Item 2 - Exhibit 14- Public comments received between 1101, September 9, 2020 and 1100, September 18, 2020From: voicemail@verizon.com <voicemail@verizon.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 11:37 AM
To: Sally Zarnowitz <SZarnowitz@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: New Voicemail Message from 408-XXX-XXXX
Hello, I’m calling regarding the underground parking garage. It is extremely important that it be kept
underground and promises be kept. It is extremely important. Thank you.
EXHIBIT 14
Barbara Dodson
239 Marchmont Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
September 16, 2020
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
SUBJECT: THE SUMMERHILL PLAN WOULD CREATE A PARKING SHORTAGE IN
THE TRANSITION AREA A, B & C IN THE NORTH FORTY
Since our Town lawyer is now claiming that we need “objective” criteria for denying
SummerHill’s proposal, here’s my personal list of objective reasons to reject
SummerHill’s proposal.
1. The SummerHill proposal would create a parking shortage in the Transition District
A, B & C. The Market Hall and garage cannot be considered in isolation. The
application inappropriately focuses on the Market Hall and garage without admitting
its impact on the total amount of parking needed for commercial uses in the
Transition District A, B and C. This wider impact is that parking in the Transition
District A, B and C would be reduced by between 4 and 24 spaces. . (Note: There is
11,438 sq ft of commercial area in Building A1; 11,198 in Building A2; and
restaurant/retail of 10,644 sq ft marked for Area C. The proposal deals only with
parking in area B.)
SummerHill doesn’t provide consistent numbers, although their numbers always
show that their proposal would create a shortage, not an excess, of parking spaces
for the Transition District. Here are two ways in which the SummerHill numbers show
parking shortages.
A SHORTAGE OF 24 SPACES. This is shown just using numbers in A.11. The
required number of commercial spaces is 285 (column 36). The provided
number of commercial spaces is 261 (column 39). There is a shortage of 24
spaces
A SHORTAGE OF 4 SPACES. This uses Sheet A.11 and Exhibit 4. The required
number of commercial stalls in the Transition District is 285 (A.11). In Exhibit 4,
Market Hall commercial stalls are given as 126 (176 – 50 resident-related stalls).
Also in Exhibit 4, additional Transition District Parking is given as 155. Thus the
total commercial parking SummerHill would provide would be 126 + 155, which
equals 281. There is no excess parking. In this way of looking at it, there is a
clear shortage of 4 spaces for the district (285 required – 281 provided).
2. To put item 1 above in another way: The application is bas ed on the false
assumption that the garage was intended for use only by occupants of the Market
Hall complex—senior housing, senior guests, market hall, bakery, and community
room. In fact, the garage was also intended for use by customers at nearby retail
outlets, restaurants, and bars in addition to occupants of the Market Hall complex
itself. (Just think about Santana Row. Are shoppers limited to parking in the garage
under the hotel if they want to shop at Anthropologie, which has a different parking
lot across the street?) Given this fact, the parking in the underground garage is
needed to accommodate these parking requirements.
3. Building on the point in item 2 above, the applicant fails to clearly show where the
parking for the retail, restaurant/café, and bar/tavern that are not inside the Market
Hall would be located and whether the removal of the underground garage has an
impact on the availability of parking for these commercial outlets. Exhibit 4:
Transition District Parking shows that Parking Areas A, B, and C (which provide
surface parking) would provide a total of 155 spaces. But based on A.11, retail,
restaurant/café, and bar tavern outside of the Market Hall would require 213 spaces.
Here’s the math from A.11:
Retail spaces 55
Restaurant/café spaces 124
Bar/tavern spaces 34
Total: 213
There is a 58-space difference (213 – 155 = 58). Where would these 58 spaces be
located? Were they originally planned for the garage? (Following on this, Exhibit 4 in
the SummerHill proposal says there would be an “excess” of 52 spaces in the
parking garage. If the 58 unaccounted for spaces are considered, then there is a
shortage of 6 spaces in the parking garage.)
4. The applicant provides conflicting numbers about how much parking it would provide
in the Transition District. In some places, the applicant says that there would be 331
total spaces in the Transition District; in others the applicant uses a total of 330
spaces. Other inconsistences are: 7 spaces for the bakery listed in Exhibit 4 versus
no listing in A.11; 5 spaces for the community room in Exhibit 4 versus 4 spaces for
the community room in A.11; 62 spaces listed for the Market Hall in Exhibit 4 versus
55 spaces for the “specialty market” listed in A.11.
Numbers for the amount of total commercial parking are also inconsistent. In A.11
the total of provided commercial parking is given as 261. However, using Exhibit 4,
when you add the amount of commercial parking, you get a total of 281 (commercial
parking of 126 in the garage + 155 in parking areas A, B). How much commercial
parking will actually be provided? There’s no way of knowing based on this proposal.
The Commission cannot approve the application without consistent numbers and
accurate data being given.
5. The applicant makes false statements and uses bogus math.
Example 1: The applicant says that removing the subterranean parking level “leaves
the Market Hall project with an excess of 52 parking spaces above what is required
by the zoning code to serve the commercial interests at North 40.” (page 49,
Exhibit 5) However, A.11 under Commercial Required Parking Tabulations, in
column 36, under the heading REQUIRED/Number of Commercial Stalls, we have
the number 285.” Since removing the subterranean parking level actually leaves the
project with only 261 commercial spaces and a deficit of 24 spaces, the applicant
has made a false statement.
Example 2: The computations 39 + 30 + 261 = 330 and 330 PROVIDED – 285
REQ’D = 45 EXTRA in red to the right of A.11 creates a false impression. They
imply that SummerHill would provide 45 extra commercial spaces. But to come up
with the 45 Extra supposedly commercial stalls, SummerHill mixes residential stalls
(the 39 and the 30) with commercial stalls (the 261). SummerHill then uses the
required number of commercial stalls (the 285) to come up with its extra 45. In fact,
lookin at the situation this way, SummerHill has a shortage of 24 parking stalls for
the Transition District A, B & C.
6. If the applicant claims that the numbers in A.11 are no longer accurate or are out of
date, then the entire application must be thrown out for containing inaccurate data. It
is the applicant’s responsibility to provide accurate data. Commissioners cannot
make their decisions without accurate data.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
I’m wondering if you might ask SummerHill these questions based on Sheet A.11. I’d
love to get answers.
Main Questions
• Under Commercial Required Parking Tabulations, in column 36, under the heading
REQUIRED/Number of Commercial Stalls, we have the number 285. Is this
number still accurate? If not, what is the accurate number?
• Under TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING TABULATIONS, PROVIDED Commercial
Stalls, we have 261 (column 39). Since this number is not the total of the
numbers provided in the table (the total is 285), where does this number come
from and what is the explanation for this reduced number of parking stalls?
Subquestions
Under Commercial Required Parking Tabulations, in column 27, under the heading
Specialty Market/Number of Stalls, we have the number 55. Is this number still
accurate? If not, what is the accurate number?
• Under Commercial Required Parking Tabulations, in column 29, under the heading
Retail/Number of Stalls, we have the number 68. Is this number still accurate? If not,
what is the accurate number?
• Under Commercial Required Parking Tabulations, in column 33, under the heading
Bar/Tavern/Number of Stalls, we have the number 34. Is this number still accura te?
If not, what is the accurate number?
• Under Commercial Required Parking Tabulations, in column 35, under the heading
Community Room/Number of Stalls, we have the number 4. Is this number still
accurate? If not, what is the accurate number?
• Looking at the tabulations in red to the right of A.11, what is the number 126 labeled
Revised Bldg B1 Retail based on?
• What is the computation 39 + 30 + 261 = 330 supposed to show? The implication of
the bottom two computations in red
39 + 30 + 261 = 330
330 PROVIDED – 285 REQ’D = 45 EXTRA
is that SummerHill is providing 45 extra commercial parking spaces. However, the
numbers 39 and 30 used in the computations are the numbers for residential stalls
and residential guest stalls respectively. Therefore SummerHill is making a false
statement; it is NOT providing “45 Extra” if indeed it is trying to show that it is
providing extra commercial stalls.
In fact, SummerHill has a deficit of 24 parking stalls for the Transition District A, B
& C.
• In the bottom computation in red, why is the number 285 being used? (THIS
APPEARS TO BE AN ADMISSION THAT 285 COMMERCIAL STALLS ARE
REQUIRED AS LISTED IN COLUMN 36. HOWEVER, IN COLUMN 39
SUMMERHILL ADMITS THAT IT IS PROVIDING ONLY 261 COMMERCIAL
STALLS, 24 STALLS BELOW THE REQUIREMENT.)
Thank you for your service to the Town.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson
From: Jean Mundell <jmundell@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:43 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: north 40
This has been a long and arduous process. Plans should be followed as agreed upon.
No backsliding.
Jean Mundell
I live off Lark Ave. Need I say more?
From: Barbara Kettmann <abckett@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:23 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: North 40
To the Town Council of Los Gatos
I thought I have registered w the Town. Los Gatos Home owner since 1986. Keep original plans for
underground parking and please does the Town have current meeting notes posted, links for Zoom? Last
week the link I was given to access was listening & viewing Council members only.
Regards,
Barbara Kettmann
Sent from my iPhone
From: Lori Day <lday4family@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 11:39:07 AM
To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: North 40 Changes
Dear Joel,
I am writing to you regarding the requested change to remove the underground parking in the North
40. We ask that the Planning Commission deny this request, parking is necessary in order for the North
40 to be successful and not to move penetrate the surrounding neighborhood. Let’s keep the developer
to task and the approved plan.
Thank you
Lori & Chris Day
204 Dover St.
Los Gatos 95032
From: Charles Wade <charles.wade13@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 4:12:02 PM
To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: N. 40 Garage
Mr Paulson, I think it is atrocious that the developers would even try for this change. Traffic and parking
were big items in all the years this was negotiated. To change at this point makes a mockery of all the
efforts expended to make this a positive addition to LG. Thanks.
From: Angela Di Berardino <angiedib@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: North 40!!!!
Underground parking is essential to combatting our parking problems!!! Everybody KNOWS that!!! Do
NOT allow this to be removed!!!!!!!!!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Babette Ito <babetteito@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 8:50 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: North 40 parking
Hi - I'm a resident of 15 years in Los Gatos. Please do not allow
the developers to get away with what they agreed to in the current
plan - especially the parking. The street congestion will be bad
enough and will affect the hospital ambulance and other
emergency vehicles. There needs to be underground parking.
Thank you
--
Yours,
Babette Ito
mobile: 408-279-9064
From: Jocelyn Fong <JFong@losgatosca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 4:57:36 PM
To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Voicemail: No name.(9/9) 11:36 AM
Someone called saying they wanted to keep the underground parking.
Jocelyn Fong
CDD Administrative Assistant
From: r pathak
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 12:24:55 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Planning
Cc: Pathak Rahul
Subject: need Underground Parking
Dear Staff,
Is the the Town of Los Gatos committed to underground Parking at North 40?
Thank you,
Sookmunny
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank