Loading...
Item 19 Staff Report Consider Status Report on Glen Ridge Avenue Stop SignsMEETING DATE: 10/01/01 ITEM NO. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: September 27, 2001 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN) OUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGE SUBJECT: CONSIDER STATUS REPORT ON GLEN RIDGE AVENUE STOP SIGNS RECOMMENDATION: A. Receive -public input. B. Authorize placement of new stop signs on Glen Ridge Avenue, as a pilot project. C. Authorize staff to hold a neighborhood meeting four months from installation of stop signs. D. Authorize staff to prepare a status report after the neighborhood meeting for Council consideration. BACKGROUND: In September, 2000, the Town received a petition from residents of Glen Ridge and Nicholson Avenues requesting traffic calming measures along these streets. The petition requested stop signs, crosswalks and a solid yellow center line to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety. The request was assigned to the Parks and Public Works Department. Due to staff turnover, this request was not processed until the summer of 2001. New staff was assigned the task of analyzing and managing this and a number of other outstanding citizen traffic calming requests. Staff contacted the petition originators to arrange a neighborhood meeting, which occurred on Thursday, August 9, 2001 in the Glen Ridge Avenue area. Staff made arrangements to have expert opinion for the meeting: a traffic consultant from TJKM Transportation Consultants and Police Traffic Coordinator Sgt. Gravel. Notices were sent to all residents of Glen Ridge Avenue and residents along intersecting streets. Nineteen residents signed the August 9 meeting's attendance sheet, representing Glen Ridge, PREPARED BY: Mar illespietGreenber J Inte Administrative Analyst Mt o5rper, AssistanrFown Manager erector of Parks & Public Works Reviewed by: Attorney ryC'•Finance Revised: 9/27/01 2:16 PM Reformatted: 5/30/01 N:\B&E\CNCLRPTS\council report Glenridge 10-1-01 wpd.wpd (Th r PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: GLEN RIDGE AVENUE STOP SIGNS September 27, 2001 Massol, Belmont, Nicholson and Bachman Avenues. Staff lead a discussion which identified the following concerns: • Speeding traffic in both directions along Glen Ridge Avenue. • Cut -through traffic coming up from downtown to avoid the signals and stop signs on their commute. • Safety concerns for pedestrians trying to cross Glen Ridge at Bachman, Nicholson and Hernandez Avenues. The Traffic Engineer suggested conducting a "destination study", but attendees were adamant that additional traffic surveys would take too much time to resolve their concerns and that stop signs were their preference. Attendees were informed that stop signs could assist pedestrians crossing the street at intersections, could cut down on cut -through traffic if there is some, but there are no guarantees that drivers would stop. Alternative solutions suggested included the following: • Speed limit and pedestrian crossing signs, either as sign posts or written on street. • Solid Yellow center line, either approaching the intersections or all the way along the street • Speed dots approaching intersections. The discussion included identifying the various safety concerns along Glen Ridge Avenue at each intersection. The consensus of this meeting's attendees was to install stop signs and crosswalks at three intersections along Glen Ridge, at Bachman, Hernandez and Nicholson, to have these intersections become all -way stops. The other alternatives did not receive consensus. Staff informed the attendees the work would be done within two weeks and the meeting ended. Within two weeks, a work order was initiated by the Public Works staff. While the stop signs were being installed, staff received information that an Interim Traffic Calming Policy had been adopted by Town Council in March 2000, and additional notification of the neighborhood meeting's results and a report to Town Council on the neighborhood meeting outcome and recommendation for approval of a three month pilot program were necessary before any changes occur. Staff immediately contacted their work crew to stop installing the signs. However, five of the six signs were already installed. In our efforts to aggressively move forward and resolve this outstanding issue, staff inadvertently bypassed the formal process as adopted in the Interim Traffic Calming Policy that requires this request to be authorized by Council before proceeding. A second neighborhood meeting was arranged and occurred Thursday, September 13 to inform residents of the Interim Traffic Calming Policy and the required actions needed to correct this procedural error, including a requirement to obtain 67% support of the residents on the street for the traffic calming measures, which in this case would be the newly installed stop signs. Residents were also informed of a report to Council concerning these new stop signs planned for October 1, 2001. The residents at this meeting indicated they would attempt to circulate petitions to show support for the newly installed stop signs along Glen Ridge Avenue. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: GLEN RIDGE AVENUE STOP SIGNS September 21, 2001 The Interim Traffic Calming Policy states that the 67% support is to be demonstrated by a petition signed by the residents along a street. To reach a 67% support level on Glen Ridge, twenty-eight of the forty-three residences would need to indicate their support. The original petition had fifteen residences represented, signed by twenty-two residents along Glen Ridge and Nicholson Avenues, all residences immediately adjacent to Glen Ridge. Although the required 67% approval was not reached in the original petition, three petitions have been received since the September 13 meeting, stating support for the new stop signs. An amended petition was received on September 21, 2001 increasing the Glen Ridge representation to thirty-one residences, surpassing the required 67%. A petition was received on September 24 from residents along Pennsylvania Avenue, stating their support of the newly installed stop signs. Additionally, this petition requested similar measures for their street. Staff will consider the petition for Pennsylvania Avenue in accordance with the Interim Traffic Calming Policy. Finally, on September 25, a petition supporting the improvements was received signed by residents on Ellenwood Avenue, an intersecting street with Glen Ridge. One driveway access concern has been reported by a Glen Ridge resident to the Public Works Division regarding the stop sign installed just past their driveway on Glen Ridge across from Hernandez Avenue. At times a queue of vehicles makes it difficult for the resident to enter their driveway as this residence can only enter and exit towards Hernandez due to the steep angle of their driveway. The Public Works Division engineers are assessing whether improvement to the sidewalk and/or relocation of this stop line by a few feet will improve this situation. The resident has stated they support the stop signs in concept. DISCUSSION: Although staff had copies of the TJKM report recommending an interim traffic calming policy, it was unaware that it had been adopted. In fact, staff was drafting a recommended traffic calming policy incorporating methods used by nearby municipalities, as well as reviewing the TJKM interim policy. Staff made every effort to correct the procedural error once it was identified. Staff promptly arranged a neighborhood meeting and informed residents of the policy and procedures. The residents at the meeting indicated a concern over possible removal of these signs and have submitted petitions requesting to keep the stop signs for the "pilot period". The petitions indicate a significant majority of the residents support these traffic calming devices. Additionally, there are overtures from other areas requesting the Parks and Public Works Department to conduct a formal traffic calming review in the near future: nearby Hernandez and Pennsylvania Avenue residents are indicating they are interested in traffic calming measures to increase pedestrian safety, slow speeding vehicles and reduce cut -through traffic. Traffic calming is a quality of life issue as well as a safety and traffic controlling effort. In some PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: GLEN RIDGE AVENUE STOP SIGNS September 27, 2001 Traffic calming is a quality of life issue as well as a safety and traffic controlling effort. In some instances where traffic volumes may not warrant a stop sign or other device, the Town Council has the discretion to approve it. CONCLUSION: If authorized by the Council, the stop signs would remain for a trial "pilot" period of at least three months, after which time the traffic calming changes will be evaluated. A neighborhood meeting will be held to receive input and a final 51% support, verified by petition, would need to be obtained by supporters for these changes to be permanent. A report summarizing the results of the traffic calming measures and the neighborhood meeting will then be forwarded to Council for consideration. Staff is preparing material for Council's review in November concerning possible modifications to the Interim Traffic Calming Policy. At this time, of the nine projects underway, (not including Winchester/Daves or South Santa Cruz Ave Ramp Metering), no actions have been or will be taken that are inconsistent with the Interim Traffic Calming Policy. Additionally there are a number of routine traffic engineering requests that the Department is managing that do not meet the traffic conditions identified in the Interim Traffic Calming Policy. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Is a project as defined under CEQA, but is categorically exempt under 15301(c). A Notice of Exemption will not be filed. FISCAL IMPACT: The installation of the stop signs is included in the annual Public Works Department budget, as on -going staff and maintenance costs. Attachments: 1. Original Glen Ridge petition dated September 20, 2000, with Town's acknowledgement. 2. Summary of first neighborhood meeting, August 9, 2001 3. Summary of second neighborhood meeting September 13, 2001 4. Second Glen Ridge petition received September 21,2001 5. Pennsylvania petition received September 24, 2001 6. Ellenwood Avenue petition received September 25, 2001 7. Summary of Interim Traffic Calming Policy 8. Interim Traffic Calming Policy 9. Maps of Glen Ridge Avenue area Distribution: Residents on Glen Ridge, and citizens who attended either of the two Glen Ridge meetings and/or signed a petition concerning the Glen Ridge stop signs. List maintained by staff. TOWN OF Los GATOS OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL (408) 354-6801 FAX: (408) 354-8431 September 22, 2000 Victor Collord 399 Nicholson Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 Subject: Council Referral Dear Mr. Collord: CIVIC CENTER 110 E. MAP! STREET P.O. Box 949 Los GATOS, CA 95031 Thank you for your letter requesting installation of traffic calming measures at Glenridge Avenue and Nicholson. I have asked the Town Manager to review it and prepare a response. If you do not hear from the Town Manager or another staff member by September 29, 2000, please feel free to call me at 354-6801. Sincerely yours, 44(141 STEVEN $CANTON Mayor SB:pg MGR175 A:uetterslcollord.wpd cc: Town Council Larry Perlin, Director of Parks & Public Works D ECEHED ., SEP ? r3 1999 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887 Attachment 1 F IVEL S E P 2 2 2000 MAY Ole & TOWN COUNCIL Los Gatos Town Council Los Gatos, Calif 95032 Victor Collord 399 Nicholson Avenue Los Gatos, Calif. 95030 0 Ti ' OF LOS GATOS OFFICE OF TOWN CLERK Members of the Los Gatos Town Council, I and many of my neighbors are very concerned about the traffic on Glenridge Avenue and Nicholson Hill. Many of the automobiles and trucks traveling on Glenridge Avenue are exceeding the speed limit. Both automobiles and trucks are crossing the center line to oncoming traffic which is extremely dangerous. In addition automobiles and trucks are failing to stop for pedestrians at the Nicholson and Glenridge intersection. This intersection, which has no crosswalk, is the cross over point for the elderly, handicapped, small children, persons pushing strollers and during school hours the crossing for school children who use Bachman Park as their recess area. Very heavy over- loaded trucks traveling up Nicholson Hill, when they do stop, have a very hard time trying to continue after their stop. We are asking the council to consider traffic calming measures which would include a four-way stop at the corner of Glenridge and Nicholson/ Ellenwood with a painted crosswalk for pedestrians. We are also asking that solid double yellow lines be painted on all of Glenridge to keep cars in their proper lanes. Also trucks over 2 1/2 tons should be prohibited on Nicholson Hill except in cases where they must reach residents on Nicholson Hill. In order to calm traffic even further, a three way stop at Bachman/Glenridge and another three way stop sign at Hernandez/ Glenridge is suggested. Thank you for your kind consideration. Victor Collord and Neighbors Signatures of neighbors attached as Attachment 1 TOWN MANAGE Rec T [ J Information [ 1 Copy To: Other: te Attachment 1 Signatures of neighbors, to the letter from Victor Collord to the Los Gatos Town Council, regarding traffic calming on Glenridge Avenue. Name Address 211 6/Pi'1 r/ 9 e Ai— )1 %hrr�- > S A'id je CLr.{�_ (e/11L iare Loe / 3 J2 6lev(z>n)0&,(-)-, clocide oi / i 64, f/iL11 11 [ 3q, ex c fAAJ-,6z i v1/4J eC kc.r/3 'AU/ J Z454 / G at -/A e, �Xi/716 g 7-2 Summary of Meeting with Glenridge Avenue Residents Re: Crosswalk and Stop Signs August 9, 2001 The neighborhood had signed a petition dated September 22, 2000 requesting a neighborhood meeting to calm traffic along Glenridge Avenue with recommendations for crosswalks, stop signs and a solid yellow line down the middle of the street. The meeting convened with about twenty residents from the immediate area to discuss their recommendations. Parks & Public Works Administrative Analyst Mary Gillespie -Greenberg called the meeting to order at 10:30AM and gave a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting. She also apologized on behalf of the Town of Los Gatos for the long delay in responding to their letter sooner, and stated it is the intent for PPW to keep track of the neighborhood concerns and help find solutions to calm traffic on their street. She stated she has been given the task of coordinating neighborhood meetings to calm traffic and has brought two experts to the meeting to provide appropriate advice. She presented Gordon Lum, TJKM traffic engineering consultant and Sgt Gravel, traffic expert for LGPD. Then she asked Gordon Lum, TJKM, to explain his analysis of the area based on their recommendations. He stated his observations about Glenridge Avenue and the group was asked for their input. A discussion followed that discussed stop signs and crosswalks due to visibility issues and cut through traffic. Not everyone was in agreement concerning the solid yellow center line, so that recommendation was removed. The following items were recommended by all attendees and agreed to be installed by Town staff within two weeks: • Stop signs and stop lines at three intersections along Glenridge to make these intersections full stop (three-way and four-way): at Bachman Ave, at Nicholson Avenue and at Hernandez Avenue. • Crosswalks at Nicholson, across Glenridge and across Ellenwood. If the installation will not occur within two weeks, Mary stated she would contact everyone and provide them an approximate date when it will be completed. The residents appeared to be satisfied with the results of this meeting and agreed to another meeting in four months to follow- up on the results of these traffic calming devices. The meeting adjourned at 11:45AM. cc: Debra Figone, Town Manager Les White, Interim Director PPW Chief Larry Todd, LGMSPD Sgt Gravel, LGMSPD Traffic Fred Ho, PPW engineering Steve Regan, PW Superintendent Parks & Public Works 8-15-01 mgg 1 Attachment 2 Parks & Public Works department Glenridge Avenue Meeting Thursday September 13, 2001 Summary of Discussion The following is a summary of this meeting's discussion. Les White, Interim Director Parks and Public Works, brought the meeting to order at 3:15PM. Council members Randy Attaway and Sandy Decker were present and were introduced. Mr. White informed the residents of the Town's traffic calming policy and the recent procedural error his staff had made when installing stop signs along Glenridge. The error was installing the signs prior to reporting and receiving approval from Town Council. The current plan is for staff to report this to Council and have the resident concerns heard and considered in their final decision regarding the stop signs. This report is tentatively scheduled for the October 1 Town Council meeting. Per the traffic calming policy, it recommends 67% support of any traffic calming device prior to a report and request to Council. If approved by Council, the traffic calming device would be installed over a trial, pilot period of three to six months. After the pilot time period, a new petition would be required showing 51 % support of the device(s). Residents were informed that these petitions are obtained by residents, with assistance from staff concerning wording. Vice Mayor Attaway discussed his concerns regarding the policy's procedures and proper notification of nearby residents, including the parameters of notification. Discussion and questions included defining who residents are for the 67% required support- on the street concerned or a wider area- differentiation between safety and traffic calming and what the parameters of an area are to be notified- as access streets and nearby streets are also affected - will be requested to be clarified with Council's approval. Additionally, residents remember that a speed study was conducted in September/October 2000, and staff will determine if the data was recorded, or if it was the temporary speed signs that were used. Next Steps: Town Council report concerning stop signs tentatively scheduled for October 1. Residents representing both Glenridge and nearby streets appeared to be supportive of the stop signs and planned to distribute additional petitions to show their support of the stop signs. Staff advised residents that the petitions are due by September 26 for inclusion in report. Meeting Adjourned at 4:15PM Attachment 3 RECEIVED SEP 2 4 2001 Victor Collord MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL 399 Nicholson Avenue Los Gatos, Calif. 95030 Los Gatos Town Council Los Gatos, Calif 95032 Members of Los Gatos Town Council, We the residents resubmit this petition requesting all stop signs and cross walks in place be allowed to remain. We also request that a three way stop sign be erected at Glenridge/ Bachman. Because of a town traffic calming policy technically, the stop at Glenridge/Bachman was not installed and other stop signs and cross walks are in question I and many of my neighbors were very concerned about the traffic on Glenridge Ave. and Nicholson Hill. Many of the automobiles and trucks traveling on Glenridge Avenue were exceeding the speed limit and driving in an unsafe manner. Both automobiles and trucks were crossing the center line to oncoming traffic. They had to cross the center line in order to keep control of their vehicles because of their excessive speed. In addition, automobiles and trucks were failing to stop for pedestrians at the Glenridge /Nicholson intersection, the Glenridge/Hernandez intersection and the Glenridge/Bachman intersection. These intersections are the cross over points for the elderly, small children, the handicapped, and residents. The intersections now have cross walks with stop signs except for Glenridge/Bachman. The stop signs and cross walks now installed have made our Glenridge Avenue and surrounding areas a much safer place to live. We respectively submit this request to the town council for consideration. Signature Victor Collord ( Attachments: 1.First petition dated Sept. 2000, in support of stop signs and cross walks. 1 continued. Second petition of additional residents not on first petition, supporting stop signs and cross walks. CC: Debra Figone, Town Manager Les White, Interim Director of Public Works Chief Todd, Los Gatos Police Dept. Attachment 4 Attachment 1 continued Signatures of neighbors, to the letter from Victor Collard to the Los Gatos Town Council regarding traffic calming on Glenridge Avenue. Name Address Attachment .1 continued_.. Signatures of neighbors, -to the letter -from Victor•Collard to the Los Gatos Town Council regarding traffic calming on Gle��e=Avenue_ ...- Name :Addresses-- =_ Q 1e 40 e_ 33 c & t . ,',. uJ� LYJ LVVJ. U.:. LJ YUCJ ..IJ.J YUYI U UI'If .J I M\ 1 MJ....Ul.l!-I l..J l a_ 1.JL Los Gatos Town Council 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA September 24, 2001 We, the undersigned residents of Pennsylvania Avenue and intersecting streets commend the Town of Los Gatos for the "traffic calming" measures being undertaken in our Glenridge neighborhood. Safety is our primary concern. Pennsylvania Ave is a 100% residential street, with many children, pedestrians and cyclists. Unfortunately, as a very long and uninterrupted street, it has become a major speedway (especially for arterial cut -through traffic). Excessive speeds, the relatively steep hill and the limited lines of sight at intersections where the road curves, all combine to create what we believe to be an unsafe condition. We hereby request that the Town Council direct the appropriate staff to develop traffic calming measures, in order to improve public safety on Pennsylvania Avenue and Intersecting streets in the Glenridge neighborhood. We propose the following: • Stop signs at key intersections such as Palm_Ave. and Pe to Ave. • Enigrcement of the 25 MPH speedJimlt We further request that the town's Interim Traffic Calming Policy dated March 20, 2000 be amended as follows: • Current: "maximum speeds should not exceed 40MPH" • Proposed: "maximum speeds should not exceed 30MPH" We believe that, while 15 miles -per -hour over the speed limit might be an appropriate maximum on a 65MPH freeway, it is not suitable on a 25MPH residential street. (40MPH is more than 1 % times the posted speed limit of 25MPH.) Thank you for your support In making our entire Glenridge neighborhood a safer place for residents and visitors alike. Respe tfufy submitted to the Town Council for consideration, September 24, 2001. ,r • 4 Alan Feinberg 363 Pennsylvania Ave. 395-3657 CC' Debra Figone, Town Manager Chief Larry Todd, Los Gatos Police Les White, interim Director, Parks and Public Works Department Attachment .1. 11 HI\ I J. I L.J rnx� u.0 # NAME (PRINT) 1 �LRou ,:elN.Qc.RG- 5 ,Jr 6 ISL a 7 8 61L4't 9Au6NT0N 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 2 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 36,E Pennsylvania Ave, gla.Pennsylvania Ave. 3 O Pennsylvania Ave. 3 Pennsylvania Ave. Pennsylvania Ave. D Pennsylvania Ave. qPennsylvania Ave. 3 `t I' Pennsylvania Ave. 3/45` Pennsylvania Ave. We Pennsylvania Ave. 32 3 Pennsylvania Ave. Pennsylvania Ava. Pennsylvania Ave. .$2-? Pennsylvania Ave, Pennsylvania Ave. 312 Pennsylvania Ave. Pennsylvania Ave. ( )"' Pennsylvania A Pennsylvania Ave. {�0,2, Pennsylvania Ave. 1 Walnut (at P'vania) Walnut (at P'vania) Palm (at P'vania) Palm (at P'vania) Peralta (at P'vania) Peralta (at P'vania) Glenridge (at P'vania) Glenridge (at P'vania) it ADDRESS 32.1. q SIG TURF Los Gatos Town Council 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA September 24, 2001 Attached please find the petition supporting the recently undertaken traffic calming measures (stop signs) on Glenwood. Since we did not have a clear definitely of what exactly constitutes the impacted neighborhood, we canvassed Ellenwood and Bachman Avenues from the stop sign to the end of the street (in the case of Ellenwood, where it takes the left hand turn). We had planned to cover Belmont as well since it crosses both streets and faces Bachman Park but our efforts were cut short by Monday night's rain shower. The water drops on the petition will attest to that!! On Ellenwood and Bachman, there were only 5 houses where no one was home. It is very significant that 100% of those home signed the petition. Sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of making our neighborhood a safer place. We urge you to take our neighborhood's feedback into account when you vote on the Glenridge traffic calming measures. Phillip Huelson & Helen Hodack 15 Ellenwood Ave. 354-0868 cc: Debra Figone, Town Manager Chief Larry Todd, Los Gatos Police Les White, Interim Director, Parks and Public Works Department Attachment Los Gatos Town Council 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA September 24, 2001 We, the undersigned residents of Ellenwood & Bachman Avenues and intersecting streets commend the Town of Los Gatos for the "traffic calming" measures being undertaken in our Glenridge neighborhood. Safety is our primary concern. Our streets are 100% residential. Our close proximity to Bachman Park means there is a steady flow of children, pedestrians and cyclists in our neighborhood. Unfortunately, we have all been at risk with the speeding traffic along both Glenridge & Bachman. Excessive speeds and the limited lines of sight at certain key intersections where the road curves all combined to create an unsafe condition. It has been particularly hazardous to turn onto Glenridge from Ellenwood in a car; pedestrians literally take their life in their own hands when trying to cross Glenridge going to and from the park. The installed stop signs have improved safety & peace of mind considerably. We hereby request that the Town Council permanently approve the 'traffic calming' measures put in place. Thank you for your support in making our entire Glenridge neighborhood a safer place for residents and visitors alike. Respectfully submitted to the Town Council for consideration, September 24, 2001. Phillip Huelson & Helen Hodack 15 Ellenwood Ave. 354-0868 cc: Debra Figone, Town Manager Chief Larry Todd, Los Gatos Police Les White, Interim Director, Parks and Public Works Department " JT' •)'gyro / # NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS 1 +cr,il�e/F+:c ,, j Ellernwood Ave. 2. I P C •,, O C S Ellenwood Ave. 3 j'E / I- Jb co 63 S c—b Ellenwood Ave. 4 \- / C 1://0Z UC ,4 Ellenwood Ave. 5 O N i�T j& HA; C r j Ellenwood Ave. 6 // r---C 56 E'er_ 7 Ellenwood Ave. 7 C /`7 / / (L x V < Ellenwood Ave. kL k✓ Imo 8 E. ." A Iv Ai 27 Ellenwood Ave. 9 ��La (Z -Ca Ellenwood Ave. 10 r S- Ellenwood Ave. 11 fit. i( S L-s'"1 S 5S- Ellenwood Ave. 12 Ellenwood Ave. 13 Ellenwood Ave. 14 L.l .4 4. MI. k - (/0Atsil 501 Bachman Ave. -5 Z Q Q 1 1.ut 14uN.s. CAMFfip(L Bachman Ave. ._.16 man Ave. 17 ( 7a - man Ave. 18 Ave. 4 Ppyr4 646 Ave. 19 tea.•r rya i Bachman Ave. 20 Bachman Ave. 21 Bachman Ave. 22 Bachman Ave. 23 Bachman Ave. 24 Bachman Ave. 25 Bachman Ave. 26 Bachman Ave. 27 Bachman Ave. 28 Bachman Ave. 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. TOWN OF LOS GATOS Parks and Public Works Department Interim Traffic Calming Policy Adopted by the Town Council March 20, 2000 Summary of Policy Traffic calming is an organized neighborhood effort utilizing a well-defined process and traffic standards to address various types of traffic conditions, such as the following: Arterial cut -through traffic where commuters and trucks use local streets to avoid traffic congestion on nearby arterial routes; Speeding which is commonly related to the amount of cut -through traffic; and Commercial parking spill -over which is the result of past land use decisions which did not anticipate modern parking demand. Truck Intrusion, stimulated by strip commercial, median islands and arterial cut -through traffic. Criteria: The Town's recognition of a residential area traffic problem is based on the following: Volumes on local access streets not to exceed 1500 vehicles daily & on residential collectors& 3000 vehicles daily & truck volume not to exceed 5/day. • Speeds (85th percentile should not exceed 34MPH, avg under 29MPH, maximum speeds should not exceed 40MPH) • Curb parking occupancy not to exceed 70% from 8AM-7PM • Level of Service for left turns and safe crossing gaps should be LOS D or better • School Routes: Should provide for sidewalks, vehicle queuing, loading & unloading not in conflict with school pedestrians or bicyclists, paths free of usual hazards • Separate pedestrian & bike paths for neighborhood circulation should be well marked and well lighted. Processing Requests 1. Receive request- from residents, staff, officials -from any source. 2. Town Engineer collects relevant data such as volume, speed, accident history, etc. 3. A: If data supports criteria - go to #4. B: If data does not support criteria, prepare letter or possible neighborhood meeting, to summarize that perceptions are not supported by findings, and traffic calming is not warranted. 4. Public Meeting: Obtain consensus at public meeting to proceed with development of a traffic calming program. 5. Staff and/or consultants collaborate and prepare a traffic calming program, to include at least two or more alternatives. Attachment 7 Interim Traffic Calming Policy Adopted by the Town Council March 20, 2000 Summary of Policy page 2 of 2 6. Follow-up neighborhood meeting to present alternative plans. Pros & Cons for each alternative are to be presented. Attendees will reach consensus on pilot plan. It is important to note that a pilot program requires 67% support of the residents on street, to be verified by petition, which is the responsibility of the involved residents. Included in any petition will be the formal acceptance for placement of a traffic calming improvement on the street in front of the signer's residence (such as a speed bump, etc.) 7. Pilot Program presented to Town Council for approval. 8. If Town Council approves Pilot, Town will then move forward with design and implementation phase, which maybe completed by staff and/or consultant, depending upon requirements of pilot. 9. Reconvene neighborhood meeting to evaluate Pilot Program after 3-6 months, to determine effectiveness. If the Pilot Program is determined successful and residents want to formalize it, will require support of 51 % of the residents, obtained by petition by the involved residents. 10. Staff will report outcome of follow-up meeting to Town Council. TOWN OF LOS GATOS - CALIFORNIA TOWN COUNCIIJPAF,KING AUTHORITY JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY March 20; 2000/Minutes RECEIVED TRAFFIC CALMING POLICIES/ALL-WAY STOP SIGNS AT OLD TOWN (10.40) Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council authorize the -retention of all -way stop signs at University and Elm Street (Old Town) and the implementation of the Town's Traffic Calming Policy. Carried unanimously. Attachment 8 Transportation Cons nts MEMORANDUM RECEIVED 'DEC 1 6 ly� TOWN OF LOS GGA OS PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 15, 1999 To: From: Subject: Bud Lortz, Assistant Director Dept. of Community Development Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Gary Kruger, P.E. Town Traffic Engineer Project No.: 21-030, Task 5 Jurisdiction: Town of Los Gatos Evaluation of Existing Traffic Calming Policy Background and Issues: I have reviewed the correspondence regarding recent requests for traffic calming on residential streets in Los Gatos. These include Highland Oaks Drive, Farley Road, Johnson Avenue, Longridge Drive, Englewood Avenue, Spencer Avenue and Ferris Avenue. The town's policy in addressing these requests has been to collect traffic information and then meet with concerned residents. In most cases the traffic data did not bear out the concerns of the residents requesting further measures to slow and calm traffic flows on their streets. At times the police department has also become involved. In general, the impression is that each issue is treated ad hoc, and in most instances, this is probably the best approach. However, there can be an argument made for establishing a more formal policy. This would assist town officials in applying a traffic policy evenly and equitably, and would also provide the residents with a baseline upon which to relate the traffic data for their concerns. Other nearby communities have established more formal programs, and have even formally allocated a portion of their annual operating budgets and capital programs to support the formalized traffic calming program. There are several types of traffic conditions that provoke citizen concerns. These are, generally: 1. Arterial cut -through traffic where commuters and trucks use local streets to avoid traffic congestion on nearby arterial routes. 2. Speeding which is commonly related to the amount of arterial cut -through traffic. 3. Truck intrusion, a problem which is especially stimulated by strip commercial, median islands, inappropriate mixes of land uses, and again — arterial cut -through traffic. 4. Commercial parking spill -over which is the result of land use decisions of long ago which did not anticipate modern parking demand, or of strip commercial uses along arterial routes with residential land uses directly behind the commercial uses. NiiTransportation Cor ants Bud Lortz, December 15, 1999, Pg. 2 5. School access and loading issues where parents drive their children to and from school, and all loading takes place in a concentrated period at sites not set up to handle large traffic flows. 6. Pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation where there is a lack of sidewalks and sufficient street space to share vehicular and bicycle movement, or where pedestrians and bicyclists must cross busy arterial routes away from protected intersections with stop signs and signals. The Need for a Traffic Calming Policy Requests for traffic calming cri be numerous from residents across the town. The problem is how to place these requests in cont. — which have priority, and which represent "normal" traffic conditions on residential street: The means of evaluation necessarily are based on the functional classification of streets within Los Gatos. The Town of Los Gatos, by law, has a Circulation Element in its General Plan. The Circulation Element should provide general guidance on the uses and functions for each street within the town. This guidance should extend to defining the general design and cross sections for each type of street, and also the traffic uses for each type of street. An example is appended to this report as Appendix A — it is the Circulation Element policy for residential streets — both local access and collector streets in San Leandro, California. As can be seen the street widths, lengths, and even expected maximum traffic volumes are defined in this plan both for new construction as well as for existing streets. Note also that there are prohibited connections for these types of streets: neither can directly intersect or serve as access to an expressway or freeway ramp. Where these types of connections exist, the policy would call for either eliminating the connection or reclassifying the street. Establishing these types of standards in Los Gatos would provide an important part of a basis for any criteria used in the evaluation of the need for traffic calming in the town. In the interim, what follows is my suggestion for a traffic calming policy for the town that is based on lessons learned by other cities from years of experience. First of all we should understand that the basic need in any traffic calming policy is to assure maintenance of the quality of life on residential streets. These streets are mostly extensions of the residents' driveways and should not be viewed as facilities to carry traffic other than to and from the neighborhood. Traffic safety is commonly used by residents as the reason to slow traffic, but most studies show that traffic speeds on streets have little relationship with accident rates. Almost all accidents in Los Gatos occur away from local access streets, and the accident rate on local access streets does not appear to be a major problem. However, the faster a driver goes on a residential street, the harder it is to stop in time for a child darting into the street to chase a ball or to cross to see a friend. This is the problem the parent sees as drivers speed past their property. Therefore, drivers who ignore the basic speed law as well as the prima facie speed limit of 25 mph by speeding at 40 and even 50 mph or more on residential streets upset the residents who then ask for traffic calming improvements in the name of traffic safety. As traffic volumes increase on a residential street, the number of imprudent drivers Transportation Con; ants Bud Lortz, December 15, 1999, Pg. 3 likewise increases as does the noise from passing traffic. At some threshold volume the number of residents who dislike traffic on their street is larger than those who ignore it. Studies show that this volume lies between 2,000 and 4,000 vehicles daily. This is the "environmental capacity" of a residential street — not the traffic carrying capacity which can be five times higher. Volumes and high speeds are usually the two most irritating traffic factors to residents, so a traffic calming policy must first deal with these. The others are also noteworthy, however, and the suggested criteria are based on thresholds where the majority of people can agree that there is a problem. The following policy is based on the concept of thresholds. For conditions that do not exceed the threshold, there is officially "no problem." For those above, the criteria below also provide a basis for ranking the severity of the problems so that the town's resources may be devoted to the most needy first. Finally, the policy clarifies the uses and roles of the petition process. It is relatively easy to obtain the signatures of residents in a door to door campaign for issues such as problem definition. It is far more difficult to obtain these same signatures for an assessment district, or for a trial program of traffic restrictions that will also apply to those signing the petition. A Recommended Interim Traffic Calming Policy for Los Gatos Criteria: The town's recognition of a residential area traffic problem should be based upon the following criteria: 1. Volumes on a local access street should not exceed 1,500 vehicles daily. 2. Volumes on residential collectors should not exceed 3,000 vehicles daily. 3. The 85th percentile speeds on a residential street should not exceed 34 mph, and average speeds should be under 29 mph. 4. The maximum speeds on a residential street should not exceed 40 mph. 5. The volume of trucks over 30 feet in length should not exceed 5 per day on a local access or collector residential street. 6. Curb parking occupancy on a residential street should not exceed 70% from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 7. The level of service for left turns into or out of a local street should be LOS D or better. 8. There should be at least one safe crossing gap per minute in traffic on an arterial or major collector route serving nearby residential land uses. 9. School routes along arterial and major collector routes should have sidewalks. 10. School access should provide for vehicle queuing, loading and unloading away from and not in conflict with school age pedestrians walking or using bikes to get to school. 11. Suggested walking routes to and from school should be found free of unusual hazards by the town traffic engineer (checklist for evaluation of school routes attached as Appendix B.). 12. Separate pedestrian and bicycle paths for neighborhood circulation should be within the view of the public and well lighted. 1,19 Transportation Co- .ants Bud Lortz, December 15, 1999, Pg. 4 Processing Requests: Requests for traffic calming can come from any source — from petitions to the council, letters to the town staff, and even staff -generated studies based on monitoring traffic accident data and other traffic studies. Once the request is received, however, there should be a standard process for processing the issue to a successful conclusion. Because traffic calming is not directly related to traffic safety, but rather more towards maintenance of quality of life, petition circulation should be the responsibility of the requesting residents rather than of town staff. Traffic calming improvements are an analog to public space design and style. Therefore, they closely relate to sensitivities of those living along the residential street, and the decision to use traffic calming improvements should necessarily include the advice and consent of those living on the street subject to considerations of public safety and emergency access. 1. Data relevant to the request will be collected by the traffic engineer. These can include volumes, speeds, truck volumes, gap studies, reviews of accident records, etc. Generally, traffic conditions should be monitored for at least two or three weekdays and the weekend, or at least 5 days of data overall. 2. If the data show that the above criteria have been exceeded, the traffic engineer should convene a meeting with the affected residents to review the information and gain direction on whether to proceed. The purpose of the meeting is two -fold: a) to acquaint the public with the objective data and extent of the problem, and b) to acquaint the public with the types of improvements and strategies that have been shown to be effective in reducing the identified problems. If the data show that traffic conditions do not exceed the thresholds above, the response will be similar to requests for stop signs, signals and other service 1 requests of the town. A letter will be prepared summarizing the town's policy and the findings with regard to their request. Town officials may also want to meet with residents whose requests did not meet the threshold criteria to review the traffic study findings. 3. / If the consensus at the public meeting is to proceed with the development of a traffic 1 calming plan, the traffic engineer, police traffic staff and fire department staff will need to collaborate and prepare at least two alternative traffic calming plans for review by appropriate city staff and the involved public. Once the alternatives have been reviewed by town staff, the traffic engineer and appropriate town staff should continue the public meetings, showing the pros and cons for the alternatives and gaining public reaction. On the basis of these meetings, the traffic engineer will develop a pilot or test program for recommending to the town council for implementation. 4. If the town council approves the pilot program, the town would need to commission a design consultant to prepare the plans, specifications and estimates for any plan that physically changes the design and operation of a street. For plans that rely upon police education and enforcement strategies, or for a plan that uses signs and striping, town police and public works crews can implement the trial calming improvements. 5. The pilot program should be supported by no Less than 67%, of all residents alc..:11 a street — not just 67% of those responding to a survey. This support should be reflectec:::y petitions. The responsibility for getting the petitions signed should be the responsibility of the residents that requested the traffic calming measures. Included in any petition will be Transportation Con; ants Bud Lortz, December 15, 1999, Pg. 5 the formal acceptance for placement of a traffic calming improvement on the street in front of the signer's residence (such as a speed hump, etc.). 6. The pilot program, if implemented, should stay in place for at least 3 months at which time a follow-up survey of the residents would be conducted. To implement a formal and permanent calming program, at least 50% plus one of all residents along the street should again sign a petition to this effect. The circulation of the petitions should be the responsibility of those requesting the improvements. Desired Traffic Control Plan Characteristics: The traffic calming plan which is effective, yet results in the least change in traffic access and. circulation patterns, and which requires the least modification of the street system is the preferred plan. The traffic calming plan requiring the least amount of special enforcement is the preferred plan. The network of streets serving the neighborhood should remain comprehensible and easy to use. Intersections of collector streets with the arterial system should be signalized whenever signal warrants are met. The access and egress patterns for the neighborhood should be directed primarily to these signalized or otherwise controlled intersections. It is appropriate for the town to consider steps to make collector routes discontinuous so that they function only as collector routes and not as an arterial. Through commuter traffic on collectors extending between two major arterial routes, or between arterial and higher function roads (expressways and freeway ramps) should be discouraged by making the collectors discontinuous. Traffic controls are classified as either passive or physical controls. Generally, passive controls require initial added enforcement and are effective in areas where respect for traffic controls is relatively high, where there is a reasonable presumption they are enforced, and where there is little driver resentment of the controls. Passive controls rarely deter or reduce emergency service vehicles. Physical controls, by their very nature, are usually self -enforcing, and commonly present some problems to emergency vehicles. However, they are usually effective in situations where passive controls have failed or are typically ineffective. Resources for Traffic Calming Program: Any formal traffic calming program requires budget resources and staffing. For this fiscal year the town need not consider the allocation of funds to such a program beyond those already provided to the Community Development Department. However, it may be useful to allocate approximately $25,000 annually to conduct the necessary traffic studies and data collection efforts needed to comply with Steps 1 and 2 above. For any formal program resulting from proceeding through Step 2, the town would need to eventually budget for a pilot program in successive year budgets. Traffic calming procedures take at least two years from start to finish. In the absence of any formal need for traffic calming devices, allocation of funds to support any pilot program is premature. ILNii Transportation Cor .ants Bud Lori December 15, 1999, Pg. 6 Review of Existing Requests Before the Town: There are currently several letters and petitions for traffic calming improvements in Los Gatos. These include a petition for right turn restrictions on Highland Oaks Drive at Lark Avenue, a letter requesting actions to control high speeds on Johnson Avenue, a petition for traffic calming on Longridge Road, and also on Farley Road. There is also correspondence regarding speeding, cut - through traffic on Englewood Avenue. All but the Englewood Avenue requests fail to meet the suggested thresholds for proceeding to develop a plan for traffic calming on these streets. The Englewood Avenue issue was addressed in a separate study earlier, and specific recommendations have been made for calming improvements on that street. On the others, none had extraordinary speeds, all 85th percentile speeds were under 34 mph and volumes were not very high. The characteristics of traffic on these streets is consistent with traffic conditions on all normal residential streets in Los Gatos, and a traffic calming program would not significantly change traffic conditions for the better. No further action is recommended on these requests other than a formal response from city officials. Conclusions The recommended interim traffic calming policy rests almost completely upon the presumption that local access streets and residential collector streets are to be operated according to the interest of the local residents and property owners, even if such operation is counter to the interest of the general driving public. The basis is the definition of the street function. Since local access streets and residential collector streets primarily serve local access, not through travel, it follows that little consideration needs to be given to facilitating efficient traffic flow and through traffic flow on these types of streets. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated similar principles in "County Board of Arlington County, Virginia versus Rudolph A. Richards, et al," October 11, 1977. In their majority opinion they stated: "A community may also decide that restrictions on the flow of outside traffic into particular residential areas would enhance the quality of life, thereby reducing noise, traffic hazard, and litter....By definition, discrimination against non-residents would inhere in such restriction....The Constitution does not outlaw those social and environmental objectives, nor does it presume distinctions between residents and non-residents of local neighborhoods to be invidious." However, the Supreme Court opinion also said that restrictions cannot be instituted arbitrarily. First, there is a need to show: 1. Evidence of the need for action — residents are being harmed. 2. A traffic study has been completed by a competent authority. 3. Alternatives were considered including less restrictive measures. 4. Consequences to areas outside the neighborhood were considered. Transportation Con, rots Bud Lortz, December 15, 1999, Pg. 7 5. Emergency vehicles are not significantly impeded by the plan. 6. Public hearings were conducted prior to establishing the plan. If the town establishes the interim traffic calming policy recommended above, it will have met the requirements of the Supreme Court and subsequent case law, and will likely attract more public support than the current informal program where residents cannot be sure of the criteria used to evaluate their requests. Alternative Actions: The Town Council could decide to retain the present calming policy which stops short of a formal review process that leads to traffic calming improvement projects. The present policy is more ad hoc, and has apparently worked quite well. The more formal policy will require additional staff time to accommodate the inevitable requests. However, the suggested criteria are reasonable, and also work to screen and limit the number of situations where further town action is needed. Over time the more formal policy may actually reduce traffic calming issues rather than encourage them. Attachments: Appendix A: Example of San Leandro Street Classification Policies Appendix B: School Route Safety Checklist APPENDIX A EXAMPLE OF POLICIES FOR STREET CLASSIFICATION 7 7 7 7 1 1 E. RESIDENTIAL COI CTOR A separate classification has been developed for collector facilities that pass through and provide focal access to residential land uses. This was done to respond to the need for mitigating Impacts of traffic on abutting residential uses by allowing traffic control devices that control speeds. Design standards for this roadway classification have been based on the following characteristics: Residential Collector - Traffic volume less than 2,500 per day - Maximum length of 1 mile -- No connection to expressways and freeways Table IV-1 lists the existing streets classified as Residential Collector by the City. Refer to Figures IV-17 and IV-18 for the locations and requirements (existing streets and new construction), respectively, of streets classified as Residential Collectors. City of San Leandro 1996 Master Plan of City Streets Page 1V-21 April 22, 1997 Z a cc Z. 0 0 z ISTING :STREETS m O a. c U a • b 0 0o N c o 9 a a 3 U CO 0 V 0 U as a) CC 2 lag efi O v! ,' U c 0 c 2 47, U 2 C) c r • 0 • F. LOCAL ACCESS The local road exists solely for land access and therefore functions as a low speed facility for typical connection to collectors or arterials. The design standards have been based on the following characteristics. Local Access - Traffic volume less than 1,200 per day - Maximum length of 2,000 feet (500 feet for new cul-de-sac construction) - No connection to expressway and freeways Refer to Figure IV-19 for the requirements (existing streets and new construction), respectively, of streets classified as Local Access. City of San Leandro 1996 Master Plan of City Streets Page IV-25 April 22, 1997 1- L I NSTRUCTIO t • EXISTING STREE r 4 O t 1 1 } Yes {et intersections only) 5. 0 b Co'z } z 3 2 � u a Z y z `,1 b 1.r ca APPENDIX B EXAMPLE OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF WALKING ROUTES TO SCHOOL Checklist - Suggested Schoc Routes FIELD. REVIEW Tote: This checklist is a reminder for the investigating traffic engineer for identifying potential problems. Lttach notes to this form. 'chool District: 'raffle Engineer: MAJOR STREETS • Sidewalks: sidewalks, clear width and buffering from traffic continuity of sidewalks potential for out-of-the-way travel to cross what's at back of walk (fences, buildings, landscaping, pavement, etc.) moderate to high volume driveways sight distance at driveways commercial loading potential for sidewalk blockage Crosswalks and Crossings: appropriate yellow crosswalks white crosswalks crosswalk signing and advance signing flashing beacons crossing guards ped overpass or underpass Traffic Characteristics: speed limit and observed speeds short term gap study (confirm calculated gaps from ADT) short term volumes consistent with ADT? uniform headways or platoons? percentage truck traffic Traffic Control and Design: sight distance (check horizontal and vertical alignment, on -street parking, other obstructions) stop sign control (2-way, 4-way) signal control (vehicular, pedestrian) number of through lanes each direction left turn lanes right turn lanes intersection channelization Date Field Checked: II. medium refuge, other refuge motorist view of school, pedestrians on sidewalk ready to cross other pertinent traffic controls RESIDENTIAL AND LOCAL STREETS Sidewalks AND PATHS: sidewalks, clear width continuity of sidewalks potential for out-of-the-way travel? what's at back of walk? any commercial or multiresidential (moderate to high volume) driveways? sight distance at driveways (both commercial and residential) potential for sidewalk blockage are routes along walks where children can be seen by motorists, residents? are there any routes through parks or through the middle of blocks away from the street? Crosswalks and Crossings: appropriate yellow crosswalks white crosswalks crosswalk signing and advance signing flashing beacons crossing guards ped overpass or underpass Traffic Characteristics: observed speeds (assume limits are 25 to 30 mph) any unusual volumes? presence of large vehicles Traffic -Control and Design: sight distance (especially u, intersections - note parking, alignment, intersection geometry) Yield sign control stop sign control (2-way, all -way) neighborhood layout - grid, curvalinear, culs de sac, other motorist view of children on walkways, at intersections other 11.1. ADJACENT TO SCHOOLS Sidewalks: clear width - able to accommodate crowds of children (zoning sidewalks) reasonably direct connection between approach to school entrances crossing parldng lot, loading entrances exits Crosswalks and Crossings: appropriate yellow crosswalks white crosswalks (should they be yellow) crosswalk signing and advance signing flasfifng beacons safety patrols crossing guards Traffic Characteristics: separation of pedestrian access from vehicle passenger drop off and loading activity during beginning and end of school day (double parking, confusion) estimated volume at beginning and end of school day (gaps available for peds?) Traffic Control and Design: sight distance (horizontal and vertical alignment, on -street parking, loading areas, other obstructions) yield control stop sign control parking and curb controls motorist view of children on sidewalk, children crossing special school speed limits (can go to 15 mph) other observations NOTES FROM SC. OL MEETING map of sc...,41 district boundaries attendance Iocations of crossing guards, schedule safety patrols estimated number of children coming from each direction from school, by bus, on foot, by bike any special problems with school access? any existing "Suggested Route to School" maps? school safety committee and safety programs use of San Jose Police (traffic control, safety programs, bike rodeo, etc.) parental concerns any plans for revising school loading, access, parking, etc...? Attachment 9 Town Council Minutes October 1, 2001 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California TRAFFIC CALMING/STOP SIGNS/GLEN RIDGE AVENUE/STATUS REPORT (19.41) Mr. Attaway and Mrs. Decker recused themselves from this issue due to conflict of interest. Jim Piper, Assistant Town Manager, addressed this item and gave an overview of the work that has been done with nineteen neighbors in delineating their needs and implementing traffic calming measures in this particular area. The traffic mitigation elements are stop signs and street paint markings along Glen Ridge/Bachman/Nicholson/and Hernandez. These measures will remain in effect during a trial period and then be reevaluated by the community and staff. At that time they will go to Council for approval and become permanent traffic control measures. He also spoke of nine other neighborhoods that are currently addressing traffic calming issues. Speakers: Vic Collord, 399 Nicholson Ave., spoke in support of the stop signs that have been installed and noted how much safer and comfortable it is now as a pedestrian to cross this street. Alan Feinberg, 363 Pennsylvania Ave., supports the traffic calming that has been implemented on Glen Ridge and requested the same service for the Pennsylvania neighborhood, noting excessive speeds and limited line of sight. He asked that the whole area be considered for traffic calming and not just one street at a time. Bunty Libante, 33 Glen Ridge, spoke in support of the measures that have been taken and wants to be sure that everyone is aware that they will need to sign the next petition also. Robert Tack, 329 Bachman Ave., reaffirmed the need for a stop sign at the corner of Bachman and Glen Ridge. Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, to authorize placement of new stop signs on Glen Ridge Avenue as a pilot project; authorize staff to hold a neighborhood meeting four months from installation of stop signs; and authorize staff to prepare a status report after the neighborhood meeting for Council consideration. Carried with 3 ayes. Mrs. Decker and Mr. Attaway abstained. CLERK ADMINISTRATOR/APPOINTED POSITION/RESOLUTION 2001-110 (20.29) Jim Piper, Assistant Manager, gave an overview of the evolving history providing for the annual review of the Town Clerk. Ray Davis, resident, stated that the best interest of the people of the Town of Los Gatos will be well served by a majority vote approving this position. Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council adopt Resolution 2000-110 entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ESTABLISHING THE APPOINTED POSITION OF CLERK ADMINISTRATOR. Carried unanimously. ANNUAL REPORT/FY 2000-01 (21.09) Deferred to October 15, 2001 by staff. Report received and filed. TC:DI3:MMI00101 7