15 Staff Report - Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design StandardsCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 20, 1997
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 12/1/97
ITEM NO. 471,.,.
CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE,
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE, AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS, NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ND-96-21. INITIATED BY: TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Hold Public Hearing;
2. Close Public Hearing;
3. Adopt resolution making the Negative Declaration and approving the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards
(Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
On September 15, 1997, the Town Council considered the Draft Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards
(Attachment 2). After receiving public input, the Council returned the Boulevard Plan to the General Plan Committee for
further study concerning the issues listed below:
1. Landscaping as it concerns private developers;
2. Traffic flow and how it will affect surrounding residential streets;
3. Utility undergrounding;
4. Bikes allowed on wider sidewalks;
5. Building frontages have visibility and access from the street sides;
6. Right turn lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard to Blossom Hill Road; and
7. How other communities handle bike lanes.
The General Plan Committee discussed and researched the above mentioned issues at their October 8th and November 12th,
1997 meetings. On November 12, 1997, the third anniversary of the Los Gatos Boulevard Charette, the General Plan
Committee approved a resolution recommending adoption of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan (Attachment 3). The
Architectural Standards Committee also considered issues mentioned above that are pertinent to the Design Standards.
DISCUSSION:
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN
ee
PLANNING DIRECTOR
Reviewed by: NIL/ Attorney v Finance
Revised: 11/20/97 4:59 pm
Reformatted: 10/23/95
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS
November 20, 1997
DISCUSSION:
The General Plan Committee and Architectural Standards Committee respond to the Council's issues as follows:
1. Landscaping as it concerns private developers.
The Los Gatos Boulevard Street Tree Concept Plan addresses the species and number of trees to be planted
in the Right -of -Way and sidewalk tree wells. The Design Standards encourage landscaping to complement
Los Gatos natural terrain and orchards. The Architectural Standards Committee unanimously agreed that
drawings in the Design Standards should concentrate on site layout and building design, not landscaping.
Specific landscaping requirements for sites are made on a case by case basis at the Development Review
Committee.
2. Traffic flow and how it will affect surrounding streets.
The General Plan Committee determined that the proposed Los Gatos Boulevard Right -of -Way configuration
will not adversely impact neighboring residential streets. The number of lanes, existing speed limit, and right
hand turns will all remain the same. The change in proposed lane widths north of Blossom Hill Road from 12'
to 11' will not reduce the capacity of Los Gatos Boulevard; it will continue to function as an arterial. The
General Plan Committee focused on information contained in Attachment 6 to support this position. A report
to the General Plan Committee from Linda Lubeck about narrowing traffic lanes is included as Attachment 10.
3. Utility undergrounding.
The Town Zoning Ordinance requires all new utility installation be underground when land is developed. The
Los Gatos Boulevard Plan does not address undergrounding utilities. The Council sets priorities for
undergrounding of existing utilities as part of the Town's Five Year Capital Improvement Program.
4. Bikes allowed on wider sidewalks.
According to Dan Burden, Florida Department of Transportation, "Motorists do not anticipate bicyclists
coming at them on a sidewalk from either direction, and on a wide arterial nearly 50% of bicyclists using a
sidewalk are coming from the unanticipated direction." (Attachment 4). According to Mr. Burden, the
motorist and bicyclist conflicting at every driveway sets up a conflict per minute, or conflict every 30 seconds;
increasing chances of motorist and bicyclist conflict.
Los Gatos Boulevard currently has marked bike lanes from Loma Alta Avenue to Blossom Hill Road. Three
auto dealerships operate on this portion of Los Gatos Boulevard; Honda, Acura and Anderson Chevrolet
currently operate successfully and have not presented objections to the Boulevard Plan. On October 9, 1997,
the Trails and Bikeway Committee voted unanimously to urge the General Plan Committee, Planning
Commission and Town Council to adopt the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan with bike lanes on both sides of the
street, for the length of the Boulevard (Attachment 7). Bike lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard are consistent with
the Town Bikeways Master Plan, recommended by the Trails and Bikeways Committee in 1996, but not
adopted by the Planning Commission and Town Council.
For correspondence about bike lanes, see Attachment 7. For articles and letters from the "Los Gatos Weekly
Times" about bike lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard, see Attachment 8.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS
November 20, 1997
5. Building frontages have visibility and access from the street.
The Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards encourage pedestrian and motorist visibility and access to
buildings facing the Boulevard and side streets.
6. Right turn lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard to Blossom Hill Road.
The General Plan Committee agreed to maintain the existing configuration of free right turns. The
Implementation Program for Public Improvements (Section VII. A, page 14) of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan
has been amended as follows:
2. Develop and implement funding and construction plans to narrow traffic lanes,
reconfigure free right turns, ate reconfigure on -street parking, complete
landscaping improvements, and enhance pedestrian, transit and bicycle access.
7. How other communities handle bike lanes.
San Jose and Campbell both include bike lanes on arterials. For example, Bascom Avenue has a marked bike
lane. Bicyclists have stated that a bike lane on Los Gatos Boulevard between Blossom Hill Road and Route
85 would make a much needed connection between the Town and San Jose/ Campbell .
Some examples of bike lanes included on arterials and Expressways in nearby cities are listed below:
Saratoga: Prospect Road, Saratoga Avenue, Fruitvale Avenue, Cox Avenue, Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd.
Campbell: Curtner Avenue, Hillsdale Avenue
Cupertino: Bollinger Road, Fremont Avenue, Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, portions of Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Los Altos: San Antonio Road, El Monte Avenue, Foothill Boulevard
Mountain View: Central Expressway, Middlefield Road
San Jose: Curtner Avenue, Capitol Avenue and Expressway, Leigh Avenue, Santa Teresa Boulevard,
Berryessa Road, Tully Road
Gilroy: Santa Teresa Boulevard
The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) converts 12' lanes to 11' (or less) in order to provide bike
lanes. Dan Burden of the Florida DOT stated that "conversion to 11' lanes has proven itself on every project,
irrespective of truck volumes, ADT, or speed." (Attachment 4) The National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 330 "Effective Utilization of Street Width on Urban Arterials" does not present any evidence
cautioning against the use of bike lanes on urban arterials (Attachment 6). The traffic analysis prepared by
Barton-Aschman for the Los Gatos Boulevard auto dealers states that "Bike lane stripes can increase safety by
increasing bicycle visibility and by encouraging bicyclists and motorists to stay within their own designated
lanes." (Attachment 5). The study also states that traffic lanes and bicycle lanes must be of "sufficient width".
CONCLUSION:
Since the September 15, 1997 Council consideration of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards, the General
Plan Committee, Architectural Standards Committee and staff have conducted discussions and research to respond to
the Council's issues discussed in this report. The General Plan Committee realizes that disagreements about Right -of -
Way configuration may still exist. The Committee continues to support the premise of making Los Gatos Boulevard
a safer and more efficient arterial for all users.
I
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS
November 20, 1997
On November 12, 1997, the General Plan Committee voted five to three (one abstention) for approving the Resolution
recommending adoption of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards (Attachment 2). The Town Council
should therefore adopt the Resolution approving the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards (Attachment 1).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
It has been determined that the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards will not have a significant impact on
the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of approving the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards is unknown at this time. A majority
of the frontage improvements could be required as a condition of development. However, some of the improvements
may be incorporated into future capital improvements projects.
Attachments:
See staff report dated September 9, 1997 for Planning Commission report dated August 6, 1997 (with Exhibits) and
Planning Commission minutes from August 13, 1997 meeting.
1. Resolution Approving the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards.
2. Minutes from September 15, 1997 Council meeting
3. Resolution of the General Plan Committee recommending adoption of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan
4. Internet correspondence from Dan Burden (Florida Department of Transportation), received October 1, 1997
5. Barton - Aschman analysis of proposed Los Gatos Boulevard Right -of -Way, prepared for Los Gatos Auto dealers,
received October 6, 1997
6. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 330 "Effective Utilization of Street Width on Urban
Arterials" (Summary), received November 7, 1997
7. Memo from Sheldon Smith, Chair, Trails and Bikeways Committee, received October 23, 1997
8. Correspondence about bike lanes:
Letter from Mary Ann Michel, received October 15, 1997
E-mail from Bill Michel, received October 24, 1997
E-mail from Gladwyn d' Souza, received October 24, 1997
E-mail from Sharon Kolstad, received October 31, 1997
9. Articles and letters from the "Los Gatos Weekly Times":
October 15, 1997, "Bike Lanes would impair access to Boulevard and impose a safety threat"
October 22, 1997, "Encouraging Bike Lanes on the Boulevard is Good"
October 29, 1997, "Bicycle Lanes belong on Los Gatos Boulevard"
November 5, 1997, "Car dealers must learn to get along with bicyclists"
November 5, 1997, "Boulevard will be improved with lanes for bicyclists"
10. Report to the General Plan Committee from Linda Lubeck, received November 12, 1997
Distribution:
Sheldon Smith, Chairman - Trails and Bikeways Committee, 14225 Lora Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Gladwyn d'Souza, 140 Whitney Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Lucille Weidman, 215 Carlester Dr., Los Gatos, CA 95032
Bob Swanson, Swanson Ford, 16005 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos, CA 95032
.1
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS
November 20, 1997
Agenda only-
1. General Plan Committee
2. Architectural Standards Committee
Dennis Burrow, Architect, 23895 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030
LEB:KS:sm
N:1DEV\CNCLRPTS\LGBLVD.2
RESOLUTION 1997-
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
MAKING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING
THE LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos has completed a major study of Los Gatos Boulevard;
and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee approved Resolution No.1997-1 recommending
Town Council adoption of the Draft Los Gatos Boulevard Plan on November 12, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for consideration of
the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards on August 13, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council conducted public hearings for consideration of the Los
Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards on September 15, 1997 and December 1, 1997; and
WHEREAS, during these hearings, the Planning Commission and Town Council
considered public input on the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee, Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee,
and Planning Commission recommended approval of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design
Standards; and
WHEREAS, the Town has in good faith worked with residents, merchants and property
owners to address their concerns, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish a plan and design standards to provide direction to
decision makers, architects, designers, engineers and developers.
RESOLVED, that the Town Council finds that the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design
Standards will not have a significant environmental impact and makes the Negative Declaration.
FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos hereby adopts the
Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively.
=`n
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 1st day
of December 1997, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\DEV\RESOS\LGBPLAN.DES
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
2
ate
LOS GATOS
BOULEVARD
PLAIN
"A Comprehensive Long Tern Plan to Enhance Los Gatos Boulevard"
(44:.
r; 'el?, ---1.
o , n 1 `,
t
a
� ; j\I , I ••
Ji i ! I
�.r.
I!
1�. I Icy r I h1
�11U11 In17"f I
411 l •
71-7,7
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
•
.10
)r. we 1
(Id
1
FALL 1997
EXHIBIT A
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
i
TOWN OF LOS GATOS OFFICERS
AND STAFF
Town Council
Linda Lubeck, Mayor
Jan Hutchins, Vice Mayor
Joanne Benjamin
Randy Attaway
Steven Blanton
Planning Commission
Michael H. Abkin
Sandy Decker, Vice Chair
Marcia Jensen, Chair
Kathryn Morgan
Laura Nachison
Leonard Pacheco
General Plan Committee
Michael H. Abkin, Chair
Jan Hutchins
Linda Lubeck
Sandy Decker
Marcia Jensen
Gary Ehlert
Joe Pirzynski
Elizabeth Smith
Steve Boersma
Town Staff
David Knapp, Town Manager
Jim Piper, Assistant Town Manager
Lee Bowman, Planning Director
Bud Lortz, Senior Planner
Sandy Baily, Associate Planner
Trish Duarte, Sr. Engineering Tech
Kristine Syskowski, Assistant Planner
Erwin Ordonez, Assistant Planner
Ryan Bane, Planning Technician
Chris Lane, Planning Technician
Martin Alkire, Planning Tech/Code Compliance
ks5\lgblvd\draft.pin Revised: November 19, 1997
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
2
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Vision Statement
B. Study Area and Conditions
C. Background
D. Public Forums
E. Plan Objectives
I1. Public Improvements
A. Overview
B. Opportunities and Constraints
C. Goals
D. Policies
III. Nodes
A. Overview
B. Opportunities and Constraints
C. Goals
D. Policies
IV. Land Use
A. Overview
B. Opportunities and Constraints
C. Goals
D. Policies
V. Gateways
A. Overview
B. Opportunities and Constraints
C. Goals
D. Policies
VI. Private Improvements
A. Overview
B. Opportunities and Constraints
C. Goals
D. Policies
VII. Implementation Program
VIII. Appendix A: Economic Background Data
VIV. Appendix B: Concept Plans
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
3
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Vision Statement
The Los Gatos Boulevard Plan has been created and adopted in order to establish a partnership
among residents, businesses, property owners and the Town government to develop the
Boulevard as a distinct place that enhances the quality of life of the people of Los Gatos through
its economic vitality, beauty, and community.
To realize this Vision, the overall Goals of the Plan are to:
• Preserve and project the essence of Los Gatos' history, individuality, character, and
natural environment.
• Promote commercial activity that complements the whole Town. Provide a dependable
source of income, employment opportunities, goods and services.
• Provide for attractive, easy and effective access to, from and through the Boulevard.
• Provide effective links and interfaces between neighborhoods and commercial areas.
The purpose of the Plan is to establish short, medium and long range goals, policies and implementation
measures including priorities for Boulevard improvements.
B. Study Area and Conditions
The Los Gatos Boulevard Plan Study Area extends for approximately 1.8 miles between the
Route 85 interchange to the north and Spencer Road to the south. Land use in this area consists
primarily of mixed use commercial, neighborhood shopping centers, auto sales and repair and
office. Existing zoning provides for the broadest range of mixed use commercial and residential
uses excluding industrial and manufacturing. The following vicinity maps illustrate 1) the study
area location in relationship to downtown Los Gatos, and 2) the land uses along Los Gatos
Boulevard as of June 1997.
Several events have combined to lead to the current conditions along Los Gatos Boulevard:
construction of Highway 85, relocation of several businesses leaving large vacant lots and
buildings, and a message from both business owners and residents for a re-examination of the
development and public improvement goals for the Boulevard. These events were the catalyst
for the Town's re-evaluation of the Boulevard development goals.
Study Area Map
Agr:cu! ure
Park/Open. Space
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
4
C. Background
Los Gatos Boulevard was originally named San Jose -Los Gatos Road. In 1904 the San Jose -Los
Gatos Interurban Railway was established and hourly trips between San Jose and Los Gatos were
instituted. San Jose -Los Gatos Road was designated a state highway and Caltrans established the
plan line in the early 1940's calling for a 120 foot right-of-way. Caltrans abandoned the Boulevard
as a state highway when Highway 17 was constructed.
San Jose -Los Gatos Road was renamed Los Gatos Boulevard and the Town adopted the plan line
for a 120 foot right-of-way in 1963 to accommodate the community's transportation needs of the
future. At full build out the street is designed to include six travel lanes, street parking, median
and bike lanes. The cities of Campbell and San Jose have adopted similar plan lines to the six lane
arterial. Los Gatos Boulevard runs north and south extending to the Town's northern border at
the Route 85 interchange and southward to Main Street. Los Gatos Boulevard becomes Bascom
Avenue at Samaritan Drive. In 1990, the Town signed the Route 85 agreement that called for a
full interchange at Los Gatos Boulevard/Bascom Avenue and Route 85.
In 1989, the Council appointed the Commercial Specific Plan Committee to study all commercial
districts and identify goals and implementation measures that would encourage commercial
growth and stability. After completion of its study, in May 1991, the Committee submitted its
report to the Town Council which identified specific goals and implementation measures for each
commercial district in Town. The goals for the Los Gatos Boulevard study area were to
encourage new automobile dealerships, develop a major commercial shopping center, provide
clear direction to potential developers and work with existing auto dealers, commercial property
owners and merchants to develop a marketing strategy specifically for Los Gatos Boulevard.
Between 1989 and 1992 the Town lost five auto dealerships, leaving vacant lots and buildings and
resulting in a significant loss of sales tax revenue. But since 1994, two new auto dealerships have
opened on previously vacant dealership lots. Other vacant or underdeveloped lots along the
Boulevard have been developed with the Blossom Hill Pavilion, Speedee Lube and Office Depot.
In February 1993, the Town adopted the Route 85/Vasona Light Rail element of the General Plan.
This General Plan amendment changed the land use designation from residential and agricultural
to mixed use commercial for property along both sides of Los Gatos Boulevard between Lark
Avenue and Samaritan Drive. The 40 plus acres on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard are
bordered by Highways 85 and 17 and Lark Avenue. The General Plan states that this area should
be developed with destination retail and limited neighborhood commercial. The east side of Los
Gatos Boulevard, consisting of 13 acres, is designated for mixed use office and high density
residential. It is surrounded by single family residential and medical office uses.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
5
In 1993, the Boulevard Community Alliance was formed consisting of Los Gatos Boulevard
business and property owners with the goal of enhancing and promoting the Boulevard. In
March 1994, the Town Council directed the General Plan Committee to study alternatives and
make recommendations for improving the appearance and commercial viability of the Boulevard.
On September 6, 1994 the Council approved the General Plan Committee's recommendation to
sponsor community forums to solicit public input. To maximize public participation, the Town
Council agreed to fund two public forums. The Boulevard Community Alliance sponsored a
third, follow up forum.
D. Public Forums
The first forum on October 27, 1994, served as a public information and education seminar.
Noted architect and urban designer Michael Freedman shared a two-hour slide presentation with
approximately 150 Town residents and business leaders. Prepared with both good and bad
examples from communities in the Bay Area, Freedman demonstrated that good design is not
"rocket science" and that development can enhance a community when residents and local
businesses are involved.
The second forum on November 12, 1994 was an all day design "charrette" organized and hosted
by the Town of Los Gatos and the American Institute of Architects, Santa Clara Valley Chapter.
"Charrette" comes from the French word for cart, coined when design students would frantically
work as the cart would come by and mercilessly collect their sketches.
Today, a charrette is an intensive, collaborative design effort that includes professional planners,
architects and the community working together over an extended period to reach consensus. The
Los Gatos Boulevard Charrette drew considerable public support and participation. Over 80
businesses contributed food and services. An estimated 125 participants broke into nine teams
put pen to paper to create nine unique visions for the Boulevard.
As a result of the interest generated by the two design forums, a third forum entitled "Share the
Vision" was sponsored by the Boulevard Community Alliance on February 15, 1995, at the
Neighborhood Center. Team leaders from the charrette presented their vision for the Boulevard.
A panel of community representatives addressed questions from the audience and shared their
views on Boulevard development. This event was attended by an estimated 150 members of the
community.
E. Plan Objectives
Subsequent to the public forums, the Town Council adopted Resolution 1995-88, establishing
the Mission, Goals and Objectives of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan. The Plan Objectives were
established as follows:
Gateways
Major entrances to the Boulevard will have special landscaping, architecture, and/or artistic
displays that announce Los Gatos as a distinct area.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
6
Land Uses
Land uses will include the following: open space; community recreation; auto related, regional
and neighborhood commercial; retail entertainment; and sufficient housing to support regional
transportation centers. These uses will be implemented in such a way to keep the transition from
the higher density mixed use area in the north to a mixture of residential and commercial clusters,
and then to existing residential in the south.
Streetscape
The streetscape will be designed to protect and complement both valley and mountain vistas.
Underground utilities are a must. Areas of distinct pedestrian and bicycle amenities (e.g. public
arts, paths, benches, bike racks, streetlights, and transit stops) shall be clustered at key activity
centers, intersections and crossing points.
Buildings
Architecture will provide distinctive, pedestrian friendly buildings which protect existing vistas
and open spaces. All buildings must incorporate materials, colors and styles that reflect the
history and character of Los Gatos.
Transportation
To service the Boulevard, downtown and local neighborhoods, attractive bus/shuttle stops and
passenger drops will be located at activity centers. The design of the road will facilitate access to
businesses and increase safety for and encourage use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Connections
to regional transportation to Santa Cruz, San Jose, and the Light Rail will be connected at the
gateways.
Development Incentives
Residents, businesses, property owners and the Town government working in partnership will
identify and implement incentive programs for development.
Signs
Signs will complement the streetscape and meet commercial needs.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
7
11. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
A. Overview
Early in the public workshop process, participants envisioned Los Gatos Boulevard as a true
"Boulevard" - a broad, landscaped thoroughfare which is traditionally thought of as a major
community shopping and social gathering place. This concept should guide public improvement
policy and development.
B. Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities:
.
Majority of Boulevard currently has existing landscaped medians in the center.
Street trees are planted along sidewalk in most cases; upon site redevelopment a condition
of approval is to plant/ replant street trees on Boulevard frontage.
On -street parking in certain areas could be substituted with wider sidewalk and bike lane.
Constraints:
No funding in 1996-2001 Capital Improvement Program for the improvement of
Boulevard design or median improvement/construction.
C. Goals
The Goals for Los Gatos Boulevard Public Improvements are:
1. To reduce the speed of automobile traffic on the Boulevard and at major intersections
while maintaining a safe, smooth and efficient flow to both local and through traffic,
including emergency vehicles.
2. To make the Boulevard attractive and conducive to neighborhood and bicycle access
along and across it.
3. To enhance and coordinate landscaping and amenities.
4. To provide attractive and convenient transit facilities that encourage their use.
5. To facilitate and promote access to commercial and residential uses along the Boulevard.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
8
D. Policies
The public improvement policies directly relating to the street and sidewalks are:
1. Los Gatos Boulevard shall have six lanes of traffic (three in each direction) from the
northern Town boundary south to Blossom Hill Road, then narrowing between
Blossom Hill Road and Shannon Road to four lanes of traffic (two in each direction),
then narrowing to two lanes (one in each direction) from Shannon Road south.
2. The width of traffic lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard and up to one street off the Boulevard
on Blossom Hill Road shall be reduced to a minimum of 11 feet wide.
3. Existing medians and left turn lanes shall be retained.
4. On -street parking shall be creatively designed to coordinate the efficient flow of
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Where on -street parking is used infrequently, the
Town will consider replacing on -street parking with landscaping and pedestrian and/or
bicycle improvements, subject to engineering analysis.
5. Free right turns shall be preserved wherever they can be safely and efficiently designed
and coordinated with nodes.
6. Right-of-way width gained by narrowing traffic lanes, redesigning on -street parking and
reconfiguring free right turn lanes shall be used for enhanced driveway, transit turnouts,
sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping, nodes, and street furniture where permitted.
7. The design, location and orientation of lighting, furniture and landscaping shall attract
and encourage neighborhood activity and provide visual and physical buffers between
pedestrian and automobile areas.
8. The design of any public improvements listed above must minimize adverse impacts
upon adjacent residential areas.
9. Financing of improvements shall be shared by the public and private sectors
III. NODES
A. Overview
Traditionally, nodes are defined as activity centers within neighborhoods and districts. Nodes
can be places for pedestrians and motorists. A node can be where major roadways meet,
creating a break in the transportation corridor. At these breaks, there is a heightened sense of
awareness for motorists, due to the time spent stopped and the high level of activity at the node.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN 9
The type and quality of development at a node will leave a strong impression. Development
at these points should create anticipation and be distinctive. This can be achieved with a strong
sense of architecture, a coherent spatial form, and amenities such as public pedestrian enclaves,
plazas, water features, pedestrian connections, public art and pocket parks.
B. Opportunities/ Constraints
Opportunity:
Nodes can establish visual and activity focal points.
Constraints:
Locations identified as nodes may remain vacant or underdeveloped; the opportunity
for establishing a node on private property is contingent upon receipt of applications
to develop that property.
Town funding may not be available for node development on public right-of-way.
C. Goals
The Goals for Nodes along the Boulevard are listed below. Nodes may be developed in the
public right-of-way and on private property separately, or on a combination of both.
1. To encourage pedestrian activity at and movement across Los Gatos Boulevard at key
points along the Boulevard.
2. To establish the perception of Los Gatos Boulevard as people friendly.
3. To connect, improve and unify the streetscape on both sides of Los Gatos Boulevard.
4. To establish activity focal points on private and public property along Los Gatos
Boulevard.
D. Policies
The policies for Nodes in the public right-of-way and private land are:
1. Each node site shall have a clearly identifiable character as reflected through its
hardscape, landscaping and street signage.
2. Crossing surfaces, paths and signal timing shall be conducive to and encourage
pedestrian crossing and promote pedestrian and bicycle safety.
3. Each node site shall serve as a circulation and visual focal point along Los Gatos
Boulevard.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
10
IV. LAND USE
A. Overview
During the public workshops, land use was identified as a major component of the Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan. The consensus of opinion was that land uses along Los Gatos Boulevard should
create a different shopping experience than uses in the Downtown area and should complement
rather than duplicate those uses.
B. Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities:
.
Provide family orientation in uses.
Provide more pedestrian/bike areas and links to adjacent residential areas to foster
neighborhood use of commercial centers.
Proximity to Route 85 and Highway 17 supports potential for destination commercial
at North end of Boulevard.
Expanding commercial development provides a dependable source of income,
employment opportunities and goods and services for the community.
Constraints:
• Most of commercial and office uses abut residential property.
C. Goals
The Land Use Goals for Los Gatos Boulevard are:
1. To promote commercial activity that complements the whole Town.
2. To provide a dependable source of income, employment opportunities, goods and
services.
3. To encourage a mixture of uses along Los Gatos Boulevard that are compatible with
surrounding uses.
4. To provide a transition from higher density uses at the north end of Los Gatos
Boulevard to existing residential uses at the south end of Los Gatos Boulevard.
D. Policies
In the long run, similar types of uses should be clustered geographically on Los Gatos
Boulevard. As parcels become available for development or redevelopment, the following
policies shall guide the planning process.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN 11
1. Auto related uses currently existing shall be allowed to remain indefinitely.
2. New and relocating auto -related businesses shall be located a)north of Los Gatos
Almaden Road, b) adjacent to existing auto dealerships, or c) on a vacant site previously
used for permitted auto sales.
3. Neighborhood commercial, multi -family residential and office uses shall be concentrated
south of Los Gatos Almaden Road.
4. Uses on Los Gatos Boulevard south of Shannon Road shall be residential or office;
existing non-residential uses shall not be intensified and existing vacant property and
residential uses shall be developed as Single Family Residential.
5. Commercial and mixed use development north of Lark shall be in keeping with the
Route 85 element of the General Plan and shall provide/incorporate Boulevard,
Downtown and regional transit access accordingly.
6. New development must be designed in order to minimize adverse impacts upon
adjacent residential areas.
V. GATEWAYS
A. Overview
A "Gateway" can be considered a major entry feature located at a prominent entry point to the
Town or Los Gatos Boulevard specifically. An example of a gateway and its importance is the
entryway at Los Gatos Boulevard and Route 85; the sense of entry that can be created there by
a gateway feature is important because it is a prelude to the Boulevard and the Town of Los
Gatos. Gateways can express the character of the Town and create landmarks.
B. Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities:
• Chance to distinguish entryways to both Los Gatos and the Boulevard which welcome
residents and visitors.
• May create landmarks and heighten the sense of place on the Boulevard.
• May involve private corporations and individuals in the design process.
Constraints:
Town right-of-way may not be adequate to create "Gateways," resulting in a need to use
private land.
Town funding not currently available.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
12
C. Goals
The Goals for Gateways are:
1. To establish gateways as architectural or landscape elements which welcome people to
Los Gatos and Los Gatos Boulevard as a destination.
2. To convey positive attributes and values of the Town to visitors and residents through
gateway design.
3. To ensure that gateway features shall create a landmark, spark civic pride, and add a
heightened sense of identity to the Town.
D. Policies
1. Gateway features shall be highly visible to motorists and pedestrians.
2. Gateways shall be encouraged along Los Gatos Boulevard and at other main entrances
to Town.
3. Gateway designs shall be clearly identifiable and create a precedent for development and
design on Los Gatos Boulevard.
4. Gateways shall exhibit aesthetics appropriate to Los Gatos and reflect themes such as
cats, the hills, orchards, or others indicative of Los Gatos.
5. A gateway may be combined with a node to increase pedestrian activity at that location.
6. Gateways shall be funded by private individual and corporate sponsors.
VI. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS
A. Overview
The Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards have been developed and adopted in order to serve
as recommendations for the design treatment of private improvements in the Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan Area. The Standards are established for use by the Town Council, Planning
Commission, staff, project applicants and property owners in providing for the public health,
safety, welfare and convenience of the community. The Standards will ensure environmental
and design quality in the development and redevelopment of Los Gatos Boulevard.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN 13
Opportunities:
Guidelines serve as a mechanism to gain developers' cooperation in enhancing link
from public right-of-way to private land with nodes/ gathering places.
Constraints:
No mechanism for underdeveloped land to reach potential use intensity as designated
in Boulevard policy.
B. Goals
The Design Standards for Los Gatos Boulevard have been developed and adopted to achieve
the goals set forth below:
1. To preserve and protect the Town's scenic beauty through careful planning.
2. To encourage site and building design that is particularly suited to the site and
contributes to the Town's unique character, natural beauty and openness.
3. To ensure new development will enhance the use, enjoyment and value of neighboring
residential and commercial property.
4. To encourage a compatible relationship between proposed and existing development.
C. Policies
Through the Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards, the Town of Los Gatos adopts the
following policies:
1. Proposals shall be designed to fit the natural conditions of a site and respect scenic
corridors.
2. Proposals should be designed to enhance the Boulevard through excellence in
architectural design.
3. Proposals shall be designed to minimize interference with the privacy, quiet and views
of surrounding residential properties.
4. Standardized building plans or corporate designs shall be discouraged.
5. Building and site design shall reflect the historic, natural and architectural setting
unique to Los Gatos.
6. Pedestrian access to buildings and sites shall be encouraged.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
14
VII. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
A. Public improvements
1. Develop and implement guidelines for the design, location and orientation of on -street
parking and transit turnouts, pedestrian oriented lighting, furniture, and landscaping;
work with the appropriate agencies to relocate mailboxes and public phones when
necessary.
2. Develop and implement funding and construction plans to narrow traffic lanes,
reconfigure on -street parking, complete landscaping improvements, and enhance
pedestrian, transit and bicycle access.
3. Amend the General Plan to include designated bike lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard.
4. Provide appropriate transition where lane alignment is modified.
5. Provide a landscape buffer zone between the curb and sidewalk when removal of the
parking lane area results in curbs located closer to the travel lanes .
6. Maintain sight distance for motorists and pedestrians where landscaping and street
furniture will be provided in the public right-of-way.
7. Amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan (Section 4.6.1(g.3.) about Los
Gatos Boulevard by a) removing the section about four lanes from Samaritan Drive
to Camino del Sol and adding bike lanes to the six lane discussion and b) removing the
Nino Avenue to Spencer Avenue section.
B. Nodes
1. Develop nodes at the following intersections: Blossom Hill Road, Los Gatos Almaden
Road, New Town/Village Square, Lark Avenue, and between Samaritan Drive and
Lark Avenue as consistent with future development.
2. Encourage street furniture at node sites.
3. Review signal timing for adequate pedestrian crossing time.
4. Develop standards for node sites on public/private property which will address
hardscape, landscape, and street furniture.
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
15
C. Land Use
1. Encourage replacement of vacated business south of Los Gatos Almaden Road with
neighborhood commercial, multi -family, or office uses.
2. Amend the General Plan and rezone properties as needed to accomplish policies.
3. Establish development standards for all types of uses, incorporating guidelines for
pedestrian access for clear direction to future developers.
4. Explore use of "air space" over Seven Mile Reservoir for auto storage or recreational
purposes.
5. Encourage new or relocating auto -related businesses to relocate to available property
north of Los Gatos -Almaden Road.
6. Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow Development Review Committee approval of all
exterior changes to buildings, when consistent with Los Gatos Boulevard Design
Standards.
D. Gateways
1. Locate a gateway at Samaritan Drive.
2. Architectural Standards Committee shall establish locations and standards for
gateways at other main entrances to Town.
3. Architectural Standards Committee shall develop design standards for gateways that
take into account visibility, location, maintenance and durability.
4. Conduct an open design competition that includes public and private professional
judges to recommend the final gateway design(s).
E. Funding
The Town shall establish a committee comprised of three (3) property/ business owners, one
Planning Commissioner and one Council member to explore funding alternatives for the
construction of public improvements, development of nodes and creation of gateways.
LOS GATOS
BOULEVARD
DESIGN STANDARDS
a•
fV}
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
3
•
FALL 1997
Hi8IT B
LOS GATOS
BOULEVARD
DESIGN STANDARDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A. Preface
B. Goals
C. Policies
D. Study Area
II. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
A. Site Design
1. General
2. Building Location
3. Parking Lot Layout
4. Pedestrian Orientation
B. Building Design
1. Mass and Scale
2. Texture and Materials
3. Architectural Elements
III. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC USES
A. Commercial
1. Neighborhood Commercial and Shopping Centers
2. Regional Commercial
3. Vehicle Services, Sales and Related Activities
B. Mixed Use
C. Medium and High Density Residential
D. Gateways
E. Nodes
IV. MODIFICATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PREFACE
The Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards are intended
to provide guidance and specific recommendations for the
architectural treatment, organization and mix of
• buildings and open space in the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan
area. The Standards are established for use by the
Planning Commission, Town Council, staff, project
applicants and property owners in providing for the
public health, safety, convenience, environmental and
design quality in the development and redevelopment of
Los Gatos Boulevard.
These Design Standards are intended to guide architects,
designers and engineers in preparing plans to be
considered by the Development Review Committee and
Planning Commission during the Architecture and Site
review process for new buildings, additions and any
exterior changes to existing buildings (hereafter referred
to as "proposals") located on Los Gatos Boulevard, within
any -zoning classification. Applicants shall demonstrate
how their proposal meets the Design Standards.
B. GOALS
The Design Standards for Los Gatos Boulevard have been
developed and adopted to achieve the goals set forth
below:
■ To preserve and protect the Town's scenic beauty
through careful planning
■ To encourage site and building design that is
particularly suited to the site and contributes to
the Town's unique character, natural beauty and
openness.
■ To ensure that development will enhance the use,
enjoyment and value of neighboring residential
and commercial property.
2
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
• To encourage a compatible relationship between
proposed and existing development.
C. POLICIES
Through the Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards, the
Town of Los Gatos adopts the following policies:
• Proposals shall be designed to fit the natural
conditions of a site and respect scenic corridors.
• Proposals should be designed to enhance the
Boulevard through excellence in architectural
design.
• Proposals shall be designed to minirrmi7e
interference with the privacy, quiet and views of
surrounding residential properties.
• Standardized building plans or corporate designs
shall be discouraged.
• Building and site design shall reflect the historic,
natural and architectural setting unique to Los
Gatos.
• Pedestrian friendly access to buildings and sites
shall be encouraged.
D. STUDY AREA
The Los Gatos Boulevard Study Area spans
approximately 1.8 miles, from Samaritan Drive at the
north to Spencer Avenue at the south. (Map of Study
Area included on next page.)
3
Study Area Map
tr-
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
I1. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
A. SITE DEVELOPMENT
l . General
The Planning Commission will assess any proposal based on its
overall effect on Los Gatos Boulevard existing conditions as well
as its compatibility with the surrounding area. The appearance
of the proposal should complement the character of the
surrounding area without negatively impacting existing
conditions.
Site design will be evaluated based upon its contribution to the
Town's beauty and openness, as well as its suitability for the
location.
Site plans shall be integrated with the roadway to create
harmony of design and continuity along the Boulevard.
Harmony is achieved when the roadway and building Location
together create a sense of defined space.
A proposal shall include a demonstration of how the
development will respect the pattern of existing development
(streetscape) and natural surroundings (hillsides and trees).
A proposal shall not impair - directly or through the cumulative
effect of new developments - the use, enjoyment and value of
neighboring public and private property. Proposals should be
designed to minimize interference with the privacy, quiet and
views of residential neighbors.
Scenic vistas shall be protected.
4
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
2. Building Location
Proposals that result in a structure having more than one story,
located adjacent to residential uses, shall be designed to rninima'e
views into and shadows cast onto adjacent residential structures
and yard areas. (Fig. 1)
Buildings, not parking lots, should be seen along Los Gatos
Boulevard whenever possible. Parking located on the street
frontage makes businesses less visible to motorists and less
accessible to pedestrians who are potential customers. (Fig. 2)
The location of buildings in relationship to Los Gatos Boulevard
frontage shall be staggered to avoid a tunnel effect. (Fig. 3)
Corner lots shall be occupied by buildings of architectural
excellence that generate interest and activity. Corner
development should be designed in order to create a visual
connection across an intersection.
A proposal shall emphasize framing a scenic view rather than
screening or blocking it. (Fig. 4)
Proposed development shall be designed to fit a site's natural
conditions, rather than alter a site to accommodate a particular
building plan. Natural grade and vegetation shall be preserved to
the maximum extent possible. Excessive cuts and fills shall be
avoided.
4. Frame Views
LG Boulevard
1. ;Minimize Impact
�Illllllllillliii Nlllf.liii�ji)
I_
=:1
�fllllllllllllltll(Il(III
LG Boulevard
Z Site Parking Away from
Boulevard
YES
NO
3. Avoid Tunnel Effer-
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
3. Parking Lot Layout
Parking areas shall be designed in a manner which rn nimiTes the
visual impact when viewed from the Street and should be located
along the sides and/or behind the proposed building(s). (Fig. 5)
Parking lot surfaces shall be enhanced with modular concrete
pavers and the use of brick or concrete bands to divide parking
lot paving into small, interrelated segments whenever possible.
All parking areas shall be landscaped to reflect Los Gatos'
historic and natural character, including orchard trees, river
rock, etc.. (Fig. 6)
Driveways and parking areas shall incorporate design and
landscape elements which reduce the impact on adjacent
residential properties and compliment the natural environment,
where possible.
Parking for comme-vial or multiple family residential projects
may be below grade when feasible. The preferred design is to
provide subterranean parking with the first floor no more than
four feet above grade. (Fig. 7)
Parking lot layout and landscaping shall be closely coordinated
with the architectural design of the building(s).
Loading and service areas shall not be visible from the street.
Such areas located adjacent to a residential area or street shall be
appropriately screened.
6
Bculevard
5..l47n:mizz /ZZ. w of?;.r:r.3,'i'cm
Street
1 t
,f •
r -
F
• 6 Fnnanced Surfaces
7. Below Grade Parking
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESI4.1 STANDARDS
4. Pedestrian Orientation
Proposals should be designed to have a pedestrian scale and
should emphic47, pedestrian entryways and access. Buildings
located at the street frontage shall have pedestrian entries from
the front as well as the rear or side(s) which face the park;,,g lot_
(Figures S and 11)
Large parking areas shall incorporate defined pedestrian paths
and safe crossing points through the use of distinctive pavers,
asphalt treatment, or landscape. (Fig. 9)
Proposals shall strike an appropriate balance between the
demands of the automobile and the needs of the pedestrian (m
the contest of the development). (Fig. 10)
11. Pelatrssrs.Camparibiliy
YES
urn rnrr!4ur,442t11 ".
•
NO
8. ?widest. -_zr 4 c:zir
9. Dq"snef Packs
10. BaL aced Ac: ett 3er 'e n
Pdertrisn arc 'iriJ:c%
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DEIGN STANDARDS
B. BUILDING DESIGN
1. Mass and Scale
Simple building forms derived from and complimentary to
classic residential building dements and the architectural
character of Los Gatos residential areas shall be encouraged. This
type of building form draws from Los Gatos' residential history,
establishes a sense of timelessness and relates buildings to one
another in mass and scale. (Fig. 1)
Building height is the most obvious indicator of scale. Building
height shall be considered in its relationship to surrounding
development, commensurate to the width of Los Gatos
Boulevard and shall not block scenic vistas or solar access.
(Fig. 2)
Buildings should not overwhelm adjacent
pedestrian areas. Taller two or three
story buildings adjacent to pedestrian
areas shall be stepped back to maintain
small scale character near street level.
Buildings shall be articulated on the
ground level to create
a human scale. (Fig. 3)
3. Human Scale
•
1. C«usicFarms
• •
• ,•
- ,!
' tz.-,rR/ j x ;-- ' � rti ,am�Lii.— �
F�G&'''e .}-_�F .tir�
' '- �. -
r - ei .- - `�: :.: - =-
;lr
.411
flif011
2 Rdstionship co Surroundings
�.r
8
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
• The degree of building setback shall be commensurate to
the lot size.
2. Vehicle Services, Sales, and Related Activities
• Buildings shall not have a wall of garage doors facing the
Boulevard or surrounding residential areas.
Landscaping shall be incorporated in the design of a
proposal to screen and soften building impact upon the
Boulevard.
B. MIXED USE
Mixed use is considered a collection of residential and non-
residential uses located on one parcel.
The design standards for each use within a mixed use
development shall be determined by analogy to the
standards for uses listed in this Section.
Below grade parking is encouraged to allow for adequate
on -site parking.
Parking for residences should be designated and separated
from parking for other uses when possible.
In residential development, required open space shall
provide an attractive visual amenity for residents that
may also serve as a buffer to adjacent retail/commercial or
office uses.
C. MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
• Building style shall reflect existing simple residential
forms in Los Gatos.
• Landscaping shall provide an appropriate buffer to
adjacent or nearby commercial use(s).
• View corridors as perceived from within a proposed
structure or addition shall be preserved.
1
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
D. GATEWAYS
Gateways shall be treated as a prelude to a special place, a
landmark to identify the Town and Los Gatos Boulevard.
• Gateway elements should be compatible with the scale
and proportion of the site and should emphasize
transition into the Town of Los Gatos.
E. NODES
Each node shall be a distinctive, coherent open space laid out
with features such as benches, trees, plants, and walkways.
Nodes shall reflect the unique natural setting of Los Gatos
through the incorporation of building and landscape
materials that emphasize and complement such features as
the Santa Cruz Mountains and their related viewshed.
• A node shall be designed and developed to serve as a
pedestrian enclave.
Node site pedestrian amenities should include seating and
one or more of the following: bike rack, trash receptacle,
fountain, planter, trees, newspaper stand.
Architectural elements shall be consistent with the
architecrure on site and may include trellises, pergolas
and/or lattice work to provide shade and/or visual
interest at each node.
14
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
3. Architectural EIements
The main entry to a building shall be architecturally defined so
as to create a focal point for the structure and add vitality to the
streetscape. (Fig. 8)
• Architectural elements shall be of reasonable height and not
interfere with scenic corridors.
Fixed non -rigid canvas awnings, allowed to ripple in the breeze,
are encouraged.
Fenestration shall be consistent with the architectural style
of a proposal and shall add to the identity of a building.
Mirrored or opaque glass in commercial buildings
shall be discouraged. (Fig. 9)
Structures shall be designed to achieve
proportionality among architectural elements.
A structure with proportion has functional
and decorative elements like windows, roofs and
doors which are in scale with one another.
Storefronts for individual retail tenants
within a larger building should be
"buildings within a building".
Each building bay should be articulated
with its own entrance, window grouping,
and roofline. Repeating roof forms may
be used to indicate the presence of individual tenants. (Fig. 10)
Faux elements, facades, and mansard roof forms are not allowed.
Architectural elements shall provide for diversity and interest.
Standardized building types recognizable anywhere shall be
discouraged.
Lighting of architectural features shall be encouraged. Lighting
must shine onto on -site improvements.
8. Defined Entryway
9. Fenestration
•
THIS
1WWW;`•`�
NOT THIS
10. Storefronts
1
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
III. USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS
When a proposed use is not addressed in the following sections,
the Planning Director shall determine the Design Standards for
the use in question by analogy to the listed uses.
A. COMMERCIAL
1. Neighborhood Commercial and Shopping Centers
Neighborhood Commercial development and Shopping Centers
should have an integrated, cohesive design the reads as a whole
building form. The overall design should allow for harmony
between individual storefronts yet still allow identifiable tenant
entrances.
Pedestrian amenities - low level lights, benches, trees,
umbrellas - should be installed along the frontage of the
center to make it a safer and more pleasant place to shop
and eat.
• An identifiable architectural entrance sign may be
installed to project a unified image.
Pedestrian pathways from residential areas located to the
rear or side of the center shall be established. The
pathways shall be encouraged where the rear or side of a
center is abutting a residential street rather than
residential property.
Landscaping shall be consistent with the architectural
style of the center. Shade trees should be installed as an
amenity and to help define travel lanes. "Orchard"
planting is recommended to maintain visibility from the
road. New lights with a pedestrian character should also
be installed where possible.
• Exterior materials and finishes shall be consistent
throughout the entire development.
• Commercial centers shall not have a rectangular "big -
box" design.
12
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
Large undifferentiated wall planes on the street elevation are not
allowed. If a blank wall is unavoidable or existing near a
pedestrian area, it should be treated with lattice work,
landscaping, or other elements to soften its impact.
Large monolithic structures are not allowed. Separations between
structures or recessed facade areas shall be used to break large
building masses into units similar in size to adjacent and nearby
smaller lot development. A proposal may consist of a collection
of small buildings connected by arcades, paths, gardens and
retaining walls, with particular attention to preserving and
protecting existing viewscapes.
Buildings shall be articulated to reduce the apparent mass of the
structure. Changes in. building plane and height, and the
addition of elements such as bay windows, porches, porticos or
dormers create shadow and texture on the building mass.
Rooflines should also be articulated with elements such as
secondary gables or hip roofs.
Architectural features such as roof forms, pilasters, columns,
balconies, window details and building facade articulation shall
be effectively used to maintain a scale consistent with
neighboring structures. (Fig. 4)
4. Scale Coruistent with Neighboring Structures
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
2. Texture and Materials
Exterior colors should be subdued and used to complement the
architecture and natural setting. A color should be used with an
awareness of the surface size to which it is applied.
Building materials shall be used to enhance the architectural style
of the structure. Materials shall "wrap" around corners and not
be discontinued or altered on outside edges or flat planes.(Fig. 5)
A proposal's exterior colors and materials shall reflect the natural
setting of Los Gatos.
A proposal's materials and colors shall be sensitive to adjacent
commercial structures and residential properties and promote
visual continuity along Los Gatos Boulevard.
Buildings shall have visual order. Buildings shall be designed to
create patterns of texture, light, color and materials. (Fig. 6)
A building shall be articulated with changes in building planes,
colors, material and rhythm. (Fig. 7)
7. Building Articulation
S. Exterior Materials
6. Visual Order
10
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD DESIGN STANDARDS
IV. MODIFICATION TO DESIGN STANDARDS
The Design Standards for new buildings, additions, and exterior
remodels in the Los Gatos Boulevard Study Area are established
as guidelines which reflect current Town policy for community
design. In the event a project might be adversely affected by
these standards, the applicant may present a written request for
modification through the Architecture and Site Approval
process. If the Planning Commission deems the requested
modification worthy of favorable consideration, the modification
may be allowed provided that findings are made that such
modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, general
welfare, convenience and quality of life of any adjacent residents
and of the community. If the modification is not allowed by the
Planning Commission, the applicant may appeal to the Town
Council. No modification may be considered without a public
hearing.
1
Town Council Minutes September 15, 1997
Los Gatos, C.2lifornia
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Winchester and Lark property:
Jack Aiello, 135 Newell Court, asked Council to have staff stop using the empty lot as a
corporation yard storage lot for gravel, portable toilets, construction equipment and trucks. He
asked that peripheral shrubbery be planted.
Max Perlman, 183 Newell Ave., submitted photos showing the problems at the corner and
asked that the lot be cleaned up and kept as residential/recreational space. Mayor Benjamin
requested a report back from staff concerning the maintenance of this corner lot.
Highland Oaks Way Assisted Living residence:
Mark Miller, 122 Highland Oaks Way, expressed his concern over a situation which has
developed in his neighborhood concerning an assisted living residential care facility. Mayor
Benjamin asked staff to report back and schedule a meeting with the Mayor and the neighbors.
HEARINGS
UNION AVENUE 258/O'SHEA'S PUB AND GRILL/APPEAL (17.09)
Mayor Benjamin stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to
consider appeal of a Planning Commission decision revoking Conditional Use Permit U-93-
14 for O'Shea's Pub & Grill. The Planning Commission has determined that the establishment
has operated in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. The Council can approve or deny the
appeal and revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit. Property is located at 258 Union
Avenue. Property owner is Andrew J. and Harriet M. Unzen Trustee. Appellant is Stan
Schwartz/O'Shea's Pub & Grill.
The following people addressed this issue:
Maureen Heberling, 291 Hershner Court, asked that any future use permits limit the hours of
operation to 10 P.M. and to not allow alcohol at this location again. -
Gaye Pare, 255 Howes Court, thanked Council for its help in upholding the integrity of the
conditional use permit.
No one else in the audience addressed this item.
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council close the public hearing.
Carried unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Lubeck, that Council deny the appeal and uphold
the Planning Commission's decision to revoke Conditional Use Permit U-93-14. Carried by
a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Attaway voted no, believing that the hearing should be extended to give
the appellant ample opportunity to come before Council to express his views.
LOS GATOS BLVD. PLAN & DESIGN STANDARDS/HEARING (18.47)
Mayor Benjamin stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to
consider the recommendations of the General Plan Committee, Architectural Standards
Committee, and Planning Commission, and consider adopting resolution approving the Los
Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards. Negative Declaration ND-96-1. Initiated by the
Town of Los Gatos.
TC:D9:MM091597
7
Town Council Minutes September 15, 1997
Los Gatos, California
HEARINGS CONTINUED
LOS GATOS BLVD. PLAN & DESIGN STANDARDS CONT. (18.47)
The following people from the audience spoke to this issue:
Sheldon Smith, 14225 Lora Drive, Chair of the Trails and Bike Ways Committee, supports the
bicycle lanes in the plan.
John Thomsen, 134 Alpine Ave., uses the current bike lanes and is in favor of including bike
lanes in the boulevard plan for people who use this form of transportation.
Robert Swanson, 16005 Los Gatos Blvd., supports the plan, for its beautification, attraction
and excessibility to business. He cautioned changing the traffic flow for various reasons:
Parallel streets will suffer impacts; Safety issues are a concern with bike lanes; and funding
of the public improvements will need commitment from businesses and residents.
Jeanne Torre, 306 Willow Hill Court, pro bikes. Using her bike for alternative transportation
she favors the bike lanes in the plan.
Robert Gellman, 203 Westchester Drive, does not support reducing the lanes nor causing
children to feel that they would be safe riding on that street with marked bike lanes.
Robert Shultz, 112 Greenfield Place, pro bike lanes, noting the number of riders seeking access
to the Los Gatos Creek Trail at Lark.
John Font, 77 Alpine, pro bike lane, member of the Trails and Bikeways Commission, spoke
of the number of commuters going to work on bikes and noted that businesses were
encouraging this mode of travel.
Larry Paulding, 297 Carlton Way, resident does not agree with the present plan. Does not
want lanes narrowed due to impact on residential neighborhoods, and the safety issues of
narrower traffic lanes.
Ervie Smith Brewick, 16025 Cerro Vista Drive, has no problem with adult bikers on the
boulevard as it is presently laid out, but does not want the area to look attractive to young
bikers with bike lanes designated for them. She feels that the lanes present safety issues.
Lucille Weidman, 215 Carlester Drive, feels that the marked bike lanes and the narrower traffic
lanes will cause an unsafe condition.
Barry Rodenberg, 15600 Los Gatos Blvd., Anderson -Chevrolet representative, spoke ofthe need
for space to park vehicles, feels that the bike lanes in the street parking area will be unsafe.
Allen Tannenbaum, 16530 Bonnie Lane, bike rider, would like the community to reevaluate its'
attitude toward bikers.
John Moore, 15500 Los Gatos Blvd., Moore Buick Pontiac GMC, against the bike lanes as they
are designed in the plan: they are narrow; cross business driveways; are between parked cars
and traffic; have caused traffic lanes to narrow; and parking to be restricted.
Mark Brodsky, 17306 Grosvenor Crt., Monte Sereno, is pro bikes and for narrower traffic
lanes which will slow down the traffic and make room for the bikers.
Judy Rodgers, 16511 Camellia Terrace, need sufficient parking on the boulevard to alleviate
the employee parking in the residential neighborhoods.
Don Peck, 15405 Los Gatos Boulevard, asked for undergrounding of utilities on the boulevard,
and that an assessment district be implemented on the boulevard to pay for this service.
Parking is a problem for the businesses. Mark short term parking spaces for rapid turnover
business.
Larry Rugani, 14691 Golf Links Drive, in favor of safe bicycle lanes. Is not in favor of unsafe
bike lanes.
Speaker, Anderson Chevrolet representative, is amazed that it has come from a beautification
plan to bicycle route considerations. Beautification and pedestrian friendly areas were the
original thoughts, not bikes! Safety issues first.
TC:09:MM091597 5
Town Council Minutes
September 15, 1997
Los Gatos, California
HEARINGS CONTINUED
LOS GATOS BLVD. PLAN & DESIGN STANDARDS CONT. (18.47)
Speakers continued:
Jim McHugh, 16150 Kennedy Road, the overall plans for the boulevard have been endorsed
by the businesses but the narrowing of the traffic lanes present many concerns. The impact on
business, the safety concerns for bicyclists and the safety issues for drivers. He read a letter
from Dr. William Rix, 17480 High Street, who could not attend, but who spoke against the
proposed bike lanes. He felt that the existing bike route was sufficient and that the Los Gatos
Creek Trail, parallel to the boulevard, was a good alternative.
No one else from the audience addressed this issue.
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council close the public hearing.
Carried unanimously.
Council Comments:
Steven Blanton speaking from past personal experience, did not want to see bikes encouraged
on the boulevard. He is in favor of the gateway node concept and would like the street
furniture situated near these elements. Street islands are questionable if it impedes the flow
of traffic. Undergrounding is desirable.
Joanne Benjamin asked that the following items be incorporated in the plan: 1) A landscaping
plan be included for developers to review and take into consideration when they design their
projects; 2) That traffic flow be considered so it will not be forced onto alternative residential
arteries; 3) That utility undergrounding become a part of the plan; 4) That bikes be allowed
on wider sidewalks; 5) That the fronts of buildings be seen and be accessible from the street
side; 6) That the right hand turn lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard and Blossom Hill not be
eliminated since it will lead to residential impacts as drivers turn off on side streets to avoid
the congested traffic; 7) She would like alternatives to bike lanes discussed and have
information regarding solutions found in other communities.
Randy Attaway was concerned about the narrowing of the traffic lanes and safety issues. Safety
and parallel route congestion were important items for him. He does not think trucks can
make turns without obstructing traffic if the right hand turn lanes are removed. He would like
to see a report generated in this country that shows that bike lanes can work.
Linda Lubeck believes the engineer's solution to the right hand turns on Los Gatos Boulevard
and Blossom Hill should be considered. She is willing to sacrifice bike lanes for other elements
of the plan. She realizes competing interests do not work for everyone.
Jan Hutchins suggested that the plan return to the General Plan Committee with the comments
made by Council. He thought more work was needed before Council adopted.
Council Consensus to return this item to the General Plan Committee for reconsideration of
some of the elements, and to work with the Council's comments and suggestions. All council
members were pleased with the majority of the plan and thanked the committee members for
their good work.
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES/HEARING/RESO 1997-106 (19.09)
Mayor Benjamin stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to
consider request to use supplemental law enforcement services funds (SLESF) granted to the
Town to provide continued funding for one police officer to remain assigned to the Santa Clara
County Specialized Enforcement Team; and adopt resolution authorizing the use of
supplemental local law enforcement funds (SLESF) to continue funding one full time police
officer assigned to the Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team (SCCSET).
TC:09: MM091597 6
RESOLUTION 1997-1
RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN
WHEREAS, the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan was created to establish a partnership
among residents, businesses, property owners, and the Town government to develop the
Boulevard as a distinct place that enhances the quality of life of the people of Los Gatos through
its economic vitality, beauty, and community; and
WHEREAS, the Town has been studying Los Gatos Boulevard since 1994 and has
held public hearings, community forums, and an all day design charrette to encourage public
participation and solicit input on the future of the Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee has carefully considered all public
comments, researched public concerns, and made numerous changes to the Los Gatos Boulevard
Plan in response to public input; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee has specifically considered traffic, vehicular
circulation, bike lanes, lane width, parking, and right turn configurations to ensure that the Los
Gatos Boulevard Plan will not adversely impact commercial businesses or residential areas or
cause unsafe conditions; and
WHEREAS, a Traffic Report was prepared and concluded that the Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan will not create unsafe conditions for motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 330
discusses the effective utilization of street width on urban arterials and concluded that reducing
the lane width to as narrow as 10' can be used effectively in urban arterial street improvement
projects without affecting safety; and
WHEREAS, bike lanes have been shown, based on evidence received and reviewed
by the General Plan Committee, to increase safety for both bicyclists and motorists; and
Page 1 of 2
•
WHEREAS, there is no evidence that supports the premise that 11' traffic lanes will
adversely impact commercial businesses; on the contrary, businesses (including automobile
dealerships) have been very successful south of Blossom Hill Road where lane transitions and bike
lanes currently exist.
RESOLVED, that the General Plan Committee recommends that the Town Council
approve the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan as submitted to the Town Council on September 15, 1997
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the General Plan Committee of the
Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 12th day of November, 1997 by the following vote.
GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
AYES: Michael Abkin, Steve Boersma, Sandy Decker, Marcia Jensen, Elizabeth Smith
NAYS: Gary Ehlert, Jan Hutchins, LindaLubeck
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Joe Pirzynski
SIGNED: /s/ Michael Abkin, CHAIR
LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE
ATTEST:
/s/ Lee E. Bowman
SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE
N :1 D E V 1RES OS 1 L GB L V D. G PC
Page 2 of 2
408-736-8447 ATAC 555 PO4 OCT 01 '97 08:21
Author: DBurden@aol.com Mike_Abkin@vval.com at Internet -Ma t
Date: 9/28/97 12:54 PM
Priority: Normal ToINN OF LOS GATvs
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Michael Abkin at ATAC-HQ-CA BY
Subject: Fwd: Re: Los Gatos, CAI Bike Lanes
Message Contents
170/71
r. in lez,,eblcuk.
From Mike_Abkin@vval.com Sun Sep 28 12:54:47 1997
Received: from vval.com by boulevards.boulevards.com via ESMTP (950215.SGI.8.6.1
0/940406.SGI)
for <michaelabkin@atac.com> id MAA11060; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 12:47:59 -0700
To: michaelabkin@bbs4.atac.com
From: Mike Abkin@vval.com,DBurden@aol.com (Mike Abkin)
Sender: Mike_Abkin@vval.com (Mike Abkin)
Reply -To: mike_Abkin@vval.com (Mike Abkin)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 12:50:14 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Re: Los Gatos, CA, Bike Lanes
Message -ID: <485556190.10569785@vval.com>
Organization: Virtual Valley, Inc. San Jose, Califor
X-Gateway: FirstClass Gateway for SMTP/NNTP (Mac68K) version 1.02
content -length: 4193
The Florida Department of Transportation has been building 11' lanes on
multi -lane urban highways for sixteen years. we prefer to build 12 foot
lanes when we have the space, but in a retrofit where curb and gutter are in
place we easily convert 12 foot lanes down to 11' in order to provide bike
lanes, or to just move the edge line out to two or three feet. By doing so we
improve conditions for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. There are 21
reasons why bike lanes benefit roadway users, and only one is for the
bicyclist. Improved sight distances, improved turning, improved border width
and buffer from fixed objects are just a few.
Getting back to our widths, In more rare cases FDOT builds 10.5 foot lanes,
and they do just fine with these too, especially where speeds are 35 mph or
less. There are now many hundreds of miles of 11' lane conversions. Their
roads are faster than most of yours a typical urban/suburban multi -lane
in Florida runs actual speeds of 40-55, even though they should be operating
them at lower speeds. This conversion to 11' lanes policy has proven itself
on every project, irrespective of truck volumes, ADT, or speed. We have also
conducted 18 months of research showing the desire of motorists to pass
bicyclists with a 6'3" clearance we do this through videotaping and using
stills to show the exact means motorists self select to pass bicyclists on
differing lane configurations.
Cars, trucks, buses, and fire trucks are not permitted to be wider than 8'6".
The myth to use 12' lanes on all urban roadway sections is an old one and it
will go away in time. Keep in mind, the reason our country came up with 12'
lanes at the time the standards were being written is that this width
accomodates the WWII tanks hence the interstate 12' lane width.
Many streets in America have 11' lane widths, many are 10', and even in
Washington DC to this day most lanes are 9'. Car dealers everywhere do well
irresptive of lane width.
The myth that if you put in a bike lane you will attract children to that
lane is just that, a myth. Parents and the hazard experience of older
children decide where it is most safe. Children that are very young do not
go to prime arterials, children approaching or in their teens may go to an
arterial, but they are looking for a sidewalk. If there is a bike lane next
to the sidewalk then a child using the sidewalk has less of a chance of
falling into the travel lane if there is a bike lane buffering the motorist
from the sidewalk. Once a child is 14 and older they are safer in a bike
lane than on the sidewalk....the motorist and bicyclist conflicting at every
driveway sets up a conflict a minute or conflict every 30 seconds scenario.
Motorists do not anticipate bicyclists coming at them on a sidewalk from
either direction, and on a wide arterial nearly 50% of bicyclists using a
sidewalk are coming the unanticipated direction. For every safety reason
bike lanes build quality and safety back into the road. I could go on
forever. If you have a serious problem overcoming the myths I could come in
and work with the community. But try for reason and common sense first.
You may want to tell your auto dealers that I helped save General Motors from
a massive lawsuit when a bicyclist came from the wrong direction.
Fortunately the bicyclist was riding the wrong way in a bike lane, riding
ATTACHMENT 4
408-736-8447 ATAC 555 PO5 OCT 01 '97 08:22
against an arrow pointing the other way. If the bicyclist had been on the
sidewalk riding against traffic GM is not likely to have gotten off so
easily.
--- Internet Message Header Follows
Return -Path: <DBurden@aol.com>
Received: from emoutl3.mail.aol.com ([198.81.11.39]) by vval.com ;
Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:36:02 GMT
Received: (from root@localhost)
by emoutl3.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
id LAA07174;
Sun, 28 Sep 1997 11:24:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 11:24:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: DBurden@aol.com
Message-ID:c970928112335_149588873@emout13.mail.aol.com>
To: Mike_Abkin@vval.com
cc: WPburden@aol.com, theo.petritsch@dot.state.fl.us, mwallwork@ilnk.com,
John@montana.com, SueNewb@aol.com, michael.p.Ronkin@state.or.us
Subject: Re: Los Gatos, CA, Bike Lanes
OARTON-ASCI-IMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
A UNIT (iF ==F, )NS -n:.:SP . H or;
100 ParK Cdriter ?iaza. Su to -150 • 3,in Jose, 2a!ifornia 95113 • (408) 28G-6600 • =.,z ;G;8 7-323
October 6, 1997
Los Gatos Auto Dealers
c/o Moore Buick Pontiac GMC
15500 Los Gatos Boulevard
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: Comments on Los Gatos Blvd. Plan
Dear Sirs:
RECEI VED
OCT 0 5 1997
TOWN OF L OS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sy
This letter describes our analysis of proposals to make changes to Los Gatos Boulevard in Los
Gatos. One proposal is to add bike lanes along the section of Los Gatos Boulevard between
Blossom Hill Road and Lark Avenue. The Town of Los Gatos is considering providing Class II
bike lanes within the existing pavement in both directions on this section of Los Gatos Boulevard.
The other proposal is to make modifications to the Los Gatos Boulevard/Blossom Hill Road
intersection. The intent of this proposal is to enhance the pedestrian environment.
Los Gatos Boulevard is a six lane major arterial with a raised median and left turn pockets at the
signalized intersections and at several mid -block parking lots of shopping centers and other
businesses. The curb -to -curb cross section of Los Gatos Boulevard is approximately 106 feet: 45
feet of pavement per direction and a 16 foot raised median. Three travel lanes per direction are
provided and curb parking is permitted along most segments of the roadway. The curb lanes are
about 20 feet, the center lanes are approximately 12 feet wide, and the inner lanes measure about
13 feet.
According to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the purpose of bike lanes is to promote an
orderly flow of traffic by separating the areas reserved for motor vehicles and bicycles with
painted lines of demarcation. Bike lane stripes can increase safety by increasing bicycle visibility
and by encouraging bicyclists and motorists to stay within their own designated lanes.
However, in order to achieve the desired goal of increased safety, the bicycle lanes and adjacent
traffic lanes must be of sufficient width. To determine if bike lanes would "fit" within the existing
curb -to -curb pavement on Los Gatos Boulevard, we applied the design standards for bike lanes
from the Highway Design Manual. The Caltrans standards are widely used for arterial streets
throughout California, and have proven to be adequate. Bike lanes on an urban -type curbed street,
where parking is permitted, should be at least 5 feet wide. This width is needed to have adequate
maneuvering space for the bicyclist to avoid opening car doors, without having to move into the
vehicular traffic lane. The minimum width for parking should be 8 feet. Motor vehicle lanes
should be at least 12 feet, although 11 feet is acceptable for a middle lane. The outer lanes need to
be 12 feet to provide for a shy distance from the raised median and from the bike lanes. Therefore,
the minimum pavement width for a street with three lanes, parking, and bike lanes should be 48
PARSONS
5
feet. This is about 3 feet more than the existing pavement width on Los Gatos Boulevard.
Therefore, we advise against adding bike lanes along Los Gatos Boulevard. We believe that bike
lanes of insufficient width, especially adjacent to motor vehicle lanes of insufficient width, is less
safe than having no bike lanes at all.
Regarding the Los Gatos Boulevard/Blossom Hill Road intersection, the proposal is to make
changes that would enhance the experience of pedestrians crossing the street. Apparently, there is
the feeling among some pedestrians that the existing pork -chop islands that channelize the right
turns are too small for pedestrians crossing the street to feel comfortable while waiting. Two ideas
have been advanced to address this concern: increase the size of the islands, or eliminate them by
eliminating the "free" right turns for traffic.
We see two major problems with eliminating the islands and the "free" right turn lanes. First, the
pedestrian crossing distances and times would be significantly increased. This would be directly
counter -productive if the goal is to enhance the pedestrian environment. Pedestians crossing Los
Gatos Boulevard would face over 110 feet of uninterrupted pavement, versus about 70 feet under
existing conditions. The increase would be physically and psycologically discouraging to
pedestrians. Second, the increased pedestrian crossing times would limit the signal timing
flexibility. The minimum green time for Blossom Hill Road would need to be significantly
increased. This could lead to inefficient signal timing and could compromise the planned
synchronization along Los Gatos Boulevard.
The second option is to increase the size of the existing pork -chop islands. The study prepared for
the Town by Mark Wessel (memo to Kristine Syskowski 12/16/96) states that this could be
accomplished within the existing right-of-way by narrowing the right -turn lanes. The study states
that the lanes could be narrowed by 3 to 5 feet, which would allow a 200 to 400% increase in the
island size. The only problem would be potential difficulties with 55-foot semi -trailer
combinations. We believe that there is a middle ground whereby the islands could be increased
less than 200 to 400% and the trucks could still negotiate the right -turn lanes.
Thank you for inviting us to examine the Los Gatos Boulevard plan. Please call if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gary K. Blac
Principal Associate
NOV-08-97 12:10 AM
P.
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 3 30
NOV 7 ifi97
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING rXJ'"A RTMENT
By —_
EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF
STREET WIDTH ON URBAN
ARTERTIALS
SUMMARY The objective of this research was to determine the effectiveness of various alternative
strategics for reallocating the use of street width on urban arterials without changing the
total curb -to -curb width. The factors that influence the effectiveness of improvement
strategics include traffic volume, vehicle mix, capacity and level of service, prevailing
speeds, alignment and cross section, and type of development and access to abutting
property. The research addressed urban arterial streets with curb-and-guttcr cross
sections and speeds of 45 mph or less.
The research focused on a range of design alternatives for urban arterial streets from
a two-lane undivided cross section to cross sections with as many as eight lanes for
through traffic. The research documented the advantages and disadvantages and the
traffic operational and safety effectiveness of these alternatives_ Specific design features
addressed in the study included two-way left -turn lanes, raised medians, curb parking
removal, one-way streets, and 'reversible lanes.
Many urban arterial street improvementprojects that arc implemented without
changing the total curb -to -curb street width incorporate narrower lanes. A safety
evaluation was conducted to determine the effect of such projects on accident rate and
severity. It was found that projects where narrower lanes are used to provide space for
installation of a center two-way left -turn lane generally reduce accidents by 24 to 53
percent. Projects where narrower lanes were installed to provide additional through
traffic lanes on an arterial street generally did not affect midblock accident rates, but
did increase accident rates at intersections. None of the projects involving narrower
lanes had any effect on the accident severity distribution.
The traffic operational effectiveness of thcsc improvement strategies can be deter-
mined primarily from the procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual and data
available in published literature which are summarized in the report.
The research provides a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of specific
design alternatives for urban arterial streets based on their operational and safety
performance, including less quantitative aspccts such as impacts on abutting businesses,
pedestrians, and bicycles. The report presents a recommended process for selecting
appropriate improvement strategies as well as recommended guidelines for their imple-
mentation and evaluation. Three design examples are presented to illustrate the recom-
mended selection process.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT 6
NOV-08-97 12:11 AM
P.03
2
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH APPROACH
New development and changing land use have resulted in
increased congestion in malty urban areas. Congestion on arterial
streets can he alleviated only by increases in street capacity. The
most effective methods of increasing strcct capacity are to add
additional lanes -for through traffic and to separate through and
turning traffic to minimize unnecessary delays. In suburban ar-
eas, increased capacity can often be provided by widening the
street. improvement of suburban arterial streets through widen-
ing and installation of median treatments is addressed in NCHRP
Report 282 (1). The scope of that report includes undivided
highways, highways divided by ruised medians, and highway
with center two-way left -turn lanes. Urban streets are an even
greater challenge to designers and traffic engineers because right-
of-way, signal spacing. and other physical constraints often make
infeasible the otherwise obvious solutions that involve widening
the roadway or installing a median treatment. Therefore, urban
traffic engineers must focus on methods of reducing congestion
without increasing the existing curb -to -curb width.
When a street cannot be widened, its capacity can be increased
by changing the street cross section to more effectively utilize the
existing street width. Improvement projects of this type require
imagination and creativity on the part of urban traffic engineers
along with a solid understanding of research results concerning
the traffic operational and safely effects of various types of vari-
ous design features of urban streets.
The most direct method of reallocating street width is to
eliminate or narrow an existing feature such as a median, a
parking lane, a travel lane, or a turning lane. Improving traffic
operations within the existing street width typically involves
using narrower lanes in conjunction with additional through
lanes to increase through traffic capacity; curb parking removal
to provide space for additional through or turning lanes; median
removal to provide space for additional through or turning lanes;
separate right- and left runt lanes at signalized intersections,
unsignalized intersections, and/or major driveways; and center
two-way left -turn lanes (TWLTLs) between signalized intersec-
tions,
The foregoing improvement types emphasize geometric im-
pruvcments at midblock locations and on signalized intersection
approaches. However, signalization improvements (reliming, ac-
tivation, progression, and computerized control) can also be very
effective in conjunction with the types of geometric improve-
ments considered here.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Thc objective of this research was to determine the effective.
ncss of various alternative strategies for reallocating the use of
strcct width on urban arterial streets without changing thc total
cNtb-co-estb width. The study addressed both street segments
and intersections. The factors that influence the effectiveness
of improvement strategies include traffic volume; vehicle mix;
capacity and level of service; volume -to -capacity ratio; prevailing
speeds; character and quality of horizontal alignment, vertical
alignment, and cross section; development environment; fre-
quency and type of access to adjacent property; and functional
classification of street.
The preferred lane width for urban arterial streets under most
circumstances is 1 1 fit or 12ft. However, where traffic operational
improvements are needed to relieve congestion or alleviate spe-
cific accident patterns, constraints on street widening do nut
always permit the use of lanes that wide. The research addressed
the situutiuns in which narrower lanes can be used effectively us
part of urban arterial street improvement strategics.
The project .scope focused on urban arterial streets because
suburban highways have already been addressed in NC11RP
Report 282 (1). Urban struts generally have lower speeds than
suburban streets and have curb and -gutter cross sections rather
than shoulders. Thc specitic types of streets studied in the re-
search are addressed further in the next chapter.
RESEARCH APPROACH
The general upproach to this research was to rnake maximum
use of both existing data in the literature and unpublished high-
way agency studies, to identify any gaps in existing data and to
fill those gaps through analysis of data collected specifically
for this study. This approach is intended to provide highway
engineers with both qualitative and quantitative information on
the effectiveness of urban arterial street improvement strategics.
A critical review of the literature was conducted to determine
the effects of traffic operational improvement_, on the capacity,
level of service. and safety of urban arterial streets. The primary
objective of this review was to identify valid research findings
on thc operational and safety effccte of lane width, median treat-
ment, turning lanes, and curb parking on midblock sections and
at intersections.
A survey of highway agencies was designed and conducted to
determine the current use of urban arterial improvement strute-
gics. The survey was conducted by mail and included both state
and eeleeted local highway agencies throughout the United
States. The objective of the survey was to identify the types of
improvement strategies being used, the reasons for selection of
those strategies, and the effectiveness of those straregit_s.
Over 80 percent of the responding highway agencies reported
that they had used narrower lone widths on urban arterial streets
to improve traffic operations without increasing the total curb•
to -curb street width. However, there was a lack of reliable data
in the literature on thc effects of narrower lane widths on traffic
safcty on urban arterials. Therefore, a safety evaluation of proj-
.:cts involving narrower lane widths was undertaken. Candidate
prujects involving narrower lanes were identified through con-
tacts with participating highway agencies. Aec;ileac data were
nhtained fur periods of I to 3 years before and after each project.
C1-7 1 1 L. 1 G. M 1'1
P.04
3
Development of Safety Data Base
The safety analyses performed in this study required the as-
sembly of a data base of accident experience before and after
improvement projects on urban arterial streets. All of the im-
provement projects studies were required to meet the same crite-
ria as the overall scope of the study (see discussion of Research
Objectives and Scope in Chapter One). In particular, all of the
projects studied involved reallocation of the existing street width
to different uses without changing the total curb -to -curb street
width.
Projects meeting these criteria were identified through con-
tacts with the highway agencies that responded to the survey
discussed in Appendix B of this report. Seven highway agencies
(including two state agencies, one county agency, and four city
agencies) agreed to cooperate in the study. These agencies were
located in the states of Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, North Caro-
lina, and Texas.
The seven participating agencies identified a total of 35 proj-
ects involving narrower lanes for evaluation in the study. These
projects included a total of 26.97 mi of urban arterial streets and
ranged from 40 ft to 76 ft in total curb -co -curb width. Six distinct
improvement types are represented in thc data. These arc conver-
sion from: (l) two-lane undivided to four -lane undivided; (2)
four -lane undivided to five -lane with two-way left -turn larre
(TWLTL); (3) four -lane divided with narrow median to five-
lune with TWLTL; (4) five -lane with TWLTL to seven -lane with
TWLTL; (5) six -lame undivided to seven -lane with TWLTL; and
(6) six -lane undivided to eight -lane undivided.
Many of the projects were implemented by the participating
highway agencies over the course of a few days by remarking
the existing roadway pavement. However, those projects that
involved median removal required construction activity over a
longer period.
All of the study sites had minimum lane widths of at least 11
ft before project implementation and some had lanes that were
substantially wider. After project implementation, all projects
incorporated some lanes with widths of 10 ft or less. The narrow-
est through lane used in any of the projects was 9 ft wide and
the narrowest center TWLTL width was 8 ft.
Data were obtained from the participating highway agencies
for study periods both before and after implementation of each
project. The data obtained for these periods included geometries,
traffic volumes, and traffic accident experience. The general ob-
jective was to use before and after periods that were each at least
2 years in duration but, because of data availability constraints,
study periods as short as one year had to be used in a number
of cases for the before period, the after period, or both.
The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the 35 study sites
ranged from 8,900 vpd to 62,800 vpd. Traffre: volumes were
obtained for each individual year of both the before and after
study periods, so that time trends in traffic volume between the
before and after periods could be considered in the analysis.
Accident data were obtained from the participating highway
agencies for the before and after periods at each site. Theae
data were obtained in various forms including hard copy police
accident reports, collision diagrams, and cnlnputer listings of
individual accidents. Basic accident descriptors, including the
accident severity, the accident type and manner of collision, and
the relationship of the accident to intersections, were extracted
from the data and coded in a common format for computer
analyses.
The project data base includes over 7,000 accidents and over
972 million veh-ml of travel in the before and after periods
combined.
Analysis Approach
A comparison of the traffic accident experience before and
after implementation of projects involving narrower lanes was
conducted to determine their effect on accident rate and on the
distribution of accident severities and accident types.
The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the overall effects
of projects that involved narrower lanes, among other fcutures.
It was not our intention to attempt to separate the safety effects
of the narrower lanes from other features of the projects such es
TWLTL installation or tnedian removal. In fact, previous re-
search has been unsuccessful in developing widely accepted rela-
tionships between traffic accidents and the incremental effects
of geometric features such as lane widths. The objective was
more modest —to determine whether the net effect of projects
involving narrower lanes was to increase accident rate (or sever-
ity), to reduce accident rate, or to leave accident rate unchanged.
It is likely that very narrow lanes by themselves may loud to
accidents that would not otherwise occur. Such accidents would
be most likely to involve sideswipe collisions between vehicles
traveling in the saute direction, although other types of collisions
could also be related to narrower Iancs. There are no reliable
delu on the relative severity of collisions related to narrower
lanes. However, it would be desirable to know if the accident
reduction benefits of improvements such as instullatieur of a
center TWLTL made in conjunction with narrower lanes are
greater than any increase in accidents associated with lane width,
so that the ner effect of the project on safety is positive. In This
situation, if the traffic operational benefits of a center TW[,TL
can only be obtained through the use of narrower Iancs and if
thc overall effect of the project on safety is positive (or zero), the
project is fully justified. If a traffic operational improvement
involving narrower lanes would increase accident rate or sever-
ity, the tradeoff between improved traffic operations and in-
creased accidents must be considered.
Control sections which were not modified during the study
were uscd to provide a method to account or control for any
general time trends in accident experience that affect both the
improved sites and control sites. Control sites were selected to
provide as good a match as possible with thc geomettics and
traffic characteristics of the improvement sites before they were
modified. Seven control sites were Identified that provide a good
match to 11 of the 35 improved sites. No statistically significant
changes in accident rate between the before and after periods
were found for the control sites either individually or as a group.
Therefore, it was concluded that there are no general time trends
in accident rate to be accounted for.
NOV-08-97 12:13 AM
P.
4
g,Oreetivenesr gf Narrower Lana
Publlsbed literature addresses both the traffic operational and
safety effects of lade width on urban arterial streets. However,
the traffic operational effects of lane width are much better
documented than the traffic safety elfecta.
7)gfic Operation& The basic adjustment factor for lane width
in the dgr.Ily d Intersection analysis procedure of HCM Chap-
ter 913 given In Table 2. Thls factor is one of several multipliers
applied to the ideal.satnratlon flow rate for a lane or lane group
to determine the actual saturation flow rate. The table shows an
adjustment factor of 1.00 for 12-ft lanes, indicating that lanes
widths of 12 ft involve no reduction in the ideal saturation flow
rate. Narrower Jana of 8, 9, 10, and 11 ft involve reductions to
117, 90, 93, and 97 percent, respectively, in the ideal saturation
flow rate which is generally estimated as 1,800 vehicles per hour
(vph).
The HCM Chapter 9 procedure makes it easy to estimate the
operational effect of various lane widths and lane allocations on
delay at signalized lnteniectlons. For example, Table 2 implies
that three 8-ft land will have a saturation flow rate 2.6 times
that of two 12-ft land (i.e., 3 X 0.87 = 2.6) while occupying
the same 24 ft of street width. The computational procedure in
1ICM Chapter 9 can translate this difference in saturation flow
rate into a difference in vehicle delay for any specified traffic
volume level.
The HCM Chapter 11 procedures for intersection delay ad-
dress the number o1 lanes within each lane group, but not the
width of those Lnes.'f'hlts, this procedure cannot be used directly
to examine the effects of proposed improvement strategies that
will change the lane widths on intersection approaches. For '
midblock locations, the effect of changes In lane widths on traffic
operations can only be assessed indirectly through the user's
judgment about the effects of change on free flow speeds. How-
ever, some effects of lane width on speed were suggested in the
research conducted to develop HCM Chapter 11 (6).
Other operational studies that have addressed the relation•
ships between lane widths and traffic speeds on urban and subur-
ban artcriaala inelude a British study by Farouki and Nixon (7)
and a North Carolina State University study (8) shut are re.
viewed in Appendix A.
Trq%/1c Safety
The relationship between lane width and traffic accidents is
difficult to determine statistically and has never been adequately
quantified for urban arteriole. Only three riudic3 in the lite,atilt e
have addressed the safety effects of narrower lanes on urban or
suburban arterial streets. Both a 1959 study by the Otegun State
Highway Department (9) and thc 1983 Ninth Carolina State
University study (8). mentioned above, found inconsistent rela-
tionships between lane width and accident rate on arterial streets.
NCiiRPReport 282(1) found no statistically significant relation-
ship between lanc width and accident rate on suburban arterials.
Despite these inconsistent and negative findings, narrower lanes
arc presumed by many engineers to have an adverse effect on
safety on arterial streets. The lack of quantitative data for this
relationship is one of the most significant gaps found in the
previous published literature concerning traffic operations and
safety on urban arterials.
The complete results oldie questionnaire survey are presented
in Appendix B. The key findings of the survey were:
I. Use of Improvement strategies —Truffle operational im=
provement strategies that do not Involve changing the total uulb-
to-curb street width have been used on urban arterials by more
than 96 percent of the highway agencies responding to the sur-
vey.
2. Narrower lanes —Approximately 82 percent of the highway
agencies responding to the survey have used improvement strate-
gies involving narrower lanes. The most common reasons for use
of narrower lanes are provision of additional through lanes (cited
by 70 percent of highway agencies) and addition of a TWLTL
(68 percent). Lass frequently, highway agencies used narrower
lanes in order to add a raised median, provide turn lanes at
intersections, provide bicycle lanes, provide curb parking or
loading zones, provide bus or transit lanes, and provide a wider
curb lane,
The narrowest lane widths used by highway agencies on urban
arterials ranged from 8 ft to 12 ft, with an average of 9.6 ft.
Four percent of highway agencies have used 8 ft lanes on urban
arterials, while 42 percent of agencies have used lanes of 9 ft or
narrower, and 88 percent of agencies have used lanes of 10 ft or
narrower.
Approximately 70 percent of highway agencies consider the
narrowest lanes that they actually use to be effective and, there-
fore, would presumably not change their current policy if given
thc opportunity. Approximately 8 percent of agencies would
consider narrower lanes than they now time, while 22 percent
would prefer wider Tana.
More than 67 percent of highway agencies that have imple-
mented narrower -lanes reported no adverse traffic operational or
safety problems. Other agencies reported some specific problems
including: increases in sideswipe accidents; straddling of lane
lines, particularly by trucks and buses; and turning problems at
intersections, particularly for trucks and buses. Only four agen-
cies stated definitely that total accidents had increased as u result
of projects involving narrower lanes and only three agencies
reported that they had found it necessary to remark particular
etrccta for wider lanes to eliminate these problems.
NOV-08-97 12:14 AM
P.06
5
Effectiveness 4f Curb Parking Removal
The traffic operational and safety effects of curb parking re-
moval are discussed below.
Traffic Operations The effect of curb parking maneuvers on
signalized intcrsectlou operations is incorporated In the HCM
Chapter 9 procedure using the parking factor shown in Table A-
1 in Appendix A. A 1973 study by Yu and Van Dyke (25)
found that the average parallel parking maneuver requires 32 scc,
during which time following vehicles may be delayed. Unparking
maneuvers can also delay through traffic. but generally require
Tess time than parking maneuvers. Yu and van Dyke constructed
a model to predict delay from parking maneuvers. However, thc
model la only applicable to two-lane streets where following
drivers are unable to change lanes to pass the parking vehicle.
A 1967 study by Seburn (20) reported that the capacity of an
arterial could be increased by 40 to 65 percent by removal of
curb parking. Table 3 presents a traffic operational warrant fur
prohibition of curb parking from the Highway Research Board
Table 3. Parking prohibition criteria (In.
Type of prohibition
Maximums wen/ales
per hour per lane when
Parking allowed (one
direction or flowl
1 lane 2 or more lanes
midblock prohibition for entire street 400 6(10
intersection prohibition up to 1S0 ft
on approach and departure
report, Parking Principles (27). The table includes warrants for
prohibiting parking on an entire block or immediately upstream
and downstream of signalized intersections.
Traffic Safety. The 1967 study by Seburn (26) analyzed the
relationships between accidents and curb parking. The study
concluded that the percentage of accidence on arterial streets
that directly or indirectly involved parked vehicles ranged front
13 to 33 percent. This study found nu statistically significant
difference In accident experience between sites where parking
was prohibited and sites where parking was restricted to 2 hr or
leas.
An extensive study of parking accidents reported in 1978
by the University of Tennessee (28) concluded that substantial
reductlous in accidents could be achieved by prohibition of curb
parking. The study reported that the prohibition of curb parking
could reduce accidents by 19 percent for streets with parking
utilization of 0.5 million space-hr per mi and by 73 percent with
parking utilization of 1 million space-hr per mi. The Tennessee
study concluded that -there was a definite relationship between
accidents and parking turnover rate and that parking accident
rates were highest ou streets with land uses that generate high
turnover races and high pedestrian activity.
The conventional wisdom in traffic engineering has always
been that angle parking results in high accident races. Parking
Principles (27). published in 1971, states that angle parking is an
"obsolete" concept that should be eliminated by any progressive
community. A recent Nebraska study (29) also found lower
parking accident rates for parallel parking than fur angle park-
ing, except for painted stalls on multilane streets. However, this
conclusion was challenged by the 1978 University of Tennessee
study (28) which found no statistically significant relationship
between parking configuration and accidents, Streets with heav-
ily used parallel parking had accident rates comparable to streets
with angle parking with twice the parking utilization rate. Angle
parking resulted in lower operational speeds, but alluwed more
parking spaces per mile of curb. The real operational cost of
angle parking is in the street width it cortsutnes (up to 9 ft more
than parallel parking), which might be put to better use.
300 500
Bicycle Consla, .ions
Bicycle considerations have a two -fold role in consideration
of urban arterial street improvements. First, bicycles can have a
substantial Impact on traffic flow on urban arterials where they
are present in significant numbers. Bicycles constitute only a
small proportion of vehicles at most locations in North America.
lfowever. in many urban areas and near university campuses,
bicycles are present in sufficient numbers to affect traffic flow.
Second, highway agencies need to be careful that in implement-
ing urhan arterial improvements, especially those that involve
narrow lanes, they do not inadvertently make conditions less
safe for bicyclists.
There are three primary methuds of providing for bicycles in
urban corridors with substantial bicycle volumes. These are:
separate bicycle paths; marked bicycle lanes in the street along
the curb line; and unmarked streets (i.e., shared use of the street
by bicycles and other vehicles). Separate bicycle paths are expen-
sive to build and maintain and often have been built in out•of•
the -way areas, such as creek beds. that did not serve the needs
of the experienced or commuter cyclist. The Maryland State
Highway Administration (35) has reported a shift from requests
for separate bicycle facilities to requests for increased sate access
to the existing highway system.
A 1975 report by Mann (36) describes the basic paradox of
marked bicycle lanes. If a street is wide enough to include a
marked bicycle lane that does not interfere with vehicle traffic,
then the marking of the bicycle lane is probably unnecessary. In
general, both the cyclist and the motorist have more flexibility
if no bicycle lane is marked.
A Maryland study (33) found that 12-ft curb lanes did not
provide surfcclent width for shared bicycle and vehicle opera-
tions. A New Jersey study (37) found that 12-ft curb lanes were
acceptable for shored operations only for traffic volumes below
1,200 vehicles per day (vpd). Both the Maryland and New Jersey
studies generally recommend the use of 1541 curb lanes (includ•
ing the gutter area) for shared mode operations. Both studies
also found that the lane width requirements fur shared operation
increased as the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream in-
creased.
There are no quantitative data on the safety effects on bicy-
clists when curb lanes narrower than 12 ft are used,
HCM Chapter 14 includes passenger car equivalents for bicy•
cies at intersections (see Table 4). The table shows that for lane.
widths over 14 ft, bicycles have little or no effect on trek flow.
Bicycles have a modest effect on traffic flow for lane widths
between 11 and 14 ft, and have a substantial effect for lane widths
under 11 ft. For midblock sections, IICM Chapter 14 states that
bicycles have little effect when lane widths exceed 14 ft. The
HCM also states that midblock bicycle effects arc minimal when-
ever bicycle volumes arc less than 50 bicycles per hour. except
where lane widths are less than 11 tt wide. These guidelines are
very consistent with the results of the Maryland and New Jersey
studies that also encourage curb lane widths wider than 14 h,
Safety Evaluation of Proiaete Involving Narrower
Lanes
A major gap found in thc literature on thc effectiveness of
design features for urban arterials is the lack of quantitative
information on the safety effectiveness of improvement projects
involving narrower lanes. Therefore, new data were collected
and analyzed to determine whether the use of narrower lanes as
part of traffic operational improvement projects on urban arteri-
als leads to any adverse safety problems, The results of this
analysis are summarized below and are presented in detail in
Appendix C of this report.
NOV-08-97 12 : 14 AM
P.07
6
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
This section presents guidelines for implementation of im-
provement projects on existing urban arterial street based on
the tsiulta ubtalned In this study and the experiences of the
highway agencies who participated in this study and responded
to the highway agency survey (see Appendix B). These guidelincs
address many of thc nonquantitative issues in successful imple-
mentation of improvement strategies for urban arterial streets,
especially those involving narrower Innen. These guidelines are
intended to supplement, rather than supersede, existing design
policies such as those of AASHTO and individual state highway
agencies. The guidelines indicate situations in which such poli-
cies may be relaxed without compromising safety in improve-
ments to existing facilities. The guidelines developed in this study
are:
• Narrower lane widths (less than 11 ft) can be used effectively
in urban arterial street improvement projects where the addi-
bonal space provided can be used to relieve traffic congestion or
address specific accident patterns. Narrower lanes may result in
increases in some specific accident types, such as saute -direction
sideswipe collisions, but other design features of a project may
offset or more than offset that increase.
. Projects involving narrower lanes nearly always reduce acci-
dent rates when the project is made to implement a strategy
known to reduce accidents, such as installation of a center
TWLTL or removal of curb parking. highway agencies should
nut hesitate to implement such projects on urban arterial streets.
• Projects involving narrower lanes whose purpose Is to re-
duce traffic congestion by providing additional through lanes
may result In a net Increase in accident rate, particularly for
intersection accidents. Such projects ahuuid be evaluated care-
fully on a case -by -case basis, considering thc agency's previous
experience with that type of project. Both the traffic operational
and traffic safety effects of the project should be evaluated and
the feasibility of incorporating geometric improvements at inter.
sections (such as left -turn lanes) to reduce intersection accidents
should be considered.
. Lane widths as narrow as 10 ft are widely regarded by urban
traffic engineers as being acceptable for use in urban arterial
street improvement projects. Except for one specific project type
that is not common (conversion from a two-lane undivided to a
four -lane undivided street), all projects evaluated in this study
that consisted exclusively of lanes widths of 10 ft or more resulted
in accident rates that were either reduced or unchanged. Where
streets cannot be widened, highway agencies should give strong
consideration to the use of 10-ft lanes where thcy are necessary
as part of a geometric improvement to improve traffic operations
or alleviate specific accident patterns.
• Lane widths less than 10 ft should be used cautiously and
only in situations where it can be demonstrated that increases
in accident rate are unlikely. For example, numerous project
evaluations in this study found that 9- and 9.5-ft through -traffic
lanes can be used effectively in projects to install a center
TWLTL on existing four -lane undivided streets. Such projects
nearly always result in a net reduction in accident rate. On
streets that cannot be widcncd, highway agencies should consider
limiting the use of lane widths less than 10 ft (1) to project types
where their own experience shows that they have been used
effectively in the past or (2) to locations where the agency can
establish an evaluation or monitoring program for at least 2
years to identify and correct any safety problems that develop.
Guidelines for evaluation of urban arterial improvement projects
arc presented in the next section.
. In highly congested corridors, agencies should anticipate
that traffic operational Improvements on one street, such as
provision of additional through lanes, may attract traffic to that
street from parallel streets. This may lead to increased tialTic
volumes and increased accidents on the improved street, but may
still reduce delays and accidents in the corridor as a whole.
• Projects that change the geometries of signalized intersec-
tion approaches should be accompanied by adjustments in signal
timing (and, in some cases, changes in signal phasing). Traffic
volumes nn the project (and. possibly, on parallel streets) should
bc reviewed I month nr 2 months after project implementation
to determine if there is a need for further adjustments in signal
tinning.
• Truck volumes arc an important consideration in the imple-
mentation of projects involving narrower lanes. There appears
to be general agreement that narrower lanes do not lead to
operatiunal problems when truck volumes are less than 5 per-
cent, Sites with truck volumes between 5 and 10 percent should
he evaluated carefully on a ease -by -case basis. Use of narrower
lanes should be discouraged on streets with more than 10 percent
trucks.
• Higher truck volumes may not cause operational problems
on streets with narrower lanes if the trucks travel straight
through the site without turning.
• Trucks may be a greater concern on streets with horizontal
curves than On tangent..
. Tractor -trailer combination trucks may be more critical
than single.unit trucks because of their greater width and their
greater ofTtracking.
• Curb lanes should usually be wider than other lanes by 1 ft
to 2 ft to provide allowance for a gutter and for greater use of
the nub lanes by trucks. Center nr left lanes for through traffic
and TWLTLs can usually be narrower than the curb lane. One
city engineer has pointed out that the left lane for through traffic
on an arterial street can be quite narrow if it is adjacent to a
center TWLTL which increases the "effective width" of the
through lane. The presence of a TWLTL adjacent to a through
Zane is obviously less restrictive than the presence of a curb or
another through lane.
• Narrow lane projects do not work well if the right lane
provides a rough riding surface because of poor pavement condi-
tion or the presence of grates for drainage inlets. Drivers may
avoid the right lane if they feel uncomfortable driving over rough
drainage inlets. Thus, projects with narrower lanes may bc must
satisfactory at sites with curb inlets that do not have grata in
the roadway.
• The needs of bicyclists should be considered in implement-
ing projects involving narrower lanes. The literature indicates
that curb lane widths of at least 15 ft are desirable to accommo-
date shared operation of bicycles and motor vehicles (35, 37);
thus, it may not be possible to fully accommodate bicyclists
even on many existing streets with 12-ft curb lanes. Decisions
concerning implementation of projects with narrower lanes
should consider the volume of bicyclists using the roadway and
the availability of other bicycle facilities in the same corridor
• When lanes arc narrow, operational efficiency at some sites
may bc reduced because of staggering of traffic in adjacent lanes.
The capacity per lane may be reduced because drivers are reluc-
tant to travel side•by-side. However, drivers In adjacent lanes
still travel at shorter heedways than they could in a single lane,
so the overall through train..., capacity nr the street should in-
crease, but not by as much as would be possible if wider l:ntcc
could be used.
NOV-08-97 12:15 AM
P.08
7
• Projects that can be implemented by remarking only can be
implemented very quickly, often in a single day. However, proj-
ects that involve construction, such as median removal, require
more time to complete.
• A common problem in remarking projects is that it is difG-
cult to remove the existing pavement markings completely. Fig-
ure 10 illustrates the confusion that can be created by incomplete
removal or pavement markings. Current removal methods in-
clude grinding, stutdbla Ling, and wulerbluating. Bec•nuse of -these
problems, some agencies implement alruost all reuarking proj-
ects In conjunction with pavement resurfacing.
• Remarking projects may be eonfbsing to drivers if the new
lane lines no longer match the pavement joint lines (or the reflec-
tions of the pavement joint limy). This potential problem is
another indication that implementation of remarking projects in
conjunction with pavement recur -acing is very desirable.
• Access control regulations concerning driveway location
and design arc important on all urban arterial streets, but espe-
cially for streets that are not widc enough to Install a median or
a center TWL'l'L. Driveway design and kation measures that
have been found to be effective are summarized in Table 8.
Design
Alternative
Street
Width (ft)
Lane
Width (ft)
Median
Width (ft)
OPERATIONAL FACTORS
SAFETY FACTORS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
'8
9
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Two-lane
Undivided
20-22
9-10
None
—
--
--
••
--
•-
+
+
+
•-
--
--
-•
-.
0
--
+
-•
—
--
24-30
11-14
None
—
•-
••
--
--
+
+
L
--
--
--
-.
_•-
-
.
0
+'+
••
-
Three -lane
with TWLTL
30-32
9-10
None
+
-
•-
+
--
--
--
+
+
+
•-
- .
-
�+
-
++
•
•
+
--
--
-
34-48
11-14
None
++
--
--
�4�--
-
•
-
+
4+
--
.
.
++
+
+.
4.
.
.-
.
Four -lane
Undivided
38-44
9-10
None
4.4
-
--
--
--
--
++++
--
-
--
--
..
46-58
11-14
None
-
-
--
-
--
-
--
—
_
-
++++
+
+�
�-
Four lane
Divided
d2-52
9-10
4-12
+
-
--
-
--
-
•-
-
+
++44
+++:+
--
-
++
54-68
11-12
4-14
++
�.
-
•
+
-
-
-
++
++
++�+++
+++r+
•
++
-
•
++
-
70-80
11-14
18-22
++
-
-•
++
++
++++++
•
t+
++
++
++++
++
+
++�-
++
++
•
Five -lane
48-54
9-10
None
+
-
-•
+
.
-.
+
+
-
-�
-
++++
--
-
--
--
,
,
with TWLTL
54-74
-
11-14
None
++
-
--
+
. -_ .4.___. _
-_
a
++ --
• .+4++_+
++_- _
••-
-
Scale of Operational and Sale y Ratings
++ Most desirable
0
-- Least desirable
Figure 9. Relative ratings of operational and safety factors for design alternatives.
NOV-08-97 12 : 16 AM
P. 09
8
CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The major conclusions of the research concern the effective
use of narrower lanes as part of traffic operational improvement
strategies for urban arterial streets. The preferred lane width for
urban arterial streets under most circumstances is 11 ft or 12 ft.
However. constraints on street widening do not always permit
the use of lanes that wide. The research found that in many
situations traffic operational benefits, traffic safety benefits. or
both can be obtained from the use of narrower lanes.
A survey of state and local highway agencies throughout the
United States found that 96 percent of the highway agencies that
responded have used traffic operational improvement strategies
for urban arterial streets that do not change the total curb -
to -curb street width and 82 percent of highway agcncies that
responded have used narrower lanes as part of those strategics.
The most common reasons for use of narrower lanes are to install
additional through lanes and to install a TWLTL.
The research documented the advantages and disadvantages
and thc traffic operational and safety effectiveness of a range of
design alternatives for urban arterial streets from a two-lane
undivided street to streets with as many as eight through lanes.
a .safety evaluation conducted as part of the research determined
the change in accident rates and severities from before to after
urban arterial street improvement projects that include nurrower
lanes. This evaluation included 35 sites located in live states.
It was fouled that lane widths narrower than l 1 ft can be used
efTectively in urban arterial street improvement projects where
the additional space provided can be used to relieve traffic con-
gestion or address specific accident patterns. Narrower lanes
may result in increases in some specific accident types, such as
;ante -direction sideswipe collisions, but other design features of
a project may reduce other accident types by as much or tuorc.
Improvement strategies involving narrower lanes nearly al-
ways reduce accident rates when the purpose of the project is
to make an improvement known to reduce accidents, such as
installation of a center TWLTL or removal of curb parking.
IIighway agencies should not hesitate to implement such projects
on urban arterial streets even when narrower lanes must he used.
The following accident rate reductions were found for im-
provement strategies that involved installation of a TWi.TI..:
These estimates indicate that there can be substantial site -to -
rite variation in the accident reduction effectiveness of these
project types. The expected -value is the single best estimate of
sccident reduction effectiveness. The accident reduction effec-
eveness for 90 percent of sites should fall within the confidence
,ntervals shown. None of these improvements had any effect on
:hc distribution of accident severities (i.e., thc proportion of total
accidents that involved fatalities and injuries remained the same).
Improvement strategies using narrower lanes whose purpose
,s to reduce traffic congestion by providing additional through
ancs may result in a net increase in accident rate. particularly
in intersection accidents- Such projects should be evaluated
:artfully on a cast -by -case basis, considering the agency's previ-
eis experience with that type of project. Both the traffic opera-
tional and traffic safety effects of the project should be evaluated
anal the feasibility of incorporating geometric improvements at
ntersections (such as left -turn lanes) to reduce intersection acci-
dents should be considered. In addition, where an improvement
project results in a shift in traffic volumes between parallel facili-
ties, it may be necessary to evaluate the anticipated truffle opera-
tional and safety effects on the corridor as a whole.
Lane widths as narrow ua 10 ft are widely regarded by urban
traffic engineers as being acceptable for use in urban arterial
street improvement projects. All projects evaluated in this stud)
that consisted exclusively of lanes widths of 10 ft or mor,- resulted
in accident rates that were tither reduced or unchang J. (The
only exeeptinns to the previous statement care three site, c,)n
vetted to the four -lane undivided design alternative where a
different design alternative should have been used.) Where
streets cannot be widened, highway agencies ,houl,t €ive strung
consideration to the use of 10-ft lanes where they are necessary
as part of a geometric improvement to improve traffic operations
or to alleviate specific accident patterns
Lane widths less than lU ft should be used cautiously ;aid (mni)
in situations where it can be demonstrated that itieiC:1Fts jn
uccident rate arc unlikely. For example, numerous project :•salt+
ations in this study found that 9-ft to 9.5 ft through traffic lanes
can be used effectively in projects to install a center Tvt•'LTL- tin
existing four -lane divided streets. Such projects nearly always
result in a net reduction in accident rate. On sire Thar cannot
be widened, highway agencies should consider limiting tits use
of I;,ne Widths less than 10 ft to project types white thcii <,wn
experience shows that they have been used effectively in the past
or to locations where the agency can establish an evaluation and
monitoring program for at least 2 years to identify and cut tee(
any safety problems that develop.
Field observations of crank nper:,rinns nn urh:u, :art -rui
,treet.c found that vehicle encroachment, on 3djarrnr lino: are
more likely on Stieets with narrower lanes. Velticic eecioa,t,
meats on narrower lane sites were more likely to involve trucks
than passenger cars and more likely to occult on horizontal
curves titan on tangents. However• very few traffic cunlliets
aesneiatcd with these encrnaehments were observed.
The needs of bicyclists should he considered in imhltmcnr ,,
projects involving narrow lanes. 'The literature indicates that
cucLi lame widths of ut least 15 n arc dcsiri,ble to :rccurnnrudutc
shared Operation of bicycles and motor vehicles. Decisions con-
cerning implementation of projects with narrower lanes vh,?uld
consider the volume of bicycles using the roadway and the ;rr;til-
ability of other bicycle facilities in the same corridor.
Thc report presents a recommended process for selecting ap-
propriate improvement strategics for more effectively using the
available width of urban arterial streets. A kcy clement of this
process is estimating the anticipated operational and safety effec-
tiveness of alternative improvement strategics. The recom-
mended process is meant to provide a flexible arpreach to ih.-
selection of improvement strategics rather than a rigid methodol-
ogy. Highway ugencies should udapl the process to suit their
own needs while retaining its basic piinciplcs.
Thc safety effectiveness of various improvement strategies for
urban arterial streets is quantified in this report. lluwevcr. be•
cause accident rates and traffic conditions vary widely from
state to state and from jurisdiction to Jurisdiction, users .arc
encouraged to evaluate their own projects to build up a history of
oaf-ty efrec.tivrnecs rsrirnntr•.a far lice in pinnning fuh,re r,rnjectc.
Guidelines for performing such cvaluatinn.s arc presented in rho
report.
MEMORANDUM
TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS COMMITTEE
-=y
Name
To: Sandy Decker, Chair, Planning Commission
Michael Abkin, Chair, General Plan Committee
From:
Subject:
Sheldon Smith, Chair, Trails and Bikeways Committee
Bike Lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard
October 23, 1997 OCT 2 3 1997
ToWMOFLos G,gTos
PLANNING C7Fr"4pTP1cN'
At our monthly meeting on October 9, the Trails and Bikeways Committee voted unanimously to urge the
General Plan Committee, the Planning Commission, 'and the Town Council to adopt the Boulevard Plan in its
present state with eleven foot auto lanes, no reduction in curbside parking, and bike lanes on both sides of the
street. This would be consistent with the new Bikeways Master Plan for Los Gatos (adopted by our committee
in 1996.)
Our committee has not discovered any safety problem particularly associated with eleven foot auto lanes. On
the contrary, it has been demonstrated in may other communities that eleven foot lanes are both safe and quite
workable. Eleven foot lanes may act however to slow the traffic down somewhat. We expect that to be a safety
enhancement, as well as a shopping enhancement, for the boulevard.
Eleven foot auto lanes are presently in use on many of our own county expressways. According to Mr. Daniel
Collen, Expressway Engineer for Santa Clara County, the county is now installing eleven foot lanes wherever
they are needed to optimize the vehicular right of way, or to minimize cost. Some locations where they have
been used are on Lawrence Expressway north of 280, on Montague at several places, on Capitol east of 101, on
Central at Bowers and at Scott, and on San Tomas at Scott.
An example of what causes traffic to become congested is available in the neighboring community of Campbell,
right on Bascom Avenue. Going north from where the auto lanes narrow to eleven feet at Camden, the traffic
on Bascom moves along very nicely until it hits the four stop lights between Campbell Avenue and Hamilton
Avenue. Right there it becomes congested because these lights are not synchronized for the Bascom traffic. It's
not the eleven foot lanes that plug things up, it's those four lights. This can be observed any busy shopping
afternoon or evening.
Here at home, the principal congestion on Los Gatos Boulevard occurs near Roberts and Shannon Roads where
the street necks down to two lanes. This has nothing to do with lane width or bike lanes.
Bicylists currently using Los Gatos Boulevard are forced to share the outer lane with the faster auto traffic. Not
only are bicyclists uncomfortable in this situation, so also are motorists. In order to give the bicyclists sufficient
clearance, motorists swerve over very near, or into, the adjacent auto lane - as shown in the enclosed photo from
the Los Gatos Weekly. This kind of situation is unsafe. According to the CalTrans Highway Design Manual,
Section 1003.2, such a maneuver is "less apt" to happen if there are bike lanes on the street. Our committee
agrees with CalTrans and respectfully urges your support of bike lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard.
cc: Mayor & Town Council
Lee Bowman, Director of Planning
Town Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
T — n
;YJ r Y Y'ri'N
Ivy t
;14...LC:I if
OCT 171997
Dear Councilmembers, TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPAnrMFr✓T MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL
6y
How can you oppose slower traffic and bicycles? Bike lanes indicate to
people and car drivers that bicycles belong. What is your problem don't you
want cleaner air and slower traffic.
OFFICE OF THE
OCT 1 5 1991
Hope you will go with Bike Lanes for your folks and visitors. From one who
bikes for cleaner air and exercise.
Yours truly:
Mary Ann Michel
Mary Ann S. Michel
719 Christine Dr.
• Palo Alto, California 94303
Printed by: IOS
Friday, October 24, 1997 6:30:59 AM
Title: Car Deafer Fight Bike Lanes on Boulevard in Los Gatos Page 1 of 2
New
(GMH ki D'S MESSAGE TIREAD UN EAD
Del.lSav=. PrintSend
Thursday, October 23, 1997 10:29:27 PM
From:
Subject:
To:
Cc:
1'
1'
Message
B1michel@aol.com,Intemet-Vval.com
Car Dealer Fight Bike Lanes on Boulevard in Los Gatos
LG Town Clerk
B1 michel@aol.com,Intemet-Vval.com
loma.prieta.chapter@sierraclub.org,Intemet-Vval.com
Igwt@sjmetro.com,Intemet-Vval.com
To : Los Gatos City Council
From : Bill Michel
Conservation Chair
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
Subject : Car Dealer Fight Bike Lanes on Boulevard in Los Gatos
Dear Councilmembers,
It has come to our attention that there are certain merchants in the City
of Los Gatos who feel that a few feet of outside Ianewidth will have a
significant impact on their financial health. We are aware of data which
support the argument that additional outside Ianewidth will enhance the
safety of cyclists, and we would hope that the Council would be
supportive of such measures which not only enhance the safety of the
cycling public, but in so doing, encourage non -motorized transport.
We hope that the City Council will carefully consider the proposal to add
outside Ianewidth on Los Gatos Blvd, and that the Council would not see
public health and retail business as mutually exclusive.
Yours truly,
Bill Michel
(650) 336-7737 (days)
--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Return-Path: <B1 michel@aol.com>
Received: from mrin43.mail.aol.com ([198.81.19.153j) by vval.com ;
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 5:29:26 GMT
Received: (from root@Iocalhost)
by mrin43.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
id BAA19692;
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
4,
l5
TOWN OF LO ATOS
OFFICE OF TO N CLERK
fi
Printed by: IOS Monday, October 20, 1997 10:01:32 AM
Title: Open Letter: Stop urban sprawl. Restripe the boulevard Page 1 of 4
Friday, October 17, 1997 3:21:39 PM
From: gdsouza@atmel.com,Intemet-Vval.com
Subject: Open Letter: Stop urban sprawl. Restripe the boulevard
To: LG Town Clerk
Message
October 17, 1997
Gladwyn d'Souza,
140 Whitney Ave,
Los Gatos, CA, 95030
day: (408) 436-4223
fax: (408) 358-1313
email: gdsouza@atmel.com
TO: Ig_town_clerk@vval.com
Mayor: Joanne Benjamin
Councilmembers:
Randy Attaway
Steven Blanton
Jan Hutchins
Linda Lubeck
Dear Council,
With automobiles frequently moving fast on Los Gatos Blvd.
the town has responded by occasionally putting speed display
monitors by Van Meter Elementary School, and near Blossom
Hill Blvd. The speed problem is a result of the relatively
Tight traffic most of the time except for rush hour when Van
Meter and the middle school on Roberts are in session and the
freeway onramp off lark. Contrary to what Councilmember
Blanton says, Los Gatos Blvd. is not a high traffic area,
like Hwy. 9 and Winchester nearby, both of which have bike
lanes and are safe to travel.
The Boulevard presently seems to be driving in the aesthetic
direction of El Camino to LA thus robbing the area of its
small town charm. The council should be working to arrest
this sprawl. Bike lanes add a measure of aesthetic charm to
any street from Monte Sereno to Los Altos that allows for the
Office of the
OCT 2 0 1997
TOWN MANAGER
OCT
Printed by: IOS Monday, October 20, 1997 10:01:36 AM
Title: Open Letter: Stop urban sprawl. Restripe the boulevard Page 2 of 4
intimacy of parents and children out enjoying their
neighborhood. The council should be working to make the
streets useful and safe for residents by adding impediments
to decrease the speed.
The Auto dealers in Los Gatos have a vision that is
diametrically opposed to a safer boulevard. Do we want
anyone (79% from out of town according to Moore Buick)
driving fast without paying attention to the lane they are
in? Of course not. Should drivers be careful exiting
driveways? Yes. There are fast food places frequented by
kids and teens, two schools, grocery and drug store type
mini malls, bus stops, pedestrians, and other service
sectors of a small town economy, including a bike shop.
The road is also frequented by riders who visit the
downtown area to ride on the creekside route to Lexington
Reservoir, up Hwy. 9, or just relax at the coffee shops
downtown. Stop by the Los Gatos Coffee Roasting Company
and see for yourself.
Councilmember Hutchins is also wrong to say that narrower
auto lanes would be 'clearly unacceptable.' Designated
spaces for cycles and cars make for safer streets. 11 feet
is the legal Caltrans minimum resulting in the last auto
lane to the curb with bike lane and parking of 23 feet.
Caltrans has designated Bascom and Los Gatos Blvd. an
'arterial route.' This means that the road should function
for the movement of traffic and not storage. For the town to
follow the Caltrans guidelines it should be removing parking
spots where necessary. Removing parking where necessary
would clear the line of sight for driver exiting the auto
lots between Lark and Blossom Hill.
Irrespective of what happens resident will continue to ride
bikes for many reason: they are a quieter, enjoyable,
non -threatening, and non-polluting way to travel especially
over the average auto trip of 2.5 miles; economic reasons,
necessity or emergencies, a kids sole source of independence,
etc. Drivers will also continue to go faster than the speed
limit. Hwy 17 through Los Gatos now has average speeds of 75
miles per hour. If the council facilitates 35 the result will
be 45 mile per hour. We will also continue to be unable to
provide the resources to police every street, intersection
and highway. The council should deal with the problem now
instead of making matters worse. Add designs to the street,
like bike lanes, that will slow down traffic to below the
speed limit and make the street safer and fun to be on.
Printed by: IOS Monday, October 20, 1997 10:01:36 AM
Title: Open Letter: Stop urban sprawl. Restripe the boulevard Page 3 of 4
San Jose and Campbell are going to add five miles of bike
lanes on Bascom which San Jose is further proposing to extend
another two miles to Los Gatos next year. Los Gatos residents
asked for safer and friendlier streets when the plan was
agreed to prior to this council. This council should be
making streets safe for kids, commuters, residents, and
weekend travelers in Los Gatos so that auto shoppers cannot
test drive the latest huge gas guzzler above the speed limit.
The council should restripe the Boulevard and link it to
people friendly efforts of San Jose and Campbell beyond.
Please inform me how you intend to act on this issue.
With best regards,
Gladwyn d'Souza
--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Return-Path: <gdsouza@atmel.com>
Received: from relay2.smtp.psi.net ([38.8.188.2]) by vval.com ;
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:40:17 GMT
Received: from smtp.atmel.com by relay2.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SM1-5.4-PSI)
id RAA16206; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by smtp.atmel.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA10004; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:33:10 -0700
>Received: by gateway.atmel.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA04414; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:25:58 -0700
>Received: from ccgate.atmel.com (ccgate-in) by emall.atmel.com (5.x/SM1-SVR4)
id AA05004; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:22:47 -0700
Reply -To: gdsouza@atmel.com
Received: by gateway.atmel.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA04414; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:25:58 -0700
id AA05004; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:22:47 -0700
Received: from ccgate.atmel.com (ccgate-in) by email.atmel.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA05004; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:22:47 -0700
Received: from cc:Mail by ccgate.atmel.com
id AA877123302; Fri, 17 Oct 97 14:21:39 PST
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 97 14:21:39 PST
From: "gdsouza" <gdsouza@atmel.com>
Encoding: 103 Text
Message-Id:<9709178771.AA877123302@ccgate.atmel.com>
To: Ig_town_clerk@vval.com
Printed by: IOS
Title: SAFETY FOR BIKE RIDERS
Thursday, October 30, 1997 6:11:20 AM
Page 1 of 2
...................
i
Ale
Wednesday, October 29, 1997 7:37:49 AM
From: skolstad@atmel.com,Internet-Vval.com
Subject: SAFETY FOR BIKE RIDERS
To: LG Town Clerk
Cc: dfranklin@atmel.com,Intemet-Vval.com
ENEW@atmel.com,Intemet-Vval.com
PBABALIS@atmel.com,Intemet-Vval.com
msisois@atmel.com,Internet-Vval.com
vkotsovos@atmel.com,Internet-Vval.com
skolstad@atmel.com,Intemet-Vval.com
Message
OFFICE OF THE
OCT 301997
MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL
TO: MAYOR JOANNE BENJAMIN
COUNCIL MEMBERS; RANDY ATTAWAY
STEVE BLANTON
JAN HUTCHINS
LINDA LUBECK
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Council Members:
I have read the article by Gladwyn d'Souza in the October 21 st
issue of the Los Gatos Times Weekly about providing bike lanes
on Los Gatos Boulevard. The issue here is safety for all concerned;
the bike riders, pedestrians and the motorists. The Boulevard
should not be used as a freeway or high speed roadway.
For my personal safety, since I shop at many businesses along
Los Gatos Blvd. and in the community interest, I would like to see
bike lanes and other design changes that will keep traffic below the
35mph limit. If necessary for safety, parking should be removed from
the Boulevard, especially since most of the business establishments
have provided adequate off street parking.
Thanks for your attention and please keep me informed of your decision
in this matter.
Sincerely,
Sharon J. Kolstad
21477 Old Mine Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
7PED
:r' pelr
OCT 31 1997
TOWNOFLOS G
ATOS
PLANNING DE. --PAR WENT
o j`� 5 `'' o 0
0 4C7Z$4 0 * C y(2 ci w m O c^ C cv 3 Q
V1
Lin 0cQcz1�v�8 te>v.7 -oya o �; v c c R v hil
s a :d w �.Cal C W v��� ivv,caL.4• y O•.`"Cyr cv.= �=
V1 O p O La O i> y y :v -° b 8= B =•1) C �n E y ny u a0a.
U c p C,00 a P. a; R $ co as
a v� y C v �., 'v.- y C
:au `O�at•°)y�vcr.-p `,-0.aSaa=C�y`a2 L� w �3�- cal 7a).oO^may
�/'� N a) F'-- c�~-'.' 5 t° 2 ca Lt o.g c8cc•- �, 2.+ o 0 -0 P. 8 O 0 c 9? h . sG c
COO 3 c on c y L y oo O a� ^ o-
5y3 •°Cnc�0 y .00.00c :- y�ytca^ �vyz; c, s-•-ca9cSic,
a •a a) v, y C E y c3 .� •.� U •� .0 vOi O r. C v ar C on y
° >, >, -• V '-- -a cal C_ ,0 4� v) " O. ° 6.�i 3 �j cc v: �... _, �. v v C L
,:,A� 0-o� >,c on .= 5 v ,n °t °� y y'L 00.... d0 O x T'":„5car aL
v, C O •
a a �U y y E 3 c_ v?•5� �. u, c �� •a ea °' O. v, y v, .r v -J 3
� y .D ..0 ._4 cy ,) O az ca cC U p ..., ° a . L p .�. .r. a '" ti .-•i
I
h L 17) p'ycaiU..wCy ya, U U C'-" vyiC y pj a pnQ u, y an,� cco. d H C` >; �_ N'��u.5°c��a�'���,.�a•�y$O°L��c;:' C NC~-2 c v, C 0,0e L O y c v; ro 0•S O c l: y, 0i-c V y�C a 'Ox c
Ct l`II/J c4 ,, L y, T H L •p •C. y `c..r. U 4„.5 .r L r+ ' P. L O " ►
.� ° Q C C 0 'U ° 0 0 0 •O as c .� c'a +- • 5 C 00-a t) ca Q L y C Q Gl L C. _ ° S
vyi L Oa cyi o O cJ Q" v C " ^ -a � � ° h 'y ,4 -0 y cv, .0. C D O •N ai p, y - pn
00¢//c�a Q a ate) °U�v' �¢ OC �"" al yC~ y Cam!" �U. CQ .' 0) i. R% V �f�p (7� C p U O a a.
Ca a .� 3 V Q •L-, �..0 a•G U U cr .D H 4J w"'-�1 .0 W CC W U fU/1 ^• -� �- U .�: •O O -
c y y r ti
CtV1 b V y y Y� 50 c w ��Lo'3c. yc�c
C C - C1. O
cg y.5 3 0 y .j .5 s 3zs 3O� as m 8L �.5 v.�ccc :a = 'Cv, o C
$7.111( al -=',,
y+ "•yv, •°a >..0 L°ov 0 0c°ch 30 °L' :✓, C
-" a0i 4 y 0., c y G v •� O y .0 y y G. 5 v .0 sy, as ca ' 0 y a L y y
a �� c E $3 a,p� o y'�> b c c �.S013 ro.a - co a.) >,a= ash o c
I ` c • •� -S4 (a as C3 C y v� w y C� +•-
CI)
/�'I'i//i roc �oE�c �-'noc ��a �a��y�,�,�. o o c
v,n o. 0-- c �, y s N G 6° c Ce �,.�? O G>> '� r 0 '4 y_ +L, V •9, y° C v y� y C
_. a.) , 0* N y >> u- J. in 0 CV C =0 W y' 7 y n y CD U O C ate` a� C
rn-is....•0 y 5 0 0 5 y `= 5-" .v~.- 3rJ O mom- :; �,� 3 y v `��.5 c° �, y CZ �Ca a` b y v
T�1 V 1' U y c C v L .�. a tC u r� ca p > Cs U v `r 2 -
yc)v0cyy - oe- y >-- -a 15 �a .4y ytio.L `�'° >5 y
a:� L ca n y O L. O L• •
>. O. C y C •p y )• -- .r
M n O, U V 0 -5, w �.>,. O •D cC -: a) e.--' C3 ' .� y 6 !_,..4'..-9
6' ry.crra .">'•x •U°C) C v 'x U e>i ° p rs O br CUO E-+GGy cy.Oy cia C O 5y5 ti��°'Sys p°-F��r�o vac icc��a�y�ofl.[�� ;�y��H Eo°._vCLiia ca n E a L "fir O _. N 0 C, OU. r Uo cy°C_`' L +y. 21 U Qcz
o ca . O O .5 a T_R O v�i ca y C C y an a ,^^- �� t; y v' ° y G 4 p O cl
rili 75 C y 0. C F y LO N >, d 7 p C N. ai az O ca O O .:3 .5 C U •a y-2 y- C
„ y y y w e C L N pn > ...�. b0 .n y y .� •� R: c a t
y a .'4,c CI pn C'3=II. V.W' = 3 0 c.5-c 573 ° ° . .. .0c-'
c v y
of^3>,gL 2 E. v)zzt CCop'O -5"' .t) 'o °Oay s•a(..,°v]z
C y a 'G y• �, O ca•ai U a as N .= U JD ca O 2 8-'5 m'"
> "0 a)
0 7 t >, 7° ,l ca 7 0 e C cC L y ca > L C .-9 �. v
C) v s „- c N- 0 E .0 y°° av3 t.-0 y- vy, w> L O - c 0 v ° .- "c z co s U m n
3 a� ;? v L. ?+ v > c� ., ..� c o a0 y a - o �'O �o y
Ct
aj o c c v ca L ca y L o C a y v v ,� y° '7• >
E c 3 c Oa > «- �a w Q zs >,se :a 3 c..°� > F. -o 3 c r y 3 0
•.. a ar_ Y
:4 Rti
C , L v, san v >, 5 C • O
o aLI c c y _ .7v 7,�3'a _
y a) 'O .5 .2 O 77 �. 3 C C L
C W a.. . :� L 17
y h .G CD y y ° " ral C 5 y ; ° ? -v °O pD.;� '° CJ O O r--'
G: o an on. o y y L to a .5 v C •7r• al .'` y _t ° C. O p ..S O. y �; •� y 't7 _ LL
°U3 cf..c�@�ti�yCO`°c�n`°�"may .. � �5avi.5�n Oa `���;r�,° C.)
w �sc5��5a�y� �a.,c_n�aco�EociSo�m= �co h qa�i-04L°C
4 0 ^• d x;ii g 0 �'Q� ° .) -„..0 L v; ..� C c a) ,. EC y'onc c p°n ° c c. o eca °
j, O -r' V L a� N c • v, a) •� a w ° y y y � H '... �. "•' .'�_ _° � ° � Q V "
.F.-2 >,pv� pn>C C°�y°>'�.53[c°cLay�L3u;Uv5o. a-o v
c ,- 7 = .5 3 y 0 ° p w v, >,...., , = > > .5 _ -o... v. w
o c, 3 0 3
2 eD o Q. 3 w. v C v 5 -. > o y L
Z `° � a. CF:, 0 0 0 fi= P. 00 ca ;,� o c� a c U S� E ��c y 5� y v
O Oa - �' > - v o $ Ova >, c .� .S � H 0 y 7 c 0 "ft, 0 -' L c v
10) ,.-, a.0 ._ on.� O n y y 0 5 L Y U a i na > y U L as a)
y° v0 k. a y-0 a> o m o 8-5= ° E v �? vi- t..o may.
-0symm 5c)>, 00,-15,•..,CL acu.° 0> 0°,cpn =y
4 o
ate) a)y_i .0acay)° Iir..0° 0)ys.. Cp`-.exc_cCaci=.-�.in•°3
t.0._� 3 p m m,a 0 '' y .O cca y5 pn:° u O a ��-7 •-• >.-* a a, °
° 0 a0i .5 ` = 0 .5 w 0 .a O _U y rsSC = O = v ; � t� .a 1 O, ca
r PI: a. > 10.5 C p01=0 ,, 3 U
CO U �-- (rar�� j m > '-,, v,: - y. . y •a c = '� 'v C 0 a) y cd L. cn
U .5 V 45 .°:l. .5 vy, > 3 4 -a > E Q 7 4 Cap '- a w
LGUSD should
w °�
p > = a �, c? o G .. S. ?vim c�
a y '� , >, .L.+ a- c y �. ° H y VJ a L 0 .�-.+ h 3 y
as C C 7 >,•.� y> y p C.:� >, y ,� >, y i 'C Q V] H u, L y •- .-+ ° C Ti 3 -7.
,.>,,
y - ti �C C ca cs v a L L y r a h '� v C -O 5 �• ca V' y C
' o ° �L�� c 5 va, " a y= ti TE �_ ..+ G� c c c v Ttis y `v `� 6y'� cLi 3
O y Cs y 7 C ` y G^ aN- _^ >, y y = Ct� � • w LT. L p .0 y° 7 O. >.,
> L 0 t) ? O 0 0 N in y. r :.° a >� • ca N o p z • .-w C > v- t w• 5- C pan E. 3 y
i ai aC) O v� y y c h cn ? .� vU L cJ -0 C 7 a5i v • 0 0 cc T ai C y v U c.n� F- C/� u L y ai p L> .O ... C ° L
i a m� c o a o::L� oQ a - "s 0 g >" 5 �-- , `m•avis '"3' �cW 0� E c ,,F"•
> c po5ro y f6 tC-C L C,•„O.x•aCC4H • v5 Z .-v ca cz I-. -0 315 EOeyeeoZc �, T� �- a'3?y� yo>,v,3a; - ¢ �a o.=vv') ta)>coao�
° �s L > 7 � 5 ai E $ _ ^ ❑ L.•- ?? c vim N 0- O �3 ? ° °CF) 3
F- a`) E.
•
D? a d I N °_°� r y > °= .� ° I-fl.i
°h o z U
0 O v C c 'y 7 C y G ° Y y c s u°c¢cv° 8 y 0 c o�@al 0 c ocC c°a `-).5 c°a >•L>,?'zOn nca�v ar_.0 vc4, ,Cv)ca3vay - ea
ATTA,
9
CU
•n o °o
RT. g tit
cc ) C c0 a) y O
,- a E o
col -0
r. L' •� 1�.. •T i R
61.0
a)•oo 7. 3E0>y.. )=
r C
C y COS v�� y �, cLU U
y c0 C U.= N 0 C >,O
G C a)
ya>=tairos�sevc�, ° :aEaS7,
yL°ow-.. yE
°)oc�3 °2.0-00%,0
0-2 17i" y 1.5 c4 cv oa
00 R L O c C .x O � o_ C.
oo�m-•43o_v��
E ] a) 2 -0 *tic' a a) a›)
Iy. w 3 •3 yg 3= .c-8s.
a' -0
^
sego Lcy�^may
GYM ai.0t cc i O
w v V .. O y p C 0 C •o��Li :3i. �oo8�=l
CI) 7 CO CEC ' ?y3i
ycE..= pa
,T ,-r-0 ,
. yYssR sSa4.
c •E n.Q•o-s
O •o RO = c
Q 2.1 .� y 0 0 y
c0 a4v. - OU�.r C
>, on O a.)aD O U
s•Ey0"c5c.o
y' C _C ':'-'• R m.'5 6'
ca. 7 0
U. Q) • y c _
Xs.O o a o¢�'
y3Z°Ca>>, o
W
a�'gooLc-
y V,
ij1U1
cy E vX1��°Dti�:
JD 2
p vi z cs)> �-, oDo
0 g y e y�'3 CZ
7 L' U O :C y CO
- 8 y•O vi_ +� y y V Cv�
O O N a) '6 ° y 'C 3 c oI
7 to > 'o � v
c4 = C O cQ > �ZS �G r
°'•Q v - > m� "cs > o .
i �'-`c� Vcyrm
E •�o5,3�,� Clan
a�
y L W a) �•
CU y y _
>° �� o °v'•0 7 y y o cot. y C
y C ) 00 >, c0 ° C •O a) 0 cC c .n _ L 7 Oi C O L .,, C ....s.2 = '? O
c3 w c�C y w o y .p c E G•" O.. cC 3 c Q y y y ---, c> _ 7
c °.y c ai`E ° °�'� •a ny. °o c Rs•> a� ° a) i.� E 0`^ `L° c II¢ - ca c=
.0 o c •a)W'v'�• E av) O.. s'- o a ^Y-=3 lc.ao y o c° cam c° 000 0 TiocC o.�
C = a) c0 w t 5 c C R w :.. L a„) O O O 3 C 7p 0 6 y y e3 vs.
0 O•C t0. iy yU Tv. C,.. ,I3 a) O: rx3v G'� °._e `' L O O --•- 3. cal y a) O y
y o•p O° -O O E y •.••. °• O R 0 y V R1 a) L c- -0 O _I h Ron= y_ as cy w t.. y-
_ '), y p y a = 4 ^ G y °o.p t o .= a O cn Q r •a-) C= .. s0) V Q 7.)
• 3wL O °voD° c-•a 0.0'occ y•C•� 4•y>, .0 coa)E caC •n_
p _ = y) = I... O y .'4 a) y ay 0 0 ._ U -q >,.D 0 ci,a) •... y -.U. co c- y O 2 cm > y 3
O C CO C y ...,CV Ca .0 •- L > C X 0 ° •> .�7 .G ••�-•• > 4.- V .='o I: O .0 w -.C.. O=A y v, E •E 00
u 'y9 '� - y L 3 1 0 6.) cc . TC 0, a C z) o y o y E 3 c� 3 00•4 y. .� 7 C a) � y
.6)a.�33-00vr���•a3..e•-i»._ar aiULyaS�>>..'`'a�"30°oci>cacGa
ryi=.0p,• �•�.,LT• a)>,=gcG1)0>=aio0 °aw)0a°'i0xi 0EE -
y 0, O .T C Q w c--• :: C y O O r E 7 R C cat ,C a) O O p c0 •C ..1 " •0° _y OOD c0
O R O^ O -0 c co c ... on vi O o O' o c y D>ezi) = e0 .0 y^0 Cr) c0 S U
a, a`) 0 Gc4 ea v O p U C O C C C co .O Oco ¢ C p .., 1- E c4 y {'" L •C .0
>' R� 4 �'"" y V C y •L G� U 0 vCi C C I.O. = 00 O O O 0..,--, E- ... w Cl) 3
R 0° �•v.>-o y E a, y c°0a 'n c c 8� � y ai•- o R 3 y o
Et U L C C� C L c0 LE-^.p , ` ° C CO O p yv7 • - 0) 0 0) as 0-0 = yU'o = 0 c)-
y CO 3 c"0 c o coU¢ .�....•0 L-v ..eOD�a asca E 3 E al ° c°
By GLADWYN D'SOUZA
y
cis
L C_
1. ° ° >RC0 v r3• yc0.)
cF.E L ._
>,
yOuy`CCoCon3
Z. L.yOc=o1-Cy..y= N w y L •OCO OD cR O-
=pa) C
o'. -aoyy3y oyc cO"' :nQI- c va > o °o E my•isEra_ v-
II ii
cn
_, c= wLaaEa)•+y'" b3. c°=°o°�rc5.my
IiivaiL
Eq o�o6)o3aoiry?aE•c-,z a."o3• ~>=Qc E 3 v 'E o p. o- U•� y fi•E<5- f� '' H,.0c0••
"p>,►U.•_EyrNaca , yoon-y 6•. a>1 0Cy yI.. �-�W01 4)UaV iogo3�cc0 =0coo°'oOc-bry°o Ly=cREE>y5a.03av1=y•°D>C
•CCLL=•CA0,0^13 0'O 0•0. O09 •E C mc4 4-.2 C0. a) y
° Q O -O-�R y .• cc•U p., C CODyL•o CZ 3�¢% 0.. Lt.FCaRU� V yy a) .0 CE a a: 3o 935 e•E..... acoy°¢ EOE-' c4
c o
y n y
p pa -mow o
C O R o O O• z
a v C •y > i p a t •E 0 O
ezt
_ C y
Q U C '�' > 0 .0 T.;y 00 a:
N c O O E ri d cC u r °_) O a)•v
al
p s> •p O ca 0. a.' y ¢) U n $ L y
eL)(y� O. �-• O i0.
E °� c4 'O "' 6.3 O f3' _ • C r O v' .HOC 7
.=yam=�-y�^�EE4.)yCO
c0 >
I - en
7 L. L CO. .= v D CO ' O .T y
v .0 cn
° .O cr.) > c0 OD • OD 0 c •� L G O c '_.. . a) I••' =
L CO y c0 • J S .- U 4 O >, 'J - . •O In C c0 y y :: •- • O
nO•� ci, C y=. N p y U c y 7 0 0 0 L s o O .. = p c 7
ti0u3y•C �L�• EoWa>ic.E••OO cco °�coEFL-o
OD y v- 0 7. ,- .`" - e' O E G a) -0 0 3 c s O L
c c s c E °oc) y c I.-,-y h. �-° 3 n�Lo� •=.-.� E o
.D :.... 0 C N8. C WI •� Z t •'O y y c0 ak c=0 = F w R > '" (-_ O - >,
• OD C6 'J c L C O> •D L . y
GEL-0 _se c az = y *0 °= ° 80-0 G= EF�:0'ao•` c aC; chLC(77?..E r. c -
y•.c C Ry c p 0 „ C =UcT•L 3 L N 17' 0 CV c0 O O cL �4 co OD CO •• .. 7•.
_
C
m D S N
5 //miIl� ^/-" tr�°� d °3 0s ti�°c.S y >r a�
�. ¢ ,y U ci)i..I•i •�no; Z o o y > L U CT -- a) too.�
Fu 3.
QD W O Ea. �L� L-o a) o • ;.z c 0-o 0 a)
C o
Z y
6°, rn �E
E C c L o
, C E _ „ y
c
0
L
O O ••� 3 •- vyi B � � O c0 p 7 0^ G R` •k-
cL.C� y ° ¢ C '7 y N
0DEL ^ N C •c 0 C V, �p•U ^ p v
¢•-3cQG�E•ELc0c=boo
ao�, ( 30 3.0 �.E¢ 8 ��
cis C � O c.. 0 b. ?.
c2 E R 0 b H R vs 0 0 a) Y t .0- a> 4) 3 o 0 C ...
N 6. Y w ° R C u0. O O y d 7 0.0 y ..3 +O G E 0.4 eCJ O
= r.. 0 O..0 v)a.. C s y O 0 O O co o0^0 `O s E. p 0 as yg0 R 0 T 0
GQ E2 CI ° 0 -O t 0 • F` 0 O -O grj y v, T. y 0 7a oct y .cLS va O p i R 00
C= N
Is 0 y y :;s�.o >,a> O to Rb� o y'c> o'�� >'t C ti3s
C c0 C R C R .0 'fl y s 2 a0•= ° C y V 0 0 .. CO y.0 `C > E O
yC o o, 0 22 i O O C ....5 C-,E 0- U 1.. u ay. 0 0
C L 0 C O .0 U >, >, O cC 0. 0 3 00 C.- R C t, y R 0 a) 0 y• �.Y E O 'O
O C R R 0 W•� 17 .... .0 O V
> o C O a> 0 y a� = E 0 c 0 0 'o o coSs';� E 0� `� Ems' o° c
0 0 4° c0i ° E R y 0iz 3 0 0.2,.8Q y a 0 >,�c E' E C4r•o a
Cn -•-• 0 •' 3.) c.) E= o � R a_s wr R.o Tc c E� c.R � C O C°
,..ay> a...�ayoy a>">coa)3a�R_co1.10,,`'_0�Ec�s
O a c O O y R y 0 c co > c, R to c 0 0- co s
6V�g� 3 ti-5 c R c R a)Es.,� N y�� $� . 0 a& 8 ac a- c
c.c .„F,..,f, 3 R 3 o.c.:: U ° "> c> cL u =° c°a o c.c°i c°a. E c..
-8vi R oc 75
,y, �EoEa>•8� son
aN�• 0 a> >' a> c° c'`oQ c`a 3 3 0 Y c y o c c y
s a> v;sQ
c �� 0_�0.>=0 oR
0 'O 0 0 E 0 in E 0
0= aypa o' y E p �. C Ot >,.� 3 C 3 N O Iiji
0 0yp�,�o0.0 6 NC 02O O "' C R cQ O a.. Q O .�.00V.,rL..�.. 0 0 0 0 R 0 24 R a) FA
:� E O O Q a> � >, 0 0 0 R .- 00 ti. >; 0 a- c°) 0 E a> o a. x a> INC .O
O o..-. 0.- O�'0 0 > •0 ?' va..C•R R O O C Os o.0 >'C ay..0 ,_ R U O >
to o s 0 co aaj R 0 .0 u 0 R h cC o4� C �.0 w O N •
o02 C O O O a. C= R
C 0x d CO C 2 0. 0.) O' 0 O i y c =�•y.�- - CO E a) Os co ..... y y OQ
R O v0i .y R �' C C >, .: C Q) ... 3 'r C O CO 0 y C p .a oD C 0 a.. G a.. '� �: yy
_ ar N O8 ^- .0 y �C y O O cO N i> ca D R R A O v. > O C-0 R C O
C a.. ii C r. O 40us a) 0 - 'O 6-0
g
,4�Q co'Q 0 ais �c ci 0.°1 A y ar °a'°"o ao ca �•- a» R e Y
OF. c
eg ': 3 E 0 a> U 2 3 ,� Q >, E 9. cc 5 vs .- c o .a :° 3 R� T == 2 .R- 0
•.• cQ C 0 0 b N
y V Si). O' 0 y co t FR„ . E G C
° A O 0 C Q 0 4.0 R = C
• ..y .:: RR • s •�0=
0 _
D•C R y TO N C C> co... 0
OEcca-�°c°y4.00�cli Es
= O .. COa 0 0 0 0 0. O (:)0 y w •..
v) V y 2. L N i0. O i 0 '0 va R
O .O 0 co Cw R v O C 0 t
V R a 0 R T R . ce v°i O --+ 0 _O
Qy -_ cG w R N 0 .a 0 7 .r? 0
,.Z •0 jw .. 2 = t 0 on Ts W "
05.1:11..0 sc..... co,
cn
>, e
O 0 £ a) 0
0 0
3 00-0 t .15
o0 .0 0 y �aa, yO R
s c_ce = o E R
a0•��agu
.. p yy
�i w C C '- C R w S.
ea: C $°> c E
G 0 0 0 0 •a y~ c>6
=N s a. a). E .0
la3 aci o A -g
C
ca ai `° ., ao y O
> •3 VsC0 -O 0
G. ooC C 'L.0. w CCv V]
vs.0
yol R U 0 fl C C 0 C R R O_ .0 0 a0> rR, ° p,..,
Q ^ 'O 0 O tC 3 0 R ° d OD 0 'in E Y R- N O m a0• O„ •� C �, O
C 'O J ".. 6 > 6e > 0 y C U '> •' 0...0 R E-8 0 cr0 ° 'in > O C y
O L4 o c.S =•- o = osym o� 3,5o'ery•�3 o��CiCs R•= a> • y_ �s
W R O E ai 5 •.:� P. 2 v ayi 0 y, p 0� y y p 0 o 0 s F'" " y E O' 'p Q
0 -> 0. c° o- y W a. c0o C a> O O ti. E" 0 c ... V m L y ° 0 s 0 R
W C R 0 R R R 0 a) > U .+ pp E. y �+ L « y L
u:in_ `ooYa�0ea>e3° ¢> L7>,c sIs ce _z.e-'o=a)Rus 3". V) •R,,�ca y
v 0 pp w, 0 E y >, C Oifi 0 -? O. > 0 a., > C
W c$ 0, a) a H d O .n' F; 0 0 'fl 0 •C 0 13 Ca a> I, 0 Q R It.,
0 G 'd => as
0 COi C .r tu °) s
O. C •O c c c s 0 ',E 0 '0 0 - c ._. " s O -se O >, 7 0 7
v,00v �'~u+v-a>i3Rocc ce�.o o�a•os 0 5
�� o c o cc o 5 a) o 0 0.5.c° 0.• 9 43 a'y.y cc R u 5 =a- a°i Ysss
� ^6 8 -2. 8 T� s. a as a> E� Y •o 3 � H� �= c o a y U .....
OPINION
)1/5jei
idea
)me
before the
ull swing,
rchants are
)f reduced
of the
wn-
a revitalized
iervous
spaces
the holiday
,opping season.
Many retailers
upward of
) percent of
idays. Soothing
are frustrated
)s is something
iad to do to
arse.
coppers
an
Let's hope
'ear it attitude
)ld Town
feet is finished,
at it was worth
tat Los Gatos
ition.
:ommended
cars to be
parking,
nper.
he perfect time
g could be
ms of shopping
"Friendly,
arse -drawn
et parking make
isit Los Gatos
ime has come.
it owners
y to create
vhen the
ns into
:y Fair during
For that matter —
le upon the
many people are generous
in giving their emotional
support as well.
The Peckler Memorial
Relay was a tribute to our
dearly loved friends, Jim,
Jill and Jeff Peckler, who
were killed in January by a
drunken driver. On
Sunday, Oct- 26, the
Peckler Memorial Relay
was sponsored by CASA to
raise money for The Teen
Counseling Center of the
West Valley, A Place for
Teens (the Outhouse) and
CASA. Community
Against Substance Abuse.
Many teams who
participated in the relay
came up with some creative
names for their teams, such
as The Jay Walkers, the
Daves Avenue Road
Rookies, Footloose and
Fancy, Maltie's Fast
Trackers, The Slugs. The
Gimpies, the Mermaids and
Fun Friends, to name a few.
Many, many thanks to
our sponsors who have
offered to help. We are so
appreciative.
JOANNE RODGERS
Relay chairperson
Car dealers must
learn to get along
with bicyclists
I was outraged to read
the lopsided view of the car
dealers on the subject of
bike lanes on Los Gatos
Boulevard in the Oct. 15
issue of the Los GATOS
WEEKLY -TIMES.
But today my faith in
humanity is restored. I just
read the article by Gladwyn
d'Souza on the same subject,
but from the real world.
The day that car dealers
and their concerns for
profit have a say over the
safety and pleasure of the
residents in a town is the
day I move myself and my
family out of that town.
I lived for many years in
Los Gatos, and now in
Monte Sereno. Our family
and neighbors ride our bikes
all around town, for pleasure
and, when possible, for
business. Bike riding is
growing in popularity every
day. Steps have got to be
taken to make our streets
safer for bikes to co -exist
with cars. This is a Great
opportunity for Los Gatos to
set a precedent. I genuinely
hope the town realizes the
importance of this matter.
DAVE PARMLEY
Monte Sereno
Couldn't Internet
block access
with 900-like
technology?
Call me dung but
something is really
puzzling me: the talk about
censoring the Internet for
youngsters in libraries.
If the phone companies
have 900 numbers to
distinguish adult content
(and provide blocking),
why can't the Internet
address system be fixed to
do the same?
Blocks exist at the caller
ID level, A server
recognizes the source
and thedestination.
Call me nuts, but if phone
companies can offer
900 blocking, why can't
Internet providers block
certain classes of address?
MiKE HALL
Monte Sereno
-- page 15
LETTERS
Many Los Gatans
offered to help
with Peckler
family relay
I would like to second the
letter to the editor from
Janice Benjamin in the
Oct_ 15 issue of the Los
GATOS WEEKLY -TIMES in
which she stated how lucky
we are to live in such a
generous community. There
are so many wonderful
people in Los Gatos who
give so generously of their
time. their expertise and
their monetary support. So
Opinion Policy
The WEEKLY -TIMES
strives to present a full
speorurn of community
opinion on these pages.
Letters to the editor,
commentary pieces and
cartoons reflect the
opinions of their authors
and do not necessarily
reflect the editorial opinion
of the WEEKLY -TIMES.
Letters to
the Editor
The WEEKLY -TIMES
welcomes letters comment-
ing on its coverage and on
topics of local interest. Be
sure to sign your letter, and
please provide your
address and daytime phone
number so we can reach
you in case of questions
We encourage
letters to be a maximum
length of 250-300 words.
Letters can be sent via
email to lgwl@sjmetro.com.
The WEEKLY -TIMES
reserves the right to edit
letters for length and clarity
and to correct factual errors
known to us The deadline
is Wednesday.
DECINZO
Los GATOS
WEEIQY-
TINIFS
Published every Wednesday
by Metro Newspapers, a locally
owned publishing company
Dale Bryant
editor
Dick Sparrer
sports editor
Shari Kaplan
features editor
Michelle Alaimo.
Jeff Kearns
staff writers
John S. Baggerly,
Mary Ann Cook.
Suzanne Cristallo
co/umni.sts
George Sakkestad,
Robert Scheer
photographer.
Steven DeCinzo
cartoonist
Anne Gelhaus
copyeditor
Carol Bee
proofreader
Jeannette Close
sales manager
Nanci Rivers
senior account executive
Caroll Bourdillon
account executive
Daneka Mandy
advertising assistant
Karen DeWitt
classified sales director
Steven Freeman, Melanie Perez
classified account executives
Cristine Alvarez,
Tamar Teifeld
legal advertising representatives
Lisa Thomas
classified operations manager
Robin Mendez
editorial production manager
Kay Henry
office manager
Dan Pulcrano
president and exeauive editor
Scott LeVander
marketing director
Petra Sherey
controller
Sharan Street
editorial operations director
Lisa Berry
production director
David Cohen
publisher
incorporating the Los Gaels Woddv
News. !MI: Los Gast MaiL /8Rr
Las Gatos Emerprue. Ma; .Mama
Realty' 1903; Los Gatos Mad -News.
1916; Saratoga Star, 1925: Las Gatos
Times, 1934; Saratoga °lams. 19 7:
Lars Gatos Daily Times, 1949; Las,
Gatos Tiares-ohserver, ���¢
Gatos Weekly, 19PL Order
ed
pater of Fhrcral caralationa1
e Mw:
(lam County Superior ,
F ltic U Y Q U U U -
- = -C >L g L O IL 0.)5h _ L- 046 R •+ y O c a_c0 L a O_G pnv•orey V,1C = CG. °>
RS
-s
/;. L N .G aO � �y -a U pC7spmE' =-2p myIIC a)y�n E moNy =7 50 Rc :0 G% `. s'CuC a- a) -: L. .� E-o m 0) -0 ca � Q•0 vi uc RR =yon •s U��coo E o c oo w>.: �, - QQZ° -
(-.. H .Rom8
=c ea 3 :- O
_.- C'
•
E c.3 _',3QQ
0-
-=..Ca. 3C 8.2
yyp
L EL yC p ="�3= , -c u •= ea_ 33 U Y
W
y.• 7
p_..
•
i
O-u, O C a) C .,- = .D .°>.Oy p y yL Y-•` `C > yZ : a_t .0 2 = W ia y O p � C=L i � O yL o'er°°CSCO> a y c Q 0
C24 • e.
CL
=Qc-a) •C��as-CO C y^m¢ c¢�Rg �RyCa.wJ�ys 03 A _ C L E.a) O p ••y r= laC cy p s 1a4) - ?C n•_ NC ] G = g,-• p (.,3 E, = ca 3y e... - V cr• E _'0 0 a°• a] o°y•a•C3OC7=Lv_tjo0oyO Fo c ° �4-� =sQ oEv a1• E� a L� .) L'R C•.z Fr yg O-�=Do o yQN_ c y L �•y_ smO ay N y" ]
el'
ac u y =c O T. )=>yC •=O- 2
a)2=4)�,= a
.OaL_yyxY• L =•a 0c LCO C i W C a) G.- 0.
ZxxY
.
LyQC>41
a)aLu. O6Ti .04-L O •> .ON ca p 0,,) ° `a y = as 4) 'L cis y U :•'
yj a s 0.0 Ca)Ec..• Ci m .0L =Q g �.5=-Ca >U E 3 E. .a e°cou� yC,cc` ea Qy V L CEva -0 .0 y W
RI
y�o�u.r ^., OLw 3 40 0 y_ y = o' O00 Ca•_L 3 as V E >,
CA = c pi y4.e = atE d -° RR E aas ya1LtG vy d . C 6. 0• 0 0 ==wool:32-10E F=JD>'C=•Q O •••• " 3 � C •"' '� •L GC Q C > °_pm= a) y e,,=0 O JD a) >1 i.v() y•O.� UUe•ax>C L y O GZa3L=0 E °pO'V
fl,
aa c O .r 7G ad "0 mL co A vcCVI a) UEyy =Eya rt "cu 4. 2y T'G E > a) ° 6 1>2, :c ) y L c.
Ep.E L .0 p 9 s.9 a 0 3 = C° 5eCC Z-yLC" •e3= >s o acl c. c'H''' 9O >, as m •y a .0 . O = E a G 8-0 yE i0.--=ORg^.>=Le':iC 8_-oC E °°scy$Eev =�>ooaEoei on.9-y. 0.0.eceaacoEea=-=u3 3o�•C„,0G.=a .,Lac a.. Ec.L 30we LcaoC=sa,05� o5a V=oo.:? c C �= =R=s00 = L- °aa) N C ._• O = O ea O y= C•.. •L yy 2 Lv=L7trR»E=`0 >,_c 2°)cE'Va 0 - uy i C Z. -' U� a>V
Rac E0Lw°uc•L.50E°TC600r O le a ca � 6.3., c E E >, Q) y -oo"Q y >,.C •= =O C6?�p' ^0 0 _ y L o ytcOXNyEa.+ 7 t C,LCais a 23 cCuOU .v7L3 Z p a .° a) a) 3 0o
e,a .o-p c._0L.p--'0agE�.y " 3 = 7 c RI .= E C C3 .p'C= y)-o a) p ..= "y s1y.0a > a)..o a00 y 0=0 ....T.a=t = L = i ,- •- v
Ay ..-L a u - E y G y• ce >•L .,=°° °Q=)°V]L cQLLwaa)mC-_= Ovi pyi...VU 0G -L
vv
a °.y COaODCC eCACaWy...a=3Uea
=.a''p -sa°c0- sEra) to °a)eC >+,a g co E_..° N oG.Cto
>,ma.=;G3.-o8 >�7 ou-uwv8cEO>,��'5,aE==cC. °-==•=.ils>a, C= y4Yy Ea cc:Oa) sy..+ ' O V uy y Op 'y.>�vs'p-_ a) cc ,_ ,
o -C?'- m=_.p LsL_a} ea-CaI: RwC -'aG aa)>?C n� O. yCVU > NY) u >>Cc=GCaE.- 1---aRcuyCp7L
.0 i, C L3 = ... v, s U -acoV•- hcs' an sEOc).1 U ;Uor0=E y-cs ua.y ...r O 00I.^.O'=."�.a•=. C ocs,C• °�O•° h V•=e 0 -O C = �= , =yyCs '.= 0 d •. - = ?,•3U304 s as aa- a
0,47y • u'V, L52,.v.0 p�L�Q=,t58o5),ta 5?'a•y�O .LyOQ6"p L°=-�oC
<�`°'-'+...y.a. 4-
'R•v=emu.--yo>.3=oy.N�L.�•Dy7O�R.�.-c yy?c?Cys_iFp. 3yLyAY=UyyEa ,_"fr..=-_ ...L ON33�°u.y Q y yO.Cs=EN =a),pOyioaL_,)R�'Cu -)Q= ai0 s N O .. o C.h ca-L G > o_-1 3 a) aL C3 L",aa.-0 - 3s > •0.9.E O Oaco..•••• w w U�L ye:s =- . a) av
•
.16
CC
to)
au)
q . y :mo4O FL cCID F ..' ', >.N. coLD -D>_L .I. sv0 co c a) •o•- a) I..
ass:°o�=.cc yy.o 1eau OY=C= C_ C°3aiU U,_1 -3-'•_, ,. �U
CO
=o
�y ,,O c CnR
O.C O a .. ea _ ._ 'p W m O
NO• =L°aO_ =C E•• r ELs y o E .. -C)y.Y••- E 0.=oo4- 0a) a
O C .�
2.= OO -' m� � 'C'C5�^.ds-ELao wE ,0y p.= i
�oc E ii
c>°'`••Lu.au=RpL=C S a° vc>,. UO>.sN:.R=73 uu� �c�y ��yo��o ma°Q°ssE > > a.= 0 ai >.a=c-, Ca>e>,�'oE•-v
•
° 1hI1i
a) a)
_a)
_C .•. p>�-on:-+�ass.a, o= L * = Z A:GG >OL Q RI• y>ay`. '=
C
pU=u ao0 a)c s TL ,•=iZ'_ • E7•�>y CU G y
D4' Vu ° _OOa
•R
6. ua.) �co otwgy=Vi�..0t iL 'a alwL hs �0 E .°Lc. O co c-p
v�' C..G a) 7 CO O R a 4, C/] �, ° •G a-vG' : NO- R06)aL 1c�. u •
c,c �ss c3ccyLi.R- o
= >o`°ccuLa - GA C a) v oa0ac L E = cca.•=7 ,_°' �'cCai s't °CU �,=u.=s-oa„oa.o3_ Osv y> a.E = '=oE.�,oCcy o0=3>R.o s.co i cE^� -O'i: C`v) o = " _ Ryl4• v,
a°a •C_ d �:v- h. C N •-• >, yz= c•ti aca =�x,_a Oc a)., = v, p •r'
.4) uL..0 E 6.uQ co c y O iJ.I=L_..vi80 a))=CEE '" =Lep_..= ..-
c oy0s=«.�aCn
L _s a•O o°weWE
c..) o-° 3-oo�3-;auv, GCo��is�
.-
0 ,ct: V. y Z a)Lp y p -'' C0 O s O OEE C O c� LO L° ay p? p ```
_O w= N 3 c) = uQt _Lapa y•ass=.. ' yE o.S >
•
�+ -. uc 8 pC7G=°oao°s-LLEs r)Rc
r-�4-i CCt asC.,a0 u3ys ..8seas.= va� 3s 3L�ey-5
L
y
L
kC •a ..= _ 5 a •°c h• C C. > 0-) .= y.r. V = L .Ey •R 7.7 O =
m�2O oatia =C=0.0 OiYO viE:°O=RLR>,R o >,y _n=-0Oyyss co L UE
`a00C a-L cC (- - -0 .0 3.0 cC > .. °0 C L O ° Oc , E vc 3 - 'p La co = = ;3 eaa- s c c E c R r Uo 00 di c 3 = 0 .-O '-oo•.ea wa o -- .., .r =1... p ° c OC .'L a?>. E •y_ O .A>-,CE cC icoOS )°p..= o'=0...0 °OCp O •g r.Cy T..pEa= s0Ls (.,
O=a,aooasc=C s. a._ Ey . -°•U on6'x a- -.Oo.cs-• coua>icuC Cu'=a-Z<0c6.j
0.==_-Cco_peR�C O'O7' ,_uCL_E=E- y-) Lt y =COQw
NOyADL•.EH A2=G.��..a. L U yw 0oo= O uG'-= o a.COflci, p.Cay•= a.) _ U . c � v )• ., c L '2GCUinp•_
LL5_°==° 3 a a) O •a = y a y R.,o y {A - _ _r'0 - =---v C =-•)oCC ; `'- cc, L>, y =3'ona) c_.su-s _ -- s= ia)•cCFa)>,Oa) a) C y O 5o qu ao L � p 00 o L �s,a s-sa y'on E a a) •L-°s._°m_ E •_ =°�H 'C a c aa y R •- a 9yy•=E.=E03Lc-0vua y--•Ra-===a4C H EO L°oo EwQ °- O R cl H w6)•7U-h O 9
j p co p a °°�e'>'c c co _ ° a: :y '2s, = o ��° °-u °c Lo L e v,
>,- my eaL�3_a-c°4->u EOL E ca -vsQ c E H u ou a) aE y u=°c• c3�ru o u = I-. p L y O c= p cn y y C a) c p a) L aai a p L .0 .= CA a.) » a) y C7-3 3FoE -o 5asoca..,aa3u3'5ca0..eaeo cc-0y
c.• 0.coeoe,se0.eoE-_.0 toco.0=
To: General Plan Committee
From: Linda Lubeck
Report to the General Plan Committee
Information/conclusions from research on Los Gatos Blvd. Plan
1. I attended a session at the League of California Cities conference in San Francisco in
October specifically on the subject of "traffic calming". The panel was made up of
traffic engineers, elected officials, and fire dept. personnel. The handout was
approximately two inches thick and contained many reports on what other
communities are doing to "calm traffic", what works and what doesn't and why, and
other facts and figures from various communities' experience. The first article
gathered data on different types of measures. One of the conclusions from
communities which have narrowed lanes to calm traffic was that there was no
increase in traffic accidents, but that it did result in a reduction of the speed an
average of 4.5 mph. (The ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) has set traffic calming
as one of its two top priorities for the next few years.)
2. I spoke with the panel members after the session. None felt that there is any problem
with 11' lanes on arterial streets, either from a safety standpoint, nor from a capacity
standpoint. One of the members was from Texas and informed me that Houston has
been making their lanes 11' for quite a while now, and found it to work admirably.
3. I contacted the National Automobile Dealers Association (our dealers are members
according to NADA's web site) requesting any information they had on studies on
ingress and egress for dealers to be successful. The association does not have any
guidelines or recommendations, but believes that the manufacturers do have
established guidelines. I was unable to locate an e-mail address or phone number for
any of the manufacturer's that could give me this information. In reviewing other
items on NADA's site, I found two interesting articles which discussed the
association's findings, statistics, and forecasts. A 1996 forecast, Project 2000,
forecasts that "Dealerships will continue to be the means by which new vehicles are
merchandised to the public, although their numbers are expected to fall by 100 to 125
dealerships per year. All manufacturers will continue to try to trim their dealership
populations so that fewer dealerships with higher sales per outlet can survive on the
lower profit potential expected on each vehicle." However, a press release from
August 5, 1997 states "Erosion in the total dealership count has eased over the past
three years; the current total of 22,700 reflects a net decline of only 50 dealerships in
each of the past three years. The decline is concentrated in dealerships selling fewer
than 150 unites per year, which dropped in number from 13,100 in 1977 to 4,540 in
1997." The Project 2000 report concluded that "Dealers are tenacious competitors
and have shown that they can adapt to any challenges the marketplace produces".
4. Auto dealers were concerned about the wider trucks being manufactured today.
According to the official specs, the widest trucks that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge make
range in width from 93.5 inches (7' 9.5") to 95.4 inches (7' 11.4"). According to Jim
Zanardi at Green Valley, the garbage trucks cannot be more than 8' wide plus
mirrors.
10
5. In looking for other information on the web, I sent out many e-mails but got few
responses. I am still trying.
6. One of the web sites found was called the Pedestrian Safety Roadshow. Attached is a
copy of some of the information from this site. The Secretary of the Department of
Transportation actually has an initiative going to promote pedestrian and bicycle
safety. A part of this program is the Partnership for a Walkable America. (See
attached.) A second interesting web site belongs to a new group CASAD, Citizens
Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving (see attached). Their mission is to slow
down traffic, curb aggressive driving, and significantly reduce auto -related deaths and
injuries. One of their committees is studying traffic calming measures.
Conclusions from talking, reading, writing:
We could continue to look for more support, but nothing presented to date has shown any
safety problem or capacity reduction from reducing lane widths to 11'. Narrower lanes
have however been shown to be an effective traffic calming measure, reducing speeds by
an average of 4.5 mph. There appears to be a lot of effort by a lot of people nationwide
to study ways to make our streets accessible and comfortable for all modes of
transportation (autos, pedestrians, and bicycles), so it appears we are on the same track as
many other people.
One of the arguments against reducing lane widths has to do with people's perception
when they are driving the larger vehicles on narrower lanes. I spent a day last week using
one of the larger vehicles (a Dodge Ram 3500) to move my office files. I drove the
vehicle to downtown San Jose and then into downtown Los Gatos. I admit, that the
vehicle feels larger (because it is), but at no time did I feel crowded. I attempted to
imagine having one less foot on the lane, and still felt no discomfort. I did notice,
however, that I tended to drive slightly slower when I felt as if I was in somewhat tight
spaces.