08 Attachment 08 - September 23, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 12-14_RedactedPREPARED BY: JOCELYN SHOOPMAN
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/23/2020
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: September 18, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of a Request for Modification to an Existing Architecture
and Site Application (S-13-090) to Remove Underground Parking for
Construction of a Commercial Building (Market Hall) in the North 40 Specific
Plan Area. Located at 14225 Walker Street. APN 424-56-017. Architecture
and Site Application S-20-012. Property Owner/Applicant: Summerhill N40,
LLC. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.
REMARKS:
On August 26, 2020, the Planning Commission continued this item to allow Commissioners to
complete a site visit and to allow for additional public comments to be provided.
On September 9, 2020, the Planning Commission continued this item to allow the
Commissioners and public additional time to review the project’s compliance with the Town’s
objective standards pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act.
Attachment 12 includes the applicant’s response regarding the project’s compliance with the
parking requirements in the Specific Plan. Attachment 13 includes a memorandum from the
Town Attorney and Attachment 14 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m.,
Wednesday, September 9, 2020 and 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 18, 2020.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with August 26, 2020 Staff Report:
1.Location Map
2.Required Findings and Considerations
3.Recommended Conditions of Approval
4.Project Description
5.Letter of Justification
6.Development Plans, received May 18, 2020
ATTACHMENT 8
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 14225 Walker Street/S-20-012
DATE: September 18, 2020
EXHIBITS (continued):
7. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 21, 2020
Previously received with August 26, 2020 Addendum Report:
8. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 21, 2020 and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, August 25, 2020.
Previously received with August 26, 2020 Desk Item Report:
9. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, August 25, 2020 and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, August 26, 2020.
Previously received with September 9, 2020 Staff Report:
10. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday August 26, 2020 and 11:00
a.m., Friday, September 4, 2020
Previously received with September 9, 2020 Desk Item Report:
11. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, September 4, 2020 and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, September 9, 2020
Received with this Staff Report:
12. Applicant’s response to the project’s compliance with the parking requirements in the
Specific Plan
13. Town Attorney Memorandum
14. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, September 9, 2020 and 11:00
a.m., Friday, September 18, 2020
EXHIBIT 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
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
Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 13
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Robert Schultz, Town Attorney
Date: September 18, 2020
Subject: The Role of the Planning Commission and the Applicability of the Housing
Accountability Act and By Right Development to the Application for
Modification to an Existing Architecture and Site Application (S-13-090) to
Remove Underground Parking for Construction of a Commercial Building
(Market Hall) in the North 40 Specific Plan Area.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Planning Commission at their last meeting requested further analysis of the applicability of
the Housing Accountability Act to the Application for Modification to an Existing Architecture and
Site Application (S-13-090) to Remove Underground Parking for Construction of a Commercial
Building (Market Hall) in the North 40 Specific Plan Area (Phase 1 Modification Application). This
memorandum addresses the Role of the Planning Commission in addition to the applicability of
the Housing Accountability Act and the Town’s Housing Element/ By Right Development to the
Phase 1 Modification Application.
Role of the Planning Commission
Based upon the questions and comments put forth by the Planning Commissioners at the last
meeting, I thought it would be important to first review the role of the Planning Commission as
it relates to all land use decisions.
The Planning Commission acts on behalf of the Town Council in deciding on and recommending
land use activities and related matters. The Planning Commission derives its authority and duties
through California Government Code Section 65101. That authority is further detailed in the Los
Gatos Town Code defining the composition and duties of the Planning Commission. One of the
duties of the Planning Commission is to review individual projects for consistency with the
General Plan, any applicable specific plans, the zoning ordinance, and other land use policies and
regulations. The Planning Commission is required to evaluate the facts and information and then
deliberate and determine how the applicable ordinance or law applies to the information
provided.
Pursuant to the landmark case of Topanga Assn. For A Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles
(1974), the Planning Commission must explain land use decisions through the adoption of
findings. Topanga defined findings as legally relevant sub-conclusions which expose the agency's
Page 2 of 6
mode of analysis of facts, regulations, and policies, and bridge the analytical gap between raw
data and ultimate decision. Therefore, the findings of the Planning Commission must be relevant
to adopted, applicable criteria in statutes, ordinances or policies. In a way, The Planning
Commission operates as a court in that the Planning Commission must apply the Town’s local
land use regulations to a specific application just as a court applies the law to a specific set of
facts. Basically, the findings of the Planning Commission are an explanation of how they
progressed from the facts through established fixed rule, standard, law, or policies to the
decision.
Based upon the forgoing, and as I explained in our last meeting, findings such as the proposed
modification is a “cost saving/profit increasing strategy” or that “they stand to make millions of
dollars” or that the developers must “stick with their commitment” or “uphold the agreement”
or that this is a “bait and switch” or “will force visitors, shoppers & residents to find parking
elsewhere” or that the developers “are bullies and are ruining our town” are inadequate and
improper findings pursuant to Topanga Assn. For A Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles
(1974). Although all of these statements may not lack evidentiary support, they lack legal
relevance and even if they are assumed to be correct, those findings simply do not meet the legal
requirements set forth in code and case law.
Background of North 40 Phase 1 Project
The approved North 40 Phase 1 Project includes: 260 residential condominiums/rowhomes, 10
rental apartments (including two live-work units), 49 affordable senior rental units, one
additional unit to be reserved for a moderate-income manager of the senior units, and
approximately 62,000 square feet of commercial floor area and a four-story parking garage with
303 parking spaces. The approved parking garage consisted of three above grade levels and one
below grade level. The approved project subdivides the 20.7-acre Phase 1 project area into 113
lots to provide for 320 residential units and commercial space. (Phase 1 Project).
Prior to the approval, the Town Council denied the Phase 1 Project based on the Project’s
inconsistencies with the Town’s General Plan, Housing Element, and Specific Plan. Thereafter,
the applicants filed a lawsuit against the Town asserting that: (1) the Town of Los Gatos violated
the Town’s Housing Element; (2) the Town violated the State’s Housing Accountability Act; and
(3) the Town violated the State Density Bonus Law. The lawsuit requested the Court to direct
“the Town to comply with its clear, mandatory, and ministerial duty to approve the project in
compliance with the Town’s Housing Element, the Housing Accountability Act, and the Density
Bonus Law.”
On June 9, 2017, the Santa Clara County Superior Court issued a Decision and Judgment against
the Town. The Decision and Judgment determined that the findings adopted by the Town Council
were discretionary determinations made under subjective policies in the Specific Plan, instead of
under objective policies as required by the Housing Accountability Act.
Page 3 of 6
On September 10, 2017, the Town Council rescinded its denial of the Phase 1 Project pursuant to
the court order and approved the project as set forth above. The Applicants are now requesting
a modification to the Phase 1 Project, (an existing and approved Architecture and Site
Application), to remove the underground parking for the Market Hall. The removal of the below
grade level would eliminate 127 parking spaces. No exterior modifications to the existing Market
Hall building are proposed (Phase 1 Modification Application).
Applicability of Housing Accountability Act
The Court Decision and Judgment directed the Town to reconsider the Project under the
provisions of Government Code §65589.5(j) of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The HAA
was originally enacted in 1982 and is often referred to as California’s “Anti NIMBY law.” The intent
of the legislation was to address the “problems in some cases where local governments adopt
housing policies and then fail to comply with their own policies when specific projects are at
stake. The obvious problem is that when developers of housing cannot rely on housing policies
in proposing projects, then substantial uncertainty is created.”
The HAA requires local governments to approve any “housing development project,” including
specified mixed use projects, if they comply with “applicable, objective general plan and zoning
standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing
development project’s application is determined to be complete…” The Court Decision and
Judgment determined that the Applicant’s “project is within the statutes definition of a housing
development project.” Subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5 reads:
(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable,
objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review
standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application
is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the
project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a
lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed
housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial
evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon
the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this
paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct,
and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or
safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application
was deemed complete.
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse
impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the
housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition
that it be developed at a lower density.
Page 4 of 6
The HAA defines “objective” as “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official
and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”
(Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).
Since the Decision and Judgment required the Town to consider the Phase 1 Project under the
HAA, the HAA would certainly apply to any modifications to the Phase 1 Project. Therefore, in
order to deny the Phase 1 Modification Application, the Planning Commission must cite to
specific written objective identified Town Standards and Policies and cannot deny the Phase 1
Modification Application for subjective criteria. As explained in Honchariw v. County of
Stanislaus, the HAA was intended to “take away an agency’s ability to use what might be called
a ‘subjective’ development ‘policy’.
Applicability of Housing Element/By Right Development
In addition to complying with the HAA, the Town must comply with Housing Element Law.
Housing Element Law requires the Town to demonstrate how the community plans to
accommodate its “fair share” of its regional housing needs. To do so, the Town must establish
an inventory of sites designated for new housing that is sufficient to accommodate its fair share.
The Town must also identify regulatory barriers to housing development and propose strategies
to reduce or eliminate those barriers.
The Town’s Housing Element required adoption of the North 40 Specific Plan with certain
development assumptions in order to meet existing and projected housing needs in the Town
and to obtain certification of the Housing Element from the State. The Town’s Housing Element
(Action HOU 1.7) required the Town to rezone 13.5 acres within the North 40 Specific Plan Area
to comply with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and establish “by-right” development for
these units. More specifically, the Town’s Housing Element states:
Additional opportunities for affordable housing are being facilitated through the
consideration of the North 40 Specific Plan and associated rezoning of 13.5 acres
with a minimum density of 20 units per acre to yield 270 units. The Specific Plan
would provide certainty regarding objective criteria in the form of development
standards and design guidelines that would be implemented through “by right
development" in the consideration of Architecture and Site applications. This
process involves site and architectural review and if a proposal meets the
objective criteria in the Design Guidelines, then the project is approved.
Therefore, the Planning application process and review is not an undue burden or
constraint on the production of affordable housing.
Based upon the Town’s Housing Element, the approval of the Phase 1 Project and now this Phase
1 Modification Application are entitled to “by right” development. This means that pursuant to
our Housing Element, the Planning Commission must only apply objective standards in its review,
analysis, and determination on whether to approve or deny the Phase 1 Modification Application.
Page 5 of 6
These are the same legal principles that are set forth under the HAA and are adopted in the
Court’s Decision and Judgment and restrict the Planning Commission from using subjective
criteria and findings to condition or deny this Phase 1 Modification Application.
Conclusion
Under the Housing Accountability Act and Housing Element Law, the Phase 1 Modification
Application may only be reviewed for conformance with objective Town standards and policies
and the Planning Commission must apply those policies to facilitate the proposed housing
development and must not use subjective standards or policies to deny the Phase 1 Modification
Application.
RWS
Page 6 of 6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From:
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
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 based 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 accurate?
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
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
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
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
Los Gatos 95032
From: Charles Wade
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
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
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
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