The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 7 - July 12, 2016_Desk Item & Exhibits 34-35TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 12, 2016 PREPARED BY: Sally Zarnowitz, Planning Manager szamowitz@losgatosca.gov APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Application S-13-090 Vesting Tentative Map M-13-014 ITEM NO: 2 DESK ITEM LOCATION: North 40 Specific Plan Phase 1 (southerly portion of the North 40 Specific Plan area, Lark Avenue to south of Noddin Avenue) APPLICANT: Grosvenor USA Limited CONTACT PERSON: Don Capobres (Harmonie Park Development Co.) and Wendi Baker (Summerhill Homes) PROPERTY OWNERS: Yuki Farms, ETPH LP, Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill N40 LLC, Elizabeth K. Dodson, and William Hirschman APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval for the construction of a new multi -use, multi -story development consisting of 320 residential units, which includes 50 affordable senior units; approximately 66,800 square feet of commercial floor area, which includes a market hall; on -site and off -site improvements; and a vesting tentative map. APNs: 424-07-024 through 027, 031 through 037, 070, 083 through 086, 090, and 100. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Proposed Development Plans, received March 18, 2016 (242 pages) Previously received with the March 30, 2016 Staff Report: 2. Location Map (one page) 3. Initial Study (79 pages) 4. Findings and Considerations (three pages) 5. Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map (six pages) 6. Conditions of Approval for the Architecture and Site Application (27 pages) 7. Letter ofJustification received March 23, 2016 (10 pages) 8. North 40 Narrative received February 8, 2016 (seven pages) 9. Economic study letter received November 6, 2015 (25 pages) 10. October 14 and November 11, 2015 CDAC Minutes (seven pages) ATTACHMENT 7 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 11. Response to CDAC comments received February 8, 2016 (13 pages) 12. January 27, 2016 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes (five pages) 13. Consulting Architect Report received December 18, 2015 (six pages) 14. Response to Consulting Architect Report received February 8, 2016 (three pages), 15. Consulting Architect memo received March 21, 2016 (six pages) 16. Consulting Arborist report received October 14, 2013 (33 pages) 17. State Density Bonus Law - Government Code Section 65915- 65918 (14 pages) 18. Density Bonus Ordinance and Program Guidelines - Ordinance 2209 (21 pages) 19. Letter from Barbara Kautz, received March 10, 2016 (16 pages) 20. Town's BMP Program and Guidelines - Ordinance 2181 (19 pages) 21. Public comment received through 11:00 a.m., Thursday, March 24, 2016 Previously received with March 30, 2016 Addendum Report: 22. Updated letter from Barbara Kautz received March 25, 2016 (five pages) 23. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on March 24, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on March 28, 2016 Previously received with March 30, 2016 Desk Item Report: 24. Residential Density Exhibit (one page), received March 30, 2016 25. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on March 28, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on March 30, 2016 Previously received with July 12, 2016 Staff Report: 26. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) prepared for North 40 Study Session (14 pages) 27. Verbatim minutes of the March 30, 2016 Planning Commission meeting (164 pages) 28. Verbatim minutes of the June 15, 2016 Study Session (143 pages) 29. Memo from Town Attorney regarding application deadlines (eight pages) Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 30. Items received at March 30, 2016 Planning Commission (four pages) 31. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on March 30, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on July 6, 2016 Previously received with July 12, 2016 Addendum Report: 32. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on July 6, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on July 8, 2016 33. Additional information from the applicant and the applicant's attorneys Received with this Desk Item Report: 34. Summary of Residential Units 35. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on July 8, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on July 12, 2016 REMARKS: Pursuant to a request from a Planning Commissioner, Exhibit 34 contains a table with a summary of information for the proposed residential units. The attached public comments on the proposed application (Exhibit 35) were received after distribution of the staff report and addendum. Prepared by: Sally Zarnowitz, AIA Planning Manager JP:SZ:sr N:1DEVIPC REPORTS\20161North 40 7-12-16-DESK.docx j/9 iproved by: Joel Paulson Community Development Director NORTH 40 PROJECT PHASE I APPLICATION SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS Type of Residential Unit Total No. of Units One Bedroom Two Bedroom Units Units Three Bedroom Units Square Feet Range Total Square Feet Cottage Cluster, Garden Cluster, Townhome, & Rowhouse Units Garden Cluster Units 83 41 22 20 918-1,998 124,952 Rowhouses 97 0 73 24 1,500-1,944 161,763 Subtotal 180 41 95 44 N/A 286,715 Condominiums, Multi -Family, Apartments, and Affordable Units Condominiums 80 30 40 10 996-1,999 121,980 Live/Work Unit 2 0 2 0 524-551 1,075 Apartments 8 6 2 0 720-1,100 6,900 Senior Affordable Apartments 50 49 1 0 580-875 29,395 Subtotal 140 85 45 10 N/A 159,350 Total - All Residential Units 320 126 140 54 N/A 446,065 This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Maria Ristow <ristows@comcasinet> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:03 PM To: Council; Planning; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 Phase One application comments Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc, and Council Members Jensen, Rennie and Leonard's, am sending you an article I have written for LGCA, in response to a flier opposing the North 40 Phase 1 application. While reasonable people may disagree over facts, this flier, distributed widely through Next Door, Facebook, email lists and in paper form, contains a large number of inaccuracies. LGCA strives to ask questions, search out facts and look for solutions. This flier appears to embrace none of that. Thank you for reading yet another email about the North 40 Phase One application. SOME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS A flier as published on FB, Next Door and distributed in emails. LGCA finds this document full of inaccuracies. Comments and corrections below in italics. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT FULFILL THESE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH THE TOWN HAS MANDATED THROUGH ITS SPECIFIC PLAN The proposed development is required to "look and feel like Los Gatos." P 1.1 The drawings for the Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style 3 -5 story buildings that have nothing in common with the look and feel of Los Gatos Whaaaaat????? There is NOTHING 5 stories in the Phase 1 proposal (1 looked again). The housing is permitted to only be 25 feet high in some parts of the Lark District and up to 35 feet in parts of Lark District and elsewhere, up to 2-3 stories. The affordable senior housing is located on the Market Hall and parking structure (in the Transition, not Lark District), and it is ONE BUILDING in total, at 4 stories. If peopk don't like the architectural style, that can be discussed in A&S, but the "3-5 stories" is a ludicrous and incorrect statement. The Specific Plan says "Lower intensity residential and limited retail/office uses are envisioned..." for the Lark District (Lark/Los Gatos Blvd.) (pp.2-3) The developer has instead proposed highly intense development —including massive 6-, 7-, and 8-unit 3-story rowhome complexes and commercial/residential space up to 51 ft. high. (This is taller than the Albright buildings.) f While everything proposed in the Lark district is a max of 25 feet tall along Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard and 35 feet tall toward the center, only the affordable senior housing located on top of the Market Hall and parking structure (in the Transition District) is permitted to go to 45 feet, and 1 believe the elevator shaft goes to 51 feet. For all who forgot, the Albright Buildings are SOLID RECTANGLES with two at 50 feet tall and two at 65 feet tall (exclusive of mechanical equipment). So how does one feature on one 45-foot tall building make the housing "taller than the Albright buildings" which also may be taller than their nominally stated heights????? Seriously, I'm blown away by the 72% of this Town that voted for the Albright buildings and now can't remember what they supported. The North 40 Phase One application is not as tall, or intense, or traffic -generating as Albright. The proposed development must "embrace hillside views, trees, and open space." P. 1.1 The intensity and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and provides minimal open space. The Phase One application meets the 30% required open space requirement. How is this possibly MINIMAL? Compared to what? No Planned Development of even HALF the density of the North 40 has one-fourth the open space. At least one of the public open areas proposed on Phase 1 is as large as the Plaza downtown, plus there are several more slightly smaller spaces. For reference, Santana Row has 1-2% open space! All solid buildings block hillside views. So do trees. Walk anywhere in town and look around. Unless you are on top of a mountain, something will block your view at some point. Clumping residential units together and stacking them provides MORE open space, and the present application has more open space than any other development in Los Gatos. 1 attended the Planning Commission Special Meeting maybe two years ago where commissioners and members of the public were allowed to walk through much of the North 40. Ask anyone who was there-- through all the trees, one could NOT see the hillsides in the present state. We are certainly NOT going to deny trees for this, are we? Relocating some of the residential in the Lark District to the North would alleviate some of the loss of views as would reducing the height and create more open space. As to the distribution of housing among the districts, Phase 1 proposes 193 units in the Lark District, and 127 units in the Transition District, which leaves 44 to carry over to the Northern District. (270 units + bonus units = 364). When taken together with the location of the retail/garage/senior housing structure towards the north end of the Transition District, the Phase 1 proposal is consistent with the Specific Plan, which calls for a lower intensity of use (height, mass, traffic etc). Within the Lark District there would be a primary emphasis on residential, in the Transition District new development (residential and commercial), moving to greater intensity 2 commercial development in the Northern District. The reduced number of housing left for the Northern District is consistent with the Specific Plan requirement that commercial uses be located where they will have the least impact on residential uses. Others may disagree, but at least understand how the Specific Plan calls out the various types of uses and where it allows or encourages them. Further, relocating some of the residential could then put more commercial in the Transition district. That brings more traffic. How does this reduce intensity??? Residential is the least intensive from a traffic point of view. How does height get reduced? Height restrictions are the tightest in the Lark District. And the housing Element has zoned the N40 for 13.5 acres at 20 dwelling units/acre, so this is the density the Town has set. Between the density the Town set and the max height limit of 35 feet (except for affordable or hotel), the cluster cottages (the only detached housing permitted in the Spec Plan) likely impossible to build, as the density would need to be increased further in other residences. The proposed development must "incorporate the site's unique agricultural characteristics." P. 1.I All the walnut trees will be removed. The site will be planted with other trees, mostly deciduous, that will take years to grow. Please read the Phase 1 proposal for the trees. Drought tolerant plantings are required in most places, and the periphery and inner ares will have orchard trees. The application is proposing a variety of fruit trees, to reflect the agricultural roots of the valley. Fruit trees can be planted closer together than walnut trees and ground -covering natives like mustard and lavender can be planted beneath, but if the TC prefers walnuts, then that will be the tree. Walnuts need to be spaced further and undergrowth is not viable. But that is up to the Town and TC. If the fruit trees are planted, the fruit will be gleaned and sold at the Market Hall, plus be available to those in the senior affordable housing. This was covered at the CDAC hearing. If you want to check anything, please see the EIR, Specific Plan, Housing Element, Phase One application, and the Q&A from the Study Session. Don't just believe what ANY one person publishes! (Including me. I can make mistakes.) I see no point in creating hysteria with half-truths and lies. I can accept that those armed with facts may still dislike the proposal, but it helps if we all start from the same point. The Specific Plan, as Council Member Marcia Jensen pointed out at least once, was created to be a bit non-specific to give the Town Council room for discretion. Aspects of the Proposal can be discussed and reviewed. But starting from a point where the public is getting outright misinformation is not fruitful to this process. There is no amenity that "incorporates the site's unique agricultural characteristics." The developer claims the marketplace, A STORE, will fulf ll this requirement. The entire application is set into a functioning agricultural setting, and there are proposed 3 community gardens for residents and demonstration gardens for commercial users. The orchard trees are not just there as eye candy. The Specific Plan states the development should "address the Town's unmet needs." P 1.1 Move -down housing for the Town's seniors and millennial housing is not provided. As mentioned by at least one Council member, who says seniors can't move into any of the proposed housing? And of course the affordable housing is for seniors. Only 49 very low income senior apartments are provided. No other affordable housing will be built. This is more affordable housing at the lowest level of affordability than has been built in Los Gatos. And certainly a 1200-sf townhouse will be more affordable than the 4000-and up-sf homes going up else where in this town. By zoning 13.5 acres of the North 40 at 20 units/per acre, the Town planned for affordable housing, and that is what we are required to do. Los Gatos does NOT build housing and can not mandate exactly how the affordability levels will be distributed. I learned a lot about this sitting on the Housing Element Advisory Board. The retail as proposed duplicates that provided elsewhere and competes with rather than complements the downtown convnercial space. P2.2 What does the Market Hall duplicate? Why can't there be a neighborhood restaurant? Do we expect to build all this housing and then force the residents into CARS for food and services? The proposed development doesn't "minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services." P 1.1 Schools, street, and other services will be adversely affected Yet there is an unprecedented agreement with the developers and school district, above and beyond SB50 to address school impacts. The schools will get more than $6, 000, 000 with this agreement if the living units go into Phase 1 as requested by the school district. If you put more students in the Northern District, Los Gatos tax payers will likely pick up the cost of their education, and the other school districts will get the state funds. Sound like a Catch 22? It is! Mitigation measures are based on dated studies and do not sufficiently address adjacent pending and incomplete developments. The EIR (if you actually read it) covered all the recent and planned developments. The Specific Plan states the intent is "to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach." P 1-1 Phase I includes only a portion of the 44 acres. The current application is just part of a piecemeal approach since no information is provided about Phase II. 4 The entire point of a Specific Plan is to lay the ground rules so any number of applications can come in and comply. The assumption of a Specific Plan is that there are multiple owners and phases, so one set of guidelines is set for the entire property. OTHER ISSUES The Specific Plan calls for residential development throughout the North 40, not just in this Phase. However, the developer includes all 320 units in the first 20 of the 44 acres, All these homes would be within the Los Gatos School District. The Los Gatos school district covers about 2/3 of the North 40. The Specific Plan includes maximums for housing, height, and commercial space. The developer has chosen to use all of these maximums even though at least some lower buildings would be appropriate. Most applications start at the max and ask for exceptions. This proposal complies. The proximity to Highway 17 is a potential health and safety issue for residential properties due to fumes and toxins from automobile pollution. The EIR addressed this and requires mitigations. A final comment: The flier starts with the assertion that as proposed, the development will destroy our Town's small-town character forever. Really??? We KNOW more housing and 60k ft of commercial will DESTROY our small-town character? Seriously? There are people north of Blossom Hill Road BEGGING for something they can walk to, other than the burrito/coffee/burger trio that keep showing up at the strip malls. Possibly offering a Market Hall and another sit-down restaurant (as Viva is the only one in Town north of Blossom Hill) might actually allow more people a nice place to access by bike or foot. Talk to people on Oka or Highland Oaks. And those moving into the new residences in the North 40 will have something desirable nearby. How is planning a real neighborhood DESTROYING OUR Town's small-town character forever? Those who can't walk to downtown now, get in their cars and go to downtown Campbell, Santana Row, Valley Fair, Pruneyard, Westgate, Oakridge, or Saratoga now. How is getting more residents to leave their cars and stay in Los Gatos DESTROYING our town???? Thank you, Maria Ristow Los Gatos Community Alliance From: Carleen <carleen_schomberg@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 1L20 AM To: Planning Subject: North 40 and traffic congestion To whom it may concern, 1 am sure many others have already voiced their concerns regarding our serious traffic problems, but I needed to add my voice to the record. I drive down L.G. Blvd. almost every weekday afternoon to pick grandkids up from school. We already have a serious problem with congestion where, at times, I sit through two or three lights before I actually get across Samaritan Dr. It is also quite hazardous for people entering and exiting the businesses/homes on the same side of the street at RAMBLC pediatric. The addition of all that proposed traffic from homes and businesses is unimaginable. l don't know who did the traffic study, but it must have been done between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. to be considered as feasible. Please consider our already untenable situation with traffic passing through to and from Santa Cruz, the bad situation we already have, and the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians and cars entering and exiting the road. All that property should be able to handle is a very scaled down, low -height, low -density residential development. Even that would add more cars to an already bad situation. Let's not also have an eyesore in the process. Thank you, Carleen Schomherg From: Jennifer Riano [mailto:ietmifer.riano( gmail.coin] Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 1:55 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 I'm strongly encouraging you to DENY North 40. I've enjoyed living in Los Gatos for the last 7 years and moved here for the TOWN feeling. Please vote to deny north 40. Thank you. Jennifer Riano 100 Escobar Ave. From: hsupermike@gmail.com [mailto:hsupermike@igrnail.comj On Behalf Of Michael Hsu Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 5:26 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Subject: Project North 40 concerns Dear LG planning commission, Thank you in advance for reading this letter. My wife and I fell in love with Los Gatos years ago when we visited years ago. The city had such a charming, welcoming character, so different from all the other places in the bay area. You have mountains, beautiful trails, a wonderful downtown, great residents, and a town that's organized and laid out perfectly. In fact, we loved it so much we knew we would buy a home and live in Los Gatos, and raise our children here. We got married 3 years ago, moved into Los Gatos 1 year ago, and now have a 6 month old son that was born at Good Sam. We loved everything about Los Gatos. But when I found out about North 40 a few months ago, I couldn't believe it, but I was more curious. When I realized the full scope of North 40, that's when I started worrying. A lot. - I worry about traffic and congestion. You all know how bad the traffic is already. It's not just during the summer on weekends anymore. And it's not just downtown. It's getting worse and worse year round, all throughout the town. North 40 is going to make traffic 2x as bad, if not more. - I worry about LG becoming an undesirable place to live. I've tried to convince numerous friends and relatives in the Bay Area to move to LG, but all of them worry about the traffic. I've also talked to a number of former residents that moved out as soon as their kids got old enough blc they couldn't stand the traffic anymore. North 40 is only going to make this a much bigger issue. - I worry about my son and LG schools. LG schools are already stretched near the limit. So what if North 40 gives the school district some money. Can our schools actually absorb all the projected new students over the next X years after North 40? Can the classrooms and teachers handle the increase? How much will the quality of education go down by? There's no way adding that many people can keep the bar as high as it is now, especially with the issues that already exist today. - I worry about LG losing it's charm. We moved in because we love everything about the town. But the part of LG between the 85 and Lark Ave -- especially along Los Gatos Blvd -- is the part that is LEAST like the rest of LG. It has no character. If anything, North 40 should be an opportunity to turn this part of town to be MUCH MORE like the rest of LG. Unfortunately, from the vision and planning, that is not going to happen. And North 40 will feel even further from LG, and will attract people that may not care as much for the LG we know and love. Pm not against developing the North 40 area, and I think it could be done in a way that adds a lot to the town. Not the way it's planned now. Michael From: edrathmanr, comcast.net [mailto:edrathmann©comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 9:31 PM To: North40 Comment Cc: Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 July 12 meeting Planning Commission, As the owner of Main Street Burgers and Willow Street, I am writing in opposition to the proposed North 40 development. Many things define our community, but probably the most important is our charming downtown. The Downtown cannot be replicated by any new development, but it can be harmed by one. The North 40 development before you, will do serious damage to the economic vitality of the downtown. The Los Gatos downtown is a fragile entity and it requires a critical mass of people to be vibrant: people walking the streets and shopping. The North 40 Specific Plan allows for 400,000 new square feet of retail (60,000 sf in this first proposal). That is not much below the 525,000 sf of retail at Santana Row. Our downtown has not more than 230,000 sf of ground floor retail. Combine the North 40 project with the damage already done to the Downtown from competition by the revitalized downtown Campbell and we have the potential for a serious drop in people visiting our downtown. What happens if 10 to 20% less people visit the Downtown? The North 40 will have beautiful walking streets, plenty of new restaurants with outdoor seating, national retail stores, and abundant parking conveniently off the Lark Ave exit of Highway 17. As one of the current council members wrote during the North 40 study session: "It is difficult to see what specific restaurant and retail providers would not impact our downtown." This North 40 proposal stands in direct contradiction to the Town's North 40 Vision Statement. How is 400,000 sf of retail " seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community...complementing...other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods." And supposedly the North 40 will "... address the Town's ... commercial unmet needs." Does Los Gatos have 400,000 sf of "commercial unmet needs"? Does anyone really believe that? Do we want the downtown to become like Saratoga's? The North 40 will do to our downtown what Valley Fair and Santana Row has done to Downtown San Jose: destroy it. Our Downtown is under attack from traffic congestion, lack of parking, and competition. The Planning Commission and Council should be working to promote our Downtown, not voting for a second one. I strongly urge you to vote against this North 40 development proposal. Ed Rathmann From: Liana Palmer <lianapaim@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 10:04 AM To: Planning Subject: North 40 Dear Planning Commission, I am in favor of approving the plan that is before the commission for the North 40. Dense housing and multi level homes and flats are the way of today and the future. Los Gatos cannot remain in the 1950ies with regard to our community. Urban sprawl is the past. It is time to confront the housing problems we have in the bay area, and to do our share to participate in the solution. We need to comply with state and housing element requirements. Traffic will be a problem, but we can't solve everything at the same time. We will have to suffer a bit before we will all get behind the funding of town road improvements. Increasing local tax may be a necessity that Los Gatos has long avoided, We can no longer feel entitled to so much abundance in our town with no participation. Schools will be impacted for a time, but provisions are in place for the district to have space in the plan to continue to provide an excellent education to our children in the classroom. Although the allotted space will not have the expansive play and sports area that Fisher and Blossom Hill have, or the decreasing area that Van Meter, Daves, and Lexington have, limited space for education is a reality of the present and the future. Our children will continue to be educated in the classroom. Families and 3rd party children's organizations will have to learn new ways of providing extracurricular experiences, such as visits to our abundant city, county, and state parks. Parents and the community will need to provide exposure for our kids to nature, sports activities, and open space. I appreciate the efforts by the Yukis, the developers, and especially the volunteer time and dedication of the Planning Commission for the years spent tackling, refining and respectfully considering the thoughts and input of the community. Now is the time for Los Gatos to break ground in the North 40, build, welcome new Los Gatons to town, and join the 21 st century. Liana Palmer 16345 Los Gatos From Liana Palmer <lianapalm@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 10:20 AM To: lianapalm@aol.com; Planning Subject: Re: North 40 Date: July 10, 2016 To: Los Gatos Planning Commission From: Liana Palmer 16345 Los Gatos Blvd, #30 Los Gatos, CA 95032 lianapalm@aol Dear Planning Commission, I am in favor of approving the plan that is before the commission for the North 40. Dense housing and multi level homes and flats are the way of today and the future. Los Gatos cannot remain in the 1950ies with regard to our community. Urban sprawl is the past. It is time to confront the housing problems we have in the bay area, and to do our share to participate in the solution. We need to comply with state and housing element requirements. Traffic will be a problem, but we can't solve everything at the same time. We will have to suffer a bit before we will all get behind the funding of town road improvements. Increasing local tax may be a necessity that Los Gatos has long avoided. We can no longer feel entitled to so much abundance in our town with no participation. Schools will be impacted for a time, but provisions are in place for the district to have space in the plan to continue to provide an excellent education to our children in the classroom. Although the allotted space will not have the expansive play and sports area that Fisher and Blossom Hill have, or the decreasing area that Van Meter, Daves, and Lexington have, limited space for education is a reality of the present and the future. Our children will continue to be educated in the classroom. Families and 3rd party children's organizations will have to learn new ways of providing extracurricular experiences, such as visits to our abundant city, county, and state parks. Parents and the community will need to provide exposure for our kids to nature, sports activities, and open space. I can say we still live in the 50ies, because my family moved here in the mid-40ies, I was born and raised here, and it hasn't changed all that much. Yes, I remember the orchards, but they were bull- dozed within a span of about 10 years making room for the boom time of the 60ies when highly paid and mid -range paid Lockheed and IBM engineers streamed into the Manor, Surry Farms, Daves Ave, Kennedy Road, etc, things haven't changed that much in terms of housing growth. We reached about 30,000 people, then suddenly everyone wanted to keep "charm" of the "town" which meant anti- growth, anti -diversity, anti -low to moderate income. We have had a good 40 years of "'containment" attitude in Los Gatos. It's time to give it up. I appreciate the efforts by the Yukis, the developers, and especially the volunteer time and dedication of the Planning Commission for the years spent tackling, refining and respectfully considering the thoughts and input of the community. Now is the time for Los Gatos to break ground in the North 40, build, welcome new Los Gatons to town, and join the 21 st century. Liana Palmer 2 From: dcwestcott@aol.com [mailto:dcwestcott@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 11:47 AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Subject: North 40, Too Dense Dear Planning Commission I am disturbed by the density of the North 40 proposal. It seem way too dense for the character of Los Gatos. As a long time resident, I've come to know and love the small town atmosphere, and this "city in a city" is not good for the town. Just the density of cars in the Los Gatos/Lear area should be a warning sign. Its already congested and would become a traffic nightmare. And there is no way around that! Please turn down this proposal, It is not good fit for Los Gatos! David C. Westcott From: mmpmitzi@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 11:47 AM To: Planning Cc: Marico Sayoc; BSpector; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonard's; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 Dear Planning Commission and Town Council, Please don't allow the proposed massive development in the North 40. The town streets and schools can not handle such mass. A one story, more spread out development would be better for the town and all of us who live here. We have gridlock on our streets now. I avoid the downtown and the shops on Los Gatos Blvd. because it takes me so long to get through the traffic and because of the lack of parking. Please don't add more!! This is our only chance to save our quaint little town!!! Thank you, Mary Patterson From: Susan Cahn <susancahn@earthrink.net> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 12:29 PM To: Planning Subject: ***********upset neighbor - Very against the proposal for the new construction and building on 401-409 Alberto Way *********** To the planning commission, It is pretty unbelievable the size and especially the height of the proposed structures of 401-409 Alberto way. In particular the building that is next to my our complex —435 Alberto Way.- Las Casitas - The building is so tall that the units that are adjacent to the building will have no privacy — where people will be able to look into their backyards and bedrooms. We all bought our units expecting to the have the privacy and this is completely unfair. My understanding is that the proposed entrance to the parking is also next to our units at Las Casitas which is going to provide a constant source of noise and vibrations even after the project is finished which is unfair with the car traffic. It is also dangerous for pedestrians trying to cross and cars trying to drive. Please consider moving the parking entrance away from our units. I also heard what sounded like construction noise coming from the project adjacent to our units before 8AM both days of the weekend, and my understanding is this is unacceptable for Los Gatos ordinances and rules. This is completely unbelievable to me that a project of this magnitude could be acceptable on our street. Please imagine if you had to live next to this proposed structure. We had a trial run of what it would be like with all of the traffic and trucks with the repayment of the streets this last week; it was awful and will be horrible for all of Los Gatos because of the location, the traffic, big trucks, and especially bad for the people on our street or that have to get into down town Los Gatos or go on the HW 17. Thanks for your consideration. Please consideration adjusting the scale of the project. The heights of the buildings and the location of the parking garage. Of course, my ideal wish would be that you would please reconsider approving any of the construction on this project Thanks for your time! Susan Cahn 408 395 5366 From: Susan Cahn [mairto:susancahn@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:13 PM To: 'planning@losgatosca.gov' Subject: ***********Upset neighbor - Very against the proposal for the new construction and building on 401-409 Alberto Way *********** To the Planning Commission: 1 am very upset and 100% against the building and construction proposed for 401- 409 Alberto Way. 1 don't believe I will be able to attend the meeting today so I wanted to email you my following grievances that I have towards this construction project. I cannot leave my dog alone because of her health issues, and I don't have sitter for her. i My parents and my family have been residents of Los Gatos since I was 5, and I have been a homeowner and resident at 435 Alberto Way, #12 since 1992. I went to Van Meter, Fisher JR High, and Los Gatos High School. I am very upset because there will be constant and a tremendous increase in traffic which will require a lot of extra time to get to and from my house and to the freeway and anywhere in Los Gatos or anywhere in general. The traffic is already very bad and has increased over the years in Los Gatos. Sometimes, especially in the day or from- 5PM through -7PM, it takes 10 + minutes to travel to downtown LG or to my Vet, etc. in Los Gatos from my home when it should only take about 3 minutes. The construction will create traffic jams to get on to the freeway or to try to return to or leave our houses which will require more time waiting at the lights, etc, and which will affect all residents in Los Gatos. This will be very dangerous for the emergency vehicles such as ambulances and the fire department who help and serve residents with health concerns, especially the elderly residents that live in the Senior Condo complex on Alberto Way. I am also extremely upset about the fact that there will be constant banging and noise that the construction will create. I work all day through the late evening and into the early morning every day until at least 430AM or 5AM at my house, and I need to be able sleep in the morning until about 11AM with constant banging from the construction, it will be extremely hard to sleep and will be very disturbing to me, my dog, and all of neighbors and their dogs, cats, and families (with lots of kids). I also need to be able to make important work calls from home since I work out of my home so the constant banging from the construction will make it hard to have any important work calls. The constant banging will be detriment to the my health and peace of mind; it will contribute to an inability to sleep, constant noise which will create a lot of anxiety for me and my neighbors, their families and their dogs and cats. Sometimes I have migraines /headaches and /or repeated extreme neck pain sometimes for 3 days with some breathing issues (related to chemicals and smoke), and I am very concerned that about the added noise and stress from the construction projects will make my headaches and neck pain more prevalent and worse in intensity without the ability to rest when I need to or the banging may trigger additional episodes. It will be very dangerous to try to cross the street on foot to walk my dog or to walk in general - trying to avoid the construction trucks (and extra traffic) that do not typically come to our street. We have a lot of children (many very young children) who are residents on Alberto Way and especially at 435 Alberto Way, and there are 100s of elderly and retired individuals who live on Alberto Way in the Senior Citizen condos that will be in danger walking on the sidewalk, the street, and crossing the streets or driving, and also many elderly residents on Alberto way individuals have to walk because they can no longer drive, and there are a lot of residents that walk (with or without their dogs), etc. We all will have a significant amount of potential danger that we would not have because of construction, the extra traffic and additional people travelling to our street. 1 am also concerned about workmen coming to our quiet residential neighborhood for safety reasons; being a single lady, I don't want folks driving into our neighborhood who are not residents which definitely includes construction workers who are typically men. There is already a lot of crime on the street (a lot of car break-ins, and some property thefts) and the construction will bring in unwanted individuals, which could and will most likely lead to an increase in crime. 1 believe this construction project will bring down our property values with the construction, traffic, noise pollution, etc. People will not be able to sell or rent out their units since no one will want to buy or rent near this huge proposed construction project. There is already limited street parking on Alberto Way so the extra vehicles on the street will make it very difficult for residents and their guests to enjoy the quality of life and conveniences that they have been enjoying related to enjoying a quiet and peaceful life, parking near their homes for convenience, being able to travel on a timely basis in their cars, walking without worrying about getting run over by construction trucks and the extra traffic associated with this project, etc. 2 Additional, you can't use mixed commercial / residential or commercial zoning properties for comparables for real estate or mortgage matters or transactions (part of the appraisals, etc.) with residential condos or townhouses /PUDs (our existing housing units on Alberto); therefore, a future newly finished condos at 401 - 409 (which I believe are included in this project) won't help anyone's residential property values as some people erroneously think it will. There will also be nails and other sharp objects that could puncture our tires which could provide a safety hazard, unfair costs, and extra unexpected time inconveniences, which could lead to an emergency situation if we can't get to a medical or veterinary office or hospital, especially if residents only have 1 car per family or household or if they are the only one home. (I only have 1 car.) 1 have a dog who has a lot of health problems and older parents, and I need to be able to get to the Vet or possibly to help my parents (who also live in Los Gatos) ASAP at times,. I absolutely don't think it is fair to have such a horrible disturbance. The residents that live on Alberto Way should have the right and opportunity to rest and have a quiet peaceful home life and work life like the rest of the people do in Los Gatos. Please call me if you have any questions. You have permission to read this email at the planning meeting tonight, but please don't read my name, my unit number or phone number out bud at the meeting. You can say which complex I live at in general - 435. Thanks for your time, understanding, and consideration. Please don't let Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions and /or any other parties related to the proposed construction project 401 — 409 Alberto way, proceed forward. Thanks, Susan Cahn 408 395 5366 3 On Jul 10, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Martha Wills <mtswills(@,gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Council members, I strongly urge you to DENY the current application for the North 40 development on these grounds: 1) AD of the Phase 1 housing is located in the Los Gatos Union School District. This plan will maximize profits for the developer but will likely contribute to overcrowding at Los Gatos elementary schools and Fisher Middle School.. 2) A project of the size and scope proposed by the developer cannot but adversely affect traffic flow on Los Gatos Boulevard and the surrounding areas. The town is trying to deal with massive beach traffic on 17; adding this much commercial and residential development near 17 and Lark is a recipe for compounded traffic woes for residents. 3) The proposed development is required to "look and feel like Los Gatos," but drawings indicate large, boxy buildings that have little in common with the traditional look and feel of Los Gatos. I urge you to listen carefully to voices of caution regarding this parcel of land. As I see it, only the developer is in a rush to put high -density houses and retail on that property. The rest of us will be forced to deal with the negative consequences as long as we live in Los Gatos. Yours sincerely, Martha Wills 229 Vista del Monte From: Janise Burford[mailto:janiseburford©gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 6:05 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: Proposed North 40 Development To: The Planning Commssion The Los Gatos TOWN Council Re: Proposed North 40 Development As a small business owner and a resident of Los Gatos 95033, I spend many hours frequenting the TOWN of Los Gatos for shopping, dining and the small TOWN atmosphere. I have been a resident for 9 years. I was born and raised in the Inland Empire of Southern California and moved to Los Gatos to escape the urban sprawl and overcrowding of So Cal. It breaks my heart to see the development proposal on the North 40!!!! I was born in 1951 and during my childhood Redlands, CA was similar to Los Gatos. Over the years I watched the deterioration of my once beautiful homeland as shopping malls and hordes of people moved in. All in the name of progress. That "progress" has left So Cal a wasteland. When I saw the LOOMING orange development tape on the North 40 I was reminded of the demise of So Cal. I had time to reflect because I was once again dead stopped - that area of Hwy 17 is extremely impacted already and traffic is nightmare. I can't imagine what will happen when more people move into the development. Let's not forget those same people will get hot in the summer and add to the NIGHTMARE traffic jams we currently see now doing the 17 crawl to the coast. Making a roundabout at the south end of town is a bandaid for what is to come if that development proceeds. The entire TOWN will become gridlocked. Remember the 4th of July 2015? The following development will violate the following from P.1.1: * " look and feel like Los Gatos"- NOT SO CAL * " embrace hillside views, trees and open space" - not wall to wall concrete as seen in So Cal * "incorporate the site's unique agricultural characteristics" - How can the walnut trees remain if that monstrosity goes in? * '" minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, SCHOOLS, and other community services"- Schools are already overcrowded, streets are frequently jammed, Please do not allow this development to ruin the charming town of Los Gatos. Kindest Regards, Janise Burford Amore Pet Sitting Services LLC 408.741.5408 "We can judge the heart of a mart by his treatment of animals. " Inmanual Kant "Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawake. ".4natole France 1% ww.amorepetsittinesery ices.com From: beccaberoeron cmail.com[mailto:beccabergerorKagmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 10:56 PM To: Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: Experience with Grosvenor Dear Planner and Town Council Members: My name is Becky Bergeron; I am granddaughter to Pete Brutsche, a long time property owner on Bennett Way in Los Gatos. I am writing today to let all of you know how much I appreciated the care with which my Grandpa Pete was treated during the process of selling his home. As you can imagine, it was a momentous decision to sell! Throughout the entire transition our family was treated with respect and dignity. We are all especially grateful that Grandpa Pete was able to spend the rest of his days in his own home, passing away peacefully last February at the wonderful age of 100. Sincerely, Becky Bergeron 408/580-4646 From: Jeff Loughridge <lokrij@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 11:47 PM To: Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Marni Moseley; Robert Schultz, Planning Cc: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen Subject: DESK ITEM FOR N40 MEETING: Response to the "A CITY WITHIN A TOWN! flyer 7-10-2016 To: Planning Commission and Town Council From: Jeff Loughridge Re: Response to the "A CITY WITHIN A TOWN!" flyer I think that it is irresponsible to distribute a flyer which presents opinions without supporting facts. Before I make any decision, I'd need to have facts so that I might be able to use my intellect and come to my own conclusions. The flyer that was presented here was filled with misleading information to try and get support for a particular conclusion. After reading this you may come to the same conclusion you had before, but you will have done so with a few more of the fact in the process. Hopefully this information will help to create a more informed group of residents who can help to sort out this complicated problem. have found that most facts are difficult to research and assemble, especially on a complicated project like the N40. Let's face it, the N40 deals with many complex issues that are dear to our hearts, as Los Gatos residents. But facts should be used to make any argument. Not tactics that convince people to follow blindly using only information that supports your argument while ignoring the real facts. Especially purposely leaving out facts that would support a different conclusion. The Community Alliance has struggled, and continues to struggle, to present hard -to -research facts of many issues around town so that residents can make up their own minds. Now if the reason that you don't want the N40 is just that you don't want it, I can appreciate that. That, by itself is an argument. But to publish misleading information to try to sway people to a particular way of thinking is just plain wrong. Unethical. I've included some facts on this issue below in red to hopefully shed a bit of light on some of the erroneous conclusions and misinformation that this flyer presents. Jeff Loughridge START OF FLYER FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT FULFILL THESE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH THE TOWN HAS MANDATED THROUGH ITS SPECIFIC PLAN 1. The proposed development is required to "look and feel like Los Gatos." P 1.1 RESPONSE: Los Gatos doesn't have any particular look or feel. It is made up of many looks and many feels from the downtown to the west side of town to the north and to the east. All different, as are the various office buildings spread across town. Some of these as well as some homes are downright ugly. That is still how Los Gatos looks and feels. a. The drawings for the Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style 3 -5 story buildings that have nothing in common with the look and feel of Los Gatos RESPONSE: There is NOTHING 5 stories in the Phase 1 proposal. The housing is permitted to only be 25 4 feet high in some parts of the Lark District and up to 35 feet in parts of Lark District and elsewhere, up to 2-3 stories. The affordable senior housing is located on the Market Hall and parking structure (in the Transition, not Lark District), and it is ONE BUILDING in total, at 4 stories 2. The Specific Plan says "Lower intensity residential and limited retail/office uses are envisioned..." for the Lark District (Lark/Los Gatos Blvd.) (pp.2-3) The developer has instead proposed highly intense development — including massive 6-, 7-, and 8-unit 3-story rowhome complexes and commercial/residential space up to 51 ft. high. (This is taller than the Albright buildings.) RESPONSE: Calling 20 units per acres intense is misleading. 20 units per acre is the MINIMUM state requirement for affordable housing. Plus, the percentage of the overall site coverage over 45' = .0055% As an example, Santana Row is 75 units per acre. 3. The proposed development must "embrace hillside views, trees, and open space." P. 1.1 a. The intensity and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and provides minimal open space. RESPONSE: Definitely if you stand on the other side of a building you will be deprived of a hillside view. This is true of ANY building in town. As far as open space is concerned, the N40 proposal includes the following open spaces... Community Park: 22,000 + sf Passive and active open space Amenities include: Multiple outdoor dining areas w/ large communal table, cafe tables and chairs, outdoor grills, lounge seating, bocce court, firepits & fireplace, community gardens, orchards with benches and hammocks Grand Paseo: 8,000 sf Passive open space Amenities include: 1,000 sf mixed fescue lawn area, water fountain courtyard with seating, fire table courtyard, orchard and wide seat steps Courtyard Plaza: 9,500 sf Passive/lightly active open space Amenities include: flexible public gathering spaces, lounge seating, dining areas, movie wall, cafe tables/chairs, seat walls 2 Pocket Parks: 2,800 and 3,200 sf Active/Passive open space Amenities include: mixed fescue lawn areas, benches, dog water stations, dog bag stations Demonstration Gardens: 5,000 sf Active open space Amenities include: Kitchen gardens, gardening and harvesting demonstration areas These calculations do not include the orchard setbacks along Lark/Los Gatos Boulevard or A Street, or the pedestrian paseos throughout the project. b. Relocating some of the residential in the Lark District to the North would alleviate some of the loss of views as would reducing the height and create more open space. RESPONSE: As to the distribution of housing among the districts, Phase 1 proposes 193 units in the Lark District, and 127 units in the Transition District, which leaves 44 to carry over to the Northern District. (270 units + bonus units = 364). When taken together with the location of the retail/garage/senior housing structure towards the north end of the Transition District, the Phase I proposal is consistent with the Specific Plan, which calls for a lower intensity of use (height, mass, traffic etc). Within the Lark District there would be a primary emphasis on residential, in the Transition District new development (residential and commercial), moving to greater intensity commercial development in the Northern District. The reduced number of housing left for the Northern District is consistent with the Specific Plan requirement that commercial uses be located where they will have the least impact on residential uses. Others may disagree, but at least understand how the Specific Plan calls out the various types of uses and where it allows or encourages them. 4. The proposed development must "incorporate the site's unique agricultural characteristics." P. 1.1 a. All the walnut trees will be removed, The site will be planted with other trees, mostly deciduous, that will take years to grow. 2 RESPONSE: Walnut trees are a huge mess to maintain and even the Yukis don't suggest keeping them. The original crops was different anyway. Approx. 500 proposed new orchard trees + Approx. 1200-1300 additional trees are proposed in Phase 1 Total: 1700-1800 new trees in Phase 1 Note on the existing walnut trees: The existing walnut trees are nearing the end of their lifespan and are on the decline. New orchards of various fruiting trees will be planted to honor the agricultural history of the site Please read the Phase 1 proposal for the trees. Drought tolerant plantings are required in most places, and the periphery and inner ares will have orchard trees. The application is proposing a variety of fruit trees, to reflect the agricultural roots of the valley. Fruit trees can be planted closer together than walnut trees and ground -covering natives like mustard and lavender can be planted beneath, but if the TC prefers walnuts, then that will be the tree. Walnuts need to be spaced further and undergrowth is not viable. But that is up to the Town and TC. If the fruit trees are planted, the fruit will be gleaned and sold at the Market Hall, plus be available to those in the senior affordable housing. This was covered at the CDAC hearing. b. There is no amenity that "incorporates the site's unique agricultural characteristics." The developer claims the marketplace, A STORE, will fulfill this requirement. RESPONSE: The entire application is set into a functioning agricultural setting, and there are proposed community gardens for residents and demonstration gardens for commercial users. The orchard trees are not just there as eye candy. 5. The Specific Plan states the development should "address the Town's unmet needs." P 1.1 a. Move -down housing for the Town's seniors and millennial housing is not provided. RESPONSE: These were both eliminated by the Town Council ruling of a maximum of 35 feet. b. Only 49 very low income senior apartments are provided. No other affordable housing will be built. RESPONSE: That's 20% of the housing, same as our BMP regulations. What is proposed is affordable housing at the lowest level of affordability than has been built in Los Gatos. And certainly a 1200-sf townhouse will be more affordable than the 4000-and up-sf homes going up elsewhere in this town. By zoning 13.5 acres of the North 40 at 20 units/per acre, the Town planned for affordable housing, and that is what we are required to do by the state, whether we like it or not. Los Gatos does NOT build housing and is not allowed to mandate exactly how the affordability levels will be distributed. I learned a lot about this sitting on the Housing Element Advisory Board. c. The retail as proposed duplicates that provided elsewhere and competes with rather than complements the downtown commercial space. P2.2 RESPONSE: So having another restaurant competes with those downtown? Where are the residents in the North supposed to dine? Campbell? Retail here competes more with Campbell and San Jose more than it does our downtown. What does the Market Hall duplicate? Why can't there be a neighborhood restaurant? Do we expect to build all this housing and then force the residents into CARS for food and services? 6. The proposed development doesn't "minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services." P 1.1 RESPONSE: Yet there is an unprecedented agreement with the developers and school district, above and beyond SB50 to address school impacts. The schools will get more than $6,000,000 with this agreement if the living units go into Phase 1 as requested by the school district. If you put more students in the Northern District, Los Gatos tax payers will likely pick up the cost of their education, and the other school districts will get the state funds. a. Schools, street, and other services will be adversely affected 3 b. Mitigation measures are based on dated studies and do not sufficiently address adjacent pending and incomplete developments. RESPONSE: No study can take into account the future, but this study took into account far more than what is being proposed. The EIR (if you actually read it) covered all the recent and planned developments. 7. The Specific Plan states the intent is "to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach." P 1-1. RESPONSE: The entire point of a Specific Plan is to lay the ground rules so any number of applications can come in and comply. The assumption of a Specific Plan is that there are multiple owners and phases. so one set of guidelines is set for the entire property. a. Phase 1 includes only a portion of the 44 acres. The current application is just part of a piecemeal approach since no information is provided about Phase II. RESPONSE: Without an approved Specific Plan, piecemeal development will continue as it has on that section of Los Gatos Blvd. OTHER ISSUES 1. The Specific Plan calls for residential development throughout the North 40, not just in this Phase. However, the developer includes all 320 units in the first 20 of the 44 acres. All these homes would be within the Los Gatos School District. RESPONSE: The Los Gatos school district covers about 2/3 of the North 40. 2. The Specific Plan includes maximums for housing, height, and commercial space. The developer has chosen to use all of these maximums even though at least some lower buildings would be appropriate. RESPONSE: Most applications start at the max and ask for exceptions. This proposal complies. When the maximums were brought down to 35 feet by Council, yes the developers chose to go to that height for most of the development. Except those housing units and building fronting Lark or Los Gatos Blvd. Those were kept at 25 feet. 3. The proximity to Highway 17 is a potential health and safety issue for residential properties due to fumes and toxins from automobile pollution. RESPONSE: The EIR addressed this and REQUIRES mitigations. Planning Commission Meeting 7-12-16 Dear Planning Commissioners, I support the 270 housing units, 50 Senior affordable housing units and 66,000 square feet of commercial development. RECEIVED JUL 11 ?O16 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION What I am opposed to is locating the housing units in what Figure 15 of the N40 EIR delineates as an area that is considered a higher health risk area along the 17 Freeway. Please review the research I have included regarding the Health Hazards of living near a highway. According to the Sierra Club report, below is a list of health hazards if you live close to a freeway. • Children Living Near Busy Roads More likely to Develop Leukemia, Cancer • Road Traffic Contributes to the Origin of Childhood Leukemia • Soot Particulate Matter Linked to Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality • Truck Traffic Linked to Childhood Asthma Hospitalizations • Pregnant Women Who Live Near High Traffic Areas More Likely to Have Premature and Low Birth Weight Babies • Traffic Increased Cancer • People Who Live Near Freeways Exposed to 25 Times More Soot Particulate Pollution • Lung Function Reduced Among Children Living Near Truck Traffic • Traffic -Related Air Pollution Associated with Respiratory Symptoms in Two -Year Old Children • Asthma Symptoms Caused by Truck Exhaust • Proximity of a Child's Residence to Major Roads Linked to Hospital Admissions for Asthma • Exposure to Cancer -Causing Benzene Higher for Children Living Near High Traffic Areas • Air Pollution from Busy Roads Linked to Shorter Life Spans for Nearby Residents • Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) from Vehicles Exacerbates Asthma Attacks • Five Times More Deaths Due to Air Pollution than Traffic Accidents • Motor Vehicle Air Toxins Cause High Pollution Levels ➢nside Homes ➢ understand that other communities are doing this, but that does not make it right. Putting Housing Units along the 17 Freeway within the designated area is IRRESPONSIBLE! Children don't have a choice, but you do. Recommend to the Town Council that the Developer move the Housing Units farther away from the Freeway and put an office building in that area with fixed windows and filtered HVAC. Thank you, Anne Robinson 201 Charter Oaks Circle Los Gatos, CA 95032 Legend •••.b Project Boundary 0 400 feel 0O• Cancer Risk Over 10 per Million Fine Particulate Matter IEZil Concentrations over 0.3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter Point of Greatest Effect Source: Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2013, Goole Earth 2011 Figure 15 Health Risks North Forty Specific Plan EIR Explore, enjoy and protect the planet How highways and roads cause health problems in our communities and what you can do about it. Acknowledgements This report was made possible through the hard work of many Sierra Club staff and interns including: Research, Writing, and Editing Brett Hulsey, Ed Hopkins, Eric Olson, Erin Burg, and Michael Carlson. Field Research and Editorial Assistance Sam Atwood, Tony Cattenacci, Nancy Wagner,J.J. Straight, Catherine Corkery, Glen Brand, Christine Sagsetter, Melanie Mayock, and Rosemary Wehnes. Design Brian Vanneman Cover Photography PhotoDisc A special thanks to The Environmental Law and Policy Center for assisting with and compiling research. Much gratitude to Professor Howard Wachtel and Associate Professor Tim Buckley for their technical input. This report is one of many reports the Sierra Club issues about sprawl. To read previous reports or for more information in our Challenge to Sprawl Campaign, please visit our web site at: www.srerraclub.org/sprawl. This report has been funded by The Sierra Club Foundation. Copyright 2004. SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1691 ,MN Traffic presents a unique public health treat due to the toxicity of its emissions and its extensive integration into our livesandcommunities. The stakes are high including excess cancers and children's asthma rates occurring at epidemic proportions. This threat can no longer be ignored; it must be clearly understood and addressed." —ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR TIM BUCKLEY BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY A critical consequence of sprawling develop- ment and reliance on highways as a principal means of transportation is tailpipe pollution. Evidence is increasing that air pollution from vehi- cles increases a wide range of health risks. This report summarizes more than 24 peer -reviewed studies that document health hazards caused by pollution from cars, trucks, and other vehicles. It also describes current debates over major high- way projects occurring in more than ten commu- nities around the country. Key Findings from Scientific Studies: • A Johns Hopkins study shows association between traffic and curbside concentrations of cancer causing pollutants. • The Journal of the American Medical Association study links soot in diesel exhaust to lung cancer, car- diopulmonary disease and other causes of death. • A Denver study shows children living near busy roads are six to eight times more likely to develop leukemia and other forms of cancer. • A Journal of the American Medical Association study finds that increasing public transportation along with other traffic control measures during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics reduced acute asthma. • The California South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District did a Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study -II, the most comprehensive study of urban toxic air pollution, showing that vehicle exhaust is the source of cancer -causing air pollutants in Southern California. A significant body of scientific evidence is emerg- ing that links pollution from motor vehicles to a range of human health problems including asthma, lung cancer and premature death. Federal transportation policy has long focused on expanding the highway system as its principal goal. Approximately 80 percent of federal transportation funding is spent on highways. But by designing communities to reduce reliance on vehicles and giv- ing people more transportation choices like trains and clean buses, we can diminish the health risks associated with highway pollution. Crucial public policy changes must include a more balancedtrans- portation policy, greater emphasis on public trans- portation systems and other options such as walk- ing and bicycling.ln addition, we need to limit devel- opment near new roadways. Health Effects froin Highway Pollution don't think that they should build a school that lies along a freeway." —BARRY WALLERSTEIN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Air pollution is a major risk to our health and safe- ty and is the contributing cause of nearly 100,000 premature deaths each year,' more than twice the number of deaths from car crashes? In 2002, almost half of all Americans - or 137 million people - lived in counties with unhealthy air laden with one or more criteria air pollutants, according to the American Lung Association' A major source of this air pollution is the exhaust from the tailpipes of trucks and cars. A variety of dangerous pollutants are released daily from the extensive networks of busy highways that border countless neighborhoods and businesses. These pollutants cause numerous adverse health effects including cancer, asthma, and heart attacks. In addi- tion, asthma, which is exacerbated by pollution from trucks and cars, is the leading serious chronic illness among children and the number one reason chil- dren miss school' The main cancer -causing pollutants from trucks and cars are diesel particulate matter and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, 1,3- butadiene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In recent years the relationship between vehicle pollution and increased cancer risk has received considerable scientific attention. A Denver study shows that children who live within 250 yards of a road with 20,000 or more vehicles per day are eight times more likely to get leukemia and six times more likely to get other cancers. The authors of the study attribute most of this risk to the VOCs in motor vehicle exhaust? As the graphic shows, roadways create a corridor of pol- lution for the drivers and residents nearby. Highway Air Pollution and Public Policy Bush Administration Transportation Policy: Fewer Transportation Choices and More Pollution Just as public transportation ridership is reaching record numbers,' the Bush administration is propos- ing to diminish investment in diverse transportation choices in America within the Senate Bill 1071 that has yet to be approved by the legislature? The administration is recommending greater incentives for highways than for cleaner public transportation projects. Under their plan communities would pay 50 percent of the cost for new public transportation projects. Completing only 20 percent of the new proposed road projects would put public trans- portation alternatives further out of their reach. In addition, the administration proposes spending less than one dollar on train transit projects for every four dollars spent on highways. The administration's transportation plan fails to adequately fund the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality improvement (CMAQ) program that spurs transportation projects that improve a region's air quality. Demand for the CMAQ is expected to sky- rocket, as the number of regions with unhealthy air Traffic Growing Three Times Faster than Population 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% • Traffic Population 1985 FIGURE 1 1990 1995 1999 will more than double in the next few years, but funding for this critical program is to increase by less than 10 percent. Other Bush administration proposals would make it more difficult to ensure that pollution from trans- portation does not violate air quality standards. The administration also wants to reduce the frequency of check-ups from three to five years. These check- ups ensure that transportation plans conform with local air quality needs. In addition, the administra- tion proposes to ignore the long-term effects of new road construction on air quality. The administration suggests examining how road construction would affect air quality over a ten-year period instead of a twenty-year period,as is current practice. Long-term studies, like the current 20-year period, give us a better idea of the effects of road construction on air pollution. More Highways, More Sprawl, More Pollution Poorly designed, sprawling development requires building more roads. Increasingly, new develop- ments are scattered across the landscape with wide Busy Roads Create a Pollution Corridor for Those Nearby Elevated Pol vtion Corridor Width FIGURE 2 streets and driveways, cul-de-sacs, large parking lots, and single -use areas such as office parks or residen- tial sub -divisions with few sidewalks and few con- nections to other developments.° By keeping the places we live independent of our workplace, the average length of our commute increased by over one-third (from 8.5 to 11.6 miles) between 1983 and 1995? Increased sprawl forces people to drive fur- ther each year. As the graph shows, between 1985 and 1999, traffic in the U.S. (measured as vehicle miles traveled (VMT)) increased three times faster than population because of a lack of transportation choices and sprawl." One Atlanta study showed that new highway con- struction on suburban land is the leading contributor to sprawling development" In another study, the Texas Transportation institute (TTI) and Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) showed that a 10 percent increase in the size of a highway network is associated with a 5.3 percent increase in additional driving72 The study also illustrated that longer car trips, aside from generating more pollution, are also the leading cause of traffic congestion, which in turn leads to even greater air pollution." Normalized Air Pollution Concentration Courtesy Ah and Waste Managemanl Assadatto 1.0 Solutions: How We Can Reduce Health Risks from Vehicle Pollution he Bush administration, aloe with state and local governments, should promote smart growth, reduce sprawl, and increase transportation choices. By revitalizing existing communities and designing new developments that have bus, bike, or train service to reduce the reliance on cars, travel will be easier for people. Building better communities cuts traffic and reduces the distance that commuters have to travel. Increasing Transportation Choices Decreases Pollution We can do better. Providing transportation choic- es such as trains, buses, sidewalks, biking paths, and ridesharing are key aspects of healthy communities where residents can have the option not to drive. Taking these steps would reduce traffic, minimize air pollution, and protect ow health, our families,, and our future. A 2001 study published in the Journal of American Medical Associates showed that providing more transportation choices and other traffic control measures during the Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996 reduced traffic 22 percent,air pollution by 28 percent, and asthma attacks by up to 44 percent in children" Better Community Design Cuts Traffic Efficient development brings houses, workplaces, and shopping areas closer together and reduces the distance of daily commuter travel. Mixed -use design allows integration of residential and commercial zones, making it possible to live near your place of work." This efficient design can be accomplished through infill, transit -oriented deveiopment, zoning, and brownfields redevelopment. Transit -oriented development places new development within easy walking distance of a major transit center. Centering activities on a transit station and providing pedestri- an -friendly walkways makes transit a convenient mode of transportation. It revitalizes neighborhoods and reduces traffic by up to 20 percent according to the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection (LUTRAQ) study from Portland, Oregon" Changes in Federal Transportation Policy Can Cut Pollution and Provide More Transportation Choices • Federal and state transportation agencies should balance transportation investments between high- ways and alternative forms of transportation includ- ing public transit, bike paths, and sidewalks. • They should also support a "fix it first" mentality, which uses resources to maintain existing roads before building new ones. This spends fewer tax dollars for new car -only transportation projects. • In addition, the EPA and DOT should conduct health risk studies in its environmental review of new road projects with more than 150,000 vehicles per day and provide that information to the public as part of transportation decision -making processes, We Can Take Action in Our Communities for Clean Transportation • We can carpool, bus, or take the train to work whenever possible to reduce traffic and pollution; encourage local governments to use clean -burning buses and hybrid cars for public transportation sys- tems and government vehicles. • Ask our local governments and workplaces to offer more public transportation incentives. • Incentives might include "Commuter Choice Checks" that give workers a tax deduction for the money they spend using public transit to commute to work, tax credits for walking or biking, or a parking cash -out. Businesses, public space, and transportation co- exist on this downtown Denver street. Twenty -Four Scientific Studies Link Health Risks with Highway Pollution ur studies suggest that children wh© live near busy roads are more likely to get leukemia and other forms of cancer. It would be prudent to study such cancer risks near all busy roads where elevated VOC levels are likely." —DR. HOWARD WACHTEL, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO The following peer -reviewed and published stud- ies concluded that there is a link between traffic - related air pollution and health risks. The health risks include increased likelihood of asthma, cancer, pre- mature and low -birth weight babies, and a general- ly higher risk of death. Where possible, we put the researcher's contact information." 1. Children Living Near Busy Roads More Likely to Develop Leukemia, Cancer A 2000 Denver study showed that children living within 250 yards of streets or highways with 20,000 vehicles per day are six times more likely to develop all types of cancer and eight times more likely to get leukemia. The study looked at associ- ations between traffic density, power lines, and all childhood cancers with measurements obtained in 1979 and 1990. It found a weak association from power lines, but a strong association with highways. dt suggested that Volatile Organic Compound pollution from traffic may be the can- cer promoter causing the problem. Pearson, Wachtel; Robert L. Pearson, and Kristie Ebie, (2000). Distance -weighted traffic density in proximity to a home is a risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 50:175-180. Contact: Professor Howard Wachtel, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Colorado. phone: (303) 492-7713, e-mail: vvachtel@colorado.edu. 2. Road Traffic Contributes to the Origin of Childhood Leukemia A 2004 Italian study found that Childhood Leukemia is partially caused by roadside emissions in the Province of Varese. The authors conducted a population -based, case -controlled study in the Province of Varese, northern Italy, which was covered by a population -based cancer registry. Their study found that the risk of childhood leukemia was almost four times higher for heavily exposed chil- dren compared to children whose hornes were not exposed to road traffic emissions of benzene. Children either inhale Benzene as a gas or particu- late matter which has absorbed benzene. Their model included traffic density divided into two groups -one greater and one less than 10,000 vehi- cles per day, distance, and weather conditions to estimate benzene concentration. The researcher's data suggests that motor vehicle traffic emissions are involved in the origin of childhood leukemia. 'Childhood Leukemia and Road Traffic: A population -based Case - Control study." Crosig nani P;Tittarelii A;BorginiA;CodazziT;Rovelli A; Porto E; Contlero P; Bianchi N; Tagriabue G; Fissi R; Rossitto F; Berri no F. international Journal of Cancer, 2004 , V108, N4 (FEB 10), P 596-599 2004-02-10 3. Increasing Public Transportation and Cutting Traffic Reduces Asthma Attacks This 2001 Journal of the American Medical Association study found that increasing public transportation along with other traffic control meas- ures during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics reduced acute asthma attacks by up to 44 percent in children, reduced ozone concentrations by 28 percent, and morning peak traffic by 22.5 percent. These data pro- vide support for efforts to reduce air pollution and improve health via reductions in motor vehicle traffic. Friedman, Michael; Kenneth Powell MD; Lori Hutwagner; Leroy Graham; Gerald Teague. Impact of Changes in Transportation and Commuting Behaviors During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001; 285:897-905. Contact: Michael S. Friedman, National Center for Environmental Health, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, email: mff7@cdc.gov. 4. Soot Particulate Matter Linked to Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality A recent study appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that day-to- day exposure to soot or fine particulate matter, a major component of tailpipe pollution increased the risk of various adverse health effects. More specifical- ly the study shows that each 10 microgram/meter' elevation in fine particulate air pollution leads to an 8 percent increased risk of lung cancer deaths, a 6 percent increased risk of cardiopulmonary mortali- ty (heart attacks) and 4 percent increased risk of death from general causes. Pope, Clive Arden III; Richard P. Burnett, et al. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, March 6 2002— Vol.287, No.92. Contact Clive Arden Pope, Brigham Young University, phone:(801) 422-2157, e-mail: cap3@emaii.byu.edu. 5. Truck Traffic Linked to Childhood Asthma Hospitalizations A study in Erie County, New York (excluding the city of Buffalo) found that children living in neigh- borhoods with heavy truck traffic within 220 yards of their homes had increased risks of asthma hospital- ization. The study examined hospital admission for asthma amongst children ages 0-14, and residential proximity to roads with heavy traffic. Lin, Shao; Jean Pierre Munsie; Syni-An Hwang; Edward Fitzgerald; and Michael R. Cayo; (2002). Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic. Environmental Research, Section A, Vol. 88, pp. 73-81. 6. Pregnant Women Who live Near High Traffic Areas More Likely to Have Premature and Low Birth Weight Babies Researchers observed an approximately 10-20 percent increase in the risk of premature birth and low birth weight for infants born to women living near high traffic areas in Los Angeles County. In particular, the researchers found that for each one part -per -minion increase in annual average carbon monoxide concentrations where the women lived, there was a 19 percent and 11 percent increase in risk for low -birth weight and premature births, respectively. Wilhelm, Michelle and Beate Ritz. (2002). Residential Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, 1994-1996. Environmental Health Perspectives. dot: 10.1289/ehp.5688. Contact: Beate Ritz, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, UCLA, phone: (310) 206-7458, e-mail: britz@ucla.edu. 7. Traffic Increased Cancer -Causing Pollution Levels at Tollbooth A 2003 study published in the Journal of Air & Over the last 50 years we have torn down communities to build highways. We need to rebuild our future with clean transportation and better community design. You do not need to be a public health official to know that it is dangerous to breathe diesel exhaust. Waste Management shows that there is a"significant association between vehicle traffic and curbside concentrations of the carcinogens benzene, 1,3- butadiene, and particle -bound polycyciic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).' The measurements, which were taken at the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel toll- booth, show that much of the daily pollutant vari- ability was explained by traffic volume, class and meteorology. The study provides a model for esti- mating curbside pollution levels associated with traffic that may be relevant to exposures in the urban environment. 5apkota, Amir and Buckley,Timothy J. The Mobile Source Effect on Curbside 1,3-Butadiene, Benzene, and Particle -Bound Poiycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Assessed at a Tollbooth„ Journal of Air & Waste Management. 53:7400748. Contact: Dr. Timothy J. Buckley, Departrnent of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; phone: (410) 614-5750, e-mail: tbuckley@jhsph.edu. 8. Air Inside Cars Typically Contains More Dangerous Air Pollutants than Outside The results of 23 separate scientific studies shows that in -car air pollution levels frequently reach con- centrations that may threaten human health. The reports show that the air inside of cars typically con- tains more carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene, fine particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides than ambi- ent air at nearby monitoring stations. These pollu- tants are particularly dangerous for children, the eld- erly, and people with asthma or other respiratory conditions. Kimbrell, Andrew. In -Car Air Pollution:The Hidden Threat to Automobile Drivers. International Center for Technology Assessment. July 2000. Contact: Andrew Kimbrell, phone: (202) 547-9359, email kimbrei/Clfcra.org 9. People Who Live Near Freeways Exposed to 25 Times More Soot Particulate Pollution Studies conducted in the vicinity of Interstates 405 and 710 in Southern California found that the number of ultra -fine soot particles in the air was approximate- ly 25 times more concentrated near the highways and that pollution levels gradually decrease back to normal (background) levels around 300 meters, or nearly 330 yards, downwind from the highway. The researchers note that motor vehicles are the most sig- nificant source of ultra -fine particles, which have been linked to increases in mortality and morbidity. Recent research concludes that ultra -fine soot particles are more toxic than larger particles with the same chemical composition. Moreover, the researchers found considerably higher concentrations of car- bon monoxide pollution near the highways. Zhu, Yifang; William C. Hinds; Kim Secngheon; Si Shen; Constantinos Sioutas. Concentration and size distribution of ultra - fine particles near a major highway.Journa! of the Air and Waste Management Association. September 2002. And, Study of ultra - fine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atmospheric Environment, 36(2002),4323-4335. 10. Motor Vehicle Pollution Dominate Cancer Risk The most comprehensive study of urban toxic air pollution ever undertaken shows that motor vehi- cles and other mobile sources of air pollution are the predominant source of cancer -causing air pollutants in Southern California. Overall, the study showed that motor vehicles and other mobile sources accounted for about 90 percent of the cancer risk from toxic air pollution, most of which is from diesel soot (70 percent of the cancer risk)" Industries and other stationary sources accounted for the remain- ing 10 percent. The study showed that the highest risk is in urban areas where there is heavy traffic and high concentrations of population and industry. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study -II, March 2000. Contact: Steve Barbosa, phone: (909) 396-2171, sbarbosa@aqmci.gov. or Barbara Weller, California Air Resources Board, phone: (916) 324-4816_ 11. Lung Function Reduced Among Children Living Near Truck Traffic A European study determined that exposure to traffic -related air pollution, "'in particular diesel exhaust particles," may lead to reduced lung func- tion in children living near major motorways, Brunekreef, B; NA Janssen ; J. DeHartog; H. Harssema ; M. Knape; P Van Vliet (1997).'Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motorways." Epidemiology.8(3):298-303_ 12. Traffic -Related Air Pollution Associated with Respiratory Symptoms in Two Year Old Children This cohort study in the Netherlands found that two year old children who are exposed to higher levels of traffic -related air pollution are more likely to have self -reported respiratory illnesses, including wheezing, ear/nose/throat infections, and reporting of physician -diagnosed asthma, flu or serious cold. Brauer, Dr.Michael J.et al. (2002). Air Pollution from Traffic and the Development of Respiratory Infections and Asthmatic and Allergic Symptoms in Children, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 166 pp 1092-1098. Contact: Dr Michael Brauer, School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Phone: (604) 822-9585, e- mail: brauer@interchange.ubc,ca. 13. Asthma Symptoms Caused by Truck Exhaust A study was conducted in Munster, Germany to determine the relationship between truck traffic and asthma symptoms. In total, 3,703 German students, between the ages of 12-15 years, completed a writ- ten and video questionnaire in 1994-1995. Positive associations between both wheezing and allergic rhinitis and truck traffic were found during a 12 month period. Potentially confounding variables, including indicators of socio-economic status,smok- ing, etc., did not alter the associations substantially. Duhme, H.; S.K.Weiland, et al. (1996).The association between self - reported symptoms of asthma and allergic rhinitis and self -report- ed traffic density on street of residence in adolescents. Epidemiology 7(6):578-82. 14. Proximity of a Child's Residence to Major Roads Linked to Hospital Admissions for Asthma A study in Birmingham, United Kingdom, deter- mined that living near major roads was associated with the risk of hospital admission for asthma in chil- dren younger than five years of age. The area of res- idence and traffic flow patterns were compared for children admitted to the hospital for asthma, chil- dren admitted for non -respiratory reasons, and a random sample of children from the community. Children admitted with an asthma diagnosis were significantly more likely to live in an area with high traffic flow (more than 24,000 vehicles/ 24 hrs) locat- ed along the nearest segment of main road, Edwards,) ; S.Walters, et al. (1994). Hospital admissions for asthma in preschool children: relationship to major roads rri Birmingham, United Kingdom.Archives of Environmental Health.49(4):223-7. 15. Exposure to Cancer -Causing Benzene Higher for Children Living Near High Traffic Areas German researchers compared 48 children who lived in a central urban area with high traffic density Many schools are located near busy roads in addition to having diesel buses idling nearby. Despite strong opposition prior to its construction, Salt Lake City"s TRAX system is running strong. It carries over 20,000 riders every day —many of whom commuted in cars before switching to rail. with 72 children who lived in a small city with low traffic density. They found that the blood levels of benzene in children who lived in the high -traffic -den- sity area were 71 percent higher than those of chil- dren who lived in the low -traffic -density area. Blood levels of toluene and carboxyhemoglobin (formed after breathing carbon monoxide) were also signifi- cantly elevated (56 percent and 33 percent higher, respectively) among children regularly exposed to vehicle pollution. Aplastic anemia, a serious condiion in which bone marrow stops producing blood cells, and leukemia were associated with excessive expo- sure to benzene. Jermann E, H. Hajimiragha, A. Brockhaus, I Freier, U. Ewers, A. Roscovanu: Exposure of children to benzene and other motor vehicle emissions. Zentralblatt fur Hygiene and Umweltmedizin 189:50-61,1989, 16. Air Pollution from Busy Roads Linked to Shorter Life Spans for Nearby Residents Dutch researchers looked at the effects of long-term exposure to traffic -related air pollutants on 5,000 adults.They found that people who lived near a main road were almost twice as likely to die from heart or lung disease and 1.4 times as likely to die from any premature cause compared with those who lived in less -trafficked areas.The authors say traffic emissions contain many pollutants that might be responsible for the health risks, such as ultra -fine particles, diesel soot, and nitrogen oxides, which have been linked to car- diovascular and respiratory problems. Hoek, Brunekreef,Goldbohn, Fischer„van den Brandt. (2002). Association Between Mortality and Indicators of Traffic -related Air Pollution in the Netherlands:A Cohort Study, Lancet, 360 (93411:1203-9. 17. Asthma More Common for Children Living Near Highways A study of nearly 10,000 children in England found that wheezing illness, including asthma, was more likely with increasing proximity of a child's home to main roads. The risk was greatest for children living within 90 yards of the road. Venn et al. (2001). Living Near A Main Road and the Risk of Wheezing Illness in Children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 164, pp 2177-2180. 18. Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) from Vehicles Exacerbates Asthma Attacks Researchers at St. Mary's Hospital in Portsmouth, England determined that while 80 percent of asthma attacks are initially caused by viral infections, exposure to traffic pollution can increase symptoms as much as 200 percent. The team measured the exposure of 114 asthmatic children between ages eight -eleven from nonsmoking families over almost a whole year. They found a strong correlation between higher NO2 pol- lution and the severity of an attack. Chauhan, Al, et al. Personal exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the severity of virus -induced asthma in children. Lancet. Volume 361 Issue 9373 Page 1939. 19. A School's Proximity to Highways Associated with Asthma Prevalence A study of 1,498 children in 13 schools in the Province of South Holland found a positive relation- ship between school proximity to highways and asthma occurrence. Truck traffic intensity and the concentration of pollutants measured in schools were found to be significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms. Van Wet, P., M. Knape, et al. (1997), Motor vehicle exhaust and chron- ic respiratory symptoms in children living near freeways. Environmental Research. 74(2):122-32. 20. Five Times More Deaths Due to Air Pollution than Traffic Accidents This study analyzed the affect of traffic -related air pollution and traffic accidents on life expectancy in the area of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It esti- mated that almost five times more deaths in this region resulted from motor vehicle pollution than from traffic accidents. 5zagun and Seidel. (2000). Mortality due to toad traffic in Baden- Aurttemberg. Gesundheitswesen. 62(4):225-33. 21. Cancer Risk Higher Near Major Sources of Air Pollution, Including Highways A 1997 English study found a cancer corridor within three miles of highways, airports, power plants, and other major polluters. The study examined children who died of leukemia or other cancers from the years 1953-1980, where they were born and where they died. It found that the greatest danger lies a few hundred yards from a highway or polluting facility and decreases as you get further away from the facility. Knox and Gilman (1997). Hazard proximities of childhood cancers in Great Britain from 1953-1980.1ournal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 51:151-159. 22. Diesel Exhaust Linked to Asthma This study found that particulate matter from diesel trucks can act as an irritant in the airway caus- ing asthma. The authors show that diesel exhaust can trigger asthma attacks in individuals with no pre-existing asthmatic history. When a natural aller- gen, such as pollen, was added to the situation, the reaction was even more dramatic. Pandya, Robert et al. "Diesel Exhaust and Asthma: Hypothess and Molecular Mechanisms of Action." Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements Volume 110, Number 1, February 2002. 23. Low Levels of Air Pollution Cause Asthma Attacks Exposure to miniscule amounts of ozone and soot particulate matter 2.5 pm or less (PM2.5) in air at lev- els above current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards is a risk factor for respiratory symptoms in children with asthma. Daily respiratory symptoms and medication use were examined prospectively for 271 children younger than 12 years with physician -diagnosed, active asthma residing in southern New England. Exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone and PM 2.5 from April 1 through September 30, 2001, was assessed using ozone (peak 1-hour and 8-hour) and 24-hour PM 2.5. Logistic regression analyses using generalized estimating equations were performed separately for maintenance medication users (n 130) and nonusers (n = 141). Associations between pollutants (adjusted for temperature, controlling for same- and previous -day levels) and respiratory symp- toms and use of rescue medication were evaluated. Mean (SD) levels were 59 (19) ppb (one -hour Don't inhale! In -car pollution contains more toxins than ambient air according to a California study. average) and 51 (16) ppb (8-hour average) for ozone and 13 (8) pg/m3 for PM2.5. In co -pollutant models, ozone level but not PM2.5 was significantly associat- ed with respiratory symptoms and rescue medica- tion use among children using maintenance med- ication; a 50-ppb increase in one -hour ozone was associated with increased likelihood of wheeze (by 35 percent) and chest tightness (by 47 percent).The highest levels of ozone (one -hour or eight -hour averages) were associated with increased shortness of breath and rescue medication use. No significant, exposure -dependent associations were observed for any outcome by any pollutant among children who did not use maintenance medication. Asthmatic children using maintenance medica- tion are particularly vulnerable to ozone, controlling for exposure to fine particles, at levels below EPA standards. Gent, Janneane PhD; Elizabeth W.Triche, PhD; Theodore R. Holford, PhD; Kathleen Belanger, PhD; Michael. B. Bracken, PhD; William S. Beckett, MD; Brian P, Leaderer, PhD, Association of Low -Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, Journal of the American Medical Association_ 2003; 290:1 859-1867. htrpi/joma.amaassn, org/cgt/content/absrract/290/14/1859. One happy commuter! Lea loves Disney's monorail, but wishes that she had more transportation choices sooner. 24. Motor Vehicle Air Toxins Cause High Pollution Levels Inside Homes An air pollution study was done as a part of the West Oakland Diesel Truck Emissions Reduction Initiative. Researchers measured diesel particulates near mobile and idling trucks at the West Dakland Port. An aethalometer was used to measure indoor toxins and a high level of diesel particulates was found. The people who lived in these homes were exposed indoors to five times the level of diesel particulates that people were exposed to outdoors in other areas of Oakland. W. Buchan, M,D.and M. Chan Jackson; Container Truck Traffic Assessment and Potential Mitigation Measures for the West Oakland Diesel Truck Emission Reduction initiative, from"Clearing the Air, Reducing Diesel Pollution in West Oakland," a Report to Pacific Institute, 654 13th Street, Preservation Park, Oakland, California 94612, by TIAX LLC, 1601 S. De Anza Blvd., Suite 100, Cupertino, California 95014, November, 2003 The following technical reports are online at: http://www.pacinst.org/diese1/ 1. T1AX Diesel Truck Study (T1AX, 2003) 2. West Oakland Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inventory and Air Quality Monitoring Study (Pacific Institute (P1, 2003} 3. Summary of Studies (P1, 2003) &Data Gap Analysis (PI,2003) _rf Highway Health Hazard Stories rl a , -1 -� L - 21K he following stories highlight trnsportation-related air pollution issues from around the country. As metropolitan areas continue to sprawl and traffic congestion worsens, communities are facing important long- term decisions about transportation. The Sierra Club believes that widening and building new highways is not only poor transportation policy but also threatens public health. We realize that there are transportation chal- lenges around the country, but we believe that rea- sonable, alternative solutions exist that expand transportation choices, reduce congestion, and help to clean our air. We have included stories from California, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Washington, D.C. and Wisconsin. California Challenge. Existing air pollution laws in Southern California set the maximum emission limits for toxic pollution from individual facilities, but cumu- lative emissions of toxic pollutants are not regulated. Highways are an important contributor to the cumu- lative emissions of toxic air pollutants in a given area but are currently not regulated as individual facilities. Solution. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is developing a plan that would entail new public notification requirements for schools and home builders and make the region- al air pollution control agency more prominent in land use decisions. One proposal for the plan would require developers of new schools, hospitals, day care centers, and home builders to provide notice to their patrons of toxic emissions within 1,000 feet. The presence of any freeway, or potentially busy boulevard, within 1,000 feet could trigger the notice. "I don't think that they should build a school that lies along a freeway." said Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.'' Contact: Sam Atwood, South Coast Air Quality Management District, phone: 909-396-3687, email: satwood@agmd.gov. or Tim Frank (510) 710-4563, email: tim.frank@sierraclub.org. Illinois Challenge, The Illinois Department of Trans- portation is planning to expand the Eisenhower Expressway through Oak Park. The Illinois Tollway Authority has proposed building tollways; Route 53 into Lake County north of Chicago and I-355 in Will County south of Chicago. These highways and toll - ways will create hundreds of thousands of added truck and car trips near neighborhoods, schools, and parks. Families with small children could be put at risk, but are unaware of the health consequences of larger roadways near their homes. Children design alternative transportation options. Why wont the Bush administration put more money into dean buses and trains? Solution. The Illinois DOT and Tallway author- ity should examine the cancer, asthma, and other health impacts on local neighborhoods, schools and children and invest more in public transportation to reduce traffic and pollution risks. Contact: Nancy Wagner, Environmental Law and Policy Center, phone: (312) 795-3726; Jack Darin, Sierra Club, (312) 251-1680,jackdarin@sierracluborg. Nevada Challenge. Public health and environmental advocates in Las Vegas support widening U.S. 95 from six to ten lanes. A Sierra Club supported inde- pendent study concluded that widening U.S. 95 would cause up to 1,400 more cancers per one mil- lion people over 70 years or more than 1000 times the EPA goal of one -in -a -million cancer risk. The Sierra Club is suing to stop the project, because the Bush Administration failed to consider health conse- quences and alternatives to highway construction as required by law, Solution. When alternatives to the project are assessed it will quickly become evident that less pol- luting options exist, such as clean diesel buses and light rail. In order to avoid significant increases in cancer causing emissions from trucks and cars, more highway lanes should not be considered a reason- able option. For more information see USA Today article by John Ritter titled "Lawsuit Pits Risks and Roads." USA Today, Friday, March 7, 2003 at www.usatoday.com/news /nation/2003-O3-O6-vegas-highway-usat xhtm. Contact:Tara Smith, Sierra Club, phone: (702) 732-7750, email: tara.smith@sierraclub.org New Hampshire Challenge. The U.S. EPA Region 1's office has accused the state of New Hampshire of failing to prepare for the environmental impact of the rapid population boom that is expected to follow the widening of Interstate-93,the main commuter high- way connecting the state to Boston, Massachusetts. This is one of the highways that the Bush adminis- tration has fast tracked for approval, which may not leave enough time to study the health implications of widening Interstate-93. New Hampshire plans to spend $18 million to ease the environmental impacts of the highway project, but that is far too lit- tle to address a likely population boom in more than 20 New Hampshire communities that would tax existing services and threaten open spaces, drinking water supplies, and wildlife. Solution. Robert Varney, head of the EPA for New England, called for a total of $52 million to be allocated to environmental protections and threat- ened delays in the highway project if the environ- mental concerns weren't adequately addressed. The state is counting on federal highway dollars to cover 80 percent of the cost of the $350 million project, meaning the EPA has significant say in the highway's future. The EPA should focus on alternative trans- portation plans, such as clean buses and a rail sys- tem, which would protect public health and the environment. In addition, environmental leaders are looking for mitigation and technical assistance to pro- tect towns bordering the highway and teach them how to protect themselves. Contact: Catherine Corkery, Sierra Club, phone: (603) 224-8222, email: catherine.corkery@sierra- club.org Ohio Cincinnati Challenge. In the fall of 2003, after a two-year long study of increasing gridlock on 1-75 in SW Ohio, one of the nation's most con- gested interstate highway sections, a committee representing local regional governments and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) rec- ommended building passenger train service from downtown Cincinnati to the northern suburbs along 1-75. However, the committee's recommendation also included a plan to widen the highway by one or two lanes, despite clear evidence from an inde- pendent consultant that high frequency passen- ger trains in this area are the 'only solution to the congestion problem." The study's own expert consultants predict that widening 1-75 by one lane would result in a 30% increase in region -wide traffic by 2030, and at no time would widening by one lane improve traffic congestion levels above "failing" levels as meas- ured by ODOT. Furthermore, a cost -benefit study, conducted by HLB Decision Economics of Maryland and directed by a panel of economists and transportation experts from Cincinnati -area businesses, universi- ties, and governments, found that "the benefits from highway expansion would be concentrated in the early years of the life cycle of the project and that these benefits erode over the years," whereas "the light rail train benefits grow over the years because commuters would divert to transit as congestion worsens in the corridor." Analysis of the proposed train route projected more than $900 million in net benefits over the next 30 years, with an 8.5 percent rate of return on the investment. The economic benefits of train service include time savings, affordable mobility, and a decrease in air pollution, among other benefits. Solution. Throughout the study local repre- sentatives from the public interest, land use, and aca- demic communities advocated that the public FIGURE 3 Cincinnati Highway Health Hazards Exposed population (<400 m from a highway) r Intermediate area (400-1600 m from a highway) Unexposed population (> t 600 m from a highway) Houses, recruited for allergy tests. This map shows the extensive coverage of highways in the Cincinnati metropolitan area, and the areas of highest risk for cancer. New or expanded highways will only increase these cancer corridors and put more of the population at risk. Map courtesy LADCO. health, environmental, and land use impacts of the each alternative solution be thoroughly examined. One of the most promising solutions raised by sev- eral members of the committee is to combine sev- eral smart growth land use planning in coordination with the passenger train service. Unfortunately, the committee refused to include these critical factors in the study. Because Cincinnati has long struggled with poor air quality and the SW Ohio and Northern Kentucky area currently fails to meet federal smog and soot health standards, the proposed highway expansion is likely to have long-term, negative public health impacts. The Sierra Club strongly supports the passenger train solution and calls for smarter land use practices to support it.We also continue to push for a full eval- UTM Zone 15 West -East Distance (km) uation of the impact on sprawl and air quality of the proposed highway project. The Lake Michigan Air Directors are currently assessing the health impacts of highways in the Cincinnati area. Columbus Challenge. According to a report released by the Ohio Environmental Council, more than a quarter million people in central Ohio live in a diesel hot spot, or an area with chronically elevated levels of toxic air pollutants from diesel engine exhaust. The people living in these areas are at greater risk of suffering from a variety of adverse health effects including asthma, cancer, and even premature death. The hot spots include corridors surrounding all of the Interstate Routes 70, 71, 270, and 670; the U.S. Routes 23, 33, and 36; and portions of State Routes 13, 16,31,37, 79,104,161, and 315. Solution. The report recommends both local and state actions to rectify the problem, At the local Montgomery 240 250 750 300 UTM Zone 15 South -North Distance (km} 0 FIGURE 4 D 1-No54-2 W, Brazoria pal eton 320 Particulate Matter Concentrations, Houston Metro Area Annual Average Ambient Concentrations of Diesel PM in Houston, 1996, based on Dispersion Modeling Using Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISC5T3) model. level, all school and public transit buses should be retrofitted and switch to ultra -low sulfur diesel fuel. In addition, allvehicles owned or contracted by local governments (i.e. garbage trucks, construction equipment and other city services) should also be retrofitted and powered by cleaner fuel. At the state level, assistance programs should be developed to help localities fund their retrofitting and fuel switch- ing agenda. The state can also mandate that all pri- vately -owned vehicles must retrofit and use ultra - low diesel fuel to reduce pollution. Contact: Glen Brand, Midwest Representative, Sierra Club, phone: (513) 861-4001, email: glen.brand@sierraclub.org. Kurt Walzer, Ohio Environmenal Council, phone: (614) 487-7506. Texas Challenge. The Houston area has been at the center of much debate over major freeway expansions, most notably the Katy Freeway and the Grand Parkway. The Katy Freeway traverses the City of Houston, serving over 200,000 vehicles a day. Local transportation officials plan to enlarge the highway to more than 18 lanes, greatly increasing the number of vehicles traveling through some of the more densely populated areas of the city and surrounding areas. The Grand Parkway is a proposed series of high- way segments that would constitute the fourth "loop" around Houston. Built through or near many small towns, it is considered critical for major hous- ing and commercial developments in the city's sub- urbs that would be built near the Grand Parkway path, soon after the highway's construction. Portions of Grand Parkway have recently been included in both the 1-69 and Trans -Texas Corridor (T-TC) "NAFTA" trade route, which would drastically increase international truck traffic to the region.T-TC is designed to be a road -rail -utility corridor 1 mile wide. Solution. The current highway expansion plans will hurt neighboring cities and towns but will do little in the long-term to alleviate congestion and urban sprawl. Instead of continuing to build new lanes that will induce further sprawl and increase the number of cars on the roads, the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should focus on safer and more reasonable alternatives. For the Katy Freeway, transit alternatives such as expanded rail system and more bus routes should be pursued. A coalition of residents affected by the Katy Freeway expansion project has called upon TXDOT to halt their old and ineffective plan, and adopt an alternative plan which will improve mobil- ity without harming the health and livelihood of cit- izens. Their alternative plan for the freeway calls for a combination of depressing the road, adding rail and a dense planting of trees to protect schools and residential areas from dangerous fine particulates in freeway pollution. For the Grand Parkway, resources should be allo- cated on a "fix it first" approach. Before constructing new freeways to serve a projected population that would not exist without this new road, resources should be focused to more needy projects. For example, a number of existing and poorly main- tained highways should be fixed and improved to avoid flooding and relieve unnecessary congestion for existing towns and neighborhoods near portions of the proposed route. Contact: Christine Sagstetter, Sierra Club, phone: (713) 725-9421. email: christr`ne.sagstetter@sierradub.org Utah Challenge. Utah's Salt Lake City metro- politan area runs along the base of the 10,000 ft. Wasatch Mountains. During winter months low Lying, high-pressure inversions trap air pol- lution from automobiles directly at the level people breathe. This problem causes cases of childhood asthma and respiratory illnesses of the public. in January, 2004 Utah began anoth- er winter inversion, filling hospitals with respi- ratory victims.The state is asking people not to drive and prohibiting wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Exacerbating the problem, Utah is undertak- ing three highway expansions. The State of Utah is preparing for another expansion of I-15 to the north, pushing through court the first phase of a new 125-mile bypass freeway ironi- cally named the Legacy Highway, and begin- ning an Environmental Impact Statement process for a second phase of Legacy in west- ern Salt Lake County re -named for political and legal reasons, the Mountain View Corridor. Each of these projects facilitates massive sprawling development and increases auto- mobile dependency. Legacy Highway would also act as a trucking bypass route, which would significantly increase the pollution from trucks in the metropolitan area. Solution. Utah should postpone new road building and change their priority to building a regional transit system first. This could be accom- plished by expanding upon the very popular and Air pollution obscuring downtown Salt Lake City is hard on eyes and harmful to children's lungs. successful two existing light rail lines and adding commuter train and bus rapid transit construction to the mix. A regional transit sys- tem would encourage smarter development patterns that would reduce automobile use and protect public health from air pollution related illnesses. Contact: Marc Heileson, Sierra Club. phone: (801) 467-9294 email: marc.helleson@sierraclub.org Washington D.C. Metro Area ICC Challenge. In 2002,the Maryland Legislature passed a res- olution urging that a five year old study concerning the Inter -County Connector (ICC) be restarted.The new Governor, Robert Ehrlich, favors re -starting the study and building the highway as quickly as possible. The Sierra Club has raised the health issue to the Legislature, to public officials, and to the public in various materials. Pro -highway advocates say the ICC will improve air quality and health by getting cars traveling at higher speeds, and thus emitting less pollution. However, data pre- viously highlighted in this report would suggest otherwise. Solution. Instead of adding a highway extremely close to communities throughout much of Maryland, the state should instead examine ways to implement realistic alternative forms of transportation. A train system is the option that holds the most promise. Wilson Bridge Challenge. The fate of this project was formally decided in 1997. But since then the Sierra Club has urged Maryland and Virginia to choose train, rather than High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, for the bridge. The Sierra Club has stressed the air quality benefits from less traffic and more public transit. Solution. Instead of expanding the bridge to hold more cars, the state should instead add a lane for commuter train. Many of the driv- ers who utilize the Wilson Bridge are commuters traveling to the fairly concentrated downtown of the District of Columbia. As a result, Metrorail would be an effective method for transporting many of these workers. Beltway Challenge. Virginia Department of Transportation issued a DEIS in 2002 which proposed widening the Beltway from eight lanes to ten or twelve lanes. Sierra Club organized against the proposal with the message that widening the Beltway would worsen air quality and hurt public health. The Beltway already passes in close proximity to many communities surrounding the DC area. Further expansion would undoubtedly worsen air pollution and put more people at risk of cancer and other adverse health effects. onsiderable scientific evidence links higher rates of asthma and other respiratory problems with freeway proximity. Residents who live near freeways would clearly benefit from lower, not higher traffic volumes." —DR. SETH FOLDY, FORMER CITY OF MILWAUKEE HEALTH COMMISSIONER Solution, The Beltway does not have a subway line that mirrors its path around the city. Before any lane expansion should even be considered, people should be given the option of traveling around the perimeter of the city on public transit and particularly on a new Metrorail line. Contact: Chris Carney, Sierra Club Mid -Atlantic Office, phone:703-312-0533,email:chris.comey@sierraclub.org Wisconsin S.E. Challenge. Southeast Wisconsin road builders and developers proposed a massive highway expansion project for Hwy 1-94 and Hwy 45. The impact of highway expansion will be the greatest in Milwaukee County, where numerous schools are with- in a mile of highways. Milwaukee County is also home to minorities and lower income residents in metropol- itan Milwaukee. The plan is to increase the number of lanes of I-94 and Hwy-45 from six lanes to eight lanes of traffic. This plan would increase air pollution, encourage augmented traffic flow, and will put at risk Wisconsin residents' ability to breathe clean air. Solution. Since highly t►aveled road corridors are becoming hazardous to our health, then one log- ical alternative would be to utilize transportation investments to slow the growth of vehicle miles trav- eled on our roadways.The best example of that is the transportation improvements in Portland, Oregon that considered and use and air quality issues during the planning process. Milwaukee is an area of non- compliance for ground -level ozone pollution, Portland is not. Madison Challenge. The City of Madison and WI DOT are reconstructing East Washington Avenue to ease the flow of traffic, now at 55,000 vehi- cles per day. This route runs near East High School and several grade schools. Pollution monitors show high levels of soot or particulate pollution already. Wisconsin DOT is also expanding the Verona Road interchange located near many neighborhoods. Solution. The DOT should assess the cancer and smog risks to these schools, and nearby neigh- borhoods, and consider alternatives like streetcars, commuter trains, and clean buses that can cut traffic and pollution risks. Contact Brett Hulsey, Senior Midwest Rep- resentative, Sierra Club, phone: (608) 257- 4994, email: brett.hulsey@sierraclub.org or Rosemary Wehnes, SE Wisconsin Organizer at (414) 453-3127, email: rosemorywehnes@srerracluborg, Appendix Resources and Local Information Endnotes 1 Dockery and Pope."Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air Pollution" Annual Review of Public Health 1994; 15:07-132. 2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2002 National Assessment, Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatality and Injury Estimates for 2002. httpi/www-nrd nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rprs/2003/AssessO26W,pdf 3 American Lung Association.'" Trends in Air Quality." 2002.http'/wwwlungusa.org/data/aqp/Aol.pdf 4 American Lung Association's"Asthma in Children"fact sheet. March 2003, available at hrtio://www.lungusa.org/asthma/ascpedfac99.html 5 Pearson et al. "Distance -weighted traffic density in proximity. Pearson et al. "Distance -weighted traffic den- sity in proximity to a home is a risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers;"Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. 2000; 50:175-180. 6 American Public Transportation Association"Historical Ridership Trends" httol/www.apto.com/reseorch/stats/ridershpiriderrndcfm 7 The following description is based on the Bush administration's proposal for reauthorizing the federal transportation program. Information on the proposal, which the Bush administration calls "SAFETEA"(Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 5,1072), can be found at http.//www.fhwa.docgov/reauthorization/safetea htm. 8 EPA: Development, Community, and Environmental Division (1808)."Our Built and Natural Environments:A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality." Washington, DC 20460. EPA publication number 231-R-01-002, January 2001, p. 8. Available at httpl/wwwsmartgrowth.org/pdf/buiir environment/chapter2,pdf 9 Ibid. p21, 10 Bureau of Transportation Statistics."Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000."www.bts.gov/publica- tions/rransportatron_sratistics annual report/2000/ 11 American Farmland Trust. "Study Shows Policies Drive Development Out of Atlanta," 1999 http.//www farmland.org/news/011599.htm 12 Surface Transportation Policy Project. "Why Are the Roads So Congested? An Analysis of the Texas Transportation Institute's Data On Metropolitan Congestion"Washington, DC; November 7,1999. Available at hrtp:f/transact.iracorp.com/reporcasp?id=63 13 Ibid. 14 Friedman et al."Impact of transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma "Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001; 285(7):897-905. 15 lbid. pp.59-60. 16 1000 Friends of Oregon (1998) "Making the Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality Connection" Portland Oreg on. http/✓www frrends,org/resources/tut nutshell.html 17 Thanks to the staff of the Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) for helping to compile many of these studies. For more information, see wwwel pc.org. 18 Kelley,Wllliam _California Air Agency to Protect Schools,Hospitals "Environmental News Service. February 27,2003. http//ens-news_com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-27-02.asp F ..t. v, , ,. 1-c.. ndi, ..-..,,,, .rx ro,__ www.sierraclub.org/sprawl is a comprehensive website with information on cutting traffic and air pollution Statistics on pedestrian safety, congestion, federal transportation spending, and household transportation expenditures can be found for each state and some smaller regions at: http://transactiracorp.com/statesidefauitasp Maps of local cancer -causing pollution can be found at:http✓/www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/ To find local traffic or VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled), check your local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or find regional statistics on congestion, travel delay, fuel consumption and congestion cost at: h tip://mobility ramu.edu/urns/mobility_data/ information on public transit spending, smog, and investment in transportation choices for our 50 largest cities can be found at: wwwsierraclub.org/sprawl/report07/charts.asp. information on hazardous air pollution in your area can be found at the Environmental Defense website: htrpJ/www.scorecard.org/env-releases/hap/ The "State of the Air" report, released by the American Lung Association can be found at: http://lungac- tion.orglreportsistateofthealr2003.html i' 85 Second Street, Second 408 C Street NE Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM TuftsNow Published on Tufts Now (http://now.tufts.edu) Home > Big Road Blues Living near a highway can be bad for your health in a million small ways "When it comes to air pollution, the main thing that really affects people is particulates —not gases," says Doug Brugge, a professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts. Photo: John Soares By David Levin August 16,2012 I'm sitting in gridlock in Boston's Chinatown neighborhood on a Thursday afternoon. It's a typical Boston rush hour —traffic isn't so much driving as oozing through town. Less than a block away, Interstate 93 is in even worse shape; a snarl of commuters is beginning a painful crawl home to the suburbs. Thankfully, I'm not behind the wheel. I'm in the back of a 26-foot RV driven by Tufts environmental engineering student Jess Perkins, El 2, and recent grad Dana Harada, A11. They are regulars in Chinatown. But unlike scores of frustrated commuters on 1-93, they don't have a destination. They simply drive in circles. "It's like going on a road trip twice a week," says Perkins. Sometimes the two listen to country; mostly, they just talk. With every lap through Chinatown, Perkins and Harada are hard at work, collecting air -quality data for a five- year interdisciplinary study based at Tufts called the Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and http://now.tutts.edulprint/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 1 of 11 Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM Health (CAFEH). The goal of the study, expected to wrap up a year from now, is to understand how vehicular pollution affects the health of people living close to a highway. Over four years, the RV has racked up more than 15,000 miles circling the Boston -area communities of Chinatown, Dorchester, Somerville and Malden. Behind the driver's seat, where I'm sitting, a mobile laboratory measures airborne pollutants: gases, such as nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide, and tiny solids called ultrafine particulate matter. Of the three, the ultrafine particulates are arguably the biggest threat to public health. "When it comes to air pollution, the main thing that really affects people is particulates —not gases," says Doug Brugge, the study's principal investigator and a professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts. "Most of the mortality, most of the economic impact [of fine and ultrafine particulates] are coming from cardiovascular disease. It's not primarily asthma or lung cancer," says Doug Brugge. Photo: John Soares Because of their small size —some are just a few molecules across —tiny particulates are essentially minuscule bullets, delivering toxins deep into the body where larger particles can't reach. "The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that they cause 80,000 or 100,000 deaths a year in the United States, and maybe four million or more worldwide," Brugge says. Tracking air pollution today is a far more subtle job than monitoring the haze of pollutants a few generations ago ever was. Before the U.S. government first allocated funding for air pollution research, in 1955, entire regions could be swallowed by smoke and smog. In 1948, residents of Donora, Pa., a mill town just south of Pittsburgh, woke to a dense cloud of particulate pollutants that had become trapped in the Monongahela River valley by stagnant weather. When the smog lifted five days later, 20 people were dead, and nearly half of the town's 14,000 residents had fallen sick. It was one of the worst air pollution disasters in U.S. history, and its impact on public health was easy to see: "You didn't have to do statistical analysis. You could just see people come to the hospital and die," says http:j/now.tufts.edu/print/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 2 of 11 Big Road Blues Brugge. 7f6/16, 12:49 PM Although U.S. environmental regulations have gotten the big, visible clouds of particulates, such as the industrial sulfur dioxide emissions that contributed to the Donora crisis, under control, Brugge believes there's still plenty of cause for alarm. Over the last 30 years, growing numbers of studies have shown that smaller particulates emitted by trucks and cars barreling down our nation's highways can promote heart disease and strokes. The EPA regulates these tinier hazards, to a point, but Brugge is concerned that the agency hasn't gone far enough to safeguard the health of roadside residents. About 10 percent of the U.S. population —some 35 million people —live within 100 meters of a four -lane highway, according to the EPA. Brugge's hope is to clarify the implications of this fact by measuring the airborne particulates along the road while monitoring the health of people who live in the vicinity. It's a task requiring both patience and precision. Small, Smaller, Smallest UETRAFINE PARTICLES <100 nanometors in diameter - FJNE PARTICLES <2.5 ni crony In diameter HUMAN HAIR 50-70 microns in diameter Fine and ultrafine particles are much smaller than the width of a human hair, with ultrafines posing the greater potential risk to human health. the tailpipe. Some blobs are made up of unburned oil and byproducts of burning fossil fuels. Particulates come in a few different flavors, each smaller than the next, and each with its own implications for public health. Coarse particulates (known as "PM10" in the public health world) measure about 10 microns across —roughly one -seventh the width of a human hair. They're mostly made up of dust from construction, vehicular tire and brake wear and the road surface itself. As particulates go, they're not as high on Brugge's hit list. It's the really tiny stuff, he says, that poses the real danger: fine particulates (PM2.5)— particles smaller than 2.5 microns —and "ultrafines" (PM0.1), the smallest of the small, at 0.1 microns and below. These are created almost exclusively by combustion. As a car or truck engine runs, its exhaust gases condense into minuscule blobs within seconds of leaving gasoline; others form out of the countless chemical When they're inhaled, it's not just the lungs that take a hit, Brugge says. It's mainly the heart that suffers. "Most of the mortality, most of the economic impact [of fine and ultrafine particulates] are coming from cardiovascular disease," he observes. "It's not primarily asthma or lung cancer." Throughout the 1980s and early '90s, dozens of studies found links between fine particulate pollution and cardiovascular health. One of the largest and most influential of these, the Harvard Six Cities Study, followed http:f/now.tufts.edu/print/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 3 of 11 Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM more than 8,000 participants in six towns across the Midwest and New England. Over 15 years, the initial phase of the study tracked each person's health and measured particulate levels in the air over their communities. Its findings, first released in 1993, showed that even a minuscule increase in fine particulates (just 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air), could cause up to an 18 percent bump in cardiovascular disease, With research like this confirming the health impact of fine particulates, the EPA finally began to regulate them in 1997. Yet Brugge says there's reason to think that ultrafine particles, which the EPA does not regulate, are even more insidious than their larger counterparts. Unlike fine particulates (PM2.5), which don't change much from day to day, ultrafines can fluctuate dramatically over the course of a morning or afternoon, depending on the weather and how many cars and trucks are on the road. Ultrafines are also confined to a relatively small area. While fine particulates disperse over an entire city, their tinier cousins stick close to major highways, often spiking dramatically within a few hundred meters of the source. Short distances do matter. During one winter rush hour, as the Tufts mobile testing lab drove within 100 meters of Interstate 93, it tallied more than 120,000 ultrafine particles in every cubic centimeter of air. Moving a few blocks farther away, that number dropped dramatically —to less than 40,000 particles. The reduction might be a result of new particles evaporating, condensing into larger particles, or —most likely —mixing with fresh air as they drift away from the road. But Brugge says one thing is clear: Because ultrafines are mostly concentrated near their source, people living and working immediately next to a highway will disproportionately suffer their effects. Matters of the Heart At first glance, the health impact of fine and ultrafine particulates seems counterintuitive. Breathing particles of any sort should cause problems in your lungs, not heart, right? But like most things in medicine, it's not so simple. http://now.tufts.edulprint/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 4 of 11 Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM Fine and ultrafine particulates both cause cardiovascular disease in similar ways. Once they hit your lungs, your body immediately recognizes that something is amiss. "It essentially says, 'Oh, crap, something's wrong here,' and releases cytokines, molecules that control immune response," says David Weiss, M12, who works on the CAFEH study analyzing health surveys generated as part of the community outreach component of the research project. Those cytokines are used to summon help to the site of the infection, but also affect the activity of the immune system throughout the body. Weiss likens the body's reaction to the terror -alert system that was put into place after 9/11. "You know, the one that was green, yellow, red," he says. "The higher levels of cytokines will take you from a level green to a level yellow." In other words, your whole body goes on high alert, causing elevated levels of inflammation. Of course, not all inflammation is bad, says Doug Brugge. For example, if you cut your finger, within a day, you'll see some inflammation (redness) around the cut as your immune system mobilizes to kill any invading bacteria. "That is an example of a good inflammatory response, because it's localized," says Brugge. "It's responding to a real problem, and it's controlled. It has a beginning and an end." But constant exposure to fine and ultrafine particulate pollution can cause chronic inflammation. If that happens, white blood cells called macrophages, which are part of the body's natural defense mechanism, go into overdrive, seeking out bacteria or other foreign objects in the bloodstream. They start attacking whatever's there with extra gusto— including certain types of cholesterol that accumulate in the bloodstream. As macrophages gorge themselves on this fatty molecule, they (and their cholesterol contents) settle into the inner lining of blood vessels, where they slowly build up and create "Larger particles can't cross the barrier from the lungs to the bloodstream," says David Weiss, M12, who has worked on analyzing neighborhood health surveys. "But the ultrafine particles can." Photo: John Soares http:jlnow.tufts.edu/print/articles(big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 5 of 11 Big Road Blues artery -clogging plaques. 7/6/16, 12:44 PM Weiss says that some of these deposits may happen anyway as the body ages, but inflammation caused by particulate pollution speeds the process, leading to premature heart attacks and strokes. In this regard, fine and ultrafine particles have identical effects on the body. The big difference between them is their size. The smaller the particle, the more surface area it has per its mass. If that sounds confusing, think of it this way: When you're holding a bowling ball (or any other solid, for that matter) you're really only touching one thing —its outermost surface. But smash that bowling ball into tiny pieces, and you'll end up with dozens of surfaces you can touch. Each new shard increases the total amount of bowling ball material exposed, meaning the surface area of the bowling ball increases. The same is true of particulate pollution —the smaller the particles of a pollutant, the more exposed surfaces they have collectively. That means they're more likely than larger particles to react with chemicals in the body that trigger an immune response. Essentially, Weiss says, this gives the pollutants that make up ultrafine particles more bang for their buck. They're more potent than larger particles, so they may lead more quickly to heart disease. And, he adds, they may be small enough to get directly into the bloodstream, where they can do even more damage. "Larger particles can't cross the barrier from the lungs to the bloodstream," says Weiss, "but the ultrafine particles can. So because of that, and partly because of their increased exposed surface area, there's more of an opportunity for them to have reactions that will cause inflammation." The only way to avoid this inflammation —short of somehow removing particles from the air around you —is to spend less time near major highways. "For people who move away from the highway, it's like they quit smoking," says Wig Zamore, a longtime resident of Somerville with a master's degree in urban planning. Over the past decade, Zamore has worked with community groups on public health and clean -air issues, and is a member of the CAFEH steering committee, a group of academics and community members who help guide the study's research. "Their risk pretty immediately starts to go down, and for the people who move closer to a highway, their risk immediately starts to go up over a matter of just a couple years," he says, citing a 2009 study by the University of British Columbia. The problem is, of course, that many people living near highways don't have the financial means to move. According to Zamore, of the 35 million Americans who live by a major four -lane highway, roughly 18 percent are renters or live in low-income housing. Community Action "For people who move away from the highway, it's like they quit smoking," says Wig Zamore, a CAFEH steering committee member. Photo: John Soares http://now.tutts,edu/print/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 6 of 11 Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM Tina Wang deals with new immigrants in Chinatown every day as a translator for the Chinese Progressive Association, a neighborhood advocacy group. Four years ago, she moved to the United States from China. She says that most of the community members she knows are aware that living near a major highway isn't great for their health, but they simply have nowhere else to go. "[One man] told me, 'How can I leave? I don't have more money to move out. I [waited] more than five years to get this low-income apartment.' He knows there's pollution from the highway. He knows it's not good. But he asks me, 'What else can I do?' " Wang is a member of CAFEH's field staff, a group of 23 people who live mostly in the study's target neighborhoods. To assess the health impacts of ultrafine particulates in those areas, CAFEH not only needs air samples; it needs biological data, too —so members of the field team go door-to-door, convincing neighbors to answer medical questionnaires, submit to blood pressure tests and give blood samples during weekly clinics held at a central location in each participating neighborhood. Tina Wang is a member of CAFEH's field staff. Photo: John Soares Over four years, the field team has canvassed Somerville, Dorchester, Chinatown and Malden —all areas where the CAFEH RV has collected air -quality data. So far, they've recruited 700 participants, 450 of whom have attended the CAFEH-run clinics. "To our knowledge, our study is the only one that's both measuring ultrafines near the highway and looking at biological markers of people living in those areas," says Brugge. That's only part of what makes the study distinctive, he says. CAFEH's philosophy is to involve community members not just as sources of data, but also as colleagues in its research, as Tina Wang and Wig Zamore are. Other researchers in the public health community are taking notice. "[CAFEH] is pretty unique in terms of its blend of hard -science approaches and attempts to both use community residents and keep the community informed throughout the project," says Jonathan Levy, a professor of environmental health at Boston University, who is on the thesis committees of two PhD. students working with CAFEH— Allison Patton from Tufts School of Engineering and Kevin Lane at the BU School of Public Health. The benefits of collaboration are many. As Tina Wang sees it, even a task as simple as filling out a survey or giving blood can help embolden those involved. "[Chinatown residents] don't have high expectations for the government doing something for Chinatown. But if they can do a little bit for the community, [by participating in the study], they feel powerful." One City's Response Some communities aren't simply waiting for the final results before they do something. Tucked into a bend in the Mystic River lies Somerville's Ten Hills neighborhood —a tiny, wedge-shaped slice of land covering 50 acres. The mayor of Somerville calls it home, as do two city aldermen. Driving through, it's easy to see why http:/fnow.tufts.edu/printfarticles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 7 of 11 Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM there's an allure to the place. Its trim streets are lined with trees, and people wave to each other in the parks and running trails that flank the river. It's a gem of a neighborhood. But at 5 p.m. on a Tuesday, with almost no visible traffic nearby, you can hear the steady drone of car and truck engines. Ten Hills is cut off from the rest of Somerville by two major highways. To the east, it's hemmed in by Route 28, which brings traffic across the Mystic River and into the neighboring city of Medford. To the south, it stops abruptly at Interstate 93. Somerville Mayor .Joseph Curtatone is incensed about the interstate. He was just seven years old when it opened in 1973, splitting the city in two. Nearly 40 years later, he still hears complaints about the highway from his neighbors. "It really changed the canvas of the city," he says. "Today, people sort of accept it in bewilderment, and say, 'How the hell did anyone ever make that decision? How did this happen?' [The highway] isn't really servicing neighborhoods, it's isolating them." And, he adds, it has a distinct impact on the health of Somervillians. The city is the most densely populated in New England, and with some 75,000 people concentrated on just four square miles of land, more than 11 percent of residents live within 400 meters of a major highway, according to estimates drawn from recent census data. Red dots show elevated mortality rates in towns aligned with major highways in the Boston area. Of 100 cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts, the highlighted communities hold some 75 percent of excess mortality, according to a recent survey. Curtatone is hoping that the CAFEH study results, once published, will help guide city policy to mitigate the effects of pollutants from these roadways. Until then, his team at city hall is working with Brugge on finding interim solutions. Emmanuel Owusu, Somerville's program manager for public housing, has already begun examining ways to http: j/now.tufts.edulprintjarticlesjbig-road-blues-pollution-highways Page B of 11 Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM improve indoor air quality near the highway. He's focused his attention on the city's largest public housing project, the Mystic River Development, which sits right next to I-93. As is the case in the Ten Hills neighborhood, a front yard and a sidewalk are the only barriers separating the apartments from a highway traveled by an average 168,000 vehicles each day, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. With a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Owusu is working with Tufts environmental engineer John Durant and the community advocacy group STEP (Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership) to study the effectiveness of window filtration units installed in the Mystic River apartments. They're small, about the size of an average air conditioner, but Owusu says they're making a big difference in the overall indoor air quality. "We've already seen a 35 percent reduction in particles in the rooms where we've run the filters," says Owusu. "HUD is watching the outcome of this study. If it's successful, it means indoor air filtration could go a long way to help the pollution issue we have at hand, not only in Somerville, but across the nation." There may be other solutions. A study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that erecting tall sound barriers between highways and the people who live near them could contain most ultrafine particles inside highway boundaries. Another study from the University of California, Davis, experimented with trees as a natural barrier. Redwoods, researchers found, can remove up to 80 percent of ultrafines. But mitigation efforts such as these can go only so far. Kevin Stone, a field team member for CAFEH, has lived in the Ten Hills neighborhood for 25 years. He says that many of his neighbors simply haven't heard about the potential health risks of living near a highway. "This one friend of mine lives at the top of the hill, right next to the highway. He's got all his windows wide open, and he's saying, `Isn't this just a great view of Boston?" Stone laments, shaking his head. "I'm saying to myself, 'You don't even realize what you're sucking in right off of 1-93. You're getting really exposed to this stuff!" At the very least, Stone says, he'd like to see warning signs posted on the bike path that runs alongside the interstate. It's a small gesture, but it is something that would give residents an idea of what they might be breathing during rush hour. Researchers with the CAFEH project are just beginning to sift through terabytes of air -pollution data from the RV and hundreds of blood samples from participants. They've released several preliminary papers this year, and are working toward presenting the study's main findings in summer 2013. This story first appeared in the Summer 2012 issue of Tufts Medicine magazine. David Levin is a freelance science writer based in Boston. Take a Deep Breath 1943 —First big smog event in Los Angeles http://now.tutts.edu/print/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 9 of 11 Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM In the middle of World War II, a dense brown fog descends on Los Angeles, stinging residents' eyes and noses. Some residents fear that the Japanese are waging chemical warfare, but the culprit turns out to be a combination of industrial smoke and auto exhaust. 1948—Donora, Pa., smog On October 28, stagnant weather conditions trap thick smog over the mill town of Donora, Pa. When it lifts five days later, 20 people are dead and thousands are sickened. It remains one of the worst air pollution events in the United States. 1952—"The Great Smog" of London Windless conditions drape London in a pea -soup smog. The pollution is so thick that it penetrates indoor areas, shutting down movie theaters. More than 4,000 people later die from the smog's effects, and 25,000 claim sickness benefits. 1955—Air Pollution Control Act For the first time, the U.S. Congress passes legislation addressing air pollution as a national problem, pouring $5 million ($85 million in 2012 dollars) into federal air -quality research. 1963—Clean Air Act of 1963 Congress sets emission standards for stationary pollution sources such as power plants and steel mills and gives $96 million to state and local governments for air -quality research and control programs. 1970—Clean Air Act of 1970 In a major amendment to the 1963 legislation, Congress sets more demanding standards for emissions, including the first regulations for motor vehicles. The Environmental Protection Agency is created to enforce the new standards. 1987—EPA regulates PM10 In light of studies showing that PMI O (particles 10 microns across) can cause respiratory disease, the EPA singles them out for regulation. Before 1987, the agency regulated only "total suspended particulates" —a term for airborne particles of all sizes. 1997—EPA regulates PM2.5 In the early '90s, multiyear studies published by Harvard University and the American Cancer Society show clear links between fine particulates (PM2.5) and cardiovascular disease. As a result, the EPA begins to monitor and regulate PM2.5. 2006—EPA tightens PM2.5 standards The EPA raises its 24-hour exposure standard for PM2.5, bringing the acceptable level down from 65 micrograms (per cubic meter of air) to 35 micrograms. CAFEH steering committee member Wig Zamore testifies before the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to encourage the changes. Ultrafine http;//now.tufts.edu/print/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 10 of 11 Big Road Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM particulates (PM0.1) remain unregulated. Tufts Now, 80 George St., Medford, Massachusetts 02155 Copyright ©2016 Tufts University Source URL: http://now.tufts.edu/articleslbig-road-blues-pollution-highways Links: 111 https://twitter,comishare [2] http:/Inow,tufts.edu/forward?path=printlarticles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways http://now,tufts.edulprint/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 11 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 7/5/16, 11:43 AM Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC 24/7: Swing Lives. Protecting People."" Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR1 Persons using assistive technology might not be able to fully access information in this file. For assistance, please send e-mail to: mmwrq_@cdc,goy. Type 508 Accommodation and the title of the report in the subject line of e-mail. Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 Supplements November 22, 2013 / 62(03);46-50 Tegan K. Boehmer, PhD]. Stephanie L. Foster, MPH2 Jeffrey R. Henry, BA2 Efomo L. Woghiren-Akinnifesi2 Fuyuen Y. Yip, PhDi iNational Center for Environmental Health, CDC 2Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Corresponding author: Tegan K. Boehmer, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, CDC. Telephone: 770-488-3714; E-mail: tboehmer@c r.goy. Introduction Traffic -related air pollution is a main contributor to unhealthy ambient air quality, particularly in urban areas with high traffic volume. Within urban areas, traffic is a major source of local variability in air pollution levels, with the highest concentrations and risk of exposure occurring near roads. Motor vehicle emissions represent a complex mixture of criteria air pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM), as well as hydrocarbons that react with NOx and sunlight to form ground -level ozone. Individually, each of these pollutants is a known or suspected cause of adverse health effects (1-4). Taking into consideration the entire body of evidence on primary traffic emissions, a recent review determined that there is sufficient evidence of a causal association between exposure to traffic -related air pollution and asthma exacerbation and suggestive evidence of a causal association for onset of childhood asthma, nonasthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function, all -cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular morbidity (5). https:/1www.cdc.gov/mmwrfpreviewfmmwrhtmlisu6203a8.htm Page 1 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 7/6/16, 11:43 AM The mixture of traffic -related air pollutants can be difficult to measure and model. For this reason, many epidemiologic studies rely on measures of traffic (e.g., proximity to major roads, traffic density on nearest road, and cumulative traffic density within a buffer) as surrogates of exposure (6-8). These traffic measures typically account for both traffic volume (i.e., number of vehicles per day), which is a marker of the type and concentration of vehicle emissions, and distance, which addresses air pollution gradients near roads. Traffic emissions are highest at the point of release and typically diminish to near background levels within 150 to 300 meters of the roadway (7,940); however, the potential exposure zone around roads can vary considerably depending on the pollutant, traffic volume, ambient pollution concentrations, meteorologic conditions, topography, and land use (5). Traffic exposure metrics in the published literature have used a variety of different density and distance cut -points (6). Nevertheless, numerous epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated that living close to major roads or in areas of high traffic density is associated with adverse health effects, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other respiratory symptoms (11-15); cardiovascular disease risk and outcomes 06-20); adverse reproductive outcomes (21,22); and mortality (23-25). Some studies have observed a dose -response gradient such that living closer to major roads is associated with increased risk (13,1446-18). In terms of traffic density, several studies have reported adverse health effects associated with residential proximity to roads with average daily traffic volume as low as 10,000 vehicles per day (6,11,15-17). In the United States, it is widely accepted that economically disadvantaged and minority populations share a disproportionate burden of air pollution exposure and risk (26,27). A growing body of evidence demonstrates that minority populations and persons of lower socioeconomic status experience higher residential exposure to traffic and traffic -related air pollution than nonminorities and persons of higher socioeconomic status (5,28-3i). Two recent studies have confirmed that these racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities also exist on a national scale (32,33). This report is part of the second CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report (CHDIR). The 2011 CHDIR (34) was the first CDC report to assess disparities across a wide range of diseases, behavior risk factors, environmental exposures, social determinants, and health-care access. The topic presented in this report is based on criteria that are described in the 2013 CHDIR Introduction (35). This report provides descriptive data on residential proximity to major highways, a topic that was not discussed in the 2011 CHDIR. The purposes of this report are to discuss and raise awareness of the characteristics of persons exposed to traffic -related air pollution and to prompt actions to reduce disparities. Methods To characterize the U.S. population living close to major highways, CDC examined data from several sources using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Three data sources were used for this assessment: 1) the 2010 U.S. census (available at 11ttp://www.census.gQy/2o1ocensus r ), 2) 2006- 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (available at httpi//www.census.gov/acs ), and 3) 2010 (Quarter 3) road network data from NAVTEQ, a commercial data source that provides comprehensive road information for the United States (available at http://www.navteq.com ). Seven sociodemographic variables were examined. Data on age, sex, and race/ethnicity were obtained from the 2010 census; data on nativity, language spoken at home, educational attainment, https://www.cdc.govjmmwrjpreview/mmwrhtml/su6203a8.htm Page 2 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 7/5/16, 11.43 AM and poverty status were obtained from the ACS. The U.S. Census Bureau collects data on race and ethnicity (i.e., Hispanic origin) as two separate questions. For this analysis, persons of non -Hispanic ethnicity were classified as white, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, other race, and multiple races. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity, who might be of any race or combination of races, were grouped together as a single category. Educational attainment was defined as less than high school, high school graduate or equivalent, some college, or college graduate. For the variable nativity, "native born" includes U.S. citizens born abroad (one or both of whose parents were citizens at the time of birth) and anyone born in the United States or a U.S. territory; "foreign -born" denotes persons who were not U.S. citizens at birth. Poverty status was categorized by using the ratio of income to the federal poverty level (FPL), in which "poor" is <1.o times FPL, "near poor" is i.o-2.9 times FPL, and "nonpoor" is >_3.o times FPL. Major highways were defined as interstates (Class 1) or as other freeways and expressways (Class 2) based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Functional Classification system. These road types represent the most heavily -trafficked, controlled -access highways in the United States. Although traffic volume is not factored directly into the Functional Classification system, FHWA statistics indicate that the majority of major highways have average daily traffic volumes exceeding 10,000 vehicles per day (i.e., 77% of rural interstates have >10,00o vehicles per day and >72% of urban interstates and other freeways and expressways have >30,00o vehicles per day) (36). The census tract is the smallest geographic unit of analysis available for the variables of interest in the ACS data. ESRI ArcGIS v10 GIS software was used to create circular buffers of 15o meters around all major highways, and the proportion of each census tract included within the buffer area was calculated. This area proportion was then applied to the census tract -level data from the 2010 census and ACS to estimate the number of persons living within 15o meters of a major highway for the total population and by sociodemographic characteristics. Census tract count estimates were summed to obtain state and national estimates. The proportion of the population living within 15o meters of a major highway was calculated for each category of the seven sociodemographic variables, using category -specific denominators derived from the 2010 census and ACS. No sampling error is associated with the 100% population counts obtained from the 2010 census. Standard errors were not calculated for the estimated population counts derived from the ACS because of the complexity of the GIS analysis used to generate these data. Therefore, for this descriptive analysis, no statistical testing or calculation of 95% confidence intervals was conducted, and it was not possible to determine if the observed differences across population subgroups are statistically significant. Results Approximately 11.3 million persons (or 3.7% of the 308.7 million U.S. population) live within 15o meters of a major highway. State -level estimates ranged from 1.8% in Maine to 5.6% in New York (Figure). Regional patterns, based on U.S. Census Bureau groupings, indicate that the estimated proportion of the population living within 150 meters of a major highway ranged from 3.1% in the Midwest and 3.3% in the South to 4,3% in the Northeast and 4.4% in the West. The proportion of the population living near a major highway did not differ by sex (Table). By age group, the estimated proportion of persons living close to a major highway varied from 3.4% among those aged 45-79 years to ?4.0 o among those aged 18-34 years. https:J/www.cdc.govfmmwrlpreview/mmwrhtml/su6203a8.htm Page 3 of 11 Residential Proximity to Mayor Highways — United States, 2010 7/5116, 11.43 AM The greatest disparities were observed for race/ethnicity, nativity, and language spoken at home; the populations with the highest estimated percentage living within 150 meters of a major highway included members of racial and ethnic minority communities, foreign -born persons, and persons who speak a language other than English at home (Table). The estimated percentage of the population living within 150 meters of a major highway ranged from a low of 2.6% for American Indians/Alaska Natives and 3. i % for non -Hispanic whites to a high of 5.0% for Hispanics and 5.4% for Asians/Pacific Islanders. Likewise, the estimated proportion of the population living near a major highway was 5.1% for foreign -born persons, 5.1% for persons who speak Spanish at home, and 4.9% for persons who speak another non-English language at home. Disparities by educational attainment and poverty status were less pronounced (Table). The estimated percentage of the population living near a major highway varied from 3.4% for high school graduates to 4.1% for those with less than a high school diploma. A more consistent pattern was observed for poverty status; the estimated proportion of the population living near a major highway was 4.2% for those in the poor category, 3.7% for those in the near -poor category, and 3.5% for those in the nonpoor category. Discussion Overall, approximately 4% of the total U.S. population lives within 150 meters of a major highway, suggesting increased exposure to traffic -related air pollution and elevated risk for adverse health outcomes. Estimates of residential proximity to major roads are influenced by the number and type of roads and the distance or buffer size used. In terms of quantifying the total U.S. population exposed to traffic -related air pollution, the estimate of 11.3 million people derived from this analysis should be considered conservative because only interstates, freeways, and expressways were included and a relatively small buffer distance of 15o meters was used. These conditions were selected to capture persons who are at the highest risk for exposure to traffic -related air pollution. In addition, this estimate is based on distance to a single road and does not account for cumulative exposure to traffic from multiple roads. The percentage of the population exposed to traffic -related air pollution is expected to be larger in urban areas because of higher population density, more roads, and higher traffic volume. A case study of two North American cities (Los Angeles County and Toronto, Canada) estimated that 30%--45% of the population in these urban areas lives within 50o meters of a highway or 50-10o meters of a major road (5). Although this report does not address urban/rural differences directly, an additional state - level analysis of these data indicated that the percentage of the population living within 150 meters of a major highway was correlated positively (R = 0.65) with the percentage of the population living in urban areas. Additional studies are needed to understand potential sociodemographic disparities among populations living near major highways across levels of urbanization. This analysis suggests that social and demographic disparities exist with respect to residential proximity to major highways. Larger disparities were observed for indicators of minority status (i.e., race/ethnicity, nativity, and language spoken at home) than for traditional indicators of socioeconomic status (i.e., poverty and educational attainment). Two other national studies have reported similar findings using alternative approaches. A study that examined the distribution of sociodemographic variables across various traffic exposure metrics assessed at the residential address found that race, ethnicity, poverty status, and education all were associated with one or more traffic https://www.cde.govfmmwrfpreview/rnrnwrhtm11su6203a8.htm Page 4 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 7/5/16, 11:43 AM exposure metrics (32). Another study demonstrated that the correlation between traffic exposure metrics and sociodemographic variables across all U.S. census tracts was stronger for race and ethnicity than it was for poverty, income, and education and that the magnitude of the correlations varied spatially by region and state (33). The environmental justice literature suggests that socially disadvantaged groups might experience a phenomenon known as "triple jeopardy" (37). First, poor and minority groups are known to suffer negative health effects from social and behavioral determinants of health (e.g., psychosocial stress, poor nutrition, and inadequate access to health care). Second, as suggested in this analysis, certain populations (e.g., members of minority communities, foreign -born persons, and persons who speak a non-English language at home) might be at higher risk for exposure to traffic -related air pollution as a result of residential proximity to major highways. Third, there is evidence suggesting a multiplicative interaction between the first two factors, such that socially disadvantaged groups experience disproportionately larger adverse health effects from exposure to air pollution (37-39). Limitations The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, the area -proportion technique used assumes a homogeneous population density and population distribution by sociodemographic characteristics within each census tract, which might result in erroneous count estimates. The direction of the bias (overestimate or underestimate) could differ across population subgroups. For example, if socioeconomic disparities associated with residential proximity to major highways exist within census tracts, then the calculated percentages for minority subgroups might be underestimated and those for nonminority subgroups might be overestimated. Second, living within l5o meters of a major highway is only a surrogate for exposure to traffic -related air pollution. This study did not address the following factors that could affect exposure to traffic -related air pollution: number and type of vehicles traveling on major highways, cumulative effect of living near multiple roads, individual time -activity patterns (e.g., time spent at home vs. away, time spent inside vs. outside), meteorologic conditions, topography, and land -use patterns. Finally, it was not possible to perform testing to determine if the differences in the estimated percentages across population subgroups were statistically significant. However, the findings are consistent with other published research (32,33). Conclusion Primary prevention strategies to reduce traffic emissions include improving access to alternative transportation options (e.g., transit, rideshare programs, walking, and cycling), financial incentives to reduce vehicle miles traveled and congestion, diesel retrofitting, and promoting the use of electric and low emission vehicles. In addition, secondary prevention strategies to reduce exposure to traffic emissions include mitigation techniques for existing homes and buildings (e.g., roadside barriers and improved ventilation systems) and land -use policies that limit new development close to heavily - trafficked roads. For example, a recent study of roadside barriers suggests that solid barriers (i.e., noise barriers) might be more effective at mitigating traffic -related air pollution than vegetative barriers (i.e., tree stands) (41). In California, public health law has been used to restrict siting of new schools near major highways and busy traffic corridors (California Education Code §7213.c.2.C). Implementation of these strategies can help reduce exposures to traffic -related air pollution and health risks associated with these exposures. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a8.htm Page 5 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways - United States, 2010 7/5/16, 11:43 AM Focusing prevention and mitigation interventions in urban areas, where there is a higher concentration of traffic -related air pollution and a greater proportion of the population residing near major roads, and in areas with the most socially disadvantaged populations will likely result in larger health benefits (37). Future and ongoing efforts to address disparities in residential proximity to major highways and traffic -related air pollution exposures will require an interdisciplinary collaboration between transportation, urban planning, and public health specialists. References 1. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated science assessment for carbon monoxide. Report No. EPA/600/R-o9/o19F. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2010. 2. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated science assessment for particulate matter. Report No. EPA/600/R-08/139F. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2009. 3. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated science assessment for oxides of nitrogen - health criteria. Report No. EPA/600/R-o8/o71. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2008. 4. US Environmental Protection Agency. Air quality criteria for ozone and related photochemical oxidants. Report No. EPA/600/R-o5/oo4aF. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2006. 5. HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic -Related Air Pollution. Traffic -related air pollution: a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; 2010. 6. Boothe VL, Shendell DG. Potential health effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and primary roads: review of scientific literature, 1999-2006. J Environ Health 2008;70:33-41. 7. Brugge D, Durant JL, Rioux C. Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: a review of epidemiologic evidence of cardiac and pulmonary health risks. Environ Health 2007;6:23. 8. Rioux CL, Gute DM, Brugge D, Peterson S, Parmenter B. Characterizing urban traffic exposures usingtransportation planning tools: an illustrated methodology for health researchers. J Urban Health 2010;87:167-88. 9. Gilbert NL, Woodhouse S, Stieb DM, Brook JR. Ambient nitrogen dioxide and distance from a major highway. Sci Total Environ 2003;312:43-6. io. Zhu YF, Hinds WC, Kim S, Sioutas C. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2002;52:1032-42. 11. Garshick E, Laden F, Hart JE, et al. Residence near a major road and respiratory symptoms in U.S. Veterans. Epidemiology 2003;14:728-36. 12. Gauderman WJ, Vora H, McConnell R, et al. Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study. Lancet 2007;369(9561):571-7. 13. Kim JJ, Huen K, Adams S, et al. Residential traffic and children's respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 2008;116:1274-9. 14. McConnell R, Berhane K, Yao L, et al. Traffic, susceptibility, and childhood asthma. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114:766-72. 15. Schikowski T, Sugiri D, Ranft U, et al. Long-term air pollution exposure and living close to busy roads are associated with COPD in women. Respir Res 2005;6:152. 16. Hoffmann B, Moebus S, Mohlenkarnp S, et al. Residential exposure to traffic is associated with coronary atherosclerosis. Circulation 2007;116:489-96. 17. Hoffmann B, Moebus S, Stang A, et al. Residence close to high traffic and prevalence of coronary heart disease. Eur Heart J 2006;27:2696-702. https://www.cdc_gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a8.htm Page 6 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways - United States, 2010 7/5j16, 11:43 AM 18. Kan H, Heiss G, Rose KM, Whitsel EA, Lurmann F, London SJ. Prospective analysis of traffic exposure as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Environ Health Perspect 2008;116:1463-8. 19. Tonne C, Melly S, Mittleman M, et al. A case -control analysis of exposure to traffic and acute myocardial infarction. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115:53-7. 20. Van Hee VC, Adar SD, Szpiro AA, et al. Exposure to traffic and left ventricular mass and function: the Multi -Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;179:827- 34 21. Wilhelm M, Ritz B. Residential proximity to traffic and adverse birth outcomes in Los Angeles county, California, 1994-1996. Environ Health Perspect 2003;111:207-16. 22. Yorifuji T, Naruse H, Kashima S, et al. Residential proximity to major roads and preterm births. Epidemiology 2011;22:74-80. 23. Gehring U, Heinrich J, Kramer U, et al. Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and cardiopulmonary mortality in women. Epidemiol 2006;17:545-51. 24. Jerrett M, Finkelstein MM, Brook JR, et al. A cohort study of traffic -related air pollution and mortality in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Environ Health Perspect 2009;117:772-7. 25. Medina -Ramon M, Goldberg R, Melly S, et al. Residential exposure to traffic -related air pollution and survival after heart failure. Environ Health Perspect 2008;116:481-5. 26. Bell ML, O'Neill MS, Cifuentes LA, et al. Challenges and recommendations for the study of socioeconomic factors and air pollution health effects. Environ Sei Poi 2005;8:525-33. 27. O'Neill MS, Jerrett M, Kawachi L, et al. Health, wealth, and air pollution: advancing theory and methods. Environ Health Perspect 2003;111:1861-70. 28. Apelberg BJ, Buckley TJ, White RH. Socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer risk from air toxics in Maryland. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:693-9. 29. Brender JD, Maantay JA, Chakraborty J. Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. Am J Public Health 2011;1o1:S37-52. 30. Chakraborty J. Automobiles, air toxics, and adverse health risks: environmental inequities in Tampa Bay, Florida. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2009;99:674-97. 31. Gunier RB, Hertz A, Von Behren J, Reynolds P. Traffic density in California: socioeconomic and ethnic differences among potentially exposed children. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2003;13:240-46. 32. Parker JD, Kravets N, Nachman K, Sapkota A. Linkage of the 1999-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys to traffic indicators from the National Highway Planning Network. National health statistics reports; No. 45. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics; 2012. 33. Tian N, Xue J, Barzyk TM. Evaluating socioeconomic and racial differences in traffic -related metrics in the United States using a GIS approach. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013;23:215- 22. 34. CDC. CDC health disparities and inequalities report -United States, 2011. MMWR 2011;60(Suppll; January 14, 2011),. 35. CDC. Introduction. In: CDC health disparities and inequalities report -United States, 2013, MMWR 2013;62(No. Suppl 3). 36. US Department of Transportation. Highway statistics 2008. Table HM-57: length by average daily traffic volume, arterials and collectors. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration; 2009. Available at httpj//www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008 § . 37. Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Kanaroglou P, et al. A GIS- environmental justice analysis of particulate air pollution in Hamilton, Canada. Environment and Planning A 2001;33:955-73. 38. Cakmak S, Dales RE, Rubio MA, Vidal CB. The risk of dying on days of higher air pollution among the socially disadvantaged elderly. Environ Res 2011;111:388-93. 39. Ou C-Q, Hedley AJ, Chung RY, et al. Socioeconomic disparities in air pollution -associated https://www.cdc.gov'mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a6.htm Page 7 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 7/5/16, 11:43 AM mortality. Environ Res 2008;107:237-44. 4o. Panel on the Functionality and Usability of Data from the American Community Survey. Using the American Community Survey: benefits and challenges. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007. 41. Hagler GSW, Lin MY, Khlystov A, et al. Field investigation of roadside vegetative and structural barrier impact on near -road ultrafine particle concentrations under a variety of wind conditions. Sci Total Environ 2012;419:7-15. FIGURE. Percentage* of population living within i5o meters of a major highway, by state — United States, 2010 ■ 3.8-5.6 • 3.1-3.7 El 2.7-3.1 [] 1.8-2.7 * Calculated by dividing the population within 150 meters of a major highway by the total population per state and multiplying by ioo. The percentages are displayed using quartiles. Alternate Text: The figure shows the percentage of the U.S. population living within 1.5o meters of a major highway, by state in 2010. The percentage was calculated by dividing the total population within 15o meters of a major highway by the total population per state and multiplying by loo. The percentages are displayed using quartiles. TABLE. Number and percentage of population living within i5o meters of a major highway, by selected characteristics — United States, 2010 Characteristic https://www.cdc.govJmmwr/preview/mmwrhtml)su6203a8.htm Page 8 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 7/5/16, 11:43 AM Totalt 11,337,933 (3.7) Sext Male 5,547,223 (3.7) Female 5,790,844 (3.7) Age group (yrs)t 0-4 766,603 (3.8) 5-9 727,279 (3.6) 10-17 1,168,995 (3.5) 18-24 1,219,887 (4.0) 25-34 1,714,903 (4.2) 35-44 1,523,607 (3.7) 45-64 2,808,121 (3.4) 65-79 977,948 (3.4) z80 412,215 (3.7) Race/Ethnicityt Non -Hispanic White 6,030,811 (3.1) Black 1,676,225 (4.4) Asian/Pacific Islander 800,723 (5.4) American Indian/Alaska Native 59,378 (2.6) Other 27,239 (4.5) Multiple race 235,995 (4.0) Hispanic§ 2,502,616 (5.0) Nativity¶ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a8.htm Page 9 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 7/5/16, 11:43 AM Native born** 9,172,481 (3.5) Foreign borntt 1,966,763 (5.1) Language spoken at home (?5 yrs)¶ English only 7,513,304 (3.3) Spanish 1,805,26i (5.1) Other 1,059,572 (4.9) Educational attainment (>25 years)¶ Less than high school 1,225,735 (4.1) High school graduate or equivalent 1,988,228 (3.4) Some college 1,977,261 (3.5) College graduate 2,092,232 (3.8) Poverty status¶,§§ Poor (<1.0 times FPL) 1,733,031 (4.2) Near -poor (1.0-2.9 times FPL) 3,882,694 (3.7) Nonpoor (?3.o times FPL) 5,227,274 (3.5) Abbreviation: FPL = federal poverty level. * Denominator for overall population is 308,745,348. Percentages for all other rows were calculated by using category -specific denominators. t Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 census (available at http://www.census.gov/2o1ocensus L ). § Persons of Hispanic ethnicity might be of any race or combination of races. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey (available at http://www.census.gQy/acs i' ). ** Includes U.S. citizens born abroad (one or both of whose parents were citizens at the time of birth) and anyone born in the United States or a U.S. territory. tt Persons who were not U.S. citizens at birth. §§ Additional information is available at httpj// pe.hhs.gy/ ov /figures-fed-reg.cfm ll . https://www.cdc.govlmmwr/preview/mmwrhtmllsu6203a8.htm Page 10 of 11 Residential Proximity to Major Highways — United States, 2010 7/5/16, 11:43 AM Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. References to non -CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication. All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from typeset documents. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http://www.cdc.govimmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices. **Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gQyy. Page last reviewed: November 22, 2013 Page last updated: November 22, 2013 Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, L1SAgovUSA Boo -CDC -INFO (boo-23a-46g6) TTY: (888) 232-6348 -Contact CDC —INFO GornmentMade Easy https:J/www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtmllsu6203a8.htm Page 11 of 11 Freeways are a Public Health Hazard 1. Studies show that the zone of increased pollution along a freeway corridor (compared to community wide concentrations) is approximately two miles wide. 2. People who live, work or travel within 165 feet downwind of a major freeway are exposed to the most dangerous part of air pollution, ultrafine particulate matter, at concentrations 25-30 times higher than the rest of the community. 3. For people who live near a freeway, the concentration of freeway generated pollution inside their homes is about 70% as high as outdoor air along the freeway corridor. For an average home, the indoor air exchanges completely with outdoor air every two hours. People living near a freeway are unquestionably breathing more pollution. 4. Wasatch Front air pollution is already a serious public health hazard. Our air pollution is sometimes the worst in the nation and typically we rank in the top ten worst cities in the country for acute spikes in air pollution.All of the health consequences of air pollution are found at even higher rates among people who live near freeways or other high traffic locations, including heart and lung diseases, strokes, shortened life spans, higher mortality rates, poor pregnancy outcomes, multiple types of cancer and even autism. Freeways are literally cancer and autism corridors. Thousands of studies confirm the health threat of freeway pollution. Below is a small samples of those studies. The rate of progression of hardening of the arteries, the cause of strokes, heart attacks and generalized aging, is double for those living within 100 meters of a freeway. Kunz ti N, Jerrett M, Garcia -Esteban R, easagana X, Beckermann B, et aL (2010) Ambient Air Pollution and the Progression of Atherosclerosis in Adults. PLoS ONE 5(2): e9096 doi:10.1371 / iournal,pone.0009096 Children who live within 500 meters of a major highway are not only more likely to develop asthma and other respiratory diseases, but their lung development may also be stunted permanently. Gauderman WJ, et al. "Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study," The Lancet, Volume 368, February 2007 Living within 1,000 ft of a freeway doubles the risk of a child being born with autism. Volk HE, Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L, Lurmann F. McConnell A. Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspecl 2011 Jun;119(6):873-7. doi:10 1289/ehp.1002835. Epub 2010 Dec 13. Children growing up with more traffic pollution have significantly lower IQs and impaired memory. Sualia SF, et al. Association of Black Carbon with Cognition among Children in a Prospective Birth Cohort Study Am J Epidemiology 2008 167:280-286 Pregnant mothers exposed to more air pollution, give birth to children with lower intelligence, and behavioral and attention deficit disorders, even if the children breathe clean air themselves. Frederica P_ Perera, Deliang Tang, Shuang Wang, Julia Vishnevetsky, Bingzhi Zhang, Diurka Diaz, David Camann, Virginia Rauh. Prenatal Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Exposure and Child Behavior at age 6-7. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012; DOI: 10.1289/ehp. 1104315 Edwards SC, Jedrychowski W, Butscher M, Camann D, Kieltyka A, Mroz E, et al. 2010. Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Children's Intelligence at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort Study in Poland. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901070 Pregnant women who lived close to high -traffic roadways during pregnancy were more likely to give birth prematurely or have a low -weight baby, putting the child at risk for multiple, life long chronic diseases Laurent 0, Wu J, Li L, Chung J, Bartell S. Investigating the association between birth weight and complementary air pollution metrics: a cohort study. Environ Health. 2013 Feb 17;12(1):18. doi: 10 1186/1476-069X-12-18. Wilhelm M, et al. Traffic -Related Air Toxics and Term Low Birth Weight in Los Angeles County, California. Environ Health Perspeci. 2012 January: 120(1): 132-138, Published online 2011 August 11. doi: 10,1289/ ehp.1103408 Living within 100 meters of a freeway increases the risk of childhood leukemia 370%, living within 300 meters increases the risk 100%. Amigou A. et al. "Road traffic and childhood leukemia: The ESCALE study (SFCE) authors" Environ Hearth Pers 2010; DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1002429. Pregnant mother breathing higher rates of air pollution give birth to children who have higher rates of several types of rare childhood cancers. Prenatal air pollution associated higher rates of retinoblastomas, ALL, and germ cell tumors. http:// www.aacrorg/home/public--media/aacr-in-the-news.aspx?d=3062 Women exposed to more traffic -related air pollution have higher rates of breast cancer and decreased survival if they get breast cancer. Background Wasatch Front levels correlate with an increase of about 125%, living near a freeway increases that much more. Crouse DL, Goldberg MS, Ross NA, Chen H, Labrdche F 2010. Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Traffic -Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: A Case —Control Study. Environ Health Perspect 118:1578-1583. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002221 Chronic exposure to traffic air pollution increases the risk of lung cancer. Raaschou-IViersen 0, Andersen Z, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel fN, Sorensen M, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A. Lung Cancer Incidence and Long -Term Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jan 12. [Epub ahead of print] High traffic air pollution exposure more than doubles the rate of cervical and brain cancer, and increases the risk of prostate cancer and stomach cancer Raaschou-Nielsen 0, Andersen ZJ, Hvidberg IVi, Jensen SS, Ketzel IA, Sorensen M, Hansen J, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence: a Danish cohort study. Environ Health. 2011 Jul 19;10:67. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-67. Parent ME, Goldberg MS, Crouse DL. Ross NA, Chen H, Valois MF, Liautaud A. Traffic -related air pollution and prostate cancer risk: a case -control study in Montreal, Canada. Occup Environ Med, 2013 Mar 26. [Epub ahead of print] People exposed to more traffic related air pollution have more DNA damage, a trigger for multiple chronic diseases including cancer. Huang HB, Lai CH, Chen GW, Lin YY, Jaakkola JJ, Liou SH. Wang SL. Traffic -related air pollution and DNA damage: a longitudinal study in Taiwanese traffic conductors. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37412. doi: 10.1371/ journai.pone.0037412. Epub 2012 May 21. Traffic related air pollution shortens telomeres (a critical part of chromosomes). Shortened telomeres are highly correlated with reduced life expectancy McCracken J, Baccarelli A, Hoxha IVI, Dioni L, Melly S, Coull B, Suh H, Vokonas P, Schwartz J. Annual ambient black carbon associated with shorter telomeres in elderly men: Veterans Affairs Normative Aging Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Nov;118(11):1564-70. Residential proximity to major roadways is associated with decreased kidney function. Lue S, Welrenius G, Wilker E, Mostotsky E, lvlittleman M. Residential proximity to major roadways and renal function. J Epidemiol Community Health Published Online First: 13 May 2013 doi:10.1136/ jech-2012-202307 Long term exposure to traffic -related air pollution is associated with insulin resistance in children and type II diabetes in adults Thiering E, Cyrys J, Kratzsch J, Meisinger C, Hoffmann B, Berdel D, von Berg A, Koletzko S, Bauer CP, Heinrich J. Long-term exposure to traffic -related air pollution and insulin resistance in children: results from the GINlplus and LISApIus birth cohorts Diabetologia, DOI 10.1007/s00125-013-2925-x Chen H, Burnett RT, Kwong JC, Villeneuve PJ, Goldberg MS, Brook RD, van Donkelaar A, Jerrett M, Martin RV, Brook JR, Copes R. Risk of Incident Diabetes in Relation to Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter in Ontario, Canada. Environ Health Perspect ():.doi:10.1289/ehp.1205958 Liu C, Ying Z, Harkerna J, Sun Q, Rajagopalan S. Epidemiological and Experimental Links between Air Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes. Toxicol Pathos, 2012 Oct 26. [Epub ahead of print) Compiled by the Utah Physicians tor a Healthy Environment The Southern California Particle Center and Supersite (SCPCS) seeks to explore health and exposure issues related to mobile source pollution. With funding from the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board, investigators at the SCPCS work to better understand why airborne particulate matter emitted from cars and trucks causes adverse health outcomes. As part of our research, we have taken measurements on and near major freeways in Los Angeles in an effort to characterize the particles found there. These and other scientific studies have sparked media attention and community interest, generating many questions regarding where to buy property and whether health is affected by living in a particular location. It is impossible for us to answer individual questions about potential risks in specific locations. We can, however, offer some general guidance on what is currently known about exposure to pollution and the related health effects of living near busy roads and freeways. Numerous studies have linked traffic -related air pollution with respiratory problems such as asthma and chronic bronchitis. Studies have found decreased lung function, increased hospital visits for people with respiratory diseases, increased absenteeism from work and school, and increased morbidity (illnesses) and mortality (deaths) associated with exposure to particulate matter. All of these effects were observed at levels common in many U.S. cities. (Pope) New studies show that long-term exposure to particulate matter has also been linked to increased illness and death rates from cardiovascular (heart -related) disease, and that sudden increases in air pollution may even cause more heart -related illnesses and deaths than is seen from lung disease. (Pope; Johnson) Some particles in air pollution, given their tiny size, are able to pass through the cellular tissue in the lungs and enter the circulation system. Their presence in the lungs may also induce a series of events that ultimately affect the heart. (Utell) Of growing concern to the general public is whether living near a freeway is detrimental to health. The closer people are to the source of traffic emissions, the higher their exposure is to many of the constituents of exhaust. Compelling evidence suggests that people living, working and going to school near roads with heavy traffic may have an increased risk of adverse health effects associated with exposure to mobile source pollution. These "traffic density" studies have observed development and increased aggravation of asthma (Montnemery), decreased lung function in children (Brunekreef), and low birth weight and premature births for mothers living near major roadways (Ritz). Taking this research into consideration, it is easy to see why new homebuyers are concerned with how close property is to a busy road or freeway. Unfortunately scientists cannot say exactly how close is "too close" at this point. European studies have shown increased respiratory health problems in children who live or go to school within 100 meters (-330 feet) of a busy roadway, with the greatest risks appearing in the first 50 meters (--165 feet). Studies conducted by SCPCS investigators here in LA show that carbon monoxide and ultraftne particles — the smallest portion of particulate matter emissions and potentially the most toxic — are extremely high on or near the freeway, dropping to about half that concentration 50-90 meters (-165-295 feet) from the freeway. After about 300 meters (--990 feet) the concentration of particulate matter reaches the "ambient" level — the normal level in the air without the influence of any nearby sources. In 2003 the California state legislature enacted a law that new schools must be built at least 500 feet from very busy roadways. Besides the actual distance from a roadway, there are a number of additional factors that influence exposure to mobile source pollution when at home: > Weather - temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed all affect the concentration of pollution; ➢ Placement of the house - is it upwind or downwind of the major roadway? That is, does the wind blow pollutants from the cars and trucks toward the property? > Construction/design of the house — older houses may have greater air exchange between indoors and outdoors with more outside air getting inside and therefore potentially increasing exposure to pollutants; 9 Type of filtration system installed in the home - few homes have HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filters, but they have been shown to remove significant amounts of the particulate matter from the air. There are also a number of personal factors to consider when determining what your personal exposure may be, such as: ➢ Will I be at home during peak traffic times? 9 Will I spend much time outdoors during these times? > Will I open my windows or will I use central heating and cooling? • How much time do 1 spend on the freeway? [On -road studies are currently being conducted which may show that if you have a considerable commute, the exposure you receive during your time on the freeway may well overshadow your level of exposure at home.] Other resources for questions on particle measurements and possible health efji'cts: South Coast Air Quality Management District http://www.aqind.gov/ General phone number - (800) CUT -SMOG (800-288-7664) California Air Resources Board http://www.arb,ca.gov/ Community Health / Environmental Justice Section - (866) 397-5462 Air Pollution and Respiratory Health, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/detault.htxn U.S. EPA - Air http://www.cpa.gov/ebtpages/air. html For more detailed information about the topics presented above, please reference the following citations. Green RS, Smorodinsky S, Kim JJ, McLaughlin R, Ostro B. (2004) Proximity of California Public Schools to Busy Roads. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112 (1): 61-66, Pope CA III, Bates DV, Raizenne ME. (1995) Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution: Time for Reassessment? Environmental Health Perspectives, 103 (5) Asthma - acute exacerbation and possible onset Delfino R.J. (2003) Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages between Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (Sup 4): 573-589. McConnell R, Berhane K, Gilliland FD, London SJ, Vora H, Avol E. (1999) Air Pollution and Bronchitic Symptoms in Southern California Children with Asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives 107(9):757-760 Montnemery P, Bengtsson P, Elliot A, Lindholm L-H, Nyberg P, Lofdahl C-G. (2000) Prevalence of obstructive lung diseases and respiratory symptoms in relation to living environment and socio-economic group. Respiratory Medicine, 95: 744-752 Cardiovascular effects Dockery, DW. (2001) Epidemiologic Evidence of Cardiovascular Effects of Particulate Air Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(Suppl 4): 483-486. Johnson, RL. (2004) Relative Effects of Air Pollution on Lungs and Hearts. Circulation, 109:5-7. Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thurston GD, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Godleski JJ. (2004) Cardiovascular Mortality and Long -Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution. Circulation, 109:71-77. Utell MJ, Frampton MW. (2000) Acute Health Effects of Ambient Air Pollution: the Ultrafine Particle Hypothesis. Journal of Aerosol Medicine, 13(4): 355-59. Near -highway pollutants in rnotor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardiac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental Health I Full Text 716116, 12:44 PM $1:In to main content 0 Bk•Med Central The Open Access Publisher Menu Search Search Publisher main menu • aptiournals • Get published • About BioMed Central LQgin to your account Follow BioMed Central • Twiner • Facebook Environmental Health Environmental Health main menu • About • Articles • Submission Guidelines Review Open Access Open Peer Review This article has Open Peer Review reports available. }low does Open Peer Review work? Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemiologic evidence of cardiac and pulmonary health risks • Doug BruggelFinail author, • John L Durant2 and • Christine Riouxd Environmental Health20076.23 1J01: 10.1I86/ 1476-069X•6-23 tt Brugge et al., licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007 Received: 02 January 2007 Accepted: 09 August 2007 Published: 09 August 2007 Qpcn Peer Review ( ports Abstract There is growing evidence of a distinct set of freshly -emitted air pollutants downwind from major highways, motorways, and freeways that include elevated levels of ultrafiine particulates (UFP), black carbon (BC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO). People living or otherwise spending substantial time within about 200 in of highways are exposed to these pollutants more so than persons living at a greater distance, even compared to living on busy urban streets. Evidence of the health hazards of these pollutants arises from studies that assess proximity to highways, actual exposure to the pollutants, or both. Taken as a whole, the health studies show elevated risk for development of asthma and reduced lung function in children who live near major highways. Studies of particulate matter (PM) that show associations with cardiac and pulmonary mortality also appear to indicate increasing risk as smaller geographic areas are studied, suggesting localized sources that likely include major highways. Although less work has tested the association between lung cancer and highways, the existing studies suggest an association as well. While the evidence is substantial for a link between near -highway exposures and adverse health outcomes, considerable work remains to understand the exact nature and magnitude of the risks https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.comlarticlesj10.118611476-069X-6-23 Page 1 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi,..cardiac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental Health 1 Full Text 7/606, 12:44 PM Background Approximately 11% of US households are located within 100 meters of 4-lane highways [estimated using: [1, 21. While it is clear that automobiles are significant sources of air pollution. the exposure of near -highway residents to pollutants in automobile exhaust has only recently begun to be characterized. There are two main reasons for this: (A) federal and state air monitoring programs are typically set up to measure pollutants at the regional, not local scale; and (13) regional monitoring stations typically do not measure all of the types of pollutants that are elevated next to highways. It is, therefore, critical to ask what is known about near -highway exposures and their possible health consequences. Here we review studies describing measurement of near -highway air pollutants, and epidemiologic studies of cardiac and pulmonary outcomes as they relate to exposure to these pollutants and/or proximity to highways. Although some studies suggest that other health impacts are also important (e.g., birth outcomes), we feel that the case for these health effects are Tess well developed scientifically and do not have the same potential to drive public policy at this time. We did not seek to fully integrate the relevant cellular biology and toxicological literature, except for a few key references. because they are so vast by themselves. We started with studies that we knew well and also searched the engineering and health literature on Medlin- We were able to find some earlier epidemiologic studies based on citations in more recent articles. We include some studies that assessed motor vehicle -related pollutants at central site monitors (i.e., that did not measure highway proximity or traffic) because we feel that they add to the plausibility of the associations seen in other studies. The relative emphasis given to studies was based on our appraisal of the rigor of their methodology and the significance of their findings. We conclude with a summary and with recommendations for policy and further research. Motor vehicle pollution li is well known that motor vehicle exhaust is a significant source of air pollution. The most widely reported pollutants in vehicular exhaust include carbon monoxide. nitrogen and sulfur oxides, unburned hydrocarbons (from fuel and crankcase oil), particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and otter organic compounds that derive from combustion I. 4, 51. While much attention has focused on the transport and transformation of these pollutants in ambient air- particularly in areas where both ambient pollutant concentrations and human exposures are elevated (e.g., congested city centers, tunnels, and urban canyons created by tall buildings), less attention has been given to measuring pollutants and exposures near heavily -trafficked highways. Several lines of evidence now suggest that steep gradients of certain pollutants exist next to heavily traveled highways and that living within these elevated pollution zones can have detrimental effects on human health. It should be noted that many different types of highways have been studied, ranging from California "freeways" (defined as multi -lane, high-speed roadways with restricted access) to four -lane (two in each direction), variable -speed roadways with unrestricted access. There is considerable variation in the literature in defining highways and we choose to include studies in our review that used a broad range of definitions (see Table 1). Table 1 Summary of near -highway pollution gradients Citation Location Highway traffic intensity° Pollutants measuredt' Observed Pollution Gradients Shi et al. 1999 (6) Birmingham. UK 30,000 veh/d UFP+ FP (10-104 nm) 2-100 al' Zhu et al. 2002 (8) Los Angeles; Freeway 710 12,180 vehlh UFP,CO, BC 17-300 in ` Zhu et al. 2002 (7) Los Angeles; Freeway 405 13,900 vehlh UFP, CO, BC 30-300 ni Hitchins et al. 2002 (11) Brisbane (Austr.) 2,130-3.400 vehlb UFP+ FP(15-2 x 104 nm). PMZS 15-375 m Fischer et al. 2000 (13) Amsterdam .e3,000-30 974 veh/d PM2.5, PM10, PPAH, VOCs NA ltoorda-Knape et al. 1998 (14) Netherlands 80,000-152,000 vehld PM2,5, PMto, BC, VOCs, NO2 15-330 m c Janssen et al. 2001 (15) Netherlands 40,000-170,000 veh/d PM, 5, VOCs„ NO2 <400 m c Morawska et al. 1999 (12) Brisbane (Austr-) NA UFP 10-210 m ` °As defined in article cited (veh/d = vehicles per day; vehih = vehicles per hour). bUFP = ultrafine particles; i i = fine particles; PM2.5 = particles with aerodynamic diameters 2.5 um; PMto = particles with aerodynamic diameter s 10 um; BC = black carbon; PPAH = particle -bound polycyciic aromatic hydrocarbons; VOCs = volatile organic compounds `Pollutant measurements were made along a transect away from the highway NA = not applicable: measurements were not made, It should also be noted that there may he significant heterogeneity in the types and amounts of vehicles using highways, The typical vehicle fleet in the US is composed of https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.coralarticles/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 2 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardiac and pulmonary health risks 1 Environmental Health 1 Full Text 7/6/16, 12:44 PM passenger cars, sports utility vehicles, motorcycles, pickup trucks, vans, buses, and small, medium, and large trucks. The composition and size of a fleet on a given highway may vary depending on the time of day, day of the week, and use restrictions for certain classes of vehicles. Fleets may also vary in the average age and state of repair of vehicles, the fractions of vehicles that burn diesel and gasoline, and the fraction of vehicles that have catalytic converters. These factors will influence the kinds and amounts of pollutants in tailpipe emissions. Similarly, driving conditions, fuel chemistry, and meteorology can also significantly impact emissions rates as well as the kinds and concentrations of pollutants present in the near -highway environment. These factors have rarely been taken into consideration in health outcome studies of near -highway exposure. Based on our review of the literature, the pollutants that have most consistently been reported at elevated levels near highways include ultrafine particles (UFP), black carbon (BC), nitrogen oxides (NOx). and carbon monoxide (CO), In addition. FM2 5, and PM10 were measured in many of the epidemiologic studies we reviewed. UFP are defined as particles having an aerodynamic diameter in the range of 0.005 to 0.1 microns (um). UFP form by condensation of hot vapors in tailpipe emissions, and can grow in size by coagulation. PM2.5 and PM10 refer to particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters of 25 and 10 um, respectively. BC (or "soot carbon") is an impure form of elemental carbon that has a graphite -like structure. It is the major light -absorbing component of combustion aerosols. These various constituents can be measured in real time or near -real time using particle counters (UFP) and analyzers that measure light absorption (BC and CO), chemil uminescence (NOx), and weight (PM25 and PM10). Because UFP, NOx, BC, and CO derive from a common source — vehicular emissions — they are typically highly inter -correlated. Air pollutant gradients near highways Several recent studies have shown that sharp pollutant gradients exist near highways, Shi et al. fJ measured UFP number concentration and size distribution along a roadway -to - urban -background transeci in Birmingham (UK), and found that particle number concentrations decreased nearly 5-fold within 30 m of a major roadway (>30,000 vehid). Similar observations were made by Zhu et al. L, gi in Los Angeles. Zhu et al. measured wind speed and direction, traffic volume, UFP number concentration and size distribution as well as BC and CO along transects downwind of a highway that is dominated by gasoline vehicles (Freeway 405; 13,900 vehicles per hour; vehlh) and a highway that carries a high percentage of diesel vehicles (Freeway 710; 12,180 vehlh). Relative concentrations of CO, BC, and total particle number concentration decreased exponentially between 17 and 150 m downwind from the highways, while at 300 m IJFP number concentrations were the same as at upwind sites. An increase in the relative concentrations of larger particles and concomitant decrease in smaller particles was also observed along the transects (see Figure D. Similar observations were made by Zhang et al. NI who demonstrated "road -to - ambient" evolution of particle number distributions near highways 405 and 710 in both winter and summer. Zhang et al. observed that between 30-90 m downwind of the highways, particles grew larger than 0.01 um due to condensation, while at distances >90 m, there was both continued particle growth (to >0,1 um) as well as particle shrinkage to <0.01 um due to evaporation. Because condensation, evaporation, and dilution alter size distribution and particle composition, freshly -emitted UFP near highways may differ in chemical composition from UFP that has undergone atmospheric transformation during transport to downwind locations [101. Oc+5 30m ,,/ J t i \ / Lip Wind f N%\� „ m to tiro Particle Diameter. Up (nmj -150 m -- 300 300 m 1001) https://ehlournal.biomedcentral.comiarticlesl10.118611476-069X-6-23 Page 3 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardiac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental Health I Full Text 716/16, 12.44 PM f5 Normalized particle number concentration O_A 02 0.0 0 100 700 300 Distance (c)Wn wend frorn the 710 frecway (m) 400 Figure 1 Ultrafine particle size distribution (top panel) and normalized panicle number concentration for different size ranges (bottom panel) as a function of distance from a highway in Los Angeles. From Zhu et al. (8). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. Two studies in Brisbane (Australia) highlight the importance of wind speed and direction as well as contributions of pollutants from nearby roadways in tracking highway - generated pollutant gradients. Hitchins et al. I1 IJ measured the mass concentrations of 0,1-10 um particles as well as total particle number concentration and size distribution for 0.015-0.7 um particles near highways (2,130-3.A00 vehlb). Hitchens et al. observed that the distance from highways at which number and mass concentrations decreased by 50% varied from 100 to 375 m depending on the wind speed and direction. Morawska et al, 1121 measured the changes in UFP number concentrations along horizontal and vertical transects near highways to distinguish highway and normal street traffic contributions. It was observed that UFP number concentrations were highest <15 m from highways, while 15-200 m from highways there was no significant difference in UFP number concentrations along either horizontal or vertical transects -presumably due to mixing of highway pollutants with emissions from traffic on nearby, focal roadways. In addition to UFP other pollutants - such as PM2.5, PM to, NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), VOCs (volatile organic compounds), and particle -bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAH) - have been studied in relation to heavily -trafficked roadways. Fischer et al. I J 3J measured PM3.5, PM14, PPAH, and VOC concentrations outside and inside homes on streets with high and low traffic volumes in Amsterdam (<3,000-30,974 veh/d). In this study, PPAH and VOCs were measured using methods based on gas chromatography. Fischer et al. found that while PM2 5 and Milo mass concentrations were not specific indicators of traffic -related air pollution, PPAH and VOC levels were -2-fold higher both indoor and outdoor in high traffic areas compared to low traffic areas. Roorda-Knape et al WU measured PM23, PM 10, black smoke (which is similar to BC), NO2, and benzene in residential areas <300 m from highways (80,000-152,000 veh/d) in the Netherlands. Black smoke was measured by a reflectance -based method using filtered particles, benzene was measured using a method based on gas chromatography. Roorda-Knape et al reported that outdoor concentrations of black smoke and NO2 decreased with distance from highways, while PM2,5, PM10, and benzene concentrations did not change with distance. In addition, Roorda-Knape et al. found that indoor black smoke concentrations were correlated with truck traffic. and NO2 was correlated with both traffic volume and distance from highways. Janssen et al. [15) studied PM25, PM10, benzene. and black smoke in 24 schools in the Netherlands and found that PM25 and black smoke increased with truck traffic and decreased with distance from highways (40,000-170,000 veh/d). In summary. the literature shows that UFP, BC, CO and NOx are elevated near highways (>30,000 veh/d), and that other pollutants including VOCs and PPAHs may also be elevated_ Thus, people living within about 30 m of highways are likely to receive much higher exposure to traffic -related air pollutants compared to residents living>200 m (+1- 50 m) from highways. Cardiovascular health and traffic -related pollution https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.comlarticles/10.118811476-069X-6-23 Page 4 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardiac and pulmonary health risks 1 Environmental Health 1 Full Text 7/6/16, 12:44 PM Results from clinical. epidemiological, and animal studies are converging to indicate that short-term and long-term exposures to traffic -related pollution, especially particulates, have adverse cardiovascular effects Jam,12,>J. Most of these studies have focused on, and/or demonstrated the strongest associations between cardiovascular health outcomes and particulates by weight or number concentrations 119, a, al though CO, SO2, NO2, and BC have also been examined. BC has been shown to be associated with decreases in heart rate variability (HRV) 122.'2J and black smoke and NO2 shown to be associated with cardiopulmonary mortality Short-term exposure to fine particulate pollution exacerbates existing pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and long-term repeated exposures increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and death [25, 26]. Though not focused on near -highway pollution, two large prospective cohort studies, the Six -Cities Study all and the American Cancer Society (ACS) Study f2$] provided the groundwork for later research on fine particulates and cardiovascular disease. Both of these studies found associations between increased levels of exposure to ambient PM and sulfate air pollution recorded at central city monitors and annual average mortality from cardiopulmonary disease, which at the time combined cardiovascular and pulmonary disease other than lung cancer. The Six -Cities Study examined PM2,5 and PMtp1is. The ACS study examined PM 2.5. Relative risk ratios of mortality from cardiopulmonary disease comparing locations with the highest and lowest fine particle concentrations (which had differences of 24.5 and 18.6 ug/ma respectively) were 137 (1.11, 1.68) and 131 (1.17, 1.46) in the Six Cities and ACS studies, respectively. These analyses controlled for many confounders, including smoking and gas stoves but not other housing conditions or time spent at home. The studies were subject to intensive replication, validation, and reanalysis that confirmed the original findings. PM2.5 generally declined following implementation of new US Environmental Protection Agency standards in 1997 111, 29], yet since that time studies have shown elevated health risks due to long-term exposures to the 1997 PM threshold concentrations (22, 201. Much of the epidemiological research has focused on assessing the early physiological responses to short-term fluctuations in air pollution in order to understand how these exposures may alter cardiovascular risk profiles and exacerbate cardiovascular disease Lill. Heart rate variability, a risk factor for future cardiovascular outcomes, is altered by traffic -related pollutants particularly in older people and people with heart disease 122.. 23,3]. With decreased heart rate variability as the adverse outcome, negative associations between HRV and particulates were strongest for the smallest size fraction studied [33] (PM03-1.0); [4] (PM0.02-1). In two studies that included other pollutants, black carbon, an indicator of traffic particles, also elicited a strong association with both time and frequency domain HRV variables; associations were also strong for PM2.5 for both time and frequency HRV variables in the Adar et al study [(23 J: this and subsequent near highway studies are summarized in Table 2]. however, PM2.5 was not associated with frequency domain variables in the Schwartz et al. study (22]. Table 2 Summary of near -highway health effects studies Citation Location Highway traffic intensity° Pollutants measuredb Instance from highwayHealth Outcomes Statistical association' Schwartz et al. 20Q5 (22) Boston NA PM2.5, BC. CONA Heart rate variability Decreases in measures of heart rate variability Adar et al. 2007 (23) St. Louts, Missouri NA PM2.5 BC, IJFP On highway in busses Heart rate variability Decreases in measures of heart rate variability Hoek et al. 2002 (24) Netherlands NA BC, NO2 2 Continuous Cardio-pulmonary mortality. fang cancer 1.41 OR for living near road Tonne et al. 2007 (41) Winchester, Mass. NA PM2.5 Continuous d Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) 5% increase in odds of AMI Venn et al. 2001 (49) Nottingham, UK NA NA Continuous d Wheezing in children 1.08 OR for living w/in 150 in of road Nicolai et al. 2003 (58) Munich, Germany 000 yap' veh/d Soot, benzene, NO2 - Traffic counts within 50 m of house - Asthma, respiratory symptoms. allergy - 1.79 OR for asthma and high traffic volume Gauderrnan et al. 2005 (65) r Southern California NO2 Continuous d Asthma, respiratory symptoms Increased asthma closer to freeways McConnell et al. 2006 (57) Southern California NA NA Continuous d Asthma Large risk for children living w/in 75 m of road Ryan, et al. 2007 (59) Cincinnati, Ohio > 1,000 trucks/d PM2.5 400 m Wheezing in children NA Kim et al. 2004 (60) San Francisco 90,000 — 210,000 veh/d PM BC NOx School sites Childhood asthma 1.07 OR for high levels of NO, https://ehlournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 5 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardiac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental Health I Full Text 716/16, 12:44 PM Wjst et al. 1993 (68) Munich. Germany 7,000-125,000 vehld NOx CO School sites Asthma, bronchitis Several statistical associations found Brunekreef et al. 1997 (69) Netherlands 80.000 —152,000 vehld PM10,NO2 2 Continuous Lung function Decreased FEV with proximity to high truck traffic Janssen et al_ 2003 (74) Netherlands 30,000-155,000 veh/d PM25. NO2. benzene £ 4tl0 m e Lung function, respiratory symptoms Na association with lung function Peters et al. 1999 (82) Souther California NA PM NO2A to' 2 Asthma, bronchitis, cough. wheeze 1.54 OR of wheeze for boys with exposure to NO2 Brauer et al. 2007 (67) Netherlands Highways and streets PM2,5, NO2, soot Modeled exposure Asthma, allergy, bronchitis, respiratory symptoms Strongest association was with food allergies Visser et al. 2004 (91) Amsterdam > 10,000 vehld NA NA Cancer Multiple associations Vineis et al. 2006 (87) 10 Eurpocan countries NA PM10, NO2, SO2 NA Cancer I A6 OR near heavy traffic, 130 OR for high exposure to NO2 Gauderman et al. 2007 (73) Souther California NA PM to. NO2 Continuous d Lung Function Decreased FEV for those living near freeway ®As defined in article cited (vehld = vehicles per day; vehlh = vehicles per hour), bI.IFP = ultratne particles; FP = fine particles; PM2.5 = particles with aerodynamic diameter s 25 um; PM10 = particles with aerodynamic diameters 10 um; BC = black carbon; PPAH = particle -bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; VOCs = volatile organic compounds 'Pollutant measurements were made along a transect away from the highway dProximity of each participant to a major road was calculated using GIS software `Statistical association between proximity to highway or exposure to traffic -generated pollutants and measured health outcomes NA = not applicable; measurements were not made. Several studies show that exposure to PM varies spatially within a city 135, 3t. ,37], and finer spatial analyses show higher risks to individuals living in close proximity to heavily trafficked roads (I.2]. A 2007 paper from the Woman's' Health Initiative used data from 573 PM2.5 monitors to follow over 65,000 women prospectively. They reported very high hazard ratios for cardiovascular events (1.76; 95% CI, 1,25 to 2.47) possibly due to the fine grain of exposure monitoring IJ, J. In contrast, studies that relied on central monitors i222, 2E or interpolations from central monitors to highways are prone to exposure misclassification because individuals living close to highways will have a higher exposure than the general area. A possible concern with this interpretation is that social gradients may also situate poorer neighborhoods with potentially more susceptible populations closer to highways I ,39, 42J. At a finer grain, Hoek et al. [241 estimated home exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and black smoke for about 5,000 participants in the Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer. Modeled exposure took into consideration proximity to freeways and main roads (100 m and 50 m, respectively). Cardiopulmonary mortality was associated with both modeled levels of pollutants and living near a major road with associations less strong for background levels of both pollutants. A case -control study [411, found a 5% increase in acute myocardial infarction associated with living within 100 m of major roadways. A recent analysis of cohort data found that traffic density was a predictor of mortality more so than was ambient air pollution i921. There is a need for studies that assess exposure at these scales, e.g., immediate vicinity of highways. to test whether cardiac risk increases still more at even smaller scales. Although we cannot review it in full here, we note that evidence beyond the epidemiological literature support the contention that PM2,5 and UFP (a sub -fraction of PM2.5) have adverse cardiovascular effects LI.. 111. PM2,5 appears to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease via mechanisms that likely include pulmonary and systemic inflammation. accelerated atherosclerosis and altered cardiac autonomic function in, 22. 41, 44, 11 461. Uptake of particles or particle constituents in the blood can affect the autonomic control of the heart and circulatory system. Black smoke, a large proportion of which is derived from mobile source emissions [J, has a high pulmonary deposition efficiency, and due to their surface area -to -volume ratios can carry relatively more adsorbed and condensed toxic air pollutants (e.g., PPAH) compared to larger particles (L, 42, gj. Based on high particle numbers, high lung deposition efficiency and surface chemistry, UFP may provide a greater potential than PM2,5 for inducing inflammation U.Q]. UFPs have high cytotoxic reactive oxygen species (ROS) activity, through which numerous inflammatory responses are induced, compared to other particles [JQ1. Chronically elevated UFP levels such as those to which residents living near heavily trafficked roadways are likely exposed can lead to Tong -term or repeated increases in systemic inflammation that promote arteriosclerosis [18, 29.24, 3, 1. Asthma and highway exposures https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.coniarticlesl10.1186f1476-069X-6-23 Page 6 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi..,cardiac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental Health I Full Text 7/6/16, 12:44 PM Evidence that near highway exposures present elevated risk is relatively well developed with respect to child asthma studies. These studies have evolved over time with the use of different methodologies. Studies that used larger geographic frames and/or overall traffic in the vicinity of the home or school [42, 50, 51, 52] or that used self -report of traffic intensity [53] found no association with asthma prevalence. Most recent child asthma studies have, instead, used increasingly narrow definitions of proximity to traffic, including air monitoring or modeling) and have focused on major highways instead of street traffic [j , 55, 56, 57, 58, 5.21. All of these studies have found statistically significant associations between the prevalence of asthma or wheezing and living very close to high volume vehicle roadways. Confounders considered included housing conditions (pests, pets, gas stoves, water damage), exposure to tobacco smoke, various measures of socioeconomic status (SES), age, sex, and atopy, albeit self -reported and not all in a single study. Multiple studies have found girls to be at greater risk than boys for asthma resulting from highway exposure I5L5, 57, 511]. A recent study also reports elevated risk only for children who moved next to the highway before they were 2 years of age, suggesting that early childhood exposure may be key [57]. The combined evidence suggests that living within 100 meters of major highways is a risk factor, although smaller distances may also result in graded increases in risk. The neglect of wind direction and the absence of air monitoring from some studies are notable missing factors. Additionally, recent concerns have been raised that geocoding (attaching a physical location to addresses) could introduce bias due to inaccuracy in locations 1 .J]- Studies that rely on general area monitoring of ambient pollution and assess regional pollution on a scale orders of magnitude greater than the near -roadway gradients have also found associations between traffic generated pollution (CO and NOx) and prevalence of asthma [§21 or hospital admission for asthma jc31. Lweguga-Mukasa et al, [0] monitored air up and down wind of a major motor vehicle bridge complex in Buffalo, NY and found that UFP were higher downwind, dropping off with distance. Their statistical models did not, however, support an association of UFP with asthma. A study in the San Francisco Bay Area measured PM2.5, BC and NOX over several months next to schools and found both higher pollution levels downwind from highways and a linear association of BC with asthma in long-term residents 160]_ Gauderman et al. [§5] measured NO2 next to homes of 208 children. They found an odds ratio (OR) of 1.83 (confidence interval (CI): 1.04-3.22) for outdoor NO2 (probably a surrogate for total highway pollution) and lifetime diagnosis of asthma. They also found a similar association with distance from residence to freeway. Self -report was used to control for numerous confounders, including tobacco smoke, SES, gas stoves, mildew, water damage, cockroaches and pets which did not substantially affect the association. Gauderman's study suggests that ambient air monitoring at the residence substantially increases statistical power to detect association of asthma with highway exposures. Modeling of elemental carbon attributable to traffic near roadways based on ambient air monitoring of PM15 has recently emerged as a viable approach and a study using this method found an association with infant wheezing. The modeled values appear to be better predictors than proximity. Elevation of the residence relative to traffic was also an important factor in this study [till. A 2007 paper reported on modeled NO2, PM2.5 and soot and the association of these values with asthma and various respiratory symptoms in the Netherlands [67]. While finding modest statistically significant associations for asthma and symptoms. it is somewhat surprising that they found stronger associations for development of sensitization to food allergens. Pediatric lung function and traffic -related air pollution Studies of association of children's lung function with traffic pollutants have used a variety of measures of exposure, including: traffic density, distance to roadways, area (city) monitors, monitoring at the home or school and personal monitoring. Studies have assessed both chronic effects on lung development and acute effects and have been both cross - sectional and longitudinal. The wide range of approaches somewhat complicates evaluation of the literature. Traffic density in school districts in Munich was associated with decreases in forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in I second (1-t V I), FEV 1/FVC and other measures, although the 2-kilometer (km) areas, the use of sitting position for spirometry and problems with translation for non -German children were limitations [ ]. Brunekreef et al. I69] used distance from major roadways, considered wind direction and measured black smoke and NO2 inside schools. They found the largest decrements in lung function in girls living within 300 m of the roadways. A longitudinal study of children (average age at start = J 0 years) in Southern California reported results at 4 IJ and 8 years Fab Multiple air pollutants were measured at sites in 12 communities. Due to substantial attrition, only 42% of children enrolled at the start were available for the 8-year follow-up. Substantially lower growth in FEV I was associated with, PM14, NO2, PM2.5. acid vapor and elemental carbon at 4 and at 8 years, The analysis could not indicate whether the effects seen were reversible or not MI. In 2007, it was reported from this same cohort that living within 500 m of a freeway was reported to be associated with reduced lung function J. A Dutch study al] measured PM2.5, NO2, benzene and EC for one year at 24 schools located within 400 m of major roadways, While associations were seen between symptoms and truck traffic and measured pollutants, there was no significant association between any of the environmental measures and FVC c 85% or FEV 1 < 85%. Restricting the analysis to children living within 500 m of highways generally increased ORs. Personal exposure monitoring of NO2 as a surrogate for total traffic pollutants with 298 Korean college students found statistically significant associations with FEV1. FEVI/FdC, and forced expiratory volume between 25 and 75% (FEV2S_75), but not with FVC. The multivariate regression model presented suggests that FEV25-75 was the outcome measure that most clearly showed an effect [751. Cross -sectional studies of children in Korea [76] and France 1771 also indicate that lung function is diminished in association with area pollutants that largely derive from traffic. Time series studies suggest there are also acute effects. A study of 19 asthmatic children measured PM via personally carried monitors, at homes and at central site monitors. The study found deficits in FEV1 that were associated with PM, although many sources besides traffic contributed to exposure. In addition, the results suggest that ability to see associations with health outcomes improves at finer scale of monitoring 17s1. PM was associated with reduced FEV 1 and FVC in only the asthmatic subset of children in a Seattle study [79]. Studies have also seen associations between PM and self reported peak flow measurements [80,1] and asthmatic symptoms 1U]. Cancer and near highway exposures As noted above, both the Six -Cities Study [21] and the American Cancer Society (ACS) Study 01 found associations between PM and lung cancer. Follow-up studies using the ACS cohort [22,311 and the Six -Studies cohort [$3 [ that controlled for smoking and other risk factors also demonstrated significant associations between PM and lung cancer_ The original studies were subject to intensive replication, validation, and re -analysis which confirmed the original findings The ASFIMOG study I$5] was designed to look specifically at lung cancer and air pollution among Seventh -day Adventists in California, taking advantage of their low smoking rates, Air pollution was interpolated to centroids of zip codes from ambient air monitoring stations. Highway proximity was not considered. The study found associations with ozone (its primary pollutant of consideration), PM10 and SO2. Notably, these are not the pollutants that would be expected to be substantially elevated immediately adjacent to highways. A case control study of residents of Stockholm, Sweden modeled traffic -related NO2 levels at their homes over 30 years and found that the strongest association involved a 20 year latency period K. Another case control study drawn from the European Prospective Investigation on Cancer and Nutrition found statistically significantly elevated ORs for lung cancer with proximity to heavy traffic (>10,000 cars per day) as well as for NO2 and PMtu at nearby ambient monitoring stations [$21. Nafstad et al. [88] used modeled NO2 and https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.corn/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 7 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi-._cardiac and pulmonary health risks Environmental Health l Full Text 7/6)16, 12:44 PM SO2 concentrations at the homes of over 16.000 men in Oslo to test associations with lung cancer incidence. The models included traffic and point sources. The study found small, but statistically significant associations between NO2 and lung cancer. Problems that run through all these studies are weak measures of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, the use of main roads rather than highways as the exposure group and modeled rather than measured air pollutants. A study of regional pollution in Japan and a case control study of more localized pollution in a town in Italy also found associations between NO2 and lung cancer and PM and lung cancer [ , •yQ]. On the other hand, a study that calculated SIRs for specific cancers across lower and higher traffic intensity found little evidence of an association with a range of cancers [17. The plausibility of near -highway pollution causing lung cancer is bolstered by the presence of known carcinogens in diesel PM. The US EPA has concluded after reviewing the literature that diesel exhaust is "likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation" [42J. An interesting study of UFP and DNA damage adds credibility to an association with cancer 1_22).. This study had participants bicycle in traffic in Copenhagen and measured personal exposure to UFP and DNA oxidation and strand breaks in mononuclear blood cells. Bicycling in traffic increased UFP exposure and oxidative damage to DNA, thus demonstrating an association between DNA damage and UFP exposure in two Policy and research recommendations Based on the literature reviewed above it is plausible that gradients of pollutants next to highways carry elevated health risks that may be larger than the risks of general area ambient pollutants. While the evidence is considerable, it is not overwhelming and is weak in some areas. The strongest evidence comes from studies of development of asthma and reduction of lung function during childhood, while the studies of cardiac health risk require extrapolation from area studies of smaller and larger geographic scales and inference from toxicology laboratory investigations. The lung cancer studies, because they include pollutants such as 03 that are not locally concentrated, are not particularly strong in terms of the case for near -highway risk. There is a need for lung cancer research that uses major highways rather than heavily trafficked roads as the environmental exposure. While more studies of asthma and lung function in children are needed to confirm existing findings. especially studies that integrate exposure at school, home and during commuting, to refine our knowledge about the association, we would point to the greater need for studies of cardiac health and lung cancer and their association with near highway exposures as the primary research areas needing to be developed. Many of the studies of PM and cardiac or pulmonary health have focused on mortality. Near highway mortality studies may be possible, but would be lengthy if they were initiated as prospective cohorts. Other possibilities include retrospective case control studies of mortality, cross sectional studies or prospective studies that have end points short of mortality. such as biological markers of disease. For all health end points there is a need for studies that adequately address the possible confounding of SES with proximity to highways. There is good reason to think that property values decline near highways and that control for SES by. for example, income, may be inadequate. Because of the incomplete development of the science regarding the health risks of near highway exposures and the high cost and implication of at least some possible changes in planning and development, policy decisions are complicated. The State of California has largely prohibited siting of schools within 500 feet of freeways (SB 352; approved by the governor October 2, 2003). Perhaps this is a viable model for other states or for national -level response. As it is the only such law of which we are aware. there may be other approaches that will be and should be tried. One limitation of the California approach is that it does nothing to address the population already exposed at schools currently cited near freeways and does not address residence near freeways. Conclusion The most susceptible (and overlooked) population in the US subject to serious health effects from air pollution may be those who live very near major regional transportation route. especially highways. Policies that have been technology based and regional in orientation do not efficiently address the very large exposure and health gradients suffered by these populations. This is problematic because even regions that EPA has deemed to be in regional PM "attainment" still include very large numbers of near highway residents who currently are not protected. There is a need for more research, but also a need to begin to explore policy options that would protect the exposed population. Abbreviations UFP BC NO2: NOx: CO: PM. ultra fine particles black carbon nitrogen dioxide oxides of nitrogen carbon monoxide particulate matter PM2 s. particulate matter less than 2.5 um PM1Q: https:/iehiournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 6 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi,_.cardiac and pulmonary health risks 1 Environmental Health 1 Full Text 7/6/16, 12:44 PM particulate matter less than 10 um PPAH: particle bound polyaromatic hydrocarbons EC: VOC: S02: ACS: SES: EPA: OR, elemental carbon volatile organic compounds sulfur dioxide American Cancer Society socioeconomic status Environmental Protection Agency odds ratio FEV1: forced expiratory volume in i second FEV1IFVC: ratio of FEV t and forced vital capacity FEV25_75: forced expiratory volume between 25 and 75 PVC: forced vital capacity uR/m3: micrograms per cubic meter of air m: meters UM: micrometers veh/d: vehicles per day ve/aJh: vehicles per hour Declarations Acknowledgements We thank Wig Zamore for useful insights into the topic_ The Jonathan M Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service partially supported the effort of Doug Brugge and Christine Rioux. Figure I was reproduced with permission of the publisher. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 9 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardiac and pulmonary health risks l Environmental Health I Full Text 7/6/16, 12:44 PM Authors' original submitted files for images Below are the links to the authors' original submitted files for images, 12940 2007 122 MOESN11. LSN1.Odf Authors' original file for figure 1 Competing interests The authors) declare that they have no competing interests. Authors' contributions DB took the lead on the manuscript. He co -wrote the background and wrote the sections on asthma, lung function and cancer and the conclusions. JLD wrote the section on air pollutants near roadways and contributed substantially to the background. CR wrote the section on cardiovascular health. All authors participated in editing and refining the manuscript and all read it multiple times, including the final version. Authors' Affiliations (1) Tufts Community Research Center, Tufts University' School of Medicine (2) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University (3) Interdisciplinary PhD Program, Tufts University References 1. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2003 Series H150103. Accessed May 2007„ fLr tp.f/www.census.got/hherlwsi w/housitrq/ahsfahs03/ahs03.htm1J 2. 2004, Massachusetts Fact Book 3. Chambers LA: Classification and extent of air pollution problems. Air Pollution, Edited by: Stern AC. 1976, Academic Press, NY,1: 3 4, Rogge WF, Hildemann LM, Mazurek MA, Cass GR, Simoneit BRT: Sources of fine organic aerosol. 2. Noncatatyst and catalyst -equipped automobiles and heavy-duty diesel trucks. Environmental Science Technology. 1993, 27: 636-651.10.1021/es00041a007. 5. Graede! TE, Hawkins DT, Claxton LD: Atmospheric Chemical Compounds: Sources, Occurrence, and Bioassay. 1986, Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY 6. Shi JP. Khan AA, Harrison RM: Measurements of ulirafine particle concentration and size distribution in the urban atmosphere. The Science of the Total Environment. 1999, 235: 51-64. 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00189-8. 7. Zhu Y, Hinds WC, Kim S, Sioutas C: Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway. Journal oldie Air and Waste Management Association. 2002,52 (9): 1032-1042. 8. Zhu Y. Hinds WC, Kim S, Shen S. Sioutas C: Study of ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atmospheric. Environment. 2002, 36: 4323- 4335, 10.1016/51352-2310(02)00354-0. 9. Zliang KM, Wexler AS, Zhu Y, Hinds WC, Sioutas C: Evolution of particle number distribution near roadways. Pan 11: the 'Road -to -Ambient' process. Atmospheric Envirorunenl. 2004.38: 6655-6665.10,1016/j.atmosenv.2004.06.044, 10. Sioutas C. Delfmo RJ, Singh M: Exposure assessment for atmospheric uitraine particles (UFP) and implications in epidemiologic research. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2005. 113 (8): 947-955. 11. Hitchins J. Morawska L, WolfrR, Gilbert D: Concentrations ofsubmicrometre particles from vehicle emissions near a major road. Atmospheric Environment. 2000, 34: 51- 59. 10.1016/51352-2310(99)00304-0. 12. Morawska L, Thomas S. Gilbert D, Greenaway C, Rijnders E: A study of the horizontal and vertical profile ofsuhmicromeler particulates in relation to a busy road. Atmospheric Environment. 1999, 33: 1261-1274. 10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00266-0. 13- Fischer PH. Hoek G, van Reeuwijk H. Briggs DJ, Lebret E, van Wijnen JH, Kingham S, Elliott PE: Tragic -related differences in outdoor and indoor concentrations of particles and volatile organic compounds in Amsterdam. Atmospheric Environment. 2000, 34: 3713-3722,10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00067.4. 14. Roorda-Knape MC, Janssen NATI, De Hartog JJ, van Viler PIIN, Harssema H, Brunekreef B: Air pollution from traffic in city districts near major motorways. Atmospheric Environment, 1998. 32: 1921-1930. 10.1016/51352-2310(97)00496-2. 15. Janssen NAH, van Viiet PHN, Aarts E Harssema H. Brunekreef B: Assessment of exposure to traffic related air pollution of children attending schools near motorways. Atmospheric Environment. 2001, 35: 3875-3884.10.1016/51352-2310(01)00144-3. 16. National Research Council, Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: Research priorities for airborne particulate matter, IV: continuing research progress. 2004, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 17. US Environmental Protection Agency: Air quality criteria for particulate matter. 2004, Research Triangle Park 18. Miller KA, Siscovick DS, Sheppard L, Shepherd K, Sullivan JH, Anderson GL, Kaufman JD: Long-term exposure to air pollution and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007, 356: 447-458.10.1056/NEJMoa054409. 19. Riedliker M, Cascio WE, Griggs TR, Herbst MC. Bromberg PA, Nees L, Williams RW, Devlin RB: Particulate matter exposure in cars is associated with cardiovascular effects in healthy young men. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2004, 169: 934-940.10.1164/rccm.200310-14630C. 20. Hofmann B, Moebus S, Stang A, Beck E, Dragano N, Mohlenkatnp S, Schmermund A, Memmesheirner M, Mann K, Erbel R, Jacket KH, Heinz Nixdorf RECALL Study Investigative Group: Residence close to high traffic and prevalence of coronary heart disease. European Heart Journal. 2006. 27: 2696-2702.10.1093/eurheanjleh1278. 21. Ruckert R. Greven S, Ljungman P, Aalto P, Antoniades C, Bellander T, Berglind N. Chrysohoou C. Forastiere F. Jacquemin B, von Klot S. Koenig W. Kuchenhoff H. Lanki T. Pekkanen J, Perucci CA, Schneider A, Sunyer J. Peters A: Air pollution and inflammation (IL-6, CRP, fibrinogen) in myocardial infarction survivors. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007, 115: 1072-1080, 22. Schwartz J, Litonjua A, Suh H, Verrier M, Zanobetti A, Syring M, Nearing B, Verrier R, Stone P, MacCallum G. Speizer FE, Gold DR: Traffic related pollution and heart rate variability in a panel of elderly subjects. Thorax, 2005, 60: 455-461.10.11361ihx.2004.024836. 23. Adar SD, Gold DR, Coull BA, Schwartz J, Stone P. Suh H: Focused exposures to airborne traffic particles and heart rate variability in the elderly. Epidemiology. 2007, 18: 95-103.10.1097101.ede JJ000249409.81050.46. 24. Hoek G, Brunekreek B, Goldbohin S, Fischer P, van den Brandt PA: Association between mortality, and indicators of traffic -related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study. The Lancet. 2002, 360: 1203-1209. 10.1016150140-6736(02)11280-3. 25. Peters A. von Klot S, Heier M, Trentinaglia 1, Hormann A, Wichmann HE, Lowe' H: Exposure to traffic and the onset of myocardial infarction. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2004. 351: 1861-70.10,1056/NE1Moa040203. 26. Pope CA, Dockery DW: Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. Journal of Air and Waste Management. 2006, 56 (6): 709-742. https:/lehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articies110.11E6(1476-069X-6-23 Page 10 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardiac and pulmonary health risks i Environmental Health i Full Text 716/16, 12:44 PM 27. Dockery DW, Pope CA, Xu X, Spengler JD, Ware JH, Fay ME, Ferris BG, Speizer FE: An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. New England Journal of Medicine. 1993, 329: 1753-9. 10.1056/NEJM199312093292401. 28. Pope CA, Thun MJ, Natnboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer FE, Hath CW. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of US adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 1995,151: 669-674. 29. Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD: Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002, 287: 1132-1141. 10.1001/jama.287.9.1132, 30_ Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Mack WJ, Beckerman B, LaBree L, Gilliland F, Thomas D, Peters J, Hodis HN: Ambient air pollution and Atherosclerosis in Los Angeles. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2005, 113: 201-206. 31. Peters A: Particulate matter and heart disease: Evidence from epidemiological studies. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2005, 477-482,10.1016/j.taap.2005.04.030. Suppl 2 32. Wheeler A, Zanobetti A, Gold DR, Schwartz .1, Stone P, Suh H: The relationship between ambient air pollution and heart rate variability differs for individuals with heart and pulmonary disease. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006, 114: 560-566. 33. Chuang K, Chan C, Chen N, Su T, Lin L: Effects of particle size fractions on reducing heart rate variability in cardiac and hypertensive patients. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2005, 113: 1693-1697. 34. Chan C, Chuang K, Shiao G, Lin L: Personal exposure to submicrometer particles and heart rate variability in human subjects. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2004, 112: 1063-1067. 35. Brauer M, Hoek G, van Vliet P, Meliefste K, Fischer P, Gehring U, Heinrich J, Cyrys J, Bellander T, Lewne M, Brunekreef B: Estimating long-term average particulate air pollution concentrations: application of traffic indicators and geographic information systems. Epidemiology. 2003, 14: 228-239.10.1097/00001648-200303000-00019. 36. Brunekreef B, Holgate ST: Air pollution and health. Lancet. 2002,360: 1233-1242. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11274-8, 37. Jerrett M, Finkelstein M: Geographies of risk in studies linking chronic air pollution exposure to health outcomes. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 2005, 68: 1207-1242,10.1080/15287390590936085. 38. O'Neill MS, Jerrett M, Kawachi I, Levy J1, Cohen AJ, Gouveia N, Wilkinson P, Fletcher T Cifuentes L, Schwartz J: Workshop on Air Pollution and Socioeconomic Conditions. Health, wealth, and air pollution: advancing theory and methods. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2003, 1.11: 1861-1870. 39. Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Pope CA, Krewski D, Newbold KB, Thurston G, Shi Y, Finkelstein N, Calle EE, Thun MI: Spatial Analysis of Air Pollution and Mortality in Lott Angeles. Epidemiology.2005, 16 (6): 727-736. 10.1097/01.ede.0000181630.15826.7d. 40. Finkelstein M, Jerrett M, Sears MR: Environmental inequality and circulatory disease mortality gradients. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2005, 59: 481- 487. 10.1136/jech.2004.026203. 41. Tonne C, Melly S, Mittleman M, Coull B, Goldberg R, Schwartz J.` A case -control analysis of exposure to traffic and acute myocardial infarction. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007, 115: 53-57. 42. Lipfert FW, Wyzga RE, Baty JD, Miller JP: Traffic density as a surrogate measure of environmental exposures in studies of air pollution health effects: Long-term mortality in a cohort of US veterans. Atmospheric Environment. 2006, 40: 154-169. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005 .09 .027 . 43. Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thurston GD, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Godleski JJ: Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution — Epidemiological evidence of general pathophysiological pathways of disease. Circulation. 2004, 109: 71-77. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000108927.80044.7F. 44. Brook RD, Franklin B, Cascia W, Hong Y, Howard G, Lipsett M, Luepker R, Mittleman M, Satnet J, Smith SC, Tager I: Air pollution and cardiovascular disease: a statement for healthcare professionals from the expert panel on population and prevention science of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2004, 109: 2655-2671. 10.1161 /01.CIR.0000128587.30041.C8. 45. Sun Q, Wang A, ./in X, Natanzon A, Duquaine D, Brook RD, Aguinaldo JG, Fayad Z, Faster V, Lippman M, Chen LC, Rajagopalan S: Long-term air pollution exposure and acceleration of atherosclerosis and vascular inflammation in an animal model. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005, 294: 3003-3010. 10.1001 /jama-294.23.3003. 46. Sandhu RS. Petroni DH, George WJ: Ambient particulate matter, C-reactive protein, and coronary artery disease. Inhalation Toxicology. 2005, 17: 409-413. 10.1080/08958370590929538. 47. Oberdorster G: Pulmonary effects of inhaled ultrafine particles. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2001, 65: 1531-1543. 48. Delfino RJ, Sioutas C, Malik S: Potential role of ultrafine particles in associations between airborne particle mass and cardiovascular health. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2005, 113: 934-946. 49. Venn A, Lewis S, Cooper M, Hubbard R, Hill I, Boddy R, Bell M, Britton J: Local road traffic activity and the prevalence, severity, and persistence of wheeze in school children: combined cross sectional and longitudinal study. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 2000, 57: 152-158. 10.1136/oem.57.3.152. 50. Waldron G, Pottle B, Dod J: Asthma and the motorways— One district's experience. Journal of Public Health Medicine. 1995, 17: 85-89. 51, Lewis SA, Antoniak M, Venn AJ, et al.: Secondhand smoke, dietary fruit intake, road traffic exposures, and the prevalence of asthma: Across -sectional study in young children. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005, 161: 406-411. 10.1093/aje/kwi059. 52, English P, Neutra R, Scalf R, Sullivan M, Waller L, Zhu L: Examining associations between childhood asthma and traffic flow using a geographic information system. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1999, 107: 761-767. 10.230713434663. 53. Heinrick J, Topp R, Gerring U, Thefeld W: Traffic at residential address, respiratory health, and atopy in adults; the National German Health Survey 1998. Environmental Research. 2005, 98: 240-249. 10.10161j.envres .2004.08 .004. 54. Van Vliet P, Knape M, de Hartog J, Janssen N, Harssema H, Brunekreef B: Motor vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory symptoms in children living near freeways, Environmental Research. 1997, 74: 122-132. 10.1006/enrs.1997.3757. 55. Venn AJ, Lewis SA, Cooper M; Hubbard R, Britton J: Living near a main road and the risk of wheezing illness in children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2001,164 (12): 2177-2180. 56. Venn A, Yemaneberhan H, Lewis S, Parry E, Britton J: Proximity of the home to roads and the risk of wheeze in an Ethiopian population. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2005, 62: 376-380. 10.1136/oem.2004.017228. 57. McConnell R, Berhane K, Yao L, Jerrett M, Lurmann F, Gilliland F; Kunzli N, Gauderman J, Avol E, Thomas D, Peters J: Traffic susceptibility, and childhood asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006,114: 766-772. 58. Nicolai T, Carr D, Weiland SK, Duhme H, von Ehrenstein 0, Wagner C, von Mutius E: Urban traffic and pollutant exposure related to respiratory outcomes and atopy in a large sample of children. European Respiratory Journal. 2003, 21: 956-963. 59. Ryan PH, LeMasters , Biswas P, Levin L, Hu S, Lindsey M, Bernstein DI, Lockey J, Villareal M, Hershey GKH, Grinshpun SA: A comparison of proximity and land use regression traffic exposure models and wheezing in infants. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007, 115: 278-284. 60. Kim JJ, Smorodinsky S, Lipsett M,, Singer BC, Hodgson AT, Ostro B: Traffic -related air pollution near busy roads: The East Bay children's respiratory health study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2004, 170: 520-526. 10.1164/rccm.200403-2810C. 61. Ong P, Graham M, Houston D: Policy and programmatic importance of spatial alignment of data sources. Am J Public Health. 2006, 96: 499-504. 10.21051AJPH.2005.071373- 62. Hwang BP Lee YL, Lin YC, Jaakkola JJ, Guo YL: Traffic related air pollution as a determinant of asthma among Taiwanese school children. Thorax. 2005, 60: 467-473. 10.1136/ihx.2004.033977. 63. Migliaretti. G, Cadam E, Migliore E, et al.: Traffic air pollution and hospital admissions for asthma: A case control approach in a Turin (Italy) population. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2005, 78: 164-169.10.1007/s00420-004-0569-3. 64. Lweguga-Mukasa JS, Oyana TJ, Johjnson C: Local ecological factors, ultrafine particulate concentrations, and asthma prevalence rates in Buffalo, New York, neighborhoods. Journal of Asthma. 2005, 42: 337-348. 65. Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Lurmann F, Kuenzli N, Gilliland F, Peters J, McConnell R: Childhood asthma and exposure to traffic and nitrogen dioxide, Epidemiology. 2005, 16: https:(/ehjournal.biomedcentral.comlarticles/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 11 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardiac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental Health I Full Texl 7/6/16, 12:44 PM 737-743. 10.1097/01,ede.0000181308.51440.75. 66. Ryan PH, LeMasters GK. Biswas P, Levin L, Hu S, Lindsey Al: A comparison of proximity and land use regression traffic exposure models and wheezing in infants, Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007, 115: 278-284. 67. Brauer M. Hoek G. Smit HA. de Jongsle JC, Gerritsen J, Posima DS, Kerkhof M, Brunekreef B: Air pollution and development of asthma. allergy and infections in a birth cohort. European Respiratory Journal. 2007, 29: 879-888.10.1183/09031936.00083406. 68. Wjs1 M, Reitmeir P, Dodd S, Wulff A. Nicolai T. von Loeffelholz-Colberg EF, von Mutius E: Road traffic and adverse effects on respiratory health in children. British Medical Journal. 1993,307: 596-307. 69. Brunekreef B, Janssen NA. de Haring J. Harssema H. Knape M, van Vlie1 P: Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motorways. Epidemiology. 1997.8: 298-303. 10.1097100001648-199705000-00012. 70. Gauderman WJ, McConnell , Gilliland F. London S. Thomas D. Avol E, Vora H, Berhane K, Rappaport Ell. Lurmann F. Margolis HG. Peters J: Association between air pollution and lung function growth in Southern California Children, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2000, 162 (4 Pt 1): 1383-1390. 71. Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Gilliland F. Vora H, Thomas D, Berhane K. McConnell R, Kuen;;li N, Lurmann F. Rappaport E, Margolis H, Bates D, Peters J: The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age. New England Journal of Medicine. 2005, 351: 1057-67.10.1056/NEJMoa040610.. 72. Merkus PJFM: Air pollution and lung function. New England Journal of Medicine. 2005, 351: 2652- 73- Gauderman WJ. Vora H, McConnell R. Berhane K, Gilliland F, Moms D, Lnrnunnn F, Avol F., Kunzli N, Jarrett Al, Peters J: Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: A cohort study. The Lancet. 2007, 369: 571-577. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60037-3, 74. Janssen NA-H, Brunekreef B, van Vliet P, Aarts F. Meliefste K, Harssema H, Fischer P: The relationship between air pollution from heavy trai9ic and allergic sensitization, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and respiratory symptoms in Dutch school children. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2003,Ill : 1512-1518- 75. Hong Y-C, Leem J-H, Lee K-H. Park D-H, Icing J-Y, Kim S-T, Ha E H: Exposure to air pollution and pulmonary function in university students. international Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2005, 78: 132-138. 10.1007/s00420.004-0554-x. 76. Kim HJ, Lim DH, Kim JK, Jeong V. Son BK: Effects of particulate matter (PM10) on pubnonary function of middle school children. Journal of the Korean Medical Society. 2005, 20 (1): 42-45. 77. Penard-Morand C, Charpin D, Raherison C, Kopferschrnill C. Caillaud D. Lavaud F. Annesi-Maesano 1: Long-term exposure to background air pollution related to respiratory and allergic health in schoolchildren. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 2005, 35: 1279-1287.10,I1114,1365.22221005.02336x. 78. Delf+no RJ, Quintana PJE. Flom J, Gastanaga VM, Sarnimi BS, Klienrnan MT, Liu LJ, Bufalino C. Wu C, McLaren CE: Association of FEW in asthmatic children with personal and microenvironment exposure to airborne particulate matter. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2004, 112: 932-941. 79. Koenig JQ, Larson TV, Hanley QS. Reboliedo V Durnler K, Checkoway H, Wang SZ, Lin D. Pierson WE: Pulmonary function changes in children associated with fine particulate 'natter. Environmental Research. 1993,63: 26-38.10.1006/enrs-1993,1123. 80_ Van der Zee SC, Hoek G, Boezen HM, Schouten JP, van Wijnen JH, Brunekreef B: Acute effects of urban air pollution on respiratory health of children with and without chronic respiratory symptoms. Occupational and Environmen►al Medicine. 1999, 56 (12): 802-813. 81. Pekkenen J, Timonen KL, Ruuskanen J, Reponen A, Mirme A: Effects of ultrafine and fine particulates in urban air on peak expiratory flow among children with asthmatic symptoms. Environmental Research. 1997, 74: 24-33. 10.10061enrs.1997.3750, 82, Peters JM, Avol E, Navidi W, London SJ, Gauderman WJ, Lurmann F, Linn WS, Margolis H. Rappaport E. Gong H. Thomas DC: A study of twelve Southern California communities with differing levels and types of air pollution: Prevalence of respiratory morbidity_ American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 1999, 159 (3): 760-767. 83. Laden F, Schwartz J. Speizer FE, Dockery DE: Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: extended follow-up of the Harvard six -cities study, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2006, 173; 667-672.10,1164/rccm.200503-4430C. 84. Health Effects Institute: Reanalysis of the Harvard six cities study and the American Cancer Societe° study of particulate air pollution mortality, Final Version; Boston, MA. 2000 85. Beeson WL, Abbey DE, Knutsen SF: Long-term concentrations of ambient air pollutants and incident lung cancer in California adults: Results from the ASHMOG study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1998. 106: 813-823.10.2307/3434125. 86. Nyberg F, Gustaysson P, Jarup L, Bellander T, Berglund N, Jakobsson R, Pershagen G: Urban air pollution and lung cancer in Stockholm. Epidemiology. 2000, 11: 487-495. 10.1097100001648-200009000-00002. 87. Vineis P, Hoek G, Krzyzanowski M, Vigna-Tagliani F, Veglia F, Airoldi L, Autrup H, Dunning A, Garte S, Hainaut P, Maiaveille C, Matullo G, Overvad K, Raaschou-Nielsen O. Clavel-Chapelon F, Linseisen J. Boeing H, Trichoponlou A, Patti D, Peluso M, Krogh V Tumino R, Panico S, Buena-De-Mesquita 11B, Peelers PH, Lund EE, Gonzalez CA, Martinez C, Dorronsoro M, Barricarte A. Cirera L, Quiros JR. Berglund G. Forsberg B, Day NE, Key T.I. Saracci R, Kaaks R, Riboli E: Air pollution and risk of lung cancer in a prospective study in Europe. International Journal of Cancer. 2006, 119: 169-174. 10,1002/ijc.21801. 88. Nafsrad F. Haheim LL., Oftedal B, Gram F, Holme 1, Hjermann I, Leren P: Lung cancer and air pollution: A 27-year follow up of 16 209 Norwegian men. Thorax- 2003, 58: 1071-1076.10.1136/1horax.58.12.1071. 89. Choi K-S, Inoue S, Shinozaki R: Air pollution. temperature, and regional differences in lung cancer mortality in Japan. Archives of Environmental Health. 1997,52: 160- 90. Biggeri A, Barbone F, Lagazio C, Bovenzi M, Sunda G: Air pollution and lung cancer in Trieste, Italy: Spatial analysis of risk as a function of distance from sources. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1996, 104: 750-754.10.230713433221. 91. Visser O. van W jnen JH, van Leeuwen FE: Residential traffic density and cancer incidence in Amsterdam, 1989--1997. Cancer Causes & Control. 2004, 15: 331-339. 10,1023/B: CACO.0000027480.324 94,a3, 92. US Environmental Protection Agency: Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. Washington, DC. 2002 93. Voizents PS, Meller P, Sorensen M, Knudsen LE, Hertel 0, Jensen FP, et al.: Personal exposure to uhrafine particulates and oxidative DNA damage. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005, 113: 1485-1490. Copyright a Brugge et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an. Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (jlltp:l/creativecommons otg/licenses/by/2.0). which permits unrestricted use. distribution, and reproduction in any medium. provided the original work is properly cited. Jlownload PDF pownlo• i cPuI Export citations Citations & References • Paper. Z tern Reference Manageer RefWorks (1,11) ) • jfntdNote (:ENWI https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.cam/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 12 of 13 Near -highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi..,cardiac and pulmonary health risks 1 Environmental Health 1 Full Text 7/606, 12:44 PM • Mendele)., JahRef 4.131B1 Article citation • 1=anerc_Jlero. Kelerenc� • FndNote t FNW] • Mendeley JabRef (.11IB References gcr, RcfWorks L$14) • aipers. Zoteru. Reference ManaQci. RefWorks t.RISX • FndNote ( FNW I • Ivlendeley JahRefi_B113) Table of Contents • tppAb((��stract • {{"b1 • Conclusion • Declarations • References Metrics • Article accesses: 84248 • Citations: 121 more informaugp • Altmetric score: 15 iMOi_■ Share this article • Share en Twitter • Share on Fae•book • shaman Linkedln • Share en Weibo • Sham on Google Plua • Share on Rerlett Other Actions • Order reprint © 2016 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Science+Business Media. By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Terms and Conditions, privacy statement and Cooks policy. Springer https:/Jehjournal.biomedcentral.cowlarticles/10,1186l1476-069X-6-23 Page 13 of 13 From: Carol Roedder[mailto:carol.roedder@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:06 AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 Development Gentlepeople: I have been a resident of Los Gatos Village for nine years. I have read the summary of the planned development behind Starbucks and am opposed to it for many reasons. I urge you to turn down this poorly placed, overly developed community. We can handle neither the population nor the vehicles. 1. The traffic merging on 1-85 and, to a certain extent I-17, is already beyond capacity and creating a log jam. More vehicles poses an insurmountable problem of people hurrying, sitting in on Los Gatos Boulevard or Lark Avenue, polluting, and — God forbid -- eventually heading into road rage. 2. 1-85 is already bumper -to -bumper until well past 10:00 A.M. each morning. There simply is no more room for cars. (We cannot assume these would be commuters who already use I-85.) 3. A"Santana Row" type development will permanently change the character of Los Gatos, pulling business from downtown, taking a lot of tourism with it. Do we want to see downtown go under after a few years? 4. We have a huge hospital and many medical facilities at this intersection. The off ramps are already dangerous with people in a hurry (how many of them run that No Turn on Red?), and increased congestion would make emergency traffic impossible. (We can't just assume people will take Union instead of Bascom for an exit -- Union is also overcrowded.) 5. In a fast -paced world, Los Gatos is one of the few communities that has had the gumption to use its brakes. This complex raises the height of allowable buildings in the town and changes the character of the town irreversibly. 6. Look at the businesses next to any major freeway off -ramp. Not a pretty picture: Hamilton and I-17, El Camino and I-85, Almaden and 1-85, etc., encourage panhandling and trash as well as log jams. Again, I urge you to turn down this proposal. It isn't us. I plan to attend the Wednesday meeting. Thank you for listening. Carol Roedder 110 Milmar Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-712-0139 From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw@me.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:04 AM To: Laurel Prevetti Subject: Fwd: No. 40 & Smart Lights in LG? Please include in N. 40 packet. JS Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlawme.com> Date: July 11, 2016 at 9:42:31 AM PDT To: BSpector <BSpector(iosgatosca.gov>, Steven Leonardis <sieonardiselosgatosca.gov>, Rob Rennie <rrennie(losgatosca.gov>, LPrevetti(c?.losgatosca.gov Subject: No. 40 & Smart Lights in LG? From: Joe Madden [mailto joe(Comobile-experts.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:45 AM To: Joel Paulson; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 Hi everyone, As a Town resident, I'd like to express my sympathy with you on a difficult choice with the North 40. Personally I hold strong Libertarian beliefs, which means that it's not government's role to create a lot of restrictions on private use of land. However, in the case of the North 40, I believe that the project should be restricted because it would create a major infringement on the rights of existing Town residents. Specifically, street traffic is already getting crazy on the north end of town, and it would be completely gridlocked with this plan. If you allow the planned North 40 development, you will be allowing the developers to violate existing Town requirements for "look and feel" and will absolutely not "minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure". Please vote to reject this plan, and allow the landowner to come back with a plan that is consistent with Town, not City. Thank you, Joc Macidcn Mobile Experts Silicon Valley, California +i 408 54o 7284 office +� 408 499 8747 mobile www.mobile-experts.net From: captsteven@aol.com [mailto:captsteven©aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:23 AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 proposed development All, My name is Steven Werner, I have lived and worked in Los Gatos for over 35 years. I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with proposed development of the North 40. Below are a few bullet points regarding my thoughts: 1. The development does not meet the towns specific plan. (In fact, it fails on many counts. Please refer to p. 1.1 and 2.2.) 2. The developer is smart. He/She is placing all of the residential in Los Gatos. The residents enjoy all our services and schools yet Los Gatos receives no commercial benefit/tax benefit. Los Gatos WILL be burdened by residential services required. Additionally, this further exacerbates our stretched public services ( i.e.,. police, fire, streets, schools etc.) The developer places most of the commercial ( money generators) in cam obeli and wins. Are we missing something here? 3. The residential units are placed too close to the freeway on -ramp. Studies (and your reports) state that these homes are subject to high levels of carcinogens generated from vehicles accelerating onto the freeway. There should be more green space between the units and the on -ramps. Or, the commercial should backup to the freeway. l understand that this parcel will be developed. I understand that the current property owners and the British development firm want to make as much money as possible. What I have a difficult time understanding is we have to live with this gargantuan project after they have banked their profits. There is no "look and feel like Los Gatos" (p.1.1). I am strongly to deny this present application. I am additionally requesting that this development have more public input and the project be slowed down. Let's meet our goals of the Specific Plan and have a development we all can agree upon. Thank you, Steven Werner From: Lee Quintana[mailto:Ieeandgaul@i)earthlink.netj Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:33 AM To: Sally Zarnowitz Cc: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz Subject: Desk Item North 40 Attached is a Desk Item for the North 40. I know 1 missed todays deadline (was trying to locate information on the amounts of open space provided by Phase 1. I would like to request that Staff supply the Planning Commission/Town Council with a table containing the Plan's objective standard, what Phase 1 proposes, does it meet or exceed the standards l will send you an e-mail later today regarding what may or may not be difference between open space figures provided in your memo, information 1 obtained from the applicants and the related condition of approval for the publicly accessible area. For now I am going to get back to my vacation and go out for a hike. Thanks, Lee This Page Intentionally Left Blank To: Planning Commission and Town Council From: Lee Quintana Re: Responses to the "A ity within a Town!" flyer Since I am on vacation I had not planned to submit additional comments on the Phase 1 North 40 application. However, 1 feel to it is necessary to respond to this flyer. The flyer is misleading, its conclusions appear to be based on incorrect or incomplete in- formation, a partial understanding of the Plan itself and a lack of knowledge of the pe- rimeters within which the Planning Commission and Town Council are able to act. THIS FLYER NEEDS SERIOUS FACT CHECKING 'III 1. The proposed development is required to "look and feel like Los Gatos" a. The drawings for the Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style, 3-5 story buildings that have nothing in common with the look and feel of Los Gatos. RESPONSE 1.a. Lark District: No building proposed by Phase 1 exceeds 35 feet or three stories, the maxi- mum height standard for the Lark District. • There are two exceptions to the 35 foot maximum. Buildings located along Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Blvd. are limited to a 25 feet. And 15% of the total footprint within the Lark District is restricted to a 25 feet maximum. • Overall, 29% of the footprints of buildings in the Lark District meets the 25 foot maximum. This exceeds the standard by almost 100%. (See March, 2016 Plan Set) Transition District: • The only building in Phase 1 with a four story element is the multi -use Market Hall/Parking/Affordable Senior Housing structure. • The Market Hall is one and two story, the garage is three stories above ground levels and one below ground, and the Senior Housing portion is four stories. • The garage was originally proposed with three levels above ground. At the re- quest of at Staff's the application was modified to include the below grade level. (This change is reflected in the revised March 2016 Plan Set) • The garage is wrapped by the housing and commercial uses. This minimizes the visibility of the garage and avoids the boxiness typical of stand alone ga- rages. • The maximum height allowed in the Transition District is 35 feet. However, an exception to 45 feet is allowed for affordable housing and hotels • A small portion of the Senior Housing exceeds the 45 feet maximum. This ex- ception is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and with State Hous- ing Law • To be specific 5,005 sq ft of the structure exceeds 45 feet. This is .085% of the building's footprint, and, 0055% of the 901,195 sq ft (20.6 acres) of the area covered under the Phase 1 proposal 2. The Specific Plan says "Lower intensity residential and limited retail/office uses are envisioned...."for the Lark District (Lark/Los Gatos Blvd) (pp. 2-3) The devel- oper has instead proposed highly intense development -including massive 6, 7, and 8-unit three-story row home complexes and commercial/residential space up to 51 ft. high. (This is taller than the Albright buildings) RESPONSE 2. Statement 2 appears to incorrectly assume all of Phase 1 is located within the Lark District. The existing medical office buildings along Los Gatos Blvd. within the Lark District (approximately 60,000 sq ft) likely exceed 35 feet, however the existing buildings are not part of the Phase 1 proposal. • The commercial/residential space referred to in Statement 2 is located in the Transition District. • Phase 1 proposes 197 new units in the Lark District. No new commercial is pro- posed for the Lark District. Phase 1 proposes 123 new units in the Transition District along with approximately 60,000 sq ft of new commercial (Also see Other Issue 1 be- low) The statement that Phase is commercial/garage/residential structure is taller than all structures in the Albright/Netflix project is incorrect. All four office buildings at Albright exceed 45 feet, with two at 50 feet and two at 65 feet In contrast, the Phase 1 commercial/garage/residential building varies in height from approximately 20' to approximately 51' (as noted above only a small area of this structure exceeds 45 feet). • The flyer states correctly that Phase 1 proposes 6, 7 and 8 unit multi -family residential structures. This does not conflict with "the look and feel of Los Gatos" since similar multi -family structures are located throughout the Town. • In addition the Specific Plan does not include a standard for the maximum number of units allowed in a single building. 3. The proposed development must "embrace hillside views, trees and open space (P.1.1) a. The intensity and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and provides minimal open space. RESPONSE 3. and 3.a Hillside Views/View Corridors • The North 40 Specific Plan does not require all hillside views to be preserved, Nor does the Specific Plan does identify specific or general location for the preservation of view corridors. • From within the Plan Area there are only limited views exist of hills to the East. Most on -site views are blocked by existing development along Los Gatos Blvd. or by the existing orchard trees. These observations were made on site during a publicly noticed Planning Commission site visit. • Some views of the hillsides are blocked looking east from Highway 17 when one is almost directly opposite the structures. This is similar to the situation along most of Los Gatos Blvd and Winchester Blvd. and in the Downtown area along Santa Cruz Avenue and Main Street. Hillside views are generally avail- able only at street intersections or open areas such as the Town Plaza. Re- cent and relatively recent development or redevelopment such as Albright/ Netflix, Netflix/Aventino, Safeway, Bluebird Lane, and Swanson Ford block views of the hillsides. Views are also blocked by many existingDowntown buildings. Open Space • The North 40 Specific Plan and Zoning set stricter open space standards than the General Plan or the Zoning Code. The Specific Plan is the first Town document to set standards for open space, green open space or to defines what can and cannot be counted towards open space requirements. For example, roadways and driveways are not considered open space; landscaped areas of parking lots are included in the calculation of green space. • The Specific Plan sets three new open space standards for the North 40. These are in addition to existing Zoning Code standards for open space in common area developments (ownership or rental), and the minimum S% landscaping standards for parking lots. The new open space standards are listed below: Q A minimum of 30% of the total area of the North 40 must be open space O A minimum of 20% of the total area of the North 40 must be green open space O A minimum of 20% of the 30% (l.st bullet above) is required to be acces- sible to the general public. (note: A pubic access easemove over these privately owned and maintained areas will be ensured by a public access easement (See Condition of Approval) Assuming the area of the Proposed Phase 1 is 20.7 acres (901,195 sq ft) the minimum open space required for Phase 1 would be: 30% minimum open space 7.24 acres 20% minimal green space 4.14 acres 20% of 30% publicly accessible 1.49 acres Trees - See comments under 4.a. below 4. The proposed development must "incorporate the site's unique agricultural characteristics." P1.1 a. All walnut trees will be removed. The site will be planted with other trees, mostly deciduous, that will take years to grow. b. There is no amenity that "incorporates the site's unique agricultural char- acteristics". The developer claims the marketplace, A STORE, will fulfill this requirement. RESPONSE TO 4.a. • Phase 1 proposes to remove approximately 86 protected trees and to save 8-9 large protected trees (primarily native oaks). Orchard trees are generally not protected by the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance, and no replacement trees are required when orchard trees are removed. The existing walnut trees are deciduous trees Phase 1 proposes planting approximately 500 fruit -producing deciduous or- chard trees. As the flyer notes many of the existing walnut trees are beginning to decline. Even assuming the walnut orchard were to remain, the existing walnut trees would be replaced by new decidious walnut trees, which would also take time to mature. • In addition, between 1200 and 1300 trees, mostly evergreen, will be planted throughout Phase 1. All trees proposed to be planted along Highway 17 will be evergreen. • The number of replacement trees proposed by Phase 1 far exceed the replace- ment trees required. RESPONSE TO 4. AND 4.b. • It is difficult for me to understand the basis for these conclusions • TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE PHASE 1 NORTH 40 APPLICATION IS THE FIRST PROJECT SUBMITTED IN LOS GATOS WITH A SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM IN- CORPORATED INTO ITS LANDSCAPE PLANS. I CANNOT THINK OF A BETTER WAY TO HONOR THE NORTH 40'S AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE OR TO INCOR- PORATE THE SITES PAST AGRICULTURAL CHARACTER. • Phase 1 proposes the planting of +/- 500 fruit bearing orchard trees, which, while not walnuts, would reflect the agricultural heritage of the site as well as the agricultural heritage of the valley. • Phase 1 also proposes a vineyard, a demonstration garden, a roof top garden above a potential restaurant, and community gardens. • I think it is also safe to assume that the sustainable agriculture concept will be carried over and incorporated into the development plans for the rest of the North 40 Specific Plan Area. OTHER ISSUES addressed in the Flyer ISSUE 1. All housing units are included in the proposed Phase 1 plan RESPONSE TO ISSUES 1. • This statement is not correct. • Phase 1 proposes 320 residential units of the possible 364 units. The 320 units include the requested State Density Bonus for the provision of the affordable senior housing located in the Transition District. The 320 units proposed by Phase 1 are divided between the Lark District (197 units) and the Transition District (123 units). The remaining 44 units of the 364 allowed units can be carried over and built during the development of the Northern District. This distribrution of the housing units is consistent with the Speific Plan. • This distribution of uses within the plan area vary from the lower intensity uses towards the south of the Plan Area (Lark District) to the most intensive uses in the north (Northern District). This is consistent with the Specific Plan. The largest number of units proposed in the Lark District is consistent with stated primary emphasis of lower intensity uses in the Lark District. Locating the least number of units in the Northern District is consistent with that dis- trict's entertainment and commercial emphasis, (Also see the discussion of the factors affecting intensity in the Staff Report for the July 12, 2016 Plan- ning Commission Meeting). • The Specific Plan says "lower intensity" not "low density" . Residential is usually considered a "lower intensity" use than commercial or entertainment. ISSUE 2. The Specific Plan includes maximums for housing, height, and commer- cial space. The developer has chosen to use all these maximums even though at least some lower building would be appropriate. RESPONSE ISSUE 2. • As can be seen in the illustration at the top of the Flyer, the buildings in Phase 1 vary in both height and mass. Not all buildings reach the maximum height allowed. • For those that do reach the maximum height allowed, the heights of the roofline varies. • The Specific Plan does not set a standard for the distribution of housing or the distribution of commercial or the % of a structure's footprint that can be built to the maximum height. The Council chose to leave these things to the most part flexible and did not set objective standards for these things. ISSUE 3. The proximity to Highway 17 is a potential health and safety issue for residential properties due to fumes and toxins from automobile pollution. RESPONSE ISSUE 3. • The potential health issues are addessed in the EIR that was prepared and certi- fied for the North 40 Specific Plan. The EIR identified a potentially significant air quality impact. However, with the incorporation of the mitigation the EIR (See Conditions of Approval), the EIR found the would be reduced to a Tess than significant level. The mitigation recommended by the EIR has been in- corporated into the Phase 1 Conditions of Approval. The air quality impacts were also addressed in the Initial Study for Phase 1. This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 To: Planning Commission and Town Council From: Lee Quintana Re: Support of Phase 1 North 40 Specific Plan Date: July 12. 2016 The Town has received an impressive number criticizing the adopted North 40 Specific Plan and recommending denial of the Phase 1 North 40 application. Few comments have subrnitted to the Town in support of the Plan or the Phase 1 application. I would like to focus on some of the positive and unique aspects of the North 40 plan and the Phase 1 application. FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE • The Specific Plan is the first Town Document that sets specific open space standards by establishing minimum standards for total open space, green space and space publically accessible. These are in addition to the open space reqirements for common interest developments and for parking lot landscaping that are ound in the Zoning Gode. • The Specific Plan is the first town document to define what can and cannot be included in open space calculations. • The Specific Plan is the first document that clearly excludes roadways and driveways and the paved surfaces of parking lots from being counted as open space. • The Specific Plan is the first document that includes a minimum requirement for privately owned and maintained open space that will be accessibe to the general public. • Phase 1 is the only project that I am aware of that has provided air rights make that make the construction of low and very low afforable units financially feasible. • Phase 1 is the first application received by the Town that incorporates sustainable agriculture in its site and landscaping plans, and it is the first project to celebrate the agriculture heritage of the Town and the Valley. • Phase 1 is the first application received by the Town that both distributes and connects open spaces through the Phase 1 area. The human scale of the public open spaces, the amenities provided and the connections between these spaces are designed to encourage social interactions. 2 • Phase 1 is the first application received by the Town that provides internal pedestrian pathways and multi -modal pathway (bike ways) connect the residential uses with the commercial uses within the site as well as connects to Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Ave. • Phase 1 is the first multi -use application received by the Town that in effectively integrates the different uses (recreation/open space, retail, and residential) instead of developing the uses as essential seperate functions. • Phase 1 applicants have worked cooperatively with staff to incorporate staff's suggestions and requests even if not required, as well as to incorate additional modifications on their own. All have been incorporated into the (onditions of approval) The applicants have: - Actively tried to engage residents in discussion to identify issues has modified plans based on response from residents. For example, discussion with the residents in the Highlands neighborhood resulted in changes to the proposed street circulation that will help prevent cut thru traffic in that neighborhood. - Worked with the bike colalition, Caltrans, and the Town to provide a bike lane on Lark across the Freeway bridge to connect with the Creek Trail - Worked with and reached an agreement with the LGUSD that address impacts on schools beyond the limits imposed on the Town by State Law. (This agreement is unprecedented) - Provided replacement trees far in access of the numbers required. • The Phase 1 application meets the (tectnical) objective standards of the Specific Plan. I could continue but I am running out of time to make the Desk Item deadline. CONCLUSION: The Phase 1 application meets the objective requirements of the Specific Plan, is consistent with the General Plan, including the General Plan Housing Element, and is consistent with State Law I ask the Planning Commission to consider a possitive recommendation to the Council on Phase 1 of the Specific Plan. In addition it contains many unique and positive elements. ask you to consider a recommendation to Council of Approval Thank you, Lee Quintana From: Diane Dreher [mailto:ddreher©scu.edu] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 1:57 PM To: ppaulson@losgatos.gov; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Cc BSpector; Marico Sayoe; Rob Rennie; sleonardis@losgatosca.gove; Mjensen@lostgatosca.gov Subject: North 40 DeveloprnentPlan Dear Friends and Neighbors, I strongly recommend denial of the current North 40 plan. Los Gatos is a historic town, not a commercial industrialized complex I find the developer's plan dishonest and disrespectful: Dishonest because it repeatedly violates the town's Specific Plan: • Substituting high intense development instead of the required "lower intensity residential and limited retail/office uses" • And among other proposed abuses, removing all walnut trees and substituting a store instead of honoring and incorporating the site's unique agricultural characteristics." I seriously wonder if we can trust these developers who repeatedly violate our town's governance, tradition, and Specific Plan. The developer's plan is disrespectful because it proposes a dense set of industrial -style buildings instead of respecting the unique character of our town with a harmonious plan that would "look and feel like Los Gatos.'' Please reject this proposed commercial industrialized complex at Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard because it would drastically increase traffic and industrialized sprawl, impede vital access to Good Samaritan Hospital, and undermine the safety of our children, the character of our schools, and the quality of our lives. Sincerely, Diane Dreher Diane Dreher Professor of English President, Faculty Senate https://www.scu.edu/faculty-senate/ Past President, AAUP Chapter http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/aaup-scu/ Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara CA 95053 (408) 554-4954 ddreher@scu.edu l�ttp;, www.dianedreher.com Check out my blogs: http://www.psychologytoday.corn/bloglyour-personal-renaissance https://Mots.scu.edu/writeherewritenow/ "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead From: Cathleen Bannon[mailto:cathleenbannon©grnail.comj Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:15 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 development Hello all - I am continuing to share our family's perspective on the proposed North 40 development and hope the following will be taken in serious consideration during this week's discussions. We are a family living on lower Kennedy Road with two children attending Van Meter elementary going into grades 2 and 4. We walk our kids daily to and from school, belong to LG Swim & Raquet and frequently attend businesses both downtown and north to Lark. With this daily perspective on both town infrastructure and school system, we are extremely against the current proposal for North 40. The EIC is out dated and does not take into consideration the increase in traffic issues that are dramatically negatively impacting our town over the last 2 years. Current LG residents can no longer "pop out" to the store, quickly run over to the school, or get across town in a timely manner. From Kennedy to Lark it can take upwards of 20+ minutes and from Lark to Kennedy regularly take much longer. The proposed widening of LG Blvd by Lark will NOT even help what we are currently dealing with much less the impact of bringing in upwards to 400+ more cars. Currently VM school and BH schools are already impacted, in fact VM will be increasing to 5 first grade classes this next year - this is without the impact of a new development. There is NO need for all the housing to be put in phase I - that is ONLY a benefit to the developer that can advertise LGUSD boundary. The town must demand that only a percentage of home be in Phase I as to spread out the educational impact. Also the town must require that the new development be part of the Lexington Elementary school which is the ONLY school that is under enrolled and actively looking for more students. The proposed development does not align with the look & feel of Los Gatos... it instead is trying to bring an urban living development of high rise living to our small town. Yes, there is a need of housing for the young and old... however, neither of these demographics are going to be able to afford the units. With open retail in downtown, LG does not need more big box stores... they will just run out more of the Locally owned stores through pricing and will create more traffic jams of people from out of area coming to shop. In summary, the N40 development is really the entire open space NOT just phase I. All that is proposed for just Phase I should be spread out between all Phases as to spread out the impact. This is, of course, NOT what the developer will want as they ONLY own Phase I, but the town MUST take the lead on what is best for the town.... DO NOT approve the current proposal, you can still meet requirements by spreading out the development to all phases - this will take the strain off of LGUSD and our roads. Please listen to your residents, we do not what this level of intense development that our town's infrastructure can not handle. Thank you for all the consideration going into this proposal Cathleen Bannon 415.819.1239 From: Clare and Marilyn Keeney <claremarilyn@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:15 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 I picked up your card at the display of the North 40 at the Los Gatos library and hope to be able to convince you to do your utmost to see that this terrible piece of development does not come to pass. I have lived in this town since 1962, and I have loved it. One of the most attractive features of it was the insistence on keeping it a town, not a city. This development is in complete opposition to that goal. In fact, it is in complete opposition to all the standards the town has embraced for years. This development is opposed by almost everyone in town. Why is the town bent on doing something that offends nearly all of its citizens? I am not sure I can make it to tomorrow night's meeting, but 1 will be there in thought and spirit. I urge you to veto this whole plan. It is all wrong for Los Gatos. Thank you. Marilyn Keeney 16601 Ferris Avenue Los Gatos CA 95032 Z Original Message From: Clare and Marilyn Keeney frnailto:claremarilyn@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:23 PM To: Mike Weisz Subject: North 40 1 picked up your card at the Los Gatos library, at the display for the proposed North 40 development. What a frightening prospect that is! Please, please, do all you can to see that this development does not happen! I have lived in Los Gatos since 1962 and have loved being here. The emphasis on being a small town, not a city, is one of the most attractive features here. This development is completely at odds with that perspective. Nearly everyone in town objects to this development. Why would the town want to pursue something that offends nearly all of its citizens? I am not sure I will be able to be at tomorrow night's meeting, but I do want to let my thoughts be known. This plan is all wrong. Do the right thing. Do your utmost to veto it. Thank you. Marilyn Keeney 16601 Ferris Avenue Los Gatos CA 95032 From: Janette Judd Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 4:04 PM To: ristows@comcast.net Cc: Joel Paulson; Sally Zarnowitz Subject: FIN: North 40 Phase One application comments cc: Town Council Town Manager CDD Director J. Paulson Planning Manager S. Zarnowitz Good afternoon, Thank you for your e-mail, received by the Mayor, Town Council and Town Manager. We note that your message was also directed to Community Development Department (CDD) staff. Staff will include your comments in the North 40 project files and in future Town Council meeting materials when Council convenes again in August. Should you have additional questions or comments, Planning Manager Sally Zamowitz can be reached by phone at (408) 354-6873 or a -mail, SZamowitz@LosGatosCA.gov. Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments. Best regards, Janette Judd Executive Assistant Town Council and Town Manager's Office (408) 354-6832 From: Maria Ristow [mailto:ristows©acomcast.neti Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:03 PM To: Council; Planning; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 Phase One application comments Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc, and Council Members Jensen, Rennie and Leonardis, I am sending you an article I have written for LGCA, in response to a flier opposing the North 40 Phase 1 application. While reasonable people may disagree over facts, this flier, distributed widely through Next Door, Facebook, email lists and in paper form, contains a large number of inaccuracies. LGCA strives to ask questions, search out facts and look for solutions. This flier appears to embrace none of that. Thank you for reading yet another email about the North 40 Phase One application. SOME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS A flier as published on FB, Next Door and distributed in entails. LGCA finds this document full of inaccuracies. Comments and corrections below in italics. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT FULFILL THESE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH THE TOWN HAS MANDATED THROUGH ITS SPECIFIC PLAN The proposed development is required to "look and feel like Los Gatos." P 1.1 The drawings for the Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style 3 -5 story buildings that have nothing in common with the look and feel of Los Gatos Whaaaaat????? There is NOTHING 5 stories in the Phase 1 proposal (I looked again). The housing is permitted to only be 25 feet high in some parts of the Lark District and up to 35 feet in parts of Lark District and elsewhere, up to 2-3 stories. The affordable senior housing is located on the Market Hall and parking structure (in the Transition, not Lark District), and it is ONE BUILDING in total, at 4 stories. If people don't like the architectural style, that can be discussed in A&S, but the "3-5 stories" is a ludicrous and incorrect statement. The Specific Plan says "Lower intensity residential and limited retail/office uses are envisioned..." for the Lark District (Lark/Los Gatos Blvd.) (pp.2-3) The developer has instead proposed highly intense development —including massive 6-, 7-, and 8- unit 3-story rowhome complexes and commercial/residential space up to 51 ft. high. (This is taller than the Albright buildings.) While everything proposed in the Lark district is a max of 25 feet tall along Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard and 35 feet tall toward the center, only the affordable senior housing located on top of the Market Hall and parking structure (in the Transition District) is permitted to go to 45 feet, and I believe the elevator shaft goes to 51 feet. For all who forgot, the Albright Buildings are SOLID RECTANGLES with two at 50 feet tall and two at 65 feet tall (exclusive of mechanical equipment). So how does one feature on one 45-foot tall building make the housing "taller than the Albright buildings" which also may be taller than their nominally stated heights????? Seriously, I'm blown away by the 72% of this Town that voted for the Albright buildings and now can't remember what they supported. The North 40 Phase One application is not as tall, or intense, or traffic generating as Albright. The proposed development must "embrace hillside views, trees, and open space." P. 1.1 The intensity and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and provides minimal open space. The Phase One application meets the 30% required open space requirement. How is this possibly MINIMAL? Compared to what? No Planned Development of even HALF the density of the North 40 has one-fourth the open space. At least one of the public open areas proposed on Phase 1 is as large as the Plaza downtown, plus there are several more slightly smaller spaces. For reference, Santana Row has 1-2% open space! All solid buildings block hillside views. So do trees. Walk anywhere in town and look around. Unless you are on top of a mountain, something will block your view at some point. Clumping residential units together and stacking them provides MORE open space, and the present application has more open space than any other development in Los Gatos. I attended the Planning Commission Special Meeting maybe two years ago where commissioners and members of the public were allowed to walk through much of the North 40. Ask anyone who was there-- through all the trees, one could NOT see the hillsides in the present state. We are certainly NOT going to deny trees for this, are we? Relocating some of the residential in the Lark District to the North would alleviate some of the loss of views as would reducing the height and create more open space. As to the distribution of housing among the districts, Phase 1 proposes 193 units in the Lark District, and 127 units in the Transition District, which leaves 44 to carry over to the Northern District. (270 units + bonus units = 364). When taken together with the location of the retail/garage/senior housing structure towards the north end of the Transition District, the Phase I proposal is consistent with the Specific Plan, which calls for a lower intensity of use (height, mass, traffic etc). Within the Lark District there would be a primary emphasis on residential, in the Transition District new development (residential and commercial), moving to greater intensity commercial development in the Northern District. The reduced number of housing left for the Northern District is consistent with the Specific Plan requirement that commercial uses be located where they will have the least impact on residential uses. Others may disagree, but at least understand how the Specific Plan calls out the various types of uses and where it allows or encourages them. Further, relocating some of the residential could then put more commercial in the Transition district. That brings more traffic. How does this reduce intensity??? Residential is the least intensive from a traffic point of view. How does height get reduced? Height restrictions are the tightest in the Lark District. And the housing Element has zoned the N40 for 13.5 acres at 20 dwelling units/acre, so this is the density the Town has set. Between the density the Town set and the max height limit of 35 feet (except for affordable or hotel), the cluster cottages (the only detached housing permitted in the Spec Plan) likely impossible to build, as the density would need to be increased further in other residences. The proposed development must "incorporate the site's unique agricultural characteristics." P. 1.1 All the walnut trees will be removed. The site will be planted with other trees, mostly deciduous, that will take years to grow. Please read the Phase 1 proposal for the trees. Drought tolerant plantings are required in most places, and the periphery and inner ares will have orchard trees. The application is proposing a variety of fruit trees, to reflect the agricultural roots of the valley. Fruit trees can be planted closer together than walnut trees and ground - covering natives like mustard and lavender can be planted beneath, but if the TC prefers walnuts, then that will be the tree. Walnuts need to be spaced further and undergrowth is not viable. But that is up to the Town and TC. If the fruit trees are planted, the fruit will be gleaned and sold at the Market Hall, plus be available to those in the senior affordable housing. This was covered at the CDAC hearing. If you want to check anything, please see the EIR, Specific Plan, Housing Element, Phase One application, and the Q&rA from the Study Session. Don'tjust believe what ANY one person publishes! (Including me. I can make mistakes.) I see no point in creating hysteria with half-truths and lies. I can accept that those awned with facts may still dislike the proposal, but it helps i_ f'we all start from the same point. The Specific Plan, as Council Member Marcia Jensen pointed out at least once, was created to be a bit non-specific to give the Town Council room for discretion. Aspects of the Proposal can be discussed and reviewed. But starting from a point where the public is getting outright misinformation is not fruitful to this process. There is no amenity that "incorporates the site's unique agricultural characteristics." The developer claims the marketplace, A STORE, will fulfill this requirement. The entire application is set into a functioning agricultural setting, and there are proposed community gardens for residents and demonstration gardens for commercial users. The orchard trees are not just there as eye candy. The Specific Plan states the development should "address the Town's unmet needs." P 1.1 Move -down housing for the Town's seniors and millennial housing is not provided. As mentioned by at least one Council member, who says seniors can't move into any of the proposed housing? And of course the affordable housing is for seniors. Only 49 very low income senior apartments are provided. No other affordable housing will be built. This is more affordable housing at the lowest level of affordability than has been built in Los Gatos. And certainly a 1200-sf townhouse will be more affordable than the 4000-and up-sf homes going up else where in this town. By zoning 13.5 acres of the North 40 at 20 units/per acre, the Town planned for affordable housing, and that is what we are required to do. Los Gatos does NOT build housing and can not mandate exactly how the affordability levels will be distributed. I learned a lot about this sitting on the Housing Element Advisory Board. The retail as proposed duplicates that provided elsewhere and competes with rather than complements the downtown commercial space. P2.2 What does the Market Hall duplicate? Why can't there be a neighborhood restaurant? Do we expect to build all this housing and then force the residents into CABS for food and services? The proposed development doesn't "minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services." P 1.1 Schools, street, and other services will be adversely affected. Yet there is an unprecedented agreement with the developers and school district, above and beyond SB50 to address school impacts. The schools will get more than $6,000,000 with this agreement if the living units go into Phase 1 as requested by the school district. If you put more students in the Northern District, Los Gatos tax payers will likely pick up the cost of their education, and the other school districts will get the state funds. Sound like a Catch 22? It is! Mitigation measures are based on dated studies and do not sufficiently address adjacent pending and incomplete developments. The EIR (f you actually read it) covered all the recent and planned developments. The Specific Plan states the intent is "to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach." P 1-1 Phase i includes only a portion of the 44 acres. The current application is just part of a piecemeal approach since no information is provided about Phase II. The entire point of a Specific Plan is to lay the ground rules so any number of applications can come in and comply. The assumption of a Specific Plan is that there are multiple owners and phases, so one set of guidelines is set for the entire property. OTHER ISSUES The Specific Plan calls for residential development throughout the North 40, not just in this Phase. However, the developer includes all 320 units in the first 20 of the 44 acres. All these homes would be within the Los Gatos School District. The Los Gatos school district covers about 2/3 of the North 40. The Specfc Plan includes maximums for housing, height, and commercial space. The developer has chosen to use all of these maximums even though at least some lower buildings would be appropriate. Most applications start at the max and ask for exceptions. This proposal complies. The proximity to Highway 17 is a potential health and safety issue for residential properties due to fumes and toxins from automobile pollution. The EIR addressed this and requires mitigations. A final comment: The flier starts with the assertion that as proposed, the development will destroy our Town's small-town character forever. Really??? We KNOW more housing and 60k ft of commercial will DESTROY our small-town character? Seriously? There are people north of Blossom Hill Road BEGGING for something they can walk to, other than the burrito/coffee/burger trio that keep showing up at the strip malls. Possibly offering a Market Hall and another sit-down restaurant (as Viva is the only one in Town north of Blossom Hill) might actually allow more people a nice place to access by bike or foot. Talk to people on Oka or Highland Oaks. And those moving into the new residences in the North 40 will have something desirable nearby. How is planning a real neighborhood DESTROYING OUR Town's small-town character forever? Those who can't walk to downtown now, get in their cars and go to downtown Campbell, Santana Row, Valley Fair, Pruneyard, Westgate, Oakridge, or Saratoga now. How is getting more residents to leave their cars and stay in Los Gatos DESTROYING our town???? Thank you, Maria Ristow Los Gatos Community Alliance Original Message -- From: Lynn and George Rossmann [mailto:rossmannl@earthlink.netj Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 4:05 PM To: SSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Planning Subject: The North 40 I am unable to attend the July 12th and 13th meetings, In my judgment, the current application for development reflects an appropriate set of compromises and merits your approval. The obstructionists objections are weak and insufficient to justify denial. George Rossmann 219 Rosalie Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Eileen Werner <ewerner4@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 4:42 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; szarnovitz@losgatosca.gov; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: N. 40 Application 7.11.16 Att: Los Gatos Planning Commission Members Los Gatos Town Council Re: N. 40 Application Dear Planning Commission Members and the Town Council, 1 am writing to ask that the current application for the N. 40 be denied at your July 12, 2016 meeting. The existing application in no way, shape or form, exemplifies the character of Los Gatos. The story poles on site and the planned little city presently on display at the Los Gatos Library shows a creation that fails the goals and objectives set forth in the Specific Plan; a) The Specific Plan states "Lower intensity residential and limited retail/office uses are envisioned." (p 2-3 of SP). However, the residential is too, too intense: I see housing squeezed into high density AND heights that obscure any sense of "required to look and feel like Los Gatos," (p. 1.1 of SP). Additionally, the Specific Plan states residential development should be built throughout the N. 40; the 20 acres should not have 320 homes/units built on it. (The logic behind the developer is coherent; by placing the myriad of homes on the first 20 acres, the developer receives the benefit from the Los Gatos School District vs the distribution and placement of homes throughout the 40 acres and, within the Campbell School District. This is not a development to wholly satisfy the developer at the total expense of a Town, its character and its citizens.) b) The Specific Plan states development doesn't "minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services." Presently, there is NO adequate infrastructure to support this behemoth of a project. There is no transit plan. Mitigating by widening a portion of a road is no substitute for a true transit plan. As the Commission and Council are aware, we now have a "new" normal in Los Gatos on our roads. Gridlock. Los Gatos Blvd gridlock. Winchester gridlock. Lark Ave. gridlock. This is not seasonal gridlock but a daily occurrence. How can we place this size of a development in the N. 40 without implementing the obvious need for improved infrastructure? Additionally, there is no true linking of transit to move people. No rapid buses (read: not VTA as we know it). No rapid connections to light rail in Campbell. No plan. There is also no true linking of bicycle paths to move people throughout Town or through Town and into Campbell, San Jose, Saratoga, etc.,. Where is the community benefit involved in the gridlock projected for the future? We can no longer rely on studies done prior to 2016. Will community services be drained and forced to patrol an untenable traffic pattern simply to move vehicles to and from gridlock? The various iterations of the N. 40 over the years, including what is presented today, are obsolete in terms of meeting the required definition of the N. 40 Specific Plan. i To date, I have not met one individual in Los Gatos that favors this scope of a development. I keep waiting to hear a changing tune but it has not come. Please listen to your constituents: if your constituents do not value a project of such magnitude, isn't it time to take reasonable action and deny the application? I understand the Planning Commission and Council could quite easily have N. 40 fatigue. Please do not let this discourage you from working or "throwing in the towel" so to speak because your stacks of N. 40 documents feels sky high. Work for that vision and the vision of our changing future in Los Gatos. Think (and remember if you've visited) about Gaudi building the Sagrada Familia church in Barcelona, Spain, and your burden will be eased. Thank you. Very Truly Yours, Eileen Werner Resident of Los Gatos 2 From: Andrew Burnham[maiito:andrew©manresabread.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 5:51 PM To: Sally Zarnowilz; BSpector; Marieo Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 letter Dear Planning Commission and Town Council: We supported the North 40 Specific Plan when it was approved last summer. We remain supportive of the application that is currently before you, which we believe is consistent with the Specific Plan. While we are working with Grosvenor to help identify opportunities and plan for the market hall component, our support is not due to that relationship. That said, our look into the project gives us a unique position to comment. Los Gatos is a wonderful place. Clearly we believe in Los Gatos, as evidenced by our growing presence in the Town. It is, however, part of the larger Silicon Valley. It is important that we Zook forward while remembering what has made the Town strong. This includes recognizing that the region is growing and changing and in response adapting policies and encouraging projects that can help us grow in a managed way while keeping competitive. The retail program on the North 40 will at a minimum complement what Los Gatos already has to offer and likely enhance it. It will serve residents in the North 40, surrounding neighborhoods, and the rest of town on a regular basis with goods and services not yet found in Town. This includes access to the region's best produce, protein, and dairy... As discussed at length over the years, the size and design of retail spaces provide opportunity for restaurants and retailers who might not find the needed space downtown. For these reasons we support the project and request that you do as well. Regards, Andrew Burnham From: Joanne Justis [mailto joannejustis(a usa.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 6:24 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 Project Will Destroy Los Gatos Importance: High Greetings, I am a resident of Los Gatos, living on La Rinconada Drive. It takes me 35 minutes NOW TO DRIVE from my home into town on Winchester Blvd. What has become a major problem is the speed limit of 30 MPH and then it drops down to 25 MPH dose to Daves Avenue School. Daily I encounter cars riding my bumper because those two speed limits are too slow for most people. People are running red lights...It's down right dangerous and now you want to burden the town with the North 40 project that will add more restrictions all around and for what reason? No doubt for GREED! I can just imagine how many people are getting PAID to push this project through. My father purchased our house in 1956, so I've been a long-time resident. As it is, we can hear the freeway traffic noise from our backyard. More traffic, no parking in town, and what happens when our schools cannot handle the overflow attendance? Are you planning on busing our kids wherever YOU CHOOSE and overriding the parents decision for what school they want their children to attend??? This project is not progress...1 guess the builder figures if they add 49 Iow-income houses to the total houses built, they are really doing our community a big favor. Originally, I heard that the North 40 was for Iow-income housing but huge profits are at stake here. What is being proposed is outrageous. What about the potential health and safety issues - fumes, toxins and auto pollution? And, what would this project due to property values with an overcrowded town? I don't know what it takes to squash this project but what you are proposing is not right! As a resident, I am really upset over how you can even consider destroying Los Gatos, so others can profit! Joanne Justis From: Tom Krulevitch <krulevitch@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:17 PM To: Planning Subject: North 40 Proposal I am a long time resident of Los Gatos and am writing to ask you to deny the current application for development of the North 40. I understand that the town has come a long way through development and there will continue to be select development. However, the current proposal for the North 40 is too severe and will change the character of our town Specific concerns are listed below Regards, Tom Krulevitch Los Gatos Resident 1. The proposed development doesn't fulfill the requirement that the North 40 will "look and feel like Los Gatos." P 1.1 a. The drawings for the Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style 3 -5 story buildings that have nothing in common with the look and feel of Los Gatos 2. The Specific Plan states that for the Lark District (Lark/Los Gatos Blvd.) "Lower intensity residential & limited retail/office uses are envisioned..." p.2-3 The developer has instead proposed all residential be located in this District with highly intense development. 3. The proposed development doesn't fulfill the requirement that "The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees and open space." P. 1.1 a. The intensity and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and provides minimal open space. b. Relocating some of the residential in the Lark District to the North would alleviate some of the loss of views as would reducing the height and create more open space. 4. The proposed development doesn't fulfill the requirement that the North 40 will "incorporate the site's unique agricultural characteristics." P. 1.1 a. All the Walnut trees will be removed, planted with other trees that will take years to grow b. There is no amenity that"celebrates the site's agricultural heritage" despite the developer stating the large marketplace would be the focal point and a celebration. 5. The Specific Plan approved by the Town of Los Gatos states that it will "address the Town's unmet needs." P 1.1 a. Move down housing for the Town's seniors and millennial housing are not provided. b. Affordable housing is not provided; except 49 very low income senior apartments. c. The retail as proposed duplicates that provided elsewhere and competes with rather than compliments the downtown commercial space. P2.2 6. The proposed development doesn't fulfill the requirement that "The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools & other community services." P 1.1 a. Schools, streets & other services will be adversely affected 1 b, Mitigation measures are based on dated studies and do not sufficiently address adjacent pending & incomplete developments or the Town's recent growth. 7. The Specific Plan states the intent is "to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach." P 1-1 a. As Phase I includes only a portion of the 44 acres the current application promotes a piecemeal approach with Phase 11. 8. The Specific Plan includes maximums for housing, height and commercial space, however these are maximums; not minimums. The current application fails the follow the Plan which states "lower intensity residential and limited retail/office" in the Lark District. P 2-3 9. The proximity to Highway 17 is a potential health and safety issue due to fumes and toxins from automobile pollution. a. 2 Begin forwarded message: From: Becky Yoder <becky_55(a),yahoo.com> Date: July 11, 2016 at 9:53:57 PM PDT To: "jpauls©n@losgatosca.¢ov" <ipaulson(c losgatosca.gov> Subject: North 40 Reply -To: Becky Yoder <becky 55(yahoo.com> You cannot possibly still think it will be okay to ok this horrible plan for the North 40 property. Los Gatos will lose any charm, character and desirable livability and people will be flocking OUT of this town - living OR visiting. I can't even imagine what will happen to our property values if this monstrosity is allowed to be built. Becky Yoder Los Gatos, CA From: Grams, Paul R. (ARC-T) [marlto:paul.r.grams©nasa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:31 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Subject: North 40 July 10, 2016 Planning Commission 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 SUBJECT: THE NORTH 40 DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS Dear Members of the Planning Commission: You already know of the many concerns about Phase 1 of the North 40 development. We realize urbanization is inevitable but the developer who will profit by tens of millions must reduce substantial community impact that will last for decades. Many of the mitigations below will need county and state involvement but the developer must implement changes now that will reduce development community impact. Please require developer to do modifications to proposed development listed below and set aside land and assist with funding to: Increase Lark- Highway 17 on ramp going north to 3 lanes; developer provides 12 ft of land Increase Lark an additional 1 or 2 lanes from Los Gatos Blvd. to 17; developer provides 12 to 24 feet of land and assists with funding to purchaser 12 ft from 76 gas station Increase Los Gatos Blvd from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from Lark to Samaritan Drive, developer assists with funding to purchase 25 ft of land from 11 remaining lots not already set back Assist with funding to increase Lark-17 overpass an additional 1 or 2 lanes Thank you, Paul Grams From: Joseph Gemignani[mailto:iosephtheweatherman@cgmail.coml Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:39 PM To: Jocelyn Puga Cc: Azhar Khan Subject: North 40 survey in 2011 Hi, I have attached an article about a survey the Town of Los Gatos conducted in 2011 asking for various public input on the North 40 project. There were 33 questions and Suzanne Davis (senior planner at the tune) reported that everybody wants a mix of Architectural styles. More specifically they want traditional or mission style buildings. I brought this up at the last Planning Commission meeting and posed the question "what ever happened to the public input on the survey?. The project has primarily only one style versus a mixture. Furthermore, it is not traditional or mission looking.' Why hand out a survey and ignore the results from the public? Joseph Survey is asking Los Gatos residents 33 questions about plans ft North 40 8 JudyPeterson jpeters® immunity-erwspapet5_cetla(mashes:jpetersan@mmmumtynewspapera.eom) POSTED owe/mil PIO PDT i UPDATED: bYEARs AG° View jtas' :1 7 inaztAhl=eufiitaltat=hi raid=2071.Q7a88nsbu2-ngzz5+.00a42t61C7o7g4t2a5.84z?3txl1.-37-2c0417,-t21.o52)o;Ason=v.o:!a4 6.0.02.q7tiq€22=ze8source. in a h ser map The town has come up with a new way to get input from residents on what should happen at the North 40 when it's developed --with an online visual preference survey that people can take in just a few minutes. The 33-question surrey is at www.losi;atosca. of v WW.lps atoscs. nv (click on " New!").'" The North 4n is the last piece of undeveloped land in Los Gatos, The roughly 4o acres are bounded by ins Gatos .Boulevard, Lark Avenue and highways 85 and ;- Today, much of the land is a walnut orchard, but in four or five years it's expected to be built into a mitred -use retail, commercial and residential development. The Yuki family is the pritnatylandowner and has hired Grosvenor Americas of San Francisco to help steer the development plan. The sung}` is designed to give residents a chance to mice their opinions on the development. It includes pictures of different types of open spaces that could be in the North 4o, as well as photos of buildings and townhomcs th "1 think everybody wants a mix of architectural styles," Los Gatos senior planner Susanne Davis said, "and we keep hearing people don't want it to look like Sane Row." But at community meetings and North 4o advisory group meetings, differing opinions of what the buildings should look like have emerged. The community gra to more traditional or mission -style buldings," Davis said. 'The advisory committee liked agrarian and some modem styles_' Advertisement i arr�ptcninrn Mai -ti lsville from $126 Book rAiriderS hE el on Survey -takers can vote for their likes and disls`kes by dicidng that the style they believe is appropriate. may be appropriate, is neutral, may not be appropriate or is not appropriate. "If the majority of people don't Ince a particular sMe. that tells the design team 'don't design that.' So it information for town staff and the design team to have," Davis said Inaddition to being posted online, the survey was emailed to residents who have attended the North 4 community meetings. "We wanted a wider group of people," Davis said about the online posting. We also made it anonymol because we didn't want to discourage people from taking iL" By early last week, people had taken th sue ey. Survey questions that deal with open spaces also offer a variety of views for people to choose from. For example, there's a plaza with en interactive fou that children can play- in, similar to the fountain at Town Plaza Park. There are plazas with entertainment areas, park -like settings, sidewalk dining photos and active pedestrian spaces. Davis expects there will he more online surveys for people to take as development of the North 4o proceeds. The current survey wl remain online unt 1. From: Robin Matlock [rmatlock@vmware.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:50 PM To: BSpector; Maria) Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Cc: Eric Koch Subject: ZERO support for North 40 Town Council, I'm no activist. I barely have time to cook a meal for my family once in awhile, let alone write a serious letter to the LG Town Council. I'm not one to get involved. I have other things in life to focus on. You've never heard from me before. You don't know me. I'm just a stranger. AND YET... I have to get involved, because like all of my friends and neighbors, I am sick to my stomach over what is about to happen to our town, The current North 40 plan does not meet requirements that the town has mandated. #1 the proposed development does not look & feel like Los Gatos 42 instead of lower intensity residential and limited retail and office use, we're getting HIGHLY intense development, including tall, massive 6-, 7- and 8-unit, 3 story rowhome complexes and commercial/residential space #3 hillside views, trees and open space is destroyed, as the intensity, height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and gobbles up open space #4 there is nothing in the design that incorporates the site's unique agricultural characteristics, as outlined in your requirements #5 not seeing how this development addresses the Town's unmet needs. What we need is to keep downtown a healthy and vibrant commerce center, not create a new competitor to our down town businesses. #6 NOTHING about this plan "minimizes or mitigates impacts on town infrastructure, schools and other community services." Quite the contrary. This is going to burden our town infrastructure, schools and community services. Come on folks, really? #7 We don't know what we don't know!! Only phase 1 of the plan has been provided. What else is in store? Be responsible. Do what is right. Do your part to, at a minimum, improve this plan so it doesn't ruin our community. Is this really the stamp you want to leave on Los Gatos? Will it be your legacy? Thank you for listening, Robin 408-356-2540 home 16678 Topping Way Lost Gatos, CA 95032 Robin L. Matlock Chief Marketing Officer rmatlo ckavmware. com 3401 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 650.427.1667 Office 408.71 8.4438 Mobile This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Erin Kasenchak [mailto:ekasenchak@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:45 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: Fwd: North 40 concern I am reiterating my concern for this project. Seeing the model in the library has made it hit home even more! This does not feel like our town! It`s sad that not enough residents were aware and informed of this last year before our council approved the project but I hope the tremendous dissatisfaction by residents that has been voiced over the past 6 months will influence the planning commission to scale this project back. My concerns as noted below have not changed and it scares me to think what phase II will contain. Erin Kasenchak Begin forwarded message: From: Erin Kasenchak <ekasenchak(u yahoo.com> Date: March 29, 2016 at 11:15:43 PM PDT To: "NiMoseleyrilosgatosca.aov" <MMoseley(u),losgatosca.gov> Subject: North 40 concern Reply -To: Erin Kasenchak <ekasenchakAyahoo.com> Dear Ms. Mosley, I'm writing to voice my extreme concern and dissatisfaction over the North 40 project. 1 am unable to attend tomorrow's meeting due to travel, but I feel it's important that all residents express their thoughts about this project for our town. I expressed my reservations and dissatisfaction with this project before it was approved and feel that I need to reiterate my concerns, as I was deeply disappointed that the council approved the plan last June. Now that the story poles have gone up, the true impact has become visual and is even worse than I feared. And this is just phase 1? The height of the project is something that will change the landscape of our small, wonderful town. Additionally the scope will greatly impact traffic in this already very congested area. I don't see how, according to the Vision statement, the North 40 will minimize or mitigate the impact to our infrastructure. I know that the North 40 plans to address traffic, but I adding another light onto LG Blvd and an extra turn lane on Lark and LG will not make much difference. Lark and LG Blvd already need extra lanes with our current traffic so adding an additional lane with the extra cars and traffic this project is likely to bring does not feel sufficient. The traffic around 85, Good Samaritan and LG Blvd is also quite impacted. Again, this project will just add to it. Additionally, how long will these traffic improvements take from completion to end? I can't imagine what the situation will be like while the construction will be taking place. The Vision statement for North 40 states it will celebrate hillside views and our small town character, but over 300 residential units and potentially 501,000 foot of commercial/retail space does not align with "small town character". Additionally, the story poles showing the impact actually will block hillside views and not celebrate them. I suppose those living at North 40 will like their hillside views, but the rest of Los Gatos residents will lose views to buildings. I don't believe we have unmet residential needs that this project needs to address. My husband and I were born and raised in the Bay Area and moved specifically to Los Gatos over 20 years ago because of the charm and unique aspect this town had compared the hustle and bustle of the rest of Silicon Valley. We knew this would be a wonderful place to raise our family in an amazing small town feel with a great community. I'm very, very concerned that the size and scope of this project will forever change the feel of Los Gatos from the wonderful small town and community to just another Santana Row or big city feel. I firmly believe that what this town needs is open space, parks and sports fields for our youth and families, not additional housing. I understand that those do not generate revenue for a town but it's what we need. I urge you and all members of our town council to revise this design and lessen the proposed intensity/scope of the project. If you've read Town not City's facebook page, you'll see the overwhelming comments and concerns from fellow citizens about this project Please 1 urge you to keep our town just that, a small town. A very concerned citizen — Erin Kasenchak *********************** Erin Kasenchak ekasenchak(a7yahoo.com From: Lori Moore [mailto:lori.mooreme.corn] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:10 AM To: 6Spector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Subject: North 40 plans Dear Town Council, Planning Commission and related staff, [ am a Los Gatos resident and home owner. I have lived in this beatuiful town for 18 years. I feel tremendously fortunate to call Los Gatos home. It is more than just the town I live it —Los Gatos is in my heart. Considering the roles you all have, I would imagine you feel the same. I currently live off of Lark Avenue and have fully accepted that the North 40 has been sold and will be developed. 1 have reviewed the plans and have a major concern. We have been told all along that the North 40 development would have a look and feel like Los Gatos. Our town is eclectic and full of character. I see it as preserved Victorian style mixed with Spanish architecture: When the retail center at Blossom Hill and LG Blvd. went in, I thought it looked great because it fit in with Los Gatos: The plans for the North 40 have me scratching my head. I see nothing that looks like Los Gatos here. Where is the commonality with our existing Victorian and/or Spanish architecture? Additionally, there is no charm or character. This is just too generic and blah to be acceptable for Los Gatos. Please consider having the architects try again. Please don't let this happen to Los Gatos: Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lori Moore 115 Almond Hill Court Los Gatos Original Message From: Patricia Hogan -Le Gear (mai|to�hoga|egea/@yahoommj Sent: Tuesday, July 12,Z0167:lSAK4 To: Laurel Prevet i Please deny this application. Traffic in LG will become unbearable. Thank you. Patricia Hogan. Original Message From: Wendy Holmes [mailto:wendyrn2agmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:35 AM To: Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 I am a nurse working on Samaritan Drive. Getting to and from work with current traffic conditions is a challenge now, even at non peak hours. With the plans for the development, it will be a complete mess. The impact will be irreversible. Please minimize the size of this plan, Adding ANY more traffic surrounding the north 40 is a terrible plan. Wendy Holmes RN From: Donna Teresi[mailto:d]teresiCaix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:40 AM To: Council; Town Manager Subject: North 40 Development I have been a resident of Los Gatos for 45 years. And yes, I know that change is inevitable. That being said, I have watched the quality of life in our town diminish over the years. You are proposing to add 320 housing units and a mall to the North 40 property. This means, as you probably already know: 1. An influx of about 600 new residential cars to an area that is already congested. The access to Highway 85 is already a morning and afternoon commute nightmare. This will dramatically increase the current hour long morning commute to the Los Altos/Palo Alto area. It will also dramatically increase the Highway 17 commute to San Jose, etc. 2. In addition those residential cars and the additional cars brought in by the mall will also increasingly congest the Los Gatos Blvd traffic — which is already heavily trafficked. 3. It seems like the only access to the housing portion of the plan is on Lark Avenue. The distance between LG Blvd and Highway 17 is very short and already very congested most of the time. It seems that the addition of another 600 cars going in and out of that road will create a nightmarish backup for everyone involved. I am sure that the above is nothing that you haven't heard before, but I feel it bears repeating. If you would consider single family homes, the density and the resulting traffic nightmares would diminish considerably. If I were the builder/owner, I would want the highest density possible. But you, as the governing body of the Town of Los Gatos, have been elected/appointed to serve in the best interests of the current residents of the Town. It seems that you are trying to force a high density project into an area that is not even remotely equipped to handle it no matter how you look at it. This existing North4O plan will definitely negatively impact the quality of life in Los Gatos especially for the residents that live on the east side of town. Thank you. Donna Teresi PS — I wonder if you should not let the current taxpayers/voters decide on this high density solution. It seems you listened to the residents re the LG Blvd/Kennedy road parcel. From: Robin Matlock [mailto:rmatlock©vmware.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:55 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Cc: Eric Koch Subject: North 40 - Fails to Meet Town Requirements Planning Commission, l'rn no activist. I barely have time to cook a meal for my family once in awhile, let alone write a serious letter to the LG Planning Commission. I'm not one to get involved. I have other things in life on which to focus. You don't know me. I'm just a stranger. AND YET...I have to get involved, because like all of my friends and neighbors, I am sick to my stomach over what is about to happen to our town. The current North 40 plan does not meet requirements that the town has mandated. #1 the proposed development does not look & feel like Los Gatos 112 instead of lower intensity residential and limited retail and office use, we're getting HIGHLY intense development, including tall, massive 6-, 7- and 8-unit, 3 story rowhome complexes and commercial/residential space #3 hillside views, trees and open space is destroyed, as the intensity, height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and gobbles up open space 414 there is nothing in the design that incorporates the site's unique agricultural characteristics, as outlined in your requirements #5 not seeing how this development addresses the Town's unmet needs. What we need is to keep downtown a healthy and vibrant commerce center, not create a new competitor to our down town businesses. #6 NOTHING about this plan "minimizes or mitigates impacts on town infrastructure, schools and other community services." Quite the contrary. This is going to burden our town infrastructure, schools and community services. Come on folks, really? #7 We don't know what we don't know!! Only phase 1 of the plan has been provided. What else is in store? Be responsible. Do what is right. Do your part, at a minimum, to improve this plan so it doesn't ruin our community. Is this really the stamp you want to leave on Los Gatos? Will it be your legacy? I can't join your meeting on the 12th, but I am passionately against this development. Thank you for listening, Robin 408-356-2540 home 16678 Topping Way Lost Gatos, CA 95032 Robin L. Matlock Chief Marketing Officerrmatlock@vmware.com 3401 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 650.427.1067 Office 408.718.4438 Mol_ Lo From: Wendy Holmes <wendyrn2@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:04 AM To: Planning Cc: Laurel Prevetti Subject: North 40 I am a nurse working on Samaritan Drive. Getting to and from work with current traffic conditions is a challenge now, even at non peak hours. With the plans for the development, it will be a complete mess. The impact will be irreversible. Please minimize the size of this plan. Adding ANY more traffic surrounding the north 40 is a terrible plan. Wendy Holmes RN Wendy Wendy 1 From: jvannadaCCugmail.com [mailto:jvannada@gmail.coma Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:40 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Planning Commission Desk Item for 7-12-16 meeting Please see the attached. 7-12-16 A group of us started the Los Gatos Community Alliance about 4 to 5 years ago as we were watching the town develop well past what we thought were sustainable development levels. The schools were going to become overcrowded and the roads would become parking Tots. It was the first time most of us began to understand land use development. We came to understand that there are property rights of land owners. Many of us exercise our property rights when we remodel our homes, and we can remodel them as long as they fit within our zoning restrictions of our neighborhood. We knew that the North 40 could be developed, so we have sat in on North 40 development meetings for at least the last 4 years, and some attended meetings well before that. My major concerns were traffic, overcrowding of schools and over-densification. 1 came to understand that Los Gatos, like about 90% of the urbanized cities in the bay area, use the D level of service as acceptable. Though the LOS measurement is no longer to be used, that was what was use when this developments study was conducted. A "D" level can mean waits at a signal Tight of 35-55 seconds is acceptable. My theory is that we used to have a couple of those intersections at a D or even an E level, but now we have many more D's, E's and even an F or two. The number of jobs and people driving cars have compounded the problem. We need to make a major cultural shift from being car centric to mass transportation, or even better, to a bicycle centric town. The North 40 traffic is required to be mitigated such that it is not worse than before the development is built. According to the studies, the developer is making improvements that will take traffic back to the levels of 2012. The developer is contributing about $10MM-$12MM of their money to improve the traffic flow. They are not required to do this, but it makes good business sense as . Though some of us would like to see the levels go back to the year 2000, to do that with the jobs in Silicon Valley, we would need to car pool or use the bus. Not many of us are ready to make that compromise, so 2012 levels is about as good as we're going to get. My other concern was schools. The developer recognized that as a hot button with our community. In my mind, as well as the school boards mind, have done an excellent job of mitigating the issue. They are only required to pay $976,000 by state law. Instead, this developer is not only paying the state mandated amount, but they are also giving the school an additional $6,368,500 or two acres of contiguous land if that can be found. Those of you who want the housing spread around the 44 acres should first read and understand the costs of doing this — not to the developer, but to us and to the school district. It's substantial and you can read about it on our web site at http://Ig-ca.com/tough-decisions- ut-all-housing-in-the-los-gatos-school-district or spread -the -housing -to -the -north -section -of- the -development -too -there -are -consequences/ Something that was a third concern was the density and intensity of the development. The Specific Plan calk for 30% of the land to be open space about 7.25 acres), and over 4 acres must be "green" open space. 1.5 acres must be open to the public. No other development has that percentage of space required. As a wrap up, after 4 plus years of working with the town and the developer - and now reading the misinformed, misleading flyers put out by a certain group of people, and a web site with intentionally misleading pictures of how the site would look, I would trust the developer long before I would these so-called citizens. That's a sad state. They are like Donald Trump in that they cast dispersions on a developer who has put forth more effort than any other developer we've seen or worked with in the past five years. It's unfortunate, but we're living in a society of Trumpsters who will say anything to get their point across, regardless, and in spite of the truth. Jak Van Nada Los Gatos Community Alliance From: Arnir Mashkoori [mailto:amashkooriCc kovio.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:46 AM To: Clerk Cc: Council; Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 Project To whom it may concern, Please distribute attached letter to Council Members and members of the Planning Commission responsible for the North 40 project. Thank you and best regards, Amir Mashkoori July 11, 2016 To: Los Gatos Planning Commission CC: City Council Members Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We wrote to the planning commission in 2014 in support of the North 40 project, and are delighted to see the project reach another milestone in becoming a reality. As we previously outlined, we are active members of our community and our family has volunteered and supported many activities that make our town truly special. We've coached Los Gatos sports teams; volunteered in class and in important programs such as Read Naturally; Chaired fund raisers such as the Blossom Hill SchoolJog-a-thon; supported Los Gatos Youth Theater; and have been involved in several High School and teen related projects including Community Against Substance Abuse (CASA), Under 21 Club, Safe Rides, CASA Fashion show and Los Gatos High School Grad Night. As the old saying goes, it takes a village and we've experienced that firsthand in ours. We're particularly proud of the community that we live in and the commitment made by the families who live here to watch out for each other, keep our kids close to home and make education a priority. That is why we're excited about what the North 40 project can mean for our town. We understand that the Planning Commission and Council are considering the developer's application at their upcoming meetings and would like to re -iterate our support for the proposal: We understand that the developers are proposing a project that satisfies all of the requirements and restrictions of the plan that was approved in 2015 The plan reflects the values of Los Gatos that are so important to us for a project of its kind, including significant open space The proposal is well designed to minimize impact on our schools, maximize revenue to our town and serve unmet hosing and retail needs The project addresses our Town's practical and mandatory requirements for affordable housing Traffic mitigation in the plan addresses existing as well as issues anticipated by the new development Thank you for your diligence on this. We look forward seeing the North 40 become a reality. Sincerely, Amir and Danette Mashkoori 130 Wooded View Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Terri Oppelt (T.O.) Preising <preising@stanford.edu- Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:56 AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Laurel Prevetti Subject: Please put the brakes on the North 40 This proposed development is just too much. The impact on traffic and on our schools will be tremendous and irreversible, and I urge you to demand that this project be pared down to preserve our town's neighborhood, small town feel. Best, TO Terri Oppelt ("TO") Preising, MaEd, JD Assistant Director, Operations Stanford Prevention Research Center Education Program (H4A and CHPR) and Stanford Women & Sex Differences in Medicine Center (WSDM) Medical School Office Building (MSOB), 1265 Welch Rd., X3C30, Stanford, CA 94305, MC 5411 Directions: http://goo.gl/9sv6nX From: Susan M. Landry <environmental.architect@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:16 AM To: Planning Subject: N40 - Public Comments for Planning Commission Attachments: N40-SML-LTR-Site-Layout-Problems-12Ju116.pdf; N40-SML-Attachments-12Ju116.pdf Attached are my public comments on this project. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission Mtg tonight, Please give my letter to the Commissioners. Susan NI. Landry Environmental Architect Designing Spaces Between the Natural and Built Environment TM Trees were not consumed in the transmission of this email. Please try this on your end too, 1 8 Ems `+ Environmental Architect LP l.ac_ No. 3161 North 40 Draft EIR & Specific Plan Town of Los Gatos, CA To: Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos, CA RE: North Forty Property & Specific Plan Subj: Comments on the Pending Permit Application (March 2016) Date: 12`h Jul'16 Sent: email Dear Joel, I have been reviewing the North 40 Specific Plan and the Draft EIR documents. The following comments are being provided during the Public Review Period. Overall Comments • The various Plans: landscape plan, utility plan, storm drainage plan, etc. and the technical cross sections lack coordination and have numerous discrepancies. • Because the plans have numerous discrepancies, the technical data and numbers regarding percentages of open space, landscape areas and storm drainage cannot be correct. • If the technical data and percentages are not correct, the projects conclusions presented to the Planning Commission for discussion and approval should be scrutinized in more detail. • Prior to any additional approvals by the Town of Los Gatos, the Plans, Sections, Technical Data and Project Conclusions need to be consistently represented so the true and complete project components can be evaluated by both the Community and the City prior to making their own conclusions on the Proposed North 40 Project and Permit Application. Projects Inconsistency's The following graphics are excerpts from the North 40's Permit Application dated March 2016 that is online at the Town of Los Gatos' website. I have made notations on the graphics to highlight the inconsistencies. I have focused on the portion of the project along Hwy 17 and Lark Ave. Because of the inconsistencies in this area, the remaining plans for the other areas need to be critically evaluated to determine if there are problems are project wide. Susan M. Landry, Environmental Architect Oafgni:Ay c(iae OPimeeri. `atultaiCw& 6f117 014,11Wit Attachments: A146-Public-Comments-12.6116 — (2) pages 408.644.6936 Page 1 of 3 Environmental.Architect@yahoo.com Double Row of Trees Between Buildings ROW of Bo' Tall Pine Trees Po t:1411 t►' I sir Nit litiovoi p) CAM CO 4iL'u 1910,2F !! otgir ai tJtU)to op �1 ore (1 CHI Iff 4:1 01, apr .d.le1 41) c •:.o bid ! u r „too 41 Opp i 9 • Anti 0 if Main Street 0 o 0 � og 49 HwY 1-7 R f`ro- 888o 088888 <D MAP LEGEND LResidential Building Bio-Retention Basin M./23 Below Grade Bio-Reneention 0— — Storm Drain une t Infet Block Wall Tree 0 This btagram is ONLY intended to convey issues associated with the currently proposed plans submitted to the Town of Los Gatos by the Developer. The information shown in these diagrams was taken From the Maruh 2016 plans that are available on the Town of Los Gatos's website. Diagrams prepared by: Susan iwt Landry, Environmental Architect y COMMENTS �,1 The Landscape Plan Includes: *Along Hwy 1"1 - A continuous row of F30' tall x 35' wide tall Fine Tree are proposed. The Trees will be in a 48" box when planted. "Between Buildings - Double rows off trees are proposed. *Several of the 80' tall Fine Trees are located in a planting strip that is only 5' wide with a 14' high wall on one side a a Fire Lane lane on the other side. *These narrow locations are less than ideal for such large trees, which can effect their long term health. TREE LAYOUT PARTIAL SITE PLAN North 40 Peveiopment, Los Gatos Blo-Retention Ea5Ins d Storm Drain System Sio-Retention Basins ain Street M 0 o o Huey 1-7 AM. Ala, a f 4�+1� r 0i'�/ �~ IL1 n°T dr I •i MAP LE&Et' l) GJ MIN 0 Resldentlal Building Bdo-Retention Basin gielou9 Grade 13io-Rentention Storm Drain Lined inlet Btock rvall Tree This Diagram is ONLY Intended to convey Issues associated with the currently proposed pPans submitted to the Town of Los Gatos by the Developer. The InFormatton shown In these diagrams was taken From the March 2014 plans that are available on the Town of Los 6atos's website_ Diagrams prepared by: Susan M, Landry, Environmental Architect _ c) COMMENTS �'�`� The storm Drainage System 8 Tree Layout: Along Hwy 11 - several Sio-Retention Basin are located between the roadway the the Retaining Wall ' Between Buildings - Storm Prain lines run down the middle of the corridor s Bio-Retention Basins are located along the side of the walkway 'Numerous Proposed Trees are located on top of the storm drain lines or In the Bio-Retenion Basin Trees need to be removed to accomodate storm drainage d bio-retention basins STORM 1 RAINA&E 4 TREES PARTIAL SITE PLAN North 40 Development, Los 3atos From: Jessica Richter [mailto:jessbricht@gmail,com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:02 AM Subject: Opposed to overcrowded overbuilt North 40 Plan Dear Planning Commission and Town Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to and concern about the current North 40 plan proposed by Grosevnor Development. The plan should benefit the town and residents of Los Gatos first, the owners of the land second, and the developer third. While the North 40 Development will go forward in some form, this is not the correct or appropriate development for the North 40. I also want to add my disappointment that you would hold this important meeting during .luly when many families with children in Los Gatos schools (who are committed to living in this town for years to come) are out of town. That said, 1 want to register my opposition and express my concerns: 1. The Grosvenor plan does not adhere to the spirit or specifics of the criteria set forth by the town. Why have a set of criteria if only to throw it out the window to benefit developers? This has already happened in the Laurel Mews housing_ etc. We are sick of this and elected slower growth officials because of this! * Buildings are too tall, too boxy, and too massive (not look and feel of Los Gatos) * Inadequate open space, parks and agricultural "feel." Open space, parks, and trees provide this feel, not a store. Some orchard should be kept within the development. * Blocks views of hills * Inadequate senior housing and lower market housing provided which is where real needs are 2. North 40 over -development of commercial retail and restaurant space will compete with downtown Los Gatos. This is made worse by the towns restrictive, short-sighted, limiting parking rules for restaurants which has kept restaurants like Creperie, Pain. Quotidian, and other healthy family friendly restaurants out of Los Gatos. We appreciate Willow Street but it's the only restaurant like it in Los Gatos! That's crazy! 3. All of the required residential housing is included in the first half being developed, which means it is within the LG school district_ While there may be agreements between the school district and this developer, the current plan is NOT the correct approach to getting resources for a new school. Some of the required housing should be in the neighboring school district. 4. What is the traffic plan? The North 40 development without a CalTrans sign on HWY 17 that indicates that LG is not open as a cut through for beach traffic is a recipe for disaster. the developer should have to pay for a CalTrans Sign! Please do not proceed with approval of this plan. Send the developers back to the drawing board with a firm message to follow the town's criteria for the North 40. Regards, Jessica Richter 101 Hi low Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-858-3740 From: Nilesh Parate [mailto:nparate©hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:41 AM To: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti; Planning; Joycie at GMAIL Parate; nparatePhotmail.com Subject: about North 40: please preserve the unique charm of Los Gatos! To the Town Officials Town of Los Gatos We have been a resident of Los Gatos since 2003. We are convinced that the monstrous North 40 development will alter the character of the town There will be significant traffic impact, safety impact to school children and gridlock on Blossom Hill road (regardless of what the developer's "traffic study" concludes). The tall buildings will alter the mountain views and the loss of the Orchard will diminish the gateway into the town. This North 40 development change the character of this peaceful little oasis we have in Silicon Valley. We love this town and we are sure you all do too. Please, as guardians of this City, do the right thing and do not allow this North 40 proposal to proceed the way it is. -Nilesh Parate & Joycie Bahl 16570 Shady View Lane Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Judy Dutil [mailto:seagirldrive©yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:43 AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Laurel Prevetti; Marico Sayot; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie Subject: Please stop the North 40 development. The Los Gatos mountain citizens are already threaten by loss of access to emergency, city grocery stores and other necessities due to over traffic population of our throughfares. This has become more and more dangerous and visible with the need by Los Gatos to close off its on and off ramps during peak summer, holiday and maybe other times. Saturation of our town and roadways has been reach!! Stop the insanity, please Judy Dutil Miller Hill Road Los Gatos, CA