Matteoni
O Laughlin
May 15, 2024
& Hechtman
LAWYE R S
VIA EMAIL
Norman E. Matteoni
Councilmember Pam Foley, and Members of Community and Economic Pergy M. O' Laughlin
Development Committee
Bradley M. Matteoni San Jose City Hall
Barton G. Hechtman 200 Santa Clara Street, 18t Floor
Gerry Houlihan San Jose, CA 95113
Attn: City Clerk
Re: Monterey Road East Corridor Study;
CED Agenda May 20, 2024
Dear Chairperson Foley and Committee Members
I represent owners along the eastern corridor of Monterey Road, the historic southern gateway to San Jose.
As part of the 2021 General Plan Update, the City Council approved the rezoning of almost all of the incorporated properties to A- Agriculture. In addition, the designation of Agriculture also increased the minimal parcel size from 20 acres to 40 acres for the Coyote Valley. This rezoning removed industrial and some commercial designations from incorporated lands within Coyote Valley.
During the Council deliberation on the staff initiated rezonings, property owners on the East side of Monterey Road argued to the Council that their lands were distinct within the Coyote Valley for a number of physical reasons:
• Mostly made up of Small parcels.
• Lack of agricultural viability.
• Physical division from the lands west of Monterey Road and the rail line.
• Numerous existing uses such as RV parks, golf course, residential, construction and material storage yards, that do not relate to agricultural use.
Equally importantly the owners sought recognition that the lands along the Corridor were annexed in the early 1960s with the City soliciting the vote on the basis of extending essential services to these properties.
Councilmember Pam Foley May 15, 2024
and Members of the Community & Economic Development Committee Page 2 Those services were traded in the early 1970s to IBM Lab's development on Bailey Avenue and never implemented along the Corridor. Several of the owners here are generational. These lands are not held by developers speculating on future development.
The Council heard the argument that these lands were distinct from Coyote Valley and commissioned a study to propose changes to the designation of A-40. The direction included consideration of overlay zoning and potential general plan changes.
The Council appropriated funds for the study and the property owners and community were invited to participate in the Study.
That Study is now nearing an inflection point and the Planning staff is seeking your review of the work effort to date.
You need to know that the Study does not meet the expectations of the Owners.
The reasons are simple - Staff and consultants advise that they are constrained by the General Plan designation of preserving agriculture. Second, Staff states that the Corridor that the Council found distinct in 2021 is physically part of the Coyote Valley.
Thus, those two perspectives constrain the uses that are proposed. The Study points out for various proposed uses that there are existing General Plan Policies that are in conflict in part or total with many of the uses.
There are farmers' market, beer gardens, eco-huts, culinary arts, farm equipment repair and sale (with varying degrees of consistency according to the Study) set out as proposed uses with no indication of economic viability. One has to ask, if these uses are viable why have they not been previously recognized in Coyote Valley. The reasons are several. There is not sufficient farm production to support such uses. Then, when you look at the details on particular proposed uses, there is noted to be inconsistency with the General Plan for such items as intensity, parking lots, water and power.
The mention of inconsistency speaks volumes. There must be a new General Plan designation for the Corridor to allow viable uses to come forward.
The Corridor simply cannot serve agriculture in the Coyote Valley. First, there are not sufficient, viable agriculture uses there today or in the reasonable future. Second the Corridor is physically separated from the lands to the west, given the historical as well as present land uses along the Corridor. Monterey Road itself has a median barrier with limited points of left turn movements and carries thousands of daily vehicular trips between the south bay and the residential areas of the south County.
The Coyote Creek Golf Course is recognized as an existing use, but its opportunity to adapt and improve in the future is given minimal mention. There should be emphasis on recognizing the public recreational benefit of the Golf Course and the potential of Councilmember Pam Foley May 15, 2024
and Members of the Community & Economic Development Committee Page 3 attracting youth recreational playing fields on other properties. The latter are dependent on providing parking and food services, but again there is a noted inconsistency with General Plan Policies. These uses would be a starting point to apply a different designation to the Corridor.
While Solar farms and a flea market appear viable, but based on the analysis to date those uses, as well as others, conflict with the existing General Plan.
Recognize that a Charter School exists at Bailey and Monterey Road; it too needs the opportunity to expand. Schools have paved parking lots and play areas.
The infrastructure for these uses cannot be denied because of existing General Plan policies or the uses never leave the pages of the Study. The analysis should acknowledge that non-urban areas across the state have been developed consistent with city and county development policies and utilize either existing utility lines or develop on-site methods to deal with the disposal of storm water and sanitary sewer in an environmentally acceptable manner.
As indicated previously, the Study is at an inflection point. If the study continues along the current path, we strongly believe that the original intent of the Council's decision to direct staff to undertake the Corridor study will not be achieved.
As such, we would respectfully ask that you direct the staff to agendize the study update for a presentation to the whole Council at the earliest opportunity.
Very truly yours,
Norman E. Matteoni
NEM/jIc
Cc: Hon. Mayor Matt Mahan, City Council Members, San Jose City Clerk, Chris Burton, Martina Davis
R:ClientsISasolCorrespondencelMonterey Road East Corridor Study; CED Agenda May 20, 2024.docx