.1 and 1.2. Former Policies MOB-1.1 and 1.3 were combined
into a new Policy MOB-1.1. Policy MOB-1.2 has
been retained. (Page 4-3)
Confused between 1.1. and 1.3. Former Policies MOB-1.1 and 1.3 were combined
into a new Policy MOB-1.1. Policy MOB-1.2 has
been retained. (Page 4-3)
Maintain 1.2 and combine 1.1. and 1.3. Former Policies MOB-1.1 and 1.3 were combined
into a new Policy MOB-1.1. Policy MOB-1.2 has
been retained. (Page 4-3)
Delete the word major transit stop and just list
bus stop.
Policy MOB-1.1 has been updated and revised per
the comment. (Page 4-3)
MOB 2.2 and 2.3, have the same language,
eliminate one.
Policy MOB-2.3 has been eliminated reflecting the
comment. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.7: Clarify what a block is. Need a better
measurement. Maybe focus on maximum feet of
frontage.
Policy MOB-2.6 has been updated to include a
frontage requirement rather than a block. (Page
4-6)
MOB-2 and MOB-3 seem to overlap. Policy MOB-2 and MOB-3 were merged together.
(Page 4-6)
MOB 2.12: make Townwide not downtown, also
make it clear for discretionary projects and make
it know only when feasible.
This comment has been reflected in MOB-2.11.
(Page 4-6)
MOB-3: Provide safe and efficient pedestrian
facilities (or systems) throughout Town.
Goal MOB-3 has been merged with MOB-2 per
other GPAC comments. (Page 4-6)
MOB 3.4 needs to be aspiration nor mandatory.
What and where is the trigger for this. Maybe say
“Adapt and maintain existing sidewalk to meet
ADA requirements. Install wide sidewalks and/or
detached sidewalks with a buffer separation from
vehicular traffic. Establish sidewalk standards and
guidelines for enhancing existing sidewalks and
installation of new sidewalks. [New Policy]
Former Policy MOB-3.4 has been eliminated and
is now a new Implementation Program G. (Page
4-28)
MOB 3.4: Need responsibility for who does what. Former Policy MOB-3.4 has been eliminated and
is now a new Implementation Program G.
Program G has been delegated to Parks and
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 19 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Public Works as the designated department.
(Page 4-28)
MOB 3.7: Should not be limited to the hillsides. Policy MOB-2.18 has been updated to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-7)
MOB 3.2: Every half mile should be a safe
pedestrian crossing.
Policy MOB-2.15 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-7)
MOB-4: Reword remove the developed portions. Goal MOB-3 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-7)
4.4 reword for more flexibility to allow for more
trails for disabled persons.
This comment has been reflected in Policy MOB-
3.4. (Page 4-7)
Combine MOB 4.1, 4.6, and 4.7 into one and then
place all details in a Program, and make sure
MOB 4.7 is clarified between encourage for
existing and requiring for new.
Prior GPAC comment has addressed the merging
of these policies. Please refer to Policies under
Goal MOB-3 for these changes. (Page 4-7)
Combine MOB 4.2 and 4.5. Policy MOB-4.5 has been eliminated and
combined with Policy MOB-3.2 as reflected in the
comment. (Page 4-7)
MOB 4.11: Why only hillsides? Policy MOB-3.8 has been modified to apply to all
development regardless of location in Town.
(Page 4-8)
MOB 4.9: Remove bullet 1. Policy MOB-3.7 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-8)
MOB-5: Change walkable to non-driving. Goal MOB-5 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-10)
New policy under 5, that encourages walking
downtown, add a downtown walkability policy for
Downtown, remove e-scooters…move that to the
pedestrian section.
This comment is reflected in a new Policy MOB-
2.18. (Page 4-7)
MOB 5.1: Remove downtown and end the policy
at shuttle system. And combine with MOB 5.2.
Policy MOB-5.1 has been revised. Policy MOB-5.2
has been eliminated and combined with Policy
MOB-5.1. (Page 4-10)
MOB 5.3: Need to quantify significant, should
include use of TDM.
These thresholds have not yet been identified as
part of the EIR/VMT work. (Page 4-10)
MOB 5.5: Needs to include the use of TDM. Policy MOB-6.5 has been modified to include
TDM.
MOB-5 policies, does not like the term non-
driving.
The term “non-driving” was maintained for
consistency with the Goal MOB-6 (formerly Goal
MOB-5). (Page 4-10)
MOB-6 use this instead: Encourage the
development of a comprehensive and integrated
transportation network with infrastructure and
Goal MOB-4 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-8)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 20 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
design features that allow safe and convenient
travel along and across streets for all users.
MOB-6 needs a policy that encourages a policy or
strategy to get pedestrians across streets.
Policy MOB-2.15 includes a standard for safe
pedestrian crossings every half mile. (Page 4-7)
Flip MOB-5 and MOB-6. This comment has been reflected.
MOB 6.3: Needs to reference the standards and
source that says what constitutes what a wide
sidewalk is.
Policy MOB-4.3 was modified to include an
objective standard. The revised policy now states
that wide sidewalks “greater than four feet in
width Townwide” to allow…(Page 4-9)
Rejects residential parking zones;
Objects to cut-through traffic; and
Rejects the commercial traffic policy.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment.
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 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.
Policy MOB-2.18 has been added to address a
walkable Downtown. (Page 4-7)
Policy MOB-5.1 and MOB-5.2 were combined.
(Page 4-10)
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 Joel’s 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 something 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.
Policy MOB-4.3 was updated to include an
objective and quantifiable measurement for a
wide sidewalk of a minimum of four feet in width.
(Page 4-9)
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.
Policy MOB-15.3 has been eliminated per GPAC
direction.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 21 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB 16.1: I believe there is an error in this one.
The first sentence does not make sense. It reads:
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]
Policy MOB-15.1 has been revised to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-22)
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.
Implementation Program Q relates to cut-through
traffic and the preservation of neighborhoods.
(Page 4-28)
Public Comment at the GPAC Meeting (9/3)
Housing as an issue. LG has a certain character
intertwined with SF homes, most important to
majority of the community. Density in itself is a
poor predictor to traffic problems, reason is
because is the availability of transit, proximity to
work, proximity to consumption. Density can
reduce traffic proximity to consumption.
Structure of SF homes creates traffic issues. Need
to combat socio-economic diversity in Town.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment.
BLM, advocate to promote culture for the library,
BLM reading and podcast lists for library.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment.
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to the GPAC Meeting (9/17)
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.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment.
General organizational comment —show priority
of policies with those having “shall” or “require”
be listed first.
Town staff believes the policy structure between
“should” vs. “shall” policies should remain to
maintain organization based on topic.
Connection between and climate change not
clearly articulated. We need to add this to
beginning.
This comment has been reflected in the
Introduction. (Page 4-1)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 22 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Repetition in element. Chair--this is the nature of
the GP.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment.
LOS and road classification system leads to
inconsistencies. Chair—GPAC needs to discuss
with MOB 4.5. Possibility of alternate system pg.
4-17.
A new study via new street typologies (IP S)has
been added as a program to address this. (Page 4-
29)
List all triggers for TDM in one place. Chair: best
to have throughout.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment.
Clarify how change from LOS to VMT affects Town
traffic impact fees.
In parallel with the adoption of VMT, the Town
will advance modifications to policies to achieve
this complimentary goal. This will include a
review of impact fees associated with the policies.
Key terms--Acronym TIF. Chair—agree. TIF acronym has been places in the Key Terms.
(Page 4-2)
Opportunities for Objective Standards:
- VMT—we should reference goals we have in
Sustainability Plan.
- Be able to measure/define how we are doing
making sure that traffic doesn’t exceed capacity
(MOB 9.2).
Policy MOB-9.2 has been removed.
MOB 1.1 and 1.3: maybe clarify that TDM must
include ongoing compliance/monitoring after
development is complete. Chair: Agree if feasible.
This comment has been reflected in Policy MOB-
1.1. (Page 4-3)
MOB 1.1 and 1.2: Combine these. This comment has been reflected. (Page 4-3)
MOB 1.4: Define near major transit. Chair: delete
“major” as we have no major transit stops
Policy MOB-1.4 has been modified to reflect the
comment with the removal of “major” relating to
transit stops. (Page 4-3)
Reduce number of policies. MOB 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3
are similar.
Policies have been merged and/or eliminated in
this section to reflect the comment. (Page 4-3)
MOB 4.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
Overall—Suggest regrouping policies by area of
focus.
The way the Element is currently organized is by
topic area. Under Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities, there are three goals relating the to the
following topics: Bicycling, Pedestrian, and Trails.
Under each goal/topic are associated policies for
that topic.
MOB-2: Goal regarding Bicycling: Suggest
streamlining to “throughout Town” or similar.
Goal MOB-2 has been modified and streamlined
to reflect the comment. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.2 and 2.3: Redundant, eliminate one. Policy MOB-2.3 has been removed due to a
duplication error. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.2 and 2.3: Explain investments. Also,
wording is awkward.
Policy MOB-2.2 has been revised to focus on
infrastructure upgrades rather than using the
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 23 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
broad term of investment. The Policy was also
reworded for clarity. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.5: If modified, maybe don’t need MOB 2.2
or 2.3. Or create new policy like MOB 3.5—
promote walking.
Policy MOB-3.5 has been eliminated and merged
with Policy MOB-2.17. (Page 4-7)
MOB 2.7: What is block? Addressed in last
meeting.
Policy MOB-2.6 removed the reference to a block
and inserted a frontage requirement. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.9: Who is responsible? The Town would be responsible for this (Policy
MOB-2.8). If a policy does not explicitly designate
a provider, then the Town would be responsible.
The GPAC voted on not including, “The Town
shall…” at the front of each policy which would
make this clearer. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.10: New or existing or both? This comment has been reflected in Policy MOB-
2.9. (Page 4-6)
MOB 2.12: Why only Downtown? And is new,
existing development or both? Chair—Agree.
This comment has been reflected in Policy MOB-
2.11. (Page 4-6)
MOB-3: Goal regarding Pedestrians: Suggest
streamlining wording of goal.
Goal MOB-3 has been eliminated a merged with
MOB-2. (Page 4-6)
MOB 3.2: Which are key locations? Chair—maybe
refer to Bike and Ped master plan.
Policy MOB-2.15 has been modified to remove
“key locations” and require crossings every half-
mile on all Town designated arterial and collector
roadways. (Page 4-7)
MOB 3.3: What is adequate clearance? Chair:
Maybe refer to standard or plan.
This comment has been clarified in Policy MOB-
2.16. (Page 4-7)
MOB 3.4: Too detailed. Put into implementation
program. Suggested by multiple GPAC members.
Policy MOB-3.4 has been eliminated as a policy
and is now a new Implementation Program,
Program G. (Page 4-28)
MOB 3.7: Enhance or add? Why not in hillsides if
for safety? 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?
Policy MOB-2.18 has been updated per other
GPAC comments to focus on enhanced street
lighting Townwide. (Page 4-7)
MOB 4.2 and 4.5: Combine these. Policy MOB-4.5 has been eliminated and
combined with Policy MOB-3.2 as reflected in the
comment. (Page 4-7)
MOB 4.2: Should or shall? What creates
priorities? Bike/Ped plan?
Policy MOB-3.2 has been modified with new
terminology using “shall” instead of “should”. The
Bike/Ped plan is an implementation of the policy.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 24 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB 4.6 and 4.7: Combine with or move to 4.1?
Chair: Agree or move to implementation.
Policy MOB-4.6 has been eliminated and merged
with Policy MOB-3.1 as noted in the comment.
(Page 4-7)
MOB 4.7: Can Town require HOA’s to do this? If
so, then say it.
This Policy MOB-3.5 is being retained as
encourage based on previous GPAC comments,
but revised to clarify intent. (Page 4-8)
MOB 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10: How does this relate to
Class I bikeways and to MOB 2.4?
Bike Paths (Class 1) are paved rights-of-way
completely separated from streets. Bike paths are
often located along waterfronts, creeks, railroad
rights-of-way or freeways with a limited number
of cross streets and driveways. These paths are
typically shared with pedestrians and often called
mixed-use paths.
Multiple use trails does not necessarily mean a
Class 1, since multiple use trails are not
necessarily paved. (Page 4-8)
MOB 4.11: What about trails not in hillsides? Policy MOB-3.9 has been retained. (Page 4-8)
MOB 4.9 and 4.10: Combine or move to
implementation or some design guideline.
These policies are retained as is based on other
GPAC comments.
MOB 4.11 and 4.12: Possible to combine? Policy MOB-4.12 has been eliminated and
combined with Policy MOB-3.8 as reflected in the
comment. (Page 4-8)
MOB 4.12 and 4.13: Combine? Policy MOB-3.9 has been retained. (Page 4-8)
MOB 4.2: Multimodal System/Complete Streets
Overall: Maybe move this section to earlier in the
document (after VMT) as it is high level.
Town staff believes it should be maintained in the
Section where it currently resides in the Element.
MOB-5: Emphasizing non-driving modes of
transportation: Change wording in goal—
walkable should be multimodal or non- driving.
Chair—Agree. Comment by GPAC member to
have goal or policy to encourage walking
downtown.
This comment is reflected in a new Policy MOB-
2.19. (Page 4-4)
MOB 5.1: Don’t limit to downtown. This comment has been reflected in Policy MOB-
5.1. (Page 4-10)
MOB 5.1 and 5.2: Combine or modify 5.1
(Multiple GPAC members).
Policy MOB-5.2 was eliminated and merged with
Policy MOB-5.1. (Page 4-10)
MOB 5.2: E-scooters belong on streets not
sidewalks (staff—put in ordinance). Chair—Agree.
Policy MOB-5.2 was eliminated and merged with
Policy MOB-5.1. The comment relating to
scooters has been addressed. (Page 4-10)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 25 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB-6: Talking about a comprehensive
transportation network to support multi-modal.
Goal MOB-6 has been moved to MOB-5. (Page 4-
10)
MOB 6.3: Bicycles on sidewalks? Chair- agree. Removed the reference to bicyclists from the
policy MOB-4.3. (Page 4-9)
MOB 6.3: “Wide” sidewalks is vague. Need to
refer to standard if we are requiring this.
Policy MOB-4.3 was modified to include an
objective standard. The revised policy now states
that wide sidewalks “greater than four feet in
width in commercial and mixed-use areas.” (Page
4-9)
MOB 6.3: Where? Hillsides have limited/no
sidewalks. Downtown streets where residents
have demanded no sidewalks?
To provide clarity, the policy now refers to
commercial and mixed-use areas (now Policy
MOB-4.3). (Page 4-9)
MOB 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.
Under Vasona Light Rail, clarify that Route 27
connects to Winchester Light Rail Station. Chair—
this is mentioned under Local Bus Transit.
These comments have been reflected. (Page 4-
11 and 4-12)
MOB 7.10: Include impact on
residents/neighborhoods. Chair- Agree.
This comment has been reflected (Policy MPb-
6.10). (Page 4-14)
MOB 8.2: Define transit stops to exclude
transitory bus stops.
Policy MOB-7.2 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-14)
MOB 9.1: Include TDM as an option. Chair—
Agree.
Policy MOB-8.1 has been modified to include
TDM as an option. (Page 4-15)
MOB 9.3—Clarify wording. Chair—maybe re-
write—Decisions relative to construction and
operation of transportation systems must
consider the full fiscal impacts including ongoing
maintenance.
Policy MOB-8.2 has been revised to read,
“Consider the full fiscal impacts including ongoing
maintenance relative to the construction and
operation of transportation systems.” (Page 4-
15)
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.
Implementation Program T addresses this
comment. (Page 4-29)
Note to reviewer—Suggest GPAC request a more
refined street topology for future drafts. Chair—
Agree, worth considering.
Implementation Program T addresses this
comment. (Page 4-29)
MOB-11: New goal we voted on during last
meeting about mitigating cut-through traffic
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment. (Page 4-18)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 26 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB 11.2: How to limit cut-through traffic
without impacting movement of residents.
Chair—need to discuss at next meeting.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment (Policy MOB-10.2). (Page 4-18)
MOB 11.4: Description is too vague—the goal is
to minimize cut-through traffic and this is a
policy.
Policy MOB-11.4 has been removed since it was
redundant to Policy MOB-10.2. (Page 4-18)
MOB 11.4: Is this legal? Also need to define
regionally generated.
Policy MOB-11.4 has been removed since it was
redundant to Policy MOB-10.2. (Page 4-18)
MOB 11.2 and 11.4: Not sure what the difference
is between these.
Policy MOB-11.4 has been removed since it was
redundant to Policy MOB-10.2. The title for Policy
MOB-10.2 was modified to reflect the previous
Policy MOB-11.4. (Page 4-18)
MOB 11.5: Not sure if it is clear what
“commercial” means. This shouldn’t include
deliveries. (Chair)
Policy MOB-10.4 has been modified to add
“excluding delivery services”. This should clarify
that those types of services are not considered
commercial cut-thru traffic. (Page 4-19)
MOB 12.3: Need for objective standard here as
well as ongoing measurement. Chair—Agree but
need to determine to what degree if any LOS will
be used going forward.
Town staff recommends leaving this as is with the
potential for dropping it completely pending
policies that will be developed.
MOB 13.5: Disagree with lanes being deleted. The Town Council modified TRA-4 in November
2019. (Page 4-20)
MOB 13.5: Didn’t council support widening 17 bet
85 and 9 to eliminate merge lanes?
The Town Council modified TRA-4 in November
2019. (Page 4-20)
MOB14.2: What about other areas of Town in
high fire hazard? Chair—Agree, need to discuss.
The Town designated Wildland Urban Interface
Fire Area (WUIFA) includes the VHFHAs and
captures other areas with high fire risk in Town.
(Page20)
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, should not 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.
Policy MOB-13.5 has been maintained but
modified. It was requested by the GPAC to have a
stance on streetlighting lighting in the hillsides
and to reiterate it beyond the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines. The
Policy was modified to remove the term
“recurring” and remove the reference to who
would be making the determination. (Page 4-20)
MOB 15.2: Seems to belong under 4.7 parking.
Chair—Not sure I understand comment.
Section 4.7 is for parking, thus Policy MOB-14.2
(Efficient Parking Facility Design) will remain as is.
(Page 4-21)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 27 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB 15.3: Is this needed? Policy MOB-15.3 has been removed per
comments at the 9/17 GPAC Meeting.
MOB 15.3: Object to this policy. Should not be
expanded, should be eliminated. Any plan should
be governed by the Comprehensive Parking
Study.
Policy MOB-15.3 has been removed per
comments at the 9/17 GPAC Meeting.
MOB 15.6: Wayfinding should be consistent with
the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Parking Study.
This comment has been reflected in Policy MOB-
14.5. (Page 4-21)
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.
There are no changes anticipated from this
comment.
MOB 16.1: Should we explicitly mention
encouraging underground parking?
It was a determination from prior GPAC meetings
to not limit stand-alone parking facilities
Downtown to below grade and was thus
removed. Policy MOB-15.1 has been updated to
reflect the comment. (Page 4-22)
MOB 16.1: Wording doesn’t make sense. Policy MOB-15.1 has been modified to focus on
minimizing impacts of parking facilities.
Subjective language regarding “design
excellence” and “character” were removed.
(Page 422)
MOB 16.2: Include TDM as an option. Chair—
Agree.
Policy MOB-15.2 has been modified to include
TDM as an option. (Page 4-22)
MOB-17: Safe and efficient truck/delivery routes
Suggests combining with Complete Streets.
Discussion from the 9/17 GPAC Meeting resulted
in Section 4.8 (Goods Movement) remaining as a
stand-alone section. (Page 4-23)
MOB 4.8: Implementation programs: Parking
study recommendations should be included in the
Implementation plans. 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.
Town staff has confirmed consistency with the
Parking study recommendations.
MOB 4.8: Implementation programs: Suggest
adding an implementation program relative to
cut-through traffic since it is a goal. Chair—isn’t
this what program O is? Maybe rename it?
Yes, Implementation Program Q relates to cut-
through traffic and the preservation of
neighborhoods. (Page 28)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 28 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
MOB 4.8: Implementation programs: Suggest
adding a program to encourage a walkable
downtown. Chair-Agree.
In consultation with Town staff, a new policy will
not be added regarding a walkable downtown.
Program A: Is this intended to create an objective
standard?
Program X, Yes. (Page 4-29)
Program B: If this is the same as the note to
reviewer on 4-17, then it should say that in that
section.
This program (T) implements the call out box
which will be removed after GPAC review. (Page
4-29)
Program I: Don’t we have this already? If so,
delete. (Chair)
Town Code Sec. 24.50.045 covers grade and Town
Code Sec. 24.50.075 covers length of cul-de-sacs
and these are also addressed in the Town’s
roadway design standards. This program will be
removed.
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).
Implementation Program Z has been removed
and relocated as a modification to Policy MOB-
1.1. and new Policy MOB-1.5 (Major Employer
Shuttle Services). (Page 4-3)
GPAC Comments from 9/17/20 Meeting
Maybe provide an aspirational language to better
serve community by extending light rail beyond
the current plan.
The last sentence of the Vasona Light Rail
Extension section was modified per previous
GPAC direction. (Page 4-11)
Possibly have an implementation program that
locates proper areas for public and private
shuttles per MOB 7.5.
This new Implementation Program is program S.
(Page 4-29)
MOB 9.1: Incorporate TDM as an option. Policy MOB-9.1 has been modified to include
TDM as an option. (Page 4-18)
MOB 9.1: Change maintaining to promoting in
bullet 1.
Policy MOB-9.1 has been modified to include the
new terminology. (Page 4-18)
Swap language from staff report from October 8,
2019 into the Mobility Introduction.
This comment has been reflected in Section 4.1.
(Page 4-3)
MOB-11.2, Remove the without impacting and
replace with while minimizing.
Policy MOB-10.2 has been modified to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-18)
MOB-11.5: Needs to distinguish between thru-
traffic and that for deliveries. This will need to be
tied to the definition for cut-through traffic.
Policy MOB-10.4 has been modified to add
“excluding delivery services”. This should clarify
that those types of services are not considered
commercial cut-thru traffic. (Page 4-19)
Define LOS, it is peak hour? Yes. Refer to Key Terms. (Page 4-2)
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
December 2020
Page 29 of 29
Mobility Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Leave MOB-13 as is, no additional comments
from GPAC.
Goal MOB-13 will remain as stated in the Policy
Document. (Page 4-20)
MOB-14.5: Remove the term recurring. Policy MOB-13.5 has been modified removing the
term “recurring”. (Page 4-20)
MOB-13.1: Would like to see language about
adding lanes in the existing right-of-ways.
Policy MOB-12.1 has been revised to reflect the
comment. (Page 4-19)
MOB 15.4: Need to expand to explain further
what parking availability means.
Policy MOB-14.3 has been updated to clarify
parking availability. (Page 4-21)
Policies in MOB-15 does not conflict with the
Parking Study.
There are no conflicts per the Parks and Public
Works Department, who reviewed this Element.
Remove Policy MOB-15.3. Policy MOB-15.3 has been removed per the
comment. (Page 4-22)
Do not combine 4.7 with any other sections.
Leave stand-alone.
Section 4.8 (Goods Movement) will remain a
stand-alone section. (Page 4-23)
Need an implementation program relating to cut-
through traffic.
Implementation Program Q relates to cut-through
traffic and the preservation of neighborhoods.
(Page 4-28)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From:Steve
To:Jennifer Armer
Cc:Melanie Hanssen; Joel Paulson
Subject:Definition of cut-through traffic
Date:Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:10:51 AM
Jennifer,
I noticed that the definition of “cut-through traffic” in the draft Mobility Element includes a reference to locally
generated traffic as follows “or vehicles that pass through a neighborhood as a short cut to using arterial streets…”. I
know we discussed the first part of the definition regarding outside, primarily beach traffic, cutting through Los
Gatos but I don’t recall that we discussed this aspect of locally generated "cut-through" traffic.
I would like to bring this up with the committee so we can discuss it and determine if this is the best wording or if
we want the local reference at all. I think it would encourage some neighborhoods to seek full or partial closures of
their streets which would certainly impact other neighborhood streets.
Please advise of the best way to raise this with the committee.
Thanks,
Steve
ATTACHMENT 14
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank