Coyote Valley Corridor Study
Focus Group #1 Synopsis
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Attachment D
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #1) Synopsis, 2023 | Page 2 Coyote Valley Corridor Study (Focus Group #1) Synopsis
The objective of this study is to analyze existing and potential new uses for the properties located along the east side of Monterey Road in Coyote Valley, which are compatible with or in direct support of the region’s agriculture and open space resources. The result of the study will inform future proposed amendments to the General Plan as to allowed
uses and development regulations contained in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
As depicted in the map, the boundaries of the study area include Metcalf Road as the northern boundary, Highway
101 as the eastern boundary, the city border with Morgan Hill as the southern boundary is, and Monterey Road as the western boundary. For the purposes of this study, the
western portion of the Coyote Hamlet is also included in the study area, (the Union Pacific Rail line represents the western border in that section).
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #1) Synopsis, 2023 | Page 3 Focus Group Synopsis
The City of San Jose conducted a series of focus groups meant to gather information from various stakeholder groups related to the Coyote Valley Corridor Study area. The focus groups represent the first step in our ongoing outreach effort for the Coyote Valley Corridor Study. This document includes details about the focus groups including a summary of participants along with their verbal comments and written responses.
Workshop dates:
Property Owners, Tuesday, June 20, 2023, 10 -11 AM
Business Owners, Tuesday, June 20,2023, 12-1 PM
Advocates, Thursday, July 6, 2023, 12-1 PM
(All meetings were held virtually, via zoom)
Focus Group date: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 20, 2023
Attendees:
1. Annie Saso
2. Chris Borello
3. Christopher Marchese
4. Coyote Ranch
5. David Shelton
6. Deckard Pham
7. Diane Gilleland
8. Elaine Hamilton
9. Gerry De Young
10. Gustavo Gonzalez
11. Joe Filice
12. Joshua LoBue
13. Kenneth Pusateri
14. Kenneth Saso
15. Kim Pham
16. Kit Sanders
17. Kit Sanders
18. Mark Luthman
19. Norm Matteoni
20. Pat Mcdonald
21. Rafael Paredes
22. Sean H. Hu
23. Susane Paredes
24. Tri Pham
25. Victor LoBue
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #1) Synopsis, 2023 | Page 4 Verbal Comments: The following verbal comments are
listed in the order they were received during the
Focus Group.
• Participant directed other attendees and staff to
the Seeds of Hope Foundation, which creates
master plans for permanent housing for the
homeless, in Santa Clara County and elsewhere.
Participant stressed the success of the program
and its potential in areas such as Coyote Valley.
Highlighting the well-documented need for
transitional and/or other types of residential
programs throughout the Bay Area as revealing an
apparent conflict between City Council direction:
On the one hand, prohibiting residential land uses
in the current study area, while at the same
adopting policies and actions to streamline
housing development throughout the City.
• Participant stressed that open space and natural
resources in and near the study area require a
“fine line” approach to development. However, he
explained that what have been described as
conditions “incompatible” with development are
the same conditions that make the area so distinct
and unique. This is precisely why the area is
currently under study. Diverse elements such as
the rail line, US 101, Monterey Road, parcelization
patterns and future High Speed Rail lend
themselves to diverse development types—not
just agriculture. The study needs to emphasize this
uniqueness and stay open to all types of land uses.
• Participant highlighted the inclusion of
recreational facilities as a potential use in the
study area. He pointed to the risks of traffic
impacts associated with those uses, and also
explained that he once proposed a sports field -
oriented project to the City, but the project was
ultimately denied.
• Participant also offered the perspective of a
developer in a time during which city policy is
pushing for high densities, and danger of high
vacancy rates combined with increased density.
Per the participant, while these policies are wellintended, increased densities throughout all neighborhoods increase the risks of overcrowding
and neighborhood degradation.
• Participant stressed his frustration with declining
property values due to land use policies in Coyote
Valley. He asked a question to participants as a
metaphor: “Who here would deposit $100 in the
bank and be happy to see it decline to $50 ?” Per
the participant, this is what has happened in
Coyote Valley. He stressed that this is also bad for
the City, which is losing taxes from property and
business owners.
• Participant stressed that the current costs of
water and irrigation further minimize the value
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #1) Synopsis, 2023 | Page 5 and potential for agriculture in Coyote Valley.
• Participant stressed that he continues to support
the City in its policy work, but has asked the
Mayor and leadership a simple question multiple
times: “Why not housing?” Per the participant, no
one can seem to answer the question. City
leadership needs to look at the Coyote Valley from
a larger perspective, which includes a balanced
rural residential landscape. He also highlighted the
potential of low impact/light industrial uses in the
Corridor.
• Participant also stressed that his family has
worked with the city for decades, giving up 30% of
their property to make the Coyote River Parkway
possible.
• Participant stated that there is an existing pattern
of low impact industrial uses such as storage
yards, and that these uses should be further
explored.
• Participant also stated that history of the strip
annexation process in the Corridor must be
established, and that the west side of the study
area is boldfaced by the rail line, future HSR and
existing access to San Jose.
• Participant stressed the family and generational
priorities of landowners in the Corridor.
Participant explained that his son has left the City
for higher quality of life outside the State, which
reflects that San Jose is not thinking of the interest
of all residents by prohibiting diverse uses and
residential development in the Valley.
• Participant pointed out that the City Council has
repeated that agricultural and complementary
agricultural uses are viable and popular, without
full justification. He stressed that future land uses
cannot be limited to these types. He presented
the metaphor of agricultural as a wheel with many
spokes, and used cherry growing as an example if
the fact that agricultural in the Coyote Valley is
missing key spokes, including the revenue that
requited to harvest the crop and implement
needed marketing and awareness. He stressed
that the timing of agriculture in Coyote Valley is
off kilter, and that this impacts the entire system.
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #1) Synopsis, 2023 | Page 6 Written Comments:
Subject: RE: Coyote Valley Corridor: Focus Group
Presentation
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2023 10:46:23 AM
I appreciate the opportunity to have an open discussion.
Let make a couple of additional points. First, there are existing industrial uses along the corridor and one of the well
maintained ones consists of warehouses leased to different business in the southern area between the RV park and the cherry orchard:
I think it would be good to know what those businesses do and why they are located there.
Second, there is another public project than High Speed Rail that will affect this corridor – the Water District as part of the retrofit of Anderson Reservoir, has mitigation measures it must address. One of those is to separate Coyote Creek from flowing through the ponds, for better fish migration. Thus, the creek may be rechanneled in part westward, taking more land from private owners and reducing parcel size.
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #1) Synopsis, 2023 | Page 7 Focus Group date: 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 6, 2023
Attendees:
1. Alice Kaufman, Green Foothills
2. Quirina Geary, Tamien Nation
3. Shani Kleinhaus, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
4. Matt Freeman, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (OSA)
5. Taylor Jang, Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST)
6. Juan Estrada, Green Foothills
7. Valetin Lopez, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
8. Erika Pinto, SPUR San Jose
9. Deb Kramer, Keep Coyote Creek Beautiful
10. Lucy Diekmann, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources
11. Lovepreet, Valley Verde
Verbal Comments: The following verbal comments are
listed in the orderthey were received during the Focus
Group.
• Participant started a conversation about existing
projects that are impacting the sensitive Coyote
Valley and that will need to be accounted for in any
change of land use in the Corridor. She cited the
example of the Santa Clara Valley Water Authority’s
(Valley Water) Ogier Ponds-Coyote Creek
Separation and Anderson Dam Retrofit projects,
both of which may result in the redirection of creek
water into the Corridor’s Ogier Ponds.
• Participant cited multiple projects, policies and
issues that need to be foundational considerations
of the project, including:
o High Speed Rail. It has been reported that this
project may result in eminent domain takings on
the east side of Monterey Road, which will
impact any discussion of land use and
development standards in those areas.
o County Jurisdiction. The project will have to
consider compatibility with Santa Clara County
zoning and land use regulation, which tend to be
less restrictive than those of San Jose.
o Coyote Creek Setbacks. Existing City creek
setback regulations already restrict
development on many larger parcels in the
study area. How will this existing development
standard be folded into proposed uses?
o Urban Services. Has the City determined
whether the study area is outside the City of San
Jose urban service area? It likely is, and this will
impact whether higher intensity uses such as
restaurants will be able to access needed
services and utilities.
o Coyote Creek Corridor. Coyote Creek runs
behind many properties in the study area. The
Creek is a wildlife corridor, and the expansion of
adjacent uses has not been studied or
discussed. Impacts to the Corridor as wildlife
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #1) Synopsis, 2023 | Page 8 pathway would be severe, resulting from
potential increases in noise, trash, lighting,
rodenticides, invasive plants and other issues.
• Participant stated that this is sacred tribal cultural landscape in which water, mineral and biological
resources constitute a deity beyond traditional
value. A review of the tribal database reveals that
this entire area is considered sensitive indigenous
land. The proposed plan will cause impacts to tribal
cultural resources and potential destruction of
thousands of years of sacred history.
• As noted by the participant, there will have to be
significant mitigation measures implemented,
including compensation to offset the inevitable
impacts. Mitigation must extend beyond the
reactionary CEQA measures such as AB 52;
measures will have to be put in place earlier as part
of project regulation.
• Participantstated thatthisfocus group would like to
review input from other focus groups and project
participants.
• Participant stressed that Coyote Creek is a true
“spine” of biological resources. Protective
regulation must significantly widen existing
setbacks and go beyond CEQA-oriented mitigation
measures. They must consider the full outcomes of
this project. Impacts also go beyond the land and
water, with raptors using trees and other migratory
species common in the area.
• Participant stressed that the study should reflect
true conservative and open space values, as these
values are consistent with the City’s current
General Plan policies. The study area is lined on
both sides by natural corridors, and as such it will
not be sufficient to look only at setbacks. There
also will be larger opportunities to enhance the
floodplain. Participant encouraged the City to
understand the current priorities of the Peninsula
Open Space Trust (POST) for direction.
• Participant also explained that the City also has an
opportunity to reexamine the role of agriculture in
this project. The current market is dynamic and
full of opportunities: good soil, nearby urban
markets and a Mediterranean climate being just a
few of them. The project should consider how any
new uses and standards can contribute to food
security and food equity.
• Participant explained that POST’s long term priorities is to reconnect the flow of wildlife in the Corridor. This is exemplified by the Trust’s proposed wildlife crossings
between Bailey Road and Metcalf Road
Written Comments: None received.
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #1) Synopsis, 2023 | Page 9 Focus Group date: 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 20, 2023
Attendees:
1. Elise Englehart, Coyote Grange Hall
2. Kit Sanders, Break Away Concrete Cutting
3. Hosh Godma, 10000 Monterey Road
4. David Shelton, Shelton Pipe
5. Sean Hu, Coyote Creek Golf Club
6. Michelle Lybbert-Nilmeyer, Coyote Ranch
7. Cesar Basanez, Ganado Feed & Pet Supplies
Verbal Comments: The following verbal comments are
listed in the order they were received during the
Focus Group.
• Participant offered a short history of the Coyote
Grange Hall, which was built in 1902 and has been
used as the Grange Hall since 1925. She explained
that the facility is currently rented out, primarily
locally, for community and family events.
• Participant explained that he has been asked by the
City of Morgan Hill to cede about 40 feet of his
property, resulting in negotiations that have taken
months. He also stressed that he fully supports
expanded commercial land uses related to special
event planning and facilities rentals. He explained
that he previously requested a zoning variance from
the City of Morgan to allow for such uses, but found
the process to be overly lengthy, burdensome and
expensive.
• Participant explained that he currently owns a feed
store in the Willow Glen neighborhood of San Jose.
He is looking to relocate and is interested in Coyote
Valley. The business he envisions opening is a fullservice feed store with seasonal and special events, such as a pumpkins patch, 4H meeting center and a
Christmas tree lot. He stressed that he is glad to
“see the door open” for more diverse commercial
land uses in the study area.
• At the close of the focus group, both participants restated they support commercial land uses related to special events and event planning, such as
weddings, quinceaneras and corporate gatherings.
They stressed that these are viable uses in the
Corridor that they would like to see expanded and
permitted.
• Participant stressed that he supports the current
study and isinterested to see more flexible landuses
in the Corridor. (call with Greg Goodfellow after
Focus Group)
Written Comments: None received.
Coyote Valley Corridor Study
Focus Group #2 Synopsis
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 2 C
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder
Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis
The City of San Jose along with our consultant team, PlaceWorks, hosted an in-person workshop with stakeholders of the Coyote Valley Corridor Study (CVCS). The workshop was designed to bring various stakeholder groups together to discuss a desired, overall land vision for the study area, as well as preferred land uses for various parts of the study area. This workshop is part of a larger CVCS engagement process. It follows a series of virtual focus groups with individual stakeholder groups, as well as a combined virtual/inperson community meeting.
The following is a summary of attendance, written responses, preference charts and mapping exercises from the CVCS
Stakeholder Workshop. The workshop included guided discussions and mapping exercises among stakeholder groups, with the goal of identifying, objectives for new or modified land uses in the study area and potential new land uses consistent with those objectives.
Copies of the workshop materials are included in the Appendix.
Workshop date: Thursday, February 1, 2024, 5:30 – 7:30 PM.
Workshop location: Southside Community Center
5585 Cottle Rd. San Jose, CA 95123
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 3 Attendance
» Approximately 30 stakeholders participated in the workshop.
This includes the following 27 individuals with their affiliations (if offered on Sign-Sheets, Appendix A.1). Attendees were
randomly assigned to one of four tables, where discussions between 6-7 participants were facilitated by a CVCS project team member.
1. Chris Marchese, Property owner
2. Leo J. Cacitti, Property owner
3. Maria Nash, Property owner
4. Dave Nash, Property owner
5. Alice Kaufman, Green Foothills
6. Norm Matteoni, Lawyer/Property owner representative
7. Kit Sanders, Property owner
8. Vic LoBue, Property owner
9. Marian Vernon, Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST)
10. Lucy Diekmann, University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE)
11. Jenny Huang, Realtor/ Property owner representative
12. Geoff Schuller, Seeds of Hope
13. Sean Hu, Coyote Creek Golf Course
14. Judy Fenerty, California Native Plant Society
15. Shani Kleinhaus, Santa Clara County Audubon Society
16. Gerry DeYoung, Property Owner Representative
17. Nino Saso, Property Owner
18. Ken Saso, Property Owner
19. Amanda Gundersen, Property Owner
20. Mike Avery, Property Owner
21. Steve O’Steen, Property Owner
22. Deb Kramer, Keep Coyote Creek Beautiful
23. Katja Irvin, Sierra Club
24. Taylor Jang, POST
25. Nick Perry, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (OSA)
26. Reyna Gonzalez
27. Habeeb Mohammad, Property Owner
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 4 Discussion I: Desired Outcome and Character of
Future Land Use
Participants were asked to discuss their preferences for 1) the overall outcome of new land use in the study area and 2) characteristics of future development in the study area. Each workshop table labeled their group selections on a shared chart (See Appendix A.2) using green and yellow dots.
» Participants placed green dots next to options they fully support. » Participants placed yellow dots next to options they partially or conditionally support.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the question “What are your top outcomes of future land use in the study area?” The table shows the number of green dots and yellow dots placed next to each option.
The table also shows, for each option, the percentage of total dots placed across all options. Table 1 reflects answers from all workshop participants, not individual tables. The options included in the charts were informed by stakeholder priorities previously expressed in the outreach process and current regulatory, market and built conditions.
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 5 Table 1 Preferred Land Use Outcomes
As shown in Table 1, the most preferred overall land use outcomes are:
1. Preservation of natural resources (16.7% of total)
2. Increased economic viability (15.4% of total)
3. Increased property values (15.4% of total)
4. Preservation of access to Coyote Creek Park Chain (11.5% of total)
5. Other (10.3% of total). Other outcomes identified by participants include:
• More opportunities for business
• Economically viable uses
• Property rights
• Affordable farmworker housing
• Respect for property owners
• Consistency with existing zoning
• Enhancing connection to the Coyote Creek Park Chain
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 6 Table 2 summarizes the results of the question “What are your top characteristics of future development in the study area?” Like Table 1, Table 2 reflects answers from all workshop participants.
Table 2 Preferred Characteristics of Future Development Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 7 As shown in Table 2, the preferred characteristics of future development are:
1. Generates sustainable revenue and Improves substandard parcel conditions (15.5% of total, each)
2. Attracts visitors and interest to Coyote Valley (14.3% of total)
3. Has minimal visual impacts; Caters to those visiting surrounding parks and trails; and Other(9.5% of total, each).
Other characteristics identified by participants include:
• Avoids floodplain
• Is environmentally sensitive
• Avoids impact to riparian corridor
• Has increased permeability to wildlife
Participants recorded the following additional ideas regarding corridor-wide land use planning on comment cards and in emails:
• Many properties could be adapted to “Private Event”
uses such as Coyote Ranch.
• Service yards for contractors are in high demand and
may be viable.
• The Great Oaks Water Company recently established
wells in the East Corridor that can provide water service to new development.
• Wildlife crossings should either be purchased by
developers or development should provide funds to
assist in implementing them.
• All “Environmentally sensitive development” must
respect the fact that this is a wildlife corridor, and
therefore must not increase roadkill on Monterey Road,
introduce light or noise that drive wildlife from Coyote Creek or block wildlife crossing across Monterey Road.
• Not all land use options are compatible with what
Property owners want. If Property owners don’t apply
for permits for any of the land use options, then the
process may be futile.
• Improving aesthetics is important.
• While there is retail in Coyote Hamlet, it may not be viable elsewhere in the corridor. Perhaps uses such as
tasting rooms would provide economic return.
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 8 Discussion II: Corridor Land Use Preferences
Participants at each table were asked to discuss and identify their preferred land uses for the north, central, and south sections of the corridor. Participants then discussed ways to ensure that new development is both sensitive and consistent with existing priorities for the study area. Each table labeled their land use selections and strategies on a shared chart (see Appendix A.2).
Participants also used maps of corridor areas to identify opportunities and constraints that influenced their preferences (Appendix A.3).
NORTH CORRIDOR LAND USE
Table 3 summarizes the workshop-wide results of the question “What are your top three potential new land uses in the north corridor?”
Table 3 Preferred Land Uses in North Corridor
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 9 As shown in Table 3, the preferred land uses in the north corridor are:
1. Outdoor recreation and Other (16.3% of total, each). Other land uses identified by participants include:
• Flea market relocation
• Expansion of open space
• Housing
• Medical/office
• No new land uses
2. Overnight lodging and small-scale retail (12.2% of total, each)
3. Dining (10.2% of total)
Strategies for Sensitive Development
Participants suggested the following strategies for sensitive development in the north corridor area:
• Limit development & density in this area, and implement careful design standards, in response to planned
POST/OSA wildlife crossings
• Minimize development overall because of future wildlife crossings
• Adopt dark sky lighting and noise pollution standards • Adopt creek setback of 300’ in all areas.
• “Build a community rather than new buildings”
• Balance open spaces with recreational uses (ball fields, trails) and farmworker housing
Potential Land Use Opportunities and Assets
Participants identified the following conditions as opportunities or assets for new land uses in the north corridor:
• Parcel sizes are potential destinations for relocated Berryessa flea market
• Opportunities for solar farms
• The size and quality of parcels east of Monterey make them opportunities for diverse uses, not homogenous
agricultural uses
Potential Land Use Constraints
Participants identified the following conditions that should be considered in land use planning in the north corridor:
• The floodplain constrains all development potential here • The three parcels adjacent Bailey Avenue to the north are vital to wildlife connectivity in the corridor
• Wildlife crossings 1) south of Metcalf, 2) at Fisher Creek and 3) at Emado Ave to Parkway must be considered in
new land uses and development on adjacent parcels
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 10
CENTRAL CORRIDOR LAND USE
Table 4 summarizes the workshop-wide results of the question “What are your top three potential new land uses in the central study area?” Table 4 Preferred Land Uses in Central Corridor
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 11 As shown in Table 4, the preferred land uses in the central corridor area are:
1. Outdoor recreation (21.8% of total)
2. Other (18.2% of total). Other land uses identified by participants include:
• Golf courses
• Affordable housing for ag workers
• Residential
• Farmers market
• Spas
• High density housing
• No new land uses
3. Overnight lodging (14.5% of total)
4. Private event space and Indoor recreation (9.1% of total, each)
Strategies for Sensitive Development
Participants suggested the following strategies for sensitive development in the central corridor:
• Implement/require conservation easements here
• Use zoning standards to cluster new development
Potential Land Use Opportunities and Assets
Participants identified the following conditions as opportunities or assets for new land uses in the central corridor:
• Larger parcels could support ag tourism
• Area has potential for increased economic viability via:
• Farms, farmers markets and increased farm housing
• Produce-oriented retail
• Greenhouses
• RV Park—limited/temporary uses
• Eateries/coffee shops
• Boat/RV storage
• Wedding/dining spaces
• Overnight hospitality in the form of boutique hotels and spas
• Golf course is strong asset; will support new recreational uses, hotels and event spaces
• The golf course entry road should be enhanced as an
access to the Coyote Creek Park Chain with appropriate
private development. Parking does not have to be
hardscaped.
• An overlay zone for the golf course should be
implemented to allow for future for overnight lodging
and special facilities
• The Charter School at Bailey is an opportunity for
surrounding conference centers and community/
cultural facilities.
• Existing residential uses along the corridor, including older housing and newer development such as homes
on Koyanagi Avenue, demonstrate that there are
opportunities for new housing.
Potential Land Use Constraints
Participants identified the following conditions that should be considered in land use planning:
• Area is outside the San Jose Urban Service Area (USA) • Parcels only 3% of area land area
• Ongoing need to support farming and wildlife
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 12
SOUTH CORRIDOR LAND USE
Table 5 summarizes the workshop-wide results of the question “What are your top three potential new land uses in the south study area?” Table 5 Preferred Land Uses in South Corridor
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 13 As shown in Table 5, the preferred land uses in the south corridor area are:
1. Outdoor recreation (20% of total)
2. Other (20% of total). Other land uses identified by
participants include:
• Farmworker housing
• Homeless/transitional housing
• Low density housing (1 DU/acre)
• No new land uses
3. Agricultural tourism (15% of total)
4. Public event space (10% of total)
5. Green services/infrastructure (10% of total)
Resource Conservation Strategies
Participants suggested the following strategies for sensitive development in the south corridor:
• Uses such as event spaces, lodging and dining should be limited to “small scale” development
Potential Land Use Opportunities and Assets
Participants identified the following conditions as opportunities or assets for new land uses:
• This is area should accommodate to local sports facilities • Large parcels could accommodate low-density
residential (1 DU/10 acres)
• Arguments for housing here: 66% of the area west of
Monterey Rd. in the south section is developed. Why not similar uses be allowed on the east side. Thus, ranchette housing should be considered; not large housing tracts. • Housing can provide access points to the Coyote Creek Park Chain and leave open areas around the
development.
Potential Land Use Constraints
Participants identified the following conditions that should be considered in land use planning:
• The floodplain and the Ogier Ponds are development
constraints here.
• Marchese property highlighted as an opportunity to
locate flea market
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 14 APPENDIX: WORKSHOP MATERIALS
Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 15 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 16 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 17 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 18 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 19 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 20 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 21 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 22 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 23 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 24 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 25 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 26 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 27 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 28 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 29 Coyote Valley Corridor Study Stakeholder Workshop (Focus Group #2) Synopsis, March 25, 2024 | Page 30