Loading...
Item 6.1 combined public comments.pdf From: Jack Kent [mailto:jackkent@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 8:49 AM Subject: Glen Loma Ranch TM 20-05 Dear Chairman Manny Bhandal, Attached please find a letter to be included in the public records for TM 20-05. Thank you Jack Kent jackkentlaw.com 408-395-7171 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 231 Los Gatos, California 95030 May 1, 2024 VIA-EMAIL To: Chairman Manny Bhandal and Planning Commissioners CC: John Filice, Augie Dent, Arminta Jensen, Jimmy Forbis, Sharon Goei, Andy Faber, Jolie Houston, Cindy McCormick RE: TM 20-05, Glen Loma Ranch Dear Chairman Bhandal and Planning Commissioners, This is Glen Loma’s response to Cindy McCormick’s letter of April 29, 2024 to Augie Dent. Please make sure that this response is made part of the public record for Planning Commission and City Council proceedings. In the 2020 time frame, the Glen Loma Ranch Traffic engineer, Keith Higgins, prepared a traffic report which concluded that no Phase 3 traffic Mitigation Measures were triggered if the residential buildout was less than 1467 units. The City retained Fehr & Peers, traffic engineers to conduct a peer review of Higgin’s reports. Fehr & Peers concurred with each and every conclusion of the Higgins report. The City then initiated an EIR addendum process and asked Glen Loma to advance the funds so that EIR Addendum #2 could be prepared based on the traffic reports. As evidenced by the staff emails attached to Augie Dent’s Memo, at no time did planning staff request that Glen Loma make any application. EIR Addendum #2 prepared by EMC (same company that prepared the EIR for Glen Loma Ranch) demonstrates that building 1,467 units does not trigger Phase 3 traffic mitigation measures. Glen Loma has requested that the City process EIR Addendum #2 along with TM 20-05, but the City is taking the position that Glen Loma must submit a separate document “downsizing” the entire project. This was never requested when the Addendum process was initiated or funds paid and is not required by the Development Agreement. This is completely inappropriate and Glen Loma objects. The only project before the City for consideration at this point is TM 20-05 and it only adds 123 units. The addition of TM 20-05 brings the Glen Loma Ranch residential unit buildout to 1,205 units. If and when a project is submitted to the City that would raise the unit count over 1,467 units then the City can review the Phase 3 mitigations required. There is no legal justification for the City to refuse processing of EIR Addendum #2 and require another document in order to process EIR Addendum #2. There is also no legal justification for the City to impose Phase 3 mitigation measures on TM 20-05 when EIR Addendum #2 (and the 2 supporting traffic studies) confirm that TM 20-05 will not trigger Phase 3 mitigation measures. In other words, there is no nexus between the 123 units contained in TM 20-05 and the Phase 3 traffic mitigations that the City wants to impose on TM 20-05. See 14 Cal. Code Regs 15126.4 (a)(4)(A), (B). The planning staff's refusal to process EIR Addendum #2 with TM 20- 05 is a clear violation of law and also violates several provisions of the Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement. We would also like to point out that the City has a direct and significant financial interest in the processing of EIR Addendum #2 since the Phase 3 traffic mitigation improvements are TIF projects which would cost the City over $15,000,000 in reimbursement payments based on RJA cost estimates. There is no reason to impose Phase 3 mitigation requirements (and trigger the City’s reimbursement obligations) before they are necessary. This would constitute a waste of City funds. In order to build out the Glen Loma Ranch project, Glen Loma needs certainty as to which mitigation measures can properly be required for project submittals. That is why the City and Glen Loma signed the Development Agreement. In conclusion, there is no justification to impose Phase 3 mitigation measures on TM 20-05 and Glen Loma strongly objects to such action. Glen Loma hereby respectfully requests that the City (1) continue the May 2, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, and (2) process EIR Addendum #2 along with TM 20-05 so that EIR Addendum #2 and TM 20-05 can be approved at the same time. Thank you. Jack Kent, Attorney for Glen Loma 1 Cindy McCormick From:Chris Patton <CPatton@rja-gps.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 1, 2024 2:33 PM To:Cindy McCormick Cc:augie.dent@gmail.com; Arminta Jensen; John Filice; tfilice@glenloma.com Subject:EXTERNAL - TM 20-05: Comments on the staff report for inclusion in the public record Cindy, At the request of our client, Glen Loma Corporation, we have reviewed the staƯ report for TM 20-05 and are providing the following comments which they have requested be included in the public record for this project. The comments are as follows: 1. Page 12, (g) Density - The discussion and table showing net neighborhood densities is potentially misleading and irrelevant. While the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan committed to meeting the underlying Neighborhood District Housing Target Mix by providing: 10% of the developable residential land for R2 residential uses, 15% for R3 residential uses, and 5% for R4 residential use, the development of each neighborhood is not governed by density but rather by ranges in the number of units to be provided in each neighborhood. See Table 2 -Neighborhood Breakdown and Unit Counts (GLR SP page 17). The density calculations shown on the tentative map were shown with the purpose of identifying and documenting the project as either low or high density for purposes of the calculation of development impact fees only. 2. Page 13, 5th paragraph - Only lots that back onto preserved natural open space will provide open view fencing. Lots 16-24 are the only lots that back onto preserved natural open space. Lots that side onto preserved natural open space should not have open view fencing because side yards are often utilitarian (storage of trash cans) and providing open view fencing would make these potentially unsightly areas visible from the adjacent trails in the open space areas. 3. Condition of Approval #80 - It appears that the total project acreage may have been used to calculate the storm drain impact fee which is incorrect because much of the project area will remain as open space. The fee should be revised to be $18,721 which is calculated by (19.34AC)x($968/AC). 4. Condition of Approval #96 – This condition speaks to micro surfacing roadways beyond the project frontage. We do not believe that this condition is based on a current published city policy and therefore we respectfully request that this condition be removed. 5. Condition of Approval #117 – This condition speaks to the installation of a 36” recycled water main. There is not a mitigation measure or condition of approval that requires Glen Loma to install a 36” water main. Glen Loma is only required to install the necessary size recycled water main required to support the specific plan area (see TM 13-08 COA#77). While Glen Loma is willing to work with Valley Water to upsize the proposed recycled water main to meet the needs to Valley Water they will only do so if Valley Water enters into a reimbursement agreement in order to reimburse Glen Loma for the costs related to upsizing the recycled water main prior to plan approval. The processing of the improvement plans cannot be delayed due to the failure of Valley Water or others to provide these agreements in a timely manner so we respectfully request that this condition be removed. 6. Condition of Approval #143 – This condition requires the installation of the Reservoir Canyon Bridge prior to the occupancy of the first unit of this tentative map. We respectfully request that this condition of approval be removed on the basis that it is not necessary to construct the Reservoir Canyon Bridge in order to provide multiple points of ingress/egress to the proposed subdivision. All future lots would have a minimum of two points of access to Santa Teresa Blvd by way of Merlot Drive north to W. Luchessa then west to Santa Teresa Blvd or alternatively W. Luchessa north to Yawi Place north to Merlot Drive north to CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 Syrah Drive then continuing on Grenache Way and Club Drive to Santa Teresa Blvd. While Glen Loma intends to construct the Reservoir Canyon Bridge as part of this project, requiring it to be constructed prior to first occupancy unnecessarily burdens the project. If you have any questions or need clarification on any of these items please feel free to contact me. Chris Patton, P.E., CPSWQ Principal RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - SURVEYORS 8055 Camino Arroyo Gilroy, CA 95020 T: (408) 848-0300 x 213 C: (408) 826-1228 F: (408) 848-0302 cpatton@rja-gps.com Electronic Media Disclaimer These plans and files are provided in an electronic format as a courtesy only. Due to the potential that information exchanged by electronic media can deteriorate, alter by conversion, be damaged, lost or modified unintentionally or otherwise, use of this electronic data by anyone other than Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar (RJA) shall be at the sole risk of such user and without liability or legal exposure to RJA. The recipient is responsible for verifying the accuracy of data against the governing most current hard copy documentation. If there are any differences between signed hard copy documents and the electronic files, the signed hard copy documents shall control. Recipient assumes all risks and expense in the changing or modification of data and revisions or updating of hard copy documents. 1 Cindy McCormick From:W Jeffrey Heid <wjheidasla@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 29, 2024 1:56 PM To:Cindy McCormick; Cindy McCormick Subject:EXTERNAL - Glen Loma Ranch Malvasia II Attachments:PXL_20240328_214649680.jpg Hi Cindy, We received the notice for this Thursday's Public Hearing. As I may have mentioned previously, we would like to attend this hearing, but will be out of town for our anniversary. Thus, in lieu of our attendance, I wanted to reiterate the concerns I have expressed in previous emails. The comments below represent those concerns (Julie and Jeff Heid 1465 Winzer Place, Kirsti and Doug Wagner 1435 Winzer Place). We know of others in our neighborhood who have similar concerns. We are residents of the Glen Loma Ranch neighborhood, having moved to Gilroy in 2022. My wife and I followed our Daughter and Son-in-Law from San Jose and love it here. One of the many things that attracted us to Glen Loma is how the development was designed to maintain the surrounding open space and trails with access to Christmas Hill park. We all received a notice from The City of Gilroy regarding an upcoming Public Hearing to review the next three phases of Glen Loma Ranch (Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II). We were going to attend the meeting to better understand what is planned, as the builder of our neighborhood (KB Homes), did not provide any information when we purchased our home. However, my wife and I will be away for our anniversary. I reached out to Cindy McCormick for some additional information and she provided a link to the Specific Plan along with the proposed Tentative Map. From our review of the plans, we see that Malvasia II is planned to be a grouping of multi-family attached townhomes similar to what is planned for the Rocky Knoll area and to those recently constructed at W. 10th and Santa Teresa. Within the text from the Specific Plan it describes the townhomes as: Townhouse/Row House Townhouse units are typically 4 to 8 units attached by adjacent walls. These types of units are typically two story units but may also be one- story units, especially the end units. Garages may be integrated into the residential structure or separated as a group of garages or carports. Townhouses and row houses are designed to be linked in various configurations (4, 5, 6 or more units in a “block”, which differ from Triplexes and Four-plexes, which are typically designed as a single block, and rarely re-configured. This can be found on page 32 along with a conceptual two story building elevation. However, upon further dialog with Cindy, she noted that these units are proposed up to three stories. Buried in a table on page 37a, you can find that three stories are identified which contradicts the description noted above. In reviewing the Tentative Map more closely it calls for all units to be three stories. CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 We live on Winzer Place and as we began to think about how three story buildings would look on the Malvasia II site, we became concerned about how those buildings would impact our neighborhood. Below are photos taken from Winzer, looking across Merlot and into the Malvasia II site. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The grade of the building site at that intersection is already set approximately eight feet above the sidewalk along Merlot. Checking the proposed Tentative Map for the area, the original topographic information provided, and the proposed building pads, three story buildings will appear more like four stories. Adding the peaked roofs, and they are now potentially up to five stories tall. When the different phases of Glen Loma Ranch were determined years ago, these types of building may have made sense conceptually. However, now that our homes have been constructed, along with those north of Luchessa, three story townhomes located on this site appear out of place and out of sync with the rest of Glen Loma. The similar type of townhomes constructed at W. 10th Street and Santa Teresa are a combination of one and three story buildings. But they are different from Malvasia II when it comes to what specifically surrounds them. On one side is Santa Teresa, there is a small section of single family homes (but separated by a wider W. 10th Street), a dog park, future 3 commercial and a green space separating this development from the Rocky Knoll. The proposed Rocky Knoll phase has the same separation with green space, Santa Teresa again, plus the actual Rocky Knoll open space. For Malvasi II there is a similar separation to the north from a wider W. Luchessa Avenue. But along Merlot, there is no separation to our homes to the south. We are not looking to change the type of development, or necessarily the number of units, but believe the impact of three story homes will negatively affect our neighborhood. We are looking to the planning commission to consider this in their review of the project and our hope is that the proposed building heights will be reconsidered based on all these factors. A maximum of two stories would be in keeping with the description found in the Specific Plan and with the existing homes both to the north and south. We know of other neighbors who have some concerns, but it is difficult for them to visualize what is being proposed. I reached out to Cindy regarding placement of story poles, which would help all our neighbors better understand the impact these buildings will have. However, she said they cannot be required as there is no policy in place. I would beg to disagree, especially in this situation. I believe their placement, prior to approval of the tentative map, would either quiet our concerns, or would provide the commission a better understanding of their potential impact. Many thanks, Julie and Jeff Heid -- W. Jeffrey Heid LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1465 Winzer Place Gilroy, Ca. 95020 (408) 691-5207 www.wjeffreyheidlandscapearchitect.com 1 Cindy McCormick From:Connie Rogers Sent:Wednesday, May 1, 2024 9:55 PM To:Planning Division (Public) Subject:EXTERNAL - Agenda item 6.1 Re: Tentative Map application to subdivide approximately 41.4 acres for development of the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia II neighborhoods of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (TM 20-05) Dear Commissioners, We urge you to pass both staff recommendations: a) the Glen Loma Ranch (GLR) application (TM 20-05) and b) adopt the resolution to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution, as recommended by City Staff. We agree with the city planning staff’s concerns regarding the possible downsizing of the overall housing numbers and support staff’s recommendation. The City’s request for GLR to submit a plan in writing showing the areas to be downsized and submitted with the recently completed Addendum #2 to the original 2005 EIR for approval, is a very reasonable request that makes a lot of sense. A plan showing that GLR is definitely going to decrease the originally planned housing numbers, as well as where they will be decreased is very important. Without this guarantee and the location of the areas that will not be developed, the following scenarios could occur: 1. If a large number of acres will no longer be developed, and important traffic mitigations are no longer required, what is to prevent the owners from selling off the parcel to another developer who would then not be subject to the original mitigations? Could that owner then apply to develop the remaining acreage? Will the necessary road improvements be completed? 2. Or GLR themselves might decide at some point in the future to go ahead and build their originally approved units. If so, are they now let off the hook for completing the originally required mitigations if the Addendum #2 is approved without a correlating plan showing where the reductions in units will occur? 3) Does GLR want to separate the undeveloped area from the Specific Plan approved by the City in 2005? Will it be permanently undeveloped with accompanying deed restrictions? Because of all the unknowns in the future we urge you NOT to grant another extension on TM 20-05 and to follow City staff’s recommendation regarding obtaining written documentation of the reduction in building units and future plans for the area. Sincerely, Connie Rogers, Chair Gilroy Growing Smarter Former Council Member Carolyn Tognetti, Treasurer Gilroy Growing Smarter Member of 20/20 and 20/40 General Plan Committees CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 2 1 Cindy McCormick From:Tracy Davis <tdavis@goldenstatelumber.com> Sent:Thursday, May 2, 2024 7:09 AM To:Cindy McCormick Cc:Tracy Davis; christine_abinsay@yahoo.com Subject:EXTERNAL - Project TM 20-05 Hi Cindy- My name is Tracy Davis, and I purchased the home at 6428 Laguna Seca Lane in Gilroy back in 2022. My wife and I were fortunate enough to have the opportunity to buy one of the first units available at the Ascent property of the Glen Loma Ranch development. We fell in love with the area, with views of the foothills and the open space preserve right outside our front door. We were promised by KB Homes upon purchasing the home that this open space was never going to be developed. We even paid an extra $35,000 lot fee to have one of the homes that had these incredible views. Fast forward to last week, when we received a letter from the City of Gilroy informing us of this new planned development. Needless to say, my wife and I-along with all our neighbors, are extremely upset that this proposed project will ruin our perfect slice of heaven we currently enjoy. We are all against this proposed project! Not only will it impact our views of the mountains, it will spoil the country side feeling we have with the open space we enjoy. The beautiful oak trees and the creek that runs through them is home to a wide variety of wild life, including deer and turkeys. Their homes would be completely destroyed because of this proposed project. And what about the extra traffic and congestion on all the nearby streets and roads that are already crowded enough as it is. I realize one letter from one homeowner won’t change your mind, but I speak for an entire community when I say NO to this project. Feel free to reach out to me if you would like to discuss this further. Thank you for your time and consideration of my viewpoint. Sincerely, Tracy Davis 510-676-1711 Tracy Davis - Sales GOLDEN STATE Direct 510-229-5514 | Cell 510-676-1711 | Fax 510-494-4922 tdavis@goldenstatelumber.com 38801 Cherry Street Newark, CA 94560 | www.goldenstatelumber.com Golden State has been voted a Great Place to Work by our employees CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. 1 Cindy McCormick From:Liz Delatorre <lizdelatorre08@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 2, 2024 11:20 AM To:Cindy McCormick Cc:Ricardo Subject:EXTERNAL - Comments for Public Hearing (Thursday, May 2nd, 2024) Hi Cindy, We are writing to express our concern about the proposed development of 9 lots of 42 townhomes in the Malvasia II neighborhood and the surrounding projects at Canyon Creek, and Rocky Knoll. Specifically, the Malvasia project plan looks to be a crowded area for the one exit roundabout on Merlot and Luchessa into Santa Teresa Blvd. With only 2 exit paths into Santa Teresa Blvd for the new homes nearby. It is crucial that more exit paths are built, including the opening of W. Luchessa and Vintner St. We would recommend reconsidering the number of townhomes or switch to single family homes for better traffic. Parking is already limited in the Glen Loma Ranch community and can't imagine 42 units with limited parking in addition to the Canyon Creek with 40 more lots and one nearby exit to Santa Teresa, you'll be overcrowding this area with traffic with the current proposed plan. Additionally, the lack of a nearby fire station in Glen Loma Ranch puts residents at risk for prompt support during fires/hot summer months and at any given time. Silva's Crossing is frequently closed due to flooding during the winter, leaving us with limited exit options. We urge the city to halt further development until more exit paths are created and a fire station is built as promised. Thanks for the consideration and we look forward to additional updates. Liz & Ricardo Rocha Glen Loma Ranch Residents CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.