Judge Rules Albright Way/Netflix Project is Consistent With Los Gatos General Plan

A architectural rendering of what the Albright Way office park project will look like once it's completed. Courtesy John R. Shenk
A architectural rendering of what the Albright Way office park project will look like once it's completed. Courtesy John R. Shenk
A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge has ruled that the Albright Way office park project, the future site of Netflix's expansion, is consistent with the Los Gatos General Plan.

The order, issued Friday, was being hailed as another victory for the developer of the project, John R. Shenk on behalf of Los Gatos Business Park LLC and the Town of Los Gatos.

"Once again, the court has ruled against the desperate legal maneuverings of the few local residents who continue their attempts to kill the Netflix expansion through the courts," Shenk told Los Gatos Patch.

"This ruling, combined with our submission of more than 4,000 signatures on our initiative petition this week, gives us great optimism that this issue will be decided favorably once and for all by Los Gatos voters in June of 2014."

Judge Joseph H. Huber issued the ruling following a Friday, Dec. 6 hearing at the old Santa Clara County Courthouse in San Jose, where an attorney representing petitioners Los Gatos Citizens for Responsible Development asked the magistrate to interpret whether the controversial project was in violation of the town's General Plan due to the height of the buildings.

The project calls for four edifices, two at 65 feet and two at 50 feet, plus a three-story parking garage for a total of 485,000 square feet. The Citizens claim the height exceeds their interpretation of the General Plan's building height provisions, whey they believe caps them at 35 feet maximum.

Citing case law, Judge Huber quoted: "[A] governing body's conclusion that a particular project is consistent with the relevant general plan carries a strong presumption of regularity that can be overcome only by a showing of abuse of discretion."

He then wrote: "The standard of review applicable to a determination by a local agency that an approved project is consistent with any applicable general plan, as articulated in a clear line of appellate authority, is deferential to the local governing body. This reflects the public policy determination that such bodies are better equipped than courts to make these determinations."

The magistrate said the Town of Los Gatos' determination, made by the Los Gatos Town Council in June of this year when it approved the project, was consistent with the General Plan and not arbitrary, capricious or without evidentiary basis.

The judge said the General Plan expressly provides that it "is intended to meet multiple and sometimes competing policy objectives. Therefore the town may not be able to adhere to every policy in every decision that it makes to implement this General Plan.

"The Town Council has final discretion over which policy objective will have priority instances where there are competing policy objectives affecting a single decision."

The General Plan also expressly provides for so-called "planned development overlay zones" to be created to specially tailor specific development standards for project sites that can differ from the general standards and zoning applicable to the surrounding area, Judge Huber said in his ruling.

Furthermore, Judge Huber ruled that the Council's height limit for the project, by adopting such zone, is consistent with the General Plan and is "reasonable."

The magistrate then said in the ruling the petitioners', or the Citizens challenging the project, should invest their energies at the ballot box rather than the courthouse.

The Citizens, in this latest legal round lead by Los Gatos residents John Shepardson and Andrew H. Wu, said they're now considering taking the matter to the 6th District Court of Appeal.

"I respect Judge Huber's judicial acumen," said Wu, who's an attorney. "What weight a judge decides to place on a specific piece of evidence, a particular fact, or an interpretation of law is subject to that individual's own ... background and sentiment."

Wu said he believed Judge Huber was incorrect in his findings and that in reading the order and its reasoning, the magistrate placed a significant amount of emphasis upon prior case law that favors a preference for exercise of discretion on the part of ... our Town Council.

To defer to the Council's discretion when it may have arguably been incorrect is worthy of an appeal consideration, Wu added.

If appealed the matter would be headed to three Justices for interpretation. "Just as he deferred to the discretion of the Town Council in his ruling ... the Court of Appeal will also review for abuse of discretion of his findings," Wu said.

The burden of proof, Wu lamented, is also always on petitioners on such legal matters. "It's a significant burden to prove that there's an abuse of judicial discretion."


Sign up for the free Los Gatos Patch newsletter | Like Los Gatos Patch on Facebook | Follow @GatosPatch on Twitter | Blog on Los Gatos Patch | Follow Los Gatos Patch on Instagram  

—This is a developing breaking news story. Please check back for updates

John December 16, 2013 at 03:05 PM
@AR Are you a Town resident?
Tony Alarcon December 16, 2013 at 03:18 PM
@ Jennifer Thank You, I'm involved in town just in other capacity with LGEF, my comments stated are solely my own. If Los Gatos were to start an endowment for our schools, such as Palo Alto's endowment that funds $2M annually to its schools, we would debunk the nonsense argument that we need the overbuilding to financially support our schools.
John December 16, 2013 at 03:24 PM
@Tony: With a reasonable build out 350K, the EIR superior option, we could have raised 63% of the funds, anywhere from $630K to $900K annually, without the negative impacts of overbuilding up to 485K or 550K. However, the Developer was greedy. A lot of money was not enough, The Carlyle Group wanted HUGE profits for its investors, at the expense of increased traffic, loss of privacy, views, risk of precedent for more large developments, failing to conform with the 35-foot height limit, etc.
John December 16, 2013 at 03:32 PM
@AR Do you really think more traffic on Winchester, like an additional 1,700 car trips per day, over and above 350K's impact, is good for Los Gatos? Your thoughts on this: Traffic jams paralyzing Bay Area By Gary Richards grichards@mercurynews.com Posted: 11/10/2013 12:01:00 AM PST Updated: 11/10/2013 05:42:31 PM PST Quoting from article: San Jose had the 13th worst congestion in the nation in 2010, but now ranks fifth, according to Inrix, which monitors traffic nationwide. "We are only experiencing the tip of the Silicon Valley congestion iceberg," said Rod Diridon of the Mineta Transportation Institute. "Since what we knew of as full employment before the Great Recession, government has been unable to invest significantly in highway capacity expansion." He says Silicon Valley will soon bump against "terminal gridlock" like the kind that occurred in Beijing six years ago when commuters were trapped in their cars for days. "The capital of China was nearly paralyzed for almost seven days while that massive traffic jam was cleared," Diridon said. "That crisis doesn't happen gradually. There is no quick fix."
AR December 16, 2013 at 04:30 PM
@John yes i am a town resident and i am a full owner of my house. and i vote. and i have kids in the school system. i have a legitimate stake in this community. traffic on Winchester is related to traffic on every other street and highway. you do not live in a bubble. you cannot separate the traffic concerns of Los Gatos from Campbell or San Jose or even far flung places like Milpitas and San Bruno. people from all of these cities and more are on the road coming in to and out of Los Gatos, and more every day are coming to the Bay Area. Los Gatos is not in a bubble. you cannot "solve" traffic by declining a development on Albright. indeed you can't even "solve" traffic by widening roads - whose backyard will you extend 85 into? 85, like every other highway in the bay area, is "done" and cannot effectively have added capacity without creating problems elsewhere. at this point there is only one way to "solve" traffic - reduce the number and duration of vehicle trips. that requires density, because without density, you can never have effective mass transit. there is no time machine to 1980 or 1990. pining for the past is not a solution, and it is impossible to "fix" traffic by merely stopping growth in Los Gatos
John December 16, 2013 at 04:53 PM
Thank you for sharing. I think I understand your position. You feel we should build high density commercial and residential units close to mass transit. I looked into this myself. I have a letter from the VTA stating there is no funding to extend the Vasona Light Rail to LG, and the projected cost is 175M. I gather, to be consistent, you are for high density throughout Los Gatos, or just portions? Are you for high density next to your home? Our fellow citizen, and lead signer on the Petition, was against even a 2nd story next to her house, which has 2 levels. What are your thoughts on that? In the end, I am mostly like you, I am for development. Since the EIR said 350K was the best environmental use, that seemed like the soundest position. The risk of your position is creating unnecessary gridlock. If the TC approved the EIR Superior Alternative of 350K, would you have agreed? When does growth become greed? Why didn't the Developer do what was best for the environment? Are you for doing what is best for the environment? Monies for schools and Netflix are nonissues because 350K addresses them.
AR December 16, 2013 at 05:01 PM
@John - being in downtown, i already contend with density and traffic, but i'm fine with that because downtown was already there when i purchased my house, i voted with my wallet. i am not vindictive nor am i intending to relate to you that i am evilly curling my moustache while other town residents are persecuted. the residents of the neighborhood next to albright most certainly moved in after the land had been zoned for commercial use. that the lot was underutilized was merely a coincidence. i have some pity for their needs, but in the end, you choose your house and you have access to zoning information when you choose to buy, and you are free to sell at any time. once again, if the circumstances are not to your liking, run for Town Council. you might just win.
John December 16, 2013 at 07:16 PM
@AR Let's forget the Charter Oaks people (and the GP standard of 35 feet). If a 3 or 4 story goes up next to your place, are you cool with that? Because if we take the position that the GP is toothless, then there is no stability, and money wins out? And, your thoughts on the lead signer advocating for high buildings at Albright, and ye against a 2-story next to her 2-level home? JS
Jennifer December 16, 2013 at 07:51 PM
@AR - when we bought our home we knew there was a light-use industrial park next door. That was fine with us. To be extremely clear, this industrial park wasn't underutilized, it was completely in alignment with the Town's General Plan. I and most of my neighbors have completely supported redevelopment of the park, but NEVER would we have thought the Town's management would sell out for the over development on this piece of land that it did. Many neighborhoods, not just ours, were chucked under the buss for this development. This is not a harmonious blend of old and new, it is a complete forget about existing neighbors and let developers have what they want in the Town. There are at least 5 neighborhoods that have one way in and out of their communities via Lark Avenue - mine being one of them. When the Aventino complex went in on Winchester we asked the Town to help us because of what would happen with traffic - nothing was done and now we have an even more intense development being added, as well as many others (North 40, several on LGBlvd, the old Elks property to name a few) and there has not been one comprehensive traffic study done to determine what needs to be put in place to mitigate the traffic as a result. Heck, as of my last review the Town isn't even collecting up to date fees for traffic mitigation costs from these developers. The developers win again as more will fall to the bottom line! I'm not anti-development, I'm for SMART development. Right now I don't see too much of that. The Town is asking the developers what they want, not what telling them what the Town needs.
John December 16, 2013 at 07:58 PM
@AR More questions, if I may, the traffic mitigation fees are about $1 a square foot = $485K. In SJ, they are, discounted down, $5 a square foot. Why are getting 1/5 the traffic mitigation fees? Why didn't the Developer pay for the right-of-ways? If we lost another 500K there, that would total to 2.5M, how do you feel about that? And again, would you be cool with 350K if the TC went with the EIR Superior Alternative? JS:)
AR December 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM
@John - you need to convince the Town Council, not me
Jennifer December 16, 2013 at 11:55 PM
@AR - I think it's the Town voters that need the information, not the TC, since the developer has taken this to the people.
John December 17, 2013 at 12:21 AM
@AR So my sparring partner friend, are you conceding that 350K is best? For if my points do not have merit with you, how shall we save the Town from the big hands of Carlyle continuing its hostile takeover of the Town? I am afraid of the power of their 170 Billion in assets, are you?
Bill Applegate December 17, 2013 at 01:27 AM
@John You are no longer discussing the project, you are just posting the same information over and over again on multiple blogs. (The EIR says that a bigger project will have a bigger impact and a smaller project will have a smaller impact and no project will have no impact. What genius came up with that?). Obviously your point of view is the only thing that matters to you. Both AR and myself pointed out the section of the GP that the Judge Huber quoted giving authority to the City Council to approve the project. Unfortunately for the Town, that fact being spelled out in black and white was not good enough for you. You have now pushed the developer to create an initiative that will have no bearing what so ever on the project. It passes, the project gets built; it fails, the project gets built. Either way the Town is out $100k.
John December 17, 2013 at 02:10 AM
Bill, thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand you feel I'm just posting and not engaging in a discussion. You feel the EIR is not rocket science, that a bigger project has bigger impacts, and lesser ones have less. You are relying on Judge Huber's decision and his analysis. You feel the legal challenge is reckless and is costing the Town $100,000. You feel with certainty the appellate court wiill uphold Judge Huber's decision. You feel I have forced the Developer, which includes The Carlyle Group, a 170B global equity firm, to bring the initiative. In reflecting on our views, it seems to me we have a core difference in valuing the EIR. I put great value on the technical experts analysis. It was done for the Town, and paid for by the Developer. I did not pay for the report which I assume was well over $100,000. The experts said the environmentally superior alternative (other than no development) was 350K. The "geniuses" that came up with 350K were highly educated professionals with specialized areas of expertise. If you a have better level of land use than 350K, please share your ideas, and your background and education to support your views. Thank you for considering my thoughts. JS:)
AR December 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM
@John. there is no issue of opinion in "valuing" the EIR. the Town Council can choose to embrace an EIR or just recycle it. thats it. its consultative, like a traffic study. you agree with the experts because they agree with you. go look at the EIR that was promoted for the Ditto's Lane project and see if you're still willing to provide blanket support for external consultants. in any case its a nonissue - the role of an EIR is clearly spelled out. as for appealing the case in question...even the plaintiffs understand this is a stretch. i doubt the case will ever even be heard, it suggests that the judge himself must be second-guessed. why? because he didn't rule for the plaintiffs? get real! albright is a done deal, you should stop talking about it like it is still up in the air. worry about who you will vote for in the next Council elections and how they will deal with future proposals.
old neighbor dude December 17, 2013 at 04:21 PM
John, what do you not understand about the EIR not holding shit for water? Even if it was signed by Mother Teresa it wouldn't hold shit. Are you really that dense?
Tony Alarcon December 17, 2013 at 05:19 PM
Simple english, the EIR is a report to show best and worse uses for a property. It was supposed to help our governing bodies approve best use. Old Neighbor Dude is right in that even if Mother Teresa told our glorious Town Council her thoughts it wouldn't have mattered. The deck was stacked the question is why?:) Thing that pisses me off is the lies, Netflix is only using 240K'...' The developer promoted losing Netflix if it wasn't approved at 485K' and its for our schools...that is 100% BS. Unfortunately most of the general public is generally uneducated on the facts. Where are you LG Weekly is sharing the facts??? I wonder how many would support this project if they knew the real truth and the lies they are being fed. I'll concede Albright is likely a done deal. I just hope it makes people smarter to deal with the North 40 and Ditto's (God help us on that one)...
KM December 17, 2013 at 11:20 PM
The issue as I see it is whether or not the people of Los Gatos are willing to let a developer write their own ticket as to what can be built in LG. The Town Council approved the project at 485K sq feet, over the height limit of 35 feet. Those elected officials determined that. They can be voted out or re-elected based on how you feel about that decision. But this ballot initiative is the DEVELOPER determining his own amendment to the General Plan. If this works for this project, our Town Council will become the monkey court of the south bay. Every developer will determine his own project, and put it to the voters. Voters, please examine what you are voting for or against. Don't believe the glossy mailers. Do your homework. This may not be what you think it is. If you haven't read the entire 300+ pages, please vote no. If the voters pass this initiative, developers will learn that LG voters can be tricked and bought, and our rules and regulations will mean nothing.
John December 18, 2013 at 01:13 AM
KM.. Good points. As I see it, one issue is whether the the 35-foot maximum height limit subject to rigid development standards is mandatory language. It appears this will be decided by the appellate court. If the language is mandatory, the approval is thrown out. The second issue is whether to approve the ballot measure,, and go around the normal process for land use decisions. The voters can reject the environmentally inferior option of 485K square feet of office space. They can reject the additional 3,900 car trips per day. They can reject the Developers's (Carlyle) misrepresentation on the feasibility of the EIR best developed land use of 350K. They can reject violating the 35-foot height limit. They can reject the scare tactic of Netflix leaving (They got so many calls Netflix had to issue a press statement statung that they are not leaving.)
Bill Applegate December 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM
@John The irony is thick when you talk about the developer trying to "go around the normal process for land use decisions". The developer already went through the normal process for land use decisions in our Town. They presented a plan for a piece of property that they own, there was much debate, the TC came to a compromise between what the developer wanted and what the opposition wanted....end of process. You are the one who tried to get around the process by bringing your lawsuit and now you are faulting the developer for trying to do the same with their ballot measure. Don't you see the hypocrisy? Don't get me wrong, I'm going to vote no on the ballot measure because it is obvious to everyone but yourself that your lawsuit has no merit, and also by the time of the election, it won't matter one bit if it passes or if it fails. I'm upset that it has come to this and that a small group of citizens have hijacked our Town's process and wasted our Town's money and resources.
John December 18, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Bill:Thank you for sharing. Yes, the Developer broke the law! and did not get an EIR-that was not normal, so citizens had to file suit.. and won! Developer did follow normal process of complying with our GP mandatory standard of 35-feet maximum height limit, subject to rigid development standards--so that was not normal, and the Developer submitted a false and misleading feasibility report-- i hope that's not normal for Los Gatos. Therefore, suit has been filed, and no final decision has been rendered. Bringing a ballot initiative, and misleading the public about the approved projecr (See Soector/Jensen article in weekly), are defitely not normal to the Town of Los Gatos. I do agree with you Bill that I too will vote against the initiative. Carlyle has shown a pattern of bullying, deception and scare tactics that should not be rewarded at the ballot. Since you raised the issue of inconsistent positions, did see the LG insider video on Ms. Logan? She is against a 2-story next to her 2-story home on grounds of privacy and views, and yet advocated those for Charter. Is she being paid by the 170B Carlyle? Thank you for considering. John
Bill Applegate December 18, 2013 at 02:18 PM
John with these continued regurgitated posts, you have become everything you claim the developer is. Misleading: check (The developer broke the law by not doing an EIR. Really what law?); False information: check (The 35-foot height limit is a rigid and mandatory standard. Not according to Judge Hubner.); Scare tactic: check (If this is approve, then your neighbor will be able to build a 4 story home. Have you ever read the Town's residential development guidelines?); Deceptive: check (The Spector/Jensen letter said that they support the project as approve by the TC); Twisting the truth: check (Ms. Logan testified in front of the PC in support of our Town. Staff had already denied the applicant's submission. You on the other hand are fighting with our Town).
John December 18, 2013 at 03:06 PM
Bill: Thank for your sharing, and your interest in the Town's governance. 1. Regarding the EIR, the law that required an EIR with projects like Albright that have such big impacts. Remember, over Carlyle's objections, Judge HUber had to ORDER Carlyle to perform an EIR. If you would like a copy of the ORDER directing Carlyle to act, I can have one forwarded to you. His decision as to the EIR was not appealed by Carlyle. 2. Judge Huber's decision on the GP 35-foot mandatory height limit, is not the final word, just as the PC's decision was not the final word for the approval. It is my understanding expert land use attorney feel the citizens position is just, and that Judge Huber erred. 3. What use are the residential guidelines if the TC can exercise its discretion to ignore them? If they can, as Carlyle argues on Albright for Light Industrial, then 4-story homes could be approved, or 5 or 6 or 7. 4. A lead signer on the Petition advocated for less height, and protection of privacy and views, and then took the exact opposite position on the Albright project. So I get it: its NIMBY. She didn't want a 2-story next to her home, and she publicly rounded up support for a 4-story next to Charter Oaks because it was not in her neighborhood. Loma Alta is more special than Charter Oaks? More deserving? Is this the Tale of Two Towns? By the way, you define the STAFF as the Town. In fact, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 against the STAFF and her position, and allowed the reasonable 2-story. See, I am not against growth, I think the decision on the Prolo property was reasonable growth. Likewise, we want reasonable growth at Albright, and that is the elegant solution of 350,000 square feet of office space as identified in the EIR. Just as 4-stories would be unreasonable next to Ms. Logan's home, so too is it unreasonable next to the 100 Charter Oaks homes. Thank you for considering these thoughts. John
Tony Alarcon December 18, 2013 at 05:52 PM
@Bill and John I'm voting no too. Personally I fee the Town Council hijacked their obligation to follow the GP at 35', else if greater height limits would have been permitted the GP would have stated as such or better yet outline locations where it would be acceptable. Now the developer is trying to set precedence with the ballot initiative for future projects. The LG commissions and council are only as good as their personal expertise and/or lack of bias. It seems to me in LG we lack this experience on many of the commissions. I've been in large scale developments and processed specific plans with 3000+ units. In my opinion, LG is not thinking through traffic and schools impacts. You can mitigate traffic issues with new developer built on/off ramp requirements and school site requirements verses one time developer fee's and tax revenue that don't come close to covering the cost of present/future services. Here are some stats: - While our property taxes are high, many don't realize just how little of our PT taxes actually go our public schools. - as an example, say you have a $1m house that you're paying property taxes on- for that $1mill house, of all the property taxes you pay, only $1250 total goes to LGUSD - on average LGUSD spends about $5700 per child before our local funding (parcel tax, H&SC, LGEF). - so it takes 4.5 $1million dollar houses or 1 $4.5m house to pay for just 1 child... That further supports why this brilliant high density housing idea such as Blue Bird Lane / Laurel Mews or arguments to build high density commercial to support public transit reducing traffic is faulty. Our schools lose with high density housing and our traffic impact loses with increased commercial capacity BOTH feed the wrong end of the cycle.
Jennifer December 18, 2013 at 06:22 PM
@Tony Alarcon - your logic astounds me and you still have my vote should you decide to run for Town office!
John December 19, 2013 at 01:54 AM
Traffic: Thinking long-term... By 2017 the AVERAGE office worker will use 176 feet of office space. For hi-tech workers the density is higher, and soon will be at or near 10 workers/1,000 feet. Using a reasonable 8 workers/1,000 feet, and a 20 percent bus rate, we arrive at approximately 3,900 car trips in, and another 3,900 out. Couple this with San Jose jumping from 13th to 5th worst traffic in the country with the recent rebound, and we are headed for traffic NIGHTMARE in Los Gatos on LG Blvd., Lark, and Winchester. The Light Rail extension is 175M, and will not becoming to the rescue. In its drive for profits, its greed, The Carlyle Group, has "thrown under bus" both the Town, and in particular, the 100 homeowners of Charter Oaks. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" (I think I got the quote right.) Abe Lincoln
AR December 19, 2013 at 11:35 AM
@Tony Alacron - those are interesting numbers, and i will accept them at face value, but i don't know how they are relevant to this discussion. if i'm reading your response correctly, you're basically asserting that LGUSD runs a perpetual tax-income deficit on cost/income per household that has even a single student. what does this have to do with density? if the town had only four homes and one student, the math would still be in the red on a tax basis. the issue here isn't the number of students or taxable households, but the mix of revenue. and i don't see what laurel mews/bluebird developments have to do with the prospect of better transportation options for future workers at albright. you may indeed be correct in forecasting potential issues for the schools in the general sense, but if your numbers are correct, the situation would be as dire given potential developments or not.
Tony Alarcon December 19, 2013 at 12:23 PM
@AR my intent is to make sure all are informed on facts and to point out who has a moral compass and who does not. More housing density equals greater losses for schools, unless its a 55+ community which typically have less children. Yes generally housing to student ratios creates "in the red" scenario. Its a dire situation as we can only help lessen the impact by controlling density. Laurel Mews was pitched as affordable and no students, that's a laughable representation and I'm calling it out as $2M isn't affordable and it will be filled with kids. My point of this towards Albright is simply the developer and owner have no Moral Compass either. Netflix only requires 240K' of lease space yet its being pitched as Netflix will leave if its not built at 485K'. Point: most know the project as Netflix not Albright simply loos at the LG Weekly reference to Netflix versus Albright. I have multiple videos of the lies via hidden camera. Furthermore the additional tax revenue from the additional height, less the impact costs, delivers little extra value to the schools... though its being pitched as such. The greatest concern of mine is not even the specific Albright project but rather the implication towards our GP and future developers pillage of our town leaving us with the traffic damage that will be irreversible. Tax revenue mix is important, that is also why Laurel Mews should have remained commercial as it was, commercial generates tax revenues and no students.... At least on Albright the housing component was eliminated... AR I do appreciate your comments as it helps provoke peoples thought and inquiry to whats is going on in town. A better informed LG is a good thing.
John December 19, 2013 at 11:46 PM
Greed and selfishness. The Carlyle Group does not give a rip about what best for Los Gatos. How do we know? 1. No EIR--court had to order it. 2. The Town's own EIR report stated 350K was the environmentally Superior Alternative--the best developed land use for the Town. If they cared about the Town, they would not have pushed for 550K. 3. If they cared about the Town, they would not have submitted a misleading feasibility report that did not even include the 63m Netflix lease! 4. Netflix and money for schools are NONISSUES! 350K takes care of Netflix's 350K and brings in up to $900k/yr. Lezlie Logan has sold out the Town. She was against a 2-story next to her 2-level home, and publicly advocated for 4-stories next to Charter. How neighborly is that? Where is the empathy? Are u being paid by Carlyle or Shenk? U haven't denied it when I asked publicly. The worst part is the 485K is terrible for the Town. The traffic will be a nightmare with 8 workers or more per thousand feet. Netflix is complicit here. They have supported 550K, so they don't care about the Town's best interest either.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something