Attachment 7Joel Paulson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jak VanNada <jvannada@gmail.com>
Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:09 PM
Council
The Cost of a Hot Economy in California -A Severe Housing Cris is 7 -2017.docx
The Cost of a Hot Economy in California -A Severe Housing Crisis 7 -2017.docx
I am sure that most of you have read this by now, but if not, the New York Times does a good job of supporting the case
for the high density housing at the North 40 .
1 ATTACHMENT 7
Low-rise homes dot the landscape in San Francisco . California 's
housing costs are among the highest in the country.
J IM W ILSON I TH E.NE W YORI< TIME S
The Cost of a Hot Economy in
California: A Severe Housing
Crisis
An explosion in costs has emerged as a central problem
for the state, and state and local governments are
pondering a series of measures to correct course.
I
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and CONOR DOUGHERTY
JULY 17, 2017
SACRAMENTO -A full-fledged housing crisis has
gripped California, marked by a severe lack of
affordable homes and apartments for middle-class
families. The median cost of a home here is now a
staggering $soo,ooo, twice the national cost.
Homelessness is surging across the s t ate.
In Los Angeles, booming with construction and signs
of prosperity, some people have given up on finding
a place and have moved into vans with makeshift
kitchens, hidden away in quiet neighborhoods. In
Silicon Valley-an international symbol of wealth
and technology -lines of parked recreational
vehicles are a daily testimony to t he challenges of
finding an affordable place to call home.
Heather Lile, a nurse who makes $i8o,ooo a year,
commutes two hours from her home in Manteca to
the San Francisco hospital where she works, 80
miles away. "I make really good money and it's
frustrating to me that I can't afford to live close to
my job," said Ms. Lile.
The extreme rise in housing costs has emerged as a
threat to the state's future economy and its quality of
life. It has pushed the debate over housing to the
center of state and local politics, fueling a r esu rgent
rent cont ro l n1o vemen t and the growth of
neighborhood "Yes in My Back Yard" organizations ,
battling long-established neighborhood groups and
local elected officials as they demand an end to st rict
zoning and planning regulations.
Now here in Sacramento, lawmakers are considering
extraordinary legislation to, in effect, crack down on
communities that have, in their view, systematically
delayed or derailed housing construction proposals,
often a t the behest of local neighborhood groups.
The bill was pas~ed by the Senate last month and is
now part of a broad package of hous ing proposals
under negotiation that Gov. Jer ry Brown and
Democratic legislative leader s announced Monday
was likely to be voted on in some form later this
summer.
1 : "The explosive costs of housing have spread like
! wildfire around the state," said Scott Wiener, a
! Democratic senator from San Francisco who
sponsored the bill. "This is no longer a coastal, elite
housing problem. This is a problem in big swaths of
the state. It is damaging the economy. It is damaging
the environment, as people get pushed into longer
commutes."
For California, this crisis is a price of this state's
economic boom. Tax revenue is up and
unemploym~nt is down. But the churning economy
has run up against 30 years of resistance to the kind
of development experts say is urgently needed.
California has always been a desirable place to live
and over the decades has gone through periodic
spasms of high housing costs, but officials say the
combination of a booming economy and the lack of
construction of homes and apartments have
combined to make this the worst housing crisis here . in memory.
Housing prices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San
Jose and San Diego have jumped as much as 75
percent over the past five years.
I 'b e b ill sponsored by Mr. Wiener, one of 130
housing measures that have b e en introduced this
year, would restrict one of the biggest development
tools that communities wield: the ability to use
zoning, environmental and procedural laws to
thwart projects they deem out of character with their
neighborhood.
It is no-\-v the subject of negotiations between Mr.
Brown and legislative leaders as part of a broader
housing package intended to encourage the
construction of housing for middle-and lower-
income families that is also likely to include the
more traditional remedy of direct spending to build
more housing units.
State Senator Scott Wiener, who sponsored a bill restricting communities ' ability to quash housing projects _
"We're at a breaking point in California ," he sa id .
This is not the first time this state has sought to prod
recalcitrant local governments to build housing. Mr.
Brown tried to push through a measure to force
communities to build more affordable housing
around a year ago. That effort, like most in recent
years, faltered in the face of opposition from local
officials, homeowners and environmentalists, who
often see these kinds of measures as enriching
developers while threatening the character of some
of the most visually striking parts of this state, along
the coast and in the mountains.
"It's giving developers a great gift and not giving
residents and voters a chance to cast their opinions
about what happens in their own neighborhood," .
Helene Schneider, the mayor of Santa Barbara, said
of Mr. Wiener's new bill.
But the worsening housing crisis here has created a
political environment where prospects for a state
housing intervention appear more likely than ever.
"There is a consensus that there is a crisis and we
have to address it," said David Chiu, a San Francisco
Democrat who leads the Assembly Housing and
Community Development Committee. Mr. Wiener
compared the political atmosphere now to how
Californians embraced mandatory water-rationing
in response to the five-year drought here.
"We're at a breaking point in California," Mr. Wiener
said. "The drought created opportunities to push
forward water policy that would have been ,
impossible before. Given the breadth and depth of
the housing crisis in many parts of California, it
creates opportunities in the Legislature that didn't
exist before."
The debate is forcing California to consider the
forces that have long shaped this state. Many people
were drawn here by its natural beauty and the
prospect of low-density, open-sky living. They have
done what they could to protect that life. That has
now run up against a growing generational tide of
anger and resentment, from younger people
struggling to find an affordable place to live as well
as from younger elected officials, such as Mayor Eric
M. Garcetti of Los Angeles, who argue that
communities have been failing in what they argue is
a shared obligation.
For the past several decades, California has had a
process that sets a number of housing units,
including low-income units, that each city should
build over the next several years based on projected
growth. Mr. Wiener's bill targets cities that have
lagged on building by allo,'\Ti.ng developers who
propose projects in those places to bypass the
various local design and environmental reviews that
slow down construction because they can be
appealed and litigated for years.
The bill applies only to projects that are already
within a city's plans: If the project were higher or
denser than current zoning laws allow, it would still
have to go through the City Council. But by taking
much of the review power away from local
governments, the bill aims to ramp up housing
production by making it harder to kill, delay or
shrink projects in places that have built the fewest.
It is hard to say exactly which projects might benefit
if the various bills were passed, since it's impossibl e
to know which projects local governments might
reject in the future. But there are various examples
where it might have pushed a development along.
In Los Gatos , about 60 miles south of San Francisco,
for instance, a long-running dispute over a proposed
development for 320 homes that the city rejected led
to a lawsuit by the developer, which resulted in a
judge directing the c ity to reconsider the plans. Also,
cities regularly make developments smaller than
their zoning allows, something that gradually chips
away at future housing production.
Ca liforn ia is th e tough es t n1arket for first-time home
buyers and the cost of housing is beyond reach for
almost all of this state's low-income pop ula tion .
Despite having some of the highest wages in the
nation, the state also has the highest
adjusted :Q Ov e rty rate .
Houses unde r con structi on in Manteca , Ca lif. Many who ca nn ot afford homes San Francisco or Oa k land are
moving t he re -nearl y t wo hours away.
Jllvi W ll SON / 1 1 ll HE.v'1 '(()!•:!' "1 IM[S
And Proposition 13, the s v,reep ing vote r initi ative
passed i n 1928. that capped property taxes, has made
things worse: It had the effect of shrinking the
housing stock by encouraging homeowners to hold
on to properties to take advant age of the low taxes.
"California is a beautiful place with great weather
and a terrific economy," said I ssi Romem, the chief
economist with BuildZoom, a San Francisco
company that helps homeo,iVners find contractors .
"To accommodate all those people you need t o buil d
I
I I
i a lot, and the state's big metro areas haven't since
j the early '70s. To catch up, cities would need to build
1 housing in a way that.they haven't in two
I generations."
I
Coastal cities -which tend to have the worst
housing problems -have the most scarce land. Still,
economists say, the high cost of all housing is first
and foremost the result of a failure to build. The
state has added about 311,000 housing units over
the past decade, far short of what economists say is
needed.
"Cities have proven time and time again that they
will not follow their own zoning rules," said Brian
Hanlon, policy director of the San Francisco Yimby
Party, a housing advocacy group. "It's time for the
state to strengthen their own laws so that advocates
can hold cities accountable."
Still, few elected officials are eager to risk
community anger by forcing through construction
that would, say, put a 10-story apartment building at
the edge of a neighborhood of single-family homes.
That has turned California into a state of isolated
and arguably self-interested islands.
The situation has been aggravated by places such as
Brisbane, just south of San Francisco, which has
encouraged extensive office development while
failing to build housing.
"We have cities around California that are happy to
welcome thousands of workers in gleaming new tech
and innovation campuses, and are turning a blind
eye to their housing need," said Mr. Chiu.
In the Bay Area, the explosive growth of the tech
industry has led to escalating rents, opening a tough
debate over gentrification and brutal commutes for
workers. "Cities that deny housing are contributing
to skyrocketing rents, unfair evictions and
homelessness," said Lori Droste, a member of the
Berkeley City Council.
The measure has raised considerable opposition as
well, including from lawmakers who argued that
letting state take power away from local
governments strips communities of the ability to
control the fundamental character of their own
neighborhoods.
"People here feel like this is a special place, like
people in any town or city do," said Chris Coursey,
the mayor of Santa Rosa. "And they want decisions
about the future of the community to be made by
people in the comn1unity who they can actually talk
to about this."
Richard Bloom, a Democratic state assemblyman
and a former mayor of Santa Monica, said even
communities like his were no longer r eflexively
trying to derail housing projects.
"More and more people are becoming well aware
that we have a housing affordability crisis on our
hands," he said. "The issue is just reaching critical
mass with the Legislature and the public."
7 -24-17
Why I support the North 40 Specific Plan for the following reasons:
1) Simply put, the town told the developer what they (they= most of us and the
Council) wanted; and the developer did ex actly as told . Now the town (town =
some of you and some of the Council) want to renege. That doesn't work in
my book.
2) 20 years from now ................ no, just 10 years from now ............. we'll be
looking back at this point in time. Did we make the right decision? Is traffic
better? Are the schools better off than they were before the development
happened? How does Los Gatos fit into the grander scheme of the San
Francisco Bay Area? Did we do our part to make this all a better place to li ve?
Are we the consummate NIMBY? I have no idea -but this plan was the best
hundreds of people could come up w ith after 6 years of hard work. Why would
we think another 6 years will give us a better decision?
3) We started out with the intention to solve unmet needs in this town. Some of
those needs included jobs, housing, unmet retail needs and improved traffic
conditions . We had ancillary requirements of character, walkability, bike paths,
and a state government requiring high density housing. All of this was
achieved in this plan.
4) This is about change -change that will always happen . (see pictures at the
end). One of the Council 's jobs is to make sure the change works to the
advantage of the community; not only today, but 20 years from now. And not
just for us, but for the entire Bay Area with whom we are co-dependent.
5) The Council may have gone beyond a reasonable amount of time making this
decision. So much time has passed that the world seems 180 degrees from
where it was not only 20 years ago, but just 6 years ago. Today, we risk
paralysis by over-analysis.
6) Eight years ago, the average median home price in the 95032 area code was
about $903,000. Today it's $1 ,593,000. How much less affordable will it be in
2023 if we keep kicking this can down the road?
7) We're trying to design this project with mul t iple resident committees, many
whom have not been listening to professionals that make a career out of
planning spaces to fit into the community where they're building . Market
forces will require them to ma ke this work for the citizens who will not use this
development if it's too crowded , or should the retail does not answer their
needs. The deve loper is best suited to figure this out.
8) The town citizenry spent years, thousands of hours and dollars discussing and
debating the perfect plan. Th ere is no "perfect" pl an . Th er e a gain w ill
be no perfect plan. The compromise was reached when the Specific Plan
was finally approved -after many iterations and deliberations between
hundreds of citizens over more than a decade ............. a decision was made.
9) Every citizen of Los Gatos had the same level playing field during the multi-year
planning stages of the Specific Plan. It was a compromise of many values. It
remains a compromise of many values.
lO)The Los Gatos Community Alliance does understand and often agrees with the
angst over traffic, schools, over-crowd i ng, etc. We started out very much
against this project until we understood more. The town historica l ly attempts
to mitigate those issues. They do well on some, and not so well in others.
During the process of arguing against this project, we learned about state laws
that influence the town's ultimate decisions. We also learned about property
rights in the United States and housing laws. We believe this project will
happen regardless of the lawsuits filed and/or fought, costing the town money
the town does not have.
ll)The town may well be risking over $6,000,000 to the schools and up to
$12,000,000 for Capital Improvement projects for traffic mitigation to say
nothing of an unprecedented 40% of open space that has never been required
of any other development -EVER -in the town of Los Gatos .
12)Currently, many of the c itizens have no knowledge of the laws, property rights
or the economics of any development. Most have not worked on the
mechanics nor the design of this development, but feel that to just say "NO" is
the right thing to do.
13)People are fighting change, not dealing with shaping a development that co uld
either happen well, or be a complete disaster for this town. The shaping was
done by their fellow citizens years ago and those who did not participate
should not feel entitled to start all over now.
14)People have complained of the unsafe conditions of putting us old people (I'm
73) on the second floor of the affordable housing in case of an emergency .
Keep in mind that the Terraces of Los Gatos is 3 stories with many people
older than I am.
lS)The Advisory Committee worked hard to shape this development, and then a
few groups wo r ked with the developers who listened and made changes to
accommodate the town and interested citizens. Better Biking and connectivity
to the trail, schools, and downtown was high on our agenda and the developer
came up with a plan that, though not perfect, was an acceptable compromise
for us.
16)Compromise happens when two or more parties have differing views, and
then work together to iron out their differences. No one necessarily wins, but
the project becomes acceptable given all of the various wants and needs of the
community.
17)Continually fighting or filing lawsuits will increase the legal bills already
exceeding $700,000 at a faster rate than this last law suit. More lawsuits will
bring in much larger legal costs than $700,000 with higher costing attorneys
for all sides. The risks increase exponentially if we lose. The gain, if there is a
gain, will be to redesign the No 40. How much different do you think that
redesign will be than what we've designed now? Would a majority of residents
agree to anything? The $6,000,000 and the $12,000,000 may be forfeited, and
I doubt any developer will agree again to 40% of open space.
18)The Council has to be extremely aware of why this suit was lost; the future
cost of further delays; and the town's dire financial situation with escalating
pension costs. We don't have the money to risk a loss of this magnitude given
our financial situation. The solution will likely have to include taxing each of
the citizens. Think about that.
19)Violating housing laws will only cost us more money with one potential of
having the state take over the planning of the development. If you read the
Mercury News on 7/16/17, you saw that the Silicon Valley, between 2010 and
2015 added 367,000 jobs, but only added 57,000 homes. Adding jobs without
homes increases the commute of the workers, and adds to the pollution and
traffic which we've all come to hate. You may think that doesn't really affect
us -but where do you think that beach traffic is coming from every
weekend? What about the air quality in Los Gatos from all of the commuters
and the beach traffic?
20)We (the town citizens) have known or should have guessed that something
was going to happen at the north 40 for decades. Had we the desire, we
could have taxed ourselves and purchased this property when it first came up
for discussion 20 years ago. But we didn't. It went to the highest bidder and
now we need to make it work for us. Just saying "NO!" may make some
people feel better, but it won't work here just like it didn't in Nancy Reagan's
failed anti-drug campaign started back in 1986.
21)The town is under the laws established by the county and the state to supply
our fair share of housing for the entire bay area. This is about the bay area,
not about the town. The North 40 was a step in this direction with high density
housing put inside the bounds of two freeways and two major arterial roads .
We don't have any place as well suited to high density housing. If we don't
use this opportunity to fulfill a good part of our Housing Element, just think
about the impacts of high-density housing (20 units/per acre) at other locations
like Blossom Hill Road, or the Los Gatos Lodge on 9, along Los Gatos Blvd.)
22)We are not a "small town island" in a sea of big cities. We are a part of the
most successful metropolitan area in the United States and have to think
regionally instead of just about ourselves. Please see the July 17, 2017 New
York Times article that addresses the North 40 as symptomatic of this state's
housing problems.
23)LGUSD and the developer made a deal that the school district found acceptable
for potential increases in enrollment. No other developer has come close to
such a large cash or property offer. The developer yielded to the demands of
the school board and eventually compromised. After everyone shared
congratulations, the parents are now saying $6.2M is nothing. Are you now
ready to cance l that deal?
24)There are almost no views from inside the current orchard. Trees block the
views of the hills. Landscaping and even small one story buildings will block
the view of anyone within that space. My views are blocked by my neighbors
trees and parts of their houses. That sort of thing happens to all of us, all of
the time. Views of our hills are integral to our Town identity and can be seen in
many places in town, but let's understand that trees and walkable streets with
nearby buildings are also desirable. Trees can create a new ambiance while at
the same time may block views. We don't cut them down to improve our
views.
25)The relatively new medical buildings along Los Gatos Boulevard, bounding the
eastern edge of the North 40, are taller than anything new that can be newly
built along the periphery. Plus, there will be a buffer of orchard trees in front
of all buildings.
26)The height restrictions on the N40 are as strong or stronger than anywhere
else in town and nowhere as high as the town Council allowed Netflix, V2 mile
away.
27)The town has NEVER had so much open space required (30%) for one project,
and then exceeded that requirement by a developer. The Phase 1 application
is at or near 40%. No other developer provided more than 10% open space
that I can recall.
28)The town has a pension debt exceeding $53,000,000 and will, in the next two
years, exceed an estimated $72,000,000. Do we have the money or resources
to pour into another law suit?
29)Building the North 40 will help to pay down this debt. Over$ 3 million will
come from this deal. The alternative may be to tax the citizens of Los Gatos
to whom this debt of $70,000,000+ belongs. If we paid $12,000,000 in
interest alone last year, how much worse will the interest changes become?
Indecisions cost more money .
30)The Council should be planning for what is best for the community 20 years
from now and not being run by the influence of voters who may not be here a
few years from now. The Council's job should not be influenced by voter
approval, but rather by what is right for long term benefits to generations that
will follow .
31)We worked together making compromises to develop the Specific Plan as it
stands. For some it works, for others, not. But this developer and this Specific
Plan are a much better alternative than the state taking over, or a much worse
developer who will make Los Gatos a much worse place to live. If you want
real affordable housing there instead of that which is planned, do your
homework fi rst. Much more traffic and much more intensity with no road
improvements and no school nor road dollars from the developers. Do your
homework before you pursue affordable homes.
32)This developer has worked with the town and the schools . Others may not.
This developer did exactly what the Council told them to do .
33)1 support Ms. Jensen's and Mr. Rennie's positions who both approved this
project initially.
34)The populace is ex hausted by the dragging out of this project. We have little
to no chance of slowing it down, and no chance of stopping something like it,
or worse, in the future. It's time to move forward.
Beach Traffic in the 50's ( but look at all
of the parking !):
Change Happens -the most important job we have is to make sure the changes
are in the best interest of the communities. All change has some impact and will
take us out of our comfort zone until we grow into it.
----...-----:-~ -I I
cn:.·;j)'T.1'!0
Los Gatos Hotel (then)
Los Gatos Hotel (now)
Do you remember Sir Toby's tiny restaurant that used to be on this spot of land
in Los Gatos?
Jak VanNada
Los Gatos resident for 45 years
Joel Pau.l son
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Chuck Rawlings <chuckrawlings @gmai l.com >
Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:27 AM
Council
Re : Support for the North 40 Specific Plan as written
Dear Members of Los Gatos' Town Coun cil:
I a m a transplant from the East Coast and in my retirement have lived in Los Gatos s ince 2009. I have watched and experienced the town's
journey from the depths of the Great Recession to ou r current highly charged economy with its bustlin g business traffic and active night
life. The world is growing rapidly around us and I be lieve that after prolonged debate and court challenges it is time to recognize the North 40
Specific Plan as a well -explored, entirely feas ibl e and responsible way to take constructive action.
Precisely because the town is being chan ged inevitably b y the economic c urrents of Silicon Valley.there is an addition al mora l responsibility
to do our part to make more housing avai lable as soon as possi ble.
I urge the Town Counci l to delay no longer, litigate no further, and adopt the Specific P lan as written.
Very truly yours,
Rev. Charles W. Rawlings
117 Fancher Ct, Unit 20
Los Gatos CA 95030
To : Los Gatos Town Council
From: Dr. Mac Marland
Re: North 40 TC meeting, 7 /24/2017
RECEIVE D
TOWN OF LOS GAT OS
JUL 2 0 ,-2017
CLERK DEPAR'.?MENT
I am Dr. Mac Marland. I have an office on National Avenue in Los Gatos where I have
specialized in diseases of the lungs and critical care medicine, mostly at Good Samaritan
Hospital, for some 25 years. I apologize for not being able to speak at the meeting. on 7 /24 but
my son is getting married this weekend.
Over the last 25 years, literally hundreds of studies have been published showing a link
between living near a freeway and increased rates of asthma, cancer, heart attacks, preterm
births, decreased life expectancy, and an array of other health problems studies have
associated with living close to major roadways . Collectively, these studies have been persuasive
enough that in 2003, California state law prohibited the construction of new public schools
within 500 feet of freeways . In 2005 State Air Quality Regulators began warning against building
new housing near freeways and, am~zingly, since 2012, the Los Angeles County Planning
Department has been issuing a "freeway adjacent advisory notice" for all new proposed
housing within 1000 feet of a freeway. Most recently, in 2017, the CA Air Resources Board took
the stand that no new housing should be closer than 500 feet to a freeway.
Yet everything changed on June 29, 2017, when the premier US medical journal, The
New England Journal of Medicine, published an article that had an unprecedented sample size
of almost 61,000,000 adults, or 96% of the total US Medicare population age 65 and over . This
Harvard University study showed that living near a freeway and being exposed to ozone and
small particulates (both from car and truck exhausts) at levels below current national standards
was associated with significant adverse effects including a significant increase in death rates. As
with second hand cigarette smoke, the authors found no safe level of exposure. Farther from
freeways is better but these researchers still saw a detrimental effect up to 1 mile away in
certain situations.
So, the Town Manager asked that speakers at this meeting present objective comments
on the proposed North 40 project. I don't know what could be more objective than this study
with 61 million people! No one should have to choose between affordable housing and
breathing clean, healthy air. Plus, those residents in the 49 senior units, along with any children
living there, would be.m.qst affected. Who wants to live in a residence where one has to keep
their windows closedjff/7 because the outside air (and noise) is dangerous to one's health?
Our medical knowledge is always evolving and changing . It was only 53 years ago that
the US Surgeon General first wrote about the dangers of smoking. Now we discuss 2"d and 3'd
hand cigarette smoke and in just the last year, Los Gatos has prohibited smoking in all hotels
and motels, multiple unit housing, in parks and on trails, in all workplaces, and throughout all
commercial districts. A noble accomplishment, indeed, all to reflect the current science and
1
safeguard people's health . But why the progress? Because the "Science " showed the dangers of
any exposure to cigarette smoke, which is an EPA designated Class A carcinogen (no exposure
level is considered safe). With this Harvard study, we now have conclusive evidence that living
near freeways is also dangerous in a fashion similar to other Class A carcinogens . Think of what
similar regulations have been enacted as science and medicine uncovered the dangers of any
exposure to asbestos, lead in paint and gasoline, flame retardants in children's clothing and
furniture, DDT and other pesticides, etc.? The point is that smart decisions are based on current
science . To do otherwise is indefensible. As the Los Gatos TC, you have a moral obligation to
incorporate the latest science into these No rth 40 plans. As discussed in both the Town's
Genera l Plan and the North 40's Specific Plan, the health and welfare of the citizens of this
Town ar e paramount. The Santa Clara County General Plan , Healthy Housing Element (page 65),
dated 8/25/2015, recognizes the health dangers associated with proximity to significant sou r ces
of particulate matter pollution (such as freeways), where diesel fuel emissions are concentrated
and pollutant levels are heightened .
Even Judge Takaichi's ruling acknowledges (page 3) the importance of an " ... adverse
impact upon the public health and safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon
the condition that the project be developed at a lower density." The Judge's decision (page 3,
next paragraph) also addresses the mitigation argument for the installation of air filters . Air
quality engineers proved the inadequacy of this argument in protecting against second hand
cigarette smoke in multiunit hou sing. And, yes, the highest quality air filters would help against
particulates but they must be frequently replaced, are very expensive, the bu i lding's ventilatio n
system must run virtually full time wit h all doors and windows closed , and they do nothing to
combat ozone pollution . Do we want to establish the need for "the air filter police"? I certainly
don't . It would be better to require all new housing be located farther than 500 feet, and ideally
1000 feet from any freeway. And that distance-consideration doesn 't even cons i der the
p roximity of Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Avenue. These proposed "black lung lofts," as they have
been labeled, would be surrounded by sources of air pollution . And should one wonder wh ich
way the wind is literally blowing, the North 40 "Existing Conditions " Technical Document 18371
shows the prevailing winds blow from the NW across Highway 17 into the North 40 area, thus
maxi mizing exposure to all who live there .
Si ncerely yours,
~Vtf~f) [Vt~
A . M. Marland, M .D.
15215 National Avenue, Suite 200
Lo s Gatos, CA 95032
2