Loading...
Attachment 7 - July 12, 2016_Desk Item & Exhibits 34-35Planning 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) NORTH 40 PROJECT PHASE I APPLICATION SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS Type of Residential Unit Total No. of Units One Bedroom Units Two Bedroom 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: Sent: To: Subject: Maria Ristow <ristows@comcast.net> Friday, July 08, 2016 7:03 PM Council; Planning; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson 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 ema il 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 (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 b e 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.) 1 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 R$CTANGLES with two at 50 feet tall and two at 65 feet tall (exclusive of mechanical equipment). So how does one feature on on e 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 th e 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 19 3 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 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 th e 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 detac hed 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 fru,it 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 farther and undergrowth is not viable. But that is up to the Town and TC. If the fru,it 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 I (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. Th e 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 fanctioning 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 mor_e 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 CARS/or 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 Il. 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 213 of the North 40. The Specific Plpn. 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 60kft 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 5 From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern, Carleen <carleen_schomberg@comcast.net> Saturday, July 09, 2016 11:20 AM Planning North 40 and traffic congest ion I 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. I 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 Schomberg From: Jennifer Riano [ mailto :jennifer.riano(a!gmai l.com] 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@gmail.com] 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 l 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 wonying. 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 wony about the traffic. I've also talked to a number of former residents that moved out as soon as their kids got old enough b/c 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 o f 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 tum 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. I'm 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: e drathma nn @com cast.net [mailt o:edrath mann @co m cast.net] 5ent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 9 :31 PM To: North40 Comment Cc: Joel Paulson Su bj ect: North 40 July 12 meeting Planning Commission, As the owner of Main Street Burgers and Willow Street, I am writing i n 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 reta il. 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 1 O 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 l i ke 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 fo r a second one. I strong ly urge you to vote aga inst this North 40 development proposal. Ed Rathmann Fr om: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Planning Commission, Liana Palmer <lianap al m @aol.com > Sunday, July 10, 2016 10:04 AM Planning North 40 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 everyth i ng at the same time . We will have to suffer a bit before we will all get behind the funding of town road improvements. Increasing loca l 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 21st century. Liana Palmer 16345 Los Gatos 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Date : July 10 , 2016 To : Liana Palmer <lianapalm@aol.com> Sunday, July 10, 2016 10:20 AM lianapalm@aol.com; Planning Re : North 40 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 m id-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 1 O 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- 1 growth, anti-d iversity, 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 t ime 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 21st 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: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: mmpmitzi@comcast.net Sunday, Jul y 10, 2016 11:47 AM Planning Marice Sa yoc; BSpecto r; Rob Renn i e; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen North 40 Dear Planning Commission and Town Council , Please don't allow the proposed massive development i n the North 40 . The town street s 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 Patte rson From: Sent: To: Subject: To the planning commission, Susan Cahn <susancahn@earthl ink.net> Sunday, July 10, 2016 12:29 PM Planning ***********Upset neighbor -Very against the proposal for the new construction and building on 401-409 Alberto Way*********** 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 wil l be able to loo k 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 loc ation, 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 wou ld 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 [mailto:susancahn@earthlink.net] 5ent: 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: I am very upset and 100% against the building and construction proposed for 401-409 Alberto Way. I 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. 1 My parents and my family have been residents of Los Gatos since I was 5 , and I have been a homeowner and resident at435 Alberto Way, #12since1992. 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~ SPM 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 noi se 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 1 IAM 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. I 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 individual s, which could and will most likely lead to an increase in crime. I 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 oflife 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 I 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 ifresidents only hav.e I car per family or household or if they are the only one home. (I only have 1 car.) I 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 loud at the meeting. Y ou 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 foiward. Thanks, Susan Cahn 408 395 5366 3 On Jul 10, 2016, at 3: 17 PM, Martha Wills <mtswills@qmail.com > wrote: Dear Town Council members, I strongly urge you to DENY the current application for the North 40 development on these grounds: 1) All 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:jan iseburford @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 develop1nent 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 v iews, 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, SCHOOL S, and other community services"-Schools are al ready overcrowded, streets are frequently jammed, Please do not allow this deve lopment to ruin the charming town of L os Gatos. Kindest Regards , Janise Burford Amore Pet Sit ting Services LLC 408. 7 41.5408 "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." 11111111111u a1 Ka111 "Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawake. "A 11a101e Fram:e w ww.amorcpetsi ttingse r vic cs.com From: beccabergeron@gmail.com [mailto:beccabergeron @gmail.com] Sent: ·sunday, July 10, 2016 10:56 PM To: Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: Experience with Grosvenor Dear Planner and Town Council Members: My name is Becky Bergeron; 1 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 m y 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 h is days in his own home, passing away peacefully last February at the wonderful age of 100. Sincerely, Becky Bergeron 408 /580-4646 From: Sent: To: Cc: Jeff Loughridge <lokrij@comcast.net> Sunday, July 10, 2016 11:47 PM Laurel Pre vetti; Joel Pau lson ; Marni Moseley; Robert Schultz; Planning BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen Subject: DESK ITEM FOR N40 MEETING : Response to the "A OTY 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 wh ich presents opinions without supporting facts . Before l 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 m isleading 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 . l 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 th inking 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------- RNDf~GS ~OR 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 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 sen i or 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 stori es 2 . The Specific Plan says "Lower intensity residential and l imited 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 mass ive 6-, 7-, and 8-unit 3-story rowhome complexes and commercial/residential space up to 51 ft. high. (This i s taller than the Albright buildings.) RESPONSE: Calling 20 units per acres intense is misleading. 20 units pe r 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 i f 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 i nclude: 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 seati ng, 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 Stree t, 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 r etail/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 t hem. 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.S 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 i t 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 i nfrastructure, schools, and other community services ." P 1.1 RESPONSE: Yet there is an unprecedented agreement with the developers and school district, above and beyond 5850 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 d i strict. 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 be i ng proposed. The EIR (if you actually r ead it) covered all the recent and p l anned 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 appli cations can come i n and comply . The assumption of a Specific Plan i s that there are multiple owners and phases, so one set of guidelines is set for the entire property. a. Phase I i ncludes only a portion of the 44 acres . The cur rent 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 i t has on that section of Los Gatos Blvd . OTHER ISSUES 1. The Specific Plan calls for residential development throughout the North 40, not just i n th is 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 e xceptions. This proposal complies. When the maximums were brought down to 35 feet by Council, yes the developers chose to go to that he ight 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. 4 Planning Commission Meeting 7-12-16 Dear Planning Commissioners, RECEIVED JUL 11 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I support the 270 housing units, 50 Senior affordable housing units and 66,000 square feet of commercial development. 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-Vear 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 (N02) from Vehicles Exacerbates Asthma Attacks • Five Times More Deaths Due to Air Pollution than Traffic Accidents • Motor Vehicle Air Toxins Cause High Pollution Levels Inside Homes I 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 -·-Project Boundary ID Cancer Risk Over 10 per Million ~ 1iiii0 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii4iiii00iiiifeeiiiiilt Fine Particulate Matter § Concentrations over 0.3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter • Point of Greatest Effect Source: Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2013, Google Earth 2011 Figure 15 Health Risks ••• -------- North Forty Specific Plan EIR don't think that they sh. uld build a school that lies al ng a freeway." -BARRY WALLERSTEIN, EXECUTIVE OFFIC ER, SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DI ST RICT Air po llu t ion is a major risk to ou r he alth and safe- ty and is the contributing cause of nearly 100,000 premature deaths each ye ar,1 more th an twice the number of deaths from car cras he s.2 In 2002, almost half of all Americans -or 137 million pe ople -lived in counties with unhealthy air laden with one or more cri teria ai r pollutants, acco rding to the Am erican Lun g Assoc iation.1 A ma jor source of th is air pollut ion is the exhau st from the tailpipes of trucks and cars. A vari et y of dange rous pollutants are released daily fr om the extensive networks of busy highways that border countless ne ig hb or hood s and bus ine sses. These pollutants cause numerous adverse health effec ts including can ce r, ast hma , and heart an ack s. In addi - tion, asthma, which is exace rbated by pollution from tr ucks and cars, is the leading serious chronic illness among children and the numbe r one reason chil- dren miss school.• The main cance r-causing pollutants from trucks and car s are diesel particulate ma n er and Volatile Organ ic Compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, 1,3- butadiene, formaldehyde, and polycycl ic aromatic hydroc ar bons (PAHs). In recent yea rs the relationship between vehicle poll ution and increased ca nce r risk has received considerable sc ientific attention . A Den ver study shows that children who live with in 250 yard s of a road wrth 20,000 or more ve hi cl es per day are eight times more likely to get leukemia and six times more likely to get oth er can cers. The authors of th e st udy attribut e most of this risk to the voes in motor ve hi cle exhaust.5 As t he graphic shows, roadways crea te a corridor of pol- lution for the drivers and residents nearby. H ighway Ai r Pollution and Pu b l ic Policy Bush Administration Transportation Policy: Fewer Transportation Choices and More Pollution Just as pub lic transportat ion ridersh ip is reac hing record numbers,' th e Bus h ad minist rat ion is propo s- ing to dimin ish investme nt in diverse tr ansportation choice s in Ameri ca within the Sen at e Bill 10 71 that has yet to be approved by the legis lature.7 Th e administration is recommending greater ince nt ives for highways tha n for cle aner pub li c transportat ion project s. Under thei r plan communi tie s would pa y 50 percent of the cost for new pub li c t ransportation proj ects. Completing only 20 perce nt of the new proposed road projects wo uld put public trans- portation alterna tives further out of their reach . In addition , the ad ministra t ion proposes spending less t han one do ll ar on tr ain transit projects for every four dollars spent on highwa ys. Th e administration's transportation plan fails to adequately fund t he Congestion Mi t igation and Air Qua lity Improvement (CMAQ) program that spur s transportation projects tha t improve a region's air quality. Demand for the CMAQ is ex pe cted to sky- rock et, as the number of regions with unhealth y air Businesses, public space, and transportati on co- exist on thi s dow nto wn ~ioiiil,;,lw...........::==--.....;::--.......... ..._-__..!;'--_:___:___..;._ __ _...:....:;.....!.::....:::=:_~ Denver street. Changes in Federal Transportation Policy Can Cut Pollution and Provide More Transportation Choices • Fede ral and st ate transportation agencies should balance transportation inves tme nts between high- ways and al te rnative forms of tra nsportation includ - ing public transit, bike paths, and sidewalks. • They should also support a "fix it first" mentality, which uses resou rces 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 it s environmental review of new road projects with more than 150,000 vehicles per day and provide th at information to the public as part of transporta tion 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; encou rag e local governments to use clean-burning buses and hybrid cars for public transportation sys- tems and government vehicles. ·Ask our loca l governmen ts and workplaces to offer more public transportation incent ives . • Incentives might include "Commuter Choice Checks" that gi ve workers a tax deduct ion for the money they spend using public transit to commute to work, tax credits for walking or biking, or a parking cash-out. acute asthma attacks by up to 44 percent in ch ildre n, 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 an d improve health via reduct ions in motor vehicle traffic. Friedman , Mic hae l; Kenneth Powell MD; Lori Hutwagner; Leroy Graham; Gerald Teague. Impact of Changes in Transporta tion and Commu ting Beha viors During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Child hood Asthma, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001; 285:897-905. Contact: Michael S. Friedman, National Center for Environmental Health, Center for Disease Cont ro l and Pre ven tion , email: mffl@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 majo r com ponent of tailpipe pollution increased the risk of various adverse health effects. More specifical- ly the study sh ows that each 10 microgram/meter3 elevation in fine particu late air pollution leads to an 8 per cent increased risk of lung cancer deaths, a 6 percent increased risk of card iopulmonary mortali- ty (heart attacks) and 4 pe rcent increased risk of death from general ca uses . Pope, Clive Arden Ill; Richard P. Burnen, 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 ) 422-215 7, e-mail: cap3@email.byu.edu. 5. Truck Traffic Linked to Childhood Asthma Hospitalizations A study in Erie County, New York (excluding the city of Buffa lo) found t ha t children livi ng in neigh- bo rh oods with heavy truck traffic within 220 ya rd s of their homes had increased risks of asthma hospita l- izat ion. The study examined hospital admission fo r asthma amongst children ages 0-14, and resi dential proximity to roads with heavy traffic. Lin, Shao; Jean Pierre Munsie; Syni-An Hwang; Edward Fitzgerald; and Michae l R. Cayo; (2002). Chil dh ood Asthma Hospitalization and Res ide ntial 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 in crease in the risk of premature birth and low birth weight for infants born to wo men living near high traffic areas in Los Angeles County. In particular, the resea rchers found that for each one part-per-m ill ion increase in an nual average carbon monoxide concentrations where the women lived, the re was a 19 per cent and 11 percent inc rease in risk for low-birth weight and premature birt hs, respectively. Wilhelm, Michelle and Beate Ritz. (2002). Residential Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth Ou tcom es in Los Ange les County, California, 1994-1996. Environmenral Health Perspectives. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5688. Contact: Seate Ritz, Department of Epidemiology, Schoo l of Public Hea lth, UCLA, phone : (310) 206-7458, e-mail: britz@ucla.edu. 7. Traffic Increased Cancer-Causing Pollution Levels at Tollbooth A 2003 stu dy published in the Journal of Air & Over the la st SO years we have torn down communities to build highway s. We need to rebuild our future with clean transportation and better community design . www.sierraclub.org/sprawl is a comprehensive website with information on cutting traffic and air pollution Statistics on pedestrian safety, congestion, federal transporta t ion spending, and household transportation expenditures can be found for each state and some smaller regio ns at: http//transact.iracorp.com/states/default.asp Maps of local cancer -causing pollution can be found at: http//www.epa.gov/ttnlatw/nata/ To find local traffic or VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled), check yo ur local Metropolitan Planning Organizat ion (MPO) or find reg ional statistics on congestion, t ra vel delay, fuel consumption and congestion cost at: http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/mobility_data/ Information on pub li c transit spending, smog, and investment in transportation cho ices for our 50 largest cities can be found at: www.sierracl ub.o rg/sprawl/reportOl/charts.asp. Information on hazardous air pollution in your area can be found at the Environm ental Defense website: http//www.scorecard.org/env-releases/hap/ The "State of the Air" report, released by t he American Lung Association can be found at: http.!/lungac- tion.org/reports/s ta ceofthea i r 2003.h tml 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 u]trafine 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 bu1lets, 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://now.t ufts .edu/pri nt/articles/b ig-r oad-blues-po llu tion-highways Page 2 of 11 Big Ro ad Blues 7/6/16, 12 :44 PM Brugge. 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 Fine and ultrafine particles are much smaller than the width of a human hair, with ultrafines posing the greater potential risk to human health. 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 "PMlO" 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" (PMO.l), 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 the tailpipe. Some blobs are made up of unburned oil and gasoline; others form out of the countless chemical byproducts of burning fossil fuels. 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 di sease," 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://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 Uust 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.edu/print/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 4 of 11 Big Road Blu es 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 7/6/16, 12:44 PM "Larger particles can't cross the barrier from the lungs to the bloodstream," says David Weiss , Ml2, who has worked on analyzing neighborhood health surveys. "But the ultrafine particles can." Photo: John Soares 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 http://now.tufts.edu/print/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways Page 5 of 11 Big Road Blue s 7/6/16, 12:44 PM artery-clogging plaques . 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 bas 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 http://now.tufts .edu/print/articles/big-road-b lues-pollution-highwa y s "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 Page 6 of 11 Big Road Bl ues 7/6/16, 12:4 4 P M 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 Ph.D. 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://now.tufts.ed u /print /articles/big-road-blues-po llution-hi ghwa ys Page 7 of 11 Big Roa d 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://now.tuft s.ed u/pri nt/arti cles/big-road -blues-pollution-highways Pag e 8 of 11 Big Road Blue s 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 1-93. 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 o/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:ffnow.tuft s.edufprint/articlesfbig-r oa d-blues-pollution-highways Page 9 of 11 Big Road Bl ue s 7/6/1 6, 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 PMlO In light of studies showing that PMlO (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: //n ow. tufts .edu/print/a rtic les/big -road-blues-po llutio n-high ways Page 10 of 11 Big Ro ad Blues 7/6/16, 12:44 PM particulates (PMO .1 ) remain unregulated. Tufts Now, 80 George St., Medford, Massachusetts 02155 Copyright ©2016 Tufts UniversitY- Source URL: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/big -road -blues-pollution-highway~ Links: [l] https://twitter.com/share [2] http://now.tufts.edu/forward?path=print/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways http://now.tufts.edu /p ri nt/a rticles/big -road-blues-pollution-highways Page 11of11 Resi d ential Proxi mity to Major Highways -Uni t ed States, 2010 7/5 /16, 11:4 3 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 (7,9,10 ); 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 (s). 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 (16-20); 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 (13,14,16-18). 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 (5,28-31). 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 (3.a) 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 htt~LLwww.census .gQYL201ocensus r§J ), 2) 2006- 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (available at htt~LLwww.census.gQY~ r§J ), and 3) 2010 (Quarter 3) road network data from NA VfEQ, a commercial data source that provides comprehensive road information for the United States (available at h.ttu;,LLwww.nayteqm r§J ). 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.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml /su620 3a 8 .htm Pag e 2 of 11 Resident ial Pr oxi m ity to Major Highways -Un ited St at es, 20 10 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 <1.0 times FPL, "near poor" is i.0-2.9 times FPL, and "nonpoor" is ~3 .0 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, FHW A 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 > 10,000 vehicles per day and >72% of urban interstates and other freeways and expressways have >30,ooo 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 150 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 150 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 150 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 150 meters of a major highway. State-level estimates ranged from 1.8% in Maine to 5 .6% in New York (fig~). 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% among those aged 18-34 years. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a8.h tm Pag e 3 of 11 Residentia l Proximit y to Major Hi ghways -United Sta tes, 2010 7/5/1 6, 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 3.1% 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 150 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 500 meters of a highway or 50-100 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.cdc.gov/mmw r/pr ev iew/mmwrht ml/su6203a8.htm Page 4 o f 11 Res ident ial Proximi t y to Major Highways -Un it ed 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 r esidential 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 (3 7-39). Limitati ons 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 er roneous 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 150 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) m ight 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/pr eview/mmwrhtml/s u6203a8.ht m Pa ge 5 of 11 Res id en tial Pro xi mi t y to Major H ighways -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-09/019F. 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-08/071. 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-05/004aF. 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 using transportation 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. 10. 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, Mohlenkamp 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/prev iew/mmwrhtml/su6203a8.htm Page 6 of 11 Residential Proxi m ity to Major Highways -United States, 2010 7/5/16, 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 JRespir 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 Sci Pol 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;101: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 ineqµalities report-United States, 2011. MMWR 2011;.fu!(SY.p_12l; Januan:i.4, 2011}. 35. CDC. Introduction. In: CDC health disparities and inequalities reyort-United States, 201~ MMWR 2013;Qg(No. Sup_Ill.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 httJ#LLwww.fhwa.dot.g~LPQlkY-informationjstatisticsj2008 mi. 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.cd c.gov/mmwr/prev iew/mmwrhtml /su6203a8.htm Page 7 of 11 Res i de ntial Proximity to Major Highways -United St ates, 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) ~so 412,215 (3.7) Race/Ethnici tyt Non-Hispanic White 6,030,811 (3.1) Black 1,676,225 (4.4) Asian/Pacific Islander 800,723 (S-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.g ov/mmwr /preview/mmw rhtml/s u6 203a8.htm Page 9 o f 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 1 oo meters of a freeway. Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Garcia-Esteban A, Basagaiia X, Beckermann B, et al. (20 10) Ambient Air Pollution and the Progression of At herosclerosis in Adults. PLoS ONE 5(2): e9096. doi:10.1371/ journal.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 R. Resident ial proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;l 19(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. Suglia 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 Polycycl ic 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 Perspect. 2012 January; 120(1): 132-138. Published online 2011August11. 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 Health 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.aacr.org/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, Labreche F 2010. Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada : A Cas~ontrol 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-Nielsen 0 , Andersen Z, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, S0rensen M, Loft S, Overvad K, Tj0nneland A. Lung Cancer Incidence and Long· Term Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic. Envi ron 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 M, Jensen SS , Ketzel M, S0rensen M , Hansen J, Loft S, Overvad K, Tj0nneland 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. 20 12;7(5):e37412. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0037 412. 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 M, Oioni L, Melly S, Coull B, Suh H, Vokonas P, Schwartz J . Annual ambient black carbon associated wi th shorte r 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 , Wellenius G, Wilker E, Mostofsky E, Mittleman 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 11 diabetes in adults T/'liering E, Cyrys J, Kratzsch J, Meisinge r 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 LISAplus 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, Harkema J , Sun Q, Rajagopa lan S. Epidemiological and Experimental Links between Air Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes. Toxicol Pathol. 2012 Oct 26. [Epub ahead of print] Compiled by the Utah Physicians for 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 th e U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board, investigators at the SCPCS work to better understand why airborne particulate matter emitted from cars and tru cks causes adverse health outcomes. As part of our res earch, 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 man y 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 relate d health effects ofliving 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 bas also been linked to increased illness and death rates from cardiovascular (heart-related) diseas e, 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) ofa 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 ultrafme 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 leve l in the air without the influence of any nearby sources. ln 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 tbe 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; ~ 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? ~ 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 I 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 m ay well overshadow your level of exposure at home.] Other resources for questions on particle measurements and possible health effects: South Coast Air Quality Management District http ://www·.aqmd.gov/ Genera/phone number-(800) CUT-S MO G (8 00-288-7664) California Air Resources Board http ://www.arb .ca.gov/ Community H ealth I Environmental Justice Section -(866) 397-5462 Air Pollution and Respiratory Health, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC http ://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/default.htm U.S. EPA-Air bttp:/fwww.epa .gov/ebtpages/air.btml 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 lll, 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 RJ . (2003) Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages between Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research . Environmental Health Perspectives, l l 0 (Sup 4): 573-589. McConnell R, Berhane K, Gilliland FD, London SJ, Vora H, A vol 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. EnvironmentaJ 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 Ill, Burnett RT, Thurston GD, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Godleski J J. (2004) Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution. Circulation, 109:7 1-77 . Utell MJ, Frampton MW. (2000) Acute Health Effects of Ambient Air Pollution: the Ultrafine Particle H y pothesis . Journal of Aerosol Medicine, 13(4): 355-59. Near-highway pollu t an t s i n mot or vehicl e ex ha ust: A review of epidem i. .• c ardi ac and pulmonary healt h risks I Enviro nmental Health I Full Text 7/6 /16, 12 :44 PM Skip to maii1 conte n1 0 BioMed Central ~ Open Access Publisher Menu Search Sea1ch Publisher main menu • fx.plore io urnal s • ilii~ • About BjoMed Central !.&~our acco unt Follow BioMed Central • Twiuer • Facehook Environmental Health Environmental Health main menu • A22ill • Arlkks • Submi ssio n Guidelines Review Open Access Open Peer Review This article has Open Peer Review reports available . How does Open Peer Reyjew work ? Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemiologic evidence of cardiac and pulmonary health risks • Doug Brugge!Emajl auth or, • John L Durant2 and • Christine Riouxl Environmental Health20076 :23 DOI: I0.11 86/1476-069X -6-23 © Brugge et at ; li censee Bi oM ed Cen1ral Ltd. 2007 Received: 02 January 2007 Accepted: 09 August 2007 Published: 09 Augu st 2007 Qpen Peer Rey jew reim Abstract There is growing evidence of a distinct set of freshly-emitted air poll utants downwind from major highways, motorways , and freeways th at include elevated levels of ultrafin e particulates (UFP), black carbon (BC), oxides of ni1r og en (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO). People living or oth erwise spending substan ti al time within about 200 m of highways a re exposed to these poll utants more so than persons living at a greater di stance , even compared to living on busy urban streets . Evidence of th e health hazards of these pollutanlS arises from studies that assess proximi ty to hi ghways , actual ex po sure to th e pollutan ts , or both . Tak en as a who le, th e health studies show elevated ri sk for devel o pment of asthma and reduced Jung fun ction in ch il dren wh o liv e near major highways . Stud ies of parti cul a te matter (PM) that show associati ons with cardiac and pulmonary mortali ty a ls o appear lo in di cate in creas ing ri sk as smaller geographic areas are studied , suggesting localized so urces that likely in clude major highways . Although less work has tes ted the association between lung cancer and high ways , the existing studi es sug gest an as soc ia tion as well . While the evidence is subs tan tial for a link between near-highway ex posures and adverse health outcomes, considerable work re main s lo und erstand the exact nature and magnitud e of the risks . ht tps: //ehjourna I. biomedcentral.com/ a rticles/10.1186/1476 -06 9X· 6 • 23 Pag e 1 of 13 Near-highway poll utants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of e p idemi ... cardiac and pulmona ry health risks I En viro nmental Health I Full Text 7/6 /16, 12:44 PM Background Approximate ly 11 % of US households arc located within J 00 meters of 4-lane highways fes timatcd using: (l, 2]}. Wh ile it is clear that. automobiles are s i gn ificant sources of air pollution , the exposure of near-highway residents to pollutants in a utomo bile exhaust has only recentl y begun to be characterized. There are two main reasons for thi s: (A) federal and state air monitoring programs are typ ical ly set up to meas ure pollutants at the regional . not local scale; and (B) reg io nal monitoring stations typically do n ot measure all of the types of pollu tants th at are d evated next to highways. It is, therefore , critical to ask what is known about near-high way exposures and their possibl e health consequences. Here we rev iew s tudies d escribing measurement of near-highway air pollutants , and epidemiolo gi c studies of cardiac and pulmo nary outco mes as th ey relate to exposure to these pollut ants and/or proximity to highways. Although some s tudies s uggest that other health impacts are also important (e.g ., birth o utcomes), we feel th at the case for th ese health effects arc less well devel oped scient ifi cal ly and do not have the same potential to dri ve public policy at thi s 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 themse lves. We started with studies that we knew well and also searched th e engineering and health literature o n Medline . We were able to find some earlier epidemiologic s tudies based on citation s in more recent articles. We incl ud e som e studies th at assessc:d m otor v ehicle-related pollu tants at central site monitors (i .e ., that did n ot measure highway proximity o r traffic) because we feel that they add to the plausibility of the associations seen in other studies. The relative emphasis g iven to s tudies was based on our appraisal of the rigor of their meth od ol ogy and the signifi cance of their findings. We conclude with a su mmary and with recommendations for policy and further research. Motor vehicle pollution It is well known that motor vehic.le ex haust is a significant source of ai r pollution . The most widely reported pollutants in veh icular exhaust include carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, unburned hydrocarbons (from fuel and crankcase oi l), particulate matter, polycy cli c aromatic hydrocarbon s, and other organi c compounds that deri ve from combustion (l, :!.. 1). While much attenti on h as focused o n the transpon and transformatio n of thes e pollutants in ambient air-particularly in areas where both ambient pollutant concentrations and human expos ures are el evated (e .g., congested city centers, tunnel s, and urban canyons created by tall bu ildings), less attention has been given to meas uring poll utants and exposures near heavi ly-trafficked highways . Several lines of evidence now s uggest that s teep gradients of certain pollutants exist next to heavily traveled highways and that li vin g within thes e el evated po llution zones can have detrimental effects on human health . It s ho uld be n oted that many different types of hi ghways have been studied , ranging fro m California "freeways" (defined as multi -lane, high-s peed roadway s with restricted access) t o fo ur-la ne (two in each directi on), variable-speed roadways wi th unrestri c ted access . There is considerable variation in th e literature in defining highways and we choose to include studies i n our review thal used a broad range of defini tions (see Table D · Table I S ummary of near-hi ghway pollution gradients I Citation I Location Highway traffic intensity" Pollutants measuredb Observed Pollution Gradients Shi et al . 1999 (6) I Birrrungham, UK I 3 0 ,000 vehld I UFP+ FP (JO-Hf nm) I 2-100 m c I Zhu et al . 2002 (8) Los Angeles; Freeway 7 10 I 12.180 veh/h I UFP,CO,B C I 17-300 m c I Zhu et al . 2002 (7) Los Angeles; F reeway 405 1 l 3 ,900 veh/h I UFP,CO,B C I 30-300 m c Hitchins et al . 2002 (11) Brisbane (Austr.) I 2 ,130-3,400 veh/h UFP+FP(l5-2 x !er' nm ),PM2.s l 15-375 m c Fischer et al . 2000 (13 ) I Amsterdam I <3 ,000-30,974 veh/d PM2.s• PM to • PPAH . VOCs I NA Roorda-Knape et al. 1998 (14)1 Netherlands 80,000-152 ,000 veh/d PM2.s• PM 1o . BC. VOCs, N02 I 15-330 m c Janssen et al . 200 I ( 15) I Netherlands 40.000-170,000 veh/d I PM2.S• VOCs, N02 I <400m c Morawskaetal.1 999 (12) Brisbane (Austr.) I NA I UFP I 10-210 m c "As defined in article cited (veh/d =vehicles per day; veh/h =vehicles per hour). bUFP = ultrafine particles; FP =-fi ne particles; PM25 = particles with aerodynamic diameter s 2.5 um; PM JO = particles with a erodynamic diameters I 0 um ; B C= black carbon: PPAH =particle-bound p olycyclic aromati c hydrocarbons: VOCs =volatile organic compounds °Pollutant measurements were made al ong a transect away from the highway NA =not applicable: meas ureme nts were not made . It should also be noted that there m ay be significant heterog enei ty in the types and amounts of vehicl es using highways. The typical vehicle fl eet in the US is composed of https://ehjournal .biomedcentral.com /artic les/1 0.1186/1 4 76-069X-6 -23 Page 2 of 13 Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle e xhau st: A review of epidemi. .. cardiac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental Health I Full Text 7/6/16, 12:44 PM Result s from clinical. epidemiological , and animal s tudies are converging to indicate that short-tenn and long-tenn exposures to t raffic-related pollution , especiall y particulates, have adverse cardiovascular effects [.lQ, 11 , l.fil. Most of these studies have focu sed on, and/o r demo nstrated the strongest associations between cardiovascular health outcomes and particulates by weig ht or number concentrations f.1.2 , W. lll though CO, S02, N02 , and BC hav e also been examined. BC bas been show n to be associated with decrease s in heart ra te variability {HRV ) [ll. iJ.J and black smoke and N02 shown to be associated with cardiopulmonary mortality f.21.1. Short-tenn exposure to tine parti c ulate pollution exacerbates existing pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and long-term repeated exposures increases the ri sk of cardiovascular disease and death ~. 2.QJ . Though not focused on near-highway pollution, two large prospective cohort stu d ies, the Six-Cities Study !lll and the American Cancer Society (ACS) Study llRJ provided the groundwork for later research on fine particulates and cardiovascular di sease. Bo th of these studies found as sociations 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 di sease other th an lung cancer. The Six-Cities Study exami.ned PM2.5 and PM 1o/15 · The ACS study examined PM 2.5 . Relative ri sk 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/m3 res pecti vely) were 137 ( 1.11 , 1 .68) and 131 (I .17 , 1.46) in the Six Cities and ACS studies, respec tivel y. These anal yses contro lled 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 finding s. PM2.5 generall y declined followi ng implementation of new US Environmental Protection Agency standards in 1997 1.11. 22). ye t since lhat time studies have shown elevated health risks due to long-term exposures to the 1997 PM threshold concentrations [12, lQJ. Much of the epidemiological research has focused on assessing the early physiological re sponses to short-term fluctuation s in air pollution in order lo understand how these exposure s may alter card iovascular risk profiles and exacerbate card iovascular disease fil]. Heart rate variability, a ri sk factor for future cardiovascular outcomes, is altered by traffic-related pollutants particularly in o ld er people and people with heart disease 1.21. U..:UJ. With decreased heart rate variabili ty as the adverse o utcome, negative association s between HRV and parti c ulates were strongest for the sm allest size fra c tion studied (ll] (PM03-J .O); [~ (PM0.02-1). In two studies that included other pollutants, black carbon, an indi cator of traffic particles , a lso elicited a strong association with both time and frequency domain HRV variables; associations were also strong for PM2.S for both time and frequency HRV variables in the Adar et al study [(UJ: this and s ubsequent near highway studies are summarized in Table 2]. however . PM2.5 was not associated with frequency domain variables in the Schwartz. et al . study (lIJ . Table 2 Summary of near-highway health effects studies Fl~Uoo Highway traffic Pollo tan ls Distance from Health Outcomes intensity• measoredb highway Statistical association• Schwartz et al. Fr-=-PM25,BC. ~ Heart rate variability Decr eases in measures of heart rate 2005 (22) co variabili ty Adar et al. 2007 St. Louis , r-=-~ On highway in bu sses Heart rate variability Decreases in measures of heart rate (23) Missouri variability Hoek el al. 2002 Netherlands r-=-F Continuous d Cardio-pulmonary mortality, 1.4 1 OR for living near road (24) lung cancer Tonne et al. 2007 Worchester, r-:-F Continuous d Acute myocardial infarction 5% in crease in odds of AMI (41) Mass. (AM1) Venn et al. 2001 Nottingham , r-=-~ Continuous d Wheezing in children 1.08 OR for living w/in 150 m of road (49) UK Nicolai et al. Munich , >30,000 veh/d Soot , benzene, Traffic counts within Asthma, respiratory symptoms . 1.79 OR for asthma and high traffic 2003 (58) Germany N02 50 m of house allergy volume Gaudcrman el al . South ern I~ Continuous d Asthma, respiratory symptoms Increased asthma closer to freeways 2005 (65) California McConnell et al . Southern r-=-~ Continuous d I Asthma Large risk for children living w/in 75 m 2006 (57) Cali fornia of road Ryan , et al . 2007 Cincinnati, > l ,OOO•ruo"ld Fl 400m Wheezing in children NA (59) Ohio Kim et al. 2004 San Francisco 90 ,000-210~001pM BC NO School si tes I Childhood asthma 1.07 OR for high levels of NO, (60) veh/d ' ' • https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1 186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 5 of 13 Near-highway pollutants i n motor veh icle exhaust : A rev iew of epidemi ... ca rdiac and pulmonary health ris ks I En vi ronmental Health I Full Text 7/6 /16, 12 :44 PM Wj st et al. 1993 Munich . 7 .000-125,000 F School sites Asthma, bronchiti s Several statistical associations found (68) German y veh/d x B ru nekreef et al . Netherland s 80 .000~ 152 .000 F Continuou sd Lun g function Decreased FEV with proximity to hi gh 1997 (69) veh/d 10 • 2 truck traffic Jan ssen et aL Netherlands 30,000-155.000 PM2.s.N02. F Lung function . respiratory No association with lung function 2003 (74) vehfd benzene symptoms Peters et al. 1999 Southern NA IPM.,,N~~ Asthma, bronchiti s, cough. 1.54 OR o f wheeze fo r boys with (82) California wheeze exposure to N02 Brauer et al . Netherlands Highways and PM2 .s .N02. Modeled exposure A sthma , allergy, bronchiti s , Strongest association was with food 2007 (67) streets soot respiratory symptoms al lergies Visser et al. 2004 Amsterdam > I0,000 veh/d ~I NA Cancer Multiple associat ions (91) Vinei s et al . 2006 10 Eurpoean ~ PM 10,N07, ~ Cancer I .46 OR near heavy traffic , 130 OR for (87) countries S02 hi gh exposure to N02 Gauderman et al . Southern ~l•M ,,,N~ Continuousd I Lung Function Decreased FEV for those li ving near 2007 (73 ) California freeway 8 As d efined in article cited (veh/d =vehicles per day ; veh/h =vehicles per hour). bUFP = ultrafine particles : FP =fine particles; PM2.5 =particles wi th aerodynamic diameter s 2 .5 um ; PM IO= particles with aerodynami c diameters 10 um; BC = black carbon; PPAH::: particle.bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; VOCs =volati le organic compounds cPollutant measurements were made along a transect away from the highway dProximi ty of each participant to a major road was calculated using GIS software estatisti cal association between proxi mity to highway or exposu re to traffic-generated pollutants and measured health outcomes NA = not applicable; measurements were not made . Several srudies show that exposure to PM varies spatially wi thin a city [3.l, 3§,31], and finer spatial analyses show higher risks to individuals li viJJg in close proximity to heavily trafficked roads [.l.B, ll]. A 2007 paper from the Woman's' Health lnitial ive used data from 573 PM25 monitors to follow over 65.000 women pros pectively. They reported very h igh hazard ratios for cardiovascu.lar events {l .76; 95% CI , 1.15 10 2.47) possibly due to the fine grain of exposure monitoring l.u!.J . ln contrast. studies that relied on central monitors [ll, 2fil o r interpolations from central monito rs to highways are prone to exposure misclassification because individ ual s 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 si tuate poorer neighborhoods with potential ly mo re s usceptible populations closer to highways [.la, ;22, 1QJ , At a finer grain. Hoek et al.[~] estimated home exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NOi) 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). Cardiopu lmonary mortality was associated with both modeled level s of pollutants and living near a major road with associations less strong for background levels of both pollutant s. A case-control study Im. found a 5% increase in acute myocardial infarction associated with Jiving 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 polluti on ~.There is a n eed for studies that assess exposure at these scales , e .g ., immediate vicinity of highways , to test whether cardiac risk increases sti ll m ore 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 PM 2.5) have adverse cardiovascular effects Ll.Q, llJ. PM2.5 appears to be a ri sk factor for cardiovascular disease via mechanisms that likely include pulmonary and systemic inflammation, accelerated atherosclerosis and altered cardiac a utonomic function [11, ll. 43., 44, 4.,2, 4Q]. Uptake of particles or particle constituents in the blood can affect the autonomic control of the h eart and circulatory system . Black smoke, a large proportion of which is derived from mobile so urce em issions f~, has a high pulmonary deposition efficiency, and due to their s urface area-to-volume ratios can carry relatively more adsorbed and condensed toxic air pollutants (e.g., PPAH) compared to larger particles U1, 47 .~.Based on hi gh particle numbers, high lung deposition efficiency and surface chemistry, UFP may provide a greater potential than PM2.s for ind ucing inflammation U.QJ . UFPs have high cytotoxic reactive oxygen species (ROS) activi ty, through which numerous inflammatory responses are induced . compared to other particles Ill!]. Chronically elevated UFP levels such as those to which residents living near heavily trafficked roadways are likely exposed can lead to long-term o r repeated increases in systemic inflam m ati o n that promote arteriosclero sis ~. 2.2 . :l.4. llJ. Asthma and highway exposures https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23 Page 6 of 13 Near-highway pollutants in motor vehic le 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 el evated ri sk is rel ati vely well developed with respect to child asthma studies. These studi es have evolved over time wi th the use of different methodol ogies . Studi es that used larger geographic fra mes and/or overal l traffic in th e vici nity of the home or school (12, SO, 5 1, ~or th a t used self-report of traffic inte nsity LUI fou nd no associati on with asthma preval ence. Most recent. chi ld asthma studies have, in stead , used increasin gly narrow d efinitions of proximit y to traffic , in cluding ai r monitoring or modeling) and have focused on major hi g hways instead of street traffic~. 55, .:!Q , ~. ~. J2). All of these studies have fo un d statisti call y s ignificant associations between the prevale nce of a sthma or wheezi ng and li vin g very close to high volu me vehicle roadways. Confounders consi dered included housing conditi ons (pests, pets . gas s toves, water damage), exposure to tobacco s moke . various measures of socioeconomic s tatus (SES). age, sex. and atopy, a lbei t self-reported and n ot al l in a single stu dy. Mu hi pie s tudies have found girls to be at greater risk than boys for asthma res ulting from hi ghway exposure ~. ~. §.QJ . A recent stud y also reports elevated risk onl y for children who moved next to th e highway before they were 2 years of age, s uggesting that early childhood expos ure may be key [2Z]. The combined evidence sugges ts that li vin g within I 00 meters of maj or hi ghways is a ri sk factor , a lthough smaller di s tances may a lso resu lt in g raded increases in ri sk. The neglect of wind direction and the absence of air moni to ring fro m some studie s are notable m issing fac tors . Additional ly, recent concerns have been raised that geocoding (attaching a physical location to addresses) could introduce bi as due to inaccuracy in locations Ifill Studi es that rely on general area monitoring of ambient polluti on and assess regional polluti o n on a scale ord ers of magnitud e gr eater than the near-roadway gradients have al so found associations between traffic generated pollutio n (CO and NOx) and prevalence of as thma f.6ll o r hospital admission for as thm a [fil:]. Lweguga-Mukasa el al . [21) monitored a.ir up and down wind of a major moto r \1ehicle bridge complex in Buffal o , NY and found that UFP were higher downwind, droppi ng off with distance. Their stati sti cal models did not, howeve r. suppo rt an association of UFP with as thma . A study in the San Francisco Bay Area me asured PM2 5 , BC a nd NOx over several mouth s next to s chool s and fo und both higher pollution lev els downwind from highways and a linear association of BC with asthma in long-term residents lfil!). Gauderrn an et al . [§,1) measured N02 next to hom es of 208 children . They fou nd an o dd s ratio (OR) of 1.83 (co nfidence interval (C J): 1.04-3.22) for o utdoor N02 (probably a surrogate for total highway pollu ti on) and lifetime diagnosis of asthma . They also fo und a simil ar association wi th di stance from residence to freeway. Self-report was used to control for nu merous confounders. including tobacco smoke , SES, gas stoves , mi ld ew, water dama ge , cockroache s and pets which did not s ubstantiall y affect the association . Gauderrnan's study sug ges ts that a mbient air monitoring at th e residence substantially increases stati stical power to detect association of asthma with highway exposures. Modeling of elemental carbon attributable to traffic near roadways based on ambient air monitoring of PMz.s h as recently emerged as a 11iable approach and a s tud y usin g thi s method found an associati on with infant wh eezin g . T he m odeled values appear to be bener predi ctors than prox.imity. Elevation o f th e residence relative to traffi c was al so an importan t facto r in thi s study I~-A 2007 paper reported on modeled N02, PM2.5 and soot and the association of these values with asthm a and various respira tory symptoms in the Neth erlands [fil]. While finding modest stati sticall y significant associations for asthma and symptoms, it i s somewhat s urpri s ing that they found stronger associati ons for developmen t o f sensitizati o n to food allergens . Pediatric lung function and traffic-related air pollution Studies of association of children 's Jun g fun ction with traffi c po llutan ts have used a vari ety of measures of exposure , including : traffic d ensity, di stan ce to roadways , area (city) monitors, moni torin g at the hom e or school and personal moni toring . Studi es have assessed both chronic effects on lung d evelopm ent and acute effects and have been both cross- secti onal and longitudinal . The wi de range of approaches som ewhat complicates eval uation o f the literature . I Traffic d ensi ty in sch oo l di stricts in Munich was associated with decreases in forced vital capacity (FVC). forced expiratory volume in l second (FEV 1). FEV JfFVC and other measures. although the 2-kilometcr (km) areas. the use of si n ing position for spi rometry and problems with translation fo r non-German ch i ldren were li mi tations ~-Brunekreef e t al . L@] used di stance from major roadways, considered wind direction and measured bl ack smok e and N02 in sid e schools. They fo und the largest decrements in lung function in gi rl s li vi ng wi thin 3 00 m of th e roadway s. A longitudinal study of ch ildren (average age at start = I 0 years) in Southern Cali fo rni a re ported results at 4 [70] and 8 years 11ll-Multiple air pollutants were measured at si te s in 12 communities . Due to sub stanti al anrition , o nl y 42% of childre n enrolled at th e start were avai labl e for the 8-year foll ow-up . Substantiall y lo wer grow th in FEY 1 was associated with PM 10 ,N02, PM 2.5• acid vapor and elemental carbon at 4 and at 8 years . The analysi s could no t indicate whether the effects seen were reversible o r not lllJ. In 2007, it was reported from thi s same co hort th at livi ng within 500 m of a freeway was reported to be associated with reduced lung fun ction !.11J . A Dutch stud y l:Ml meas ured PM 25, N02, be nzene and EC for o ne year at 24 schools located within 400 m o f major roadways . Whi le associations were seen between sy mptoms and tru ck traffic and measured pollutan ts, there was no signi fican t associati on between any of the environm ental measures and FVC < 85 % or FEV 1 < 85%. Restricting th e a nalysis to children li vi ng within 500 m of highways generally increased ORs. Personal exposure moni tori ng of N02 as a surrogate for total traffi c pollutants wi th 298 Korean coll ege studen ts found stati stically significant associations with FEV 1 , FEY 1fFV C , and forced ex piratory volume between 2 5 and 75% (FEV 2s..75), but n ot wi th FVC. The multivariate regression model presented suggests th at FEV2s-75 was the outcome meas ure that most clearly showed an effect [Ll). C ross-secti onal stud ies of ch ildren in Korea (lfil and France 111] al so indicate that lung function is d iminished in association with area poUutants tha t largely derive fro m traffic . TI m e serie s stud ies su ggest there are al so acute effects. A study o f 19 asthmatic chi ldren meas ured PM via personally carried m onitors, at homes and at central site monitors. TI1 e study found deficits in FEV 1 th at were associ ated wi th PM. although many sour ces besides traffi c co ntributed to exposure. In additi on, the results suggest th at ability to see associations with he a lth outcom es improves at fin er scale of mon itoring r2fil . PM was associated wi th reduced FEV 1 and FVC in onl y t he asthmatic s ubset of children in a SeatUe srudy !12J . Studies have also seen associations between PM and self repo rted peak fl ow meas urements IBQ,!UJ an d asthmatic symptoms lfil.J. Cancer and near highway exposures As noted above, both the Six-Cit.ics Stud y 1211 and th e American Cancer Society (ACS) Study [2fil fo und associati on s between PM and lung cancer. Foli ow-up studies using th e ACS cohort [22, 31.l and the Six-Studies cohon ra.J.j lhat controlled for smoking and other ri sk factors also demo nstrated significant associati ons between PM and lung cancer. The original stud ies were subject to intens iv e replicati on , val idation , and re -analysis whi ch co nfirmed the original finding s [&1]. The ASHMOG study ~] was designed to look specifical ly at lung cancer and air poll ution among Seventh-day Adventis ts i.n California, taking ad vantage of their low s mokin g rates . Air pollution was interpolated to centroids of zip codes from ambient air monitoring stations . Highway proximity was not consi dered. The study found associations with 02one (its primary pollutant of consi deration), PMIO an d S02 . Notably , these are not the pollutants th at would be expected to be s ub stantially elevated immediately adj acent to hi ghways . A case control stu dy of residents of Stockholm , Sweden modeled traffi c-related N02 level s at their homes over 3 0 years and fo un d that tbe strongest associa tion involved a 20 year latency period [EQ]. An other case control stud y drawn from th e European Prospective Inve stigation on Cancer and N utrition found s tatisticall y significantly elevated ORs for lung cancer with proximity to heavy t raffi c(> I 0 ,000 cars per day) as well as for N02 and PM10 at nearby ambi en t monitoring stations [.81). Nafstad el al . ffilll used m odeled N02 and https ://ehjourna l.biomedcentra l .com/articles/10.11 8 6/1476-069X-6-23 Page 7 of 13 Near-hi ghway pollutants in motor vehi cle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardlac and p ul monary health risks I Environmenta l Health I Full Te xt 7/6/16, 12:44 PM S02 concentrations at the homes of over 16 .000 men in Oslo to test associations with lung cancer incidence. The models inc luded traffic and point sources . The study found small. but stati s tically significant associations between N02 and lung cancer. Problems that run through all these studies are weak measures of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, the us e of main roads rather than highways as the exposure group and modeled rather than measu red air pollutants . A study of regional pollution in J apan and a case control study of more l ocalized pollution in a town in Ital y also found a ssociations between N02 and lun g cancer and PM and lung cancer [a2,2Q]. On the other hand , a study that calculated SIRs for specific cancers across lower and higher traffi c intensity found little evidence of an association with a range of cancers 12.lJ . The pl ausibility of near-highway pollution causing lung cancer is b olstered 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' [21]. An interesting study of UFP and DNA damage adds credibility to an association with cancer [23.]. This study had participants bicycle in traffic in Copenhagen and measured personal exposure to UFP and DNA oxidation and strand breaks in mononu clear blood cell s. Bicyclin g in traffic increased UFP exposure and oxidative damage to DNA , thus demonstrating an association between DNA damage and UFP exposure in vivo . Policy and research recommendations Based on the literature reviewed above it is plau sible that gradients of pollutants next to highways carry elevated healtl1 ri sks that may be larger than the ri s ks of general area ambient pollutants. While the evidence is considerable , it is n ot overwhelming and is weak in some areas. The s tronges t evidence comes from studies of development of asthma and reduc ti on of lung functi o n during childhood , while the studies of cardiac health risk require extrapolation from area s tudies of smaller and larger geographic scales and inference from toxicology laboratory investigations. The lung cancer studies, because they include pollutants such as~ that are not locally concentrated, are not particularly strong in terms of the case for near-highway ri sk . There is a need for lung cancer research th at uses major hig)lway s rather than heavily trafficked roads as the environmental exposure. Whil e mo re studies of asthma and lung function in children are need ed to confirm existing findings . especial ly 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 pri m ary research areas needing to be developed . Many of the studies of PM and cardiac or pulmonary health have focused on mortality. Near highway mortality s tudies may be possible, but would be len gthy 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 healtl1 end points there i s a need for studies that adequately address the possible confounding of SES with proximity to highways. There is good reason to think that propeny values decline near highways and that control for SES by, for example , income, may he inadequate . Because of the incomplete development of th e science regarding the health ri sks of near highway exposures and the high cost and implication of at least some possible changes in planning and development, poli cy deci sions are complicated. The State of California has largely prohibited siting of schools withi n 500 feet of freeways (SB 352; approved by the governor October 2, 2003). Perhaps thi s is a viable model for other s lates 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 shou ld be tried . One limitation of the California approach is th at it does nothing to addres s the population already exposed at schools currently cited near freeways and does not address re sidence near freeways . Conclusion The m ost susceptible (and overlooked) population in the US subject to serious health effects from air pollution may be those who Jive very near major regi onal transportation route, especially highways . Policies that hav e been technology based and regional in orientation do not efficiently address the very large exposure and health gradients s uffered by these populations . This is problematic because even regions that EPA has deemed to be in regional PM •anainment" stil l 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 poli cy options that would p rotect the exposed popu lation . Abbreviations UFP: ultra fine particles BC: black carbon nitrogen dioxi de NOx : oxides of nitrogen CO: carbon monoxide PM: particulate matter particulate matter less titan 25 um https ://ehjourna l.biomedcentra I .com/articles/10.1186/14 76-069X-6-23 Page 8 of 13 Near-highway pollutants i n motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi ... cardiac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental Hea lth I Full Te xt 7/6/16, 12 :44 PM parti culate maner less than J 0 um PPAH : particle bo und polyaromatic hydrocarbons EC: elemental carbon VOC: volatile organic compoun ds sulfur dioxide ACS: American Cancer Society SES: soc.ioeconomi c status EPA: Environmental Protection Agency OR : odds ratio forced expiratory volume in I second FEV,tFVC: ratio of FEY 1 and forced vital capacity forced expiratory volume between 25 and 75 FVC: forced vital capacity mi crogram s per cubic meter of air m : meters um : mi cromet ers vehl d: vehicles per day ve/1111: vehicles per hour Declarations Acknowledgements We thank Wig Zamore for useful insights into the topic. The Jonathan M 1isch College of Citizen ship and Publi c Service partiall y supported th e effort of Doug Brugge and Christine Rioux. Figure l was reproduced wi th permission of th e publisher. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral .com/a rticl es/10.1186/14 76-069X-6-2 3 Page 9 of 13 Nea r-highway pol luta nts in moto r vehicl e ex haust : A rev iew of epide mi ... cardiac a nd pu lmon a ry health risks I En vironme nt al Hea lth I Fu ll Tex t Authors' original submitted files for images Bel ow are the links 10 the authors ' original submitted fi les for images. 12940 2007 12 2 MO ES Ml~l2f,[Authors'original file for figur e I Competing interests The author(s) declare th at they ha ve no competing interests. Authors' contributions 7/6 /1 6 , 12 :44 PM DB look the lead on the manuscript . He co-wrol e lhe background and wrote the secti ons on asthma , lung function and cancer and the conclu sions . JLD wrote the section on air pollutants near roadways and contributed substantiall y 10 the background . CR wrote th e secti on on cardi ov ascular health . All authors participat ed in editing and refining th e manu scrip t an d all read it multiple ti me s, including th e fin al version. Authors ' Affiliations (I ) Tufts Community Research Center, Tufts Univer sity School of Medicine (2) Department of Civil and En vironmental Engineering, Tuft s Univers it y (3 ) Interdi sciplinary PhD Program , Tufts Universi ty References I . Am erican Housing Survey f or The Un ired Slates: 2003 Series H1 50/03. Accessed May 2007 ., //11m ·!lwww,<e11sus .gov/11/1 e\·/Mvhl/ho11sj11g lC1h.~lahs03/ah 1-Q3 .hfml l 2 . 2004 , Massaclu1 se11s Fa ct Book 3 . Chambers LA: Clas sification and exrem of air pollu tion problems . Air Pollution . Edited by: Stern AC .1976, Academi c Pre ss, NY, l: 3 4 . Rogge WF. Hildemann l.M, Mazurek MA , Cass GR , Simoneit BRT: Sources of fin e organic aerosol. 2. Nonca1aly s1 and catalyst-equipped automobile s and heavy-du ty diesel tru cks. Enviromnenral Science Technology. 1993 , 27: 636-651 . 10 .1021/es0004 /a007 . 5. Graedel TE, Hawkin s DT, C faxJ on LD : Atmosph eric Chem ical Co mpounds : Sources, Occ11rre11ce, a11d Bioassay. 1986,Academic Press. Inc., New York, NY 6. Shi JP. Khan M , Harri so n RM: Mea surements oful1rafi11 e particle concenTra tion and size distribu1ion int/le urban atmosph ere. Th e Science of the Tora / En viron111 e11t. /999, 235: 51 -64 .10.1016!S0048-9697(99)00 189-8. 7 . Zhu Y. Hinds WC, Kim S, Sioulas C: Concentration and size distriblllion of u/1raji11e particles near a major hig hway. J ournal of The Air and Wasre Mana gement Assoc/a/ion . 2002, 52 (9 ): 1032-104 2 . 8. Zhu Y, Hinds WC , Kim S, Shen S. Sioutas C: Szu dy of 11/1raji11e particles near a maj or high way wlrll heavy-duty diesel Traffic . Atmospheric Environment . 2002, 36 : 4323· 4335. 10 .J0/6/S/352-23 10(02 )00354-0. 9 . Zha11 g KM, Wexler AS, llw Y, Hinds WC, Sioutas C: Evolution of particle number distribution near roadwa ys. Part 11: The 'Road-lo-Amb ienl' process. Atmospheric Environment . 2004 , 38: 6655-6665 . J0 .10161j.atmosenv2004 .06 .044 . I 0 . Sioutas C, Delfino RJ , Singh M: Exposure assessment f or at1110spheric ultra.fin e parricles (UFP ) and implications in epidemiologic research . Enviro11me11taf Health Perspec1ives. 2005 . 113 (8): 94 7-955 . I I . Hir chin s J , Mora wska L , Wolff R , Gilbe rt D: Co11 cenrra 1ions of submicromerre particles from vehicle emiss ions near a major road. Almosph eric En vironm ent. 2000, 34 : 51 - 59. !0.10!61S1 352 -23 10(99)00304-0. 12 . Moraw slw. L, Th omas S. Gilbert D, Gree 11away C, Rijn ders E: A study of th e hori ;.ontal and vertical profile ofsubmicromer er particulates in relati on to a bu sy road. Almospheric Environment. 1999, 33: 1261 -1274 . 10.1016/Sl352 -23 10(98)00266·0. 13 . Fischer PH. Hoek G , van Reeuwijk H. Briggs DJ. Lebret E, va11 Wij11en JH, Kingham S, Ellioll PE: Traffi c-related differe 11 ces in outdoor and indoor concenrratio11s of particle.f a11d volatile organic compou11ds in Amsterdam . Atmospheric En vironment. 2000, 34: 3713-3722 .10 .J0 /6/SJ352 -2310(00)00067-4 . 14 . Roorda -Knap e MC, Jan ssen NAH, De Hartog JJ, va11 Vtier PHN, Harssema H, Brun ekreef B: Air pollution from traffic in city distriCts near major motorways. Atmospheric E11viro11m e11t .1998, 32 : 1921 -1930. J0.J 016/SJ352 -23 10(97)00496-2. 15 . Jan ssen NAH, van V/ier PHN, Aarts F. Harssema H, Brun ef..Teef B: Assessmenr of exposure to traffic related air polfu1io11 of children at1endi11 g schoo ls near motorways . Almospheric Environme/11. 2001 , 35: 3875 -3 884 . 10./016/S1 352-23 10(01)00144-3. 16 . Nati onal Research Counci l , Commi11 ee on Research Priorities f or Airb orn e Particulate Mau er: Research priorities for airborn e parriculare 1/Ul/Ter, lV: co111inuing research progress. 2004 , Natio11 alAcademy Press , Washingt on, DC 17 . US E11 viro11111e11tal Protection Agency: Air quality crireriafor particulate maJter. 2004, Research Triangle Park 18 . Miller KA . Siscovick DS, Sheppard L , Sheph erd K, Sullivan JH, A11derso11 GL , Kaufman JD: Long-term e.xpo sure lo air pollution and in cidence of cardiovascular evem s i11 women . Th e New En gland Journal of Medicine. 2007, 356: 44 7-458. JO.J056 fNE!Moa0544 09. 19. Riedlike r M, Cascio WE, Griggs TR . Herbst MC. Brom be rg PA , Neas L . Williams RW. Devlin RB : Part iculate ma tter e.xposure in cars is associated with cardiovascula r effects in healthy young men. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2004 . 169: 934 -940. J0.1164 /rccm .200310-/463 0 C. 20. Hoffma 1111 B, Moebus S, Stan g A, Beck£, Dra gan o N, Mohle11kamp S, Schmermund A, Memme sheimer M , Ma11n K, Erbel R, Jackel KH, Hein z Nixdorf RECAU Study In vestigat ive Group: Residence close to high traffi c and prevale11 ce of coronary heart disease. European Heart J ournal . 2006. 27: 2696-2702. J0 .1093/eurheartjl ehf278 . 2 1. Rucker/ R, Greven S , Lj ungman P, Aalro P, Antoniades C, Be/land er T. Bergli11d N. Chrysohoou C. Forastiere F. Jacqu emin B, vo11 Klot S. Koenig W. Ku chenh off H . Lan k/ T. Pekk men J, Perucci CA , Schn eider A, Stmyer J. Peters A: Air pol/ur ion and inflammation (J L-6 , CRP,jibrinogen) in myocardial infarction survi vo rs . En vironmen tal Health Perspectives. 2007 , 115 : 1072-1080, 22. Schwartz J. U/011jua A , Suh H, Verrier M, Za11 obe11i A, Syring M. Nearing B , Verrier R , Stone P, Ma cCallum G . Spei zer FE, Gold DR : Traffi c related pollurion and hearr rare variability in a pan el of elderly subjecrs. Th orax . 2005 , 60: 455-46 1. IO.Jl 36/tlu2004 .024836 . 23 . Adar SD , Gold DR , Coull BA , Schwartz J , Stone P, Suh H: Focusl!l.I exposures 10 airborn e traffic particles and heart rare va riability in rite elderly . Ep idem iology. 2007. 18: 95-103 . 10 .1097101 .ede .0000249409.81050.46. 24. Hoek G, Brunekree k B, Go ldbohm S, Fischer P, van den Brandl PA : Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air p ollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study. Th e Lancet. 2002 , 360: 1203-/20 9. /0.1016/SOJ40 -6736(02 )11280-3. 25 . Peters A, vo11 Kfot S, Heier M, Trentina glia I, Horma1111 A, Wi chma1111 HE, Lowe / H: Exposure 10 Traffic and th e onset of myocardial inf arc1io11. The New En gland Journal of Medicine , 2004, 351 .·186 1-70 . J0.1 056/NE!Moa040203. 26 . Pope CA , Dockery DW: Health effects of fin e parriculat e air polf111ion: lines that con11ec1. J ournal of Air and Wasre Man agement. 2006, 56 (6): 709-742 . https://ehjourna l.biomed c entra I .com/a rticle s/10. 1186/1476-069X ·6-23 Page 10 of 13 Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi ... cardiac and pulmonary health r isks I Environrnental Health I Full Text 7/6/16, 12:44 PM 2,7 . Dockery DW, Pope CA, Xu X, Spengler JD , Ware JH, Fay ME, Ferris BG, Speizer FE: An association between air pollution aJ1d mortality in six U.S. cities. New Engla11d Journal of Medicine . 1993 , 329: 1753-9. J0.1056/NFJMJ99312093292401. 28. Pope CA, Thun Ml, Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer FE, Hath CW: Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospect ive study of US adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.1995, 151: 669-674. 29 . Pope CA , Burn etl RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD: Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary mortality, and /011g -term exposure to fine pa rticulate air pollution . Journal oft he American Medical Association. 2002 , 2 87: 1132-1141. 10.100 I /jama.287.9 .1132. 30. Kun zli N, Jerrell M, Mack WJ , Beckerman B, LaBree L , Gilliland F. Thomas D, Peters J, Hodi s HN : Ambient air pollution and Atherosclerosis in Los Angeles. Environmental Health Persp ectives. 2005, 113: 201 -206. 31. Peters A: Particulate matter and heart djsease: Evidence from epidemiological studies. Toxicolog y a11d Applied Pharmacology. 2005, 477-482. 10.1016/j.raap.2005.04.030. Suppl2 32. Wheeler A, 'Zanobetti A, Gold DR, Schwartz J, Stone P, Suh H: The relationship between ambient air pollution and hear t rate variability differs for individuals with heart and pulmonary disease. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006, 114 : 560-566. 33 . Chuang K, Clum C , Chen N, Su T, Lin L: Effects of particle size fractions on reducing heart rate variability in cardiac and hypertensive patients. Env ironmental 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 huma11 subjects. Environme ntal Health Perspe ct ives. 2004, 112: 1063-1067. 35. Brauer M, Hoek G, van Vliet P, Meliefsle K, Fischer P, Gehring U, Heinrich J, Cyrys J, Bellander T, Lewne M, Brunekreef B: Estimating long-term average particulate air pollutio11 concentrations: application of traffic indicators and geographic information systems. Epidemiology. 2003, 14: 228-239.10.1097100001648-200303000-00019. 36 . Brunekreef B, Holgate ST: Air po/Lu/ion 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 p ollution exposure to health outcomes . Journal of Toxicology a11d Environmental Health. 2005, 68: 1207 -1242.10.1080/15287390590936085. 38. O'Neill MS. Jerrell M, Kawachi 1, Levy JI, Cohen AJ, Gouveia N, Wilkinson P, Flelcher T, Cifaentes L, Schwartz J: Workshop on Air Pollution and Socioeconomic Condi/ions. Health, wealth, and air pollution: advancing theory and methods. Environmental Health Perspectives . 2003. J 11: 1861-1870. 39. Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Pope CA, Krewski D, Newbold KB, Thursto11 G, Shi Y, Finkelstein N, Calle EE, Thun Ml: Spatial Anal:ysis of Air Pollution and Mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiology. 2005, 16 (6): 727-736.10.1097101 .ede .0000181630.15826.7d. 40. Finkelstein M, Jerrett M, Sears MR: E11vironme11tal inequality and circulatory disease mortality gradients. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2005, 59: 481 - 487 . JO.ll36/jech.2004.026203. 41 . Tonne C, Melly S, Mittleman M, CoullB, Goldberg R , Schwartz J: A case-control analysis of exposure to lraffic and acute myocardial infarctio11. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2007, 115: 53-57 . 42. Lipfert FW. Wyz ga RE, Baty JD, Miller JP: Traffic density as a surrogate measure of environmen tal 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 l011g-term exposure to particulale air pollution - Epidemiological evidence of general pathophysiological pathways of disease . Circulatio11. 2004, 109: 71 -77. 10 .116 l!O l .CIR .0000108927 .80044. 7 F. 44. Brook RD, Franklin B, Cascio W, Hon g Y, Howard G , Lipsett M, Luepker R, Mittleman M, Same t J, Smith SC, Tager I: Air pollution and cardiovascular disease: a statement fo r healthcare professionals from the expert panel on population an d preventio11 science of th e American Hea rt Association . Circulation. 2004, I 09: 2655-2671. 10 .J 161101 .CJR.0000128587.30041 .CB. 45. Sun Q, Wang A, Jin X, Natanzon A, Duquaine D, Brook RD, Aguinaldo JG. Fayad Z, Fuster V. Lippman M, Chen LC, Rajagopalan S: Long-term air pollu tion exposure and acceleration of atherosclerosis and vascular injlammafio 11 in an animal mode l. Journal of the American Medi cal Association. 2005, 294: 3003-3010. 10 .l 001 !jama.294 .23 .3003. 46. Sandhu RS, Petroni DH, George WJ: .Ambient particulate matter, C-rea ctive protein, and coronary artery disease . Inhalation Toxicology. 2005 , 17: 409-413 . 10.1080108958370590929538. 47 . Oberdorster G: Pulmonary effects of inhaled ultrajine particles. international Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 200 I , 65: 1531 -1543 . 48 . Delfino RJ, Sioutas C, Malik S: Potelllial role ofullrajine 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 1, Boddy R, Bell M, Britton J: Local road traffic activity and the prevalence, severity, and persistence of whe eze in school children : combi11ed cross secJional and longitudinal study. Occupational & Environmental Medicine . 2000, 57: 152 -158. 10.JJ 36/oem.57.3.J 52. 50 . Waldr o11 G, Pottle B, Dod J: Asthma and the motorways-011e district's experience. Journal of Public Health Medicine. 1995, 17: 85-89. 51. Lewis SA, Antoniak M, Venn AJ, et al.: Secondhand smoke, dietary jruil intake, road traffic exposures, and the prevale11ce of asthma: A cross-sectional study in young children. American Journal of Epidem io logy. 2005 , 161 : 406-411. J0.1093/ajelkwi059. 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. Environmemal Health Perspectives.1999 , 107: 761-767. 10.230713434663 . 53 .. Heinr ick J, Topp R, Gerring U, Thefeld W: Traffi c at residen tial address , respiratory health, and atopy in adults; the National Germa11 Health Su rvey 1998. Environmental Research. 2005, 98: 240-249. J0 .1016/j.envres.2004 .08.004. 54. Van Vliet P, Knape M, de Hartog J, Jan ssen N, Harssema H, Brunekreef B: Motor ve hicle exhaust and chronic respiratory symptoms in ch ildre11 /iving nea r freeways. Environmelllal 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 illn ess in children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medici11e . 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 pop ulation . Occupational and Environmental Medici11e. 2005 , 62: 376-380. 10 .J 136/oem.2004.017228 . 57. McCo nn ell R, Berhane K , Yao L, Jerrett M, Lurmann F, Gilliland F. Kun zli N, Gauderman J , Avol E, Thomas D, Peters J: Traffic susceptibility, and childlwod 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 alopy in a large sample of children. European Resp iratory Journal. 2003, 21: 956-963. 59. Ryan PH, LeMasters, Biswas P, Levin L, Hu S, Lindsey M, Bernstein Dl, 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 Perspect ives. 2007, 115: 278-284. 60. Kim JJ, Smorodinsky S, Lipsett M , Singer BC, Hodgson AI, Ostro B: Traffic -related air polluti on near busy roads: The East Bay children's respiratory health study. Am er ica/I Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2004, 170: 520-526. JO.I 164/rccm.200403-28JOC. 61 , Ong P, Graham M, Houston D: Policy and programmalic importance of spatial alignment of data sources. Am J Public Health . 2006, 96: 499-504. J0.2105 /AJPH.2005.071373 . 62. Hwang BF, Lee YL, Lin YC, Jaakkola JJ, Guo YL: Traffic related air pollution as a determinant of asthma among Taiwanese school ch ildren. Thorax . 2005, 60: 467-473. JO.J J 36/th.x.2004.033977. 63 . Migliaretli G, Cadum E , Migliore E , et al.: Traffic air pollution and hospital admissions for asthma: A case control approach in a Turin (Italy) population. J11ternatio11al Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2005, 78: 164-169. JO.J007/s00420 -004-0569-3. 64. Lweguga-Mukasa JS , Oyana TJ , Johjnson C: Local ecological factors, ultrafine particulate concentrations, a11d ast/11na prevalence rates in Buffalo, New York, neighborhoods.Journal of Asthma. 2005, 42: 337-348. 65. Gauderman WJ , Avol E, Lurmann F. Kuenzli N, Gillila11d F, Peters J, McConnell R: Childhood astluna and exposure to traffic and nitrogen dioxide . Epidemiology. 2005, 16: https ://ehjou rn a Lb iome dcentral.com/a rticles/10.118 6/14 76-069X-6-2 3 Page 11 of 13 Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A review of epidemi...cardlac and pulmonary health risks I Environmental H ealth I Full Te xt 7/6/16, 12 :44 PM 737-743 . 10.1097/0/.ede.()000 181308 .51440.75. 66. Ryan PH, LeMaste rs GK, Biswas P, levin L, Hu S. lindsey M: A comparison of proximity and /a11d use regression traffic exposure models and wheezing In i11fa111s. £11viro11mental Healrh Perspecti ves. 2007, 115 .· 278-2 84. 67. Brauer M. Hoek G, Smit HA , de Jongste JC , Gerrirsen J, Postma DS, Kerkhof M. Brunekreef B: Air pollurion and developmen t of asthma, allergy and infections in a birrh colwrr . European Respiratory Journal. 2007, 29: 879-888. JO .I 183109031936.00083406 . 68. Wjsr M, Reilmeir P, Dodd S , Wulff A. Nico lai T. vo n Loeffelholz-Colberg EF, von Mutius E: Road rraffic and adverse effecrs 011 respiratory hea lth in ch ildren. Briti sh Medi cal Joumal. 1993, 307 : 596-307. 69 . Brunekreef B, Jan ssen NA, de Hart og J . Hars sema H, Knape M. van Vliet P: Air pollution from truck rraffi c and lun g functi on in children living near 111oton<1ays . Epidemiology. 1997, 8: 298-303. 10./09710000 1648 -199705000-000 12. 70. Gauderman \VJ , McCo nnell, Gilliland F. London S, Thomas D. Aval E, Vora H, Berhane K, Rappaporl EB. Lurmamr F, Margolis HG. Peters J: Association between air pollution and lung fun ctio n growth in Southern Ca lifornia ChUdre11 . American Jou rnal of Respiratory and Crilical Ca re Medi cine. 2000, 162 (4 Pt 1):1383-1390 . 7 1. Gauderm an WJ , Avol E, Gilliland F, Vora H, Thoma s D. Berlume K. McCon nell R, K11e11z/i N. Lurmann F. Rappaporr E, Marg olis H, Bares D. Peters J: Th e Ef!ecr of Air Pollu tion 011 Lung Developme11t from JO to 18 Years of Age. New E11gland Journal of Medi ci11e . 2005. 35 1: 1057-67. 10 ./056/NE.!Moa0406/0. 72 . Merku~ PJFM: Air poll11t i011and11111gfw1ction. Ne1" E11g la11d Jo urnal of Medicine. 2005, 351 : 2652 - 73. Ga uderman WJ , Vora H. McC onnell R. Berhane K. Gilliland F. Thomas D, l.;ir11UJ11n F. Av<>l E, Kun z.Ii N , Jarrell M, Pere rs J: Effect of exposure to traffic: t;n lung development from JO lo 18 years of age : A cohort study. The Lance/. 2007. 369: 571 -577. /0./0161SO l40-6736(07)60037-3 . 74. Jan ssen NA -H, Brun ekreef B, van Vliet P, Aarts F. Meliefsle K, Harssema H, Fischer P: The relarionship between air polllllio11 from heavy traffic and all erg ic sens itization , bron chial hyperresponsiveness, and respiratory symploms in Durch school chi ldren . Environmeutal Heal th Perspectives. 2003, 111: 1512 -15 18. 75. Hong Y·C, Leem J-H, lee K-H, Park D-H. Jang J-Y, Kim S -T. Ha E-H: E~posure to air pollurio11 and pulmo11aryfunctio11 i111111iversity s1ude111s. lnternaliona/ Archil,.es of Occuparional and Environ menial Health. 2005. 78: 132-138. 10.J007/s00420-004-0554 -x . 76 . Kim HJ . Lim DH. Kim JK, Jeong SJ. Son BK: Effecrs of parti culate mart er (PM1 0) on pul111011ary function of middle school children . Journal of /he Korea11 Medi ca l Soc iety. 2005, 20 (/): 42-45 . 77. Penard-Morand C, Cllarpin D, Raherison C, Kopfersclunitt C. Cai/laud D. Lova11d F. Amresi-Ma esano /: lo11g-1erm exposure to background air pollulion related to respiratory and allergic heallh in schoolchildren. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 2005. 35: 1279-1287 . JO .llll/j.J365-2222.2005.D2336.x . 78 . Delfino RJ. Quintan a PJE. Floro J, Gasranaga VM, Samimi BS, Kliemnan MT. Liu LJ, Bufalino C. Wu C, McLaren CE: Association of FEVJ in asthmatic children wilh personal and microenvironm en t exposure lo airborn e particulate mart er. En viron mental Health Perspectives . 2004, 112 : 932-94 1. 79. Koen ig JQ, Larson Tv, Hanl ey QS , Rebolledo V, Dumler K, Checkoway H, Wan g SZ, Lin D. Pierson WE: Pulmonary fun ction chan ges in children asso ci ated wilhfin e particulate matter. En vironmemal Resea rch. 1993. 63 : 26-38. 10 .1006/e nrs.1993.J l 23 . 80 . Van der Zee SC, Hoek G, Boezen HM , Schouten JP. van Wijnen JH , Brun ekreef B : Acute effec ts of urban air po/luti o11 on respiratory health of children with and wit/row chronic respiratory symptoms. Occuparional and Environmenral Medicine. 1999, 56 ( 12): 802 -8 13. 8 1 . Pekken en J. 1imone11 KL. Ruuska11e11 J, Repone11 A , Minne A: Effe cts of ultrafi11e and fin e particulates in urban air on peak exp iratory flow amo11g children with asrhmatlc symproms . Environmemal Research. 1997, 74 : 24-33 .10.1006/enrs./997.3750. 82 . Peters JM, Avol E , Navidi W. Lo11don SJ, Ga11derman WJ, Lurm ami F. Li1111 WS , Ma rgolis H. Rappaport E , Gong H. Thoma.r DC : A study of twelve South ern Ca lifornia communilies wirh diffe ring leve ls and types of air pollution : Prevalence of respi ratory morbidiry. American Joumal of Resp iratory and Crit ical Care Medicine . 1999. 159 (3): 760-767. 83 . Loden F. Schwartz J. Speize r FE, Dockery DE : Redu ction in.fin e parriculare air pollut ion and morrality: exrendedfollow-up oft/r e Han 1ard six-cities study . American Journal of Respiratory and Critica l Care Medicin e. 2006, 173: 667-672. JO .I J64/rccm.200503-4430C. 84. Health Effecrs lnstitwe : Reanalys is uf Tire Harvard six ciries s ludy and tire Am erican Cancer Society study of pa rticulate air pollution morrality. Final Versio11 : Boston, MA . 2000 85. Beeson WL , Abbey DE, Knw sen SF: Long-term concentrarions of ambient air pollwanrs an d i11ciden1 lung cancer in Ca liforn ia adults : Resulrs from tire ASHMOG sludy. E11vironmen1al Health Perspectives . 1998, 106: 813-823. 10.230713434125. 86. Nyberg F, Gus tavsson P, Jarup L, Be/lander T, Berglind N, Jak obsson R, Pershagen G: Urban air pollution and lun g cancer in Stockholm . Epidemiology. 2000, ll : 487-495 . 10 .1097100001648-200009000-00002 . 87. Vinei s P. Hoek G, Krzyza nowski M. Vigna-Tagliani F. Veglia F. Airoldi L, Autrup H, Dunning A, Ga n e S, Haina lll P, Malaveil/e C. Marullo G, Overvad K, Raaschou -Nielsen 0. Clavel-Chapelo11 F, Linseisen J, Boeing H, Triclwpo11!011 A. Pa/Ii D, Peluso M. Krogh V. Tumin o R, Pan ico S, Bueno-De -Mesquita HB. Peeters PH , Lund EE, Go11:alez CA . Marrine z C, Dorromoro M, Barrica rte A, Cirera L, Quiros JR , Berglund G, Forsberg 8, Day NE, Key TJ. Saracci R. Kaaks R, Riboll E: Air poltwion and risk of lun g ca nce r /11 a prospective stu dy in Europe . lntemational Journal of Ca ncer. 2006, 11 9: 169-174 . 10.1002/ijc.21 801 . 88. Nafs tad P. Hah eim U , Oftedal B, Gram F, Holme I. Hjermann f . leren P : Lun g cancer and air pollution : A 27-year foll ow up of 16 209 Norweg ian men. Thorax . 2003, 58: 1071 -1076. 10.1136/rlwrax .58.12.107 I . 89 . Choi K-S , In oue S, Slrinozaki R: Air pollution. temperature, and reg ional d ifferences in lung ca ncer mortaliry in Japan . Archives of Environmental Healr/I . 1997, 52 : 160- 90 . Bigge ri A , Barbone F. Lagazio C, Dovenzi M, Sranta G: Air pollution and lung ca11 cer in Triel'te, lraly: Spa tial analysis uf ri sk as a fun ctio n of disra nce from sources. Environme11 ta l Health PerspeClives . 1996 . 704 : 750-754. 10.230713433221. 9 L Vi sser 0, van Wij11en JH, van Leeuwen FE: Residentia l traffic de nsity and cancer in cidence in Amsterdam. 1989-1997. Cance r Cau ses & Control. 2004 , 15 : 33 1-339 . J0 .1023/B :CAC0 .0000027480.32494 .a3 . 92 . US Environmemal Protect ion Agency : Health Assessmem Docume/l/ for Diesel Engine Exhaust . Was/Li11g ton, DC . 2002 93. \linze111s PS, Meller P. So rensen M. Knudsen LE. Herr el 0, Jens en PP. et al .: Persona l exposure to ultrafme pa rticulates und oxidaJive DNA damage . Environmental Health Perspecrives.2005.113 : 1485-1490. Copyright ©> Brugge et al; li censee BioMed Central Ltd . 2007 This article is publi shed under license to Bi oMed C entral Ltd . This is an Open Acces s article distributed under th e tenns of the Creati ve Comm ons Attributi on License Oill1r //creatj v ecommons.o rg /!icenses/bl!!2J!). which pennits unrestricted use. distribution . and reprod uction i a any med ium , provid ed the o ri ginal work is properl y c.ited . Downlo ad PDF Download e Pyh Export citations C itations & References • .El!pers , Zotcro. Reference Managtt RefWor ks <.R ISl • EndNote < ENffi htt ps://ehjourna I .biomedcentra l.com/a r ticles/10 .1 186/1 4 7 6-069X-6-2 3 Page 12 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 1-17 , is already beyond capacity and creating a logjam. More vehicles poses an insurmountable problem of peo ple hurrying, sitting in on Los Gatos Boulevard or Lark A venue, polluting, and --God forbid --eventually heading into road rage. 2. I-8 5 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 1-85 .) 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 Tum 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 alJowable 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 1-17 , El Camino and 1-85 , Almaden and I-85 , etc., encourage panhandling and trash as well as logjams. Again, I urge you to turn down this proposal. It isn't us. I plan to attend the Wednesday meeting. Thank you for listening. Caro l Roedder 110 Milmar Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-712-0139 From: Joe Madden [mai lto:joe@mobil e-experts.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:45 AM To: Joel Paulsonj BSpector; Marica 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 rest ricted because it would create a major infringement on the rights of exi sting Town residents. Speci fic ally, 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 requ irements for "look and feel " and will abso lutely 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, Joe Madden Mobile Ex perts Silicon Valley, California +1 408 540 7284 office +1 408 499 8747 m obile www.mobile-ex perts.net From: captsteven@aol.com [mailto:captsteven@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:23 AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marica 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 top. 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 campbell 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. I 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 [mai lto:leeandpaul@earthlink.net] 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 [tem for the North 40. I know I mi ssed todays deadline (was try ing to locate in fo rma tion o n the amounts of o pen space provided by Phase I . I wo uld like to request that Staff supply the Planning Conuniss io n!fown Council w ith a tabl e con tai ning th e Plan's o bj ective standard , what Phase 1 proposes , does it meet or exceed the s tandards I wi ll se nd yo u an e -ma il later to day regardi ng what may or may not be d ifference between o pen space fi gures provid ed in your memo, information I obtained from th e applicants and the related condition of approva l fo r the p ubl ic ly accessib le area . For now I am going to get ba ck to m y vaca tion and go out for a hike . T h anks, 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, I 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 !!! 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 3 5 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 2 5 foot maximum. This ex ceeds the standard by almost 100%. (See March, 2016 Plan Set) Transition D i strict: 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 i s 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 Trans i tion District is 35 feet. However , an exception to 45 feet is allowed for affordable housing and hotels A small portion of the Senior Housing ex ceeds 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-includ i ng 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 ex isting 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 1 's 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 i ntensity and height and layout of the build i ngs 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 5% landscaping standards for parking lots. The new open space standards are listed below : o 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% (1st 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 deve l opment must "i ncorporate the site's unique agricultural characteri sties ." Pl.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 agricultu ral char- acteristics". The developer claims the marketplace, A STORE, will fulfill th is req u ir ement. RESPONSE TO 4 .a. Phase 1 proposes to remove appro x imately 86 protected trees and to save 8-9 la r ge 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 t he walnut orchard were to rema i n , th e ex isting 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 ex ceed 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 '5 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 susta i nable 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 i n the Flyer I SSUE 1. All hous i ng units are included i n the proposed Ph ase 1 p l an RESPONSE TO ISSUES 1. This statement is not correct . Phase 1 proposes 320 residential units of the possible 364 units. T he 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 less than significant level. The m itigation recommended by the EIR has been i n- 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 To : From: Re : Date : Plann i ng Commission and Town Council Lee Quintana Support of Phase 1 North 40 Specific Plan Ju ly 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 submitted 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 establ ishing 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 t he 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 const ruction of low and very low afforable units financially feas ible . • Phase 1 is the fi rst 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 t he Valley. • Phase 1 is the first application received by the Town that both distributes and connects open spaces through the Phase 1 area. T he human scale of the public open spaces, the amenities provided and the connections between these spaces are designed to encourage social i nteractions. • 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 with i n the site as well as connects to Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Ave. • Phase 1 is the first multi-use appl ication received by the Town that in affectively integrates the different uses (recreation/open space , retail , and res idential) instead of developing the uses as essential seperate functions . 2 • Phase 1 applicants have worked cooperatively w ith staff to incorporate staff's suggestions and requests even if not required , as well as to incorate additional modifications on thei r 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, d iscussion with the residents in the Highlands neighborhood resulted in changes to the proposed street ci rcu lation that will help prevent cut thru traffic in that neighborhood . -Worked with t he 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 t he 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 Comm ission to consider a possitive recommendation to the Council on Phase 1 of the Specific Plan . In addition it contains many unique and positive elements. I ask you to consider a recommendation to Council of Approval Thank you , Lee Quintana From: Diane Dreher [mailto:ddrehe r @scu.edu] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 1:57 PM To: ppaulson@losgatos.gov; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Cc: BSpector; Marice Sayoc ; Rob Rennie; sleonardis @l osgatosca.gove; Mjensen@lostgatosca.gov Subject: North 40 DevelopmentPlan 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 l find the developer's plan dishonest and disrespectfu l: 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 s ite '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 indu strial-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 A venue 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 o ur 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 Pres ident, AAUP Chapter http ://www-relg-studi es.scu .edu/aaup-scu/ Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa C l ara CA 95053 ( 408) 554-4954 ddreher@ scu.edu hrtp ://www.dianedreher.co m Check out my biogs: http://www.psychologytoday.com/bloglyour-perso11 a l-renaissance https ://b lo g .. scu.edu/w rite he rewritenow / "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful , committed citi zens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead From: Cathleen Bannon [mailto:cathleenbannon@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3: 15 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marica 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 wi th 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 emolled 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 Barmon 415.819.1239 From: Sent: To: Subject: Clare and Marilyn Keeney <claremarilyn@sbcglobal.net > Monday, July 11, 2016 3:15 PM Marni Moseley 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 t~morrow n ight's meeting, but I 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 l ----Original Message--- From : Clare and Marilyn Keeney [ma ilto:clarema r ilyn@sbcglobal.net) Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:23 PM To: Mike Weisz Subject: North 40 I 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: PN: 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 e-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@comcast.net] 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 read ing yet another email about the North 40 Phase One application. SOME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS A flier as published on F B, Next Door and d is tributed in emails. LGCA finds th is document full of inaccuracies. Comments and corrections below in italics. FINDJNGS 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 inste,ad 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. I.I 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 19 3 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 intensiry 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 intensiry??? 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 densiry the Town has set. Between the densiry 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 densiry 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 variery 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 tre?. 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 CDA C hearing. If you want to check anything, please see the EIR, Specific Plan, Housing Elemen_t, 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 fulfill this requirement. The entire application is set into a fanctioning 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 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 SB5 0 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 . 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 60kft 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 [ma ilto:rossman n l@e arthli n k.net] Sent: Monday, Ju ly 11, 2016 4:05 PM To : BSpector; Marica Sayoc ; Rob Rennie ; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson ; Plann i ng 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 merit s your approval. The obstructionists objections are w eak and insufficient to justify denial. George Ro ssmann 219 Rosalie Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Sent: To: Subject: 7.11.16 Eileen Werner <ewerner4@gmail.com > Monday, July 11, 2016 4:42 PM Joel Paulson; Planning; szarnovitz@losgatosca.gov; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen N. 40 Application Att: Los Gatos Planning Commission Members Los Gatos Town Council Re: N. 40 Application Dear Planning Commission Members and the Town Council, lam 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 place ment 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, i ts c haracter 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 VT A 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 js 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. 1 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 ofN. 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 [mailto:andrew@manresabread.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 5:51 PM To: Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marica 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 . Wh il e 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 o ur growing presence in the Town. It is, however, part of the larger Silicon Valley. It is important that we look 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 likel y enhance it. It will serve residents in the North 40, surrounding neighborhoods, an d the rest of town on a regular basis with goods and services not yet found in Town . This incl udes access to the region 's best produce, protein, and dairy ... As di scussed at length over the years, the size and desi gn 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 r equest that you do as well. Regards, Andrew Burnham From: Joanne Justis [mailt o :joan nejustis @usa .net] Se nt: Monday, July 11, 2016 6:24 PM To: Joel Paulson; Planning ; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis ; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 Project Will Destroy Los Gatos I mportance: 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 lim it of 30 MPH and then it drops down to 25 MPH close to Daves Avenue School. Da ily I encounter cars riding my bumper because those two speed limits are too slow fo r 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? N o dou b t f or GRE ED ! 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 parki ng in town, and what happens when our schools cannot handle the overflow attendance? Are you planning on busing our kids wherever Y OU CHOOSE and overriding the parents decision for what school they want thei r children to attend??? This project is not progress ... ! guess the builder figures if they add 49 low-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 low-income hous ing but huge profits are at stake here . What is being proposed is outrageous. What about the potential heal t h 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> Monday, July 11, 2016 9:17 PM Sent: 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 l. 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 res idential 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 character istics." 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 serv ices 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 w ith Phase II . 8. The Specific Plan includes maximums for housing, height and commercial space, however these are maxi mums; 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 Begi n fo rw arded mes sa ge: From : Beck y Y oder <becky 55@yah oo.com> Dat e: July 11 , 201 6 at 9:53 :57 PM PDT T o: "jpaulson@losgatosca.gov " <jpauls on@losgatosca.gov> Subj ect : N orth 4 0 Reply-T o : Becky Yoder <becky 55 @yah oo.com > You cannot possibly still think it will be okay took 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) [mailto: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 ofthe 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 1or2 lanes Thank you , Paul Grams From: Joseph Gemignani [mailto:josephtheweatherman @gmail.com] 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 time) 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 ev er happened to the public input on the survey?. The project has primarily only one style versus a mixture. FurthefI?ore, it is not traditional or mi ss ion looking.' Why hand out a survey and ignore the results from the public? Joseph From: Robin Matlock [rmatlock@vmware.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:50 PM To: BSpector; Marica 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, Jet 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 #2 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 infra structure, 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. ls 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 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; Marica Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: Fwd : North 40 concern I am reiterating my concern for thjs project. Seeing the model in the library has made it hit home even more! This does not feel like our town! It's s ad 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 o ver 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@yahoo.c om> Date: March 29 , 2016 at 11: 15 :43 PM PDT To: "MMoseley@ los ga tos ca.go v " <M Mosele y@ los g atosca.go v> Subject: North 40 concern Reply-To: Erin Kasenchak <ckase nchak @y ahoo .com> Dear Ms. Mosley, I'm writing to voice my extreme concern and dissatisfaction over the North 40 project. I 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 vis ual 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 a nd 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 sma ll 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 tne size and scope of this project will forever change the feel of Los Gatos from the wonderful sma ll town and communi ty 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 ad ditional 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 rev ise 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 I urge you to kee p our town just that . a small town. A very concerned citizen - Erin Kasenchak *********************** Erin Kasenchak ek asen chak@yahoo.c om From: Lori Moore [mailto:lori.moore@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:10 AM To: BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jen se n ; Joel Paulson ; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Subject: North 40 plan s Dear Town Council, Planning Commission and related staff, I am a Los Gatos resident and home owner. I have l iv ed in this beatuiful town for 18 years. l feel tremendously fortunate to call Los Gatos home. It is more than just the town T live it-Lo s Gatos is in my heart. Considering the roles you all have , I would imagine you fee l the same. 1 currentl y live off of Lark Avenue and have fully accepted that the North 40 has been sold and will be devel o ped. I 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 [mailto:hogalegear@vahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7 :15 AM To : Laurel Prevetti Subject: North 40 Please deny this application . Traffic i n LG will become unbearable. Thank you . Patricia Hogan. -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Holmes [mailto :wendyrn2@gmail.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 :djteresi @ix .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 increasing ly 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 North40 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 Pl anning Commis sion, 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 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 #2 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, 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, Rob in 408-356-2540 home 16678 Topping Way Lost Gatos, CA 95032 Robi n L. Matlock Chief Marketing Officer rmatlock@vmwa re .com 340 1 Hillview Ave nue, Palo Alto, CA 94 304 650.427 .1667 Office 408.718.4438 Mobile From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Wendy Holmes <wendyrn2@gmail.com > Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:04 AM Planning Laurel Prevetti 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: j van nada@gmai l.com [mailto :jva nnada @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:40 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Plann ing 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 lots. 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 . I came to understand that Los Gatos, like about 90% of the urbanized cities in the bay area , use the D level of service as accepta~le . 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 light of 35-55 seconds is acceptable. My theory is that we used to have a couple of those intersections at a Dor even an E level, but now we have many more D's, E's and even an For 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 go ing to get. My other concern was schools . The developer recognized that as a hot button with ou r 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 sub stantial and you can read about it on our web site at http://lg -c a.com/tough-deci sions- put-all -housing-in -the-los-gatos-school-district-or-spread-the-hou sing-to -the -north-sec tion-of- the-developm ent -too -there-a re-cons equences/ So m ething that wa s a third concern was th e den si ty and intensi ty of the developm ent. The Specific Plan call s for 30% of the land to be open space (about 7.25 acr es ), and over 4 acres mu st be "green " open space . 1.5 acre s must be open to the public. No other development ha s that perce ntage of space required . As a wrap up , after 4 plus years of working with th e town and the developer -and now rea ding the m isi nformed, misleading flyers put out by a certain group of people, and a we b site with intentionally mi slea ding pictures of how the site w ould loo k, I would trust th e develope r lon g before I would these so-called citizens . That's a sad state . They are like Don ald Trump in that they ca st dispersions on a develope r who has put forth more effort than any ot her developer we've seen or worked with in th e pa st five years. It's unfortunate, but we're living in a society of Trumpsters who will say anything to get th e ir point acros s, regardle ss, and in spite of the truth. Jak Van Nada Los Gatos Community Alliance From: Amir Mashkoori [ma ilto :amashkoori@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 Lo s Gatos sports teams; volunteered in class and in important programs such as Read Naturally; Chaired fund raisers such as the Blossom Hill School Jog-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 see i ng the North 40 become a reality . Sincerely, Amir and Danette Mashkoori 130 Wooded View Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Sent: To: Subject: Terri Oppelt (T .0 .) Preising <preising@ stanford .edu > Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8 :56 AM Joel Paulson; Planning ; Lau rel Prevetti Please put the brakes on the North 40 This proposed development is just too much. The impact on traffic and on our schools w ill 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 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Susan M . Landry <environmental.architect@yahoo.com > Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:16 AM Planning N40 -Public Comments for Planning Commission N40-SML-L TR-Site-Layout-Problems-12Jull6.pdf; N40-SML-Attachments-12Jull6.pdf Attached are my public comments on this project. U nfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission Mtg tonight, Please giv~ my letter to the Corrunissioners . Su san l. Lflndry Environmental Architect Designing Spa ces Bet\veen the N:i.tura1 and Built E nvironment 1 " Trees were no t co n sumed in rhc transmission of this email. Please try this on yo ur end too. 1 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 a nd residents of Los Gatos first. the owners of the land second. and the developer third. While the North 40 Development will go forw ard in some fo rm. thi s i s not th e correc t o r appropr iate development for the No rth 40. I also want lo add my disap pointm ent that you would hold thi s imponant mee ting during Jul y when many fa mil ies with chil d r e n in Los Gatos s choo ls (who a re committed to living in thi s town for years to come ) a rc o ut of town. That said. l want to re giste r my opposi tion and ex press m y concerns: I. The Grosvenor p lan does not adhere to the s pirit o r specifics of the criteria set forth by the town. Why have a set of criteria if only to throw it out the w ind ow to b e nefi t developers? This has already happened in the Laure l Me,vs housing etc. We are s ick of this and e lected s lower growt h officials b eca use of thi s ! * Buildings are too tall, to o boxy, and to o massive (not lo o k and fee l of Los Gatos) * Inadequate open space. parks a nd agricult ural ·'fee l." Open s pace, parks , and trees provide thi s teel, not a store. Som e orcha rd s hould be kept wi thin the development. * Bl ocks views of hills * lnaclequate seni o r housin g a nd l ower market housing prov ided w hic h i s w he re real needs are 2 . North 40 over-deve lopment of commerc ial retail and restaurant space wi ll compe te wit h downtown Lo s Gat os. This is made wo rse by the towns res t r ictive, s hort-s ighted, limiting pa rking rul es for restaurants which h as ke pt restaurants like Creperie, Pain Quotidia n, and other hea.Jth y fa mily fri e ndly r esta u ra nts o ut of Los Gatos. We appreciate Willow Street but it's the o nl y restaurant like it in Los Gat os! That's crazy! 3. A ll of t he required reside ntial housing is included in the fir st hal f being developed. which mea ns it is within the LG school district. Whil e there may be agreements between the sc hool district and thi s developer. the current plan is NOT the correct approach to gett ing resources for a new school. So me of the required h o us ing s hou ld be in the ne ighborin g school district. 4. What is the traffi c plan? T he N 01th 40 de vel opment without a C alTrans sign on HWY 17 th at ind icates t hat LG is not open as a c ut through for beach t raffic is a recipe for di s aster. the d evelop er should have to pay for a CalTrans Sign! Pl ease do not proceed with appro val o f th is plan. Send the de ve lopers back to the drawing board with a firm message to follo w the tow n 's c riteria for the N o rth 40. Regards, Je ssica Ric hter 10 1 Hilow Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-8 58-3740 From: Nilesh Parate [rnailto:noarate@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:41 AM To: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti; Planning; Joycie at GMAIL Parate; nparate @hotrnail.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 Pa rate & Joycie Bahl 16570 Shady View Lane Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Judy Dutil [mailto:seag irldrive@ya hoo .com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:43 AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Laurel Prevetti; Marica Sayoc; 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