Item 2 - N40 Phase 1 - Staff Report Exh.31 - Part 2M a rni M ose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi,
Jenn y Li <jenny712us@yahoo.com >
Sunda y, Apri l17, 2016 3:23 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
If it's not too late, I'd like to oppose this project.
Hope it maybe cancelled. It'll definitely make the traffic worse and lower the property values in Los
Gatos.
Thanks!
-Jenny
1
From: susail@comcast.net
To: bspector@losgatosca .gov
Sent: Sunday, April17, 2016 3 :57:20 PM
Subject : Los Gatos is a town not a city
As a citizen of 29 years in Los Gatos, I am shocked and saddened at recent decisions
both by the planning department as well as the town council.
I recognize the need for for more housing and expansion of the high school but am
appalled at the lack of consideration for the towns residents .
Due to sneaky and manipulating behaviors my home will now be part of the high
school campus and parking lot with the addition of more traffic
and the daily" enhancement" ringing of school bells.
And now the North Forty! We do not need a "Santana Row" in L G nor can the area
handle any more traffic. With this development and the new Netflix construction a
already traffic problem will become a disaster. And where are at the children of 320
homes going to school?
I do not understand why a plan for housing ( although needed) has to include more
commercial spaces and create a "housing development" look associated with big
cities. If I wanted to live in a city I would move to San Francisco .
There are a already too many vacant buildings down town ... what will "Santana Row"
accomplish but to take away local shopping .
And "il vicinato" ... you have got to be kidding .. 11 homes?
I love this town and I hope you will take a good look at what is happening and the
disservice to the residents who live here .
Sincerely, Susan Fairey .. 137 New York Ave
Planning
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear sir or madam-
d.madsen @n m.com
Monday, Aprill8, 2016 8:46 AM
Planning
thoughts on new hous es a nd the north 40
As a 10 year resident of Los gatos, I love our town. But it is concerning that the growth seems to be push ing the limits of
what our town can absorb. Please do not approve V icinato project for 11 new homes at Shannon and LG Blvd. As a
parent who drives kids to Blossom Hill Elementary and to Green Hills preschool , the traffic is already crazy. 11 houses at
the intersection would be a disaster. Not to mention the already overcrowded schools.
And as a commuter who gets onto highway 17 at Lark Ave, the North 40 scares me. it is already dangerous and crowded
the amount of cars who funnel into that area, at all hours, but mostly during comm ute hours. And if I understand,
favoritism to businesses in the North 40 vs. residents is not acceptable. Exceptions should not be made for busi ness vs.
residents who already contribute so much to our wonderful town.
Please do not approve these projects. The Town of Los Gatos is wonderful, let's not push it over the edge.
Thank you.
Dan Madsen
408-691-6807
Dan Madsen, CLU, CL TC, CHFC 1 Wealth Management Adv isor
152 N . 3·• Street, Suite 755
San Jose, CA 95112
P : 408.535.5710 I F : 408.604.8101 I C : 408 .691.6807
W : d .madsen@nm.com
LIC . #0831083
~
Northwestern
Mutual'
Northwes tern Mutual is the marketing name for Th e Northwestern Mutual Life In su ra nce Company, Milwaukee, WI (NM} (life and
disability insurance, annuities and life insurance with long-term care benefits} and its subsidiaries. <WMA NAME> is an Insurance
Agent of NM . Registered Represe ntative of Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC (securi ties }, a subsidiary of NM, broker-
dealer, regi ste red investment adviser, a nd member FINRA and SIPC . Repre se ntative of Northwestern Mutua l Wealth Management
Company®, Milwaukee , WI (fiduciary and fee-based fin ancial planning services}, a subsidiary of NM and fede ral savings bank . There
may be instances wh e n this agent represents co mpanies in additi on to NM or its subsid iari es.
W hile links to other websites are provided for conve nien ce and informa ti on, please be advised that except for information related to
No rthwestern Mutual (NM}, th e in cl usi on of, or linking to, oth er websites does not imply NM end orsement of, nor responsibility for, those
websites .
Please do not send orders for mutual funds or securities via email , as they cannot be processed.
Your transmission of electronic mail to this address represents your consent to two-way communication by Internet email. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer on which it exists.
1
Northwestern Mutual, its subsidiaries and affiliates may review and retain incoming and outgoing electronic
mail for this e-mail address for quality assurance and regulatory compliance purposes. Please be advised that
communications with {SECURE MESSAGE} in the subject line have been sent using a secure messaging
system. Communications that do not have this tag may not be secure and could be observed by a third party.
If you prefer not to receive any e-mail communication from Northwestern Mutual or our Financial
Representatives, please click the following link:"E-Mail Opt-out from Northwestern Mutual"
In the event that you cannot click on the above link, the Northwestern Mutual E-Mail Opt-out form can be
found at the following URL: https://service.mnfn.com/cbpeopt/Emai!OptOut.do.
Northwestern Mutual
720 East Wisconsin A venue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4797.
2
Marni Moseley
From: David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, Aprill8, 2016 9:04AM Sent:
To : Marni Moseley
Subject: North 40 Impact
Los Gatos Town Council,
I request that your deliberations concerning the scope of the North 40 project consider the impact on close neighbors like
myself. I live on Potomac Dr diagonally across from he proposed complex. I was shocked and amazed with extent of the
story poles , which I understand are not fully descriptive of the extent of the project. I envision major traffic problems at the
Lark exit, Lark/Los Gatos Boulevard , and LG Blvd/Gateway intersections., as well as a swelling of activity and contention for
space. I also see no evidence of a strong commitment to additional parks, schools, and open space that should be
associated with a project of this extent.
Please separate the need for low-cost housing from an attempt to "fix" a number of desires or constraints in one big
"Battlestar Gallactica".
Please, Is a project this massive and impactful in keeping with the low scale, residential and small retail character of this
neighborhood?
Thank you,
David and Margaret Klinger
141 Potomac Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Karen <karenchase3@gmail.com >
Monday, April 18, 2016 6:40 PM
BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Renn ie
Marni Moseley
North 40
As long time Los Gatos residents we have seen the increase in traffic and student numbers in our schools grow to
unimaginable levels 35 years ago. To maintain the town environment and the quality of life we love here it is up to the
council 's decision on the North 40.
There should NOT be a story pole exemption. As residents we should be able to envision the project as it is proposed. If
residents would not get an exemption then developers should not either.
Our school are so impacted at this point in time. Our small community Blossom Hill School has grown into a huge
campus with multi-story classrooms already. As these children grow our middle school and high schools will out grow
their property and space needs. The funds needed for staffing, supervision and materials also grows. The developer
must be required to pay their fair share for an additional school and provide for increase student populations at our
middle and high schools .
What will you do to alleviate traffic on Lark Avenue and the Lark Avenue off ramp which are already impacted? Traffic
congestion on Lark Ave at commute times is so heavy it forces drivers to use our neighborhoods as a back road. During
the day it is even a long wait to get out of Office Depot now!
It's difficult to imagine more cars at that intersection.
Please consider the quality of life for those of us living in the town we love now.
Preserve our small town image by adding limited growth that is well planned and fully funded.
Thank you,
Karen and Hal Chase
107 Ann Arbor Dr
Los Gatos
1
On Apr 18, 2016, at 7:52PM, itisapigsty@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I write to you to ex press my concern regarding the development of the North 40 parcel. My concerns
are on two fronts. First, where on earth are all those potential new students going to be housed? Our
schools have grown so much in the 26 years we have lived here, and not only are bursting at the seams
already, but have lost the lovely community feel due to huge enrollment numbers. Secondly, I sincerely
doubt that los Gatos Blvd . can handle the massive traffic increases that the current proposal would
ensure. I don't know if you eve r have cause to be on the Boulevard anywhere near rush hour, but it is a
bit of a nightmare. Are these concerns being considered?
Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns .
Maxine Granadino
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From: Janette Judd
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, April19, 2016 11:32 AM
kj@khoslaventures.com
Cc:
Subject:
cc: Town Council
Town Manager
Marni Moseley
FW: North 40
Community Development Director J.Paulson
Associate Planner M .Mosele y
Good morning,
Thank you for your e-mail, received by the Town Council , Town Manager, and Planning staff. Unfortunately,
your communication was received after the April 19 Town Council agenda was finalized and deadlines have
passed for initial agenda material distribution , subsequent Addendums, and Desk Items.
http ://www. town .lo s-gato s.ca.us/21 26/Publ ic-Guide-to-Town-Council-Meetin gs .
By copy of this message, the Manager's office is referring your comments to Community Development
Department (CDD) Director Joel Paulson, and the staff liaison for the project, Associate Planner Mami
Moseley.
Additionally, your communication will be retained in the project file and included in public communications for
any future Planning Commission and Town Council meetings. Should you have additional questions or
comments, Marni can be reached at (408) 354-6879 or MM oseley@Lo sGatosCA .gov.
Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments.
Best regards ,
Jane tte Judd
Executive Assistant
Town Council and Town Manager's Office
( 408) 354-6832
From: Keith Janosky [mailto:kj@khoslave ntures.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April19, 2016 11:15 AM
To : BSpector; Council; Marni Moseley
Subject: North 40
Mayor Spector,
Please ensure you hold Grosvenor to the same standard s yo u expect of others that request permitting. There
should be zero exceptions to the story pole mandates and the already granted exception for Section IIA that is
allowing the poles to not be present during the entire period of when the appeal has ended be adjusted or
enforced to ensure the y are present before, during and after proposed changes to the plan are made.
1
The builder is well versed in telling the story in a manner that presents themselves in the best possible light with
a project that they proclaim will be great for the town. Their job is to make money and they are good at
it. Their job is not to ensure they make the best possible use of land, that is your job. Please do not lose sight of
this and do not allow yourself to be bullied by their lawyers that are interpreting laws in their favor. Laws need
to be interpreted and challenged, do not just take their word for it. Hire the best lawyers we can find that have
successfully challenged a proposal like this. Do not fall victim to their complaints of how much money they
paid for the land, that's their problem to deal with.
Regards,
Keith Janosky
16515 South Kennedy Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030
2
On Apr 19 , 2016 , at 12:54 PM, Bob Kirkendall <bobkirkenda11 75@ gm ail.com > wrote:
Please scale down the project way to big and not enough open space Robert Kirkendall 80
year resident
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
Bonnie Hurwitz < bonniejhurwitz@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:32 PM
Marni Moseley
Los Gatos Hearing 4/19
I thought I'd be able to attend the Los Gatos Public Hearing tonight but find that I am now unable to do so . I
am a resident of Los Gatos on Olive St.
I wanted to voice my sentiments about the North 40 Planned Development and to let you know that I feel this
proposed construction would put the town of Los Gatos at a tremendous disadvantage for potential traffic,
school enrollment and hospital access, just to name a few. I originally moved here from the Boston area and
also lived in a "town" which was one of the attractions for me in moving to LG . It's very hard to put a price on
"charm" but that is one of the reasons that people live here and pay for that privilege.
Thank you for reviewing my input.
Regards,
Bonnie Hurwitz
1
Dear Planning Commissioners
Tonight I am bring i ng up an issue that I brought up last year. Now that we have a N40 application in
process, I feel it is important to address it again. But first I want to review a couple of statements in
the General Plan . In the General Plan it states that "Residents hold proposed development projects
to a HIGHER STANDARD because what is approved in other communities may not be acceptable in
Los Gatos. And the General plan states that Los Gatos "offers amenities, support, and a HIGH
QUALITY of living to all residents"
If these statements are true, then please do not allow a developer to put residential units in an area
on the N40 that is a high cancer risk area according to the N40 EIR? Here is a picture from the N40
EIR showing the high cancer risk area. Putting residential units in a high cancer risk area of the N40
is irresponsible. How is this holding development to a Higher Standard? People may say other
municipalities are building along the freeways, but is this what we want for our soon to be Los Gatos
residents?
The mitigation measure for this high cancer risk area in the N40 EIR is to use high efficiency filtration
and ventilation systems. This mitigation measure works for office buildings with fixed windows, but
does not work for residential units with windows that open and areas that kids can play in outdoors.
When residents open their windows, they will be exposing themselves to levels of pollution that will
put them at additional r isk for health issues.
Wouldn't it be more responsible and safer to put office buildings along the 17 freeway to buffer the
residential units?
My suggestion for the N40 is to
Put office buildings along Hwy 17
Put Retail along Hwy 85 and Los Gatos Blvd. for the quick in and out needed for retail
Spread out the residential units in the middle of the development through the Lark, Transition, and
Northern districts. These residential units will be buffered by the Office and the Retail.
Place multiple open space parks throughout the N40 for the residents, employees, and community -
maybe one with a water feature that kids can play in. Each park could have a theme that would
reflect the rural and agricultural history of the site.
There is a diagram on the N40 in your packet with my suggestions.
I also want give you an example of a high density development in Los Gatos that I have driven by
hundreds of times and rarely see issues with car ingress and egress and don't see a large parking
area because the parking garage is underground. I am referring to the Netflix/Aventino development.
The integration of the office and residential provides reversed commutes between residents and
office employees and allows shared parking, which reduces parking requirements . In the packet I
handed you, there are details regarding this development. I do not have time to review them now, but
I think this type of development would work well on the N40.
Please rethink this current N40 proposal -Protect our current and future residents-Keep them safe
-that should be a priority of our Planning Commissioners.
By Anne Robinson-Roley
4-20-16
::.
Netflix/A ven ti no-Fact s
1) How may acres total -12.2 acres
2) Square Footage of the office -approximately 160,000 square feet
3) Square Footage of the resident ial-approximately 290,000 square feet
4) Number of residential units-(studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms)-290
total units
5) Number of parking spaces -Commercial space is 578 spaces and 52
spaces for the Residential units which includes 62 tandem spaces.
6) Density ratio floor/area-19.8 dwelling units per acre
7) Height of the main building -the main roof line has a maximum heigh t of
49' 6"
8) Number of stories for the office and number of stories for the
residential -both are up to 3 stories
RECEIVED
llPR 21 2016
TOWN OF LOS G AT OS
PLANNING DIVI SIO N
From : noreply@civicplus.com [mailto :noreply@civicpl us .com]
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 12 :04 PM
To : Town Manager; Christina Gilmore
Subject : (North 40) Online Form Submittal : Customer Feedback Form
The following form was submitted via your website: Customer Feedback Form
Name:: Bonnie Bates
Address:: 16960 Cypress Way
City:: Los Gatos
State:: ca
Zip:: 95030
Home Phone Number:: (408) 355-8480
Daytime Phone Number:: (408) 355-8480
Email Address :: bbbates@hotmail.com
Please let us know how we are doing or what we can do for you!: Dear Town Counci l, Do you have the
weekend beach traffic problem solved yet? How about the summer beach traffic? Still working on it
and agreeing it's a huge challenge? Do you have any idea how many residents are unable to ta ke care of
routine business downtown (i.e. bank, pharmacy, grocery shopping, etc) after 10:00 a.m . because the
gridlock is so bad it takes 45 minute~ to get to a store? We're virtually prisoners in our homes between
10 and 4 on weekends. Summer weekdays isn't much better.
So if you don't have a feasible plan for solving this problem, why do you think the residents want an
additional"hundreds" of homes built for more people to add to the gridlock on Los Gatos Boulevard? If
the existing traffic problem is an absolute SNAFU , how is it going to be after North 40?
So the front page of Los Gatos Weekly states that a special study session w ill be held "to help the
residents better understand the proposal ". How arrogant! In other words, lets just spin the info on this
project to make it acceptable for the unwashed masses. Actually, I think the residents understand the
impact of this project better than the town council wished they would.
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
Subject:
Importance:
Jim Fox <jfox152@comcast.net>
Sunday, April 24, 2016 12:40 PM
bspector@losgatos.gov; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie
Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti ; Robert Schultz
North 40 Plan
High
Dear Mayor Spector & council,
After reviewing this plan of the proposed North 40 Development, my wife & I strongly oppose
it.
The bottlenecks in Los Gatos are unacceptable as it is today. This proposed plan will increase
the residency of Los Gatos by 3-5% in a very confined area with limited access and will affect
all residence in the south bay who use Freeways 17, 85, 280 & 101.
For more than 50 years, Santa Clara County's water needs have exceeded locally available
water supplies . As Santa Clara County has grown, our dependence on the State and Federal
water has increased . The structural issue of the County's reliance on the Delta water supply is
further challenged by the impacts of continued population growth, endangered species
rulings, and multiyear droughts.
https ://www.sjwater.com/blog/current-water-supply-assessment
Increasing the residents not only increases congestion, but the water & energy requirements
of the Town .
Before you even consider increasing the residential population here, start by first fixing the
water problems, fix ing the energy problems and fixing the congestion problems.
After that, we can talk.
Don 1t allow this insanity to continue.
Sincerely, Jim and Missy Fox
1
From: John Shepardson [mai lto:shepardsonlaw@me .com ]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 2:41PM
To: Laurel Prevetti
Cc: Joel Paulson
Subject: No. 40 Public Comment
Subject: Traffic at No. 40
How bad is the traffic projected to be according to the experts for full build out for theN. 40? Is
everyone on comfortable with the projected traffic increase based on the Specific Plan
parameters?
The Albright Superior EIR Alternative was 350K of space for about 21
acres. How can 1st phase be over 500K for about the same acreage and be any where near
an environmentally superior alternative?
Albright and the No. 40 are both on limited arterials and not far from each other.
Is the EIR solid? Does the EIR include Dell , ER expansion, PAMF, Albright?
Intuitively it just doesn't seem to make sense to have all this development and not have a
significant and serious increase in traffic congestion .... beyond what already exists.
Cut & paste from https ://en.wikipedia.orglwiki /Traffic bottleneck
A traffic bottleneck is a localized disruption of vehicular traffic on a street, road, or
highway. As opposed to a traffic jam , a bottleneck is a result of a specific physical
condition, often the design of the road , badly timed traffic lights , or sharp curves . They
can also be caused by temporary situations, such as vehicular accidents .
Stationary bottleneck[editl
Before the first vehicles reach location X o, the traffic flow is unimpeded. However,
downstream of Xo, the roadway narrows, reducing the capacity by half-and to below
that of state B. Due to this, vehicles will begin queuing upstream of Xo. This is
represented by high-density state D . The vehicle speed in this state is the slower vd, as
taken from the fundamental diagram. Downstream of the bottleneck, vehicles transition
to stateD', where they again travel at free-flow speed v,.
Once vehicles arrive at rate A starting at time t1, the queue will begin to clear and
eventually dissipate. State Ahas a flowrate below the one-lane capacity of
states D and D'.
On the time-space diagram, a sample vehicle trajectory is represented with a dotted
arrow line. The diagram can readily represent vehicular delay and queue length. It's a
simple matter of taking horizontal and vertical measurements within the region of
state D .
John Shepardson
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:09 PM
Council; Laurel Prevetti
Subject: No. 40--Fwd: Grosvenor ('Living Cities')
For PC and TC.
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Subject: Grosvenor ('Living Cities')
Date: April26, 2016 at 9:19:53 AM PDT
To: BSpector <BSpector@losgatosca.gov>, msayoc@losgatosca.gov, Sleonardis@losgatosca.gov,
rrennie@losgatosca.gov, MJensen@losgatosca.gov, LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov,
RSchultz@losgatosca .gov, Mike .Wasserman@bos.sccgov.org, bloventhal@cityofmontesereno.org,
jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us, Carl Guardino <cguardino@svlg.org>, citycouncil@cupertino.org,
jpeterson@community-newspapers.com, vicemayorchang@gmail .com, hmiller@saratoga.ca .us,
sconway@losgatosca.gov, barry4cupertino@gmail.com, rodsinks@gmail.com
Grosvenor says its building 'living cities'. LG is a listed major project. Therefore, isn't
Grosvenor building a living city in LG?
Has ANY citizen in town stated that the project has the look and feel of Los Gatos? If it doesn't meet that
standard set by the town, how can it be approved?
Cut and paste from http://www .grosvenor.com/news-views-research/news/2016/good-international-
performance/
Total return of 9% slightly ahead of what we predicted last year and in line with the
long term average.
• Indirect Investment helped to delive r revenue profit of £83 .3m.
• Lower returns and revenue profit expected over the next few years.
• Continuing investment in a range of development projects in line with our 'Living
cities' approach and timed to mature in the next cycle . (emphasis added)
• Grosvenor Fund Management to become the fourth proprietary business; named
'Grosvenor Europe'.
• Several key internal promotions announced in Grosvenor Group and Grosvenor
Britain & Ireland .
1
Grosvenor Americas received planning consent for 'Con naught', a mixed-use
development in North Vancouver. Approval has also been given for
the development in California of Los Gatos' last large
undeveloped parcel of land, where Grosvenor Americas
will be the primary developer. New developments commenced
construction in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland; in the Capitol Riverfront District
in Washington, DC; and in Ambleside , West Vancouver, where Grosvenor is infusing
new life into this waterfront community and village shopping district. Pre-sales targets
at 'Grosvenor Ambleside' have been exceeded. The business established a new
partnership to quadruple the scale of its mezzanine lending programme and expand the
company's reach in Washington DC . (emphasis added)
GROSVENOR AMERICAS
• Es tablished a new partnership to quadruple our mezzanine lending programme and expa nded
its reach to Washington , DC.
• Received planning approval for Co nnaught , a mixed-use development in North Vancouver,
BC , and adoption of the Specific Plan at The North 40 in
Los Gatos, California. (emphasis added)
• Started construction on three mixed-use developments , acquired three residential properties
and so ld two investment properties.
• Exce eded pre-sales targets at Grosvenor Ambleside in Vancouver, BC, w ith over 83% of
homes so ld , representing over C$155m in revenue.
• Promoted two senior manager s, James Patillo and Steve O'Connell, to Ma na gi n g Director
roles.
http ://www.grosvenor.com/our-businesses/grosvenor-americas/
Featured locations and properties
At Grosvenor we help create vibrant buildings and neighbourhoods fit for
tomorrow 's urban communi ti es : what we call 'Liv ing cities '. Read about
some of our projects below.
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
For PC and TC.
Begin forwarded message:
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:10 PM
Council; Laurel Prevetti
N. 40 & Santana Row (Let's do the math based on reasonable assumptions: 75% of
Santa Row Traffic)
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me;com>
Subject: N. 40 & Santana Row (Let's do the math based on reasonable assumptions: 75% of
Santa Row Traffic)
Date: April25, 2016 at 6:00:17 PM PDT
To: BSpector <BSpector@losgatosca.gov>, Marico Sayoc <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>, Steven
Leonardis <SLeonardis@losgatosca .gov>, Rob Rennie <rrennie@losgatosca.gov>, Marcia Jensen
<MJensen@losgatosca.gov>, Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca .gov>
Cut and paste from http://www.santanarow.com/concierge/about/
Santana Row is Silicon Valley's premier destination for shopping, dining , living working and playing.
Offering 1. 7 million square feet of retail, office, hotel and residential, Santana
Row is located in Silicon Valley , California; the hub for high-tech innovation and development.
Featuring 6151u xury rental homes, 219 privately owned condos, 350 ,000+ square feet of Class A
Office space, over 70 shops, 20 restaurants, a boutique hotel and a movie theatre. (emphasis added)
JS--
No. 40:
Phase 1-approx. 550K square feet?
Phase 2-approx. 500K square feet ?
1.05M divided by 1.7M = 61 percent.
Project will be in size 61% percent of Santa Row. The traffic draw will probably be greater because of the
location, Los Gatos and its views and perceived safety.
So, let's make a reasonable assumption that LG gets 75% of the traffic of Santa Row. Is
that what we want? Is that sustainable? There are multiple lanes to
address the traffic for Santa Row, which is not the case in LG .
1
Cut & paste from http://www .losgato sca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/1862
Executive Summary
Site Description and Location
The North 40 site is a highly strategic location in the West Valley for n ew commercial development:
• -The North 40 site is located at the intersection of Highways 85 and 17, making it a highly visible and desirable
loc ation for a variety of uses, particularly for retail , hotel, and meeting/conference facilities.
• -The North 40 's location at the crossroads of the We st Valley's freeway system makes it easily
accessible to many of the region's major hubs of activity, including
major employers such as Apple Computer, Netflix , and cultural
attractions in downtown San Jose. (emphasis added)
Demographic and Economic Overview
While Los Gatos itself is a s mall community, th e Town and the Retail Trade Area (RTA) that it is situated in have
a s ignifican t concentra tion of hig h -in come h o useho lds and high ra tes of h omeowner s h ip that reta iler s and hotel
operators will likely find attra ctive -despite mo d est future population and household growth:
o -The Town of Los Gatos had a population of29,413 in 2010 and experienced limited population or
household growth in the last decade.
o -Los Gatos is characterized by relative ly small households, a high rate of home ownership , and high
incomes. The median household s ize for Los Gatos was 2.35 persons per household in 2010 compared to
the Bay Area average household size of2.69 . The Town 's median annual ho useho ld income is over
$115 ,0 00, significantly higher than the $79,000 figure fo r the Bay Area. Approximately 63 percent of
occupied housing units are owner-occupied, in contrast to just over 56 percent for the Bay Area.
o -While not at the levels of the Town, the Retail Trade Area (RTA) w ith a 2010 population of606,000
also has hi gh incomes and high rates of home ownership. The median household income was just over
$94,000 in 2 010 . T he RTA 's ho meowne rship r ate was 61 percent of occupied housing units. The RTA
represents population and buying p ower within a 10 minute drive of the North 40 site.
o -Both Los Gatos and the Retail T rade Area will experience mo dest population growth from 20 10 to
2020. Based on the Town 's recently adopted General Plan, the Town is
North Forty Specific Plan Market Study and Business Development Strategy
Page I of 150
slated to add approximatel y 3,200 residents over the decade, based in part on the potential for new housing at the North 40
site. Future residential development opportunities in the Town and the RT A will largely be infill on sites such as the North
40.
D espite a commute pattern of more residents commuting out of th e R TA than others commuting in, th e re are nearly
100,000 workers commuting into the RTA every day wh o most likely p a tronize l ocal retailers and s ervice providers. Th e
North 40 site ben efits from the proximity of major employers in the adjacent Good Samaritan H o spital and oth er medical
facilities -these emp loyees may be target market for new retail:
• -Los Gatos and the RTA function as a bedroom residential community in Silicon Valley w ith more resident s
commuting out every day for work (186,900) than commute in (98,30 0).
2
• -Good Samaritan hospital is two minute drive from the North 40 site,
employs 1,800 people and generates 88,000 patient days annually.
(emphasis added)
• -Columbia Health Care/Mission Oaks Hospital is a three minute drive from the North 40 and employs
2,000 people. (emphasis added)
Cut & paste from https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/45063
1. Comment A3: Traffic Impacts
Caltrans is in the process of updating its Guide for the Preparation ofTraffic Impact Studies (TIS
Guide) for consistency with Senate Bill 743 , but meanwhile we recommend using the Caltrans
TIS Guide for determining which scenarios and methodologies to use in the analysis, available
at: http://dot.ca.go ve/hg /tpp/offices/ocp/igr cega files/tisguide.pdf.
Santana Row Project 4 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015
Regarding the DEIR and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA):
1.
The intersection analysis at Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard under the cumulative scenario
shows a long queue along Stevens Creek Boulevard. This queue is impacting the
upstream intersection of Interstate (1-) 880/Stevens Creek Boulevard
at the off-ramp. This negative impact caused the by project on the
state facility should be mitigated. (emphasis added)
Response A3: The City does not have any adopted thresholds of significance for queuing. During the
preparation of the traffic analysis for the project, the I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard off-ramp queuing
was not analyzed because the I-880 interchange project was under construction. Therefore, any
collection of data and evaluation of traffic would be atypical of traditional traffic pattern establi shed by
normal commute as required in any traffic analysis. The I-880 interchange project was designed improve
the ramp conditions and includes a separate ramp which carries vehicles from the I-880 ramp directly to
Monroe St. and vehicles using this lane would not use Stevens Creek Boulevard at all, therefore
reducing traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The queuing information referenced in the Cal trans letter was part of LOS calculation to address the
City's Level of Service Policy. For any project queuing analysis, traffic analysis software such as Sychro
is used because the Traffix model queuing analysis provides an over-estimation of traffic. This is
because the Traffix model does not consider the intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard are part of
a coordinated system, but instead as isolated intersections operating independently. Recent field
observations in the AM peak at the off-ramp and the westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard/Monroe Street
intersection indicated queues of about three to five vehicles, which is shorter than the 10 vehicle queue
3
for existing volumes in the Traffix file referenced above. This overestimation of queuing is typical of
Traffix software, necessitating the use of other more accurate methods of analysis.
With the interchange currently under construction, it would be difficult to accurately project the queue at
Stevens Creek Boulevard/Monroe Street intersection. The City, however, anticipates that once the I-880
interchange project is complete, the addition of the project traffic would not result in queuing capacity
issues at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Monroe Street intersection.
Comment A4: 2 . The DEIR stated that the project would have a significant impact on mixed flow lanes,
on two-directional freeway segments, and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on one-directional
freeway segments [sic] during at least one peak hour at:
o • Northbound (NB) I-880, 1-280 to Stevens Creek Boulevard (Impact: AM Peak Hour)
o • Southbound (SB) I-880, Bascom A venue to Stevens Creek Boulevard (Impact: AM Peak
Hour)
o • Westbound (WB) I-280 HOV, Meridian Ave to I-880 (Impact: AM Peak Hour)
This project should provide mitigation measures (described below) for the impacts to these
affected freeway segments.
Response A4: The mitigation for freeway impacts is increased capacity in the form of additional
mainline or auxiliary lanes. The cost of implementing a capacity enhancing
Santana Row Project 5 First Am endment to the Draft E IR City of San Jose July 2015
improvement on a freeway segment is beyond the ability of any one development project to finance. At
this time, Caltrans does not have an approved project with CEQA clearance and a funding mechanism
that would add lanes to any of the aforementioned freeway segments. As a result, fair share fees would
not be considered mitigation and cannot be required of the project. Because the project, by itself, could
not implement physical improvements to the freeway system and no program exists to allow for fair
share fees to fund improvements that would add capacity to mitigate project impacts, the impact cannot
be mitigated and the DEIR concluded that impacts to freeway segments are significant and unavoidable.
Comment AS: 3. Please provide the 95th percentile queuing analysis for the following intersections:
o • Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard;
o • 1-880 SB off-ramp/Stevens Creek Boulevard;
o • Saratoga A venue/1-280 (north);
o • Saratoga Avenue/I-280 (south);
o • I-280 eastbound (EB) off-ramp/Moorpark Avenue; and
o • NB 1-880 ramps/Stevens Creek Boulevard (future)
Project mitigation measures (described below) if the storage length is not adequate to
accommodate the queue length.
4
Response A5: The traffic analysis includes projections of traffic patterns and geometric
modifications for purposes of evaluating the intersection Level of Service impacts. For the first
two intersections on the list, a queuing analysis performed during construction of the I-880
interchange would not provide an accurate measurement of project queues since traffic pattern
changes and excessive delay due to the interchange project would influence the results. The next
four intersections were not analyzed because they are located further away from the project site
and the traffic analysis did not indicate that the project would add measurable amounts oftraffic
to these intersections. Furthermore, queuing analysis is an operational issue and the City does not
have any adopted thresholds of significance to evaluate queuing impacts.
Please refer to Response A3 for a discussion of queuing around the I-880/Stevens Creek
Boulevard off-ramps.
Comment A6: 4. The proposed project is likely to have impacts on the operations of the
following metered freeway on-ramps:
o • SB I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard diagonal on-ramp;
o • NB I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard loop on-ramp; and
o • NB 1-280/Winchester Boulevard diagonal on-ramp.
During the ramp metering hours, the existing on-ramp queues will likely be lengthened with the
additional traffic demand by this project which may impeded onto the local streets and affect
operations. Caltrans recommends the City consider providing additional storage on the on-
Santana Row Project 6 F irs t Amendme nt to the Draft E IR City of San Jose July 2015
ramps/local streets for the freeway on-ramp traffic to avoid or minimize these impacts and consider
other mitigation measures (described below).
Response A6: There are no adopted thresholds of significance for freeway on-ramps in and of
themselves. Backups on freeway ramps that result in increased delays at local intersections would be
reflected in the LOS analysis. There is no nexus to require mitigation for traffic delays caused by
increased on-ramp queues unless it would result in the degradation of LOS below acceptable City
standards which did not happen in this case. It should also be noted, that additional lanes have already
been added along Stevens Creek Boulevard that provide direct access to the SB I-880/Stevens Creek
Boulevard diagonal on-ramp as a result of the interchange project. The NB 1-880/Stevens Creek
Boulevard loop on-ramp was recently reconstructed as part of the Caltrans interchange project and
cannot be built out further. There is no right-of-way available to provide additional on-ramp or on-street
storage for the NB I-280/Winchester Boulevard diagonal on-ramp as the on-ramp runs directly adjacent
to a mobile home park and Winchester Boulevard runs adjacent to the mobile home park and a National
Register Historic Structure (Winchester Mystery House).
Comment A 7: 5. Table 4.2-7 shows a l arge increase in generated AM (PM) net new trips at 739(789)
vehicles per hour (vph). Also , the DEIR does not provide the year for Cumulative Conditions nor does it
analyze potential traffic impacts under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Caltrans recommends the
DEIR adopt 2035 a s the year for Cumulative Conditions and provide turning movement traffic per study
intersection under Project Only, 2035 Cumulative, and 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
5
Response A7 : The DEIR addresses the cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed project in Section
6.1.2.1 . As clearly expressed on page 174 ofthe DEIR, Table 6.1-1 shows the results ofthe cumulative
plus project conditions analysis. The analysis identified a cumulatively considerable project impact at
the Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard Intersection. Turning movements are provided in the TIA
(Appendix A of the DEIR). The analysis is based on a near-term cumulative scenario approximately five
years out from the date of the TIA. Long-term cumulative traffic impacts were analyzed in the Envision
San Jose 2040 General Plan FEIR.
Comment A8: 6 . Collaborate with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on increasing
headway time on existing bus service for VTA Bus Service Routes 23 ,60,25 , and 323 ; consider new bus
service, such as service to major transit centers such as the Diridon Station; and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) reduction factors. The assumptions and methodologies used to develop this information should
be detailed in the study, utilize the latest place-based research , and be supported with appropriate
documentation. Caltrans recommends the DEIR reference the Association of Bay Area Government's
(ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission 's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan Plan
Bay Area 2040 and the project's consistency with the RTP 's greenhouse gas and particulate matter
reduction targets, long-range integrated transportation, and land-use/housing strategy.
Response A8: The City continues to coordinate with VTA staff on current and possible future transit
options for the immediate project area. The Envision San Jose 2040 General
Santana Row Project 7 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015
Plan, not the Plan Bay Area 2040, guides future development and transportation impacts in the City. The
project, as proposed, will enhance the City's Urban Village concept in the General Plan. Urban Villages,
like Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in Plan Bay Area, encourage development that places jobs,
housing, and services near transit and within walking distance to each other to reduce VMT and
greenhouse gas emissions.
A complete greenhouse gas emissions analysis was completed for the project. As discussed in Section
4.4 of the DEIR, the full build out of Santana Row, including already built, entitled, and proposed
development would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Greenhouse Gas
Service Population threshold. Also , as noted in Section 4.4 .3.1, page 87 , a portion of the project site is
located within a PDA as defined in Plan Bay Area. No additional analysis is required under CEQA.
Comment A9: 7. Mitigation for any roadway sections or intersection with increasing VMT should be
identified . Since no mitigation measures were provided for the significant impacts to the state facilities ,
Caltrans recommends that the developer make a major contribution to the State Highway Operation and
Protection (SHOPP) Program; the Program from which funding for state highway improvement projects
is obtained. Mitigation may also include contributions to the regional fee program as applicable
(described below), and should support the use of transit and active transportation modes. Also , the
project should pay its fair share contribution to the VT A Corridor Study on 1-280. There are
improvement projects that will be recommended as a result of the Corridor Study.
Response A9 : The City currently has no adopted thresholds of significance for increased VMT on
roadway segments or through intersections. As a result , there is no nexus to require mitigation for
increased VMT. It should be noted that the payment of fees for unidentified improvements or
improve ments that do not specifically address a project 's impacts is not considered mitigation under
CEQA and cannot be required. Furthermore, improvements to State highways would not reduce VMT.
6
The payment of fees toward the VTA Corridor Study on 1-280 would not be mitigation under CEQA
because there is no guarantee that improvements identified would mitigate traffic impacts, there is no
funding mechanism to ensure identified improvements would be constructed, and no CEQA clearance
for the possible improvements.
Comment AlO: Because ofthe location ofthe project, Caltrans recommends the City consider
mitigation measure options which would allow the City to ensure that direct and indirect traffic impacts,
as well as contribution to cumulative traffic impacts, from the project area mitigated to the extent
feasible. Potential mitigation measures that include the requirements of other agencies such as Cal trans
are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally,-binding instruments under
the control of the City.
Response A 1 0: The City agrees the mitigation measures that include requirements of other agencies can
be enforceable. As stated above, however, the mitigation has to be fully designed, have a funding
mechanism, and CEQA clearance.
Santana Row Project 8 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015
Comment All: 8. Voluntary Contribution Program: Caltrans also encourages the City to participate in
VTA's voluntary contribution program and plan for the impact of future growth on the regional
transportation system. Contributions by the City funding regional transportation programs would
improve the transportation system to less future traffic congestion, improve mobility by reducing time
delays , and maintain reliability on major roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Reducing
delays on State facilities wi ll not only benefit the region, but also reduce any queuing on local roadways
caused by highway congestion.
Response A 11 : This comment is acknowledged.
Comment Al2: Transportation Demand Management (TOM)
The TOM measures should include fewer parking spaces to encourage patrons to take transit, rather than
driving vehicles, in order to all eviate congestion. Also, allowing residents and retail business to share
parking, free parking for condo buyers and renters , and unbundled parking for other structure costs
would further alleviate congestion. Caltrans recommends that transit stops and names be included on the
maps.
Response A12: Caltrans recommendations for TOM measures are acknowledged . The project already
proposes a shared parking arrangement between office and retail uses. With regard to transit stops on the
maps, the City assumes the commenter is referring to Figure 4.2-1 in the EIR (Transit Services). The
discussi on of transit services in Section 4.2.1.3 of the EIR has been revised to reflect the Route 323 bus
stop at Santana Row and Stevens Creek Boulevard (See Section 4.0 of the First Amendment to the Draft
EIR, below).
Comment A13: Mitigation Reporting Guidelines
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of reporting or monitoring
programs when public agencies include mitigation as a conditions of project approval. Reporting or
monitoring takes place after project approval to ensure implementation of the project in accordance with
mitigation adopted during the CEQA review process .
7
Some of the information requirements detailed in the attached Guidelines for Submitting Transportation
Information from a Reporting Program include the following:
o • Name, address , and telephone number of the CEQA lead agency contact responsible for
mitigation reporting;
o • Type of mitigation, specific location, and implementation schedule for each transportation
impact mitigation measure; and
o • Certification section to be signed and dated by the lead agency certifying that the mitigation
measures agreed upon and identified in the checklist have been implemented, and all other
reporting requirements have been adhered to, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6 and 21081.7.
Further information is available on the following website:
http//www.dot.ca.gov/hq /tpp/office s/ocp/igr cega.html
Santana Row Project 9 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jo se July 2015
Response A13 : All required information regarding the project mitigation will be provided in the
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program consistent with CEQA requirements.
Comment A14 : Transportation Management Plan (TMP)
If it is determined that traffic restrictions and detours are needed on or which may affect State highways,
a TMP or construction TIA may be required for approval by Caltrans prior to construction. Traffic
Management Plans must be prepared in accordance with Caltrans' TMP Guidelines. Further information
is available for download at the following web address:
http//www .dot.ca.gov/hg /traffop s/trafmgmt/tmp lcs /index.htm
Please ensure that such plans are also prepared in accordance with the TMP requirements of the
corresponding jurisdictions. For further TMP assistance, please contact the Caltrans District 4 Office of
Traffic Management Operations at (510) 286-4579.
Response A14: If traffic restrictions and detours are needed that affect State highways , the City will
require the applicant to comply with all applicable regulations of Caltrans and other responsible
agencies. The applicant will be required to obtain a haul route permit from the City's Department of
Transportation prior to issuance of grading permits. The haul route permit will include conditions and
truck routes for construction traffic. Furthermore, City inspectors are responsible for overseeing
construction practices to minimize impacts to surrounding areas.
John Shepardson, Esq.
8
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Shepardson <s hepardsonlaw@me.com >
Friday, April 29 , 2016 8:41 AM
BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Laurel Prevetti;
Council; Robert Schultz; dabbati@lgusd.k12.ca.us; Wendi Baker
N. 40 (Value of Homes in LG )
Financial benefit to developers of homes in LG:
320 homes x $200,000/home equals $64,000,000; at $300,000/home equals $96,000,000.
JS
Sent from my iPhone
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Friday, April 29, 2016 9:05 AM
BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Renn ie; Marcia Jensen; Council
Maximize housing worth the risk?
What about maximizing senior housing? Do we run the risk of maximizing housing on a major arterial that has
limited capacity to expand? 435 comm got increased to 500K, worth the risk?
I'm definitely for protected bike lanes, smart lights, Danville-like busing for students and shuttle buses like
Stanford.
Quoting from
http://www.mercurynews.cornlci 27904644/los-gatos-school-board-will-consider-north-40
We have 619 units, and where are we going to put them?" Councilwoman Marico Sayoc asked. "If we can
maximize housing on this site, which is the least traffic intensive use, I think that's what I would be in favor of."
Developers who build low-income housing are eligible for a density bonus of up to 35 percent. With that in
mind, council members voted 3-2 to permit 270 homes, leaving room for a 35 percent density bonus for a total
of364 homes.
Sayoc and Councilman Rob Rennie voted no on that part of the plan.
There will undoubtedly be offices at the North 40, the council voting unanimously to allow 435,000 square feet
of commercial and retail space. No new medical facilities will be allowed.
JS
Sent from my iPhone
1
April 25 , 2016
Town ofLos Gatos Planning Commission
11 0 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Architectural and Site Application S-13-090
Dear Planning Commissioners,
R EC EI V ED
MAY 5 -2016
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Collectively we represent the ownership of the medical office building at 15047 Los Gatos
Boulevard as well as the medical practices that occupy the building. Our businesses include
Prospira Pain Care, Los Gatos Foot and Ankle Center, Physical Therapy of Los Gatos, and VIP
Surgicare.
We are writing to voice our objection to Application S-13-090 currently being considered by the
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission for recommendation to the Town Council. We join
the overwhelming majority of Los Gatos residences and business owners who have voiced their
objections to the project as currently proposed. We are encouraged that Town Council has
directed further study and hope that effective traffic mitigation measures will be incorporated
into future plans for the North Forty. Without an effective plan for traffic circulation we urge you
to recommend denial of the project.
As currently proposed the Project will exacerbate existing traffic problems, limit access to our
medical practices, and create safety issues related to ingress and egress to, and from, our
property. Can you imagine the safety issue if there is no direct, convenient way to exit our
property in the northerly direction?
There are solutions to traffic circulation issues but as currently proposed these issues are not
being addressed. Los Gatos Boulevard between Good Samaritan Drive and Lark A venue needs
to be widened to allow for improved traffic circulation, traffic flow and ingress/egress. A
comprehensive circulation plan for the North Forty needs to include a street connection between
Good Samaritan Drive and Lark A venue. As currently proposed, traffic circulation is planned
"piece meal" with no effective way to address issues that will affect our property and the general
area.
Please recommend denial of the project as currently proposed.
[Signatures on Following Page]
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Shepardson <s hepardsonlaw@me.com >
Thursday, May 05 , 2016 9:11 AM
BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Laurel Prevetti ;
Council; Robert Schultz; Mike.Wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; hmiller@saratoga.ca.us;
vicemayorchang@gmail.com; Carl Guardino; bloventhal@cityofmontesereno.org;
jpeterson@community-newspapers.com; rodsinks@gmail.com; Wendi Baker;
don@harmonieparkdevelopment.com; Marni Moseley
Re: N. 40 Traffic --Comments
1. Is it reasonable to assume that traffic will be worse than ITE-based traffic projects? No less a "radical" than Tom
O'Donnell seems to think so based on his public comments in a hearing on the N. 40.
2. Is traffic the biggest concern? If so, what is the most effective way to reduce it? Cut the commercial size. Why?
Because supposedly commercial generates more traffic than residential.
3. Does the town have to allow the Specific Plan maximums? Nope.
4 . Does the town fear that if it does allow the maximums that the developers will walk? Why does this fear exist? Are we
afraid the infrastructure and mitigations will not be built? If so, why are we in this financial position?
5. Why not something like 200 residential units at N. 40, 100 Blossom Hill, 200 LG Lodge and the other 119 spread widely
around town so traffic is dispersed and more people learn in a concrete way that more Netflix means more affordable.
NIMBY power.
John Shepardson
Sent from my iPhone
>On May 2, 2016, at 11:10 PM , John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> wrote:
>
>In her 4/20/16 post on LGCA website, TC Member Marcia Jensen echoes concerns about the accuracy of traffic studies
when the ITE manual is based on national data ("So, for example, an office use could be assigned x number of trips
based on data collected for trips to and from an office complex in Iowa." Obviously, this is problematic, and is the root
cause for much of the frustration -both on the part of Town residents and Town decision-makers -with any 'traffic
analysis' done for a project.").
>
>
> Here is citizen Jeff Loughridge's effective visual presentation about traffic levels that I found in reviewing the EIR .
>
>
>
>
> <IMG_0529.JPG>
>
>
>
1
> <IMG_0530.JPG>
>
>
>
> <IMG_0531.JPG>
>
>
>
> <IMG_0532.JPG>
>
>
>
> So if traffic studies are of questionable reliability for Los Gatos, where does that leave us? It seems to me the public's
and town's experience with traffic must take on greater weight as compared with ITE-based projections. It appears to be
a widely-held view that ITE-based projections routinely understate to a significant degree the actual traffic congestion .
Therefore, based on past experience a reasonable course of action is to assume traffic congestion for the N. 40 will be
significantly worse that the ITE-based projections. In turn, this means in terms of traffic, we would be wise and prudent
to take a conservative approach in approving the size of the project. Of course, a factor for maximizing affordable units
is to meet the state mandate and raise badly need monies for infrastructure and traffic mitigation. What is the priority?
Traffic or affordab le units? I suggest traffic given the existing traffic congestion, and limited ability for roadway
expansion . If you make lots of affordable units senior housing, you can allow more units with less increase in traffic.
>
>Yes, cutting units to say 200 will require units elsewhere in town and additional traffic there. Cutting commercial to the
EIR Superior of 435K can be done without restriction from the state. Commercial does generate more traffic than
res identia I.
>
> John Shepardson
>
>Sent from my iPhone
2
From: jackson faulkner [mailto:jgf41904@att.net]
Sent: Friday, May 06 , 2016 7:31PM
To: Council
Subject: North 40 project will be devasting to our town
To all honorable Town Council
I have lived in Los Gatos all my life of 61 years. Growing up and playing in the walnut
orchard of the proposed North 40, its such a shock to me that this project could be
approved as massive as it is. There is not much I can add to the disapprovals &
objections that have been published . Being a 3rd generation Los Gatos resident, I feel
the council should know how many families( mine included) are seeking moving to other
communities that respect their town residents concerns. Try driving down Lark Ave.
almost any time of day and tell me that the congestion & traffic is not & Will Not be a
problem. Are the council members planning on living here short term & just
basically just don't give a Hoot ? Because of recent Commercial & housing
developments ( Netflix & added housing at the old FORD dealership) alone
have changed our town forever. Look at the blanket of orange netting that hovers
above the walnut orchard & convince this will be good for our community.PLEASE
do something to STOP proceeding Phase 1 ! I talk with many town folk & have not
found ONE person in favor of this disaster of a project.
Thank You
Jack Faulkner jgf41904@att.net
From: Don Wolf [mailto:donwolf20@comcast.net]
5ent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3:42PM
To: Council
Subject: North 40
Don Wolf
15400 Winchester Blvd, Unit 36
Los Gatos, CA 95030
May6, 2016
Open letter to the Los Gatos Town Council
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
Here is what I understand about the North 40 dispute. The residential property is
designed so that individuals selected by Town autocrats will be able to have their ownership
subsidized by at least 50%. The units will be allocated by a Los Gatos committee. There will be
deed restrictions so that once in, the owners may not sell for 25 years except with the approval of
the Town committee and only to Town-approved applicants and at about 50% below
market. Who pays for this incredible rip-off? Tax payers will pay for it through Federal, State
and Local subsidies in addition to the current land owners who are being held hostage to this
central planning scheme. My prediction is that, like Harlem in New York City, this will become
the biggest slum in the county and will bring more crime and corruption into our midst. You call
it Affordable Housing or Low Cost Housing; both are false. It is high cost housing subsidized by
the tax payers for those who can only afford~ the true cost ofhomeownership or rent in Los
Gatos! Not only that, we will have to pay the salaries of the autocrats administrating this scam
for the next 25 years.
I believe if we want our teachers, town officials, janitors, maids, gardeners and etc. to
live in town, we should pay them enough to be able to afford the cost ofliving here, if they so
choose. Or allow low cost housing instead of subsidized housing. Allow 4 story dense
apartments that cost half as much instead of subsidizing the ownership of high cost
housing. That would provide the new residents the freedom to decide, and not trap them into a
ghetto in the midst of a community in which their children's friend 's parents make 2 to 10 times
as much and can afford 4 times as much for allowances, bicycles, etc. A horrible existence! I
know , having lived in the past in the midst of people with many times my income.
And lastly, there is no way we can provide half the cost of homes in Los Gatos for all the
people who want to have half their cost paid for by the tax payers. Thus the Town committee
doling out this incredible goodie is eventually going to be corrupted by this power and the
resulting divisiveness will destroy the Los Gatos we know and love.
Stop this corrupt and corrupting project as now envisioned by the town.
Don Wolf, Los Gatos Resident
CC: Los Gatos Times Weeldy
From: Ann Altmann [mailto:aaltmann @ve rizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 11:23 AM
To: Council
Subject: Just one family's concern about the North 40
Hello ,
We are sure this is not the first time you will have read the sentiments written below. It started
out as simple plea from locals but morphed into a detailed perspective . We are also sure that
there are many complexities with regards to this project that we are not aware of but would have
felt derelict in our duty as Los Gatos residents to not let our voices be heard in any way possible
regarding the North 40 and other high density developments in our town.
We cannot stress enough how concerned and sick we feel about the North 40 and we tr uly
do not understand why such a monstrosity as planned would be allowed to be built here.
We do not understand how the reports that state there will be little impact to our schools are
being taken at face value . Saying that the housing types being proposed isn 't built to "attract"
families is beyond ridiculous . Will there be housing police to control who moves into what
housing type? Will the 'senior' housing not allow children? There are plenty of 55 year olds w ith
school age children. Why would someone chose to pay the premium to live in the LG school
district unless they have children? Also I volunteered in the schools for many years and know
that it is common practice that families with multiple children to cram in tiny units just to get into
the schools . This will happen at the North 40 regardless of the house type the developers say
won 't 'attract' families. It is truly insulting that we are being sold this bill of goods .
We do not understand why the North 40 development housing, and th e many students that it
will bring , cannot be spread out over the property and into d ifferen t schools distri cts. Does the
money that would come to our overcrowded landlocked schools really outweigh the long term ,
'no going back' impact this project will have on the entire commun ity? We agree that in a perfect
world and if the local schools weren 't already facing overcrowding , those$$ would be very
welcome but that is just not the case . The $23 .5k per unit amount the developer has promised
to be seems like a small amount given the impact. Is there no way to negotiate an amount for
the units build in other school districts? How about building the home t ype that don 't 'attract'
families outside of the LG district? Regarding petitions for transfer, if there is no more space at
the school then the answer should be No. Why would it be any d ifferent than saying no to
someone who lives on the 'wrong ' side of Bicknell Rd or just a little too fa r down Blossom Hill
Rd? People in the LG district do pay a premium to send their children to school at LG schools
and should get priority over transfers period. What really baffles us is that it seems that people
think the local schools can handle an infinite amount of students.
We do not understand how reports that state there will be little impact to our already
nightmare traffic and that it will be mitigated and that this development won 't impact the vitality
of our downtown businesses can be believed . The downtown is one of the reasons that people
visit LG and spend money here. If it does remain viable , what about those ta x dollars?
We do not understand how it is seemingly ignored that the reason we have such a high
property values is due to the great schools and quality of life here and that t his development will
change that in a negative way forever.
We do not understand how this development meets some retail 'unmet need' of the
community as we ha ve not heard or read about a res ident who feels positi ve about this
development or minds traveling 10-15 minutes away to do some shopping but then can come
home to this beautiful place .
We do not understand why 'density' is not a dirty word and that it seems that every time a
property is sold to a developer in town, they are allowed to build multiple dwellings literally feet
from each other and apparently not required to pay appropriate mitigation fees for the traffic
they generated. This has put us in a terrible position with regards to the affordable house needs
as well as the environmental and traffic impact.
We do not understand how developers seem to have such power to drive high density
projects with what seems to be few speed bumps in the process . It feels like it is all driven by
dollars and not sense.
We do understand that the owners of the property have a right to sell/develop their property
but we also expect our elected officials to do their duty to ensure that developments meets the
town plan and character and that ALL impacts are mitigated appropriately and are based in
reality which seems sadly lacking in the reports.
We do understand that the town has to meet the state affordable housing requirements and
we support affordable housing but why wasn't this addressed over the years when properties
became available for development and instead of cramming multi-million dollar homes on every
spec of land. Now overgrown and with little land left, we are between a rock and a hard place
but there must be some better way to meet the affordable housing requirement than this current
proposal.
A couple of other points before closing ... let me say that we are not new homeowners worried
solely about their property values . My family has lived in LG since the 1940's when my father
built our family home. My husband's family has been here for over 45 years . Both my husband
and I went through the local schools and our children do as well. My husband and I both moved
away to go to college and then both worked very hard to be able to come back here to live and
raise our children close to their grandparents. Our thought was to stay on after our last child
graduates and enjoy the fruits of our labors but now are re-thinking our plans. It seems it is time
to look for a place that is more sensitive to quality of life, excellent schools and the
environment. You know this when your son gets cursed out and threaten by a local resident for
parking on a public street (not Alpine BTW) just trying to get to school , you already notice a
decrease in school quality already ready due to class size, when you have to add an extra 15
minutes to get across town and plan your errands around traffic patterns, know that if there is a
fender bender on 17 or it's a sunny summer day, you might not be able to get home or even out
of your driveway .... all this before the North 40 even begins. It is sad to see so many families
making the same sad plans to leave.
Please, please, please do not allow the North 40 to go through as planned. More open space is
needed, less density in housing and retail, housing spread across the site into other school
districts and decisions made based on reality, transparency and what is truly best for this
wonderful, special place. You have the opportunity to do the right thing and impact many, many
people's lives in a positive way and not be held hostage by money now over the future of this
wonderful community.
Regards,
The Altmann-Knauer Family
RECEIVED
MAY 12 2016
MAYO R tA TO WN COUNCIL
Dear Mayor Barbara Spector,
(I recently penned this letter to our local paper, but realizing its length and not wishing to
edit it , I have decided to send council members a copy as requested for input on the
controversial development issue)
Unintended Consequences
Judging from the letters to our local paper and the overflow attendance at
previous Los Gatos Council meetings, one doesn 't have to be the mythological
Cassandra to read the dissatisfaction reflected in these tea leaves; Los Gatos residents
are fed up with the plethora of development projects that have descended upon what
use to be our tranquil town and resulted in negative consequences affecting not only our
quality of life but that of generations to come. The unparalleled growth of high density
housing , rezoning of land use, revision of height covenants et al., fueled by the
persistent mantra that "anything which makes it possible to add growth must be good ,"
has only resulted in dangerous traffic congestion, infrastructure inadequacies, increased
water consumption , and even crime . Frustrated drivers tired of sitting through backed
up traffic on Los Gatos Blvd. et al. have developed strategies to deal with the contagion
as they speed through surrounding neighborhoods ignoring the rash of "drive as if your
children live here" placards, running stop signs ... and what was the last time you saw
the final car in the left turn lane stop when the arrow turns red . Other favorite gambits
include purposefully driving along side cars waiting bumper to bumper in the turn lane
as in the Lark freeway exit to Los Gatos Blvd. and then forcing their way in to make the
turn or complaining when the queue won 't honor their blinker so they can cut in.
Flashing crosswalk lights and portable flags are popping up in an attempt to protect
pedestrians in crosswalks as some drivers still ignore these safety measures or
grudgingly grant passage . The schools can 't adequately accommodate burgeoning
enrollment numbers thereby resulting in pleas for never-ending parcel tax increments ,
as neighbors complain about their residential blocks be taken up by insufficient student
parking . And finally in a state of 38.8 million, or more precisely, a doubling of the 15 .7
million who lived here in 1960 ... we learn that the data show any savings from per capita
water consumption will be more than erased by population growth. Hence, it's time for
council members and future prospective council candidates to share the epiphany that a
majority of Los Gatos residents are now clamoring for-We want sustainability which
can only happen through carefully controlled growth . Progress is not achieved by
creating a canyon of multistory buildings blocking out our sylvan , coastal mountain view
or reducing setbacks that allow developers to shoehorn more dwellings onto an existing
site ... would you wax euphoric over adding 10 lbs. to your weight each year?? But
sustainability can be attained when existing homes or businesses that have become
dated are refurbished and updated thus providing a continuing source of jobs , while
infrastructure will not require constant expansion but merely maintenance. Contrary to
the cries amounting to "tumbleweed mythology" by developers and those profiting from
unrestrained growth, the town will flourish as residents patronize local businesses and
Los Gatos will be beacon for those who don't wish to live in a megalopolis. I personally
can 't afford to li ve in Monterey's picturesque17 mile drive , affluent Atherton , or luxurious
French Monaco et al. In fact , when the campground or hotel we wish to stay in is full,
we don't stamp our feet and carry signs proclaiming unfairness but go on to find
accommodations that have room . Hence . as voters it is our dutv to elect "limited
growth" candidates to council and let our state legislators understand that in no
uncertain terms will they continue to have our vote if they propose and support the
utopian notion that we must accommodate whomever of the 7.2 billion inhabitants on
the planet decide to reside here.
Si~cerely, ·~
~n
132 Whitney Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
REC:Ili:JVED
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
MAY 16 2016
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS~DEPARnRNT
Dear Mayor and the Town Council:
The appearance of the story poles at the gateway to Los Gatos has caused a groundswell of
opposition to the North 40 project . If you fill in the blanks between the poles you begin to see the
oppressive building mass that obstructs the hillside views and the mountain skylin e that marks
the gateway to our Town. This brutal intrusion into our visual environment has suddenly become
a touchable reality that , for more than ten years, has been buried in studies, meetings , plans,
reports, developer's exhibits and promises.
The visual degradation of our environment is only one of the defects of th e proposed project.
The proposed site plan reflects elements of an outmoded grid planning model that leads to a
rigid, repetitive and unimaginative design . The resulting building placement and mass beg in to
look more like a computer circuit board or military barracks than a plan for a vibrant living
environment. Grid design facilitates a very efficient way of packing in residential density, but so
does packing sardines in a can.
The arch itectural "style" and detailing of the project blatantly violates the Vision and Guiding
Principles set forth in the Specific Plan. The design has nothing whatsoever in common w ith our
Town . It appears that our award winning City Hall , Forbes Mill condos, Old Town , to name just a
few, have never been visited by the out of town , out of touch design team. The computerized ,
"cardboard" architectural style residential building elevations look more like a Hollywood stage
set or something that we might see at Santana Row, not in ou r Town .
The developers come and go after they have sold or leased their last housing unit or square foot
of commercial space. We, however, will be lett with the irreversible damage that a bad ly
conceived or executed development project will, inevitably, bring to our Town.
The inescapable collateral damage resulting from a bad land use and planning will be
irreversible. The systematic degradation of our environment and infrastructure , if unchecked , will
inevitably lead to the destruction of the quality of life in our Town , as we know it. We can 1 tear
down the sound walls and the buildings of a project that will , without a doubt, increase traffic,
make our streets less safe, overcrowd our schools and keep our first responders and doctors
from reaching their destinations in time to save lives or extinguish fires .
Our hillsides east of Main Street and Los Gatos Boulevard are particularly vulnerable during the
fire season , if the firefighters can't reach the fi re, due to traffic jams that now inundate our city
streets in both directions several times each day. With the access streets to our hillside homes
blocked the residents will be trapped and exposed to danger.
The Environmental Impact Report criteria for evaluating the existing and the projected t raffi c
conditions are based on national averages . The charts of traffic counts, volumes , intensities and
other var iables are not the same for Los Gatos as they are for downtown Manhattan. If you look
at the North 40 traffic analysis section you'll f ind the mantra "l ess t ha n s ignificant " repeated ad
nauseam and the mitigating measures woefully inadequate. We can see this daily by having to
live with the rapid ly deteriorating traffic condi ti o ns , that attest to the defects of pre vi ously
approved EIR 'S.
With each additional new housing unit that increases traffic and congestion in our Town we lose
more and more of our freedom of movement and our ability to plan our lives . Our current traffic
situation is such that we have to plan the activ ities of our daily lives around the traffic conditions
on our streets.
If we continue on this trajectory, we'lllose the identity of our Town and everything that makes
our town very special, like the unique location, topography, climate, size and demographic
profile. These are the very things that draw visitors , realtors, investors and developers to our
Town like a magnet. In a free market economy it's perfectly ok to make money but it is not ok to
make it at the expense of the commun ity's health, safety and welfare . This is where the Town
elected officials have to come in and d ischarge their duty as stewards of the values and the
tenets that identify and define our Town . A compelling case can be made that the approval of the
North 40 project, as it stands , will be hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of our Town
for the follow ing reasons :
HEALTH. Rapid increase in traffic volume, above already high levels, would inevitably result in
additional traffic congestion that will cause more noise, more air pollution, more road rage and
more stress .
SAFETY. Current daily traffic congestion caused by commuters, schools , beach traffic and
increased population has already made our streets less safe for bicyclists , pedestrians and our
children. Increase in traffic volume generated by the proposed project will unquestionably
increase the adverse effect of additional traffic on our streets. Most notably the ability of first
responders to reach their destinations in time.
It has become more and more difficult for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to reach their
destinations unimpeded. Fire captains in several Town fire stations have told me that during the
past two years their emergency call volume has increased by more than 200 calls per year.
The resulting increase in response time, due to traffic congestion, does not bode well for the
continued safety and welfare of our Town and community in case of medical emergency, fire or
earthquake .
WELFARE. The level of well being, peace of mind , security, and general welfare, in our Town , is
shaped and defined by our willingness and ability to improve, keep and not degrade the quality
of life in our Town . We elect our leaders to safeguard our values and fight against those who
challenge and ignore the collective voice, wisdom and common sense of the people of our
Town . We elect our leaders and expect that they will listen and actually hear what we are
saying.
The time is now for you, the Town Council, to take a stand for the sake of the Health, Safety and
Welfare of our Town. To approve the North 40 now, as it stands, would be unconscionable, given
the fact that when Netflix, the currently approved commercial spaces, housing units and North
40 all come on line, the results will be irreversible , with disastrous effect upon traffic, schools
and our way of life in our Town .
Sincerely,
Albins Martinskis , a permanent res ident of Los Gatos for the past 46 years ...... "And to become
a permanent res ident is to lie in paradise , if such there be on th is e a rth ."
(Sunset magazine 1915)
M arni M oseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good afternoon,
MAUREEN CAPPON -J AVEY <maureen.capponjavey@me .com >
Thursday, June 02 , 2016 2:06 PM
North40 Comment
Suggested Usage of Proposed Open Space
I recently read in the LG Weekly's Opinion Column that the Specific Plan for the North 40 calls for 30 percent of open
space! That's remarkable and very forward-thinking on everyone's part. As a Town resident and a member of the LG Art
Commission, I'd like to recommend that a portion that 30 percent of open space be dedicated to Public Art. I (and my
fellow Art Commissions) would be happy to meet and work with whomever on the development and planning side, to
craft a more specific public art proposal for the North 40 community. I look forward to working with the Town Council,
the North 40 Development group and other Town officials and stakeholders to ensure that public art plays a key role in
maximizing the aesthetic beauty of this new community.
Thank you .
Maureen Cappon-Javey
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cathleen Bannon < cathleenbannon@gmail.com >
Thursday, June 02 , 2016 9:25 AM
North40 Question
North 40 follow up questions/comments
Thank you for taking the time to hear all of the questions/comments from the town as decisions are made
regarding the North 40. While development will happen, and can be good for the town, the current proposal is
not the right one.
Everyone in town will agree that the traffic in already out of control in town. While the EIC stated that traffic
would not be affected by the addition of the 300+ units, I believe that EIC is no longer valid. When was the
EIC done? If not in the last year, then it need to be re-commissioned. The traffic in town has greatly changed
in the last year and we are not equipped to take on a high density development. The EIC must be challenged.
The EIC also said that the LGUSD would not be impacted. This takes into account that Lexington school has
room. So ALL new students from the development MUST be placed at Lexington. With Van Meter already
looking at 5 first grade classes, there is absolutely NO more room at this school for a high density
development. Don't be fooled, it is only marketing from the developer, when they speak of young professionals
with no kids that will move in to the project. There are no young professionals that could afford the condo on
their own salary ... it will be couples and families that want to get into the school district. Also there is NO
reason that all homes need to be in Phase 1 ... that again is the developer's dream. The town must stand strong to
insist that units are over the ENTIRE development to share the burden on both school districts. The developer
will say this is impossible since they only own Phase l...the town needs to look at the site as a whole and say
that 50% of homes on Lark side and 50% in later phases.
The developer needs to do a better job in designing the development more in line with the town ... this can be a
star for the town with the market hall and open spaces. Buildings must be lower, homes designed to blend in
with the surrounding homes on LG Blvd to create a town look as you drive the street.
Please, please, please stop this proposal... take the time to have them go back to the drawing board. The roads
and schools can not handle the influx ALL in Phase 1. Divide the homes between the phases ... re-commission
the EIC to account for all the new traffic issues in the town.
Thank you -Cathleen Bannon
16828 Kennedy Rd Los Gatos
-all units in LG school district?
> -why not spread out units throughout phase 2 and 3
> -how can you approve phase 1 without s eeing 2 &3
> -how can you approve without communicating with school district in how it will mitigate-focusing on millennials is ignorant as
they too will have children. Can not assume someone el se is taking care of it.
> -how can you approve without share how to solve traffic flow in area-when you are bring hundreds in new cars into the area how
can you say get people out of cars.
> -why all multi unit buildings which are not in line with town look
Cathleen Bannon
415 .819.1239
1
From : noreply @ci v icplu s.co m [mailto:no re ply@ci v icplu s.co m]
Sent : Wednesday, June 01 , 2016 4 :20PM
To : Town Manager; Christina Gilmore
Subject: Online Form Submittal : Customer Feedback Form
The following form was submitted via your website: Cu stomer Feedback Form
Name :: Gerald Petak
Address :: 16321 Roseleaf Ct
City:: Los Gatos
State :: CA
Zip:: 95032
Home Phone Number:: 408 356 2435
Daytime Phone Number:: 408 656 6817
Email Address:: geraldpetak@hotmail.com
Please let us know how we are doing or what we can do for you!: Subject: North 40
Maybe this is too little too late, but recently I attended an outdoor faire that provided info about a new
county/city park on Blossom Hill Road in South San Jose related to I donated by the Lester(?) Family or
the Martial Cottle park. see link below.
http:/ /www.parks .ca .gov/pages/21299/files/martialcottlepk_revisionstoparkplan_rev2-01-11.pdf'
Los Gatos would not get a donation ofthe North 40, instead it would buy the property.
It would be funded by a bond issue . It would be repaid with a parcel ta x over 30 years.
No development required . No new residences or business . No new traffic or new school issues . The
town would own the property. The town could let the current property owners and other residents stay
on the property and pay rent to cover annual property and school district taxes .. They would continue
to earn income from growing, cultivating and maintaining the property. Distribution to be decided.
Let's assume in would cost $60 million to purchase and finance over 30 years at 3%. Total cost w ith
interest would be $91.066 million or$ 3,036 million annually. ( I used my bank's home mortgage
payment calculator) Spread over 14,000 parcels, that would be an annua l parcel tax of appro x. $216 per
year. That's less than the LGUSD parcel tax.
If there is a surplus from rent and farming income, it could gradually be used to convert the property
into a Los Gatos Open Space . Maybe even a educational farm .
Is there too much bureaucracy to do something li ke this . Remember when Clint Eastwood bought the
mission ranch?
From: teamdriven2012 . [mailto:mxk727@qmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 6:24AM
To: Town Manager ·
Subject: RE: North 40 Public Safety
To: Planning Department,
From: Max Kern
RE: North 40 Public Safety
The plans for the North 40 cause a public safety issues and will bring more more traffic on Los
Gatos Bvld/Bascom Ave, Lark Ave,
Hwy 17 ramps (State Ramps) coming on and offHwy 17 to Lark Ave will be more of a public
safety issue.
Winchester Bvld and Lark Ave will be an extreme public safety issue.
Original plans for Hwy 85 and Winchester Bvld was for. FULL interchange . The North 40 plans
will add more unwanted traffic to Lark Ave. Netflix has add more unwanted traffic and the Town
of Los Gatos has refused to put a FULL interchange at Hwy 85 and Wichchester Bvld.
The Town of Los Gatos needs to reject the North 40 Plans!
If the Town of Los Gatos has not got a report from Cal-Trans regarding traffic report for the
North 40 plans.
Traffic comming off and unto Hwy 85 from Los Gatos Bvld/Bascom Ave, Traffic comming off
and unto Hwy 17, Traffic comming off ofHwy 85 southbound unto Winchester Bvld.
I demand that the Plans of the North 40 must be scrapped and NOT to be allowed to proceed.
I live off of Lark Ave and having the North 40 project is a traffic hazard! Public Safety is a great
concern.
If the Town of Los Gatos proceed with the North 40 and when a pedrestrian get hit and hits and
killed by a driver of a vehicle.
The Town of Los Gatos will be liable for that accident that could have been prevented.
Max Kern
147 Arroyo Grande Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Frank's email <mfrank746@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, May 23, 2016 3:48 PM
North40 Comment
North 40
I am a 48 year resident of Los Gatos. I believe this development to be a disaster in the making. The only benefit I see is
the tax revenue and a wealthier developer; but at what cost? The downside is added traffic congestion and an increase
in crime. I feel there must be a hidden agenda to which residents of this wonderful town are not privy. Or, the council
would not allow such a poorly conceived development. This will be a sad ending to the bucolic small town of Los Gatos.
We will become a big city with all the attendant negatives that implies. And for what: more tax revenue? Come on, get
your collective heads together and picture what this will create. A nightmare! For those in the proximity of the
development; and, for the town folk in general, this will result in a reduced quality of living.
Please deny this insane proposal.
Regards
Frank Mandarino
272 Casitas Bulevar
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com >
Monday, May 16, 2016 9:23 AM
Council; Marni Moseley
N. 40 & Self-Driving Cars
IMG_0564.JPG; ATIOOOOl.txt
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Judith <tbwinca@comcast.net >
Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:35 PM
North40 Comment
Underground parking
Has underground parking been considered to allow for more green space? Judy
Sent fro m my Samsung Ga laxy Tab® S
1
M arni M ose ley
From:
Sent :
To:
Subject:
Laverne Nolan <lnolan12@verizon.net >
Friday, May 13, 2016 11:23 AM
North40 Comment
density of housing/share the burden
I realize it is monetarily advantageous to the developer to have the housing in the LG School District and that they are
only submitting Phase I at this time with all of the housing concentrated in this Phase.
Is it possible to require the developer to integrate the housing into the next Phase to better distribute the burden on our
school district and on our congestion at Lark and LG Blvd. Can 't believe that CAL TRANS hasn't weighed in on the
probable added backups onto Hwy 17 .
It just seems logical that the Town can work with the developer to provide a whole plan that will be a bit more fair to the
community, not just a plan that is the most financially advantageous for the developer.
Thank you, Laverne Nolan
Pinta Court
1
From: David Sauter [dave_sauter@sigmadesigns.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:27 PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Subject: North 40
To Elected Officials of Los Gatos;
I am a Los Gatos resident and I am writing this e-mail because every day coming and going to work I am
forced to look at this eyesore. What we have here is a high rise complex (anything greater than 2 stories
in LG is considered high rise to me), high density, low cost housing. This is what people call a
problem. It is a problem now because no one wants it and it will be a problem later because you will
always be dealing with all the issues this type of place brings with it.
One current issue is traffic flow. You have this large complex going in at some of the busiest street
sections in Los Gatos right now! There is no way you can widen streets and what I am told there is no
Q@.n to address traffic until Phase 2 which is down the road 2-3 years. Total lack of foresight!
Another issue is water. The City just announced an urgent water ordinance stating water is an issue and
you plan on putting in 320 residential units with landscapes? Unbelievable!
I have been told by your planning commission that this is mandated by the state. Actually I don't think
that is really the case and is very misleading. The state says that there is a priority to house people, but
they are not forcing communities to put in high rise, dense, low cost housing. Many well run cities have
rules and regulations that do not allow such things to happen within their city limits.
I am sorry, but I am having a real hard time dealing with this . If I wanted to get into a community that
has and allows high rise, dense, low cost housing I would have moved to another bay area city and spent
a lot less money.
If you do not deal with this, the City and all its residents will always have a problem . Now is the time to
fix th is mess. DUMP IT!
Sincerely,
Dave Sauter
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Becky Yoder <becky_SS@yahoo.com >
Tue sday, June 0 7, 2016 9:07 PM
North40 Comment
questions regarding the North 40 over-development
I would like to know how this project made it to just about the point of no return before the story poles
went up. This certainly can't be the proper procedure.
I'm shocked that the town seems okay using an outdated and obviously unrealistic Environmental
Impact study for this project. Anyone with any sense knows the impact of the traffic in this area will
be horrific -during construction and after construction is complete. Please use common sense and
require a legitimate study to be done.
Anyone who thinks this project will be a positive influence on our home values should think about this
again. Los Gatos will be known as a congested, over-crowded, ordinary little city-in other words, a
place to be avoided. This will not be the special and desirable town that Los Gatos once was .
Becky Yoder
60 year Los Gatos resident.
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
COMMENTS ON N40 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT STUDY SESSION
FROM LEE QUINTANA 6/8/S2016
The following are my comments on a comparison of the maximum
development capacity of Santana Row entitlements and the North 40
Specific Plan .
They are organized in three sections :
I. Summary Comparison Santana Row v North 40 Specific Plan
II. Graph of the Maximum Development Capacity of Area , Density, Units
and Commercial Space for Santana Row and the North 40 Plan
Ill. Table of information in the Graph with additional information
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Lee Quintana
5 Palm Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95030
1 of 4
COMMENTS ON N40 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT STUDY SESSION
FROM LEE QUINTANA 6/8/S2016
I. THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN VERSIS SANTANA ROW
COMMON THEME:. A commonly heard statement at Town meetings and on social media is,
'We don't want the North 40 to be another Santana Row.' This statement assumes that
development allowed by the North 40 Specific Plan will result in an intensity and density similar
Santana Row.
COMPARISON OF SANTANA ROW WITH THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN:
Santana Row covers a slightly smaller area than the North 40 Specific Plan. However,
the intensity and density of Santana Row is many times greater than is envisioned by the North
40 Specific Plan. This is true whether one compares commercial square footage, height,
residential density, number of dwelling units, amount of open space (green or otherwise) or
required parking.
Area:
• Santana Row-42.5 acres:
• North 40 Specific Plan Area -_approximately -44 acres
The residential density:
• Santana Row's density is 350% greater than North 40's
• (75+ units/acre Santana Row v 20 units/acre N 40 Plan)
Maximum residential units:
• Santana Row allows over 300% more dwelling units than the North 40 Plan
• (1229 units Santana Row v 364 units N 40 Plan).1
Maximum commercial space:
• Santana Row maximum commercial SF is 300% greater than the North 40 Plan
• (1 ,507,000 SF Santana Row v 501,000 SF N 40 Plan)
Maximum height:
• Santana Row's maximum allowed height is twice that allowed by the North 40
• (90' Santana Row v 45' N 40 Plan) 2
Open space:
• Santana Row has no minimum requirements for open space or publicly accessible open
space.
• Currently approximately 1 to 2% of Santana Row is publicly accessible.
• The North 40 Plan requires a minimum of 20% green open space and a minimum 30%
open space. 20% of the 30% open space requirement must be publicly accessibe.
1 Specific Plan identifies a 270 unit maximum . Use of the State Density Bonus Law allows 364 units.
2 N40 Plan 25' height along Los Gatos Blvd. and Lark Ave. Otherwise 35' max., with an exception to 45'
for a hotel and/or senior affordable housing.
2 of 4
COMMENTS ON N40 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT STUDY SESSION
FROM LEE QUINTANA 6/8/S2016
COMPARISON of the MAXIMUM CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT
SANTANA ROW ENTITLEMENTS AND THE NORTH 40 SPEC IFIC PLAN
SANTANA ROW PDC NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN
~REA SIZE 42.5ACRES I44ACRES
DENSITY 76+ UNITS/ACRE ~0 UNITS/ACRE
NUMBER OF UNITS 1229 UNITS ~64 UNITS (1)
rT'OTAL 1 ,507,000 SF ~01 ,000 SF
~OMMERCIAL SPACE etail/restaurant/officelhotell etail/restaurant/officelhotel/
movie theater) (2) ~ntertainment) (3)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 90' 145' (3)
MINIMUM NO MINIMUM po% MINIMUM OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE 20% Minimum Green Space
REQUIRED 20% of the 30% Open Space
must be Publicly Accessible (4)
(1) State Housing Law allows for exception to maximum height for affordable units.
(2) 1 ,507,000 SF Commercial : up to 650,000 SF Retail/Restaurant and up to 857,000 SF Office
(3) Up to 250,000 SO Office/Hotel and up to 400,000 other commercial-Total not to exceed 501,000
in c luding existing commercial.
(4) Roadways and the paved areas of parking lots are not counted towards open space requirements.
However, parking lot landscaped areas are counted.
4 of 4
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Erin <ekasenchak@yahoo.com >
Thursday, June 09, 2016 11:00 PM
North40 Comment
Concerned citizens about north 40
I'm writing to voice my extreme concern and dissatisfaction over the North 40 project. 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. I do not feel that residents
were adequately informed as most of my friends had never heard of the project back in 2015.
Now that the story poles have gone up, the true impact has become visual and is even worse than I feared. And
this is just phase 1? The height of the project is something that will change the landscape of our small ,
wonderful town. Additionally the scope will greatly impact traffic in this already very congested area. I don't
see how, according to the Vision statement, the North 40 will minimize or mitigate the impact to our
infrastructure. I know that the North 40 plans to address traffic, but I adding another light onto LG Blvd and an
extra turn lane on Lark and LG will not make much difference. Lark and LG Blvd already need extra lanes with
our current traffic so adding an additional lane with the extra cars and traffic this project is likely to bring does
not feel sufficient. The traffic around 85, Good Samaritan and LG Blvd is also quite impacted. Again, this
project will just add to it. Additionally, how long will these traffic improvements take from completion to
end? I can't imagine what the situation will be like while the construction will be taking place.
The Vision statement for North 40 states it will celebrate hillside views and our small town character, but over
300 residential units and potentially 501 ,000 foot of commercial/retai l space does not align with "small town
character". Additionally, the story poles showing the impact actually will block hillside views and not celebrate
them. I suppose those living at North 40 will like their hillside views, but the rest of Los Gatos residents will
lose views to buildings. I don't believe we have unmet residential needs that this project needs to address.
My husband and I were born and raised in the Bay Area and moved specifically to Los Gatos over 20 years ago
because of the charm and unique aspect this town had compared the hustle and bustle of the rest of Silicon
Valley. We knew this would be a wonderful place to raise our family in an amazing small town feel with a
great community. I'm very, very concerned that the size and scope of this project will forever change the feel
of Los Gatos from the wonderful small town and community to just another Santana Row or big city feel.
I firmly believe that what this town needs is open space, parks and sports fields for our youth and families, not
additional housing. I understand that those do not generate revenue for a town but it's what we need .
I urge you and all members of our town council to revise this design and lessen the proposed intensity/scope of
the project. If you 've read Town not City's facebook page, you 'll see the overwhelming comments and
concerns from fellow citizens about this project. Please I urge you to keep our town just that , a small town.
1
A very concerned citizen -
Erin Kasenchak
***********************
Erin Kasenchak
ekasenchak@yahoo.com
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern:
Martha Wills < mtswills@gmail.com >
Saturday, June 11, 2016 3:48 PM
North40 Comment
comments on North 40 development
I am in favor of minimally developing this site so as to mitigate negative impacts on local traffic,
schools and public services.
I am also in favor of dividing the housing component between Los Gatos and Campbell so as to
reduce the possibility of overcrowding at Los Gatos schools.
Sincerely yours,
Martha Wills
229 Vista del Monte, Los Gatos
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
E Robillard <ericrawler@gmail.com>
Sunday, June 12, 2016 12:13 PM
North40 Comment
I live in Canada but discovered an article on Facebook about renters in your town being pushed out due to development.
Development is necessary to accommodate a growing town population, of course. However, if forcing renters from their
homes is necessary for your town to grow, them do so in a fair and humane way. If the article is correct and relocation
assistance is something that can be enforced, then why would your town not do that? A community is only a community
when it looks out for its neighbors, not shuns them. I do not understand why this is even be ing debated .
Sent from my iPhone
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
To whom it may concern,
Meagan Calahan <meaganvm@gmail.com >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 12:14 PM
North40 Comment
My husband and I have been residents of the North 40 for over 7 years. In that time, we have been active members of
the Los Gatos community: we shop locally (and when we do we are greeted by store employees who know us), we have
been regular participants in parks and recreation programs, we visit the local parks frequently with our dog ... In short,
we love living here. Unfortunately, we do not earn anywhere near the $200,000 median household income of Los Gatos
residents, and have only been lucky enough to live in this community because of the rent control that the North 40
neighborhood has provided.
We (along with roughly 30 other households) are now facing eviction, through no fault of our own, because of the North
40 development. We all understand that this development is a business transaction, and is going to happen one way or
the other-so, I'm not writing in the hopes of stopping the project. What I would like, though, is for the Town Council to
give as much consideration to the impact that the project will have on everyone currently living in the North 40 as they
are giving to the traffic and local schools.
This is not a fancy neighborhood, and perhaps that's why we're not getting any attention. We understand that we don't
have the status and power that many other Los Gatos residents have. Most of us who live here do so because we love
the town, and can't afford to live here any other way. When we are evicted, those roughly 30 household s (which
include young children, retirees on fixed incomes, and small business owners) who have lived and worked and
participated in this community for years and years will have to move to new towns, because the local rent is far out of
our price ran ge, and it is truly heartbreaking for us .
We are aware that other towns have pol icies in place to help residents who face no-fault evictions due to
redevelopment, and ask that the town consider putting a similar policy in place for North 40 residents and any future
developments to help all of us to remain in the town that we love .
Thank you for your consideration ,
Meagan Calahan
1
Marni Mosel ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Paul Marquis <pmarquis73@gmail.com>
Sunday, June 12, 2016 3:21 PM
North40 Comment
Renters Ordinance/ Protections
I've been reading about the North 40 build, and other similar builds, for a while now. In 2005 my wife and I ourselves
were evicted I "invited to purchase a property" that would be going up in place of the town home we were then renting.
After a lengthy battle with the new owners I developers to get what they were legally obligated to compensate us
(where Cupertino's mayor himself had to step in and remind the developers of their responsibilities), my wife and I
moved to a different location that was more expensive but still manageable. We were lucky.
All of this is to say I'm familiar with the situation and have seen it happen many times. And the underlying attitude from
developers seems to be "we're switching you to a better home!" as if the new homes were being given away or offered
as an equal trade. Another unspoken assumption is "this wouldn 't happen if you'd just grow up and buy a home and
stop renting ."
How many vital services are provided by people who can't earn enough to "just buy"? Teachers, nurses, bus drivers,
custodians? How about "white collar" workers who still aren 't making the cut, can't afford to "grow up"? Forget actual
people, how many of these *professions* are going to dry up and run out of qualified candidates before the inevitable
collapse? These are old arguments, but still valid .
I understand; It's a tough situation, balancing the needs I rights of both owners and renters, but it seems from the article
that so far the owners feelings are the only ones being weighed . Compensation is a band aid , and a flimsy one at that.
Our community relies on renters to function, and ignoring their needs I necessities invites disaster; please fix the laws or
create new ones to correct the imbalance and allow people a reasonable chance to stay where they've built their lives .
1
From: Ed Damore <damoresix@comcast.net>
Date: June 12 , 2016 at 4:20:3 0 PM PDT
To: North40 question <North40.guestion@LosGatosca.gov>
Cc: <RSchultz@losgatosca. gov>, <lprevetti@l osgatosca. gov>, <bspector@losgatosca. gov>,
<mjensen@losgatosca.gov>, <s leonardis@losgatosca.gov>, <msayoc@l osgatosca.gov>,
<rrennie@losgatosca. gov>
Subject: North 40
Dear Town Council (Notice how I said Town and NOT City),
I think I am one of hundreds concerned citizens of LG.
I don't have a problem withe the development of the North 40 but on a smaller scale.
Every developer wants to make the most money out of any project. When they are
done, they leave and then we are stuck with the outcome.
It is the Town Councils responsibility to be the Parent and set the guidelines.
Question :
1 . The North 40 vision statement says "The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the
fabric of our community complimenting other Los Gatos residential and business
neighborhoods ". What measures are being taken by the Town to guarantee this
& other portions of the statement are being followed?
PLEASE BE THE PARENT AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR LG . DO YOU THINK LG
BLD CAN HANDLE ANY MORE TRAFFIC???
I am a long term resident of LG and Saratoga and the reasons why I continue to live
here are starting to fade away.
Thanks,
Ed Damore
M arni M ose l ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
Subj ect:
Ed Damore <damoresix@comcast.net >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 4:21 PM
North40 Que stion
Robert Schultz; Laurel Prevetti; BSpector; Marci a Je nse n; Steven Leo na rdis; M arico
Sa yoc; Rob Rennie
No rth 40
Dear Town Council (Notice how I said Town and NOT City),
I th ink I am one of hundreds concerned citizens of LG .
I don't have a problem withe the development of the North 40 but on a smaller scale .
Every developer wants to make the most money out of any project. When they are done, they leave
and then we are stuck with the outcome.
It is the Town Councils responsibility to be the Parent and set the guidelines.
Question:
1 . The North 40 vision statement says "The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the fabric of our
community complimenting other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods". What
measures are being taken by the Town to guarantee this & other portions of the statement are
being followed?
PLEASE BE THE PARENT AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR LG . DO YOU THINK LG BLD CAN
HANDLE ANY MORE TRAFFIC???
I am a long term resident of LG and Saratoga and the reasons why I continue to live here are starting
to fade away.
Thanks,
Ed Damore
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bonnie Payne <bonnieapayne@comcast.net >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 4:33 PM
North40 Comment
Concerns
I am a 40 year resident of Los Gatos, and I am concerned about the proposed development for the North 40. I
cannot see how it conforms at all to the Town vision. I cannot see how it enhances our Town in any way. I cannot see
how the proposal is consistent with current Town architecture. It blocks hillside views, the buildings are too high, too
dense , do not allow for a feeling of open space, and it looks like there is not adequate parking. I am especially concerned
about the traffic impact of this development, since it is almost impossible to drive through town on beach days as it is.
How did this happen? How did this developer get the idea that this design in ANY way is consistent with the
vision for the North 40? I truly hope that there is some way to stop this development before our town is no longer a
desirable place to live.
Bonnie Payne
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
JoAnn Mannone <joannmannone@gmail.com >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 6:35 PM
North40 Comment
renters need help
I have been keeping informed of the events of north 40. I would encourage the City Council to create an ordinance in
favor of the renters. They are being uprooted and have nowhere else to move that is affordable. They need to be given
a helping hand ... it is not there choice to move!
Thank you
JoAnn
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
NONNA'S CREATIONS.COM <info@nonnascreations.com >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 6:43 PM
North40 Comment
relocation for renters
I would l ike to encourage City Council to create an ordinance in favor of the renters. These renters have no desire to
move. Most have lived her a very long time. With the high rents, all around the area, they do not have much to choose
from . They need help to relocate . We do not need any more people homeless.
1
M a rni M ose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Diane Siemens <siemedian@comcast.net>
Monday, June 13, 2016 10:04 PM
North40 Question
Govt. Code Section 65915 and other laws effecting North40
I was upset at the Public Meeting about the North40 when the attorney for the developer told the Planning Commission
they had no choice but to approve the development as presented. I would like a clear explanation of what we are being
forced to do by the state. In particular, I .am bothered by the rules about concessions and our having no choice about
that. How is state law like Code Sect ion 65915 effecting what you are approving and the acceptance of an obviously
inadequate EIR .
I am not against a combination of higher density housi ng and neighborhood commercial on this si te. It is appropriate for
the location . Howeve r, the density is too great and the parking is insufficient. Affordable housing for seniors seems like a
way to stuff in more units with less parking. The need in this area is affordable housing for working people and families.
Mitigations of adverse effects on traffic and schools need to be concrete and effective, not wishful thinking.
Diane Siemens
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City of Los Gatos,
Eryn Supple <eryn.supple@gmail.com>
Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:34AM
North40 Question
North 40 displaced renters
I would like to request that the city of Los Gatos should create an ordinance in favor of the renters that are being
displaced through no fault evictions at the North 40 site. It does not cost you, the city of Los Gatos,
anything ... you just need to create the law.
Other cities around the state and country have already created similar laws, so what is being asked of you, is not
unprecedented.
I plead with you to help those that are being displaced and have no financial alternatives to move.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Eryn King Supple
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Amy Despars <amydespars@hotmail.com>
Monday, June 13, 2016 10:15 AM
Robert Schultz; Laurel Prevetti; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Marico
Sayoc; Rob Rennie; North40 Question
North 40 questions
To the Town Council Members and Staff,
Thank you for holding the North 40 Study Session. I have followed the North 40 Plan and the Los Gatos Blvd.
Plan from their inception. Over the years it has been frustrating watching the various planning commissions,
town council leaders, and staff not following the original plans. Below are some questions I would like
answered at the Study Session.
1. If everything is not covered on June 15th can we please continue the Study Session in September when
everyone has returned from summer vacations? I always find it frustrating that all of the important meetings
dealing with major issues in the town are always held during some type of holiday when people are not in town.
2 . Can you please not accept the plan with everything from density to mass at their maximums? If we need to
build 270 homes why can't they be one bedroom cottages? The application is deceiving because it says the
homes are two bedrooms with a den which can be converted to a bedroom which we know everyone will
do . These homes will house between 1-6 people. There are many families of four and five living in 2 bedroom
apartments all over town.
3. Will there be time when the public can discuss specific amendments to the application?
4. In years past, the mayor and town attorney worked hard to prevent things like the North 40 from being
built. You have seen, heard, and read all of the concerns about this project. What are you doing to think
outside the box and be creative so that we can spread out the 270 homes that need to be built? Why do they all
have to be put in one area? Are you considering all of the undeveloped lots? Will there be a new law to prevent
people from building two and three homes on lots were one house once existed? Can we develop Dittos Lane
to house some of the homes that need to be built?
5.The North 40 vision statement says "The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the fabric of our
community complimenting other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods". What
measures are being taken by the Town to guarantee this & other portions of the statement are
being followed?
6. Why is the developer requesting the project be developed in three phases? What are the plans
for Phase II and Phase Ill? Will there be scale models of Phase II and Phase Ill available for public
Viewing to allow for public comment? It is essential that we know what the ENTIRE scope of the
development planned for the North 40 is before each phase is approved . Can you imagine the what
phase two will look like???? 270 more homes and more retail? It is ludicrous that anything should be
approved before seeing the big picture.
7. Why aren't some of the homes(at least half) being built in the neighboring Campbell School
District?
1
8. This project is too large for one person to be working on this alone . No offense to Marni but she
needs other people advising her on this immense project. Is the Town able to provide an additional
planner or two for this project?
I look forward to hearing the answer to these questions Wednesday .
Thank you for your time.
Amy Despars
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kelsey St illinger < kelsey@stillinger.com >
Monday, June 13, 2016 12 :04 PM
North40 Comment
traffic & schools impact
I pass by the orange net story poles on Lark & Los Gatos Blvd everyday knowing that this represents the tip of the
iceberg of the project effects on Los Gatos. I remain concerned that Los Gatos is not following through on this project
with the best interests of residents in mind .
1. The traffic on Lark Ave and Los Gatos Blvd is already very congested and becoming increasingly dangerous. It is hard
to imagine adding any traffic to the area without completely redesigning the roads to account for the extra cars (and
hopefully bikes).
2. As a lifelong resident of Los Gatos, I have always imagined sending my future children to the public schools (why I
returned after college and bought a house here), but the overcrowding has me questioning this thinking. Personally, I
believe any increase in housing is irresponsible without adding school(s) in our district.
3 . With increased space for retail, I worry about the many local businesses and shops (a large part of our town's
"charm") having too much competition from chain stores.
I sincerely hope that the council, planning commission, etc take a moment to think about what our current residents
need and want to help improve our town rather than degrade it one project at a time. (I've heard many wonderful ideas
floating around including a dog park, new school, skate park, community garden, etc. etc.)
Thank You ,
Kelsey Stillinger
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Town Council Members
Anne Roley <anne@anne4pt.com >
Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:00 PM
North40 Comment; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob
Rennie
RE: HOUSING ALONG THE 17 FREEWAY
I just got back from Sacramento and while driving notice housing along 680 and 580. It looked horrible!
PLEASE! Do not put housing along the 17 freeway !
It is not healthy for the residents to be subjected to the air pollution from the gridlock traffic everyday along Hwy
17. And looking out their windows at bumper to bumper traffic! We can do better for our future Los Gatos residents!
The development does not need to have housing along the freeway. There is a better way!
T hank you for listening!
Anne Robinson Roley
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello North 40 Study Session:
bill99cmt@aol.com
Wednesday, June 15 , 2016 2:30 PM
North40 Question
Questions for 6/15/16 study session
I won't be able to attend tonight. Please consider/ answer the following:
It is said that the state of CA mandates the Town of Los Gatos must provide a certain number of housing units.
*What are the POSSIBLE penalties the state may impose if the Town does not meet the mandate?
*What penalties HAVE BEEN imposed by the state on communities that have not met the mandate?
*Should not the Town consider the penalties as a lesser impact than allowing the building of many new housing units
that will break our limited infrastructure with impacts like gridlock and over-crowded schools?
*What is the timeframe and what are the number of housing units the Town is obligated to provide?
*Why doesn't the developer offer a design of housing units typical of Los Gatos (ie, much lower density and lower height)
rather than concentrate the units in buildings not typical of Los Gatos and retain space that they can push to develop
later?
Regards,
Bill Kraus
Los Gatos, CA Resident
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Moseley,
Susie Vosky <susie.vosky@gmail.com>
Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:42 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
Our family came to Los Gatos for peace, tranquility, quality schools, open space, and the quaint downtown.
We are strongly opposed to the proposed plan for the North 40. We are very skeptical of the process of
selecting development. Who will profit from this over-building of ou r beautiful town?
This development will diminish all that Los Gatos has to offer. We came from over-developed Sunnyvale and
now Los Gatos is aspiring to the same over-development. How tragic!
Please do not go forward with this proposal. GREEDY, GREEDY, GREEDY DEVELOPERS SHOULD NOT
TAKE OVER BEAUTIFUL LOS GATOS.
Some things are more important than money. Quality of life is why we chose to live here and saved every dime
to do it!
Thank you for your consideration.
The Vosky Family
1
M arni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gardner Jeanne <jgardneralternatives@gma i l.com >
Wednesday, June 15 , 2016 3:17 PM
North40 Question
North 40 -Another Poorly Planned Los Gatos Development?
Let's please have a beautiful development thoughtfully designed that Los Gatos can be proud of in keeping with the
charm of the town unlike this monster house currently being con structed on Camino Del Cerro at the bridge at the edge
of Ross Creek. How did that approval slip by my part of the neighborhood (Westchester Drive and Camino del Cerro
area)? I just found out about it two days ago. An example of excellent, and carefully studied, recommendations for a
housing development at the corner of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd . was recently presented by a gentleman whose name
I don't recall nor do I any longer have access to the information but I hope he will be asked to submit recommendations
for the North 40 also. His recommendations made a lot of sense! He showed how it could be reconfigured and more in
harmony with structures in the area .
Please approve a design that all of us can be proud of.
Thank you for your consideration
Jeanne Gardner
125 Westchester Drive
{408) 356-9907
1
M arni M oseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda <lsherry@aol.com >
Wednesday, June 15, 2016 4:33 PM
North40 Quest ion
North 40 questions
What provisions are being made for traffic, schools and other resources belonging to our town? I are not seen anything
specific outlining my concerns and the North 40 projrpect is too gigantic for these items to be an aftermath thought.
Without the North 40 project even begun, the town is closing the exit to highway 17 at Wood Road. It does not take
much to imagine what congestion will occur with the new residencies that are projected ..
Please, do not make irreversible decisions for out special town. los Gatos resident, Linda Sherry
Sent from my iPad
1
From: Linda <lsherry@aol.com>
Date: June 15 , 2016 at 4:34:01 PM PDT
To: "bspector@losgatosca.gov" <bspector@ losgatosca.gov>
Subject: North 40
What provisions are being made for traffic, schools and other resources belonging to our town? I
are not seen anything specific outlining my concerns and the North 40 projrpect is too gigantic
for these items to be an aftermath thought.
Without the North 40 project even begun, the town is closing the exit to highway 17 at Wood
Road. It does not take much to imagine what congestion will occur with the new residencies that
are projected ..
Please, do not make irreversible decisions for out special town. Los Gatos resident,
Linda Sherry
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
June 15,2016
To: Lo s Gatos Town Coun ci l and Others Attending the n 40 Study Session .
Any plan for development of part or all of the the N40 should be based on the original vision statement.
The current project fails to embrace any ---not even one---of the guiding principles the town's citizens
naively thought would protect their valued town from an onslaught of urbanization.
North Forty Vision Statement
The North 40 reflects the special nature of our hometown. It celebrates our history, agricultural
heritage, hillside views, and small town character. The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the fabric of
our community, complementing other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods. It is
respectful of precious community resources and offers unique attributes that enrich the quality of life of
all of our residents .
Guiding Pri nciples to Achieve this Vision
• The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos
• The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees and open space
• The North 40 w i ll address the Town's residential and/or commercial unmet needs-restaurants and
nail shops? Manresa Farmers Market= necessary?
• The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community
services
Los Gatos is a town not a city. It is comprised of low rise str uctures surrounded by green space.
The planned proposal is a concrete monstrosity-a public housing project-comp letely lacking the
amenities of town living. Sidewalks are considered "open space" and exchanges acres of tree with a
few stick seedlings surrounded by concrete and asphalt.
STOP
There is still time to make the N 40 the Community that was originally envisioned-i.e. an Urban Village.
The Urban Villa ge C o ncept
In the urban village people live, work, shop and play in the same radius.
The first urban village in San Jose is a mixture of designer boutiques and upscale restaurants with a few
expensive apartments build above the retail space . Half of the first floor of the several block complex,
and all of the basement levels, is a parking garage. The entrances and exits to the two freeways that
access the area are always jammed. This urban village is a net carbon polluter!
Federal Realty concedes the businesses created in this urban village do not produce the high salary jobs
that attract people to Silicon Valley or other large cities.
You can read more about how New York City is doing what los Gatos should be doing-creating
integrated communities--by clicking the link here http://www.reimagineamerica.org/urban-
planning-can-clean-soot-environment/ to read my entire blog and relating pieces.
I appeal the los Gatos Town Council. Stop the current project. Join with all the participants in the June
15 session and local academic institutions with strong Urban Planning Departments to create a multi-
phase plan for the entire parcel.
By spreading the project across the entire parcel-it is possible to get the density needed with a mixture
of housing that more closely mirrors the Town of los Gatos.
Consider building a technology incubator to bring a better mix of jobs.
Include community centers and community facilities that attract families and, perhaps, even provide
more public recreation facilities.
Recognize that there is NO ready access to public transportation to carry workers around the valley and
no likelihood that will change in the foreseeable future . Then plan in the needed mitigation strategies.
last, even if you want to pursue the ill-conceived current project; it is hard to understand why los Gatos
must turn to an international, rather than local, builder.
Robson built a very similar community (Penny lane) on the corner of San Tomas and Hamilton last year.
A local builder has a commitment to the community that the current N40 developers do not.
As a matter of fact, Penny lane will give every member of the study committee a clear preview of what
the N40 project currently proposed will look like!
This project can be a beacon of hope for other California cities or you can continue down the current
path to becoming just another Cupertino or another Santana Row!
Is that truly what you want your legacy to the Town of los Gatos to be?
Thank you for your consideration.
Joyce Stoer Cordi, 16560 Garden lane, los Gatos 95032
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robb Walker <rnwalker1@comcast.net>
Friday, June 17, 2016 7:20AM
North40 Question
Schools
With the keen interest shown by residents for the role of schools in the No.40 why are the Superintendents now allowed
to answer residents questions on an individual basis rather than in a public forum either online or public meeting?
I realize they weren't prepared to answer questions at the Study Session but now their answers will not be avai lable for
"public scrutiny."
The online question forum was meant to include "all" No. 40 role players. With the looming deadlines approaching all
information needs to be readily accessible either online or in a public meeting not by one person having to call the
Superintendent for an answer.
Sent from my iPad
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Harold Crenetz < harc@comcast.net>
Saturday, June 18, 2016 7:57 PM
North40 Question
North 40
If after all is developed and the traffic on all the intersections is as bad as many many
people think it will be who will be responsible to mitigate the problems or if the problems
can be fixed since the construction will be done and can't be undone. Will people just
have to sit and fume in bad traffic knowing the EIR was old and really didn't figure this
out correctly .
Harold Crenetz
95033 resident but spends money and drives in Los Gatos
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello
msjulie33 <msjulie33@gmail.com >
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:26 PM
North40 Question
public opinion
I know there will be a meeting in July but in all frankness I'm asking if there is a chance this will not be allowed ... my
concern is that as a "new" resident of Los Gatos for only 5+ years, I have seen the traffic disaster on Los Gatos blvd as it
goes towards Lark, not in small part due to the increased and tightly packed housing. I'm wondering how in good
conscious this plan can even be considered when the traffic is already beyond capacity. And I need not remind anyone
of the rush hour and weekend parking lot that many of the town roads turn into ...
Thanks for your time
Julie
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From: Joel Paulson
Sent:
To:
Friday, June 24, 2016 4:13 PM
Marni Moseley
Cc: Sally Zarnowitz
Subject: FW: Special Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2016
Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
Town of Los Gatos
(408) 354 -6879
IMPORTANT NOTICES:
Building and Planning Counter hours are from 8:00AM to 1:00 PM Monday through Friday.
The information contained i n this email may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received thi s
messa ge in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete this
message from your computer. Thank you
From: dani [mailto:bronco60@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 3:47 PM
To: Joel Paulson
Subject: Special Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2016
TO : Los Gatos Planning Commission
RE : July 12, 2016 Hearing on The North Forty
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission members,
The following are ways in which the developers' proposal for Phase 1 are inconsistent with the North Forty
Specific Plan
1. The intent of the Specific Plan , as clearly enunciated in the run-up to its adoption, is that housing will be
spread over the entire North Forty area. The language of the Plan provides for this, prescribing housing in
every district. See Specific Plan sections 2 .3.1, 2.3 .2, 2.3.3. In the prefatory language of section 2.3 LAND
USE DISTRICTS , it is stated, "(T)he Specific Plan divides the North 40 into three districts based on site context
and desired development characteristics." (emphasis added).
Despite this the developer proposes 320 units in Phase 1. Phase 1 consists of les s than half of the total project
acreage. Total allowable housing units , with the density bonus, comes to 364, and since there are 32 existing
units on the site this leaves only 12 units to develop in the larger, northern half of the acreage.
At the March 30, 2016 hearing before the Planning Commission, Commissioner O 'Donnell specificall y asked
Mr. Capobres why housing is concentrated in the Lark Section and not spread over the entire North Forty. The
1
pertinent portion of Mr. Capobres ' response was " ... the Specific Plan calls for the residential to be primarily
located in the Lark District, and so we're implementing the guidelines found in the Specific Plan." This is a
misrepresentation of the intent of the Plan and ignores the language of the Plan that describes the housing
envisioned in each District.
At the end of that marathon meeting the developer's attorney summarized. In pertinent part she stated, "The
Specific Plan does not have any requirements that the 20 units per acre be spread out over the site." She then
added , "Actually, the Specific Plan was intended to take care of planning for the entire site ... ", but she failed to
mention the language in the Specific Plan regarding the desired development characteristics in each District.
At the North Forty Study Group Meeting on June 16th, in answer to the question as to whether all housing had
to be built in the Lark Section, Mr. Paulson answered, "no".
The developers ' position that there are no "requirements" to spread the housing is cynical and disingenuous. In
making your recommendation to the Town Council I submit that you are entitled to consider not only the
sections cited above but also the legislative intent as expressed in pre-adoption discus sions . Perhaps, to remove
any doubt, the Specific Plan ought to be amended to incorporate the precise requirement that reflects the
Council 's original intent and which the developers seem to need for guidance.
2. The intensity of the proposed residential development in the Lark Section is inconsistent with the Land Use
and Development Standards of the Specific Plan. As stated on page 1 of this section, among the "overarching
goals " are the commitments to ensure "compatibility with the surrounding area" and "contribute to the small
town character of Los Gatos". Section 2 .3.1 applies these goals to the Lark District. Because the Lark District
is in close proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, lower intensity residential is envisioned for this
area.
Again , the third sentence of section 2.4 PERMITTED LAND USES , states, "(l)n general, lower intensity shops,
offices , and residential land uses are envisioned in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area."
While the developers' proposal includes allowable housing types , its density is far greater than the lower
intensity residential envisioned. The most graphic evidence for this are the story poles that present a numbing
skyline when viewed from Highway 17 and along Lark A venue. The proposed density destroys the small town
character of Lo s Gatos rather than contributing to it and has stirred the justified rage of residents.
3. The primary concern about permitting any housing in the North Forty has been its potential effect on the
schools. The efficacious solution limits housing to the Town's unmet needs, such as for millennials and
seniors. Section 2.1 COUNCIL VISION is followed by Guiding Principles to achieve this vision. Included
therein are the directives that the North 40 will address the town 's residential and/or commercial unmet needs,
as well as the directive that the North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and
other community services.
Again, Policy LU 10 , under section 2 .2 LAND US E GOALS AND POLICIES, states, "(P)rovide and integrate a
mix of residential product types designed to minimize impacts on schools while complying with SB50, School
Facilities Act , and serve the unmet housing needs within the Town of Los Gato s ."
Again, in Chapter 6 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ,PHASING AND ADMINISTRATION, the Residential Unit
Size Mix Example states in part, "(T)he types and si zes are targeting the unmet ne eds of Los Gatos."
Despite these clear and oft-repeated bedrock rules the developers proposes 54 units with 3 bedrooms and 135
with 2 bedrooms in the Lark District. Many of the so-called "2 bedroom" units have a "den" that can easily be
2
converted to a bedroom. These units will be magnets for families with school age children and ought to be
summarily disallowed as inconsistent with the Specific Plan.
The developers' rationale for the 2 and 3 bedroom units is that focus group comments indicated that 1 bedroom
units may be more difficult to sell. This is irrelevant in that it is not the job of the Town to help the developer
sell units. But, in addition, it contradicts the findings in APPENDIX C of the Specific Plan. There, in
summary, it states that "Gen Y" people are looking for "smaller household sizes", "smaller units with some
larger units featuring loft characteristics", which include, "open floor plans, few, if any
bedrooms ... ". (emphasis added).
That the developers entered into a "Voluntary Contribution Agreement" with the Los Gatos Union Elementary
School District does not excuse them from following the directives of the Specific Plan to provide residential
product types designed to minimize impacts on schools. Three bedroom and potential three bedroom
units violate this requirement. Minimizing impact on schools is accomplished by offering units that don't
appeal to families . The developer cannot trade an agreement outside the Specific Plan for a violation of clear
and unequivocal rules within it.
Respectfully submitted,
WoodyNedom
16280 Azalea Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408 356-7956
3
On Jun 27, 2016, at 11 :57 AM, Anne Roley <anne@anne4pt.com> wrote:
Dear Town Council Members
As you already know, I have been vey vocal about not putting housing along the 17 Freeway as is suggested in
the current N40 development proposal.
The EIR was done in 2014. The traffic has gotten much worse over the last 2 years along the 17 freeway
leading to increased pollution than was previously studied in the EIR. Cars are gridlocked for hours at the
Lark Ave and 17 Freeway during commute hours and on the weekends going to the beach. And there is a
possibility of widening that area to 3 lanes.
Below is information from the Sierra Club and other sources regarding the health risk of living along the
freeways. When I searched the internet for studies regarding the health risks ofliving along a Freeway there
were so many that I am not going to send them all.
I know one of you mentioned that the developer was going to put a road between the homes and the freeway
thinking that was going to make it better - I am not so sure about that - a road only allows more cars and more
pollution closer to there housing units.
I hope you seriously consider this research when you make your decision regarding the housing component on
the N40.
Thank you,
Anne Robinson
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/1 0 .1186/1476-069X-6-23
http://now.tufts .edu/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways
<report.pd:f><Health-Hazard-of-Freeways.pd:f><Freeway.pd:f>
.
TO : MJ\.f<.'( i'SA"DA M Cf' + P~l'\ fJIJJ N ~ C.t'>w.IM I-ss ID REef:IVED
FROM : Robb Walker and Nancy Walker
RE: North Forty Plan JUN 2 7 20 16
T~·· '"'J OF LOS GATOS
f~w ~N NING DIVISION
The North Forty proposal before you will set you apart
as a Commission that went the extra mile to see that our
Town would be better off because ofwhatyou have
done.
I have made a point to sit in on resident groups that
have covered and ~~uncovered" facts that you will be
aware of soon.
These are the knowledgeable people you must listen
to very carefully. Contrary to the Town staff, they live
in Los Gatos and have a stake in the future of our Town.
Also, in my opinion, all their energies and expertise far
outweigh that of the Town staff. I have attended group
meetings recently where I was truly amazed at the
dedication and clarity these residents have shown in
gathering facts and arriving at II alternative decisions" to
what staff has provided you. Staffs suggested approval
of Via Vincinato would have been a disaster if gone
along with.
Staffs approval of the current North 40 plan with it's
reliance on outdated traffic data along with faulty
interpretation thereof calls for a certain amount of fact
gathering and insight on your part as well as a dash of
~~healthy skepticism" on your part.
Residents from these well-attended groups will be
presenting their findings on the 12th. Please remember
that a tremendous amount of time and energy will have
led up to their presentations.
You can trust me on that.
Robb and Nancy Walker
Los Gatos Beautification Committee
"Working to make Los Gatos beautiful"
raffic presents a unique public
due to the toxicity of its
its e xtensive integration into
our lives ana communities. The stakes are high
including excess cancers and children's asthma
rates occurring at epidemic proportions. This
threat can no longer be ignored; it must be
clearly understood and addressed ."
-ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR TIM BUCKLEY
BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLI C HEALTH
JOHNS HO PKINS UN IVERS IT Y
A cri ti cal consequen ce of spraw ling deve lop-
ment and reliance on highways as a principal
means of transportation is ta il pipe po ll ution.
Evidence is increasing that air po ll utio n from vehi -
cles increases a wide range of healt h risks . Th is
report summarizes more than 24 pee r-reviewed
studies that document health haza rds caused by
po ll ution from cars, trucks, and othe r vehic les. It
also describes cu rr en t debates over major high -
way projec t s occurring in more th an ten commu -
nities around the country.
Key Find ings f ro m Scient ific Stu dies :
• The Journa l of the American Medical Association
st udy links soot in diesel exhaust to lung cancer, car-
diopulmonary disease and other causes of death.
• A Denver study shows ch ildren living near busy
roads are six to eight times more likely to develop
leukemia and other forms of cancer.
• A Journa l of the Amer ican Medica l Association study
fin ds that in creasing pub lic transpo rtation along
with other traffic control measures durin g the 1996
Atl anta Olympics reduced acute asthma.
• The California South Coast Air Qua lity Manage-
ment District did a Mu ltiple Air Toxics Exposure
Study-11, the most comprehensive study of urban
toxic ai r pollution, showing that vehic le exhaust
is the source of cancer-causing air po ll utants in
Southern Ca lifornia.
A significant body of scientific evidence is emerg -
ing that links pollution from motor ve hicles to a
range of human hea lth problems including asthma,
lung cance r and prematu re death .
Federal transportation policy has long focused on
expanding the highway system as its pr incipa l goa l.
Approximate ly 80 pe rcent of federa l tra nspo rtation
funding is spe nt on highways. But by designing
communit ies to reduce reliance on vehic les and giv-
ing people more transporta tion choices li ke trains
and clean buses, we can dim inis h the health risks
associated with highway pollution. Cru cial public
po licy changes must inc lude a more ba lanced trans-
portation po licy, greater emphasis on pub lic trans-
portation systems an d other options such as walk-
. A Johns Hopk i ns study shows association ing and bicycling. In addition, we need to lim it deve l-
between traff1c and curbsid e concentrations of opment near new roadway s.
can cer causing po ll utants .
Sierra Club 2004 1 i
__ J_•' -
don't think that they
uld build a school that lies
al mg a freeway."
-BARRY WALLERSTE IN , EXECUTIVE OFF ICER,
SOUTH CO AST AIR QUA LI TY
MANAGEMENT DISTR ICT
Air po llution is a major risk to our hea lth and safe-
ty and is the cont ributi ng cause of nea rly 100,000
premature deaths each year,' more than twice the
number of deaths from ca r crashes.2 In 2002, almost
half of all Ame ricans-or 137 mi lli on peop le -lived i n
counties with unhea lth y air laden with one or more
cr ite ria air po ll utants, according to the American
Lun g Assoc iation.3
A major sour ce of this air po lluti on is th e exhaust
from the ta il pipes of t rucks and ca rs. A var iety of
dangerous pol luta nts are released daily from the
extensive networks of busy highways that bo rder
countless neighborhood s and businesses. These
pollutants ca use numerous adverse hea lth effects
including can ce r, asthma, and he art attacks . In add i-
tion, as th ma, which is exacerbated by po ll ution from
trucks and ca rs, is the leading serio us chron ic il lness
among chi ldren and the number one reason chil-
dre n mi ss schoo l•
The main cancer-causing po ll utan ts from trucks
and car s are diese l parti cula te matte r and Vo latile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, 1,3-
but adiene, formaldehyde, and po lycycl ic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).
In recent years the relat ionsh ip between veh icle
po llution and increased cancer risk has received
consid erabl e scien tific attention. A Denver study
shows that chi ldr en who live with in 250 yards of a road
with 20,000 or more ve hi cl es per day are eight times
more likely to get leukemia and six times more likel y to
get other cance rs. The authors of the study attribute
most of th is risk to th e VOCs in motor vehicle exhaus t.5
As the graphic shows, roadways create a corri dor of pol -
lut ion for the drivers and res idents nearby.
Highway Air Pollution and
Public Policy
Bush Administration Transpo rtation
Policy: Fewer Transportation Choices
and More Pollution
Just as publi c transportati on riders hi p is rea ching
record number s,' th e Bush ad ministration is propos-
ing to dimi ni sh inve stme nt in diverse transportation
choices in America within the Senate Bi ll 1071 that
has ye t to be approved by t he leg islature? The
ad minist rat ion is recommending greater incen tives
for highways than for cleaner pub lic transportat ion
projects . Under thei r plan communities wou ld pay
50 percent of the cost for new public transportatron
projects. Comp leting on ly 20 percent of the new
proposed road pr ojects wou ld put public trans -
portation alternat ives further out of the ir reac h. In
addition, the admi nist ration proposes spending less
than one do llar on train transit projects for every
fou r dol lars spent on highways .
The ad ministration's tra nsportation plan fai ls to
ad equate ly fund t he Congestio n Mit igation and Air
Qua lity Improvement (C MAQ) program th at spurs
transportation projects tha t improve a region 's ai r
quality. Demand for t he CMAQ is expected to sky-
rocket, as th e number of regions with unhealthy air
2 Highway Health Hazards
he Bush administration,
with state and local
governments, should promote
smart growth, reduce sprawl,
and increase transportation
choices . By revitalizing existing
communities and designing
new developments that have
bus, bike, or train service to
reduce the reliance on cars,
travel will be easier for people.
Building better communities cuts
traffic and reduces the distan ce
that commuters have to travel.
Increasing Transportation Choices
Decreases Pollution
We can do better. Provid ing transportation choic-
es such as tr ains, buses, sidewa lks, biking paths, and
ridesharing are key aspec ts of healthy co mmunities
where residents can have t he option not to drive .
Taking these steps wou ld reduce traffic, minimize air
po ll ution, and pro tect our hea lt h, ou r families, and our
future. A 2001 study pub li shed in the Journa l of
Am erican Medica l Associat es showed that providing
more transportation cho ices and other t raffic contro l
measures during the At lanta Olympic Games in 1996
reduce d traffic 22 percent, air po ll ution by 28 percent,
and ast hma attacks by up to 44 percent in children.14
Better Community Design Cuts Traffic
Efficien t deve lopment br ings houses , wo rkp laces,
and shopp ing areas closer together and reduces the
dis tance of daily co mmut er trave l. Mixed-u se design
allow s integration of re sidential and comme rcial
zones, ma king it po ssib le to live near your place of
work.15 This efficient des ign can be accomplished
th rough infi ll, tra nsi t-oriented deve lopment. zon in g,
and brownfie lds redevelopment. Transit-o r iented
development places new deve lopment within easy
wa lki ng distan ce of a major t ransit center. Cente ring
activities on a transit station and provid ing pedestri-
an-friend ly wa lkways makes trans it a convenient
mode of transportation. It rev italizes neighborhoods
and redu ces traffic by up to 20 percent according to
the Land Use Tran spor tation Air Quality Connection
(LUTRAQ) study from Por tland, Oregon -"
4 Highway Health Hazards
Businesses, pu bli c space,
and t ransportation co-
ex ist on thi s downtow n
l.!!:::::::::l:.!....:.l'---.;;::::.20i!aiilr811~.:::.:.1........., __ -==--~~~~~~~----~-------=-=-l Denve r st reet.
Changes in Fede ral Transpo rtation
Po licy Can Cut Po ll ution and Provide
More Transportatio n Choices
• Federal and state transportat io n agen cies shou ld
ba lance tran spor tation investments between high-
wa ys and alternat ive for ms of transportation includ-
ing pub lic tran sit, bike paths, an d si dewa lks.
· They sho uld al so support a "fix it first" menta lity,
whic h uses reso urces to maintain existing roa ds
before b ui lding new ones . Thi s spends fewe r tax
doll ars for new car-only transporta ti on projec ts .
• In addition, the EPA and DOT shou ld co ndu ct
health risk studies in its envi ron mental rev iew of
new road projects with more th an 150,000 vehic les
pe r day and provide th at informa tion to the public
as parr of transportation decision-m aking processes.
We Can Take Action in Ou r
Commun iti es for Clean Transpo rtat ion
• We can carpoo l, bu s, or take the train to work
whe never possi ble to reduce traffic and po ll ution;
enco ura ge loca l gove rnme nts to use clean-burn ing
bu ses and hy b rid car s for pu bli c tran sporta tion sys-
t ems an d governmen t ve hi cles .
·Ask our loca l go vern me nts and workp laces to offer
more pu blic tr ans portation in ce ntive s.
• In ce ntives might includ e "Co mmuter Choice
Checks" th at give wo rkers a tax deduction for the
money they spe nd using public transit to commute
to work, tax credits for wa lking or biking, or a parking
cash-o ut.
Sierra Club 2004 5
dies suggest that children
1ve near busy roads are more likely
to get leukemia and other forms of
cancer. It would be prudent to study
such cancer risks near all busy roads
where elevated VOC levels are likely."
-DR. HOWARD WAC HTEL,
UN IVERSITY OF COLORADO
The following peer-rev iew ed and pub lis hed stud-
ies concluded that there is a link between traffic -
related air pollution and hea lth risks. The hea lth risks
inc lude inc reased likelihood of asthma, cancer, pre -
mature and low-b irth weight babies, and a genera l-
ly higher risk of death. Where possib le, we put the
resea rcher's contact info rmation."
1. Children living Near Busy
Roads More likely t o Deve lop
Leukemia, Cance r
A 2000 Denver study showed that children living
w ithin 250 yards of streets or highways with
20,000 vehic les per day are six t imes more likely to
deve lop all typ es of cancer and eight t imes more
likely to get leu kemia . The study looked at associ-
at ions between traffic density, pow er lines, and all
childhood cancers wi t h me asu rements obtained
in 1979 and 1990. It found a weak assoc iati on
from power lines , but a strong association with
highways. It suggested tha t Vo lat ile Organic
Compound po llution from t raffic may be the can -
cer promoter causing th e prob lem.
Pearson, Wachte l, Robert L. Pearson, and Kristie Eb ie. (2000)
Distanc e-weighte d traffic density in proximity to a home is a risk
factor for leukemia an d other chi ldhood cancers. Journal of Air
and Waste Management Association 50:175-180.
Contact: Professor Howa rd Wachtel. Department of Electrical
Engineering, Universit~· of Colorado. phone : (3 03) 49 2-7713. e-ma1 l:
wachtel@coloradoedu.
2. Road Traffic Contributes to the
Origin of Childhood Leukemia
A 2004 Ita lian st udy found that Chi ldhood
Leukemia is pa rt ial ly caused by roadside emissions
in the Province of Varese. The authors conducted a
popu lation-based, case-contro lled stu dy in the
Province ofVarese, no rthern Ita ly, which was covered
by a popu lation-based can cer registry. Thei r study
fo un d that the risk of chi ldhood leu kemia was
almost four times higher for heavi ly exposed chil-
dre n co mpared to chi ldren whose homes we re not
exposed to road traffic emissions of benzene.
Chi ldren either inha le Benzene as a gas or particu-
late matter wh ich has absorbed benzene. Their
mode l inc luded tr affic density div ided into tw o
groups-one greater and one less than 10,000 vehi-
cles per day, distance, and wea t her co nd itions to
estimate benzene concen tration. The researcher's
data suggests that motor veh icle t raffic em iss ions
are invo lved in th e origin of childhood leukemia .
"Chi ldhood Leukemia and Road Traffic A popu lat ion-based Case-
Control study."Crosignani P; Ti ttarelli A; Borg1ni A; Codazzi T; Rove ll i
A; Porro E; Contier o P; Bianchi N; Tagl iabue G; Fissi R; Ro ssi tto F;
Berrino F. International Journal of Cancer, 2004 , V1 08, N4 (FEB
1 0), p 596-599 2004 -02-10
3. Increasing Public
Transportat ion and Cutting
Traffic Reduces Asthma At t acks
This 2001 Journal of the Amer ica n Medi ca l
As sociation study fou nd that increasing public
transportation along with oth er tr affi c control meas-
ures during the 1996 At lanta Olympics redu ce d
6 Highway Health Hazards
other stationary sources accounted for the remain-
ing 10 percent. The study showed that the hi ghest
risk is in urban areas whe re there is heavy traffic and
high concentrations of population and industry.
South Coa st Air Qua lity Management Distri ct. Mu ltip le Air Tox1cs
Exposure Study-11. March 2000 .
Cont ac t: Steve Ba rbosa, phone: (909) 396-2171,
sba rbosa@aqmd.gov. or Barbara Weller, Cali fo rnia Air
Resources Board, phone. (916) 324 -4 816
11. lung Function Reduced Among
Children living Near Truck Traffic
A European study determined that exposure to
traffic-rela t ed air po ll ution, '"in particular diese l
exhaust particles," may lead to reduced lu ng fun c-
tion in chi ldre n living near major motorways .
Brunekreef, B; N.A. Janssen ; J DeHartog; H. Harssema ; M. Kn ape. P
Van Vliet (199 7). "Air po llutiO n from truck traffic and l ung functio n
m children l1ving near motorways ·Epidem iolo gy. 8(3):298-303 .
12. Traffic-Related Air Pollution
Associated with Respiratory
Symptoms in Two Year Old Children
This cohort study in the Netherlands found that
two year old children who are exposed to higher
levels of traffic-r elated air po llution are more like ly to
have self-reported respiratory illnesses, in clud ing
wheezing, ear/nose/throat infections, and reporting
of physician -diagno se d asthma, nu or serious co ld .
Brauer, Dr. Michael J.et al. (2002). A1 r Pollution from Traffic and the
Development of Respiratory Infections and Asthmatic and Allergic
Symptoms in Children . Amencan Journal of Respiratory and
Cnucal Care Med1cin e Vol. 166 pp 1092 -1098.
Contact Dr Michael Brauer, Schoo l of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, Un 1versi ty of Bnt1sh Columb1a,
Vancouver. Bnush Columb1a. Canada Phone_ (604) 822-9585. e-
mail bwuer@imerchange.ubc ca.
13. Asthma Symptoms Caused by
Tru ck Exhaust
A study was conducted in Munster, Ge rm any to
determine the relationship between tru ck traffic and
ast hma symptoms. In tota l, 3,703 German students,
between the ages of 12-15 years, completed a writ-
ten and video questionnaire in 1994-1 995. Positive
associations between both wheezing and all ergic
rhi nit is and truck traffic were found during a 12
month period. Po tentially confounding va ria bles,
including indicators of socio -econom ic status, smok-
ing, etc., did not alter the asso ci atio ns substa ntially.
Duh me, H.; SK Weiland, et al. (1996) The assoCiation between se lf-
repo rted symptom s of asthma and allergic rhinitis and se lf-report -
ed traffic density on street of residence in ado lescents
Epidemio logy 7(6) 578-82.
14. Proximity of a Child's Residence
to Major Roads linked to Hospital
Ad mi ssions for Asthma
A study in Birmingham, United Kingdom , deter-
mined that living near major roads was associated
with the risk of hospita l admissi on for asthma in chi l-
dre n younger than five years of age. The area of res -
idence and traff1c now patt erns were compare d for
children admitted to the hospita l for as thm a, chi l-
dren adm itt ed for non-resp ira to ry reasons, and a
random samp le of children from the comm uni ty.
Children admitted with an asthma diagnosis were
sig nificantl y more likely to li ve in an area with hi gh
traffic flow (mo re than 24,000 vehicles/ 24 hrs) locat-
ed along the nea re st segment of main road.
Edwards, J; S Wa lters, et al. (1994). Ho spital admiss ions for asthma
in preschool ch ildren: relat1onsh1p to major roads in Birm ingham,
United Kingdom. Archives of Environmental Health. 49(4): 223 -7.
15. Exposure to Cancer-Caus i ng
Benzene Higher for Chi ldr en living
Near High Traffic Areas
German researchers co mpar ed 48 chil dre n who
lived in a central urban are a with high traffic dens ity
Many sc hoo ls are
located near busy
roads in add it ion to
havi ng diese l buses
idling nea rby.
Sierra Club 2004 9
Des pite strong oppositio n
prior to its co nstru ct ion,
Sa lt Lak e City 's TRAX
syste m is run ning strong .
It ca rri es over 20,000
riders every day-many
of whom commuted in
ca rs befor e switching t o
rail.
with 72 chi ldre n who lived in a sma ll ci ty wit h low
traffic density. They found th at the blo od leve ls of
benzene in chi ldren who lived in the high-traffic-den -
si ty area were 71 perce nt highe r than th ose of chil-
dren who lived in the low -traffic-density area . Blood
levels of to luene and ca rb oxy hemoglobin (formed
aher breathing ca rb on monox ide) were also signi fi-
can tl y elevated (56 percent and 33 percent hig her,
respective ly) among chi ldren regularly ex po sed to
vehic le po ll ution. Ap last ic anemia, a seno us condiion
in which bone mar row stops producing bloo d ce lls,
and leukemia we re associa ted with excessive expo-
sure to benzene.
Jermann E. H. Haj tmtragha, A. Brockhaus. I Freier, U. Ewers. A
Roscovanu: Exposure of cht ldren to benzene and other motor
vehicl e emtssion s. Zentralblatt fur Hygiene und Umweltmedizin
189:50-61, 1989 .
16. Air Pollution from Busy Roads
Linked to Shorter Life Spans for
Nearby Residents
Dutch researchers looked at th e effects of long -term
expos ure to traffic-related air pollutant s on 5,000
adul ts. They found that people who lived near a main
road were almo st twice as likely to die from heart or
lung disease an d l.tl times as likely to die from any
premat ure cause com pared with those who lived in
less-trafficked areas. The auth ors say traffic emissions
co ntain many po ll utan ts that might be responsib le for
the heal th risks. such as ultra-fine partic les, die sel soot,
and nitrog en oxides, which have bee n link ed to car-
diovascular and res pira tory problem s.
Hoek. Brunekreef, Goldbohn.Fischer, van den Brandl (2002).Association
Between Mortality and lndtcators of Traffic-related /lJr Pollutton tn the
Nethedand s:A Cohort Study. Lancer. 360 (9341)·1203-9.
17. Asthma More Common for
Children Living Near Highways
A study of near ly 10,000 chi ldren in Eng land found
that wheezing illness, includ in g asthma, was mo re
like ly with increas in g proxi mity of a child's home to
main roads. Th e ri sk was greatest for chi ldren li ving
within 90 yards of the road.
Venn et al (200 I ). Living Near A Matn Road and the Ris k of
Wheez tng Illn ess in Children. American Journal of Respiratory
and Critical Care MediCine. Vol 164, pp 2177-2180.
18. Exposure to Nitrogen Diox ide
(N02) from Vehicles Exacerbates
Asthma Attacks
Researchers at St. Mary's Hospit al in Portsmou th ,
Engl and determ in ed tha t while 80 perce nt of asthma
anacks are initia lly caused by viral infections, ex posure
to traffic poll ution can increase sympto ms as muc h as
200 percent. The team mea su red the exposure of 114
as t hma ti c chi ldren betw ee n ages eigh t-eleven from
nonsmoking fam ilies over almos t a who le yea r. They
found a st rong co rrel at ion between higher N0 2 pol-
lution and the seve rity of an atta ck.
Cha uhan. A J. et al Persona l exposu re to n1trogen d1ox de (N02)
and the seventy of v~rus-tnd u ced asthma 1n chtldren Lancer
Volume 361 Iss ue 9373 Pag e 1939.
10 Highway Health Hazards
19. A School's Proximity to Highways
Associated with Asthma Prevalence
A study of 1,498 children in 13 schools in the
Province of South Ho lland foun d a positive relation-
ship between schoo l proximity to highways and
asthma occurrence. Truck traffic intens ity and the
concentra ti on of po ll utants measured in schoo ls
were found to be signif icantly associated with
chronic re spir atory symptoms.
Van Vlie t, P, M Knape, et al (1997). Motor vehicle exhaust and chron-
IC respiratory symptoms 1n ch1ldren hving near fre eways
Enwonmental Research 74(2): 122-32
20. Five Times More Deaths Due to
Air Pollution than Traffic Accidents
This study analyzed the affect of traffic-re lated air
pollut ion and tra ffic accidents on life expectancy in
the area of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It esti-
mated that almost Gve times more deaths in this
region resulted from motor vehicle pol lution than
from traffic acci dents.
Szagun and Se1del (2000) Mortal1ty due to road traffic 1n Baden-
Aurttemberg Gesundhe1tswesen . 62(4): 225 -33
21. Cancer Risk Higher Near Major
Sources of Air Pollution, Including
Highways
A 1997 English study found a cancer co rri do r
within three mi les of highways, airports, power
plants, an d other major polluters. The study
examined childr en who died of leuk emia or other
cance rs from the years 19 53-1980, where they
were born and where th ey died. It found that the
greatest danger lies a few hundred yards from a
highway or polluting faci lity and decreases as you
get further away from the faci l ity.
Knox and Gi lman ( 1997) Hazard proximities of childhood cancers
in Great Bntain from 1953-1980. Journal of Epidemiology and
CommumtyHea lth 51 151 -159
22 . Diesel Exhaust Linked to Asthma
This study found that parti cu late matter from
diese l trucks can act as an irritant in the airway caus-
ing asthma. The authors show that diesel exhaust
can trigger asthma attacks in individua ls with no
pre-existing asthmatic history. When a natu ra l aller-
gen, such as pollen, was added to the situation, the
rea ction was even more dramat ic.
Pandya, Robert, et al "D iesel Exhaust and Asthma : Hypothesis and
Molecular Mechani sms of Action · Environmental Hea lth
Perspectives Supplements Volume 110, Number 1, Februa ry 2002 .
23 . Low Levels of Air Pollution Cause
Asthma Attacks
Exposure to miniscule amounts of ozone and soot
particu late matter 2.5 1-Jm or less (PM2.5} in air at lev-
els above current U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA} stan dards is a risk factor for resp iratory
sympto ms in chi ld ren with asthma.
Da ily respiratory symptoms and medication use
were examined prospectively for 27 1 children
younger than 12 years with p hysician -di agnosed,
act ive asthma residing in southern New Eng land .
Exposure to ambient co ncentrations of ozone and PM
2.5 from Apri l 1 through September 30, 2001, was
assessed using ozone (peak 1-hour and 8-hour) and
24-hou r PM 2.5. Logistic regression ana lyses using
generalized estimating equations were performed
separate ly for maintenance medication users (n =
130) and nonusers (n = 141). Associatio ns between
pollutants (adjus ted for temperature, controlling for
same-and previous -d ay leve ls) and respiratory symp-
toms and use of rescue medication were evaluated.
Mean (SD) leve ls we re 59 (19) ppb (one -h ou r
::r ... z=o..;..."'lll Don't inhale!
.JII;;~
In-ca r po llution
conta in s more tox ins
than ambient ai r
according to a
Cal ifo rnia study.
Sierra Club 2004 11
aver ag e) and 51 (16) ppb (8-hou r ave rage) for ozo ne
an d 13 (8) 1Jg /m3 for PM2.5. In co-po ll utant models,
ozo ne level but not PM2.5 was sign ifi cant ly assoc iat-
ed with res pir ato ry sympto ms and rescue medica-
ti on us e among childr en using mainte nance med -
ication; a 50 -ppb in crease in one -ho ur ozo ne was
assoc ia ted wit h increa se d likelihood of wheeze (by
35 percent) and chest ti ghtness (by 47 percent). The
highest leve ls of ozone (one-hour or eigh t-h our
averages) we re associated with increased shortness
of breath and rescue medicatio n use. No sign ifi can t,
exposu re-d ependent associations were obse rved
for any outcome by any po ll uta nt among children
w ho did not use maintenance medicat ion.
As th matic ch ildren us ing mai ntenance medica -
tion are parti cularly vu ln erab le to ozo ne, controlling
for exposure to fin e par ti cles, at leve ls be low EPA
stan dards.
Gent, Janneane PhD; Elizabeth W. Triche, PhD; Theodore R Holford,
PhD; Kathleen Be langer, PhD; Michael B Bracken, PhD; Wi lli am S
Beckett, MD; Brian P. Leaderer, PhD, Associa tion of Low-Level Ozone
and Fine Particles W1th Respiratory Symptoms in Children Wi t h
Asthma, Journal of the Amencan MediCal Association. 2003;
290:1859-1867.
http//jama.amaassn.org/cgt/contenrlabstracrl290/ 14/1859.
One happy
commuter!
Lea lo ves Disney 's
monorai l, bu t wishe s
t hat she had more
transportation choi ces
sooner.
24. Motor Vehicle Air Toxins Cause
High Po ll ution levels Inside Homes
An ai r pollution stu dy was done as a part of the
West Oak land Diese l Tru ck Em iss ions Redu ction
Initiative. Researchers meas ured diesel pa rticula t es
near mobi le and idling trucks at t he We st Oak land
Port. An aetha lomete r was used to measu re indoor
tox ins and a high level of diese l particu lates was
fo und . The peop le w ho lived in these homes were
exposed in doors to five times the leve l of die se l
particu lates that peop le we re exposed to outdoo rs
in oth er areas of Oak land .
W. Buchan, M.D.an d M Chan Jac kso n; Contai ner Truck Traffi c
Assessment and Po tenua l M1t1gat 1on Me asures fo r the West
Oak land D1esel Truck Emission Reduc tion lnit1at1ve, from "C learing
the Air, Reduc1ng Diesel Po ll ut 1on 1n West Oakland.' a Report to
Pac1 f1c Institute, 654 13th Street , Pre servation Park, Oakland,
Cali forma 94612, by liAX LLC, 1601 S De Anza Blvd, Suite 100,
Cupertino, Californra 95014, November, 2003
The fol l owrng techn1ca l reports are o n l ine at:
hllp/lwww.pacinst org/drese/1
1 TIAX Diescllruck Study (T IAX, 2003) 2. West Oakland Dresel
Particulate Maller Emrssions Inventory and Air Quality Mo nitoring
Study (Pacrfic Instit ute (P I, 2003) 3 Summary of Studie s (P I, 2003)
4 Data Gap Analysis (PI , 2003)
12 Highway Health Hazards
t)e following stories highlight
n sp ortation-related air pollution
s from around the country. As
metropolitan areas continue to sprawl
and traffic congestion worsens,
communities are facing important long-
term decisions about transportation .
The Sierra Club believes that widening
and building new highways is not only
poor transportation policy but also
threatens public health .
lative emissions of tox ic air pollutants in a given area
but are cur rent ly not regu lated as individual faci lities.
So lution. The Sou th Coast Air Qua li ty
Management District is developing a plan that
wo uld enta il new publi c notification requirements
for schoo ls and home bui lders and make the region-
al air pollu ti on control agency more prom in ent in
land use decisions. One proposal fo r the plan would
requ ir e deve lope rs of new schoo ls, hospit al s, day
care ce nters, and home bu il ders to p rovi de not ice to
th ei r pa t rons of toxic emiss ions within 1,000 feet.
The presence of any freeway, or potential ly busy
bo ul evard, within 1,000 feet cou ld tr igger the notice.
"I don't think that they should bui ld a schoo l that lies
along a freeway." said Barry Wallerstein, Executive
Officer of the South Coast Air Qua lity Management
District.'8
Contact: Sam Atwood, South Coast Ai r Quality
We rea lize t ha t t here are trans portation cha l-Management District, phone: 909-396-3687, ema il :
lenges aro u nd the country, bu t we be li eve t hat rea-sa t wood@aqmd.gov. or Tim Fran k (510) 710-4563,
so nab le, alternat ive solu t io ns exis t t hat expand emai l: tim.frank@sierraclub.org.
t ransportation choices, reduce congest ion, and help
to clea n ou r air. Illinois
We have in clud ed stories fro m Ca li forn ia, Ill inois,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohi o, Texas, Utah, Cha ll enge. The Illinois Department of Trans -
Washing ton, D.C. and Wisconsin. portation is plann i ng to expand the Eisenhower
Expressway through Oak Park. The Il linois Tollway
California Authority has propos ed bui lding to ll ways; Route 53
Ch a ll enge. Existing air po ll ution laws in
Southern California set the maximum emission limits
for toxic po ll ution from individua l fac il ities, but cumu -
lative emissions of tox1c po ll utants are not regulated.
Highways are an impor tant contribu tor to the cumu -
into Lake County north of Ch1cago and 1-35 5 in Will
County south of Chicago. These highways and toll-
ways will create hundreds of th ousa nds of added
truck and car trips near neighborhoods, schoo ls, and
parks. Fam ilies with sma ll ch ild re n cou ld be put at
risk, but are unaware of the hea lth consequences of
large r roadways near their hom es .
Sierra Club 2004 13
sprawl. Instead of continu ing to bui ld new lanes that
will induce further spraw l and increas e the number of
ca rs on the roads, the Texas De partment of
Transporta tio n (TXDOT) and Federa l Highway
Admin istration (F HWA) should focus on safer and
more reasonab le alterna tives.
For the Ka ty Freeway, transit alternatives such as
expanded rail system and more bus routes should
be pursued. A coa lition of residents affected by the
Katy Freeway expansion project has ca lled upon
TXDOT to halt their old and ineffective plan, and
adopt an alternative plan wh ich wi ll im prove mobil-
ity without harming the health and live li hood of cit-
izens. Their alternative plan for the freeway ca ll s for
a comb in ation of depressing the road, adding rail
and a dense planting of trees to protect schoo ls and
residential areas from dangerous fine part icula tes in
freeway po ll ution.
For the Grand Parkway, re sources shou ld be all o-
cated on a "fix it first" approach. Befo re const ructin g
new freeways to serve a projec ted population that
wou ld not exist without this new road, resource s
shou ld be focused to more needy proj ects. For
example, a number of existing and poorly main-
tained highways shou ld be fixed and impro ved to
avoid floodi ng and relieve unnecessary co ng es tion
for ex isting towns and neighb or hoods near portions
of the proposed route.
Con ta ct: Christine Sagste tt er, Sierra Club, phon e:
(713) 725-9421.
em a i 1: ch ris tine.sags tetter@s ierraclub.org
Utah
Challenge. Utah's Salt Lake City metro-
politan area run s along the base of the 10,000
ft. Wasatch Moun t ains . Dur ing winte r months
low lying , high-pressure inversion s tr ap ai r pol-
l ution from automobiles direct ly at the leve l
peop le breathe. This prob l em causes cases o f
ch ildhood as t hma and respirat ory i ll nesses of
the public. In January, 2004 Utah b eg an anoth-
er w inter i nversion, fi lling hospita ls with respi-
ra to ry victims. The state is asking people not to
drive and prohibiting wood burning stoves
and fireplaces.
Exacerbating t he pr oblem, Utah is underta k-
ing three highway expansions. The State of
Utah is preparing for another expansion of 1-15
to the north, pushing th rough court the fi rst
phase of a new 125-mi le bypass freeway ironi-
ca l ly named the Legacy Highway, and begin-
ning an Environm enta l Impact Statement
process for a se co nd phase of Leg acy in west-
ern Sa lt Lake County re-named for polit ica l
and lega l reasons , the Mountain View Corr idor.
Each of these projects fa ci l itates massive
spraw ling development and in creases au t o-
mob i le dependency. Legacy Highway would
also act as a truck ing bypass route , whic h
would significantly incr ease the po llut ion from
tru cks in the met ropo l itan are a.
Solution. Uta h shou ld postpone new road
bui lding and change t heir pri ority to bu ildi ng a
regiona l transit sys tem first. This co uld be accom-
plished by expanding upon th e very popul ar and
Air pollution obscuring
downtown Salt Lake
Ci ty is hard on eyes
and harmful to
children's lungs.
Sierra Club 2004 17
' '
... . -,.~·"'!.'"''~~ ... \·'·' , .. ~· ·~ : -~-.. .... . --11-~.r , '. .; ~-~. ·' lfJ:f'."· ~ ------·· . . . -'~ . . ._...,.~ -:-::.:::.:...: ... -/~'~ --,.. . . '
successfu l two ex isting light rail lin es and adding com mut er trai n
and bus rapid transit co nstru cti on to the mi x. A regiona l transit sys-
tem wou ld encourage smarter develop ment patterns that would
redu ce automobile use and protect pub lic hea lth from air pollution
related illnesses.
Contact: Marc Hei leson, Sie rra Club. phone: (801) 467-9294 emai l:
marc.heileson@sie rrac lub.org
Washington D.C. Metro Area
ICC Challenge. In 2002, the Maryland Leg islature passed a res-
olution urging that a five year old study concerni ng the Inter-County
Co nnector (ICC) be restarted. The new Governor, Robert Ehr lich, favors
re-start ing the study and building the highway as qui ckly as possi bl e.
The Sierra Club has raised the health issue to the Legis lature, to public
officials, and to the public in various material s. Pro-highway advocates
say the ICC will improve air quality and health by getting cars trave ling
at higher speeds, and thus emitting less pollut ion. Howeve r, data pre-
vious ly highlighted in this report wou ld suggest ot herwise.
So l ut ion . In stead of adding a highway extreme ly close to
co mmun ities throughout much of Mary land, the state should
in stead examine ways to imp lement realis t ic alternative forms of
transportation. A train system is the opt ion tha t hold s the most
promise.
Wil son Br idge Challe nge . The fate of this project was
forma ll y decided in 1997. But since then the Sier ra Club has urged
Maryland and Virginia to choose train, rath er tha n High Occupa ncy
Vehicle la nes, for the bridge. The Sierra Club has stressed the air
quality benefits from less traffic and more public tran sit.
Solution . In stead of expanding the bridge to hold more cars, th e
state shou ld instead add a lane for commuter tra in. Many of the driv-
ers who utilize the Wi lson Bridge are commuters travel in g to the fairly
co ncentrated downtown of the District of Co lumbia. As a result,
Metro rai l wou ld be an effective metho d for transporting many of these
workers.
Beltway Cha ll enge. Virginia Department of Transportation
issued a DEIS in 2002 which pro posed wideni ng the Be ltway from
eigh t lanes to ten or twelve lanes. Sierra Club organized against th e
proposal with th e mes sage that wideni ng the Beltway wou ld wo rse n
ai r qua lity and hurt public hra lth. The Beltway already passes in close
proxim ity to many communities surroun ding the DC area. Further
expansion would undoubtedly worsen air po llutio n and put mo re
peop le at risk of cancer and other adverse hea lth effects.
problems with freeway
proximity. Residents who live
near f reeways would clearly
benefit from lowe r, not h igher
traffic volumes ."
-DR . SETH FOLDY, FOR ME R CITY OF
MI LWAU KE[ HEALTH CO MMISS IONER
Solut ion . The Beltway does no t have a subway
lin e that mirrors its path around the city. Before any
lane expansion shou ld even be co nside red, people
should be given the optio n of trave ling around the
perimeter of the city on public transit and particu larly
on a new Metrorailline.
Contact: Chris Carney, Sierra Club Mid-Atlantic Office,
phone 703-312 -0 533, email: chris.carney@sierra club.org
Wisconsin
S.E. Cha ll enge . Southeast Wisconsin road
builders and developers proposed a massive hig hway
expansion project for Hwy 1-9 4 and Hwy 45 . The
impact of highway ex pansion will be the greatest in
Mi lwa ukee County, wher e numerous sc hool s are with-
in a mile of highways. Milwaukee County is also home
to mino ri ties and lower income residents in metropol-
it an Milwaukee . The pl an is to increase the number of
lanes of 1-94 and llwy-4 5 from six lan es to e1ght lan es
of traffi c. This plan wou ld increase air pol luti on,
encourage augmented traffi c fiow, and wi ll put at risk
Wisconsin re sident s' ab ility to breathe clea n ai r.
18 Highway Health Hazards
Solut ion . Since highly traveled road corridors
are becoming hazardous to our health, then one log-
ical alternative wou ld be to utilize transportation
inv estments to slow the growth of vehicle mi les trav-
eled on our roadways. The best example of that is the
transpo rt ation improvements in Portland, Oregon
that considered land use and air quality issues during
the planning process. Milwaukee is an area of non-
compliance for ground-level ozone pollution,
Port land is not.
Madison Cha ll enge . The City of Madison
and WI DOT are reconstructing East Washington
Avenue to ease the flow of traffic, now at 55,000 vehi-
cles per day. This route runs near East High Schoo l
and severa l grade schoo ls. Pollution monitors show
high levels of soot or particulate pollution already.
Wisconsin DOT is also expanding the Verona Road
interchange located near many neighborhood s.
So luti on. The DOT should assess the cancer
and smog risks to these schoo ls, and nearby neigh-
borhoods, and consider alternatives like streetcars,
commuter trains, and clean buses that can cut traffic
and pollution risks.
Contact: Brett Hulsey, Senio r Midwest Rep-
resentative, Sie rr a Club, phone: (608) 257-
4994, email : brett.hulsey@sierraclub.org or
Rosemary Wehnes, SE Wisconsin Organ izer at
(414) 453-3127,
emai l: rosemary. wehnes@sierraclub.org.
Sierra Club 2004 19 .
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 w ide .
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 a ir 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 th reat of freeway pollution.
Below is a small samples of those studies.
The rate of progression of hardening of the arteries , the cause of strokes, heart
attacks and generalized aging , is double for those living within 100 meters of a
freeway.
Kunz li N, Jerre tt M, Garcia-Este ban R, Basagana X, Beckermann B , et al. (2010) Ambient Air Pollution and
the Progression of At herosclerosis in Adu lts. PLoS O NE 5(2): e9096. doi :10.1371/ j ournal.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.
Ga uderman WJ , et al. "Effect of exposure to t raffic on lung development f rom 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, De l wiche L, Lurmann F, McConnel l R. Residen t ial proximity to freeways and
autism in th e C HARG E study. Environ Health Pe rspect. 2011 Jun;11 9(6):873-7 . doi :10 .1289/ehp.1002835 .
Ep ub 2010 Dec 13 .
Childre n 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 lowe r
intelligence, and behavioral and attention deficit disorders , even if the children
breathe clean air themselves.
Frederica P. Perera, De liang Tang , Shuang Wang , Julia Vishnevetsky , Bingzhi Zhang, Diurka Diaz, David
Camann, Virginia Rauh. Prenatal Polycyclic Aroma t ic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Exposure and Child Behavior at age
6-7 . Environmental Health Perspectives , 2012 ; DOl: 10 .1289/ehp. 1104315
Edwards SC , Jedrychowski W, Butscher M, Cam ann D, Kieltyka A, Mroz E, et al. 2010. P renatal Exposure to
Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Chi ldren's Intell ige nce at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort
Study in Poland . Environ Health Perspect :-. doi :1 0.1289/ehp.0901 070
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
comp lementary air pollution metrics: a cohort study. Environ Health . 2013 Fe b 17;12(1):18. doi :
10.1186/1476-069X-12-18.
W ilhelm 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 2011 August 11 . doi 10.1289/
ehp .11 03408
Living within 1 00 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 leukem ia : The ESCAL E study (SFCE) authors" Environ Health
Pers 2010 ; DOI10.1289/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. Postmen opausal Breast Cancer Is
Associated with Exposure to Traffic-Re lat ed Air Po llution in Montreal , Canada: A Case-Control Study.
Environ Health Perspect 118 :1578-1583. doi :1 0 .1289/ehp.1 002221
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 , LoftS , Overvad K ,
Tj0nneland A. Lung Cancer Incidence and Long-Te rm Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic. Environ Health
Pe rspect. 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-N ielsen 0 , Andersen ZJ, Hvidberg M , Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sorensen M, Hansen J , LoftS.
Overvad K , Tjonneland A. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence : a Danish cohort study. Environ
Health . 2011 Jul19;10 :67 . doi : 10.1186/1476-069X-10-67.
Parent ME, Goldberg MS , Crouse DL, Ross NA , Chen H , Valois MF , Liautaud A.
Traffic-related air pollution and prostate cancer risk : a case-control study in Montreal, Canada. Occup
Environ Med. 2013 Mar 26. [Epub ahead of print]
People exposed to more traffic related air pollution have more DNA damage, a
trigger for multiple chronic diseases including cancer.
Huang HB , Lai CH , Chen GW, Lin YY, Jaakkola JJ, Liou SH , Wang SL. Traffic-related air pollution and DNA
damage : a longitudinal study in Taiwanese traffic conductors. PLoS One . 2012 ;7(5) e37412. doi : 10 .1371/
journal.pone.0037412 . Epub 2012 May 21.
Traffic related air pollution shortens telomeres (a critical part of chromosomes).
Shortened telomeres are highly correlated with reduced life expectancy
McCracken J , Baccarelli A, Hoxha M, Dioni L, Melly S, Coull B, Suh H , Vokonas P, Schwartz J . Annual
ambient black carbon associated with shorter telomeres in elderly men : Veterans Affairs Normative Aging
Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Nov;118(11 ): 1564-70.
Residential proximity to major roadways is associated with decreased kidney
function .
LueS , 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 II diabetes in adults
Thiering E , Cyrys J , Kratzsch J , Meisinger C , Hoffmann B, Berdel D , von Berg A , Koletzko S , Bauer CP,
Heinrich J . Long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and insulin resistance in children: results from
the GINiplus and LISAplus birth cohorts
Diabetologia, DOl 10.1 007/s00125-013-2925-x
Chen H , Burnett AT, Kwong JC , Villeneuve PJ , Goldbe rg MS , Brook AD , van Donkelaar A , Jerrell M, Martin
RV, Brook JR. Copes A. Risk of Incident Diabetes in Relation to Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate
Matter in Ontario , Canada . Environ Health Perspect (): .doi :1 0 .1289/ehp.1205958
Liu C. Ying Z , Harkema J, Sun Q , Rajagopalan S. Epidemiolog ical and Experime ntal Links betwe e n Air
Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes. Toxicol Pathol. 2012 Oct 26 . [E pub ahead o f print]
Compiled by the Utah Physicians for a Hea lthy Environment
The Southern California Particle Center and Supersite (SCPCS) seeks to explore health and exposure issues
related to mobile source pollution. With funding from the U.S. EPA and California Air Reso urces Board,
investigators at the SCPCS work to better understand why airborne particulate matter emitted from cars and trucks
causes adverse health outcomes. As part of our research, we have taken measurements on and near major freeways
in Los Angeles in an effort to characterize the particles found there . These and other scientific s tudies have sparked
media attention and community interest, generating many questions regarding where to buy property and whether
health is affected by living in a particular location. It is impossible for us to answer individual questions about
potential risks in specific loc ations. We can, however, offer some general guidance on what is currently known
about exposure to pollution and the related health effects of living near busy roads and freeways.
Numerous studies have linked traffic-related air pollution with respiratory problems such as asthma and chronic
bronchitis. Studies have found decreased lung function, increased hospital visits for people with respiratory
diseases , increased absenteeism from work and school, and increased morbidity (illnesses) and mortality (deaths)
associated with exposure to particulate matter. All of these effects were observed at levels common in many U.S.
cities. (Pope)
New studies show that long-term exposure to particulate matter has a lso been linked to increased illness and death
rates from cardiovascular (heart-related) disease, and that sudden increases in air pollution may even cause more
heart-related illnesses and deaths than is seen from lun g 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 i s easy to see why new homebuyers are concerned with how close
property is to a busy road or freeway. Unfortunately scienti sts cannot say exactly how close is "too close" at this
point. European studies have shown increased respiratory health problems in children who live or go to school
within 100 meters (-330 feet) of a busy roadway, with the greatest risks appearing in the first 50 meters (-165 feet).
Studies conducted by SCPCS investigators here in LA s how that carbon monoxide and ultrafine particles -the
smallest portion of particulate matter emi ssions and potentially the most toxic -are extremely high on or near the
freeway, dropping to about half that concentration 50-90 meters (-165 -295 feet) from the freeway. After about 300
meters (-990 feet) the concentration of particulate matter reaches the "ambient" level-the normal level in the air
without the influence of any nearby sources. In 2003 the California state legis lature enacted a law that new schools
must be built at least 500 feet from very busy roadways.
Bes ide s the actual distance from a roadway, there are a number of additional factors that influence exposure to
mobile source pollution when at home:
)> Weather-temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed all affect the concentration of pollution;
)> Placement of the house -is it upwind or downwind of the major roadway? That is , does the wind blow
pollutants from the cars and trucks toward the property?
)> Construction/design of the house -older houses may have greater air exchange between indoors and
outdoors with more outside air getting inside and therefore potentially increas ing exposure to pollutants;
)> Type of filtration system installed in the home -few homes have HEP A (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 us e central heating and cooling?
)> How much time do I spend on the freeway? [On-road s tudies are currently being conducted which may
show that if you have a considerable commute, the exposure you receive during your time on the freeway
may well overshadow your level of exposure at home.]
Other resources for questions on particle measurements and possible health effects:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
http://www.aqmd.gov/
General phone numb er -(800) CUT-SMOG (800-288-7664)
California Air Resources Board
http://www.arb.ca.gov/
Community Health 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. h tm
U.S. EPA-Air
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/air.html
For more detailed information about the topics presented above, please reference the following citations.
Green RS, Smorodinsky S, Kim JJ, McLaughlin R , O stro B. (2004) Proximity of California Public Schools to Busy
Roads. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112 (1): 61-66.
Pope CA III, Bates DV, Raizenne ME. ( 1995) Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution: Time for Reassessment?
Environmental Health Perspectives, 103 (5)
Asthma -acute exacerbation and possible onset
Delfino RJ. (2003) Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages between
Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (Sup 4):
573-589.
McConnell R , Berhane K, Gilliland FD, London SJ, Vora H, Avol E. (1999) Air Pollution and Bronchitic
Symptoms in Southern California C hildren with A sthm a. Environmental Health Perspectives 107(9):757-760
Montnemery P, Bengtsson P, Elliot A, Lindholm L-H, Nyberg P, Lofdahl C-G. (2000) Prevalence of obstructive
lung diseases and respiratory symptoms in relation to living environment and socio-economic group. Respiratory
Medicine, 95: 744-752
Cardiovascular effects
Dockery, DW. (2001) Epidemiologic Evidence of Cardiovascular Effects of Particulate Air Pollution.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(Suppl4): 4 83-486.
Johnson, RL. (2004) Relative Effects of Air Pollution on Lungs and Hearts. Circulation, 109:5-7.
Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thurston G D , Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D , Godleski JJ. (2004) Cardiovascular
Mortality and Lon g-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution. Circulation, I 09:71-77.
Utell MJ, Frampton MW. (2000) Acute Health Effects of Ambient Air Pollution: the Ultrafine Particle Hypothesis.
Journal of Aerosol Medicine, 13(4): 355-59.
RECENED
JUN 3 0 20f6
MAVOI? & TOWN COUNCJL
Los Ga~os Town Council
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Bruce A. MacNaughton
Post Office Box 1227
Los Gatos, CA 95031-1227
June 27, 2016
T 408-356-3746
F 408-356-3769
bruceamacnaughton@gmail.com
With the traffic disaster in all of Los Gatos this past weekend, I would strongly
suggest that the Town Council find a solution to the Highway 17 traffic problem before
contributing to the problem by approving more high density housing in town.
Personally, I would like los Gatos to retain its small town feel. There is really no
reason to add more retail space when there is so much retail space currently vacant. I believe
that new retail space should only be approved when there is a demonstrated need for it. The
feel of the current downtown area with its park, post office, activities, etc. would be diluted if
another major retail area were approved.
Another aspect is that if there is limited retail space, the more desirable lessee s
will end up renting the available retail space
The problems that accompany growth are not always desirable or worthwhile.
cc : /Mayor Barbara Spector
Vice Mayor Marico Sayoc
Council Member Marcia Jensen
Council Member Steven Leonardis
Council Member Rob Rennie
Respectfully,
From: Debora james [mailto:deborazurn @yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:57 AM
To: Clerk; Joel Paulson
Cc: Bill Zurn; Debora Zurn
Subject: Letter to council
Dear Mayor Spector, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners,
In our many years as a resident of the Town, we have never seen such interest in a project as the North
40 property. Nor have we had any interest in submitting a letter to Council on a project-we trust my
local government to do the right thing. All this attention makes sense ... this is a really big piece of
property on the gateway to the Town . That said, it is also on the border of the 101
h largest city in the
United States. Los Gatos is working hard to keep its "small-town charm" .... all as the 101h largest city in
the US literally looks down on it from the new Cancer Center on Los Gatos Boulevard.
We live in the middle of Silicon Valley. Small town charm must also be balanced with "growing up" in
the Valley, not being completely left behind as others reinvent themselves to be competitive and draw
tax dollars. Our Downtown is cherished and will always be a huge attraction, locally and regionally, due
to the gorgeous foot-of-the-mountain setting and eclectic charm.
We've heard all the arguments for and against the development. The opposition? The property owner
just wants to make money, these out-of-town developer(s) don't care and are only in it for profit, the
density and intensity are through the roof, and as a result of this development our view of the
mountains will be blocked , the schools will suffer, the downtown will crumble, and the traffic will be
paralyzed on Los Gatos Boulevard . Never have we seen one project be responsible for so much demise
in our glorious town's future. Then there are the developer arguments : We need affordable
housing. We are designing towards millennia Is. Student generation will be low, and yet an additional
contribution to the schools has been inked. And, the State Housing Requirements will be met. Los
Gatos and the surrounding area i s retail/restaurant starved and desperately needs the services. Traffic
will improve in key corridors. Never have we seen one project be responsible for so much good in our
glorious town's future.
What we residents would like you to consider are the following question s: Does the property have a
right to be developed? YES . Has there been due proces s to determine what can be built on the
property? YES . Is the application compliant w ith the Town's very own Specific Plan and Environmental
Documents, which were just approved in 2015 (after we think about twenty plus years of
review)? YES . Are the developers going above and beyond any actual Town or School District required
mitigations (wh ich seems pretty rare these days)? YES . Does the property owner have the right to sell
and/or develop their land? YES . Do we have to like it? NO .
But Will we like it? Now that, that has yet to be determined. Because for all the people ranting on
social media about how they will NEVER go to the market hall, we bet that once it is filled with cool
products, flowers, and produce, we residents will find ourselves there, or enjoying the parks that the
developer keeps talking about (and believe will pay for maintenance of) and walking th r ough the new
neighborhood where our new fellow los Gatans will live ... we bet we won't HATE it, in fact, many of us
may downright LIKE it. Sure , it isn't an orchard anymore . But if you were walking on the orchard the
last 60+ years ... well, you were likely trespassing. And , of course, it is quite likely that your home and our
very own downtown used to be on an orchard too.
We implore our Planning Commission and Council to vote not based out of fear or the loudest voices,
but to vote based on the policies in front of you, and for the many residents who have positive things to
say but have been bullied out of the process by a group of individuals who will never be happy,
irrespective of what is proposed. After weighing the good with the bad, the propaganda against
propaganda, and looking into a crystal ball (of which we , nor anyone else in the Town is privy to), we
would like to support the application, and hope that all the noise does not drown out proper process,
quality use and design, and policy compliance .
Sincerely,
Bill and Debora Zurn
Summit Rd.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: John Shepardson [rnaiit o:s h e pard~o n l aw(d m e.c orn]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 20 16 7:35PM
To: Coun cil
Subject: N.40 Traffic: Highway 17 Traffic Increas ing// Dell Avenue (112 acres o f dense developmen t//Good Sam
Massive Overhaul and Perhaps Two 6-7 Story Buildings//Netflix Building Out//Cambrian Park//Stanford Traffic
Management Program)
W h at is the priority? Traftic? Sch ools? Dow ntown? S m a ll town c harac te r?
http://w w w .dot.ca.uov/di st05/planning/s ys plan docs/tcr factsheet combo/scr sr I 7 tcrfs. pdf
CONCLUSION
In preparing this report, Caltrans has used traffic forecasts to determine the future levels of service on
Route 17 . Based on these forecasts and a qualitative analysis of alternatives, Caltrans identified concept
levels of service for the route as well as recommended actions for maintaining acceptable operations. The
land use patterns and development adjacent to the state facility have a substantial impact on LOS. Most
alternative transportation modes and the land use changes are in the hands of the local agencies and are
therefore up to them to implement and monito r. Caltrans District 5 will continue to work with regional
and local agencies in planning and programming trans portation projects to meet demand for safe and
efficient travel through the Route 17 corridor. Additionally, in the interest of preserving the safety and
operational integrity of the State Highway, the District's Development Review (IGR)/California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) program will continue to work with local agencies to identify and
evaluate transportation issues at an early stage of planning for new development.
I l
I '
J -
-----: I ~ ---. ·f ,I
( ' I f ''•'OoiJo
I II
I >·... i ! '··•·<:;t,e•; ,..__ I 1.
'i ~==--J
' I ·-1/ I.~~~L o -/ J
I I '---?JJJ:" ----I I /1 1!----, I . --,
) I ; I / . ; I
I -
I
Los Cree
Good Samaritan Hospital's blueprint for health
Suut h I)< y h<)->pit al ge a rs up !()r f ~t ci li ty upgrades, ncv\ patien t tow ers
.\11 22. ''f1l 1>, ':ll() t!Tl I'D'!
Sa n Jo se's Good Sa ma rita n Hospit al is pre pari ng fo r a ffiaSSl Ve OVerhaul that it expects to
begin thi s summer -first moving ahead with p lans to expand it s emergency department, a nd th e n upgradi ng labs
and bu ilding new· operating rooms. (e mphas is added)
Many Cambrian residents are unhappy about potential development at Cambrian Park Plaza. More than
70 people attended a Cambrian community council meeting May 12 to voice their misgivings about
potentially larger buildings, fancy shops, residences and traffic congestion at the comer of Union and
Camden avenues.
At the meeting, Councilman Don Rocha, planning director Harry Freitas and planner Lesley Xavier
explained what could happen with the 17-acre site, which came up for sale earlier this year. So far it has
not been sold . A call to broker Jim Roessler from the Roessler Investment Group was not returned, but
some potential buyers at the meeting suggested the sale could happen sooner rather than later.
However, the process is likely to take a while. Before any new development starts, the city has to annex
the land from the county. Once it's annexed, the Local Agency Formation Commission has to approve the
annexation.LAFCOoverseestheboundariesofcitiesandspecialdistricts.
The next step is taking the proposal to the planning department, possibly the planning commission, and
then to the city council. These steps could delay any pennitting because the space has been des ignated as
part of a potential urban vi llage.
Urban villages are included in the city's 2040 Envision Plan, which the council approved two years ago.
These entities are part of a strategy to encourage mor e business, adding residential units above retail and
commercial spaces. They are des igned to improve city revenues, provide ma ss transportation and step up
pedestrian and bike traffic to connect neighborhoods.
One of the designated areas would include the 17 acres of Cambrian Park Plaza. The villages are planned
in phases called "horizons." The Cambrian area is in the third horizon , with planning discussions
scheduled sometime within the next eight years, although it could happen sooner.
Most urban villages contain buildings with four or more stories, and also appear to be contained within
p a rticular boundaries. Housing units will require parking garages. The areas are supposed to be self -
contained with restaurants, grocery stores, activities and events .
If potential developers want to build an urban village prior to the city's adopting it, they can call it a
signatureproperty,which isconsistent with thecity'S use designation,according to Xavier.
However, residents are objecting to the tall buildings and don't want to see expensive retail shops. They
are concerned the project will tum the Cambrian shopping center into a Santana Row -type mall, further
congesting Union and Camden avenues. Strip malls and other centers already exist on these streets, which
residents sa id often make it hard to get to their homes, especially during rush hour.
Another concern was that only 1.8 acres of open space would be allowed within the 17 acres , even though
the city requires 3.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 people. Residents also want to see the r esults of
studies for traffic and environmental impact.
Mike Walsh, a senior vice president of construction and development at Simeon, said his firm had given a
proposal to the sellers. He added that his company would revitalize and reconstruct the center.
Freitas asked residents for their comments and concerns, but stressed there are no current plans for any
construction. Rocha added that it's important to have residents' outreach so that their concerns can be
shared with the planning department.
http:/W ;w w .ei .campbe ll.ca .u s /492/Deii-Avenue-Area-Plan
WAA
POWERPOINT
http://www .mercurynews.com/business/ ci 298294 77 /bav-area-traffic-igni tcs-backlas h-
against-boom-new
Bay Area traffic ignites backlash against boom, new poll suggests
By GC!o 1ge Avalos. gava/os (ci).bavureanev.:sgro up.com
I
•
•
•
l:1·cning ru~h hour on [nter~tatc 280, Feb . I 0 , 2016, west of downtown San .l ose, Ca li f. (Karl ~·1 o n don /Bay Area News
(o roup)
RELATED STORIES
\.fa~ 3:
(Jt<•\1 !ll6 pt:~~lm i sm alwm Ba:. '\rca economy, poll lind"
\fu:. 2:
Onc-thlld llf Bay -\r~t ft:,!J.:nh h(>pc !(I lt:<IVl: ~oon , roll fincJ~
\pr 29:
\l,tp. B.t y •\r,·a dm·er\' n.::~ tntflil: frus tration' \pOl\
:\pr 2S:
Bm· .\1,\lle~idt:lll~ w<Jry nl'n.::"' hou•ang dc1clopmcnl
"Beat L.A." is a familiar refrain in Bay Area s ports, but it now appears Nort hern Cal ifo rni a is on its way
to hcing a ri val for Southern California in an unwelcome fa shion: tratl'ic jams.
Resident s in the Bay Area have become di scouraged about the heavy traffic in the region, w ith a
dramatically expanding number o f them indicating that traffic is wo rse than a year ago amid a h ug e surge
in the loca l economy, a new poll relea sed Friday by the Bay Area Council suggests.
"Bay Area re s idents are fru s trated about traffic," said Ruth Bemstein, senior principal wit h EM C
Research , a tirrn that conduct s market and opinion research. "It's harder for them to get around. We
d e finitely arc seeing a backla s h aga in s t the economic boom."
Yet th e traftic its elf is but a symptom or what is going o n rather than a caus e, sa id Chris topher Tho rnberg,
print:ipal exec uti ve with Beaco n Econo mi cs.
''Traffic is a sign of gr owth, it is not an impediment to growth ," Thornberg said. "When yo u kn ow the
trarti c is bad f'rom point A to point B , you move away from point A in order to get to w ork at point B.
Y o u make so me s acrinces in yo ur lifestyle."
About 60 percent of those who drive alone or never use ma ss transit sa id it is more difficult to gel around
the Ba y Area. And 64 percent ofpeople wi th hous ehold incomes of$125,000 or more s aid it is more
diffi c ult to get around.
More people are driving by themselves . An estimated 79 percent of respondents are driving in a car alone,
up from 74 percent a year ago. A s tor m ass transit. 17 percent are taking buses or light rai l, up from 16
percent in 20 15: and 15 percent use BART, up from 14 percent a year ago. T he poll m eas ured modes of
trans portation used a t lea st two or three times a week tor any purpose, so it's pos sib le for the combined
resu lts to exceed I 00 percent.
In a rcllcction of the rise of the Uber and Ly tl technologie s, 6 percent are u sing those ride-booking apps,
up Jl·om 3 percent a year ago.
The No. 2 most popular way to get around: walking. favored by 41 p e rcent of the respond e nt s.
"We're running out of adjectives to describe how bad Bay Area traffic is a nd the misery it's causing." said
Jim Wunde rman. president a nd CEO of t he Bay Area Council. "We unders tand residents' aggravatio n
with traffic , but we're not giving up on the problem.''
Conta ct Geo rge Avalos a t 408-859-516 7 . Follow him at Tw itt e r.comigeorgeavalos .
http://www.mercurvnews.com/bav-area-news/ci 28416215/crashes-highwav-17-at-highest-lcvel-
decade
Crashes on llighway 17 at highest level in a decade
8 1• Gon: Riclw rds
') •(J. I \\lPIJI
With Fourth o f July around the corner a nd Highway 17 a popular serpentine route for drivers heading to
C~.:ntral Coast beaches tix the holiday. a warning is in order.
Cras he s on the s tretch of from Los Gatos to Santa Cruz have reached their hi ghest le vel in nearly a decade
s ince safety officia ls began one of the most intens ive and successful campaigns s tatewide to curb t he
c a rnage on the (o ur-lane highway.
A lth o ugh s tale traffic official s have no firm data , they blame distracted driving for th e uptick in colli s io ns
in 2014. They otien see drivers texting, u s ing smartphones to read email and tinkering with navigation
sys te ms while twi s ting through tight curve s just feet away fro m scenic Redwood trees .
"I abso lu tely agree." s aid motorcyclist Matt Petty, of Scotts Valley. "1 see lots of people st ill on their
phones whil e l split lanes. Lot s '? Make that a ton of people."
hi m: I /web .s tan E2rd. ccil!~lli~ou p/Qecc.L<;gj:bi n/ docs/ c vcnt s/20 14/Ramses-prescntat ion.pdf
Stanfo rd Transportation Demand Management: C urrent and Future
Sustainable Transportation Spring Seminar Series May 30th
Ramses Madou Transportation Program Developer & Planner
July 5, 2016
To the Town
My wife and I have lived in Los Gatos for over 40 years and raised our children here. Our kids went to
the local schools. We enjoy the small town friendliness and a multitude of local activities and social life,
in addition to the music events, proximity of restaurants, the library, and many businesses. I have been
a member of several organizations including the chamber of commerce . I have owned and managed
businesses in town. I have been active in town politics and have designed and built several commercia l
and residential properties in the area .
I am a firm believer that Grosvenor, Eden Housing and Summerhill Homes, the companies that represent
the project we all know as the North Forty, have worked with our Town residents with patience and
class . This project, which I have been following closely, has been vetted literally for decades. It is now
time to move forward.
The plan is well within the Town's guidelines, with less than half the residential units shown in the
Town 's general plan and fits the height and density for the area . The developers are proposing 320
units, which is not the maximum homes allowable, and will provide for seniors and low-income alike . It
will also help us fulfill a strong part of the Housing Element mandated by law and I am very impressed
by the voluntary agreement made with the school district -something I have never seen done
before in or outside of los Gatos.
There has been too much misguided information about this project. The owners of the property have
been waiting for the Town for nearly 40 years to move forward with their lives and developing their
own property. It is time to allow the owners to move forward and make a great, quality, thoughtful
project come to our great, quality and thoughtful Town.
Sincerely,
Dennis Byron
455 San Benito Ave.
Los Gatos
From: Michelle Fisk [ma ilto:m fi sk 1996 @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:31 PM
To: Joel Paulson; Clerk
Cc: Council
Subject: Letter to Town for North 40
Joel Paulson (Town of Los Gatos's Community Development Director),
Please include this letter in the upcoming Planning Commission and Council packages:
Honorable Mayor, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners,
We are writing today to support the North 40 application. It is probably less common to get a
letter of support, but as residents of the Town of Los Gatos, we are encouraged by not only the
process that has occurred (just going to the Town website and looking at all the meetings and
documentation makes our heads spin!), but by the actual proposal itself. We have seen a lot of
applications come through this Town, some approved, some denied, and the North 40
represents not only a very transparent process but also one that has involved a lot of thought
and consideration on what is best for this very special piece of property. Now an application is
before you , and we know there is a lot of grumbling go i ng on . There is also excitement
amongst many residents, because there is an opportunity for something really great (which is
what the Town of Los Gatos is all about) and unique. How nice it will be to have additional
places in Town for people to meet up! There are some people who don 't want any change,
ever, for our community. But Los Gatos also has residents who are excited for something new
(and of course high quality) on the north side of town . We hear the concerns about height and
blocked views ... but we drive southbound on 17 every day and are quite certain we can still see
the hillsides beyond the orange mesh . The story poles themselves actually proved to us that
the hills will not be blocked, and for this we are really thankful for past decisions that kept the
buildings shorter and our beautiful hills as the backdrop . Finally, it is about time that a
developer comes in with something that isn't all craftsman or Spanish style architecture. There
is definitely not a lack of these styles throughout Town (although last we checked Los Gatos
Boulevard is plagued by some pretty blah-looking strip centers). The architecture, while
probably not to everyone's taste, is a far cry from blah or cookie cutter and a refreshing change
from yet another craftsman or s-tile roof. The time to make a decision is upon you . Thank you
for your dedication to this Town, and all of its residents, including the ones who su pport this
application.
Sincerely,
Gary and Michelle Fisk
25333 Hutchinson Road
From: Michelle Fisk [mailto:mfisk1996 @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July OS, 2016 2:31 PM
To: Joel Paulson; Clerk
Cc: Council
Subject: Letter to Town for North 40
Joel Paulson (Town of Los Gatos's Community Development Director),
Please include this letter in the upcoming Planning Commission and Council packages :
Honorable Mayor, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners,
We are writing today to support the North 40 application. It is probably less common to get a
letter of support, but as residents of the Town of Los Gatos, we are encouraged by not only the
process that has occurred Uust going to the Town website and looking at all the meetings and
documentation makes our heads spin!), but by the actual proposal itself. We have seen a lot of
applications come through this Town, some approved, some denied, and the North 40
represents not only a very transparent process but also one that has involved a lot of thought
and consideration on what is best for this very special piece of property. Now an application is
before you, and we know there is a lot of grumbling going on . There is also excitement
amongst many residents, because there is an opportunity for someth ing really great (which is
what the Town of Los Gatos is all about) and unique. How nice it will be to have additional
places in Town for people to meet up! There are some people who don't want any change,
ever, for our community. But Los Gatos also has residents who are excited for something new
(and of course high quality) on the north side of town. We hear the concerns about height and
blocked views ... but we drive southbound on 17 every day and are quite certain we can still see
the hillsides beyond the orange mesh. The story poles themselves actually proved to us that
the hills will not be blocked, and for this we are really thankful for past decisions that kept the
buildings shorter and our beautiful hills as the backdrop. Finally, it is about time that a
developer comes in with something that isn't all craftsman or Spanish style architecture. There
is definitely not a lack of these styles throughout Town (although last we checked Los Gatos
Boulevard is plagued by some pretty blah-looking strip centers). The architecture, while
probably not to everyone's taste, is a far cry from blah or cookie cutter and a refreshing change
from yet another craftsman or s-tile roof. The time to make a decision is upon you. Thank you
for your dedication to this Town, and all of its residents, including the ones who support this
application .
Sincerely,
Gary and Michelle Fisk
25333 Hutchinson Road
Subject: 7/12/16 Meeting
From : Barbara Frederickson
Sent: Wed 7/6/2016 8:23AM
Re : North 40
Not ideal regarding density of plan, once bu ilt ,space can't be taken back so do it right the first time?
All McMansions or some DeiWeb type senior one story variet ies included,Dog parks, open spaces ?
My suggestion is to re think uses of space left in Los Gatos . How wonderful Blossom Hill Park was once
dreamed up. M/MFrederickson
Sent from my iPad
Planning
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Amy Despars <amydespars@hotmail.com>
Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:14 AM
Joel Paulson; Plann i ng; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven
Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
North 40
Dear Los Gatos Town Staff, Planning Commission Members, and Town Council Members,
Thank you for the time and consideration you have given to the North 40 Project. I am writing to you again to
ask that you look at the proposal. It is very obvious it does not fulfill the requirements of the s pecific plan.
I live very close to the development so I drive by it on a daily basis so I know for a fact it does not fit the
plan. Even from the firs t time I received the brochure in the mail in regards to the North 40 I knew it was not
going to be a good fit for our town.
1. It is required to look and feel like Los Gatos ... I have been working retail downtown this summer and I know
the model does not represent what downtown looks like or feels like. It looks like Santana Row with m assive
buildings that are 3-5 stories. The only buildings in Los Gatos taller than two stories is the Penthouse
Apartments and the Toll House Hotel and they were built long before the town had a vision for growth.
2. The proposed development doesn't "minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services." P
1.1
Sc hools, street, and other services will be adversely affected
3 1.1 Introduction paragraph 4 states, "The intent of this Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive
framework in which development can occoer in PLANNED, LOGICAL FASHION RATHER THAN A
PIECEMEAL APPROACH. THIS IS AN IMPORTUNE ASPECT DUE TO THE MULTIPLE LAND
OWNERSHIPS T AHT PRESENTLY EXIST WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA. This comprehensive approach will help to create a unified new neighborhood for Los Gatos residents to
enjoy and will better serve North Los Gatos residents, employees, and businesses. Phase 1 includes only a portion of
the 44 acres. The current application is just part of a piecemeal approach since no inf ormation is provided about Phase II.
4. The North 40 will embrace hillside views , tees, and open space. We all know that this is not true. Just go stand amongst the orange
me sh and look to the hills. You can not see them. The sa me thing happened when the Gateway /LG Blvd . medical building was put it
in . We no longer have hillside views looking down our street or driving south on LG Bl v. This also makes me wonder who is going to monitor
what actually goes into the retail buildings. The Gateway/LG Blvd. project was to have space for retail when it was approved and the site
was never intended to be filled with medical. Now it is all medical.
5.The Specific Plan calls for residential development throughout the North 40 , not j ust in this Phase. However , the de ve loper includes all
320 units in the first 20 of the 44 acres. All these homes would be withi n the Los Gatos School District.
6. The application calls for shared parking spaces. Where in Los Gatos do we have that. I don't understand the EIR. 320 homes equals 320
cars. 640 cars if two people are residing and if you are like some families in town and you are living in a three bedroom with a family of
four that could technically be 960 plus cars that will need to park and that will be driving in and out of the development. You can not
assume people are going t o work out of their homes and stay inside the development and not leave. And the bike path sounds great in
theory but really? Is everyone going to stay inside the development and ride bikes around the deve lopment?
Maybe I am naive but when I ha ve listened to the developer and his attorney they say a lot of things that are not true and threaten
lawsuits. Let's be real , they are planning on tearing down those walnut trees because they are all old and sick. Are they really harvesting
them to se ll? By the way, you don't need to til the soil in order to harvest the walnuts(fact from a local person who owns Almond and
Walnut farms and sells to Blue Diamond). Funny how they said they could not put all of he story poles up but then when they
1
were required to they did it. Just like at the last meeting when they said they could not really take some down and leave some up. 1 just
can't stand the lies!
I could go on and on but I will stop here. I know you all know there are a lot of other areas that do not follow the specific plan.
I will not be at the meeting, but as I always say , "We have entrusted you with persevering our town. We live here and the developers do
not. AS I listened to Don and Wendy speak the other night it was apparent that they are going to say whatever you want to hear but listen
to us and do not "drink the developers juice" as other past council commission people have done . Once this decision is made there is
not turning back . This development will change the feel of Los Gatos forever.
Please deny the application.
Gratefully,
Amy Despars
In the past many of you have been thoughtful enough to reply to my emails. Please do not feel it is necessary this time .
2
From: Jennifer Croft Grewal [mailto:jennifer@grewals.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 10:59 AM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally
Zarnowitz
Subject: North 40 Comments
Dear Town Council, Planning Commission and Town Staff,
I hope to attend the meetings on 7/12 and 13. In case I cannot I am writing in adva nce to express
my concern about the plan as proposed by the developer.
The maximum buildout is not something this Town needs. As with the Albright development,
these buildings obliterate our hillside v iews. They are mass ive and not keeping with o ur Town
look or feel with another exception of our maximum height being requested b y yet another
builder.
The residential all crowded to one sect ion of th e development was not in the s pecific plan-it
states for them to be spread throughout the development. Additionally placing a ll of the
residential along the main traffic corridor will be unhealthy for those residing there.
Where i s there adequate homage to the agricultural characteristics as the specific plan mandates.
Where i s the plan for phase two of thi s development? How can the entire project be built in
harmony with itself and the surrounding areas if th ese two areas are not planned simultaneously?
The current studies of this project are outdated and did not take into account all of the other
development in our Town. Shouldn't these be updated so we have a full picture of what the
building will do to our Town and what limitations within the Specific Plan should b e placed on
it.
Please do the right thing and order new studies so that you can make an informed decision on the
limit thi s plan should be approved under.
Thank you,
Jennifer Grewal
C harter Oaks Resident
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank