October 29, 2020 Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

October 29, 2020 Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Members 200 E. Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 RE: Envision San Jose General Plan 2040 4-Year Review Letter of Support to Change Coyote Valley Land Use Designations to Align with Conservation Values Dear Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Members: We, at the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (“Authority”), write to you today to provide our overwhelming support for specific land use designation recommendations related to Coyote Valley, as outlined in the City of San Jose Staff Memorandum (“Memo”) dated October 22, 2020. We highly applaud City staff’s work to outline these visionary zoning and land use changes as part of the 4-year Review of Envision San Jose General Plan 2040. Since San Jose’s voters passed Measure T in 2018, and the City of San Jose contributed to the protection of 937 acres of critical wildlife connectivity and floodplain protection in North Coyote Valley, there has been significant additional recognition of this landscape of statewide importance and awareness of the benefits this place can provide for all residents of and visitors to San Jose. A complete summary that outlines the Case for Coyote Valley Conservation (“CCVC”) is attached for your review as strong rationale for our support, and to urge you to vote to forward the Memo recommendations to the City Council for their approval. Through our strong partnerships, most notably with the Peninsula Open Space Trust (“POST”) and others at the local, regional, and state levels, the Authority has been a leader in fostering the science, policies, and funding opportunities that continue to demonstrate the significance of and unprecedented momentum to protect Coyote Valley. More than ever, regional leaders recognize how, through a nature-based and conservation-focused lens, Coyote Valley’s natural and working landscapes can support local and regional environmental and economic sustainability. In addition to the attached CCVC, I have attached our 2018 Coyote Valley Primer (“CVP”) which summarizes the integral conservation values that this landscape affords 33 Las Colinas Lane San Jose, CA 95119 408.224.7476 T 408.224.7548 F openspaceauthority.org and why it is critical that the City’s 4 Year Review align with this conservation landscape potential. The CVP illustrates how these natural and working lands provide an integrated, holistic and nature-based approach to create a new conservation paradigm for this unique landscape. Lastly, the Coyote Valley Master Plan Brochure (“CVMPB”) outlines the key next steps, many of which we have already started, to engage our culturally diverse communities in an inclusive plan for conservation and long-term ecological and hydrological restoration. Through a unique, long-term partnership with POST and the City of San Jose, the Authority will lead a collaborative and science-based planning process for Coyote Valley. The Task Force’s decisions will shape the planning process and related outcomes to realize a bigger, bolder vision for San Jose’s last remaining farmland, open space, floodplain, wetlands and other natural and working lands. We also support the staff’s recommendation to develop a mitigation credits program that could provide a stronger connection between protected natural infrastructure and nature-based wellness and the urban communities that so greatly benefit from it. This will be a critical tool for these natural and working lands to serve as a signature climate resilience solution that supports San Jose’s long-term sustainability and economic viability. Thank you very much, Task Force Members, for your hard work and bold vision on Envision San Jose General Plan 2040, including consideration of the advancement of these recommendations to the City Council for approval. We very much look forward to our continued partnership with all of you, City staff, and the citizens of San Jose, to create a national model for conservation-based land use policy and to work together to see this VISION realized for future generations. Sincere regards, Andrea Mackenzie, General Manager Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Attachments Attachment 1. The Case for Coyote Valley Conservation (CCVC) Attachment 2. Coyote Valley Primer (CVP) Attachment 3. Coyote Valley Master Plan Brochure (CVMPB) cc Authority Board of Directors 2 Envision San Jose General Plan 2040 4-Year Review Support Letter from Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Attachment 1 Envision San Jose General Plan 2040 The Case for Coyote Valley Conservation October 29, 2020 Prepared by Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Updated Policy and Planning Context to Support an Integrated Conservation Vision for Coyote Valley, San Jose, California Unique Partnership with City of San Jose-Peninsula Open Space Trust- Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority One Valley One Vision Purpose ➢ Inform City’s General Plan 4 Year Review/Conserve Coyote Valley Landmark Land and Water Conservation Partnership Model • City of San Jose $50M investment for natural infrastructure (Implementation of Measure T) • POST $50M Investment and long-term vision for Coyote Valley Conservation • Authority Funding Match and Management in Perpetuity Local, City and State-wide Policy and Conservation Investment • Significant public funds well over $100M have been invested in Coyote Valley, and development of this region under current zoning will undermine this effort and breach the public trust. • Industrial and residential zoning are incompatible with the City of San Jose’s investment in Coyote Valley through Measure T. • Additional funding pouring into the region (see below) to support conservation and master planning for the North Coyote Valley Conservation Area (“NCVCA”) are living proof that conservation and agriculture are the highest and best uses for Coyote Valley. • Agricultural uses are directly and negatively impacted by conversion of Coyote Valley vacant lands to housing, industrial development, and other resource-intensive uses. • The cost of these resource-intensive uses will be paid in myriad negative ways such as incompatibility with restoration, wildlife habitat and corridors and agriculture as well as direct costs such as increased greenhouse gas emissions that the City will pay for decades to come. • The City and Authority investment in Climate Smart San Jose (“CSSJ”) Phase 2 related to protection of natural and working lands demonstrates additional investment in the protection of Coyote Valley; development as per current zoning will not allow the City to reach its Climate Smart goals, costing millions over decades. Additional Investment in Coyote Valley Land Conservation • Since the City’s November 2019 investment though Measure T, there has been significant public investment to preserve open space in and adjacent to Coyote Valley to support the Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage vision and the City’s 2018 Measure T o City and OSA acquired the 16-acre Weyhe property as an addition to the City’s Tulare Meadows holding in North Coyote Valley—this includes vital flood protection infrastructure along Fisher Creek o OSA acquired the 235-acre Sobrato South property with $15M secured from the State Coastal Conservancy and Wildlife Conservation Board to support habitat and floodplain preservation o POST acquired the 60-acre Kuzia property in mid Coyote Valley for habitat and floodplain preservation, and will transfer the property to OSA for long-term public ownership o OSA and POST are working to protect additional multi-benefit properties in Coyote Valley to support the vision of natural and working lands for habitat connectivity, floodplain preservation, and climate resilience – negotiations are underway with willing landowners covering hundreds of acres of key properties o OSA, POST and the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency are coordinating to expedite enrollment of Laguna Seca and other protected North Coyote Valley properties into the Habitat Agency Reserve System; enrolling lands provides funding for stewardship from the Habitat Agency and helps the Agency meet its stay-ahead provisions associated with regional permitting; this process can leverage an additional $6-11M in funding from US Fish and Wildlife Service and the state Wildlife Conservation Board to support enrollment o Tilton Ranch CONSERVED!!!!! Major acquisition of 1860 acres adjacent to Authority’s Coyote Valley Open Space Preserve (CVAL) secures a major link to mid and south Valley lands in the region, securing a major link in protected land between CVAL and the City of Morgan Hill. This purchase further bridges the gap of private lands adjacent to the City of San Jose’s investment in the NCVCA assemblage. This includes $15M in public and foundation funding to leverage the regional investments made in Coyote Valley. Landscape Scale Climate Resilience • Coyote Valley is the City’s “resilience focal landscape” in the face of climate change and weather- based emergencies. The City must act NOW and with urgency to ensure that its people, infrastructure, and urbanized areas are protected from devastating climate-based catastrophes (see recent City Climate Emergency Declaration). • Coyote Valley serves as the City’s regional landscape scale defensible space against wildfires and is the City’s wildland urban interface. Recent wildfires in the region resulted in more than 400,000 acres in the nearby Diablo Range and almost 80,000 in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It is critical to prevent further development in the Valley and maintain an important large-scale buffer of protected
Recommended publications
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California

    Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
  • 1982 Flood Report

    1982 Flood Report

    GB 1399.4 S383 R4 1982 I ; CLARA VAltEY WATER DISlRIDl LIBRARY 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSYIAY SAN JOSE. CAUFORN!A 9Sll8 REPORT ON FLOODING AND FLOOD RELATED DAMAGES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY January 1 to April 30, 1982 Prepared by John H. Sutcliffe Acting Division Engineer Operations Division With Contributions From Michael McNeely Division Engineer Design Division and Jeanette Scanlon Assistant Civil Engineer Design Division Under the Direction of Leo F. Cournoyer Assistant Operations and Maintenance Manager and Daniel F. Kriege Operations and Maintenance Manager August 24, 1982 DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Arthur T. Pfeiffer, Chairman District 1 James J. Lenihan District 5 Patrick T. Ferraro District 2 Sio Sanchez. Vice Chairman At Large Robert W. Gross District 3 Audrey H. Fisher At large Maurice E. Dullea District 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCrfION .......................... a ••••••••••••••••••• 4 •• Ill • 1 STORM OF JANUARY 3-5, 1982 .•.•.•.•.•••••••.••••••••.••.••.••.••••. 3 STORMS OF MARCH 31 THROUGH APRIL 13, 1982 ••.....••••••.•••••••••••• 7 SUMMARY e • • • • • • • • • : • 111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1111 o e • e • • o • e • e o e • e 1111 • • • • • e • e 12 TABLES I Storm Rainfall Summary •••••••••.••••.•••••••.••••••••••••• 14 II Historical Rainfall Data •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 III Channel Flood Flow Summary •••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 16 IV Historical Stream flow Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 V January 3-5, 1982 Damage Assessment Summary •••••••••••••••••• 18 VI March 31 - April 13, 1982 Damage
  • NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OCTOBER 2005 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT Brian C. Spence Scott L. Harris Weldon E. Jones Matthew N. Goslin Aditya Agrawal Ethan Mora NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-383 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), organized in 1970, has evolved into an agency which establishes national policies and manages and conserves our oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. An organizational element within NOAA, the Office of Fisheries is responsible for fisheries policy and the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition to its formal publications, the NMFS uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series, however, reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. Disclaimer of endorsement: Reference to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of NOAA or the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information.
  • CREEK & WATERSHED MAP Morgan Hill & Gilroy

    CREEK & WATERSHED MAP Morgan Hill & Gilroy

    POINTS OF INTEREST 1. Coyote Creek Parkway Trailhead. Coyote Creek Parkway is a remaining sycamores dot the landscape, creating a beautiful setting to Springs Trail to follow Center Creek into its headwater canyons. The trail paved trail following Coyote Creek for 15 miles from southern San Jose savor the streamside serenity. will eventually cross over into the headwaters of New Creek as it rises to Morgan Hill. Popular with walkers, bikers, equestrians, and skaters, toward the summit of Coyote Ridge, 1.5 miles from the trailhead. much of this trail passes through rural scenery. View riparian woodland 4. Anderson Dam and Reservoir. Anderson dam, built in 1950, species such as big-leaf maple, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, and impounds Coyote Creek, the largest stream in the Santa Clara Valley. The 12. Coyote Lake. Streams carry water and sediment from the hills to the coast live oak along the trail. The oaks produce acorns, which were an dam backs up a deep reservoir, which can store 90,000 acre-feet of water, ocean; damming a stream blocks the flow of both. Sediment typically important source of food to the Native Americans, and still serve many the largest reservoir in Santa Clara Valley. Like SCVWD’s nine other deposits where the stream first enters the lake, forming a broad plain Coyote animal species today. reservoirs built between 1935 and 1957, Anderson Reservoir’s major called a delta. From the county park campground, enjoy a beautiful view purpose is to store wintertime runoff for groundwater recharge during the of the delta of Coyote Creek, Coyote Lake, and the valley below.
  • Flooding... to Report... Creeks That Flood

    Flooding... to Report... Creeks That Flood

    Flooding... Creeks that flood To report... can happen during an intense rainfall, but These Santa Clara County creeks are flood prone: street flooding or blocked storm drains, typically occurs after several days of heavy Adobe Creek Los Gatos Creek or to contact your local floodplain rain. After the ground is saturated flooding can Alamias Creek Lower Penitencia Creek manager call: occur very quickly with little or no warning if a Alamitos Creek Lower Silver Creek Loyola Creek Campbell 408.866.2145 particularly powerful storm burst occurs. While Almendra Creek Arroyo Calero Creek McAbee Creek Cupertino 408.777.3269 the water district’s many reservoirs provide some Barron Creek Pajaro River buffer between rainfall and creekflow, most Berryessa Creek Permanente Creek Gilroy 408.846.0444 creeks do not have a reservoir and water levels Bodfish Creek Purissima Creek Los Altos 650.947.2785 rise quickly during intense rainstorms. Calabazas Creek Quimby Creek Calera Creek Randol Creek Los Altos Hills 650.941.7222 Calero Creek Ross Creek Los Gatos 408.399.5770 When creeks overbank, the floodwater typically San Francisquito Creek Canoas Creek Milpitas 408.586.2400 flows swiftly through neighborhoods and Corralitos Creek San Martin Creek away from streams. Dangerously fast-moving Coyote Creek San Tomas Aquino Creek Monte Sereno 408.354.7635 floodwaters can flow thousands of feet away Crosley Creek Santa Teresa Creek Morgan Hill 408.776.7333 Deer Creek Saratoga Creek from the flooded creek within minutes. Dexter Creek Shannon Creek Mountain View
  • Sonoma County

    Sonoma County

    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration SONOMA COUNTY Petaluma River Watershed The Petaluma River watershed lies within portions of Marin and Sonoma Counties. The river flows in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction into San Pablo Bay. Petaluma River In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that the Petaluma River was an historical migration route and habitat for steelhead (Skinner 1962). At that time, the creek was said to be “lightly used” as steelhead habitat (Skinner 1962). In July 1968, DFG surveyed portions of the Petaluma River accessible by automobile from the upstream limit of tidal influence to the headwaters. No O. mykiss were observed (Thomson and Michaels 1968d). Leidy electrofished upstream from the Corona Road crossing in July 1993. No salmonids were found (Leidy 2002). San Antonio Creek San Antonio Creek is a tributary of Petaluma River and drains an area of approximately 12 square miles. The channel is the border between Sonoma and Marin Counties. In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that San Antonio Creek was an historical migration route for steelhead (Skinner 1962).
  • Coyote Valley Agriculture Feasibility Study Phase 1 Report

    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 ......................................................................................
  • Status of Coho Salmon in California

    Status of Coho Salmon in California

    Status of Coho Salmon in California Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service By: Larry R. Brown and Peter B. Moyle Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1 July 1991 2 Table of Contents Foreward...........................................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................5 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................9 Life History......................................................................................................................................11 Distribution and Status......................................................................................................................12 Hatchery Populations .......................................................................................................................12 Wild Populations..............................................................................................................................16 Smith River..........................................................................................................................17 Klamath River......................................................................................................................18 Redwood Creek..................................................................................................................25
  • Chapter 2 Identification and Description of Santa Clara Basin Watershed

    Chapter 2 Identification and Description of Santa Clara Basin Watershed

    Chapter 2 Identification and Description of Santa Clara Basin Watershed 2.1 Santa Clara Basin Watershed and Sub-Watershed Boundaries The planning area for the SWRP4 is the Santa Clara Basin Watershed (Figure 2-1). It is located within Santa Clara County at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay. This watershed generally follows the boundaries defined by the USGS HUC 8 digit “Coyote” watershed with some minor adjustments made by SCVURPPP to account for catchment areas that have changed with urbanization and modifications to the built environment. The watershed comprises 709 square miles. Figure 2-1. Santa Clara Basin Watershed (SWRP Planning Area) (Source: EOA, Inc., 2018) 4 Refer to the List of Abbreviations on page v for all abbreviations. 2-1 There are two significant areas of Santa Clara County that are outside of the SWRP planning area and not addressed by this SWRP. The northeastern part of the County is in a watershed that drains to Alameda County. It is largely undeveloped and will not be a primary focus area for stormwater facility planning or implementation in Santa Clara County. The southern end of Santa Clara County (“South County”), including the Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, was excluded because it is in the Pajaro River watershed and does not drain to San Francisco Bay. Thus, South County is not part of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 2 or the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan region, and it is not covered by the San Francisco Bay Region MRP. This area is part of Region 3, under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  • 1995 Flood Report

    1995 Flood Report

    REPORT ON FLOODING AND FLOOD RELATED DAMAGES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY JANUARY AND MARCH 1995 Prepared by Flood Control Planning Division and Hydrologic Systems Section with assistance from Hydrology Division DECEMBER 1995 RI0130 .... TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 WEATHER ...................................................... 3 STORM OF JANUARY 9-10, 1995 . 4 NORTHWEST ZONE . 4 Adobe Creek . 4 Hale Creek . 4 San Francisquito Creek . 4 Barron Creek . 4 Permanente Creek . 4 CENTRAL ZONE . 4 Guadalupe River . 4 Ross Creek . 5 Canoas Creek . 5 Calero Creek . 5 EAST ZONE ................................................. 5 Upper Penitencia Creek . 5 SOUTH ZONE . 5 West Little Llagas Creek . 5 STORM OF MARCH 10, 1995 . 6 NORTHWEST ZONE . 6 Hale Creek . 6 CENTRAL ZONE . 6 Guadalupe River . 6 EAST ZONE ................................................. 6 Fisher Creek . 6 SOUTH ZONE . 7 Rucker Creek and Skillet Creek . 7 Burchell Creek . 7 Uvas Creek . 7 Day Creek . 7 West Branch Llagas Creek . 7 West Little Llagas Creek . 7 East Little Llagas Creek . 7 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ........ : . 8 Rl0130 Page TABLES TABLE 1 Rainfall Data January 8-12, 1995 9 TABLE 2 Rainfall Data March 8-12, 1995 . 10 TABLE 3 Historic Maximum Rainfall Events . 11 TABLE4 Preliminary Peak Flow Values for Various Streams in Santa Clara County During 1994-1995 . 12 FIGURES FIGURE 1 48-Hour Storm Totals-January 1995 13 FIGURE 2 48-Hour Storm Totals-March 1995 . 14 FIGURE 3 Hydrograph-Guadalupe River Near St. John Street . 15 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Situation Summary and Damage Estimates From the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services APPENDIX B Maps and Photographs January 1995 Flooding Maps March 1995 Flooding Maps Flooding Photographs Rl0130 ii INTRODUCTION Significant flooding occurred in Santa Clara County as a result of the stonns of January 9 to 10, 1995, and March 9 to 11, 1995.
  • Santa Clara County, California and Incorporated Areas Volume 1 of 4

    SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 4 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER CAMPBELL, CITY OF 060338 CUPERTINO, CITY OF 060339 GILROY, CITY OF 060340 LOS ALTOS, CITY OF 060341 LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF 060342 LOS GATOS, TOWN OF 060343 MILPITAS, CITY OF 060344 MONTE SERENO, CITY OF 060345 MORGAN HILL, CITY OF 060346 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF 060347 PALO ALTO, CITY OF 060348 SAN JOSE, CITY OF 060349 SANTA CLARA, CITY OF 060350 SARATOGA, CITY OF 060351 SUNNYVALE, CITY OF 060352 SANTA CLARA COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 060337 REVISED: February 19, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06085CV001B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: May 18, 2009 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: February 19, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents – Volume 1 - February 19, 2014 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 10 2.0 AREA STUDIED.........................................................................................