Item 2 - Exhibit 12 - Applicant’s response to project’s compliance with parking requirements in the Specific PlanEXHIBIT 12
Commercial SF
Commercial Transition District Square Footage Affordable 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom
Gross Commercial
Required Parking
1:300
Gross Community
Room
Square Footage
1:590
Affordable
Residential
Required Parking
0.5 per unit +
0.5 per unit
(guest)
1-Bedroom
Required Parking
1 per Unit +
0.5 per unit (guest)
1-Bedroom
Required
Parking
1 per Unit +
0.5 per unit
(guest) Subtotal
Proposed Parking
Provided
Market Hall
Gross Commercial SF 20,760 69 69
Gross Community Room SF 2,772 5 5
Affordable Residential 50 50 50
Subtotal 124 176
Building A1
Gross Commercial SF 11,438 38 38
1 Bedroom Residential 6 9 9
2 Bedroom Residential 4 10 10
Subtotal 57
Building A2
Gross Commercial SF 11,198 37 37
Building B2
Gross Commercial SF 5,745 19 19
Building C1
Gross Commercial SF 10,644 35 35
Subtotal: Building A1, A2, B2, C1 39,025 130 149 143
Transition District Total 62,557 50 6 4 199 5 50 9 10 273 319
Surplus 46
Square Footage Based on approved Building Permit and Minor Revisions Estimated with the Elimination of the Basement
Gross Commercial Square Footage Based on Column 18 on Sheet 3.22 of A&S Approved Plans
Unit Count Based on Column 1 on Sheet 3.22 of A&S Approved Plans
Notes:
Prepared By: Michael Keaney, SummerHill Homes
Date: September 14, 2020
1. The total in the Gross Commercial Required Parking column has one more parking space than required when adding up the column because when the decimals are aggregated and rounded off, it
results in one more parking space being required than there would be if each parcel is considered separately.
Transition District Parking Summary
Residential Units Required Parking
Exhibit A
Number of Units
Required Parking
Per Unit Total Required Total Provided
Covered Parking Stalls
1 Bedroom 69 1 69 69
2 Bedroom and 2+ bedroom 191 2 382 382
Subtotal 451 451
Guest Parking Stalls
1 Bedroom 71 0.5 35.50
2 Bedroom and 2+ Bedroom 189 0.5 94.50
Subtotal 130 130
Total 260 581 581
Prepared By: Michael Keaney, SummerHill Homes
Date: September 14, 2020
Lark District & Transition District Area D
Total SF
Bellaterra Approved
Building Permit
Rowhomes 169,458
Garden Clusters 113,466
Condo Clusters 122,440
Subtotal 405,364
Hirschman Parcel
Garden Cluster 11,112
Parcel A Loft Units*12,195
Affordable Housing 44,966
Total 473,637
* SF from Sheet 3.22 of Approved A&S Plans
Prepared By: Michael Keaney, SummerHill Homes
Date: September 14, 2020
Total Residential SF Lark District and Transition District D
P50P53P56P57BLDG 1BLDG 6BLDG 12BLDG 18BLDG 21BLDG 24 BLDG 25BLDG 23BLDG 22BLDG 19BLDG 20BLDG 14BLDG 13BLDG 7BLDG 8BLDG 3BLDG 2BLDG 4
BLDG 5
BLDG 10BLDG 16BLDG 11BLDG 28
BLDG 29
BLDG 33
BLDG 32
BLDG 31BLDG 30BLDG 34BLDG 35BLDG 17BLDG 9BLDG 15BLDG 26
SEPULVEDA CIRCLESEPULVEDA COURT
SEPULVEDA CIRCLESEPULVEDA CIRCLE
SOUTH TURNER STREETSHORE STREETSHORE DRIVEBRIGGS COURTBARTLETT COURTCONNOR COURTGELLATT COURTBARTLETT STREET
STANLEY STREETHAMSHER COURTMCMILLAN COURTBARTLETT STREETSACKETT COURT
NORTH TURNER STREETSOUTH TURNER STREET
WALKER STREETCURTIS DRIVE MILLS STREETWATKINS DRIVEMCCOBB DRIVESHORE WAY WATKINS WAY MCCOBB WAY
BARTLETT STREET
LARK AVENUEC242 A16
C243 A17
C244
C245
C246
C247
C248
C249C250C251C252C253C254C255C256C257C258C259C260C261C263C262C264C182C184C183C266C265C185C187 A12C267
C268
C269C189C188 A13C270C271C191C192C272C193C273VAN
VAN E5P1 A1
P2 P3 P4 P5
P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
P15 P16 P17 P18
P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 P29 P30 P31
P32 P33 P34 P35
P36P37P38P39P40P41P42P43P44P45P46P47P48P49P51P52P54P55P58P59P60P61P62P63P64P65P66P67P68P69P70P71P74P72P73P76P75P77P79P81P78P80P82P83P85P84P86P87P88P89P90P91P92P93 A2
P94 A3
P95 A4
P96 A5
P97 E1
P98 E2
P99
P100
P101
P102
P103
P104
P105
P106
P107
P108
P109
P110
P111 P112 P113 P114
P115 P116 P117 P118 P119 P120 P121 P122 P123 P124 P125 P126 P127
P128 P129 P130
C201
C202
C203
C204
C205 A14
C206 A15
C207
C208
C209
C210
C211
C212
C213
C214
C215
C216
C217
C218
C219
C220
C221
C222
C223
C224
C225
C226
C227
C228
C229
C230
C231
C232
C233
C234
C235
C236
C237
C238
C239 C240 C241C131 A6C132 A7C133 E3C134 E4C135C136C137C138C139C140C141C142C143C144C145C146 A8C149 A10C
1
5
0
A
1
1C151 E6C152C153C
1
5
4
C
1
5
5C156C
1
5
7
C158C159C160C161C162C163C164C165C166C167C168C169C170C171C172C173C174C175C176C177C178C179C180C181C186C190C194C195C196C197C198C199C200C147 A9C148VANMARKET HALL PROVIDED PARKING SCHEDULE BY LEVEL BY TYPE
QTY
LEVEL P3
SENIOR EV 9'x18'1
SENIOR ADA 9'x18'1
SENIOR EV ADA (VAN ACCESSIBLE) 9'x18'1
SENIOR STANDARD 8'-6"x18'22
SENIOR VISITOR STANDARD 8'-6"x18'22
LEVEL P2
CLEAN AIR ADA (VAN ACCESSIBLE) 9'x18'1
CLEAN AIR/VANPOOL 9'x18'16
RETAIL STANDARD 8'-6"x18'50
RETAIL STANDARD 8'-6"x18' EXTRA 3
LEVEL P1
RETAIL EV 9'x18'10
RETAIL STANDARD 8'-6"x18'50
RETAIL EV ADA (VAN ACCESSIBLE) 9'x18'1
RETAIL EV ADA 9'x18'1
SENIOR VISITOR ADA 9'x18'1
SENIOR VISITOR ADA (VAN ACCESSIBLE) 9'x18'1
SENIOR VISITOR STANDARD 8'-6"x18'1
LEVEL P0
RETAIL ADA 9'x18'6
RETAIL ADA (VAN ACCESSIBLE) 9'x18'1
RETAIL STANDARD 8'-6"x18'50
RETAIL STANDARD 8'-6"x18' EXTRA 33
TANDEM 8'-6"x36' 19(x2)38
TOTAL 310
3SHEET OF CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS;AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER.PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OFCALIFORNIALOS GATOSREVISIONSBYDATEPROJECT NO.:SCALE:ENGR:CHECK:DRAWN:DESIGN:DATE:APRIL 4, 2020JDBCTRNBFR19890-0A1AS SHOWN ON PLANLOS GATOS NORTH 40 - PHASE 1COMMERCIALPARKING SPACES1
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD
LEGEND:
ACCESSIBLE
VAN ACCESSIBLE
SummerHill Responses to Letter from Barbara Dodson:
Responses Provided in Red Text
Barbara Dodson
239 Marchmont Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
September 3, 2020
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
SUBJECT: ELIMINATION OF THE UNDERGROUND GARAGE IN THE NORTH FORTY
I oppose the elimination of the underground parking garage. I think it will result in an insufficient
amount of parking, and while looking at the SummerHill proposal I think I’ve come across the fact that
SummerHill’s provision of parking for the Transition District A, B, & C, with the elimination of the garage,
will be below the Town’s required number of parking stalls.
I think that SummerHill’s proposal has focused on parking for the Market Hall and argued that without
the underground garage SummerHill would still be fulfilling the Town’s requirements for parking.
However, the Market Hall parking in the garage is just one component of the parking for the entire
Transition District A, B & C. With the elimination of the parking garage, SummerHill will not meet the
Town’s requirements for the Transition District A, B & C.
According to Sheet A.11 in SummerHill’s proposal, the Town’s requirement for parking stalls in the
Transition District A, B, & C is 354. With the elimination of the underground garage, SummerHill will be
providing only 330 parking spots.
Response: Sheet A.11 in the A&S Amendment Application was an attempt to only show the changes
related to the Market Hall and Lot 27. It was based on clouding revisions to Sheet 3.22 from the
approved A&S plan set. Sheet 3.22 from the approved plan set did not calculate parking based on what
is required by the current Town code. Sheet 3.22 was an attempt to estimate parking requirements that
could be anticipated with a hypothetical set of land uses and the code requirements in place at that
time. Exhibit A accurately reflects the parking required by the code and what is currently being
provided.
The bottom line for me is that we can’t approve the SummerHill proposal because it provides 24 fewer
parking spots than required by the Town.
Response: If the A&S amendment is approved the Market Hall will provide 176 parking spaces, and there
will be 143 parking spaces in the transition district. This is a total of 319 parking spaces. Based on the SF
proposed in the A&S approval for the transition district this is a surplus of 46 parking spaces. Exhibit A
has a summary of the required and proposed parking for the transition district.
I hope I have my numbers correct in the explanatory material below.
Just as a note: SummerHill has provided inconsistent numbers, making it confusing to figure out exactly
what is being proposed. In some places, SummerHiil says it’s providing 330 spaces for the Transition
District A, B, & C; in other places it says it’s providing 331.
Response: The 330 required parking spaces was consistent with the concept described above to
calculate the required parking based only on the change to the Market Hall building on Lot 27 and not
analyze the full district based on the parking required by the Town code. The correct parking
requirement per the Town code for the transition district is shown on the attached Exhibit A.
As another example, in the table titled “Market Hall-Parking Requirements,” SummerHill gives the
required number of parking spaces for the Community Room as 5, but in A.11 the required number of
parking spaces for the Community Room is listed as 4. In the table titled “Market Hall-Parking
Requirements,” SummerHill gives the required number of parking spaces for the Market Hall as 62 as 5,
but in A.11 the required number of parking spaces for the “Specialty Market” is listed as 55.
Response: The required parking for the community room increased because the square footage
increased. Exhibit A has a complete summary of the required parking for the transition district,
including the Community Room.
1. SUMMERHILL’S NUMBERS SHOW THAT IT IS NOT PROVIDING THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING THAT THE
TOWN REQUIRES FOR THE TRANSITION DISTRICT (Areas A, B, C).
In the adopted Developer’s Phase 1 Plan from 2016: Based on the table titled Transition District Area A,
B & C Building Area and Parking Tabulations (Table 3.22, page 58), the required number of parking stalls
was 354 for the Transition District Area A, B & C (69 residential stalls/residential guest stalls + 285
commercial stalls). The original developer committed to providing more than that: 458 (389 commercial
stalls (total for the specialty market, retail, restaurant/café, bar/tavern, and community room); and 69
residential/residential guest stalls.
Response: The required parking table on sheet 3.22 was not based on what is required by the code for
parking. Exhibit A summarizes what is required by the code.
TOTAL ADOPTED IN 2016 FOR THE TRANSITION DISTRICT Area A, B & C:
458 PARKING STALLS
• The SummerHill proposal provides for only 330 parking spaces for the Transition District A, B &C. (See
A.11: Transition District Building Area and Parking Tabulations on page 62 in the Agenda Packet. This is
SummerHill’s revised version of Table 6.22.)
Response: Exhibit A more accurately shows the required and provided parking for Market Hall and the
transition district. 273 parking spaces are required and 319 are being provided.
• By eliminating the underground garage, SummerHill would provide 24 fewer parking spaces than
required by the Town for the Transition District A, B & C. (354-330=24)
Response: Per Exhibit A there are currently 46 more spaces provided in the transition district than are
required.
• Both Table 6.22 in the Developer’s proposal and Table A.11 in SummerHill’s proposal show that the
Town requirement for commercial stalls is 285. Table A.11 shows that under SummerHill’s proposal,
SummerHill would provide only 261 commercial parking stalls.
Response: Exhibit A includes commercial and residential parking that is required. Currently there are 69
residential parking spaces required and 204 commercial spaces required.
• Under its proposal, SummerHill would provide 24 fewer than the required number of commercial
parking stalls (285-261=24) for the Transition District A, B & C.
Response: Per Exhibit A there is a surplus of 46 spaces in the transition district.
THE MATH using numbers from Sheet A.11
Town required number of parking spaces for the Transition District A, B & C: 354
285 required commercial spaces + 39 required residential stalls +
30 required residential guest stalls = 354 required parking spaces
Number of total spaces proposed by SummerHill: 330
261 commercial spaces + 39 residential stalls +
30 residential guest stalls = 330 provided parking spaces
Response: As mentioned in an earlier response sheet A.11 was an attempt to only show the changes
related to the Market Hall and Lot 27. It was based on clouding revisions to Sheet 3.22 from the
approved A&S plan set. Sheet 3.22 from the approved plan set did not calculate parking based on what
is required by the current Town code. Exhibit A accurately reflects the parking required by the code and
what is currently being provided.
OTHER MATH using numbers from Table 6.22 on page 58 of the Developer’s Proposal, which is the
proposal adopted by the Town
Parking spaces in the adopted plan in 2016: 458
Parking spaces SummerHill wants to eliminate: 127
Number of total spaces proposed by SummerHill
for the Transition District A, B, & C: 331
The Summerhill proposal drops the number of total parking spaces for the Transition District A, B & C
below the Town’s requirement of 354. SummerHill is shortchanging the Town by 24 (or 23, depending
on which Table you use) parking spaces.
Response: The numbers referenced above are based on the parking table on sheet 3.22 of the approved
A&S plan, but these numbers are not reflective of what is required by the Town code.
2. SUMMERHILL SAYS IT IS PROVIDING EXCESS PARKING. HOW DID SUMMERHILL COME UP WITH ITS (I
believe, incorrect) NUMBERS? SUMMERHILL APPEARS TO HAVE CONFUSED THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES WITH THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF TOTAL PARKING SPACES. (See the
notes in red in A.11 on the right -- p. 62 in the Agenda Packet.)
• In the red notes next to the section outlined in red called Retail, SummerHill implies that it will provide
a TOTAL OF 330 parking spaces for retail.
• SummerHill does its math to reach 330 commercial stalls by including 39 residential stalls and 30
residential guest stalls.
• SummerHill has a deficit of 24 parking stalls below the requirement of 285 commercial stalls. It does
not have 45 extra commercial stalls as is claimed.
Also note on Sheet A.11 that in the column headed “Total. Required Number of Commercial Stalls.”
SummerHill lists 285. Then, just 2 columns to the right, under “Provided Commercial Stalls,” it lists 261.
In its own chart, SummerHill clearly shows that there is a deficit of 24 commercial parking stalls.
Response: The numbers referenced above are based on the parking table on sheet 3.22 of the approved
A&S plan, but these numbers are not reflective of what is required by the Town code. Exhibit A
summarized the required and proposed parking for the transitional district.
3. THE PARKING GARAGE ALREADY HAD AN INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. The developer
wants to drop the number of parking spaces in the garage from 303 to 176. But there was already a lack
of parking in the garage in the adopted plan. Specifically, the parking for the 50-unit senior complex
wasn’t realistic. The allotment was 1 space per senior unit for a total of 50 spaces--½ space for each
resident and ½ space for guests. The developer said most of the seniors wouldn’t be able to afford cars.
It also assumed each senior unit would have just one resident.
In fact it’s possible that each senior unit will have two or even more residents. There may be one or
more cars connected to each unit for a possible total of more than 50 cars. This uses up all the unit
spaces and then some without accounting for guests.
Response: Eden has thirty-six properties containing two thousand seven hundred and four units. Four of
those properties are in Santa Clara County and contain three hundred and five units. All of the suburban
properties are parked at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per units. Urban properties in their portfolio have fewer
spaces per unit. Eden’s lease agreement limits the number of occupants in a 1-bedroom unit to two
occupants.
Suppose the residents of the 50 senior units use their 50 parking spots. 126 spaces remain for the
Market Hall, Bakery, and Community Room. Let’s say 10 seniors and their guests use 30 additional
spaces. We’re down to 96 spaces.
Response: The senior parking is on the 3rd floor and is gated.
How about employees at the Market Hall and bakery? Let’s say they use 20 spaces. We’re down to 76
spaces for shoppers and people using the community room. Is this enough???
Response: The Town codes required parking for this land use is intended to accommodate parking for
customers and employees.
How about overflow parking from other areas? There will be 71 one-bedroom units with one garage
each. Suppose two people live in these units and each person has a car. We now have 71 more cars that
will be seeking parking. The garage would be a logical space for these residents to use.
Response: The residential portion of the project meets its parking requirement. The garage is private
property. It will have a gate that will be closed after hours.
4. WE NEED AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE DEVELOPER THINKS THE NEW PARKING ALLOCATIONS ARE
ADEQUATE. The developer claims to be justifying the new lowered parking allocations using city code
and the specific plan. Logic and common sense have clearly not been applied here. For example, the
2,032 square foot bakery has 7 spaces. Is this for employees as well as patrons? Will there be seating
within the bakery? If yes, 7 parking spaces are hardly enough. How about the community room? It gets 4
parking spaces for its 2,772 square feet. Obviously more than 5 people can easily attend a meeting in
such a space. Where are they supposed to park?
Response: Per Exhibit A, the parking in the transition district will exceed what is required.
5. PARKING WILL STILL BE NEEDED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. The SummerHill proposal states that
“The Market Hall was originally designed with a basement level by Grosvenor, with the intent to use the
excess parking for future development in Phase II of North 40. With Grosvenor no longer involved in
Phase I of the project, SummerHill has no need for parking beyond what is required by Town Code and
the specific plan.”
But the need for parking for future development has not changed. There will still be future development
and thus still a need for parking.
Response: Future phases of the project will be required to meet their parking requirements on their
portion of the project.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank