Willow Glen Neighborhood Association (WGNA)
P. O. Box 7706 San Jose, CA 95150-7706

Phone: 408/294-WGNA (294-9462)

email: president @wgna.net

December 6, 2004

Janice Moore

Project Manager

City of San Jose -Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

801 North First Street, Room 400

San Jose, CA 95110

Subject: Comments regarding Draft EIR - MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF SAN JOSE’S TRANSPORTATION IMPACT POLICY (PP02-07-178) SCH #2002082001

Dear Ms. Moore:

The Willow Glen Neighborhood Association (WGNA) has a number of concerns regarding the adequacy, completeness, and full disclosure of the policy change rationale and environmental impact for the proposed modifications to the city’s Transportation Impact Policy and the Level of Service policy (LOS) in the draft EIR.

1) Project Purpose - The draft Environmental Impact Report’s (DEIR)‘s stated reason in the Summary section for the proposed LOS modification is “ In order to reduce the likelihood that ongoing modifications to the street system could compromise or impair the operational efficacy of alternative transportation modes, the City is proposing to update its Level of Service implementation policy.” The city has not clearly stated the city’s primary reason for the LOS modification, which has been documented in other city documents and emails, which is that without modifying the existing LOS D policy development for the 13 intersections, as proposed in the general plan, North San Jose plan and other infill plans city development would be reduced by over 26 million square feet.

The City Council in December 2003 adapted an Economic Development Strategy to “ Revise Key Land Use and Transportation Policies to Reflect the New Realities of the San Jose Economy “ the details of this strategy, as well as other proposed or approved development plans should have been included in the DEIR and the traffic analysis.

It maybe necessary to exempt (protect) a small number of specific intersections to achieve reasonable economic development and infill housing objectives but the city has not clearly provided in the DEIR to the public the available proposed or planned development information available to city decision makers.

The residents have a legal right to participate in the city’s decision making process but without adequate disclosure of the primary reasons behind the proposed LOS modification and the city’s available proposed development information, WGNA and city residents are precluded from participating in an informed and reasonable manner.

We have seen in the past that when relevant information is withheld or not included in important city policy or development discussions it results in residents questioning the integrity of the city’s decision making process and the reasons for lack of fully disclosure.

San Jose elected officials and staff may use the argument that the DEIR requirements or other laws do not require this DEIR disclosure but the residents of San Jose expect and deserve that the city adhere to a higher disclosure standard and will fully and completely disclose all reasons for a change an important city policy that affect quality of life and neighborhood business district viability.

2) Project Alternatives - San Jose residents requested that a measurable traffic level of service (LOS) standard be included in the original general plan when San Jose adapted it in 1975 to assure that quality of life did not diminish as our city approaches build-out. Residents have frequently stated their belief that traffic congestion that exceeds LOS D affects quality of life, neighborhood business district viability and should be mitigated.

The current policy requires large developments that exceed Level D ( “ Significant congestion on some approaches but intersection is functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. Delay in seconds 25-40 “ ) to not be approved or be downsized if the traffic can not be mitigated back to Level D.

There are thirteen (13) specific intersections that are proposed to be included on an initial list of “Protected” intersections which the City considers inappropriate for further improvement or expansion. The proposed policy change would exempt (protect) the 13 initial intersections from LOS D requirements and allow the 13 intersections to go to LOS F ( “ Total breakdown. Stop and go conditions. Delay in seconds greater than 60 “ ).

LOS F is unacceptable to WGNA and the residents of San Jose, and will result in a decrease in quality of life, loss of business revenue to small businesses in the intersection areas due to traffic congestion, potential decrease in residential property values and an increase in environmental impact for the San Francisco Bay Area which is currently a non attainment for ozone and particulate matter.

We recommend that the modified policy should only be allowed to go to a maximum of LOS E ( “ Severe congestion with some long back ups. Blockage of intersection may occur. Vehicles are required to wait through more than one cycle. Delay in seconds 40-60 “ ) before proposed development would be scaled back or not approved by the city for a very limited number of city intersections.

We recommend that the policy should clearly state these LOS excepted ( protected ) intersections are not routine means of bypassing the residents desire for LOS D to accommodate development except under unusual or exceptional circumstances.

3) Limited to 5-6 Intersections - It would probably be acceptable to many residents to exempt ( protect ) on a very limited basis specific intersections from the LOS D policy after full disclosure of the expected impacts of the proposed development but unfortunately the city has not disclosed the available proposed development information to the public in this DEIR.

We recommended that only 5-6 intersections be exempted ( protected ) until the impacts are fully studied and disclosed to city residents.

4) Air Quality - The DEIR assumptions on a lowering of vehicle emissions due to newer vehicles in the future is speculative since known development proposals have not been studied and since many new residents will come from other states with older vehicles and due to the high cost of living in the area would delay buying newer vehicles.

5) Future Environmental Review - Additionally the initial study only listed 11 intersections and now the city requests 13 intersections and the VTA has requested 9 additional intersections be added to the currently 13 proposed exempted ( protected ) intersections but until the additional studies on the environmental impact have been done no additional intersections be added.

The modified policy should clearly state that any additional intersections can only be added once a year after the city’s annual LOS review and additional environmental impact intersection reviews.

6) Mitigations - The calculation of the Alternative Transportation System Offset fee should be calculated on the basis of similar intersections not a city wide average since the exempted ( protected ) intersections are in built up urban areas where the mitigation costs are greater. The use of a city wide cost average results in the under funding of the city’s fee as has happened with city park impact fees. Additionally the fee should have an automatic annual cost adjustment.

WGNA is not objecting to the city’s proposed development plans and probably would support most of the proposed plans but at this time since the city has not provided the WGNA and city residents with the expected full disclosure information the residents can not be expected to have a fully informed opinion on the proposed modifications, the DEIR or the proposed development plans.

The current and proposed LOS policy has a number of exemptions for small developments, downtown and other planned areas so the major impact of the modified LOS proposal would be to make possible over 26 million sq ft of large developments in the areas of the 13 intersections not possible under LOS D.

We have recommended changes to the proposed Transportation Impact Policy and the Level of Service policy so that reasonable economic development and infill housing can be allowed but not at the expense of city quality of life and the viability of neighborhood business districts.

Sincerely,

Helen Solinski

WGNA President