BOS Agenda Date -. November 19, 2002

County of Santa Clara

oou'a/^.

Environmental Resources Agency
Planning and Land Development

Pv

I i

\0 .

•k]

ERA08 111902

Prepared by; Ann Draper
Director, Planning Office
Reviewed by: Ann Draper
Director, Planning Office
DATE:

November 19, 2002

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Tim Chow

Director, Environmental Resources Agency

SUBJECT: Planning Office Work Program Addendum

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Accept Planning Office Work Plan Addendum for the Viewshed and Greenbelt project

identified in the Planning Office work program.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

No fiscal impact on General Fund.
CONTRACT HISTORY
N/A

Bo.=ird of Supervisors; Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall Jr., Liz Knisa

Countj' Executive: Richard Wittenberg

1

BOS Agenda Date ;November 19, 2002

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

to proceed. The Housing, Land
Agreement on specific projects by the Board will allow workreviewed
and recommended

Use, Environment and Transportation Committee(HLUET)

approval of this action at its regular meeting on October 24, 2002.

RACKCtROUND

In January 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the Planning Office Work Plan for
calendar year 2002. Some work items were very specific, while others required more specific
scoping. The Viewshed and Greenbelt project is one that needed more scoping. HLUET is
recommending to the Board to accept the following three projects as the specific work items.
The timing for consideration of each project will vary.

San Jose Coyote Valley-Specific Plan Preparation: Supervisor Gage has been appointed to
the San Jose Task Force which will advise the City in its preparation of this specific plan.
There are many County issues of interest in this geographical area. The Planning Office
coordinate the review by
will provide staff support to the District office and will help to
so
other County agencies (e.g. Parks, and Roads and Airports), that there can be
consolidated staff response to San Jose. Attached is San Jose's scope of work for this
project(Attachment A).

of Morgan Hill is launching a
Morgan Hill Urban Limit Line (Greenbelt Study): The Cityresources
to this effort. This
greenbelt and viewshed study and committing significant
study is identified as a high priority implementation measure by the City's recently
adopted 2001 General Plan. A copy of their work program is attached (Attachment B).
Line, a part of which will
This study will result in the City's adoption of an Urban Limit
staff believes that it will be

assess surrounding County unincorporated areas. County
important to take an ongoing, active role in this effort. One of the intended outcomes is a
to help preserve open
description and evaluation of different tools that could be usedthat
some of these tools will

spaces and assess viewsheds. The Planning Office anticipates
areas in the county.
be useful in the Morgan Hill area, as well as in other

Almaden Urban Reserve Joint Study: The County's General Plan states that the City of
San Jose and the County will conduct joint studies to determine appropriate interim uses

and long term uses in the Open Space Reserve areas of the South Almaden Valley Urban
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, BLanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jaincs T. Beall Jr., Uz luuss

County Executive; Richard Wittenberg

BOS Agenda Date '.November 19, 2002

Reserve. The proposed study contemplates an opportunity to establish interim recreational

uses within unincorporated areas of the South Almaden Valley. Staffs from both

jurisdictions drafted language that would provide for the opportunity to allow these types
of uses. Attachment C is the draft language of the proposed text amendment to the City’s

General Plan. The City has modified its schedule. It is now anticipated that the Board will
consider this issue in May 2003. The Board will not need to adopt the language in the
County General Plan. The text will serve as a basis for a proposed County Zoning
Ordinance text amendment. If adopted by the City Council of San Jose, the County

Planning Commission will hear the County Zoning Ordinance text amendment after which
the Board will receive it.

rONSF.OIJENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION

Failure to approve this action may result in no staff action in this area.
STEPS FOLI OWING APPROVAL
None.

ATTACHMENTS

• San Jose Scope of Work (Attachment A)(Miscellaneous)

• Morgan Hill Urban Limit Line - Greenbelt study (Attachment B)(Miscellaneous)
• San Jose - Draft language (Attachment C)(Miscellaneous)

Board ofSupemsors; Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, .fete McHugh, James T. BeallJr., Ltz Knisa

Countj' Executive: Richard Wittenberg

3

Council Meeting: 8/20/02
Agenda Item: 4,7

CITY OF

SAN TOSE

Memorandum

CAPIXM OF SIUCON VALLEY

TO: City Council

SUBJECT: Coyote Valley Specific Plan

FROM: Mayor Ron Gonzales
Councilmember Williams

DATE: August 16,2002

Initiation

Approved

Date

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the City Council start the planning process for the Coyote Valley by:
1.

Appointing the members of the Coyote Valley Specific Plan(CVSP)Task Force as

identified in Attachment 1.
2.

Directing the City Manager to create a Technical Advisory Committee of City staff
and other public agency representatives to serve as an advisory body for the Task
Force.

3.

Directing Planning staff to develop a work plan, including a Request for Proposals for
a land planning consultant team, timeline, and estimated budget for the Coyote Valley
Specific Plan, and to return with recommendations to the City Council within 30
days.

4.

Authorizing the City Manager, in conjunction with the Mayor’s Office and

Councilmember Williams’ office ,to select independent consultants to work with the

Task Force during the planning process. The consultants and City staff together

should have a broad array of appropriate expertise including urban planning,

architecture, civil engineering, transportation planning, geotechnical, economics,
environmental, hydrology, computer support, and public finance and project funding.

Prior to the City Council’s consideration of consultant contracts, there must be a

completed agreement between the City and the landowners/developers to share the
costs for this planning process.

5.

Directing the Task Force to use the Vision and Desired Outcomes statements m
Attachment 2 as its direction for developing the Specific Plan.

attachment a

Coyote Valley Specific Plan Initiation
August 16, 2002
Page 2 of 6
6.

Directing the City Manager to begin developing a funding agreement between the
City of San Jose and landowners and/or potential developers of the majority of the
developable acreage within Coyote Valley, and return with recommendations to the
City Council no more than 30 days after the Coyote Valley Specific Plan budget is
approved by the City Council.

7.

Directing the Task Force to include the following elements as a part of its review in
preparing the Specific Plan:

•

Environmental review

• Infrastructure analysis and plans
•
•
•
•

Land use and circulation plans
Public facilities plans
Phasing plans
Financing plans

BACKGROUND

San Jose made smart-growth decisions for Coyote Valley two decades ago for balanced
City’s General Plan has
development that would be benefit San Jose and the region. toThe
ensure
a stable economic
designated North Coyote Valley for industrial developmentfor residential
development
base and new jobs. Central Coyote Valley was designated

after jobs in North Coyote Valley were in place. South Coyote Valley was designated as
a greenbelt separating San Jose from Morgan Hill to ensure open space, not urban sprawl
between our cities.

The Council also established “triggers” in the General Plan to ensure that industrial

community would have the
development preceded housing development, so that our
financial resources to support quality public services. These remain sound planning
principles. Balancing jobs, housing, and transportation while presenting open space is
critical as we move forward in Coyote Valley.

In June 2001 the City Council approved the Mayor’s recommendations based on the

Housing Production Team’s report. Two of the recommendations suggested changing the
Central Coyote Valley Urban Reserve trigger to allow planning for the development of
the Coyote Valley Specific Plan. On November 20, 2001, the City Council adopted a text
amendment to the General Plan (GPOl-T-33), which allowed for the preparation of a
Specific Plan for North and Central Coyote Valley to begin.

The City has a long-standing practice of involving the community through the planning
and specific plans,the
process. As we have done through the SNI process,involve
master plans,
the
stakeholders.
preparation of the Coyote Valley Specific Plan will
The General Plan recognizes that Coyote Valley is relatively isolated from the rest of San
form of a balanced community
Jose and future development will need to be in the

2

Coyote Valley Specific Plan Initiation
August 16,2002
Page 3 of6

with jobs, housing, commercial and community facilities, schools, parks, residential

services, and public transit. The planning for such a “new town”, as required by the
General Plan, should include the North Coyote Valley Campus Industrial Area as a key

job center and the Coyote Valley Urban Reserve as the primary new residential area. The
specific plan should also preserve the long-standing guidelines previously established by
the Council; these include creating 50,000jobs and at least 25,000 homes in Coyote
Valley and permanently protecting the greenbelt located in South Coyote Valley. The
creation of affordable housing also should be among the primary objectives that are

integral to the planning process.

The Specific Plan is a prerequisite to any development in the Coyote Valley Urban

Reserve. Under state law,the Specific Plan process includes the ability to plan land uses

in detail, plan for infrastructure and community service needs,formulate financing and
implementation programs, and phase the implementation of any of the plan elements as

The process also requires the participation of affected jurisdictions, property
owners,'developers, and other community and regional stakeholders.

necessary,

The smart growth principles for Coyote Valley are included in the San Jose 2020 General

including a transit-onented,
Plan. The Specific Plan should follow these principles,recreation.
In order to sustain
pedestrian-fiiendly community with ample spaces for
diversity, the Specific Plan
long-term economic viability and promote healthy community
To
achieve
desired minimum of
should provide for a variety ofresidential densities. below 10the
units
per acre and
25,000 housing units, minimum density should not fall
demities as high as 100 units per acre should be considered. Opportunities for both home
ownership and rental housing should be encouraged.

This Specific Plan will undoubtedly be one of the most ambitious and exciting planning

opportunities ever undertaken in San Jose. It will also be costly to ensure that a complete
Specific Plan costs can be
and appropriate plan is achieved. State law provides thatCouncil
therefore should direct

recovered from property owners in affected areas. The

staff to prepare an “area of benefit” analysis in order to share and recover

costs.

of San Jose’s future, and it
The Coyote Valley Specific Plan will be a critical component
the
investment
oftime and
is important that we do it right. This includes supporting
resources, involving all the affected stakeholders, and adhenng to our pnnciples of smart
growth, balanced development, and greenbelt protection. This is the right time to begin
this effort, so that when the development triggers are met in the future, we will be ready
to move forward with a Specific Plan in place that will guide the creation of new
community through exemplary urban design.
COORDINATION

This memo has been coordinated with the City Manager’s Office, the Department of

Planning Building and Code Enforcement and the City Attorney’s Office
3

Coyote Valley Specific Plan Initiation

August 16,2002
Page 4 of 6

Attachment 1

Coyote Valley Specific Plan Task Force Members

The size, composition, and structure of the Coyote Valley Specific Plan Task Force

complies with San Jose City Council Policy 6-22 regarding Specific Plans, and it reflects
the many interests of this important area.

We worked diligently to develop a well-balanced Task Force, for its members have a

very serious responsibility to prepare a comprehensive and practical plan for the future of

the wide range of
Coyote Valley. The composition of the Task Forceand
includes
San Jose. They include elected

perspectives and interests associated with this area

officials from several public agencies; volunteer commissioners; landowners;

environmental, labor, and business advocates; and future residents and workers of Coyote
reflects the goals of
Valley. Together they will ensure that the Specific Plan accurately
General
Plan.
community and the smart growth principles of the 2020
our

The individual members of the Task Force will receive and make significant investments

of time training and information to ensure the effectiveness ofthe Task Force will
Plan. For this reason
accomplish its mission to create the Coyote Valley Specific
alternates.
addition, members who
members will not be permitted to be represented by the TaskInForce.
It will be cntical
miss three consecutive meetings will be removed from
for the success ofthe Task that its members commit to consistent participation m this
effort.

1. Mayor Ron Gonzales, Co-Chair
2. Councilmember Forrest Williams, Co-Chair
3. Councilmember Pat Dando

4. Don Gage, Chair, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
5. Chris Platten
6. Russ Danielson

7. Helen Chapman
8. Dan Hancock

9. Terry Watt
10. Steve Schott, Jr.

11. Craige Edgerton
12. Ken Saso

13. Doreen Morgan
14. Jim Cunneen

15. Amy Dean
16. Steve Speno
17. Neil Struthers

18. Gladwyin D’Souza
19. Chuck Butters
20. Eric Carruthers

Coyote Valley Specific Plan Initiation
August 16,2002
Page 5 of 6
Attachment 2

Coyote Valley Specific Plan
Vision and Expected Outcomes

1. The plan will include Central and North Coyote for land planning and will include

South Coyote in the infrastructure financing mechanism only. South Coyote
(Greenbelt) is included only to determine financing and other mechanisms to secure
this as a permanent Greenbelt.

2. The line (Greenline) between Central and South shall not be moved.
3. The line between North and Central could be erased to allow for mixed-use

throughout as long as 25,000 housing units in Central and 50,000 jobs in North

remain as a base. Then,jobs can be added in Central Coyote and housing in North

Coyote to achieve mixed-use or develop a property owner agreement to trade jobs
and housing counts to achieve mixed-use goal.

4.

5.

The overall development character ofNorth and Central Coyote Valley should be
a mixture of housing
very urban, pedestrian and transit-oriented community with
industrial
uses.
densities, supportive businesses and services and campus

The Specific Plan should plan for the extension oflight rail and heavy rail into
Central Coyote and use these facilities to orient development.

6. We shall maximize efficient land usage; i.e., the 25,000 units and 50,000 jobs are
both minimums. In North and Central Coyote combined,the total development

potential is at least 50,000 jobs and at least 25,000 housing units. Through the
Specific Plan process we shall determine the distribution of that potential across north
and south, including mixed-use concepts.

7.

It will be important to distinguish that the 50,000 jobs referenced are primarily
industrial/office jobs, not the additional retail support or public/quasi-public jobs
(e.g., City workers) that must also be accommodated in the Plan area for a vibrant,
mixed-used, urban community.

8.

Identify locations for public facilities (libraries, parks, schools, etc.) in the land use
plan as well as include these facilities in the financing plan.

9. North and Mid-Coyote should contain a rich system of parks, trails, and recreation
areas.

10. The identification of financing measures for the needed capital improvements to
support the planned levels of development.

5

Coyote Valley Specific Plan Initiation
August 16,2002
Page 6 of 6

11. The plan must be financially feasible for private development.

12. The plan must develop trigger mechanisms to ensure that increments of housing may
not move forward until the appropriate number ofjobs are constructed in a parallel

timeline to maintain a jobs/housing balance in Coyote Valley.

13. The Task Force should review the potential to utilize “subregions” of the valley that

will incorporate jobs and housing that can move forward when the subregion has
ability to finance the appropriate infrastructure. Residential projects will be issued
building permits in parallel with the development ofjobs when either the projects are
purely mixed-use in their construction or the jobs and housing are constructed
simultaneously.

14. The plan should seek mechanisms to facilitate the permanent acquisition of fee title or
conservation easements in South Coyote.

15. The plan should allow for the current General Plan budget triggers to be changed to
triggers based upon the Valley or its subregions'jobs and housing revenues covering
the General Fund cost of services.

The plan shall include a requirement that will mandate 20 percent of all units be “deedrestricted, below-market-rate units.”

6

City of Morgan Hill Urban Limit Line (Greenbelt)Study
Scope of Work

Project Definition; A City of Morgan Hill planning study, in cooperation with the
County of Santa Clara, to identify the specific location for a permanent limit of urban
expansion (“Urban Limit Line,” or ULL). The limit of urban expansion would be
incorporated into City land use planning policy documents and, as necessary, city
ordinances and specific land use regulations. It would also be referenced and
acknowledged in the County General Plan. The areas outside ofthe Urban Limit Line
would be considered to be “Greenbelt(s).”

Study Boundaries: The study area conforms to lands that are within the City of Morgan
Hill’s Sphere of Influence and outside of the Urban Growth Boundary except for
exclusion of lands generally west of Oak Glen Avenue (see attached map).

Project Objectives:

1. Implement the provisions ofthe adopted 2001 Morgan Hill General Plan

regarding the creation of Greenbelt(s).
2. Delineate an Urban Limit Line(ULL)based on existing urban development

policies of the City and County, existing land use patterns, and projected demand

for urban land which provides adequate long term supply of urban land, promotes
sustainable, cost-effective development, and enhances long term guidance to
future land use decisions.

3. Provide for enhanced coordination and consistency of land use policy between the

City of Morgan Hill and County of Santa Clara for lands outside the ULL

(“Greenbelt”).

4. Promote the conservation of natural resources, agricultural land, and scenic
resources

for lands surrounding City of Morgan Hill, consistent with City and

County General Plans.
5.

Address specific land use issues needing to be resolved in the Greenbelt Study as

identified in the Morgan Hill General Plan and in the process leading to adoption
of the Plan in 2001.

Timeline.

City Council review of work program—October 2002

Status report to County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors(HLUET
Committee)—October/Noveraber 2002

South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee review of work program—
November 14, 2002

Prepare consultant Request for Proposal—October/November 2002
Solicit consultant responses and select consultant—November/December 2002

City Council approval of consultant contract—December or January 2003

ATTACHMENT B

• City Council appointment of Citizens Advisory Committee—December or
January 2003

• Undertake Study—January-September 2003

• Prepare environmental review document—July-October 2003
• County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and City Planning
Commission and City Council review—November-December 2003

Staffing and Budget Resources: The City of Morgan Hill has $200,000 allocated in the
2002-03 budget for this study. The City also has contract planner resources that will be
used for the project. The County Planning Office will provide general coordination
assistance, as well as map products and geographic analysis to assist the study as time'
is

available from Planning Office GIS staff.
Public Process:

• Citizens Advisory Committee: The City Council will appoint a 15 member
Citizens Advisory Committee to be Chaired by a City Council member.

Supervisor Gage will be asked to identify a representative to serve on the
committee, possibly a County Planning Commissioner. Efforts will be made to
have Committee membership address both the geographical scope of the study,
including unincorporated areas, and the range ofinterests (e.g. agricultural land,
hillside land owner, environmental protection, residential and non-residential

development). The Committee will be charged with developing recommendations

for subsequent City and County review.

• Citizen Advisory Committee meetings will be noticed as open to the public and
efforts will be made to solicit participation from members of the community.

• Review and adoption/approval process: It is assumed that the study will result in
recommended amendments to the Morgan Hill and Santa Clara County General
Plans and, possibly. City and County development regulations. The review of
amendments to General Plans and development regulations will require public
hearings by the City and the County.

Technical Coordination: A core group of City and County staff will form a technical
committee to provide advice to staff and the consultant on technical and process issues.
and organizations (e.g.
Representatives of governmental and private sector agencies
County
Agricultural
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department,
Space
Authority Land Trust,
Commissioner, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Open
that
would
be available,
Farm Bureau) will be asked to designate a staff person
needed,to assist City and County staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee.
as

Consultant Tasks:

• Information Assembly and Analysis:

areas will be
The assumption is that available information applicable totothethestudy
Citizens
Advisory
reviewed and compiled by the consultant, made available
Committee and used in the development of recommendations and preparation of
2

the environmental review document. Specific information areas to be addressed
include:

• Topography
•

Farm land

• Riparian corridors
• Storm drainage and flooding

• Water supply [limitation on ground water availability]
• Water supply [protection of ground water]
• Waste disposal [feasibility/limits on use ofseptic tanks]

•

Seismic hazards

•

Landslide areas

•

Plant resources

•
•
•

Wildlife resources
Wildlife corridors
Cultural resources

•

Visual assessment

The Study will use information developed in 1998-2001 in the Morgan Hill
General Plan update process including information on agricultural land, geologic
and seismic hazards, groundwater, riparian corridors and flooding, biological
resources

and cultural resources. The County Geographic Information System

(GIS)has spatial data that will be made available. The recently completed Santa
Clara County/Farm Bureau Agricultural Preservation study has relevant
background information. A visual assessment will need to be prepared. The

visual assessment will focus primarily on hillside areas visible from Morgan Hill

flatland areas.

• Assessment of Future Urban Land Needs:

the land areas needed to
The key analytic element ofthe study is identification of
The
timeframe for the
address Morgan Hill’s long-term urban growth needs.
land
use
recommendations will
study is the next 45 to 50 years (i.e. to 2050). The
need to address the full range of urban land uses including:
■
■

Residential
Industrial

■

Commercial

■ Others(schools, parks, other public and private facilities)

Economic evaluation: The study will need to develop estimates of the amount of
land (residential, industrial, commercial and other activities) assumed to be
needed to accommodate Morgan Hill’s long term growth prospects. Giveri the
2050 time frame, scenarios should be developed for alternative future conditions
and land needs.

Environmental evaluation: Data collected under the Information Assembly and

Analysis heading should be used to identify areas most suitable for urban

3

development as well as areas where urban development would have notable
constraints.

Residential development patterns; The preponderance of residential growth in
Morgan Hill occurs on single family parcels. Establishing greenbelt areas has

implications, over time, on residential density and market factors. The study will
need to address those implications.

Review of land uses appropriate for areas outside of the ULL: The Morgan Hill
General Plan notes that greenbelt land uses might include low density residential
uses (i.e. one unit per twenty acres; public parks and recreation; private
recreation; and agriculture). The study will need to review and evaluate County

land use policy and regulations for lands outside Urban Service Areas and report
on the consistency of such policies and regulations with desired land use patterns
for lands outside the proposed ULL. The study may also issue recommendations
Any such changes
concerning possible changes to such policies and regulations.
Plan.
would need to be consistent with the County’s General

• Assessment of Special Land Use Issues:

The Morgan Hill General Plan, and the process that led to the adoption of a new
General Plan in July 2001, resulted in calling out a number of specific land use
actions for resolution in the Greenbelt(Urban Limit Line)study. These issues

include:
1.

CD Policy 15b: “Maintain existing residential feathering souththeof
Watsonville Road and west of Monterey Road,and maintain

residential estate designation east of Monterey Road to the railroad,

2.

(page 38)[feathering is having land use densities increasingly lower,
and possibly leading into a greenbelt]
CD Policy 15c; “Review other areas of the city to evaluate whether a
feathered edge would be appropriate.”(page 39)

3.

OS/C Action 4.1: “Preserve El Toro Mountain in open space above the
500 foot contour line on all sides, with the exception of the Llagas and

Paradise Valleys(where all land above the 600 foot contour elevation
should be preserved.”(page 87)

4.

.
,
v
OS/C Action 2.2: The [Greenbelt] Plan shall specifically evaluate the
potential for an industrial park southeast of the Tennant to the

Avenue/Highway 101 interchange [80 acre site adjacent
Tennant/101 interchange].”(page 83)

5.

Resolution of future land uses for the area bounded by West
Edmundson Avenue, DeWitt Avenue, Spring Avenue and the City

limits. This area been the focus of a golf course/residential proposal
submitted to both the County and the City. Completion ofthe

greenbelt study was identified by the City as a prerequisite for any
consideration of the proposal.

• Identification ofImplementation Tools;
4

The Morgan Hill and Santa Clara County General Plans each identify a number of
tools that could be used in conjunction with establishment of a Greenbelt. The
consultant will review these tools, identify additional tools, and provide
commentary and recommendations on their feasibility, effectiveness and possible
use.

•

Environmental Review:

An Environmental Impact Report will be required for the Study. The consultant
will be responsible for preparation of environmental documents. The work

program should be organized to have collected information assembled in a way

that facilitates inclusion into an EIR. The final work program will need to

identify how the transportation evaluation will be conducted given the 2025 time

frame of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency traffic model and the
longer time frame of this Study.
• Work Products

The following work products will be provided by the consultant:
• One or more technical background reports for environmental, cultural
and visual information.

• A report addressing future urban land needs.

• A report addressing potential impacts on residential development.
• A report addressing land use and study implementation issues.
• A Final Report, for the Planning Commissions, City Council and
Board of Supervisors, incorporating the information in the above four
reports.

• Administrative Draft, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report.
• Meeting/Process Facilitation:

The consultant would provide the following services:
• Work with staff and the Committee Chair to help organize the meeting

process, agendas and overall flow ofinformation to the Committee,
other City bodies and the public.

• Take meeting notes(assumed to be notes on large-sized paper
displayed during meetings)

• Provide meeting summaries.
• Work with the Committee Chair and staff to determine the most

effective ways to run meetings including providing, if desired by the
Chair, meeting facilitation services.

• Meeting Attendance:

The consultant will be expected to provide appropriate staff for all Citizen

Advisory Committee meetings (assume monthly meetings), regular meetings
with City and County staff to review technical and process issues(assume
monthly) and City Planning Commission and City Council and County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings when major Study findings and

implementation issues are being reviewed.
5

DRAFT

City-County Joint Land Use Study of Future Outdoor Recreational Uses in the South Almaden
Valley Urban Reserve
Purpose

This study is intended to facilitate joint review, by Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose,
of future interim outdoor recreational uses to be allowed in the South Almaden Valley Urban

Reserve, as defined in the San Jose 2020 General Plan. This study is pursuant to County
General Plan Land Use Policy R-LU 50, which states that, “For lands within the vicinity of the

City of San Jose designated OSR(Open Space Reserve on the County General Plan), joint

studies should be conducted to define and resolve issues of mutual interest for the South

Almaden Valley and nearby hillsides.”
Study Approach

The Joint Use Study will incorporate the following steps:

Preparation of revised language for inclusion in the San Jose 2020 General Plan addressing

interim outdoor recreational uses in the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve. Due Date:
October 7, 2002

1. City General Plan Community Meetings, including review of proposed General Plan text
amendment for the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve.
Dates: October 8 & 10, 2002

2. Proposal for Joint Use Study presented at Santa Clara County HLUET Committee.
Date: October 23, 2002

3.

Community Meeting on proposed San Jose 2020 General Plan text amendment for the

South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve.

Date: £,pril 2003

4. San Jose Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed San Jose 2020 General
Plan text amendment for the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve.
Date: November 18, 2002
5.

Santa Clara County HLUET Committee discussion of proposed San Jose 2020 General
Plan text amendment for the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve and public input to
Joint Use Study. Outcome of Committee discussion, recommendation and summary of
public input to be transmitted to City of San Jose.
Date: November 21, 2002

6. San Jose City Council public hearing on of proposed San Jose 2020 General Plan text
amendment for the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve.
Date: December 17, 2002

attachment c

Milestone dates for AYA Sports Facility proposal

October 7, 2002- Issuance of Negative Declaration for San Jose General Plan
amendment

February, 2003- Santa Clara County approval of Zoning Ordinance amendment to rnake

outdoor recreational uses a Conditional Use in the Exclusive Agriculture Zoning District.

March, 2003- County issuance of Conditional Use Permit to AYA for proposed Youth
Sports facility.

DRAFT 10-04-02

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT

Amend Chapter V. Land Use/Transportation Diagram; Urban Reserve, page 200 as follows:
Prerequisite Conditions

Add to previous paragraph

A General Plan change to Planned Residential Community and expansion ofthe Urban Service
Area to include any part of the SAVUR should occur only after the specific plan becomes
effective.

Interim Uses

Until such a time as the specific plan becomes effective, the allowed land uses and standards of
the Rural Residential land use designation shall apply in the SAVUR. In addition, because this
area has been identified as potentially appropriate for urban uses and inclusion in the Urban

Service Area at some point in the future once certain preconditions have first been satisfied as

discussed in this Section, it is appropriate to allow certain limited, interim recreational uses on

public property that are consistent with the long-term character of the SAVUR,as well as odier
County General Plans. Limited
goals and policies of both the San Jose 2020 and Santa Clarawhich
do not require permanent
outdoor public recreation uses such as trails and sportsfields
be
allowed
on
a case by case basis. Such
public or private infirastructure or improvements may
uses will also be subject to conformance with the Santa Clara County General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Any such use would be subject to the following specific requirements;
1.

The outdoor recreation uses should include only small, minimal improvements necessary

2.

portable, mobile or easily
for outdoor public recreation. Such improvements must befeet.
square
Permanent public infrastructure, such as storm and sanitary sewers and underground water

3.

Construction of any structure necessitating a foundation is not permitted for any outdoor

removed.. No individual facility may exceed

lines can not be extended to serve any outdoor public recreation use within the SAVUR.
recreation use within the SAVUR.

4.

-

i

j f-

Such recreational facilities and uses should serve primarily the local recreational needs ot

the local community and not present events that invite participation from the greater City,
County or Region.

.

.

. .

5. On-site assembly or population criteria; ideas include - population density cntenapersons per acre average and maximum.

6.

Any such use does not alter the application of the Urban Reserve “triggers” nor the specific

planning process as stated below.

\\PBCE002\GP_Teain\2002 Annual Review\StaffReports\GP01-T-31Drafl.doc