DOCSLIB.ORG

Conserving Coyote Valley Agriculture Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conserving Coyote Valley Agriculture Feasibility Study CONSERVING COYOTE VALLEY AGRICULTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE ONE REPORT Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE) March 2012 Page 2 Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................7 Background........................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Inspiration, Purpose and Phasing ............................................................................................ 7 Components of Phase One Feasibility Study ........................................................................................ 8 Overview of Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................9 Current Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Location and Regional Context ............................................................................................................ 9 Acreage, Parcelization and Major Land Uses ....................................................................................... 9 Ownership and Tenant Patterns ........................................................................................................ 12 Circulation and Power Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 12 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................. 13 Regulatory Context .................................................................................................................................. 15 North Valley ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Mid-Valley .......................................................................................................................................... 16 South Valley ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan .......................................................................................................... 17 Farmland and Agriculture Production ..................................................................................................... 19 Santa Clara County Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 19 Coyote Valley Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 19 Protected Open Space ............................................................................................................................. 22 Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (SCCOSA) ........................................................................ 22 Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (SCCPRD) ..................................................... 22 Santa Clara County Water District...................................................................................................... 23 Silicon Valley Land Conservancy ........................................................................................................ 23 Natural Resources and Resource Management ...................................................................................... 25 Topography ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 25 Climate and Rainfall ........................................................................................................................... 25 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 25 Hydrologic Setting .............................................................................................................................. 25 Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................................................. 31 Land Values in Coyote Valley ............................................................................................................ 36 Recent Sales ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Assessed Values.................................................................................................................................. 37 Agricultural Land Values in Adjoining Counties ................................................................................. 38 Demand for New Commercial and Industrial Space .......................................................................... 39 Economic and Population Growth ..................................................................................................... 40 Social and Lifestyle Factors ................................................................................................................ 40 Resources Available for Ag Land Preservation ................................................................................... 41 Federal Programs ............................................................................................................................... 41 State Programs ................................................................................................................................... 44 County and City Programs .................................................................................................................. 45 Land Trusts ......................................................................................................................................... 46 Foundations ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Financing Agriculture through Private Equity Investment ................................................................. 47 Payment for Eco-system Services (PES) ............................................................................................. 48 Agricultural Land Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 50 Natural Resources Mitigation ............................................................................................................ 50 Challenges and Constraints .............................................................................................................. 52 Opportunities .................................................................................................................................. 53 Feasibility Determination and Preliminary Vision .............................................................................. 56 Phase Two Work Plan ...................................................................................................................... 58 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 61 Technical Background Reports ................................................................................................................ 61 Maps ........................................................................................................................................................ 77 Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding The project was funded by a generous grant from the San Francisco Bay Program of the State Coastal Conservancy. Partners The following partners provided project direction and advice: Amy Hutzel, Program Manager, San Francisco Bay Area Program of the State Coastal Conservancy Coastal Conservancy; Andrea Mackenzie, General Manager, Santa Clara County Open Space Authority; Rachel Poplack, Director, Healthy Living and Community Partnerships, The Health Trust. Key Informants The following people were interviewed and provided their expertise to the Phase One Feasibility Study: Sheila Barry, UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE); Amy Chestnut, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; Robert Colley, Information Services Department, County of Santa Clara; Ann Draper, Santa Clara Valley Water District and former Director, Santa Clara County Planning; Alan Forkey, NRCS, California Programs; Greg House, House Agricultural Consultants; Marc Landgraf, Peninsula Open Space Trust; Andrea McKenzie, Santa Clara Open Space Authority; Kellyx Nelson, San Mateo County Resource Conservation District; Julie Phillips, DeAnza College Kirst Center for Environmental Studies; Athena Pratt, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Laurel Prevetti, Deputy Director of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Senate Bill No. 739 Passed the Senate July 22, 2001 Secretary Of
    Senate Bill No. 739 Passed the Senate July 22, 2001 Secretary of the Senate Passed the Assembly July 16, 2001 Chief Clerk of the Assembly This bill was received by the Governor this day of , 2001, at o’clock M. Private Secretary of the Governor SB 739 — 2 — CHAPTER An act making appropriations for the support of the government of the State of California and for several public purposes in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of California, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST SB 739, Peace. 2001–02 Budget. This bill would make appropriations for support of state government for the 2001–02 fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an ur- gency statute. Appropriation: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1.00. This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Budget Act of 2001.’’ SEC. 1.50. (a) In accordance with Section 13338 of the Govern- ment Code, as added by Chapter 1284, Statutes of 1978, and as amended by Chapter 1286, Statutes of 1984, it is the intent of the Leg- islature that this act utilize a coding scheme compatible with the Gov- ernor’s Budget and the records of the State Controller, and provide for the appropriation of federal funds received by the state and deposited in the State Treasury. (b) Essentially, the format and style are as follows: (1) Appropriation item numbers have a code which is common to all the state’s fiscal systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Feedback Form Results
    San José Diridon Station Area Online Feedback Form Summary Total Responses: 693 Raimi + Associates October 2, 2018 Table of Contents Housing/Displacement ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Q1 General Principles .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Q2 Development of the Diridon Station Area: .............................................................................................................................. 4 Q3 Citywide Impacts and Benefits New resources generated by Google and other companies/developers go to: ....................... 5 Jobs/Education .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Q5 General Principles .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Q6 Development of the Diridon Station Area: .............................................................................................................................. 7 Q7 Citywide Impacts and Benefits ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Land
    [Show full text]
  • Panoche Valley
    THE Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Established 1926 AVOCET The Newsletter of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society September-October 2017 Panoche Valley: Saving an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate oncluding almost eight years of advocacy and litiga- tion, SCVAS, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, and Defenders of Wildlife have signed a settlement agree- Cment that allows a photovoltaic solar farm to be built on about 1,000 acres of Panoche Valley floor, while at the same time preserving 26,000 acres, including 4,000 acres of valley floor grasslands, as habitat for endangered species. Califor- nia Department of Fish and Wildlife and Con Edison have also signed the agreement. We are proud of this achievement! Monterey Audubon Society first alerted SCVAS to the plans to construct a solar farm in Panoche Valley. In 2009, plans for solar arrays and supportive infrastructure encompassed most of the valley floor, as well as Little Panoche Valley. No mitigation was offered for the inevitable loss of habitat for the many endangered species that call the valley home, so we started mobilizing. In early 2010 we organized a work- shop that formed an alliance of farmers and environmental organizations in opposition to the project. This alliance has never faltered. In the years that followed, our advocacy and permit require- ments by state and federal wildlife agencies resulted in changing project ownership as investors came and went. The project footprint shrunk and mitigation lands were added. San Benito County produced additional environmental re- view documents, asserting repeatedly that the construction of a solar project on thousands of acres of valley floor could Ferruginous Hawk by Debra Shearwater cont’d on page 4 Wednesday, September 20, 2017 Cuba - The Isle of Endemics: Birds and Bats! with Dave Johnston Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Understanding California's Whales with Ted Cheeseman The Avocet 1 Please carpool if possible; bring binoculars, field guides, layered September-October Field Trips clothing.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP)
    Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) VTA administers and distributes funds from these The Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) is the funding sources to Member Agencies, matching appropriate proj- mechanism for planned bicycle projects in Santa Clara ect types and funding amounts with the requirements County. It is developed in conjunction with the VTP of each fund source. VTA assists Member Agencies as update. The bicycle network is an essential component necessary to comply with the various regional, state and of a fully integrated, multimodal, countywide trans- federal procedural rules of each fund source. As part of portation system, and VTA is committed to improving the VTP update, the BEP projects list will be reviewed bicycling conditions that will benefit all users 7 days per and re-adopted approximately every four years as part of week and 24 hours per day, enabling people of all ages to the VTP process. In May 2013, VTA Board of Directors bike to work, school, errands, and for recreation. adopted the BEP Project List (Table 2.7a, Figure 2.6). The BEP was first adopted by the VTA Board of The process for developing the BEP Project List involves Directors in 2000 as a financially constrained list of two main steps: 1) Developing a master list of projects, projects with a ten-year funding horizon. BEP projects and 2) Constraining the master list to the financial con- are solicited from Member Agencies and evaluated by a straints of the VTP. Per the BEP Policies, the projects committee consisting of BPAC members and VTA staff. were divided into two categories: The development of the BEP is guided by the Board- • Category 1—greater than or equal to 50 points adopted Policies and Evaluation Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Meadows Redevelopment Concept Plan
    COYOTE MEADOWS REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN Coyote Meadows Coalition San José, California March, 2018 WELCOME Introduction Table of Contents In the heart of the City of San José, California, Coyote Meadows occupies a strategic creek-side location with the potential to connect surrounding Welcome.............................................................1 communities to several neighborhood and regional trails. The site is the former Site Overview....................................................3 Story Road Landfill, owned by the City of San José. Community members seek to activate the site as a natural park, offering a 360° panoramic vista of the Santa Leveraging Opportunities............................5 Clara Valley, downtown San José, the Diablo Range, the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Coyote Valley to the south. Coyote Meadows presents an opportunity to turn Community Voice............................................7 underutilized space into a community asset in partnership with the City of San Reuse Zones......................................................9 José. However, a community vision is needed to inform future use and the required landfill closure plan. Program Areas................................................11 In the spring of 2016, Keep Coyote Creek Beautiful formed the Coyote Meadows Case Studies....................................................15 Coalition to plan and advocate for the activation of the site. With funding awarded from the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority in December 2016, Implementation
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    News Release For Immediate Release January 9, 2012 Contact City of San José Matt Cano, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood Services Phone: (408) 535-3580/Email: [email protected] OR Yves Zsutty, Trail Manager Phone: (408) 793-5561/Email: [email protected] Santa Clara County Open Space Authority Patty Eaton, Communications Specialist Phone: (408) 224‐7476/Email: [email protected] Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Tamara Clark, Public Information Officer Phone: (408) 355-2215/Email: [email protected] Public Agencies Join Forces to Purchase Land for Urban Trail System SAN JOSE, Calif. – Over ten years in the making, San José’s Three Creeks Trail project took a great leap forward, thanks to combined funding from three public agencies to complete a critical land acquisition. The $6 million land purchase for the developing Three Creeks Trail was made possible by the City of San José (the City), the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (Open Space Authority) and the Parks and Recreation Department of Santa Clara County (the County). This land will add an additional mile to the City’s interconnected trail network. The Three Creeks Trail is designed to expand recreation and transportation options within the urban core, and create linkages between the Los Gatos Creek, Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek regional trails. “This project would not have been possible without the commitment and partnership of the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority and the County of Santa Clara,” said Mayor Chuck Reed. “The Three Creeks Trail will serve as a crucial link in our existing urban trail network and bring us closer to achieving our Green Vision of creating 100 miles of trails within San José.” As lead negotiator and title holder for the land, the City finalized the land purchase from Union Pacific Railroad on December 23, 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Kelley Park Ridge Trail Planning Project
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation September 15, 2004 KELLEY PARK RIDGE TRAIL PLANNING PROJECT File No. 04-056 Project Manager: Amy Hutzel RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $70,000 to the City of San José to plan a segment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail as an extension of the Coyote Creek trail system. LOCATION: Between Phelan and Story Roads in the City of San José, Santa Clara County. PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Site Map Exhibit 2: Conceptual Design Exhibit 3: Environmental Impact Report Exhibit 4: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Exhibit 5: Letters of Support RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160 - 31164 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of an amount not to exceed seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) to the City of San José to plan the development of a new section of the Bay Area Ridge Trail in Santa Clara County and adopts the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit 4 to the Conservancy staff recommendation, subject to the following conditions: 1. No Conservancy funds shall be disbursed until the Executive Officer of the Conservancy has approved in writing: a final work plan, including a budget and schedule; and any contractors proposed to be used; and 2. The City of San Jose shall implement the mitigation measures for the potential significant effects of the project as identified in the City’s Kelley Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, adopted on October 17, 1994.” Page 1 of 7 Kelley Park Ridge Trail Planning Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Wounds Trail Planning
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation June 18, 2020 SAN JOSÉ PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS: FIVE WOUNDS TRAIL PLANNING Project No. 20-020-01 Project Manager: Shalini Kannan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $83,000 to the City of San José to prepare a plan and environmental review documents for a 1.4 mile segment of the Five Wounds Trail, which is part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail in Santa Clara County. LOCATION: City of San José, Santa Clara County (see Exhibit 1) PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location Maps Exhibit 2: Maps and Photos Exhibit 3: Project Support Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31165 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes the disbursement of up to eighty-three thousand dollars ($83,000) to the City of San José to prepare a plan and environmental review documents for an approximately 1.4 mile segment of the Five Wounds Trail, a part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail in Santa Clara County." Prior to commencement of the project, the grantee shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy (Executive Officer) the following: 1. A detailed work program, schedule, and budget. 2. Names and qualifications of any contractors to be retained in carrying out the project. 3. A plan for acknowledgment of Conservancy funding. Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: Page 1 of 7 PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS: SAN JOSE TRAIL PLANNING “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds
    Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds Suggested Citation: Crist, P.J., S. Veloz, J. Wood, R. White, M. Chesnutt, C. Scott, P. Cutter, and G. Dobson. Coastal Resilience Assessment of the San Francisco Bay and Outer Coast Watersheds. 2019. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER: This report represents a Regional Coastal Resilience Assessment that can be used to identify places on the landscape for resilience-building efforts and conservation actions through understanding coastal flood threats, the exposure of populations and infrastructure have to those threats, and the presence of suitable fish and wildlife habitat. As with all remotely sensed or publicly available data, all features should be verified with a site visit, as the locations of suitable landscapes or areas containing flood hazards and community assets are approximate. The data, maps, and analysis provided should be used only as a screening-level resource to support management decisions. This report should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for permitting or other legal purposes. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government, or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s partners. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or its funding sources. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION DISCLAIMER: The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of NOAA or the Department of Commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Valley Agriculture Feasibility Study Phase 1 Report
    CONSERVING COYOTE VALLEY AGRICULTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE ONE REPORT Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE) March 2012 Page 2 Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................7 Background........................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Inspiration, Purpose and Phasing ............................................................................................ 7 Components of Phase One Feasibility Study ........................................................................................ 8 Overview of Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................9 Current Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Location and Regional Context ............................................................................................................ 9 Acreage, Parcelization and Major Land Uses ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Facilities and Programs CHAPTER 4
    Facilities & Programs CHAPTER 4_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER 4 Facilities & Programs The City operates and maintains a wide array of San José Family Camp recreation facilities to provide a high quality of life Non-City owned parks and recreation facilities in San José. Under the direction of the Parks, include land owned by Santa Clara County Recreation and Neighborhood Services Open Space Authority (OSA), Santa Clara Department (PRNS), the City provides and County Parks and Recreation, Santa Clara manages approximately 3,520 acres of parks Valley Water District (SCVWD) and various (regional/city-wide and neighborhood/ School Districts community), community gardens and open space lands. In addition, the City has plans for Following is a partial list of the programs and implementation to bestow over a 100-mile services the Department is currently responsible network of multi-use trails and greenways. PRNS for or participates in: also provides management for over 50 community facilities to serve the indoor recreational needs of a Mayors Gang Prevention Task Force growing urban population. Youth Intervention Services Safe School Campus Initiative (SSCI) Following is a list of these City and non-City Striving Towards Achievement with New owned and managed facilities: Direction (STAND) Clean Slate Parks San José Bringing Everyone’s Strengths Neighborhood/Community Parks Together (BEST) Citywide/Regional Parks After School Programs and
    [Show full text]
  • Angel Rios, Deputy City Manager Supervising Parks. Jon Cicirelli
    Angel Rios, Deputy City Manager supervising parks. Jon Cicirelli, Interim PRNS Director Nicolle Burnham, Deputy PRNS Director Yves Zsutty, GreenPrint Project Manager Janine Bray, GreenPrint Acting Staff Specialist re: Some thoughts and comments on the SJ GreenPrint (aka “Activate SJ”?) Hello, all, I, as a Taskforce member, am writing some thoughts down so that they can be considered for the GreenPrint update. I am sad that, since this (possibly last) GreenPrint Taskforce meeting was rescheduled to a time when I had a pre-disclosed conflict, I will probably have to leave early. And, as there is no draft of the GreenPrint for us to review, it is all the more difficult to give comments, as some of these points may already have been addressed in your working draft. Having served on both the original 2000 GreenPrint Taskforce and on the 2009 Update effort, I feel that the current process is “disjointed”. Part of this is due to the change in personnel, both on the project and in the department. There has been too long of a gap in the process, and additional meetings are needed to get the Taskforce back up to speed and for Staff to be able to receive their comments. There should also be a very public review process of the final draft: you want the community to “buy in” and support both the plan and parks in general. In case this actually is the last meeting of the GreenPrint Taskforce, here are some of my thoughts, questions, and recommendations. Some basic overriding thoughts and comments: Parks are very important for our city – any city! – as they help keep the residents physically healthy and active.
    [Show full text]