final draft program document for martial cottle park ......martial cottle park master plan ii final...

MARTIAL COTTLE PARK MASTER PLAN FINAL DRAFT

PROGRAM DOCUMENT

Photograph of Martial Cottle taken at Cottle Ranch in 1951, courtesy of the Donor, included as part of Oral History

Submitted to:

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department 298 Garden Hill Drive

Los Gatos, California 95032

Prepared by: Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC

with Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE)

and Economic Planning Systems (EPS)

March, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Task Force

Rachael Gibson, Office of Supervisor Donald Gage, District 1 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Greg West, Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Commission Erik Karstan Smith, City of San Jose Parks & Recreation Commission James C. Rowen, Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission Mike Potter, Office of Assemblymember Joe Coto, District 23 Frances Grammer, Office of Assemblymember Jim Beall, Jr., District 24 Virginia Holtz, Board of Directors for Santa Clara County Open Space Authority Eric Crane, Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle, District 10 City of San Jose City

Council Kevin O’Day, Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture & Environmental

Management and Deputy Agricultural Commissioner Adina Pierce, VEP Community Association – Executive Board Frank Giordano, Agent/Representative for Mr. Walter Cottle Lester (Donor) Charlie Friedericks, Member-at-large R. Brian Gardiner, Member-at-large Rob Iverson, Member-at-large Bruce Medlin, Member-at-large Laura Monczynski, Member-at-large Marilyn Rodgers, VEP Community Association – Executive Board (Alternate for Adina

Pierce) Stephanie Holm, Office of Councilmember Nancy Pyle, District 10 City of San Jose City

Council (Alternate for Eric Crane) Julie Matsushima, City of San Jose Parks & Recreation Commission (Alternate for Erik

Karstan Smith) Craig Giordano, Agent/Representative for Mr. Walter Cottle Lester (Alternate for Frank

Giordano)

Technical Advisory Committee

Non-Governmental Organizations Reggie Knox, CA FarmLink Brett Melone, Agricultural and Land-Based Training Association (ALBA) Preston Maring, Kaiser Permanente John Silveira, Pacific Coast Farmers' Market Association

Martial Cottle Park Master Plan ii Final Draft Program Document March, 2008

Joanne Baumgartner, WildFarm Alliance

Businesses Mark Zammit, Bon Appetit Food Service Larry Bain Jesse Cool, Flea Street Café

City of San José Timm Borden, Public Works Department Dave Mitchell, Parks, Rec. & Neighborhood Services (Parks Planning Dept.) Marybeth Carter, Parks, Rec. & Neighborhood Services (Capital Projects Program) John Brazil, Department of Transportation Bicycle Program Akoni Danielson, Planning Services Division (Long-range planning) Vera Gomes, Ann Sobrato High School, Morgan Hill Unified School District

Santa Clara County Janet Leader, Public Health Department Olivas Guadalupe, PhD, Public Health Department (Administration) Bill Shoe, Planning & Development Department Greg Van Wassenhove, Department of Agriculture & Environmental Management Kevin O' Day, Division of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Environmental

Management Patrick Love, County Executive Office Special Projects Program (County Fair) Naresh Duggal, County Integrated Pest Management Program Fletcher Dobbs, Division of Animal Care & Control, Department of Agriculture &

Environmental Management Ben Gale, Department of Environmental Health Dana Peak, Historic Preservation Program and Williamson Act Program Michelle DeRobertis, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Anita Parsons, Office of Education (Environmental Education) City/County Agencies Molly Sealund, Merritt College Landscape Horticulture Neelima Palacherla, Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo)

Regional Agencies East Bay Regional Park District Brad Olson, Parks Administration Headquarters Ira Bletz, Ardenwood Historic Farm

Martial Cottle Park Master Plan iii Final Draft Program Document March, 2008

Yvonne Provaznik, Ardenwood Historic Farm

Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

Patrick Congdon, Open Space Authority

Santa Clara Valley Water District Sue Tippets, Community Projects Review Unit Colleen Haggerty, Community Projects Review Unit Judy Ingols, Vegetation Management Unit

State Agencies Maria de la Fuente, UC Cooperative Extension - Santa Clara County Hans Toensfeldt, UC Cooperative Extension 4-H Program – Santa Clara County Michael Kent, UC Cooperative Extension Master Gardeners Program – Santa Clara

County Aziz Baameur, UC Cooperative Extension - Santa Clara County Larry Yee, UC Cooperative Extension - Ventura County Patricia Allen, UCSC Agroecology Program Jim Leap, UCSC Agroecology Program Shermain Hardesty, UC Small Farm Center Kristin Reynolds, UC Davis Small Farm Program Beth Thomas, California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)

Project Team

Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Department Jane Mark, Project Manager/Senior Planner Lisa Killough, Director Jim O'Connor, Deputy Director, Operations & Maintenance Julie Mark, Deputy Director, Administration Matt Anderson, Chief Park Ranger/Park Operations Manager Mark Frederick, Construction Services Capital Projects Manager Ed Souza, Customer & Business Services Manager Kathleen Hooper, Outdoor Recreation Program Manager Robin Schaut, Interpretive Program Supervisor Don Rocha, Natural Resources Management Program Supervisor Tamara Clark-Shear, Public Information Officer/Management Analyst Eric Goodrich, Supervising Park Ranger

Martial Cottle Park Master Plan iv Final Draft Program Document March, 2008

Julie Lee, Senior Park Ranger Gina Ellis, Park Ranger, Hellyer Unit George Santiago, Park Maintenance Supervisor, Region 2 John Patterson, Project Unit Supervisor, Maintenance Program Mary Berger, Park Interpreter Elish Ryan, Park Planner

California State Parks Dave Keck, General Plan Unit Manager / Senior Landscape Architect Kenneth Gray, Section Leader, Monterey District Mathew Fuzie, District Superintendent, Monterey District Patricia Clark-Gray, District Interpretive Specialist, Monterey District Matt Bischoff, Historian III Eddie Guaracha, Sector Superintendent, Gavilan Sector of Monterey District Rae Schwaderer, Associate Archaeologist, Monterey District

Mr. Walter Cottle Lester's Agents/Representatives Frank Giordano Craig Giordano, Alternate

County Board of Supervisors, District 1 Representative (Supervisor Don Gage) Rachael Gibson, Policy Aide

Santa Clara County Open Space Authority Rachel Santos, Planner II

Consultant Team

Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC Stephen Hammond, Principal-in-Charge Jacob Tobias, Project Manager

LSA Associates, Inc. Laura Lafler, Principal Kristin Granback, Project Manager

Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE) Sibella Kraus, President

Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) Jason Moody, Principal

Martial Cottle Park Master Plan v Final Draft Program Document March, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of Program Document....................................................................................... 1

Park Location .................................................................................................................. 1

Project History ................................................................................................................ 1

Donor’s Vision................................................................................................................ 2

State/County Partnership ................................................................................................ 3

Outline of Master Plan Process....................................................................................... 4

Roles of the Project Team, Task Force, and Technical Advisory Committee................ 4

Public and Agency Participation Process and Community Outreach............................. 6

Local, Regional and Statewide Context .......................................................................... 8

Area’s Agricultural Heritage and Importance................................................................. 8

Agricultural Preservation Movement in Santa Clara County ......................................... 9

Complementary Park and Recreation Resources in the Region ................................... 10

Characterization of County and State Parks ................................................................. 14

Characterization of Surrounding Community............................................................... 16

Regulatory Overview.................................................................................................... 18

Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 27

Site Description............................................................................................................. 27

Natural Resources ......................................................................................................... 27

Topography................................................................................................................... 27

Meteorology.................................................................................................................. 27

Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 28

Geology......................................................................................................................... 28

Soils............................................................................................................................... 29

Martial Cottle Park Master Plan vi Final Draft Program Document March, 2008

Plant Life....................................................................................................................... 30

Animal Life................................................................................................................... 31

Ecology ......................................................................................................................... 32

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 33

Archeological Sites and Standing Structures................................................................ 33

Cultural Background..................................................................................................... 34

Aesthetic Resources ...................................................................................................... 35

Recreation Resources.................................................................................................... 35

Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 36

Noise Environment ....................................................................................................... 37

Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 38

Traffic/Circulation ........................................................................................................ 42

Utilities.......................................................................................................................... 44

Fiscal and Financial Overview...................................................................................... 46

Recreation and Interpretive Trends.............................................................................. 54

Demographic Trends that May Impact Martial Cottle Park ......................................... 54

Farming Trends............................................................................................................. 56

Recreation Demand and Use Trends............................................................................. 57

Childhood Obesity Trend.............................................................................................. 58

Importance of the Park in Meeting the Recreational and Open Space Needs of the Community ................................................................................................................... 58

Master Plan Vision, Goals and Objectives ................................................................... 60

State and County Parks Mission Statements................................................................. 60

Donor’s Vision.............................................................................................................. 60

Goals & Objectives ....................................................................................................... 60

1. Recreation ............................................................................................................. 61

Martial Cottle Park Master Plan vii Final Draft Program Document March, 2008

2. Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 62

3. Education and Interpretation................................................................................. 62

4. Natural Resources ................................................................................................. 63

5. Visual and Scenic Resources ................................................................................ 64

6. Land Use ............................................................................................................... 64

7. Circulation and Access ......................................................................................... 65

8. Management, Funding and Implementation ......................................................... 66

Opportunities and Constraints ...................................................................................... 69

Natural Resources - Fauna ............................................................................................ 69

Natural Resources - Flora ............................................................................................. 70

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 71

Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 72

Access and Circulation ................................................................................................. 73

Visual and Aesthetic Character..................................................................................... 74

Utilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 74

Program Elements .......................................................................................................... 76

Introduction................................................................................................................... 76

Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 80

Agriculture .................................................................................................................... 89

Education ...................................................................................................................... 99

Community and Visitor-Serving Uses ........................................................................ 107

Natural Resources ....................................................................................................... 112

Access and Circulation ............................................................................................... 118

Operations ................................................................................................................... 126

Parkland Classification ................................................................................................ 130

Martial Cottle Park Master Plan viii Final Draft Program Document March, 2008

State Parks Classification and Naming Process.......................................................... 130

County Parks Regional Parkland Classification ......................................................... 130

References...................................................................................................................... 133

Appendix A: Meeting Summaries and Public Input ................................................. 134

• Project Team Meetings ....................................................................................... 134

• Technical Advisory Committee Meeting............................................................ 134

• Task Force Meetings 1........................................................................................ 134

• Public Workshop................................................................................................. 134

• Public Input......................................................................................................... 134

Appendix B: Project Background and References .................................................... 135

• Grant Deeds ........................................................................................................ 135

• Donor’s Vision Plan............................................................................................ 135

• Easement Agreement for Trail Connection South of Highway 85 ..................... 135

• Joint Powers and Operating Agreement ............................................................. 135

List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Location

Figure 2: Project Site Map

Figure 3: Donor’s Vision (2003)

Figure 4: County Parks

Figure 5: Hydrological Features

Figure 6: Park Soils

Figure 7: Opportunities and Constraints – Resources

Figure 8: Opportunities and Constraints – Land Use

Figure 9: Opportunities and Constraints – Access and Circulation

Figure 10: Parkland Classification

Martial Cottle Park Master Plan 1 Final Draft Program Document March, 2008

PROJECT INTRODUCTION Purpose of Program Document

This Program Document establishes the groundwork for development of the Martial Cottle Park Master Plan. The document summarizes key project attributes that are important to the continuing planning effort, including: the project’s history; the Donor’s Vision; the site’s regional and regulatory context; the inventory and analysis of existing site conditions1; the goals for the master plan; potential park program elements that need to be explored further in design alternatives; and any opportunities or constraints to development of recreational and educational activities or to conservation of natural and cultural resources.

The Program Document concludes the third phase of the master planning process. The next phase of the process will be to develop and evaluate a series of project alternatives, from which a preferred master plan alternative will be identified and further studied as part of the environmental review of the project.

Park Location

The 287.54-acre Martial Cottle Park (“Park”) is an unincorporated island located in a fully developed suburban area in southeastern San Jose. The Park is bounded by Snell Avenue, a four lane north-south arterial roadway on the east; Branham Lane, a two lane east-west arterial on the north; Chynoweth Avenue, a four lane, east-west collector street, and State Highway 85, an eight lane freeway, to the south; and residential uses on the west and the southeast (Figures 1 and 2).

Project History

Martial Cottle Park is one of the few remaining examples of the Santa Clara Valley’s rich agricultural heritage that still exists in what is now an almost entirely urbanized portion of Santa Clara County. The Park is a remnant of what was once known—prior to its incarnation as ‘Silicon Valley’—as the “Valley of the Heart’s Delight,” because of its robust agriculture. The Park site is also significant in the history of the Santa Clara Valley because it has been continuously farmed by the Cottle and Lester families for nearly 150 years, from 1864 to the present.

The property was originally part of the extensive Rancho de Santa Teresa land holdings granted to the Bernal family by the Mexican governor in 1834. In 1864, Edward Cottle, who had immigrated to the area a decade earlier, purchased a portion of the rancho to farm and settle his family on. Edward Cottle later deeded 350 acres to his son, Martial

1 This Program Document summarizes information regarding the project’s history, regional and regulatory context and existing site conditions contained in the November, 2007, Martial Cottle Park Draft Resource Inventory.


Cottle, who used the property for growing grain and row crops and raising cattle. Martial and Edith Cottle had five children, most of who continued to live on and operate the ranch after Martial Sr.’s death in 1909. In 1914, Ethel Cottle, youngest daughter to Martial and Edith, married Henry W. Lester, who owned 130 acres on the east side of Snell Road and would become one of the largest prune growers in the Valley. They had two children, Mr. Walter Cottle Lester, the Park donor, and his sister, Edith Ethel Lester. Henry Lester passed away in 1956, but the ranch operations were taken over by Mr. Walter Lester’s Uncle Monty. Neither of the children married and both continued to live on the ranch, with Walter taking over operations of the ranch when his uncle died in 1943. The ranch passed to the two children in 1977 when Ethel Lester died, and then to Walter Cottle Lester, when his sister Edith Lester died in 1999.

The idea for an historical agricultural park originated with Ethel Lester, Martial’s heir and Walter’s mother, who wanted to preserve the home ranch for public use and benefit. In accordance with the wishes of Ethel Lester, negotiations for the transfer of the land were initiated by Ethel’s children, Edith and Walter Lester. These negotiations, which extended over a period of almost 30 years, were finalized in 2004 when Mr. Walter Lester, the sole remaining heir, transferred 136.52 acres of the site to the California State Parks (State Parks) and 151.02 acres Santa Clara County Parks (County Parks) with the understanding that State Parks and County Parks would jointly develop and operate the respective properties as a single public historic agricultural park. Conditions of the transfer stipulate that portions of the land will remain in agriculture in perpetuity and will offer agricultural education for the public use and benefit. The deed stipulations for the California State Parks and County Parks are described in more detailed below.

The transfer agreement also reserves full control over a 32-acre ‘Life Estate’ for Mr. Lester’s residence and use during his lifetime. It is important to note that while the Program Document addresses the 32-acre Life Estate conceptually in order to establish an overall theme and an accurate depiction of the park site, detailed programming will not be established for the Life Estate as part of this park’s master planning process. According to the property transfer agreement, the Life Estate will become part of the Martial Cottle Park upon the Donor’s passing, at which time detailed planning and programming of the 32-acre area will occur.

Donor’s Vision

The vision for the Park is that it be jointly developed, operated and maintained as a County-State Park in a manner that will show and display the agricultural heritage of Santa Clara County in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Consistent with the Donor’s vision, the land is to be utilized as an educational facility and working farm that promotes and sustains farming traditions.

The Donor’s Vision is expressed in the Donation Agreement/Grant Deeds to the State of California and Santa Clara County. These documents stipulate that the land will be used “exclusively as a public historical park that informs and educates the public about the agricultural heritage of the Santa Clara Valley, as exemplified by the Martial Cottle family, dating from the 1850s to the 20th century.”


The Donation Agreement/Grant Deeds set forth the following stipulations on park use:

• “No part of the property shall be used for high intensity, organized recreational uses such as athletic fields, playgrounds, tot lots, swimming pools (other than private residential pools), play courts, amusement rides or similar uses, nor as a repository for historic structures that are relocated from other sites.”

• “Property may be used for passive recreational activities such as picnic facilities, trails and other low intensity uses that may be incidental to the primary historical and educational purposes of the park, and for interpretive, passive recreational, agricultural education and research and commercial uses that are reasonably related to the history of farming in the Santa Clara Valley.”

• “Commercial uses such as agricultural leases, produce stands, community gardens, farmer’s markets, interpretive programs or similar uses may be allowed if reasonably related to the primary historical purpose of the park.”

The Grant Deeds include as an exhibit the 2003 Donor’s Vision plan, or “Seller’s Vision for Martial Cottle Park.” See Figure 3.

State/County Partnership

The Donor’s vision for the Park is that it be jointly developed, operated and maintained as a County-State park. Thus, the Park Master Plan Project is a collaborative planning effort between California State Parks and County Parks. Together, these two agencies will plan for a park of regional and statewide significance within the urban service area of San José that will reflect the Donor’s vision.

As requested by the Donor, the Park shall be named Martial Cottle Park. Once it is officially classified by the State Parks and Recreation Commission, it will become a unit within the State Parks system. However, the park will be exclusively developed, operated and managed by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (County Parks).

The Joint Powers and Operating Agreement (October 28, 2003) defines a collaborative planning process by the California State Parks and County Parks Department for the development of Martial Cottle Park as a combined State and County historic park. However, the County will be ultimately responsible for the development, operation and management of the State’s portion of the property together with the County’s donation under the terms outlined in the agreement. County Parks will also ensure the privacy of the Donor’s quiet use and enjoyment of the Life Estate and allow the Donor or his designee(s) to farm crops until Park development begins. State Parks will provide staff and other assistance as required to advise and assist County Parks in the preparation of the master plan for development and operation of the Park. At its discretion and subject to availability of funding, State Parks will assist County Parks with grant applications and in developing, implementing, and administering the agricultural interpretive program and facilities.


Achieving the Donor’s vision will require supportive actions through a variety of County-State partnerships, as well as the City of San José, special districts and agencies (such as the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management, Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, etc.) and various other regional, state, and federal agencies.

Outline of Master Plan Process

The Master Plan process, along with concurrent environmental review, will determine appropriate uses, access points and management objectives for the park. The master plan process is divided into six phases:

1. Project Initiation—includes data collection and an agricultural parks case studies report;

2. Understanding the Site and Planning Context—includes the Resource Inventory, Goals and Objectives, Site Opportunities and Constraints, and Economic Analysis;

3. Defining the Vision—includes program development, the Program Document, and the State and County Parks’ classification processes.

4. Design Development—includes alternatives exploration and identification of a preferred alternative;

5. Prepare the Master Plan—includes preparation of the Master Plan document based upon the preferred alternative; and

6. Environmental Review—includes environmental review of the Master Plan that complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

The draft final master plan, general plan and environmental review documentation would be approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and State Parks and Recreation Commission respectively. Prior to consideration by the Board and State Parks and Recreation Commission, the draft final master plan would be forwarded to the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Commission, the Board’s Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation (HLUET) Committee and the State’s Planning, Policy and Programming Committee (PPPC) for their recommendations.

Roles of the Project Team, Task Force, and Technical Advisory Committee

To ensure an inclusive and informed master planning process, three groups were formed to assist and provide input to the plan: the Master Plan Project Team, Task Force, and the Technical Advisory Committee. The Project Team, consisting of County Parks and State Parks staff, two County Parks Commissioners, the Donor’s representative, Policy Aide from the Office of Supervisor Don Gage, and staff from the Santa Clara County Open


Space Authority is responsible for working directly with the Master Plan consultant team to assist in plan development, review documents, and assist with public outreach.

The Task Force is an advisory group comprised of citizens and staff from state and local agencies whose purpose is to bring the diverse ideas and perspectives of the community into the planning process. Members of the Task Force represent a range of community, agricultural and recreational groups that have an interest in the park’s development.

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consists of representatives from the many local, state and federal agencies that may be affected by or involved in the development, regulation, and/or long-term operation of the park. The purpose of the TAC is to identify and provide input on technical and operational concerns that need to be addressed in the Master Plan and environmental review process. The public has an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the master planning process through participation at regular Task Force meetings and at community workshops that are scheduled at key milestones in the process.

Project Team, Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee Meetings

To date, the following Project Team, Task Force and TAC meetings have been held:

Project Team Meeting #1: Project initiation

Project Team Meeting #2: Site tour

Project Team Meeting #3: Review Draft Resource Inventory; Case Studies Report; and outcomes of TAC meeting, Task Force meeting, and Public Workshop

Project Team Meeting #4: Review Draft Opportunities and Constraints, Draft Goals and Objectives, initial program elements list, and preliminary State and County parkland classifications

Project Team Meeting #5: Review and comment on Draft Program Document

TAC Meeting #1: Project overview and open discussion

TAC Meeting #2: Review and comment on progress to date and Draft Program Document

Task Force Meeting #1: Project overview and open discussion regarding goals and objectives, opportunities and issues

Task Force Meeting #2: Review and comment on Draft Opportunities and Constraints and Draft Goals and Objectives

Task Force Meeting #3: Review and comment on Draft Program Document


Key Outcomes of Technical Advisory Committee and Task Force Meetings

TAC Meeting #1 The TAC generally expressed strong support for the Donor’s Vision for the Park and the overall planning process. Committee members offered their technical assistance and input to County Parks staff and consultants during the planning process. Issues discussed included boundary control, Branham Lane and Snell Avenue widening, agricultural uses and mitigation policies, recommended facilities and amenities, potential opportunities and constraints associated with the site (i.e. along Canoas Creek), program elements (i.e. equestrian use and livestock), and the existing natural resources (i.e. wildlife) of the park.

TAC Meeting #2 Comments were incorporated into the Final Draft Program Document.

Task Force Meeting #1 The Task Force committee members expressed strong support and excitement about the development of the Park. Issues that were identified early on included traffic and circulation, opportunities for the development of the agricultural components, educational programs, recreational uses (i.e. trails), natural resources preservation, historical and cultural interpretation, as well as concerns related to future security and maintenance of the developed park.

Task Force Meeting #2 The Task Force generally agreed with the Draft Opportunities and Constraints Analysis and the Draft Goals and Objectives. They commented on the draft documents, and provided direction on the specific nature of various facilities and program elements. Topics discussed included trails and access to and through the park property, the management of non-native species, opportunities for improvements within street rights-of-way, potential public health issues related to the siting of the agricultural components, the need for adequate buffers between uses, border control and security, alternative transportation within the park, affordable entrance fees, and the need to minimize potential negative impacts on neighboring residences.

Task Force Meeting #3

Comments were incorporated into the Final Draft Program Document.

Public and Agency Participation Process and Community Outreach

The Master Plan process includes three public workshops, scheduled at key milestones. The first public workshop, held on October 16, 2007, served the following purposes:

• Introduce the community to the park planning process

• Familiarize the community with the park site


• Solicit community input on issues and aspirations for the park

• Inform the planning team’s articulation of park goals, objectives and programs

At the public workshop, the community was asked to prioritize program elements for the park and to raise issues and concerns. Detailed comments are documented in the meeting summary for Community Workshop #1, which is included in Appendix A, Meeting Summaries.

The second public workshop will be held in the summer of 2008 and will be an opportunity for the community to give feedback on the alternatives and inform the development of the preferred park concept.

The third public workshop will be held in the fall of 2008 and will be an opportunity for the community to review and comment on the preferred park concept.

In addition to these public workshops, the public has been invited to attend the Task Force meetings, each of which includes a public comment period.

The public has also been invited to inform the park development by reviewing draft planning documents available on-line at the County Parks website, contacting the County Parks directly via mail, e-mail or phone. Comment forms are distributed at each of the public workshop and Task Force meetings. Comments collected via these means have been recorded, shared with the community and are included in Appendix A.


LOCAL, REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE CONTEXT Area’s Agricultural Heritage and Importance

Santa Clara County’s Agricultural Economy

The County of Santa Clara (County) is located at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay and encompasses 1,312 square miles. During the latter half of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th Century, the county was strongly associated with agriculture because of the highly fertile soils of the Santa Clara Valley that extended the length of the County and the rich bounty produced from those soils. According to the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program’s “Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance for Santa Clara County” (1995, updated 2005) the County’s agricultural soils and growing climate are some of the best in the world, making it possible to grow a multitude of crops.

In the decades following the Gold Rush, dry-wheat farming was the primary agricultural activity in the Santa Clara Valley. In 1856, the French prune was introduced to the region by Louis Pellier at his City Gardens nursery, and would soon become an important regional crop. By the 1880’s, orchards and vineyards had replaced wheat as the primary agricultural activity in the valley with peak agricultural cultivation occurring in the 1930’s with over 110,000 acres in production. Roughly 85,000 acres were devoted to prune cultivation, which at the time comprised one-third of global production. The American Can Company, a major local producer, was churning out over ten million cans by 1919. Other major crops grown in the Valley included tomatoes, grains, onions, carrots, pumpkins, cherries, walnuts, raspberries, loganberries, and strawberries. Santa Clara County became the state’s leading producer of fresh, dried, and canned fruits, and fruit production and processing remained a mainstay of the County’s economy until the 1960’s. It was this robust agricultural bounty that gave the Valley its nickname as “the Valley of the Heart’s Delight.”

The rise of the high tech industry and the emergence of Silicon Valley in the 1950’s and 1960’s marked the beginning of the decline of agriculture in Santa Clara County. Today few pockets of agricultural land remain in the North Valley, which has been almost entirely urbanized. However, while high tech industries have eclipsed agriculture in terms of the overall County economy, and land under cultivation continues to decline, growing, processing, and distributing agricultural products remains a fundamental element of the region’s economy and employment particularly to the economy of the South County area, and the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Within this region, nursery crops, mushrooms, cut flowers, fruits, nuts, berries, vegetables and grains are still being grown. In 2006, the value of the County’s agricultural production totaled over $240,000,000 (Santa Clara County Division of Agriculture 2006).

The Martial Cottle Family Ranch

The Park is within the area formerly known as Rancho de Santa Teresa, a 9,647-acre area of land granted to José Joaquin Bernal by the Mexican Governor José Figueroa in 1834.


Señor Bernal was a pobladore (settler) who came to California in 1776 with the De Anza expedition (Robinson 1948). In 1864, a portion of the rancho was purchased by Vermont native Edward Cottle who used the parcel for growing grain and row crops and raising cattle. Ensuing generations of the Cottle family, continued to farm and add acreage to the large parcel. By 1876, the total aggregate ranch was over 640 acres. The Cottle family’s portion of the ranch encompassed the area now designated as the Park. Martial Cottle ran a dairy operation until 1885. By 1888, the home ranch grew roughly 150 acres of grain, and the rest was used as pasture for cattle and horses. A small parcel was given over to a family orchard that included quince, plum, apricot, and apple trees.

During World War I, a portion of the property was leased to a Japanese itinerant farmer who grew sugar beets, onions, and carrots for the Braslan Seed Company. In the 1920s and 1930s, portions of the property again were leased to Japanese itinerant farmers. One farmer replaced the family orchard with crops of sugar beets, pickling peppers, and strawberries. He also grew carrots and onions for seed sellers, Ferry-Morse. In the 1950s the Lester’s opened a cattle venture on the Cottle property. In the spring and summer months, the cattle grazed on irrigated pasture land. In the winter they were kept in corrals and given feed. The Lester’s milled their own feed on site in the pole barn, and continued to keep the ranch in production, raising hay, barley, and other crops. A small orchard was planted near the house.

The ranch is significant in history for having been occupied and farmed continuously by the Cottle and Lester families from 1864 to the present, and because it captures a significant period in the development of post-rancho agricultural history in California.

Agricultural Preservation Movement in Santa Clara County

Santa Clara County’s rich agricultural heritage is vanishing, primarily due to the combined pressures of urbanization and unfavorable agricultural economics, especially for urban-edge agriculture. Only about ten percent of the 200,000 acres of agricultural land remaining in the County are irrigated, prime farmland; and these are the lands under the highest pressure for development. However, even as the amount of prime farmland diminishes, it is also becoming a more valuable resource. This is more because of its social and environmental contributions than its direct economic value. The social contributions include provision of fresh, healthy locally grown food within the context of a local food system; opportunities for agricultural education; and quality of life values. The environmental contributions include provision of non-urban buffers between cities, and environmental services such as aquifer recharge, flood control, and habitat. The rapid growth of organic agriculture combines both environmental values and social values of healthy food and healthy working conditions. (There are 619 acres of certified organic farmland in Santa Clara County, according to the 2005 Santa Clara County Agricultural Crop Report.) Most likely, the highest economic value of valley farmland is the indirect and as yet largely unmeasured value of containing cities and stemming sprawl.


Many organizations are involved in agricultural preservation activities in the County in the context of broader open space preservation initiatives. Leading local agencies are the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority and Santa Clara County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). Greenbelt Alliance and the Committee for Green Foothills are both regional nonprofit organizations that advocate for farmland preservation in Santa Clara County. More broadly, there are also an increasing number of public health organizations and agencies that promote the link between public health and the availability of and access to local, affordable and culturally appropriate fresh food.

Complementary Park and Recreation Resources in the Region

Agricultural Parks and Historic Farms

Because Martial Cottle Park is envisioned as an “historical agricultural park”—a relatively rare park type—this Program Document identifies a sampling of other parks and farms in the South San Francisco Bay region that offer agriculture-related recreational and educational programs that may be similar to those considered for Martial Cottle Park. The historical agricultural parks in the region include regional and county parks, private farms that offer educational programs, a California State Park, and a planned farm program at a California State Beach. The descriptions below are presented in order of proximity to Martial Cottle Park. Table 1 summarizes information about these agricultural parks. For more information on these examples and others, refer to “Martial Cottle Park Master Plan Case Study Report,” October 25, 2007.

Emma Prusch Farm Park City of San José Parks and Recreation, San Jose, CA

Emma Prusch Farm Park offers visitors opportunities for both recreation and learning about San José’s agricultural past. The 47-acre park features San José’s largest barn, which houses livestock; over 100 community garden plots; acres of open grass for picnicking, games and relaxing; a rare-fruit orchard; a grove of international trees; a small-animal area; and a historic farm equipment display. Recreational facilities include five reservable picnic areas that can accommodate groups as large as 300 people. A quarter-mile multi-use trail encircles the park. A multi-cultural arts center housing a dance studio and two classrooms is available for rental. The Plant Science Center is the focal point for the park’s educational programs, which attract 10,000 youth per year. The park’s Master Plan calls for the development of agricultural production and crop demonstrations including food, fiber and dye crops, row crops, and orchards over approximately one-third of the site.

The park hosts four annual events: the Spring Garden Market, the Harvest Festival, and the 4-H Field Day and the Tamale Festival. These festivals attract 6,000 to 13,000 people. The park also hosts several 4-H programs, a youth summer camp, outreach programs for high-risk teens, and a preschool program. Annual attendance of the park is approximately 200,000 to 300,000.


Full Circle Farm Sunnyvale, CA

Full Circle is an 11-acre sustainable, educational farm being built in suburban Sunnyvale, California. The farm is a project of Sustainable Community Gardens a non-profit devoted to promoting local, sustainable food systems, and is located on Santa Clara School District land behind Peterson Middle School. Sustainable Community Gardens and Full Circle Farm are dedicated to establishing and strengthening sustainable food systems in the Silicon Valley. Goals include becoming the first certified organic farm in Silicon Valley; providing hands-on learning for students; demonstrating “healthy food from farm to plate” to students; involving the local community in building the farm; selling produce to the school district and local community through a farm stand and marketing to restaurants and business cafeterias.

Hidden Villa Farm Los Altos Hills, CA

Hidden Villa Farm is a 1,600-acre non-profit environmental and outdoor education center, founded by the Duveneck family in 1960. Hidden Villa Farm includes a 14-acre working organic farm, a hostel, retreat space, summer camp, and hiking trails. Core programs, such as the Hidden Villa Environmental Education Program, reach into the community through collaborations with local schools and social service agencies. Hidden Villa’s resident intern program provides in environmental education, social justice, organic farming, and animal husbandry. Neighborhood shareholders in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) partake of Hidden Villa’s organic harvest. Domestic and international travelers stay at the hostel. Local businesses or nonprofits rent facility space for meetings and retreats; and thousands of informal visitors explore Hidden Villa’s hiking trails or attend community programs. Hidden Villa serves approximately 50,000 visitors per year. Ardenwood Historic Farm East Bay Regional Parks District, Fremont, CA

Ardenwood Historic Farm is a 205-acre farm and visitor center located in Fremont, California. It is operated by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on land leased for a nominal fee from the City of Fremont. Similar to the Martial Cottle site, Ardenwood is the final remnant of the extensive agriculture that once flourished in what is now an urbanized area.

Ardenwood’s programming includes interpretive programs for organized groups (schools, camps, etc.) and public educational activities and festivals. Concessionaires including blacksmith, beekeeper, a horse-drawn train, farmer, and wedding/event hosts play a significant role in Ardenwood’s operations. Outside of the “Core” historical area, the land has been leased to a farmer who grows a variety of crops for market and for the Farm’s interpretive programs. There is a produce stand at the park. Tours of the historic house are operated by the City of Fremont with volunteer help. Ardenwood is open to the


public for a small fee, which varies depending on the day of the week and on special-event days.

Sunol Water Temple Agricultural Park Sunol, CA

Currently under development with the leadership of Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE), this 18-acre parcel is owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Three farmer tenants are currently producing at the Sunol AgPark: Mien Farming Collaborative, People’s Grocery, and Baia Nichia. They are joined by Swarm Catchers (a bee-keeper).

With 10 acres in cultivation, farmers are selling their products at farmers’ markets and produce stands, to restaurants, and through CSA boxes. SAGE is in the process of creating a management plan that will guide the development of the farming operations, the enhancements to the site’s natural resources, and the focus of public education components for the project.

Wilder Ranch State Park California State Parks Department, Santa Cruz, CA

Wilder Ranch State Park is a 4,258-acre historic ranch on the California coast that combines recreation, historic interpretation, coastal habitat, and agriculture, including cattle grazing and a culture preserve. The park offers tours and living history demonstrations to help visitors explore the history of early ranchers and farmers along the Central Coast. Several restored buildings once belonging to the Wilder family are preserved, including Victorian homes, gardens, and a historic adobe. In addition to the preservation of the agricultural heritage of the site, approximately 110 acres of the park were identified to be restored to historic habitat conditions and native vegetation. The park also provides 34 miles of hiking, biking and equestrian rails winding through coastal terraces and valleys.

Demonstration Organic Farm at Carmel River State Beach California State Parks Department, Carmel, CA

Carmel River State Beach is located 6 miles south of Monterey and 25 miles north of Big Sur off State Highway 1. The park features fishing, hiking, and a bird sanctuary in a lagoon located just upstream of where the Carmel River empties into the sea. California State Parks has released a Request for Interest to award a five-year contract to a qualified operator to develop, equip, operate, and maintain a demonstration organic farm and to provide high-quality interpretive programs and services to the public regarding organic and sustainable farming and healthy diets. The farm concession will be located on the Odello west field, which totals 155 acres. In accordance with the Carmel River State Beach Lagoon Restoration Project, the concessionaire will convert 10 acres of the Odello west field to its historic agricultural landscape.


Table 1: Agricultural Parks/Historic Farms in the Southern Bay Area

Ag Park / Historic Farm Size Distance to Martial

Cottle Park site Operated by Program

Emma Prusch Farm Park 47 acres 8.8 miles

City of San José Parks &

Recreation Department

Barn, livestock, community garden plots, open lawn area, 5 picnic areas, Plant Science Center, 4-H programs, youth summer camp, outreach programs for high-risk teens, preschool, dance studio, two classrooms, crop demonstration.

Full Circle Farm 11 acres 18.7 miles Santa Clara

Unified School District

Working farm, integrated ecology, nutrition, and vocational curriculums, on-site kitchen facility

Hidden Villa Farm

1,600 acres

(14 acre farm)

22 miles Hidden Villa (nonprofit)

Environmental Education Program, resident intern program, Hostel, retreat space, Community Supported Agriculture, Working organic farm, summer camp

Ardenwood Historic Farm

205 acres 28 miles

East Bay Regional Park

District

Interpretive programs, concessionaires (blacksmith, beekeeper, horse-drawn train, farmer, wedding/events), historic farming operations, livestock, 70 acres leased to a farmer, produce stand, historic house tours

Sunol Water Temple Agricultural Park

18 acres 28.6 miles Sustainable Agriculture Education

3 leased farm plots

Wilder Ranch State Park

4,258 acres 33 miles California State

Parks Historic habitat restoration, coastal wetland restoration site.

Demonstration Organic Farm at Carmel River State Beach

155 acres 69 miles California State

Parks Fishing, hiking, and a bird sanctuary


Characterization of County and State Parks

County Parks

The County operates 28 County parks, including three parks that are located within five miles of Martial Cottle Park (Figure 4). These regional parks provide both passive recreational resources, such as multi-use trails, day use facilities and picnic areas, and active recreation facilities.

Almaden Quicksilver County Park Almaden Quicksilver Park, located four miles southwest of Martial Cottle Park in the New Almaden National Historic Landmark District of San Jose, encompasses 4,152 acres and occupies a majority of Capitancillos Ridge. The park offers over 34.2 miles of hiking trails, including 23 miles of equestrian trails and 10 miles of bike trails. All trails in the park are open to on-leash dog walking. A number of picnic tables are distributed throughout the park adjacent to the trails. Horse water troughs are available in a few locations. The park includes a mining museum that documents the importance of the New Almaden Quicksilver mines and the mercury they provided for the smelting of gold in California. There are also remnants of mining structures throughout the park. Ranger-guided nature and history walks are available upon request.

Santa Teresa County Park Santa Teresa County Park is located in the Santa Teresa Hills, 2.9 miles southeast of Martial Cottle Park. The 1,627-acre park offers spectacular views from its trails above the Almaden and Santa Clara Valleys. The Santa Teresa Golf Club, operated by a concessionaire, offers an 18-hole championship course, a nine-hole/par three course, and a clubhouse with a restaurant, pro shop, and a banquet facility, available by reservation. The Pueblo Day Use area includes parking for over 170 vehicles, an equestrian staging area, and a reservable group picnic area for up to 100 people with a large barbeque pit, restrooms and potable water. Other individual picnic tables and barbeques are scattered throughout the day use area. The historic Bernal-Gulnac-Joice Ranch and Santa Teresa Springs are open to the public and available to school groups for interpretive tours. An archery range, operated and maintained by the Black Mountain Bowmen Archery Club, is open for public use except when tournaments are scheduled. The park offers over 18 miles of unpaved trails for equestrian, hiking and bicycle use. Coyote Creek Parkway/Hellyer County Park

The 1,895-acre Coyote Creek Parkway/Hellyer County Park is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Martial Cottle Park. The park includes the 15-mile long Coyote Creek Parkway multiple-use trail and connects Hellyer County Park with Anderson Lake County Park in Morgan Hill. The multiple-use trail is used by hikers, runners, bicyclists and skaters. Portions of the trail are also available to equestrians. A visitor center/ranger office with natural history displays is located near the Hellyer County Park entrance. Within Hellyer Park, there is an off-leash dog park facility where small and large dogs share the facility.


First-come, first-served family picnic areas are available year-round in Hellyer Park and at rest areas along Coyote Creek Parkway. Seven group picnic areas are available by reservation in Hellyer Park, and two group picnic area are available at the south end of the park. A corporate-picnic concessionaire is operated by the historic Coyote Ranch. Hellyer Park also includes an Olympic-size bicycling Velodrome and a disc-golf course. Limited fishing is permitted year round at Cottonwood Lake, Parkway Lakes fishing concession, and during fishing season in Coyote Creek. An Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Master Plan was completed for the Coyote Creek Parkway in 2007 and implementation of priority capital projects are underway to enhance and rehabilitate the riparian habitats associated with this park.

State Parks

Three state parks are located within 20 miles of Martial Cottle Park: Portola Redwoods, Castle Rock, and Henry W. Coe. The first two are located in the Santa Cruz Mountains and offer natural resource-based activities such as hiking and camping. Coe State Park, east of Martial Cottle Park, is the largest state park in northern California and offers extensive hiking and camping experiences.

Portola Redwoods State Park The 2,800-acre Portola Redwoods State Park, located on Alpine Road, west of Skyline Boulevard in San Mateo County, is in a rugged, natural basin forested with coast redwoods, Douglas fir and live oak. Eighteen miles of trails crisscross the canyon and its two streams, Peters Creek and Pescadero Creek. A short nature trail along Pescadero Creek introduces visitors to the natural history of the area. Two day use areas, 64 individual campgrounds, group campground, and visitors center are also included.

Castle Rock State Park The 3,600-acre Castle Rock State Park is located along the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains in Santa Cruz County. The park includes coast redwood, Douglas-fir, and madrone forest, most of which has been left in its wild, natural state. The park contains 32 miles of hiking and horseback riding trails provide access throughout the park. These trails are part of an extensive trail system that links the Santa Clara and San Lorenzo valleys with Castle Rock State Park, Big Basin Redwoods State Park, and the Pacific Coast. Steep canyons with unusual rock formations are popular with rock climbers. Primitive campsites for backpackers are the only overnight facilities.

Henry W. Coe State Park Henry W. Coe Park is located 13 miles east of Morgan Hill on Dunne Avenue, straddling both Santa Clara and Stanislaus Counties. At 81,000 acres, it is the largest state park in Northern California, Composed of mature stands of oak-woodland forest, the park has over 250 miles of trails. The terrain of the park is rugged, and varied, with high ridges and steep canyons. Activities include hiking, backpacking, car camping, hike-in group camping, mountain biking, fishing, horseback riding and equestrian camping.


Characterization of Surrounding Community

Martial Cottle Park is an unincorporated island located in the southern part of the City of San José. The site is located in a fully developed and predominantly residential area that consists of primarily single-family and owner-occupied homes. As described below, the surrounding community, like the rest of the City of San José and the County of Santa Clara, is relatively affluent when compared to the rest of California. While on average the population in the Park vicinity (i.e., census tracts within 2 miles) is predominantly white, certain census tracts are quite diverse with no ethnic majority. Residents and officials interviewed for the Resource Inventory generally consider the Park vicinity to be a stable, safe and well-established neighborhood.

Demographics: Local, City, and County

The Resource Inventory includes an analysis of relevant data from the 2000 US Census. Key demographic characteristics of the area are summarized below.

Population Density The area within the park vicinity is generally characterized by relatively low population densities for an urban area of fewer than 24 persons per acre, consistent with the predominant development pattern of single-family detached homes. Pockets of higher population density (25 or more persons per acre) associated with condominium and apartment development are located throughout the area.

Age The population in the park vicinity includes slightly more children as a percentage of overall population than the City of San José and the County of Santa Clara, but is consistent with the State as a whole. Conversely, the percentage of the population over 65 years of age in the project vicinity is relatively low compared to the City, County, and State).

Race/Ethnic Majority Generally, the City and County are quite ethnically diverse when compared with the State, with the County having only a slight White majority, and the City of San José having no clear racial/ethnic majority. Both the City and County populations have large percentages of Latino, Asian and “other” residents, with Asians and Hispanics together comprising 57.1% of the City’s population and 49.6% of the County’s.

Housing Tenure The area within the park vicinity has a relatively high proportion of owner-occupied housing when compared to the City, County, and State, with 66% of the homes being owner-occupied. At the city level, the rate of owner-occupied housing (61.8%) is also higher than the percentage for the State (56.9%).


Education The percentage of residents in the vicinity of the park who are high school graduates slightly exceeds the rates for the City and State, but is slightly lower than the rate for the County. In terms of college education, the percentage of residents in the park vicinity with bachelor’s or more advance degrees is similar to the state as a whole, but lower than that in either the City or County. County residents as a whole have higher educational levels than the State, reflecting the employment needs of the high tech industry concentrated in Santa Clara County.

Occupation Professional and managerial workers constitute the largest occupational class in the park vicinity, followed by sales and office workers. Together these groups comprise more than two thirds of employed residents. The park vicinity, like the City as a whole, includes a higher percentage of professional and managerial workers than state averages, but a lower percentage than the County. Countywide, a large percentage of residents have professional and managerial occupations, consistent with the County’s high-tech economy and educated workforce.

Income Like the rest of the City of San José and Santa Clara County, residents in the park vicinity are relatively affluent by statewide standards. The average median household income for residents in the park vicinity is between the City and County median and well above the State median. Similarly, the area’s family poverty rate, like the City and County, is well below the statewide rate. Household income and family poverty rates, however, vary within the vicinity of the park. The median household income for the census tract immediately to the west is 160% of the vicinity’s weighted average while the median for the most northerly census tract is only 70% of the weighted average. The highest rates of family poverty are located east and north of the site.

Social Identity and Needs of the Community

The community in the vicinity of Martial Cottle Park is known as the Blossom Valley area of the City of San Jose. It is made up of many small neighborhoods that were developed incrementally. Typically they consist of small development tracts of approximately 50 homes. Incremental residential growth in this area resulted in a development pattern that could be considered to lack a clear overall structure or distinct identity. In many areas, the street layout is discontinuous and prevents direct access from one adjacent neighborhood to the other.

The surrounding neighborhoods lack a single gathering place that is recognized by the residents as a center of their larger community within the City of San Jose. Notably, residents in the vicinity of the park identify the Martial Cottle Park as one of its main distinguishing geographic features. As a large, undeveloped parcel in an urbanized area, the site is unique and widely known to local residents.


The surrounding neighborhoods include a couple of local gathering places and landmarks. To the west of the park, the community center in Vista Park serves as a gathering place for the neighborhoods associated with the VEP Community Association. Carlton Plaza San Jose, a retirement home, is located on Branham Lane at the northwest corner of the park. Carlton Plaza’s residents are potential park visitors who would have immediate access to the park once open to the public.

For residents east of the park, Edenvale Garden Park serves as a gathering place, including large-group picnic areas that are used for events. Adjacent to Edenvale Garden Park is the Hayes Mansion. The 41,000 square feet Hayes Mansion was built in 1905 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Today the Mansion is owned by the City of San Jose and operated by a concessionaire as a resort hotel and convention site. Local retail centers offer some limited neighborhood/community identity in this area. The closest library is the new Edenvale Branch Library, located a half mile from the intersection of Branham Lane and Snell Avenue.

Regulatory Overview

The Martial Cottle Park Master Plan, as well as specific projects that are implemented as a result of this plan, are required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations that govern the types of resources and programs within the park. Laws, regulations, code sections and ordinances that are likely to impose the strongest regulatory constraints on the planning process are summarized here, and the agencies charged with enforcing these regulations are listed.

Environmental Review and Master Plan Approval

An environmental review will be conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This environmental review will occur concurrently with the preparation of the Master Plan and will incorporate public participation. During the planning process, alternatives will be developed that will identify a reasonable range of options for protecting resources while allowing certain specified uses. The public will be invited to participate in the public scoping process, review of the environmental documentation, and attend public comment meetings. The County Parks and Recreation Commission, the County Board of Supervisors, the Board’s HLUET Committee, and the State Parks and Recreation Commission will consider the Master Plan, State General Plan and environmental review jointly for adoption.

Laws, Regulations, Ordinances and Policies

Table 2 lists a wide range of requirements that must be met for compliance with laws, ordinances, regulations and policies imposed by federal, state, and local entities with authority over park developments or resources that may be affected by park actions.


Table 2: Regulatory Overview

Regulatory Issue Jurisdiction Administering Agency Requirements/ Compliance Citation/Authority

Biological Resources

Endangered species

Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); National Marine Fisheries Service

Protect and manage federally-listed species

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; 16 USC § 1531 et seq.; 50 CFR parts 17 and 222

Migratory birds Federal USFWS Protect migratory birds and their nests

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Wetlands protection

Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulates discharge of fill material into wetlands and other waters of the U.S., including streams, ponds, vernal pools and springs.

Clean Water Act of 1977; 33 USC § 1344; 30 CFR § 330.5(a)(26)

Species preservation

State California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

Protect and enhance the birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles of California

California Species Preservation Act of 1970; California Wildlife Preservation Act of 1990; California Fish and Game Code §§ 900 – 903

Rare and endangered plants

State CDFG Protect rare and endangered plants

Native Plant Protection Act of 1977

State-listed plants State CDFG Protect state-listed plants and animals

California Endangered Species Act of 1984, California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 - 2098

Species preservation

State CDFG Prohibits taking fully-protected birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, or fishes

California Fish and Game Code §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515

Habitat protection Local Santa Clara County Planning Commission Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Comply with requirements to protect habitat and biodiversity

Santa Clara County General Plan, Resource Conservation Element

Water Quality

Stormwater pollution prevention

Federal RWQCB, EPA Region IX

As necessary, obtain NPDES permits for stormwater discharge and prepare SWPPPs for construction projects

Clean Water Act § 402; 33 USC § 1342; 40 CFR parts 122 – 136

Discharge of oil or hazardous substances

Federal RWQCB, EPA Region IX, and California Office of Emergency Services

Report any prohibited discharge of oil or hazardous substances

Clean Water Act § 311; 33 USC § 1321; 40 CFR parts 110, 112, 116, and 117

Release of hazardous substances

State RWQCB and California Office of Emergency Services

Report releases of reportable quantities of hazardous substances or sewage and releases of specified quantities of oil or petroleum products

California Water Code § 13271 – 13272; 23 CCR 2250 – 2260




Erosion, sedimentation and pollution control

State CEQA lead agency, RWQCB and Water Resources Control Board

Provide adequate protection of water quality by appropriate design, sizing, and construction of erosion and sediment controls; meet waste discharge requirements concerning potential surface water pollution from runoff

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1972; California Water Code §13260 – 13269; 23 CCR Chapter 9

Water quality protection

State/Local CEQA Lead Agency Provide information concerning proposed water resources and water quality protection

California Public Resources Code § 25523(a); 20 CCR §§ 1752, 1752.5, 2300 – 2309, and Chapter 2 Subchapter 5, Article 1, Appendix B, Part (1)

Water quality protection

Local Santa Clara County Planning Commission

Comply with requirements to protect water quality


Domestic water supply protection

Local Santa Clara Valley Water District

Protection of domestic water supply

Domestic water supply protection

Local City of San Jose Protection of domestic water supply

Flood Protection


Permit required for work within SCVWD easements or right-of-way

Geology

Seismic and other hazards

State/Local Santa Clara County Meet requirements for protection from seismic and other geologic hazards

Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone Act

Seismic hazards State State Geologist Requires geotechnical investigation and appropriate mitigation prior to issuance of local permits

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act

Geologic hazards Local Santa Clara County Planning Department

Comply with requirements to mitigate for geologic hazards

California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2 (a portion of the California Building Standards Code)




Soil Conservation

Sediment discharge

Federal RWQCB: Central Coast Region under the direction of the Water Resources Control Board

Meet discharge requirements relative to sediment

Clean Water Act

Soil conservation standards

Federal Natural Resources Conservation Service

Implement standards for soil conservation

Soil Conservation Service National Engineering Handbook (1983)

Environmental impacts

State CEQA lead agency Submit information about potential environmental impacts

California Public Resources Code § 25523(a); CCR §§ 1752, 1752.5, 2300 -2309, and Chapter 2, Subchapter 5, Article1, Appendix B, part (I)

Erosion and sedimentation; conservation of agricultural lands

State CEQA lead agency Evaluate erosion and sediment deposition; evaluate conversion of agricultural lands

Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA,

Appendix G; 14 CCR § 15000-15387

Erosion prevention


Comply with requirements to prevent erosion


Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Cultural resources Federal Lead Federal Agency and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); triggered when federal permits are issued, such as by the Corps for wetlands fill (Section 404)

Obtain formal finding by the lead Federal agency for cultural resources in consultation with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; implement procedures for dealing with cultural resources discovered during surface-disturbing activities

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended; 16 USC § 470 et seq. and § 106; 36 CFR 800

Cultural resources State Lead State Agency Directs the State Lead Agency to determine significance of project-related effects on important cultural resources and unique paleontological resources to develop appropriate mitigation measures

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) § 15064.5; California Public Resources code § 5024, 5024.5, and 21083.2; Title 14 CCR § 15126




Cultural resources State Lead State Agency Directs the State Lead Agency to provide special consideration of unique historical, archaeological, and cultural sites as defined under CEQA

California Public Resources Code §

21083.2

Human remains State County Coroner (Medical Examiner)

Determination of origin of human remains and coordination with NAHC

California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5

Register of Historic Resources

State State Historical Resources Commission

Establishes the California Register of Historical Resources and procedures for nominating sites to the Register

California Public Resources Code § 5024.1

Unauthorized removal

Local Santa Clara County Planning Department

Prevent unauthorized removal of archaeological resources or paleontological remains on public lands

California Public Resources Code § 5097.5

Protection of cultural resources


Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission

Comply with requirements to protect historical sites and structures, archaeological and paleontological sites and artifacts.

Santa Clara County General Plan, Heritage Resources Element

Land Use

State State Lead Agency Evaluate significance of conflicts adopted community plans or with established commercial, recreational, educational religious or scientific uses of the area; evaluate the significance of the project on prime agricultural land

CEQA Appendix G


Adhere to land use policies

Santa Clara County General Plan, Land Use element

Agricultural land preservation

Local Santa Clara County Preserve agricultural land use on properties under Williamson Act contracts

California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), SCC Ordinance Code Division C13-15

Aesthetic/Visual Resources

State State Lead Agency Evaluate impacts using CEQA Appendices G and




significance criteria I


Comply with policies regarding significant scenic resources.

Santa Clara County General Plan Resource Conservation Element

Noise

State State Lead Agency Ensure that project activities do not substantially increase ambient noise in adjacent areas

CEQA Appendix G


Comply with policies regarding noise.

Santa Clara County General Plan Resource Conservation Element

Local Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health

Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance

Air quality

State/Local State Lead Agency Evaluate project compliance with ambient air quality standards, substantial contributions to an existing or projected air quality violation, or exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations

CEQA Appendix G

State California Air Resources Board

Air quality and pollution control

Health and Safety

Vector Control Local Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health

Hazardous Materials Storage and Disposal


Food Safety Local Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health




Water Supply

Modifications, entry, use, or access to SCVWD facilities or easements


Permit required. Water Resources Protection Ordinance (Ordinance 06-1)

Development or abandonment of on-site wells


Permit required. Ordinance 90-1

Local City of San Jose Obtain permits for connections to City utilities

Transportation

Local Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department

Comply with regulations and standards for roads on County-owned land

Local City of San Jose Obtain permits for work on public roads and within public right-of-way

Agriculture

Pesticide Use Local Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture

Regulate pesticide use, storage, certification, restricted materials, pest control operations, worker safety, environmental protection

CA Food & Agricultural Code

Title 3, CA Code of Regulations

CA Business and Professions Code


Pesticide Use Local Santa Clara County Office of the County Executive – Integrated Pest Management Program

Use non-pesticide alternatives where feasible, use approved pesticides only

County Ordinance NS-517.70

Hazardous Material Storage


Irrigation Wells Santa Clara County Department of

Backflow prevention, wellhead protection, chemigation system





Environmental Health

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture

requirements Title 3, CA Code of Regulations

Pest Exclusion & Pest Management

Local

State


CA Department of Food & Agriculture

Enforcement of quarantines and regulatory requirements relating to insects, weeds, and plant diseases; crop, weed, rodent nuisance abatement



Nursery Regulations

Local

State


CA Department of Food & Agriculture

Licensing, inspection CA Food & Agricultural Code


Apiary Regulations

Local Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture

Registration, apiary location and site requirements

County Ordinance Code , CA Food & Agricultural Code, Title 3, CA Code of Regulations

Nuisance Complaints (Noise, Dust, Odor, Flies)

Local Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture & Environmental Management

Resolution of nuisance complaints, right-to-farm issues, livestock regulations, manure management

County Ordinance Code


Organic Certification

Local California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), or other accredited certifying entity

Organic certification services

National Organic Program/California Organic Products Act of 2003

Organic Registration

State CA Department of Food & Agriculture

Register organic producers and handlers



Organic Enforcement


CA Dept. of Food & Agriculture

Spot inspections of organic producers and vendors; complaint investigations






Farmers Market and Producer Certification


Regulate farmers market and participating producers



Farmers Market and Produce Stand Permitting

Local Santa Clara County Planning Office

Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health

Farmers Market Weights and Measures

Local Santa Clara County Division of Weights and Measures

Sealing of vendor scales, scanner inspection


Animal Care and Control

Local

State

Santa Clara County Division of Animal Care and Control

CA Dept. of Food & Agriculture

Dog/cat licensing, stray animals, livestock limits, manure management

Animal disease regulatory enforcement, brand inspection

SCC Ordinance Code

Food & Agricultural Code


EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Description

The Park is generally rectangular in shape with a “panhandle” that extends from the southwest corner. The land generally consists of flat, open fields that are seasonally cultivated for agricultural production and weed control. The only mature vegetation consists of a dozen or so valley oaks that are scattered through the eastern portion of the site, and a variety of ornamental trees in the Life Estate. The large area of open farmland within a highly-developed, suburban area makes the site an unusual geographic feature of significance. The only other significant topographic feature is Canoas Creek which flows northward, paralleling the site’s southeastern perimeter and then trends northwesterly across the panhandle and through the adjoining neighborhood to connect with the Guadalupe River. The Canoas Creek channel has been engineered as a trapezoidal earthen channel to accommodate the need and Santa Clara Valley Water District’s requirements for flood management, so it supports little natural vegetation or habitat value.

The Park contains the Cottle main residence and a dozen or so agricultural outbuildings. The buildings date from the mid-1800s through to the 1960s. All but one of the site’s structures are located within the boundaries of the Life Estate in the southeast corner of the property. These buildings include the main residence, an office, two barns, a greenhouse, a granary, a blacksmith building, a mill, a milk house, a buggy shed, a shanty, two garages, two oil storage sheds, and three buildings used for equipment, supplies, and vehicle storage. In addition, a produce stand is located on the northwestern corner of the Snell Avenue and Chynoweth Avenue intersection. The only structure on the property that is not within the Life Estate area is the well pumphouse that is located near the west end of Chynoweth Avenue where it meets the site’s panhandle.

Natural Resources

Topography

Martial Cottle Park is located within the Santa Clara Valley. Situated on the easterly side of the valley floor, the site is relatively flat. Elevations range from approximately 155 to 165 feet, with a gentle cross slope down from the east and west to Canoas Creek.

Meteorology

The climate of the area is characterized as dry-summer subtropical (often referred to as Mediterranean), with cool wet winters and relatively warmer dry summers. The site receives approximately 14-15 inches of rainfall per year. This type of climate is subject to recurring and sometimes long lasting droughts.


Hydrology

The Park is located within the Guadalupe River Watershed, which encompasses approximately 170 square miles and drains north into San Francisco Bay. Canoas Creek, which parallels the southeastern perimeter of the park site and then trends northwesterly, bisecting the panhandle portion of the site, is a tributary to the Guadalupe River. It collects drainage from the park site and surrounding area and transports flows to the main channel of the Guadalupe River northwest of the site.

As with most of the tributaries within the valley floor area, Canoas Creek has been channelized to alleviate flooding and to convert marshy areas both upstream and downstream of the site into developable land. The creek was realigned and contained in the late 1890s or early 1900s. The stream is contained in a trapezoidal channel with concrete bottom and earthen sides. The bottom of the creek channel is 6 to 8 feet wide, and the side walls angle out to an approximate width of 20 feet from bank to bank at the top of the channel. The estimated depth of the trapezoidal channel from the top of bank to the creek bottom is 12 feet.

Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared in conjunction with the Federal Flood Insurance Program show the Park as being located in an area of “undetermined, but possible, flood hazard.” Maps prepared by the SCVWD indicate that flooding to a depth of less than one foot will occur on a portion of the site.

Based on environmental reports prepared for properties in the park vicinity, groundwater has been measured at depths ranging between approximately 12 to 22 feet below ground surface. Water well logs for a well installed on the park site in 1997, show the groundwater level to be approximately 20 feet below ground surface. Subsequent water and soil quality testing in 2004 indicated a depth to groundwater of 15 feet. (Refer to Figure 5, Hydrological Features.)

In 2004, water quality tests were conducted within the Park site to determine the potential effects of the historic farming activity on surface water and ground water quality. The testing involved collecting four water samples from Canoas Creek, three groundwater samples from three former underground storage tank (UST) sites, and five groundwater samples from the active water supply wells on the site. The surface water samples collected from Canoas Creek were below laboratory reporting limits for oil and grease, arsenic, volatile organic compounds, and pesticides. Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE – a gasoline additive no longer used in California) was detected in two groundwater samples taken in proximity to the UST storage sites, but were below Primary Maximum Contamination Levels (MCL) for MTBE (13 µg/L). No constituents were reported above laboratory reporting limits from the well samples collected.

Geology

Located in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Park is in a region of significant seismic activity and geotechnical instability. The major faults in this region trend northwest/southeast. In the vicinity of the park the major faults are the San Andreas Fault,


a right-lateral strike-slip fault near the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, and the Hayward and Calaveras faults, both right-lateral strike-slip faults in the Diablo Range to the east. These faults have exhibited significant tectonic motion both in recent times and the distant geological past. Numerous other faults are located in the Santa Clara Valley. The Quaternary Geologic Map of San José East Quadrangle (1972) locates the Piercy and Silver Creek faults just north of the Park site in the adjacent hills. These faults run parallel to the San Andreas Fault and have the potential to produce seismic activity.

Because the Park is situated in a region of significant seismic activity and geotechnical instability, there is the potential for earthquakes to occur and produce severe ground shaking and result in ground failure, thereby damaging or destroying existing historic and future built structures and site features. Other hazards associated with earthquakes include surface rupture, differential settlement, seismically-induced landslides, and seismically-induced inundation. Additional hazards related to soil and geologic conditions include compressible soils (subject to shrink and swell behavior), weak soils (subject to failure), lateral spreading, and liquefaction or collapse. The Park, particularly the area with poorly drained soils, is located within a liquefaction hazard zone. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading.

Soils

Soils in the Santa Clara Valley primarily consist of clay in the low-lying areas, loam and gravelly loam in the upper portions of the valley, and eroded rocky clay loam in the hills. The clay soils that make up the majority of the valley floor, including the Park site, are derived from alluvial deposits from the surrounding and upstream geological formations.

A review of soil information contained in water well logs provided by the land Donor indicates that the Park soils are yellow sandy clays from the surface to depths of approximately 25 to 35 feet below ground surface, beneath which is a gravel layer. Beneath the gravel layer are several clay and gravel layers.

According to the Donor and the Donor’s Lessee, there are three major types of soil on the site. The soil in the southwestern leg of the site is a highly fertile, dark soil that has historically produced good vegetable and orchard crops. The soil to the northwest of the site (north of the most fertile area) is a less-fertile alkaline, poorly draining soil, which has been historically better suited to grain crops and grazing. This soil extends toward the Life Estate north of Chynoweth Avenue. The eastern half of the site comprises a clay-and-sand soil with good productivity.

A detailed soils map of the vicinity of Martial Cottle Park (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1968) shows that the eastern portion of the Park is dominated by Orestimba silty clay loam soil, with the western-most portion consisting of Clear Lake clay and Sunnyvale silty clay, drained (Figure 6). The U.S. Soil Conservation Service’s descriptions of these soils differ slightly from the specific soil characteristics noted on the site by the Donor and the Donor’s Lessee.


The Orestimba series consists of poorly-drained, moderately fine textured soils underlain by sedimentary alluvium. Vegetation associated with Orestimba silty clay loam is mostly salt tolerant grasses and forbs. This soil type is poorly drained and fertility is low because of moderate to high concentrations of both neutral and alkaline salts. Ponding occurs during winter months and permeability of the subsoil is very slow. Orestimba series soils are best used for irrigated row crops, prunes, pears, dryland pasture, and grain hay. The typical growing season for soils in the Orestimba series is between 250 and 325 days.

The Clear Lake series consists of poorly-drained, fine textured soils underlain by mottled, stratified, calcareous sedimentary alluvium. Vegetation is chiefly annual and perennial grasses and forbs. Deep cracks develop in the surface and upper subsoil when these soils are dry. Clear Lake series soils are best used for irrigated row crops, sugar beets, orchards and dryland grain hay. Fertility is high. The typical growing season for soils in the Clear Lake series is between 260 and 300 days.

The Sunnyvale series consists of poorly-drained, fine textured soils underlain by sedimentary alluvium. Vegetation associated with Sunnyvale silty clay, drained consists primarily of water-loving plants, annual grasses, and forbs. This soil type is moderately alkaline and calcareous with poor drainage. Water may become ponded during the winter months and subsoil permeability is slow. Fertility is high and this soil is best used for irrigated row crops, sugar beets, orchards, and hay. The typical growing season for soils in the Sunnyvale series is between 250 and 325 days.

The Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map identifies the soils on the site to be “Prime Farmland” or “Farmland of Local Importance.” Prime Farmland is considered to be “land with the best combination of physical and chemical features for the production of agricultural crops.” Farmland of Local Importance refers to land that is “either currently producing crops, has the capability of production, or is used for the production of confined livestock.”

Plant Life

Due to prolonged agricultural use, the natural plant communities once extant on the site no longer exist. Vegetation on the Park prior to agricultural use would likely have been classified as a valley oak savanna, which is characterized by valley oaks and grasslands intermixed with shrubs and other oak and tree species. No rare, threatened, endangered, or other special-status plant species are known to occur on the project site Exotic-invasive plant species observed on the Park site include wild oats, Italian thistle, yellow star-thistle, perennial pepperweed, Harding grass, and Himalayan blackberry.

A dozen mature valley oak trees are situated in the eastern half of the Park—about half dispersed in the open fields and the rest located around the perimeter of the historic farm compound. Several other species of trees were observed in the historic farm compound, including Italian cypress, California black walnut, coast live oak, coast redwood, mayten, and olive.


The fields had been ploughed approximately one month prior to the site survey. At the time of survey, the most notable vegetation growing in the nearly barren fields was non-native field bindweed/morning glory. Other plant species observed consisted of beets, salt heliotrope, and sacred thornapple.

The swath of poorly drained Sunnyvale Series soils that extends through the west central portion of the Park may become ponded during wet winter months. While recent disking and the historic farming have eliminated much of the natural vegetation cover, one of the plants found growing in this area was salt heliotrope, which is a native plant that is often associated with moist to dry, saline or alkaline soils and is classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an obligate wetland plant. Portions of the Park which seasonally pond water may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act or the State of California’s Porter-Cologne Act.

Canoas Creek, a perennially wet flood protection channel, flows through the southwestern corner of the Park on its way to the Guadalupe River, but generally prevents water from flowing onto the site. Water within the channel seems to have no influence on the Park’s vegetation. Canoas Creek is also likely subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act or the State of California’s Porter-Cologne Act.

Animal Life

Wildlife habitat within the Park is typical of rural areas with fallowed fields and scattered mature oak trees. As a whole, the diversity of animal species present on site is limited due to the park site’s location, which is surrounded by commercial and residential development that isolate the site from larger tracts of open space. However, the trees and fallowed fields in the Park provide foraging and/or breeding habitat for many species. Additionally, Canoas Creek provides a suitable habitat corridor for a variety of animals.

The valley oaks and other trees onsite provide nesting, foraging, or roosting habitat for many animal species. An active red-tailed hawk nest was observed in one of the mature valley oaks. Other animal species observed in the oak trees during the survey consisted of white-breasted nuthatch, American kestrel, house finch, great egret, and hooded oriole. Additionally, woodpecker holes and large cavities were observed in the branches and trunks of some of the oaks. Birds could nest in these holes and cavities and bats could roost in the larger cavities in the oaks. Red foxes were observed resting under the canopies of the oaks and running through the fields. In addition to the animal species observed in valley oaks, three white-tailed kites were observed in an Italian cypress tree along the western boundary of the site.

The fallowed fields onsite provide foraging habitat for several animal species that are commonly found in rural areas including California ground squirrels, Botta’s pocket gophers, and California meadow vole. These rodents provide a prey base for red foxes and the birds-of-prey that were observed on site. Other animal species seen on or near the fallowed fields include American kestrel, great egret, turkey vulture, peregrine falcon, cliff swallow, and barn swallow. Areas of the Park may pond water during the rainy


season and provide a seasonal water source for animals such as Pacific treefrog, shorebirds, and waterfowl.

Animal species occurring near Canoas Creek include western fence lizard, red fox, mourning dove, California towhee, American robin, lesser goldfinch, Anna’s hummingbird, northern mockingbird, house sparrow, mallard, and red-shouldered hawk. Pacific (western) pond turtles, a California species of special concern, occur in the vicinity and may also inhabit Canoas Creek.

The federally threatened California red-legged frog, chinook salmon, and steelhead, although present in other creeks or rivers within the County, are unlikely to occur in the on-site portions of Canoas Creek due to the marginal habitat conditions present.

Bats, black phoebes, barn owls, mourning doves, swallows, and other birds could nest and/or roost in the ranch outbuildings on or adjacent to the site. A black phoebe was observed perched at the pump house structure north of Canoas Creek near the southwestern corner of the project site.

Three white-tailed kites, including at least one immature kite were observed in an Italian cypress tree along the western boundary of the site near the northern bank of Canoas Creek. The white-tailed kite is a State fully-protected species.

A peregrine falcon, a State endangered and fully protected species, was observed flying over the project site. No suitable nesting habitat occurs on the site, but this falcon may forage here.

Introduced animal species observed or expected on-site consist of the red fox, house sparrow, rock pigeon, ring-necked pheasant, and European starling. There is likely also a host of other non-native fish and invertebrate species present as well. Non-native species are typically of concern in that they often displace and/or prey upon many native species.

Ecology

The Park lies within the Guadalupe River Watershed. Habitats present include scattered mature valley oak trees that are remnant from the oak savanna habitat that historically occurred in the region. The Park site likely contained a variety of other vegetation, such as coast live oak trees, native shrubs and grasses, and potentially alkaline seasonal wetlands, but due to decades of continuous agricultural use, few native plant species remain. Historically, the Park site was part of a significant portion of the “Tulares de las Canoas,” one of the largest wetland complexes in the Santa Clara Valley. Current habitat zones include scattered mature valley oak trees, fallowed fields, and the constructed Canoas Creek drainage channel.

The valley oak trees provide habitat and cover for a variety of animal species. These trees provide perch sites and foraging and nesting habitat for bird species, such as red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and white-breasted nuthatch. These valley oaks also provide cover for mammal species, such as the red fox.


The agricultural fields provide foraging habitat for several species that are commonly found in rural areas. Shallow depressions within these fields provide marginal or potentially restorable wetland habitat for wetland-associated invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Canoas Creek, a tributary to the Guadalupe River that flows through the southwestern corner of the site, is an engineered drainage channel with a concrete bottom. Sediment deposits have accumulated along this creek and provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial vegetation. However, conditions within this creek provide only marginal habitat for native plants and animals. This engineered creek has altered the natural hydrology and seasonal flooding that likely occurred on the site in historic times, but still functions as a movement corridor for several aquatic and terrestrial animal species.

Cultural Resources

Archeological Sites and Standing Structures

The Martial Cottle Park’s Life Estate area includes an 1880-1950s historic-era ranch, consisting of a two-story residence, barns, sheds, and other out-structure typical of an active ranch. The Martial Cottle Ranch is listed on both the City of San José’s Historic Resources Inventory and the Santa Clara County Heritage Resources Inventory. This Ranch is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and qualifies as a historical resource.

One prehistoric archaeological site, CA-SCL-295, was identified at the southwestern edge of the park site. CA-SCL-295 consists of a thin scatter of fire-fractured rock and Franciscan chert. The site was identified and mapped in 1974. The Sonoma State College Anthropology Laboratory issued a supplement site record in 2000.

Martial Cottle Park and its vicinity are sensitive for both prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites. Settlement pattern data from previous cultural resources studies of the area indicate that the favored locations for prehistoric village sites were at low elevations on the flat valley floor and terraces near rivers and main tributaries. Canoas Creek, although now channelized, flows through the southwest portion of the park. Prior to channelization, Canoas Creek would have meandered to some degree as high flow rates would have lifted the creek out of its bed, changing its morphology, seeking new flow patterns and routes. This periodic meandering of the streambed widens the area in which a heightened possibility of encountering archaeological resources exists. In addition, the geology of the park vicinity contains Holocene aged alluvium in which prehistoric burials and sites have been identified. Only a small portion of the total park site has been previously systematically surveyed and recorded. A State Parks archeologist found no evidence of prehistoric archaeological artifacts near Canoas Creek.


Cultural Background

The Park is within Rancho de Santa Teresa, a 9,647-acre area of land granted in 1834 by Mexican Governor José Figueroa to José Joaquin Bernal, a settler who came to California in 1776 with the De Anza expedition. He settled in San José in 1805 with his wife and children. Rancho Santa Teresa, located in the southeastern part of modern San José, ten miles south of Pueblo San José, centered on the year-round artesian Santa Teresa spring. Today, over 1,000 acres of the rancho surrounding the Santa Teresa spring is Santa Teresa County Park.

In 1864, a portion of the rancho was purchased by Vermont native Edward Cottle, who came to San José on October 11, 1854 via wagon train from Missouri with 600 head of cattle. Edward and his family settled along Coyote Creek, purchased and farmed a portion of Santa Teresa, and in turn gave 350 acres to his son Martial. Martial used the parcel for growing grain and row crops and raising cattle. Ensuing generations of the Cottle family continued to farm and add acreage to Martial’s parcel. By 1876, total aggregate ranch acreage was over 640 acres. Martial ran a dairy operation until 1885. By 1888, the home ranch grew roughly 150 acres for growing grain, the rest of which was pasture for cattle and horses. A small parcel was given over to a family orchard that included quince, plum, apricot, and apple trees. The Park is located within the parcel that formed part of Martial’s portion of the ranch.

Martial and Edith Cottle had five children, Leora E. (1879-1965), who married Samuel Cobb; Maybella (1881 -1960); Martial Jr. (1883-1936); William Henry Montemer (1886-1943); and Ethel Elizabeth (1891-1977). Martial Sr. died in January 1909 and by 1910 his widow was living with Maybella, Martial, Montemer, and Ethel who married Henry W. Lester in July 1914. Henry owned 130 acres on the opposite side of Snell Road, which he had purchased from the Hayes estate in 1912. By 1920, Martial Jr.’s wife Florence joined the Lesters, Montemer, and Maybella at the Cottle Ranch. By 1930, the Cottle Ranch was home to Edith and Maybella Cottle and the Lesters with their two children Edith Ethel (1915-1999) and Walter Cottle Lester (1925- ).

In the 1920s and 1930s portions of the property (excluding the family orchards) were leased to Japanese iterant farmers. One farmer, Hirata, whose residence is presently used by the Donor as an office, planted crops of sugar beets, pickling peppers, and strawberries. He also grew carrots and onions for seed sellers, Ferry-Morse. Martial Jr. died in 1936 and Montemer followed in 1943. Henry Lester, Walter’s father, was one of the area's largest prune growers, with over 860 acres in production at various parts of southern Santa Clara Valley. When Uncle Montemer passed away, Walter Lester assumed responsibilities for operations of the Cottle Ranch. Henry and Walter formed a partnership in 1944. In the 1950s they opened a cattle venture on the Cottle property. In the spring and summer months, the cattle grazed on irrigated pasture land. In the winter they were kept in corrals and given feed. Displaying a streak of self-sufficiency, the Lesters milled their own feed on site in the pole barn within ten years of starting the cattle operations. Henry Lester died in 1956 followed by Leora Cobb in 1965.


In 1977 when Ethel Lester died, the ranch went to her children Edith and Walter. Neither Edith nor Walter married, and both continued to live on the ranch. Edith Lester died in 1999, leaving Walter the sole owner. He continues to keep the 287-acre ranch in production, seasonally growing hay, barley, and other crops on the open field areas. A small fruit orchard is planted near the house and the area south of the Cottle Ranch residence is cultivated year-round with various row crops. Produce raised on the farm is sold at a produce stand located at the corner of Snell and Chynoweth Avenues.

The ranch is significant in Santa Clara Valley history for having been continuously farmed by the Cottle and Lester families for nearly 150 years. In accordance with the wishes of Ethel Lester, Martial’s heir and Walter’s mother, the land was transferred to the State and County in 2003 to create an historical agricultural park to promote, educate, and sustain farming traditions in the Santa Clara Valley.

Aesthetic Resources

Martial Cottle Park represents a significant visual and scenic resource within the context of its urban setting in a fully developed section of the City of San José. Much of the Park’s scenic value is attributable to the site’s sparsely developed open character, and the sharp contrast that its rural agricultural use and improvements provide with the surrounding urbanized area.

Visually, the Park’s open space setting serves two functions. It affords visitors with visual relief from surrounding development, and it also serves as a viewpoint from which visitors can appreciate the larger landscape. The 287-acre site forms the dominant foreground element from surrounding streets and neighborhoods, and thus serves as a focal visual feature for the neighborhood. The size and openness of the site combined with its flat topography allow for largely unimpeded views out from the site, including high quality views of the mountain ranges that flank the Santa Clara Valley as well as less scenic foreground views of typical suburban development, including residential subdivisions, a commercial shopping center, city streets, and an elevated freeway.

Numerous scenic resources, such as panoramic views, landscape features, and built features contribute to a potentially positive visual experience for future Park users.

There are a number of visual features or characteristics in the project site and vicinity that detract from the quality of the views and scenic character. Some of these features are within the property while others are located outside the boundaries. The urban development that surrounds the site on all sides significantly detracts from the area’s overall visual quality and conflicts with the rural, agricultural character of the property.

Recreation Resources

Martial Cottle Park will become a new park with a focus on historic agriculture. Currently and historically, the site has been operated as a functioning farm, and has not previously been used for recreation. As an “historical agricultural park,” many of the


Park’s recreational and educational programs will be oriented to the agricultural use of the site. The site will also provide traditional passive recreational park amenities.

Martial Cottle Park is currently an active farm. Mr. Lester, descendent of the Cottle family and donor of the Park, currently lives in the main residence on the 32-acre Life Estate portion of the site. The portion of the Life Estate south and east of the main residence is in active production of vegetable and orchard crops, while the majority of the site is used to grow wheat and other grain crops.

There are no recreational uses on the site. However there are three public, agriculture-related uses: a produce stand, a Christmas tree farm, and a seasonal pumpkin patch. The produce stand sells produce grown on site as well as from other farms. Produce grown on the site includes corn, tomatoes, melons, peppers, cucumber, zucchini, beans, cherries, peaches, apricots and other stone fruit. The produce stand is busy mainly from mid-April through Labor Day.

The pumpkin patch operation is an extremely popular commercial concession and recreational and educational amenity, that operates during the month of October. School field trips from kindergarten through second grade visit the pumpkin patch, where they are given a presentation on how pumpkins are grown and the history of agriculture in the area. These groups come from around San José, most from within a five-mile radius. The school groups range in size from 20 to 150 children, and during the second half of October the pumpkin patch hosts two to three groups per day. The afternoons are made available to families and individuals. Additional amenities offered in conjunction with the pumpkin patch include a farm-animal petting zoo, a caboose ride, a hay tunnel, and a corn maze.

The Christmas tree farm, which is located in a long strip along Chynoweth Avenue, is a successful business operation, but it is a less active visitor attraction than the produce stand and pumpkin patch. There is a “cut-your-own” option for Christmas tree purchasers, but the operator of the Christmas tree farm has noticed a trend away from making Christmas tree procurement a family activity. The Christmas tree farm does not offer educational programs or recreational activities such as those at the pumpkin patch.

The agriculture and the operation of the produce stand, pumpkin patch and Christmas tree farm are all operated on a lease basis by the Giordano family, which has been long associated with the Mr. Lester and the farm. Based on their experience with the produce stand and the pumpkin patch, the Giordano’s believe that there is strong demand for agro-tourism-based use of this site.

Land Use

Site Description

The 287.54-acre Martial Cottle Park is unincorporated land located at 5285 Snell Avenue within the urban service limits of the City of San José, California. The Park is subject to the County’s land use policies. The publicly-owned portion of the Park site


(approximately 263 acres) which is jointly held by the County and the State is comprised of seasonally fallow agricultural land with non-native plants and scattered oak trees. Standing structures are limited to a pump house, an aboveground water storage tank, and various infrastructure improvements associated with agricultural residency and production (e.g., water wells, septic system, irrigation lines, fencing, etc.). Canoas Creek bisects the southwestern portion of the site.

The remainder of the site (32 acres) consists of the Life Estate, which occupies the southeastern portion of the site. It includes the historic main residence, as well as a number of barns and out buildings, abandoned equipment, aboveground storage tanks (AST), former underground storage tanks (UST), irrigation pipeline, vehicles, and containers of varying capacities associated with a working farm. The Life Estate also includes a produce stand located south of the main area on the northwestern corner of the Snell Avenue and Chynoweth Avenue intersection. Approximately 25 acres of the Life Estate situated to the south of the compound of farm buildings are actively farmed with row crops and Christmas tree plantings.

Surrounding Land Uses

The area surrounding the site is urbanized, with residential land uses predominant in the immediate vicinity. Commercial uses include various retail shops, restaurants, a bank, and a 76 Gasoline and Express Lube Station, which are located across Branham Lane opposite the northeastern corner of the site. Branham Lane, Snell Avenue, and Chynoweth Avenue border the site to the north, east, and south, respectively. Single-family residential homes back onto the western boundary of the project site, and multi-family residential development borders the east side of the panhandle. State Route (SR) 85, an 8-lane freeway, borders the southern boundary of the panhandle. Sunrise Plaza, which consists of retail shops, a dry cleaners, restaurants, and gas station, is located approximately 0.25 mile south of the site, beyond Blossom Hill Road.

Noise Environment

The Park is located in a suburban area and is, therefore, influenced by several surrounding noise sources. Vehicular noise is the primary source of ambient noise in the Park vicinity. The primary noise sources include traffic on SR-85, Branham Lane, and on Snell Avenue. Railroad and aircraft noise sources do not significantly impact the Park area. Operational noise sources associated with implementation of the project would also include agricultural and farming equipment noise sources; these noise sources would be similar to those currently produced on the park site during the seasonal agricultural operating periods.

Measured ambient noise levels on the Park site range from 57.8 dBA to 62.3 dBA Leq. The County of Santa Clara has identified that noise environments with ambient noise levels up to 65 dBA Ldn are satisfactory for open space and agricultural land use development. Although the noise descriptors Leq and Ldn are not interchangeable, typically in suburban environments where noise levels drop off significantly at night, the Ldn is lower than the daytime Leq ambient noise levels. However, where residential


properties abut the Park boundary, residents would likely have a high sensitivity to changes in the noise environment, especially within the western portion of the Park.

Hazardous Materials

This section is primarily based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Lester Property at 5285 Snell Avenue and the Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report for 5285 Snell Avenue prepared by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Both reports were prepared on behalf of the County Parks.

Use and Storage of Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products

Ninyo & Moore noted hazardous substances and petroleum products primarily in the Life Estate area of the Park. Petroleum products were also noted on the southern portion of the site in the vicinity of the produce stand. At the time of the reconnaissance an oil storage shed situated on the western portion of the Life Estate contained the majority of bulk oil being utilized on the site. Oil storage was also noted in the maintenance building. Staining was noted throughout the maintenance building and on the floor of the oil storage shed.

Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes

Storage of hazardous wastes generated from current and historic on-site activities was evident throughout the Life Estate. When the ESA was prepared, waste oil was being collected in 55-gallon drums located adjacent to the horse barn. Unlabeled containers with varying amounts of unknown liquids and solids were observed throughout the site.

Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks

A minimum of seven gasoline and diesel aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were observed or reported by the land Donor during the site reconnaissance. Four of the active ASTs were observed on the Life Estate. The fifth active AST (diesel) was observed on the produce stand portion of the site. One truck tank was observed west of the residence and reported inactive. The remaining tank was reported by the land Donor to be located in the old oil storage shed, the floor of which is unpaved.

At the time of the reconnaissance survey, no underground storage tanks (USTs) were being utilized for on-site farming activities. The land Donor reported that there were three USTs formerly utilized on-site. A minimum of six former USTs were observed stored aboveground on the Life Estate.

Water Resources

Ninyo & Moore documented five wells within the Park boundary in the Phase I ESA. An additional well associated with the original residence, previously in the west central portion of the Park, was closed in the 1930s. The depths of these wells vary from


approximately 150 to 350 feet in depth and were drilled as early as 1929 to as recent as 1998.

Wastewater Systems

Two septic systems were reported for the Park. One active septic system was observed south and adjacent to the main residence on the Life Estate. This system is pumped by an off-site contractor on an as-needed basis. In addition to the active system associated with the main residence, one other former residence was connected to a septic system. The latter septic system was filled in when its use was discontinued in the 1950s following a fire that destroyed the residence.

Other Hazardous Materials

A spray area was reportedly utilized periodically when livestock were managed on the site. The spray area was located adjacent to the north exterior of the horse barn and was used for spraying livestock with insecticide-related chemicals. The primary chemical utilized on animals was toxaphene. There was also a portion of the site utilized for the burning of weed and waste vegetation cultivated from farming activities (Donor). Its approximate location was not identified by Ninyo & Moore during the site reconnaissance or during aerial photograph review.

Asphalt grindings left over from paving activities on Snell Avenue were spread on a driveway that provides access to the buildings in the main portion of the site. Excess asphalt grinds were located in piles located adjacent to the maintenance building at the time of the site reconnaissance.

Current Agricultural Operations

Within the Life Estate area, Roundup and simazine are currently used to control weeds in areas inaccessible by a mower. These herbicides are typically used around fence lines and buildings on the Life Estate. Asana® is the most commonly-used insecticide by the Donor’s Lessee for the agricultural operation. Sulphur is also used by the lessee to control fungal diseases and is commonly utilized in organic farming methods.

Hazardous Building Materials Survey

Suspect asbestos-containing materials were observed in some of the site buildings. In addition, suspect lead-based paint and potential wood preservatives were observed on most of the site buildings.

Environmental Database Search

A computerized, environmental information database search identified several surrounding properties of potential environmental concern. One adjacent property, Tosco/76 gasoline station (151 Branham Lane), was listed as having an open Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) case. Ninyo & Moore concluded that there is a low to moderate likelihood that the environmental integrity of the Martial Cottle site has been


adversely affected by this off-site facility. Ninyo & Moore concluded that there is a low likelihood that the environmental integrity of the site has been adversely affected by other off-site sources.

Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

Field sampling activities were conducted by Ninyo & Moore on January 29, between February 3 and February 5, February 10, February 17, and on June 8 of 2004. Soil and groundwater samples collected were submitted to Sparger Technologies, Inc., located in Sacramento, California, for chemical analysis.

Test Results

Soil and Sediment Samples

Organochlorine pesticide surficial samples collected in the agricultural area were below laboratory detection limits; however, organochlorine pesticide compounds 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, endrin and toxaphene were reported in several surface samples (0.5 foot bgs) and one shallow soil sample (2.5 feet bgs) in the former cattle spray area. Organochlorine pesticide compounds 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, endrin and toxaphene were all reported below Residential United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Preliminary Remedial Goals (PRGs), except for four samples where toxaphene was detected at 6,600 µg/kg. The Residential PRG for toxaphene is 440 µg/kg. The Residential PRG for DDD is 2.4 mg/kg, endrin is 18 mg/kg, and DDE and DDT is 1.7 mg/kg.

Arsenic concentrations reported in samples collected from the agricultural area on site were above Residential PRGs for arsenic as a cancer endpoint (0.39 mg/kg), but below arsenic as a non-cancer endpoint (22 mg/kg).

Organochlorine pesticide compounds delta-BHC (cyclohexane) and gamma-chlordane were also detected below Residential PRGs in sediment samples in Canoas Creek. Residential PRGs for cyclohexane and chlordane are 140 mg/kg and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively. Toluene was detected in two creek sediment samples. Toluene was detected in one creek sediment sample above the Residential PRGs of 520 mg/kg. Oil and grease were detected above the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residual fuels in surface soils (<3 meters) where groundwater is a source of drinking water in two sediment samples (one sample at 580 mg/kg and the other sample at 620 mg/kg). The PRG for residual hydrocarbons is 500 mg/kg. Oil and grease PRGs do not exist for comparison. The bottom of Canoas Creek is concrete-lined, so the sediment contamination is limited in vertical extent.

TPH-MO was also reported above residual fuel ESLs (500 mg/kg) in one sample collected inside the maintenance building. The area of contamination appeared to be aerially limited to a portion of the maintenance building where vehicles were parked and only at shallow (0.5 foot bgs) depths. MTBE was reported below Residential PRGs (62 mg/kg) in samples collected adjacent to the oil storage building in the vicinity of an active AST.


Chromium, nickel, lead, and zinc were reported below their respective Residential PRGs in the areas of the former UST pits, bulk and waste oil storage areas, and the maintenance building.

Surface Water and Groundwater Samples

Surface water samples collected from Canoas Creek were below laboratory reporting limits for oil and grease, arsenic, VOCs, and pesticides.

MTBE was detected in two groundwater sample locations at 0.6 µg/L and 10 µg/L, which are below Primary Maximum Contamination Levels (MCL) for MTBE (13 µg/L).

Hazardous Materials Planning Considerations

Arsenic Elevated concentrations of arsenic were reported in surficial samples collected at 0.5 feet and 1.0 feet bgs in the eastern agricultural area of the site, possibly related to compounds used in pesticides during farming activities and/or naturally occurring formations in the bedrock surrounding the Santa Clara Valley. Arsenic concentrations were also reported in soil samples collected over the remainder of the agricultural area on site ranging from 3.83 mg/kg to 9.90 mg/kg. However, the Limited Phase II ESA prepared by Ninyo & Moore cites several studies and geologic surveys that demonstrate that elevated concentrations of naturally occurring arsenic are common in the San Francisco Bay Area. Because background concentrations for arsenic in the Bay Area are frequently higher than the Industrial PRGs as a cancer endpoint and, recognizing that elevated levels of naturally occurring arsenic exist in the area, the EPA has applied non-cancer PRGs to the area.

The main commercial and industrial uses of arsenic compounds are in pesticides, particularly in the U.S. for weed killers. Arsenic-containing pesticides are also widely used in agriculture, especially in fruit crops. The compounds most often used in pesticides today in the U.S. are the less toxic arsenic compounds, but inorganic compounds are still regularly used in many places.

As discussed above, elevated arsenic concentrations are typical of soils in the Bay Area. The reported analytical results of shallow soil collected at the site are below the non-cancer endpoint Residential PRG. However, arsenic concentrations are higher in the eastern portion of the site and may be related to past agricultural activities.

Toxaphene Toxaphene was used historically as a pesticide on farm animals in the horse barn area. Toxaphene was reported above Residential PRGs in one composite sample collected from 0.5 foot bgs and was close to PRGs in two other composite samples collected at 0.5 foot and 2.5 feet bgs.


Oil and Grease Compounds Oil and grease compounds were reported slightly above residual total petroleum hydrocarbon ESLs in an area of the maintenance building. Several other soil samples collected at 0.5 feet and 2.5 feet bgs in the maintenance building and drum storage areas reported concentrations of TPH-MO above reporting limits but below ESLs.

Traffic/Circulation

Introduction

The purpose of this section is to document the existing traffic and circulation system in the vicinity of Martial Cottle Park, as well as to discuss current traffic conditions along roadways and intersections that would provide access to the project site. This section is limited to a description of the existing circulation setting based on available data and from field observations.

Existing Circulation System

Regional Access Regional access to the Park is provided by Highway 101 and State Route 85. Highway 101, which is a major interstate that extends from Northern California to Southern California, is located approximately two miles east of the Park. State Route 85 (otherwise known as the West Valley Freeway) is a regional freeway that extends from the City of Mountain View to south San José, connecting into Highway 101 approximately three miles southeast of the park. State Route 85 is located within close proximity to the Park, where a portion of the freeway is adjacent to the southern boundary of the Park, and provides access to the Park via the Blossom Hill Road interchange. In addition to its connection with Highway 101, SR 85 provides regional connections to I-280, SR 17, and SR 87.

Local Access Local access in the vicinity of the project site is provided via the roadways described below.

Snell Avenue is a four lane north-south arterial roadway which extends north from SR 85 to the Capitol Expressway. Snell Avenue provides access to the park site from its eastern boundary. The posted speed limit along Snell Avenue next to the project site is 40 miles per hour. Pedestrian facilities are limited to sidewalks along the east side of Snell Avenue from Chynoweth Avenue to Branham Lane. There are northbound and southbound bike lanes on Snell Avenue. The intersections of Snell Avenue with Chynoweth Avenue and Branham Lane are signalized. All side street accesses onto Snell Avenue are controlled by stop signs. Snell Avenue is slated to be widened on the Martial Cottle Park property side.


Branham Lane borders the project site to the north. This section of Branham Lane is a two lane east-west arterial which extends from the Monterey Highway (SR 82) to the east and continues west to the Guadalupe Parkway (SR 87) and ultimately to SR 85. The speed limit in the vicinity of the project area is 40 miles per hour. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks along the north side of Branham Lane from Snell Avenue to Vistapark Drive. There are eastbound and westbound bike lanes on Branham Lane. The intersections of Branham Avenue with Snell Avenue and Vista Park Drive are signalized. All side street accesses onto Branham Lane are controlled by stop signs. Branham lane is slated to be widened on the Martial Cottle Park property side.

Chynoweth Avenue is a four lane east-west collector street adjacent to the south side of the park site. Since the west end of Chynoweth terminates at the edge of the site’s panhandle, the street is used primarily as an access roadway to residential subdivisions and the neighborhood elementary school located south of Chynoweth Avenue on Avenida Almendros. The speed limit in the vicinity of the project area is 40 miles per hour. Sidewalks are included along the south side of Chynoweth Avenue. As noted above, the intersection of Chynoweth Avenue with Snell Avenue is signalized. All side street accesses onto Chynoweth Avenue are controlled by stop signs.

Blossom Hill Road is a six-lane east-west arterial south of the Park. Blossom Hill Road has bicycle lanes in each direction. Future pedestrian and bicycle access from Blossom Hill Road to Martial Cottle Park may be provided via an existing underpass that was constructed under State Route 85.

Internal Circulation Currently, the entire site is fenced and gated. Access to the site is provided through two access gates located along the western boundary; two gated access points in the northeast portion of the site at Branham Lane; four access gates along Snell Avenue. Two of the gates along Snell Avenue provide access to the produce stand and the associated storage yard, one gate provides direct access to the Life Estate area and the northernmost gate accesses the PG&E easement. Two gates access the Life Estate from Chynoweth Avenue (Figure 2). Aside from dirt roads used by the Donor and his lessee, there is no other defined internal circulation system within the park boundaries. There is no public access permitted anywhere on site with the exception of the produce stand that is located at the southeast boundary of the project. Access to, and parking for, the produce stand is off Snell Avenue (Figure 2).

Transit Service

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Caltrain provide transit service to the site. The VTA operates fixed route, commuter, and paratransit bus service and light rail service (LRT) in Santa Clara County. Three local and express bus routes operate along Snell Avenue on the eastern border of the park – Routes 66, 122, and 304. The nearest bus stops to the project site are located on Snell Avenue. Route 27 operates along Blossom Hill Road. The nearest light rail stations are the Ohlone/Chynoweth Station to the southwest of the site, and the Blossom Hill Station to the southeast of the


site on the Alum Rock-Santa Teresa line. The service runs about every 15 minutes, seven days a week.

Caltrain Caltrain provides frequent passenger train service between San José and San Francisco seven days a week. During commute periods, Caltrain provides extended service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The closest Caltrain Station to the site is the Blossom Hill Station on the Guadalupe Parkway.

Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed to determine a baseline for existing conditions. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential. Level of service (LOS) operations during peak hour traffic are estimated to range between LOS C and D. Off-peak hour traffic conditions operate at much lower delay and appear to operate at LOS B.

Utilities

The Park is located within the City of San José’s Urban Service Area (USA); the area of the City that receives municipal services. Currently, the Park (including the Life Estate) relies on on-site wells for domestic and agricultural production. Sanitary waste is managed through an on-site septic system and storm water permeates directly into the soils on-site or is channeled to the Guadalupe River via Canoas Creek. Development of the Park may require that these on-site utilities be connected to the City’s municipal infrastructure system.

Water Supply

On-Site Wells Groundwater withdrawals have historically served the domestic and agricultural water needs of the park site. There are five active wells located on the site, the majority of which are used for agricultural/irrigation purposes (Figure 5).

Well W-1 is the primary source of the domestic supply for the site, and wells W-2 and W-3 are utilized for agricultural purposes. Well W-4 is utilized for domestic use and limited watering of fruits and vegetables at the produce stand. These wells also supply water that is used to irrigate the crops grown on the Life Estate. A fenced and corrugated pump house and agricultural supply well (Well W-5) is located in the south-central portion of the site just beyond the western terminus of Chynoweth Avenue. The diesel irrigation pump and well are still functional but are not regularly used. This area also contains an above-ground water storage tank.

Municipal Water Supply SCVWD is the primary water resource agency responsible for the conservation and development of water resources within the County. The San José Water Company


provides municipal water service for the portion of the City in which the Park is located. No recycled water pipelines are located in the vicinity of the Park.

Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer

On-site Septic Systems Two septic systems were reported for the site. One active septic system is located south and adjacent to the main residence. This system is pumped by an off-site contractor on an as-needed basis. In addition to the active system associated with the main residence, one other former residence was connected to a septic system. The latter septic system was filled in when its use was discontinued in the 1950s.

City Sanitary Sewer Public sanitary sewer facilities exist within the project vicinity. A 42-inch sanitary sewer pipe runs north-south through the western portion of the project site (Figure 5). This line is located in a city easement across the property and continues west along Branham Lane. In addition, a 36-inch sanitary sewer line follows the alignment of Canoas Creek in the southwestern portion of the project (Figure 5). A 30-inch sewer line runs along the eastern boundary of the project site in Snell Avenue. A 21-inch sewer line runs along Branham Lane between Snell Avenue and Kingspark Drive.

Stormwater Collection Storm drainage runoff within the urbanized areas of the City is discharged into local storm drains, which flow to the creeks and rivers and ultimately to the San Francisco Bay. The SCVWD has land rights over most of the creek channels that collect runoff from the storm drains serving urban areas, including Canoas Creek that flows through the southwestern portion of the project site. Surface runoff from the site flows toward the on-site creek or to lower elevations, via natural drainage courses.

A 72-to-84-inch storm main runs along the northern boundary of the park site in the Branham Lane right-of-way. This storm main collects stormwater runoff from inlets in Branham Lane and adjacent roadways. A 54-inch storm main runs along the eastern boundary of the Park within Snell Avenue, collecting stormwater runoff from inlets in Snell Avenue and adjacent roadways. Storm mains collect stormwater runoff from surrounding development and discharge it via storm drain outfalls into Canoas Creek at several locations within the vicinity of the park site.

Energy

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the project area by way of a system of existing electric transmission towers and overhead electrical lines which run along most of the existing streets in the project vicinity. PG&E has an easement along the eastern boundary of the Park along Snell Avenue (Figure 2).


Telephone

Several companies provide telecommunications service to the City. AT&T provides telephone service by way of main telephone lines in the Park vicinity. AT&T also provides fiber-optic broadband communications. Major fiber-optic lines located in the Park vicinity provide various telecommunication companies with the means to provide a range of business and residential communication services including high-speed internet, wireless calling, and web-hosting. The Comcast Corporation provides cable television and broadband internet service to the area.

Solid Waste

Solid waste and recycling services are overseen by the City of San José’s Environmental Services Department. Collection of residential waste occurs under exclusive agreements between the City and several service providers. Garden City Sanitation Service provides garbage collection services in the project area; California Waste Solutions collects recycled materials and Green Waste Recovery collects yard trimmings. The City has a contract with Newby Island Landfill for the disposal of residential garbage, though the residential haulers may dispose of the waste elsewhere at their own expense.

Commercial solid waste and recyclables collection services in the City are provided by approximately twenty-four non-exclusive City-franchised haulers. The waste may be disposed of at any of the five privately owned landfills in San José. Recycling services are available to most businesses from private recyclers.

Fiscal and Financial Overview

Budget Overview

The County Parks Department’s annual operations and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget is ultimately approved by the County Board of Supervisors. However, broad funding levels are largely determined by the Park Charter Fund. Since 1972, County residents have voted to set aside a small percentage of the County’s total property tax revenues to acquire, develop and maintain County parks. In June 2006, the voters again voted to renew the Park Charter with an amended formula approved by the Board of Supervisors.

As established in the Park Charter, revenues from property tax currently must be allocated to uses according to the following formula: 80 percent towards maintenance costs, capital improvement program (CIP) and discretionary spending; and 20 percent towards acquisition. Beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2009, this formula will be revised to 80 percent towards maintenance costs and discretionary spending, 15 percent towards acquisition costs, and 5 percent to the CIP. The Board of Supervisors approves Department annual funding recommendations subject to these broad parameters.


Revenue Summary The primary revenue sources identified in the County Parks FY 2008 annual budget are summarized below.

• Property tax. As noted, the Park Charter Fund allocates a portion of property tax revenue for County parks, at a rate of approximately 1.5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. Of the Department’s total annual budget, this set-aside is the largest source of revenue, totaling about 88.5 percent.

• Operating revenue. Throughout the year, the Department collects user fees, parking fees, and revenues from contracts such as leases. For 2008, this category of funds is expected to total about 11.5 percent. In addition, the Department maintains a number of reciprocal relationships with other State, local, and private entities that involve a variety of in-kind services and programs.

• Outside funding. The Department receives a portion of its budget from a variety of outside funding sources including Federal and State government grants and bond measures, non-profit entities and private donors. These sources vary from year to year in terms of their overall amount and purpose. For FY 2008, the percentage of external revenues for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is 45 percent of the CIP budget and external sources account for 0.6 percent of the operating budget.

Expenditure Summary The Department’s current FY 2008 expenditures are highlighted under four primary categories.

• Personnel. Approximately 49 percent of annual expenditures will go towards employee salaries and benefits.

• Services and supplies. In FY 2008, approximately 22 percent of annual expenditures are expected to be expended on services and supplies for the Department.

• Fixed assets. Approximately half a percent of all expenditures will be spent on fixed assets such as property, vehicles, and equipment.

• Acquisition. About 18 percent of expenditures are used to acquire land for the Department. In FY 2009, the proportion of the Department’s budget directed to acquisition will be reduced from 20 percent to 15 percent of revenues from property taxes.

Implications for Implementation of the Martial Cottle Park Master Plan

The Department’s budget is dominated by a stable source of funding—property taxes—which has been approved by voters each of the six times the issue was on the ballot over the last 35 years. On the positive side, this source represents relatively secure funding upon which to base funding decisions for the future development, operations and


management of Martial Cottle Park. In addition, given the rapid appreciation in County property values over the last 10 years, this source has also proven to be relatively robust. In fact, revenues have actually exceeded expenditures in recent years according to Department staff.

Although Charter Fund revenues have been relatively robust in recent years, this source is not entirely insulated from cyclical fluctuations. For example, the recent downturn in the residential market is likely to result in a gradual leveling off in revenue increases over the next several years. In addition, the structural nature of this fund in which a constant proportion is allocated to land acquisition suggests that Department’s obligations and thus operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are likely to continue to increase over time. Thus, even as revenues continue to expand, newly acquired facilities will continue to create demands on and competition for Department funds.

As noted earlier, the State owns a large portion (136 acres) of Martial Cottle Park land. Given that the County will be responsible for the future development, operations and management of the park, it is highly unlikely that the California Parks Department will represent a reliable funding source for O&M or capital costs in the years to come. Current funding for the State Department has declined consecutively during the last two budget cycles (by 9 percent and 14 percent, respectively, between FYs 06/07 - 07/08 and FYs 07/08 – 08/09). Over the longer term, the State Department’s budget levels have fluctuated widely, depending upon State budgetary considerations. In the longer term, it is possible that through legislative approval or State ballot initiative, more State money may become available for Martial Cottle, either for O&M or capital expenses. Although this source cannot be discounted altogether, there is uncertainty related to what budgeted State funding might be available for the Park.

Operating Expenses In general, the long-term financial viability of Martial Cottle Park will be improved to the extent that cost recovery programming can be incorporated. As noted early, currently the Department covers approximately 12 percent of its budget through operating revenue. This includes a combination of user fees, leases, and other externally generated sources. In addition, Martial Cottle should continue to leverage and expand on the Department’s existing relationships and reciprocal agreements with other State, local, and private entities. Such arrangements can greatly reduce costs and/or improve programming at minimal expense to the Department.

In considering the degree to which operating costs at Martial Cottle Park will be supported by revenues raised at the site, it is instructive to consider the experience of two regional parks in the area. Emma Prusch Farm Park (operated by the City of San Jose) and Ardenwood Historic Farm (operated by East Bay Regional Parks District) generate roughly 6 percent and 18 percent, respectively, of their total operating budgets on-site. Fees for summer camps and classes make up the bulk of revenues to Emma Prusch Farm Park while revenues associated with festivals held at Ardenwood Historic Farm make up a large proportion of that site’s revenue generation.


Capital Expenses Sources of funding for developing facilities and infrastructure at Martial Cottle will likely include Department sources as well as grants and other outside funding. At this point in the Master Plan development process, it is not clear what the total build-out costs of the park master plan would entail and what portion of total development costs would be. However, the County Parks Department has set aside about $20 million for the first phase of the master plan implementation. This park reserve does not address the total capital investment and future O&M costs associated with the ultimate build-out of the park.

A preliminary review of outside funding sources is summarized in Table 3. As noted, various local, State, federal, and private sources may be applicable to Martial Cottle Park. It is expected that information will be further expanded and refined as the Master Plan process continues. For the most part, these sources are primarily available for one-time capital or land related costs rather than as an ongoing source of revenue.


Table 3

Federal, State, and Private Grants

Martial Cottle Master Plan

Agency Program Description Eligibility

Federal

EPA Environmental Education Grants

Financial support for projects that design, demonstrate, or disseminate environmental education practices or methods.

Eligible applicants must fall into one of the following categories: local education agency, state education or environmental agency, college or university, not-for-profit organization as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, noncommercial educational broadcasting entity, tribal education agency. Funding availability is unknown since the last program was in 2006.

National Park Service NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program

Staff support for projects involving open space protection, greenway planning, river conservation, and urban greening. Aims to protect important natural resources or enhance outdoor recreation opportunities.

Nonprofit organizations, community groups, tribal governments, local or State government agencies. Unknown funding availability.

State

California State Parks Proposition 84

California Resources Agency

Proposition 84 provides $400 million to California State Parks (CSP) to expand the state park system to reflect the growing population and shifting needs of the state. For example, Proposition 84 will fund projects that rehabilitate, improve and build additional campgrounds, trails, and facilities.

Projects that aim to achieve the following goals: (1) restore, rehabilitate, and improve existing state park lands and facilities, (2) expand state park system to reflect the growing population and shifting population centers and needs of the state, and (3) protect natural resources based on priorities identified in Public Resources Code Section 75071.


California Farmland Conservancy Program

Provides funds to projects aiming to conserve productive farmland and diverse open spaces.

Landowners, local governments, and non-profit land trusts are eligible.


Ecosystem Restoration and Wildlife Protection Program

The program will focus on projects that provide funding to landowners for restoration and development projects that benefit habitat and wildlife. The Wildlife Conservation Board is in the process of developing guidelines for evaluating and funding

Public agencies and non-profit groups and organizations are eligible.


projects.


Sustainable Communities Program

To improve the sustainability and livability of California’s communities through investment in natural resources. The purposes include reducing urban communities’ contribution to global warming and increasing their adaptability to climate change while improving the quality of life in those communities.

$400 million to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for local and regional parks with preference placed on acquisition and development of new parks and expansion of overused parks that provide park and recreational access to underserved communities, and creation of parks in neighborhoods where none currently exist. Preference also awarded to applicants that actively involve community based groups in the selection and planning of projects.

California Conservation Corps

California Conservation Corps Partnerships

The California Conservation Corps (CCC) assists with labor for trail construction, maintenance, repair and restoration, but does not provide funding.

State agencies, federal agencies, city and county agencies, school districts, nonprofit organizations and private industries.

California State Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund

The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides funding for acquisition or development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities. Priority development projects include trails, campgrounds, picnic areas, natural areas and cultural areas for recreational use. The match is at a minimum one applicant dollar to one federal dollar for all LWCF grants, and no more than 25% of the Total Grant amount can be spent on non-construction costs. In the past, Santa Clara County has obtained funding for HBR Flat Perimeter Trail and Los Gatos Creek Day Use trail connections and improvements.

Cities, counties and districts authorized to acquire, develop, operate and maintain park and recreation areas.

Proposition 1E - 2006 Flood Control Bond Act

The Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1E) authorizes $4.09 billion in general obligation bonds for flood control projects. The $1.09 billion available for projects outside the Central Valley are broken down as follows: Flood Control Subventions ($500 million), Stormwater Flood Management ($300 million), and Statewide Flood Protection Corridors and Bypasses ($290 million).

Grants are available to local agencies sponsoring relevant flood control projects.


California State Parks Recreational Trails Program

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails-related projects. There is no maximum or minimum limit on grant request amounts. In the past Santa Clara County has obtained funding for projects, including Phase II trails at Coyote Lake, the Diocese Trail at Rancho San Antonio, and the Los Gatos Trail Widening.

Cities, counties, Districts, state agencies, federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations with management responsibilities over public lands are eligible.

California State Coastal Conservancy

San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program

Provides funds for regional parks, trails, natural habitat preservation and restoration, farmland protection, and environmental education in the nine Bay Area counties. Small grants involving community-based habitat restoration and environmental education usually range from $25,000 to $150,000. Santa Clara County has received funds for Hellyer Gap Trail, Penitencia Creek Trail, and Alviso Marina Park and Trails.

Local, state, and federal public agencies, special districts, and private non-profit organizations with 501(c)3 tax status whose purposes are consistent with those of the Coastal Conservancy.

California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990

Habitat Conservation Fund Program

The Habitat Conservation Fund (HCF) Program allocates approximately $2 million per year to the California Department of Parks and Recreation to provide grants to local entities to protect fish, wildlife, and native plant resources, to acquire or develop wildlife corridors and trails, and to support programs which bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas. Funds have been obtained for projects of grazing restoration at Hall's and Deer Valleys at Grant Ranch, but this may be of limited value for Martial Cottle.

The program provides funds to local governments under the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. Cities, counties and districts are eligible to apply. It is recommended that grant requests generally do not exceed $200,000. There is a required non-state Match of 50 percent.

Private

REI Grants Program

Grants to promote conservation and outdoor recreation. Grant applicants must be nominated by an REI employee. Awards range from $20,000 to $50,000.

Nominated organizations.

Bikes Belong Coalition (sponsored by members of the American bicycle industry)

Grants Program

Grants for facilities, education, and capacity building by organizations that encourage bicycle use. Awards are generally $10,000 or less.

Non-profit organizations and public agencies are eligible for facilities and education grants. Capacity building grants available only to bicycle advocacy organizations. Available funding unknown at this time.


Michael Lee Environmental Foundation

Grants Program

Established to assist in environmental efforts and progress by promoting action and awareness. Funding community-based projects and activities in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.

Community-based projects promoting environmental education, environmental justice, environmental conservation, and environmental technologies.

(1) The net amount available for appropriation from the $2.1 billion bond were reduced to $2,020,290,000 as a result of bond issuance costs and other statewide costs. As of January 2008, combined enacted and proposed appropriations were $2,022,588,000.

(2) The net amount available for appropriation from the $2.6 billion bond were reduced to $2,485,122,000 as a result of bond issuance costs and other statewide costs. As of January 2008, combined enacted and proposed appropriations were $2,481,934,000.

Source: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.


RECREATION AND INTERPRETIVE TRENDS Demographic Trends that May Impact Martial Cottle Park

Population Growth Trends and Need for Additional Parkland

California, the nation’s most populous state, represents 12.5 percent (one of every eight person) of the United States population. According to the Department of Finance, the state’s population grew almost 1.3 percent in 2006, adding close to 470,000 residents, mirroring the growth pattern of 2005. The state has increased by nearly 3.8 million persons (11.2 percent) since the last census on April 1, 2000.

Projected population growth will generate an increased need for additional park facilities and recreation services in Santa Clara County and the City of San José. San José’s population doubled from 1970 to 1998 without an equal increase in parks acreages, community facilities, and recreation programs (City of San José, 2000). According to the Department of Finance’s data, San José’s 2000 Census population of 894,943 is projected to increase to 1,101,500 in 2020, an increase of 23 percent. Similarly the County’s population is projected to increase by approximately 23 percent, or about 380,000 by the year 2025. As of January 2007, San Jose’s population was 973,672 and Santa Clara County’s population was 1,808,056.

The distribution of this population growth is anticipated to be much highest in the cities. While the majority of population increase is expected to occur in San José and other northern county urban areas such as Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Milpitas, the rate of growth is projected to be the highest in the south county cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy (SCCPR, 2003).

In addition to the growth in population, the City's population density has increased from under 3,300 people per square mile in 1970 to more than 5,100 in 2000, and this trend is expected to continue.

Based on these projections, the City of San José’s Greenprint (2000) indicated the following projected need for additional parkland by 2020 for the Council Districts in the vicinity of Martial Cottle Park:

• District 2: 36.17 acres



• District 10: 137.76 acres (Martial Cottle Park’s home district)


Ethnicity Trends

The City and County are generally ethnically diverse. Since the 1990 Census, no single race/ethnic group has comprised a majority (i.e., 50 percent or more) of the City’s population and the city’s ethnic diversity has continued to increase since. By 2000, the White Non-Hispanic population declined to 36.0 percent of the total population while there was strong growth in the Asian and Hispanic populations. By 2010, Hispanics are projected to account for 39 percent of the City’s residents, Whites 33 percent, and Asians 24 percent (City of San José, 2000). The County as a whole is experiencing similar trends. In 2040 approximately 43 percent of the population of the County will be Asian and Pacific Islanders and approximately 38 percent of the population Hispanic (SCCPRD, 2003). San Jose has a much higher percent of foreign-born residents (36.8 percent) than California (26.2 percent) for a total of 329,750 residents.

These populations traditionally place a high value on maintaining and strengthening extended family relationships. As these populations grow, they will create an even higher demand for group use areas than exists today. Parks can help meet this demand by providing additional large group facilities accommodating such uses as picnic areas, cultural events, and festivals (SCCPRD, 2003).

This occurrence is evident at two nearby agricultural parks in the region, Ardenwood Historic Farm and at Emma Prusch Farm Park. At the 205-acre Ardenwood Historic Farm, increasing numbers of Asian and South Asian families have been visiting the park, after several successful outreach efforts and promotional free-entrance days. East Bay Regional Park District staff noted that South Asian and Hispanic visitors tend to come in large extended family groups and include large picnics in the day’s activities. Similarly, at the 47-acre Emma Prusch Farm Park, increasing numbers of Hispanic families from nearby neighborhoods have been visiting the park in recent years, making use of large picnic areas that have recently been added to the park. These family groups have been noted to stay at the park longer than other ethnic groups, for example, they have been observed not just bringing food and having a picnic. They bring and prepare food on barbeques, enjoy family celebrations and often are found listening to music and playing games on the nearby lawn areas.

Age Trends

The median age of the population of Santa Clara County and the City of San José is projected to continue to increase in the future. The proportion of children (persons 17 years and under) living in San José declined considerably between 1970 and2000, to 26.4 percent of the total population. However, there is some reversal of this trend, and the youth population (ages 10 to 19) is projected to grow 10 percent by 2005 (City of San José, 2000). It is interesting to note that the age trend in Santa Clara County does not mirror that of the statewide and nationwide trend of getting younger. Median age of Californians is a full two years younger than the U.S. average. Almost 40 percent of


California households include children under the age of 18 (the U.S. average is 36 percent).

The fastest growing segment of the population in the City of San Jose is of baby boomers, age 60 and over. The Greenprint estimated that by 2005, all age groups over age 40 will have increased at least 12 percent. The proportion of senior citizens (persons 65 years and over) within San José's population rose slowly but steadily over the 1970-2000 time period to 8.3 percent. A significant decline in park use after age 65 highlights the need to reevaluate existing program and facility needs of the elderly.

Farming Trends

Throughout California agricultural land is being lost to urban development at alarming rates. Likewise, those who own and operate farms are rapidly declining in numbers. Recent statistics indicate that California farmers age 65 and over outnumber farmers under the age of 25 by approximately 60 to one.

The 2002 Census of Agriculture – Preliminary Data Report shows a decline in total number of farms, the total acreage in farm production, and the number of small farms throughout the United States, with even more significant decreases in California in particular. California’s rapid urbanization has meant that agriculture has been forced to compete for land with urban developers who can typically afford to pay a higher price for land. The dilemma can be summed up in the following quotation from the Agricultural Land Conservation, Great Valley Center, October 1988, Modesto Bee, “If your farming return is $2,000 to $3,000 per acre, and a developer offers you $40,000 an acre, what are you going to do?” (Stated by Stockton horse breeder and developer Fritz Grupe).

Meanwhile, both at the national level and in California, the number of Spanish-speaking, Hispanic or Latino (SHL) farm operators has significantly increased. Those farmer demographic groups that are most likely to operate small farms and have historically had the most difficulty in accessing land and obtaining long-term tenure are also those groups whose populations are growing. This suggests that there will be a demand among small, limited resource, socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers for land, and that there is a clear need for greater outreach and technical assistance to this audience (SAGE, 2005).

Both aspiring and established farmers face numerous obstacles to achieving their goals. These include a lack of information about financing options and other resources crucial to their success. Retiring farmers lack information about proven, innovative ways to keep land in agricultural production while simultaneously meeting financial goals related to retirement and estate planning. The low wages of farm employees in relation to the high costs of agricultural capital make starting new farms difficult. Many aspiring farmers may find it very difficult to know where the viable opportunities are for entering a new farming operation (California FarmLink).


Recreation Demand and Use Trends

County parks are generally considered regional recreational resources and tend to be used for passive recreation, trails-based recreation, and picnicking, as identified in the 2007 Santa Clara Parks and Recreation public opinion survey. 33 percent of respondents rated hiking and walking as their most likely activity in County parks, 24 percent rated picnicking and barbequing as their most likely activity. All other categories, including sports, “bring kids to play” and biking, were reported by 7.6 percent or fewer of respondents. Similarly, in 1999-2001, the most popular activities in County parks were walking/running, with 43 percent and 51 percent of survey respondents participating in that activity in 1999 and 2001 respectively; picnics, at 36 percent and 32 percent; hiking at 20 percent and 24 percent; and biking, at 14 percent and15 percent. All other activities fell in the 1-10 percent range, including sports activities, camping and horseback riding. The 2007 needs assessment indicated that park users have a high level of satisfaction with County parks.

Whereas County parks serve primarily passive-recreation uses, San Jose parks tend to serve a wide range of activity and program preferences. The City’s parks are most popular for “hanging out,” active sports, and picnicking (City of San José, 2000), but unlike the County Parks statistics, there is not a notable drop-off in popularity between the two or three most popular activities and the rest (Statistics for City park use by activity are listed below). Within San José, Parks Department staff indicated that the most-needed facilities are additional sports fields. According to City staff, sports fields at parks and schools are “booked solid year round, and there is a shortage of available land for future development of sports fields and day use facilities.”

City Park Use by Activity:

• Hanging out (55.0%)

• Play sports (34.2%)

• Picnic (34.2%)

• Watch wildlife (29.6%)

• Hike (25.9%)

• Bicycle (20.3%)

• Run or jog (19.4%)

• Walk the dog (18.1%)

• Attend concert or festival (11.5%)

• Skateboard/rollerblade (8.2%)

• Play volleyball (7.7%)

• Swim (5.3%)


Childhood Obesity Trend

Nationwide, an emerging childhood trend is leading to a rise in childhood obesity. Terms for this trend include “Nature-Deficit Disorder” (see Richard Louv’s book, “Last Child in the Woods – Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder”). Based on the findings of this book, many parks and recreation providers are discussing ways of connecting youth to their natural environment. Nationwide, this movement has been called “No Child Left Inside.” The County Parks Department is prioritizing “connecting youth to the environment” as a theme for future recreational and interpretive programming and CIP budgeting discussions.

Importance of the Park in Meeting the Recreational and Open Space Needs of the Community

The Strategic Plan for the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation System (2003) identifies a number of regional recreational and open space needs and priorities in the County. Several of these identified needs and priorities may be met through the development of Martial Cottle Park, including:

• Expand the County parks system due to projected population growth. (See Demographics above for a discussion of projected population growth.) The demand for new parks, programs and recreation facilities in the County is largely due to the existing and projected populations within the incorporated cities. Land acquisition for public open space and development as regional parks is strongly supported by County residents (SCCPRD 2003). As a new piece of parkland within the City of San José, Martial Cottle Park will help meet the demand for additional park facilities in urban areas for developed recreational facilities and programs.

• Provide for the basic, high-demand regional recreation preferences of County park users. As indicated in the 1999, 2001 and 2007 public opinion surveys, the most popular regional recreation activities are trail activities including walking, hiking, running and bicycling; and group and family picnicking. Martial Cottle Park provides the opportunity to provide regional and local-serving trails, picnicking facilities, staging areas, restrooms, interpretive signage, and visitor kiosks.

• Provide outdoor recreation opportunities for a range of group sizes, ages and cultures. Martial Cottle Park provides the opportunity to provide day use facilities for large and small groups and to create a range of program elements for adults, children and families. The Park’s agricultural programs also provide the potential to involve different cultures in the park system in an educational, active and unique way, for example by providing living history days related to farm living in the Silicon Valley.


• Provide places for special events, including large multiple-use areas and accompanying parking and service access to accommodate festivals, outdoor concerts, and very large group activities and facilities for regional competitions such as equestrian events, sport tournaments, dog trials. Martial Cottle Park offers the opportunity to address this need within the constraints of the Property Transfer Agreement. The Donor’s Vision includes community-serving facilities, equestrian center, grassy areas and other large open areas, and parking, that may accommodate large group uses related to the agricultural history of Santa Clara County.

• Provide places with a sense of remoteness. According to the Strategic Plan, the perception exists that one has to drive at least 30 minutes to reach a place to truly relax in an area that is away from the urbanized areas of the County. While Martial Cottle Park is surrounded by urban development, it does offer the potential to provide a sense of remoteness due to its size and the distant views of surrounding natural open space areas.

• Provide outdoor recreation opportunities for people with their dogs. Martial Cottle Park may provide an opportunity to meet this need, possibly through an off-leash dog park facility and trails allowing dogs on-leash, if these are determined to be consistent with the Donor’s Vision.

• Provide for specific recreation opportunities. Martial Cottle Park is envisioned to focus on agriculture-related program elements that offer relatively unique recreational opportunities related to agriculture in the region.

• Preserve natural resources and educate the public about these resources and park stewardship. While the Martial Cottle Park site is not in its natural state, there are natural resources that may be preserved and enhanced, such as Canoas Creek, if approved as part of the Final Master Plan. Natural resource preservation and stewardship education and interpretation opportunities may also include programs related to water conservation, native plant restoration, and sustainable agriculture.

• Provide accessible regional recreation opportunities. The Martial Cottle Park site is easily accessible by multiple modes of transportation and regional roadways. Given its close proximity to the main urban population of the County, the park would be accessible to residents and users who may choose to walk, bicycle or take public transit to the site from their homes.

• Provide trail links to and between parks. Opportunities to link Martial Cottle Park to the regional trail network and other parks may be limited; however, potential linkages may exist along public streets via sidewalks and bicycle networks to connect to the existing city trail system, and County Parks will continue to advocate for improvements to these linkages.


MASTER PLAN VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES State and County Parks Mission Statements

The Martial Cottle Park Master Plan must ensure that the park’s program meets the missions of both California State Parks and County Parks. The mission statements of each department are as follow:

California State Parks

To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department

The Mission of Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department is to provide, protect, and preserve regional parklands for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of this and future generations.

In addition to the Mission Statement, the Strategic Plan for the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation System provides the following Vision Statement that will guide park development:

We create a growing and diverse system of regional parks, trails, and open spaces of Countywide significance that connects people with the natural environment, offers visitor experiences that renew the human spirit, and balances recreation opportunities with resource protection.

Donor’s Vision

The Donor’s Vision as recorded in the Grant Deeds from Walter Cottle Lester to the California State Parks Department and the County Parks Department states that Martial Cottle Park shall be a “public historical park that informs and educates the public about the agricultural heritage of the Santa Clara valley, as exemplified by the Martial Cottle family, dating from the 1850’s into the 20th century.”

Goals & Objectives

Based on the Donor’s Vision and input from the public, Task Force, Technical Advisory Committee and Project Team, the following goals and objectives have been developed for the Park Master Plan. These draft goals and objectives are not prioritized in any order. Goals have been developed for the following categories:

1. Recreation

2. Agriculture


3. Education and Interpretation

4. Natural Resources

5. Visual and Scenic Resources

6. Land Use

7. Circulation and Access

8. Management, Funding and Implementation

1. Recreation

Goal 1: Provide for a range of passive recreation opportunities that complement the vision of a historic agricultural park and are consistent with the property’s deed restrictions.

Objectives:

1.1 Integrate recreational programming and facilities with the park’s agricultural function and historical resources.

1.2 Locate and design recreational facilities that are compatible with adjacent uses next to park.

1.3 Balance the mix and distribution of recreational elements including those identified in the Donor’s Vision (i.e., “grassy park”, “lake”, equestrian center, trails, and community hall) with elements that may be needed for efficient park operations (corporation yard, storage, hazmat shed).

1.4 Provide facilities that will invite the public to make recreational use of the park (e.g., picnic facilities, multi-use trails, par course facilities, benches, etc.).

1.5 Provide facilities and programming that addresses the needs and interests of a broad spectrum of the public.

1.6 Provide facilities to serve large groups (e.g., group picnic area, central gathering space for events and festivals, etc.) as well as individual park visitors.

1.7 Explore the potential for compatible dog use within the park.


2. Agriculture

Goal 2: Preserve and enhance the park as a functioning farm that supports sustainable and multi-faceted agriculture including educational and community-serving components and commercial concessions consistent with the Donor’s Vision.

Objectives:

2.1 Preserve functioning components of the historic farm, including historic crops and farming methods, providing for interpretation and education about the historical farming practices of the Valley of the Heart’s Delight.

2.2 Employ sustainable agriculture practices for all farm operations, including organic farming practices.

2.3 Employ state-of-the-art agricultural practices and technologies, including efficient irrigation systems.

2.4 Establish viable partnerships with farming and research organizations to develop and operate the park’s agricultural programs.

2.5 Develop programs that offer the public the opportunity to experience farming, including demonstration programs and training in sustainable farming practices.

2.6 Explore opportunities for developing and enhancing the marketing of produce grown at the park and creating products for sale to the community.

2.7 Develop community garden(s) in partnership with the City of San Jose.

2.8 Develop interpretive programs for the agricultural operations of the park (see Education).

3. Education and Interpretation

Goal 3: Provide educational opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public that address the agricultural and historical themes of the park.

Objectives:

3.1 Realize the Donor’s Vision for establishment of the Life Estate area as one focal point for the park’s development of a program that interprets the history of agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley through the lens of the Cottle family’s experience.

3.2 Develop and implement a broad range of programs to provide hands-on training and education for people of all ages and backgrounds in agriculture, gardening, food production, and related topics as both vocation and avocation.


3.3 Provide classroom facilities and/or multi-use space to accommodate educational programs.

3.4 Establish partnerships with appropriate organizations such as the Santa Clara County Board of Education, San Jose Unified School District, 4-H, Future Farmers of America, Master Gardeners and the University of California Cooperative Extension, and others to develop and implement educational programs at the park to further the park’s mission.

3.5 Develop programs to interpret the agricultural heritage of Santa Clara County through the Cottle family’s agricultural practices, cultural traditions, and natural resources.

3.6 Provide a mix of interpretive and educational programs that are interactive and experiential in nature, in addition to traditional exhibits. Use internet technology to expand marketing and outreach for the park’s educational programs where feasible.

3.7 Partner with educational and research organizations in the development of the park’s agricultural program.

4. Natural Resources

Goal 4: Preserve and enhance natural resources within the park consistent with the park’s primary mission to provide for agriculture and passive recreation.

Objectives:

4.1 Preserve and restore native wildlife and vegetation populations within the park to the extent possible while allowing for primary development of agricultural and recreational uses.

4.2 Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to enhance Canoas Creek while maintaining the channel’s required hydrologic function.

4.3 Create a lake, pond and/or wetlands in the area historically associated with poor drainage and seasonal ponding for the purpose of creating wildlife habitat and scenic value.

4.4 To the degree feasible, preserve the existing valley oaks.

4.5 Incorporate the natural history of the park into the overall education and interpretive program.

4.6 Make agronomic suitability of the various soils types a primary consideration in site design.


5. Visual and Scenic Resources

Goal 5: Protect and enhance the park’s visual character while preserving high quality scenic vistas provided from within the park.

Objectives:

5.1 Balance the park user’s sensation of openness with future park development.

5.2 Visually screen or buffer foreground views of adjoining development while preserving views from within the park of the distant mountains to the east and south.

5.3 Provide visual buffers along the adjoining street corridors (Branham, Snell, and Chynoweth) that reduce the visual prominence of automobile traffic from within the park while maintaining some views into the park from surrounding streets and neighborhoods.

5.4 Create visual buffers or screens along the western edge of the park that will reduce potential for privacy conflicts with adjacent landowners.

5.5 Preserve and enhance views of buildings or other structures with architectural and historical significance.

5.6 Visually screen views of maintenance facilities, storage yards, and other facilities or structures that may detract from the park’s scenic quality.

6. Land Use

Goal 6: Park elements should be located with consideration to the site’s natural resources and the potential for conflict with adjacent uses

Objectives:

6.1 Site recreational, agricultural, interpretive and other park program elements to make the best use of the site’s soils and cultural and historic resources.

6.2 Distribute agricultural, recreational, and maintenance uses sensitively and provide appropriate buffers as necessary to avoid conflicts with adjacent residences.

6.3 Provide adequate areas to serve as buffers and transition spaces to separate different uses to ensure appropriate circulation, enhance visual character, wayfinding, and protect public health.

6.4 Provide limited site lighting only as necessary for public safety while being sensitive to potential impacts on park neighbors, night sky, and habitat values.


6.5 Provide adequate parking to minimize the potential for parking impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

6.6 Locate visitor parking to reduce potential for circulation, parking, and visual impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

6.7 Develop a coordinated land use and parking strategy for special events that optimizes the beneficial use of parkland during non-event periods, avoids visual impacts associated with large parking lots, and minimizes parking impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

7. Circulation and Access

Goal 7: Provide safe and convenient access to the park for a wide range of users.

Objectives:

7.1 Develop strategies for facilitating travel to and from the park via alternative, non-automobile modes (e.g., bus, light rail, Caltrain, bicycle, walking).

7.2 Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections from nearby transit nodes that includes bus stops, light rail and Caltrain stations to the park.

7.3 Provide multiple points of walk-in entry for pedestrians and bicyclists to facilitate access to the park from surrounding neighborhoods and regional transit.

7.4 Establish trail connections across the park to provide shorter and more convenient connections for neighborhood circulation.

7.5 Provide trails around the perimeter as well as through the site that are designed to accommodate safe and compatible use by multiple trail user groups, including pedestrians, rollerbladers, bicyclists, and equestrians.

7.6 Provide accessible trails and access points for all people, regardless of physical abilities.

7.7 Provide a system of internal service roads that facilitates access and circulation of park vehicles and farm machinery (e.g., security patrol, maintenance trucks, tractors, etc.).

7.8 Provide a single public vehicular entry to the park that minimizes potential traffic and parking impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.

7.9 Work with the City of San Jose on the future design of park edge and access treatments in conjunction with the widening of Snell Avenue and Branham Lane.


7.10 Work with the City of San Jose to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle crossings at all intersections providing access to the park.

7.11 Work with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to develop safe and attractive designs for area bus stops serving park visitors, that is in keeping with its historic farming nature, to promote public transit as a preferred means of travel to the park.

7.12 Work with the California State Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) to develop access beneath Highway 85 to surrounding neighborhoods near Blossom Hill Road.

7.13 Evaluate the potential for collaborating with other agencies on linking into other trail opportunities.

8. Management, Funding and Implementation

Goal 8.1: Provide adequate funding to ensure the safe and efficient operation and maintenance of park facilities and provision of quality visitor services.

Objectives:

8.1.1 Add staffing and other management resources commensurate with increased operations and maintenance responsibilities associated with new park improvements.

8.1.2 Consider cost-recovery opportunities, consistent with the Donor’s Vision and other Master Plan goals that can offset long-term management costs, specifically related to the on-going agricultural programs for the park.

8.1.3 Explore sustainable design strategies that will reduce long-term O&M costs.

8.1.4 Prioritize park improvements as part of the Department’s capital improvement program where funding sources are secured to offset programmed expenditures.

Goal 8.2: Pursue partnership opportunities and cost-recovery measures that will leverage existing park resources.

Objectives:

8.2.1 Consider funding partnerships with non-profit and for profit entities such as concessions, grants, private donations and sponsorships for the park that would be consistent with the County and State’s policies.

8.2.2 Encourage partnerships with other agencies and organizations that can assist in funding, implementing, managing and maintaining park facilities and programs.


8.2.3 Explore opportunities for public-public and public-private partnerships, including pursuit of local, State and Federal funding sources as well non-profit or foundation funds.

8.2.4 Consider establishing a park foundation or an endowment to sustain capital improvement, operation and maintenance costs.

8.2.5 Consider vehicle and user fees that ensure affordability to all segments of the population.

8.2.6 Consider multi-objective purposes with partnership opportunities in the development of park facilities and programs (i.e. partnering with the SCVWD to develop educational components related to water use and conservation for various park uses)

Goal 8.3: Pursue a strategic, yet flexible, approach to a phased implementation of the park development that is responsive to funding and partnership opportunities, operations and management resources, and public recreation/education needs.

Objectives:

8.3.1 Develop a master plan phasing program that prioritizes plan priorities and identifies the general timing of key park improvements and program development based upon funding availability for capital improvements, recreational needs, logical construction sequencing, support from partner agencies and organizations, and operations and maintenance implications.

8.3.2 Allow for flexibility in phasing of park implementation to respond to changing circumstances including both new sources of funding and potential funding shortfalls.

8.3.3 Provide facilities and access to portions of the park as soon as feasible in order to expedite public use of the park, consistent with the Donor’s Vision, other goals and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

8.3.4 Consider near-term improvements that are highly visible and generate a sense of progress about the completion of the future park.

8.3.5 Prioritize key park improvements as funding is identified for development and long-term maintenance.

Goal 8.4: Provide a management structure that ensures efficient and effective implementation of park operations, programs, and facilities.


Objectives:

8.4.1 Establish partnerships with agencies and organizations that bring specific expertise in agriculture, education and natural resources program elements to ensure effective park operations.

8.4.2 Manage Martial Cottle Park to meet the shared goals and missions of the County and partner agencies and organizations while meeting the needs of Santa Clara County residents.

8.4.3 Allocate management responsibilities so they correspond to and take advantage of partner agencies' resources and areas of expertise.

8.4.4 Ensure an appropriate link between the financial obligations of key partners and their management responsibilities, consistent with Santa Clara County Park and Recreation Department policies.

8.4.5 Continue to encourage beneficial interagency coordination and collaboration throughout the planning process, as well as during implementation and long-term management.


OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The following summary and maps of key opportunities and constraints (Figures 7, 8 and 9) will guide the programming and design of Martial Cottle Park. The opportunities and constraints have been identified from the findings of the Resource Inventory and input to the planning process from the Martial Cottle Park Project Team, Task Force, Technical Advisory Committee, Public Workshop participants and members of the community. This list represents factors that have been identified by the planning process to date, and may be expanded upon as additional information becomes known about the park property.

It is important to note that all opportunities and constraints are in alignment with the Donor’s Vision for the future development of the property; opportunities that are not consistent with the vision are not included. The land use requirements placed on the property by the Grant Deed are considered “prerequisites” and, thus, are not listed as either opportunities or constraints.

The following opportunities and constraints have been organized by topic. Some features of the park are addressed under multiple headings. For example, opportunities and constraints related to Canoas Creek are identified under natural resources, visual, and circulation. Similarly, some features are identified as both opportunities and constraints. For example, the area of poorly drained soils is identified as both an opportunity (location for lake) and a constraint (limits on agricultural use). Generally, the focus of the opportunities and constraints identification is on physical factors that will influence the planning process, rather than on policy, funding, and management factors.

Natural Resources - Fauna

Red Foxes

Constraint: The red foxes that currently inhabit the site, while considered an attractive feature by many neighbors, are a non-native species that threaten establishment of native species such as burrowing owls and other native ground nesting birds.

Hawks

Opportunity: Red-tailed hawks and other birds of prey that currently nest or forage on site provide an opportunity for the public to observe and experience animals within a rural landscape.

Constraint: Park improvements and programming needs to consider that hawks and other raptors that nest in the Valley oaks are sensitive to disturbance.

Rodents

Constraint: Some adjacent residents have commented on occasional influx of rodents. With more gardens and food crops proposed in the park, an increase in rodents may be a potential management issue.


Wildlife

Opportunity: Supporting the re-establishment of some native wildlife in the park’s more natural areas would provide an opportunity for the public to observe and experience wildlife characteristic of a rural landscape.

Constraint: Proximity of both domestic and feral non-native animal species (i.e., pets such as cats and dogs) from surrounding neighborhoods represents a potential threat to re-establishment of native wildlife to the site.

Constraint: Incorporation of lake and lawn areas into the design of the park has the potential to attract Canada geese and the associated management and health issues they bring (i.e., feces).

Natural Resources - Flora

Natural Habitat

Opportunity: Consistent with the Donor’s Vision for an agricultural park, the opportunity exists to restore limited areas of native habitats typical of the southern Santa Clara Valley (e.g., riparian, hedge rows, demonstration garden) that could contribute to the park’s educational programs.

Valley Oaks

Opportunity: The existing mature valley oaks are key features of the park that may offer attractive locations for park programming and/or potential for restoration of the natural oak savanna habitat that existed on the site prior to cultivation.

Constraint: Park programming and land management will need to consider how to avoid impact to the existing mature valley oaks and allow for the growth of new oak trees to supplement and replace aging trees.

Riparian Habitat

Opportunity: The Canoas Creek channel may offer the opportunity for creek enhancement that would improve its habitat potential, visual character, recreational amenity value, and educational and interpretive value while still performing its required hydrologic function if technically feasible.

Seasonal Wetlands

Opportunity: The area with poor-draining Sunnyvale Series soils provides suitable conditions to support restoration of areas of seasonal wetlands, including reintroduction of common as well as rare wetland plants.


Constraint: Soils on the site exhibit hydric field indicators and obligate hydrophytic plant species that are indicative of wetlands and other waters that may be subject to state and federal regulation. Development of future recreational uses may require coordination with regulatory agencies.

Invasive Exotic Plant Species

Constraint: Invasive exotic plant species, such as Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) which is currently colonizing an area at the northwestern corner of the property, will need to be controlled or suppressed to accommodate agricultural uses in that part of the site

Cultural Resources

Life Estate

Opportunity: The numerous historic structures and equipment within the Cottle Ranch Life Estate Area present an opportunity for education and interpretation of personal, cultural and agricultural history of the Santa Clara Valley.

Opportunity: When they ultimately are made available to the park, the structures within the Life Estate Area would present an opportunity for potential restoration and re-use for educational (e.g. museum, classrooms), agricultural (e.g. livestock, crop and machinery storage), community-supported (e.g., kitchen, produce store, gift shop that recovers its costs), and administrative and public-serving (e.g. office) uses consistent with the Donor’s Vision.

Constraint: Future assessment of the existing buildings within the Life Estate area will be required to determine recommendations for restoration of existing structures. In addition, the County will need to assess the future long-term maintenance and operations of these structures.

Archaeological Sites

Opportunity: Prehistoric and historic settlement patterns in Santa Clara Valley and in the vicinity of the site represent an opportunity to create interpretive and education programs.

Constraint: Given the park’s location along Canoas Creek and its proximity to a known cultural site outside of the park but within the project vicinity, the park site may be a repository of both prehistoric and historic-period artifacts.

Historic Patterns of Use

Opportunity: The history of the Cottle family, those who worked the land (including Japanese and Filipino immigrant farmers), the crops that were grown, and the livestock raised, all provide potential for interpretation and education.


Land Use

Adjacent Lands

Opportunity: The vacant 2.34-acre SCVWD parcel adjacent to southeast corner of site may offer the potential to complement the park mission, programs, and physical character.

Constraint: The vacant 0.75-acre “tear drop” private property offers an opportunity for development that may not be compatible with park uses.

Constraint: Buffer, privacy and security issues associated with park development may exist next to homes that are immediately adjacent to the park boundary.

Maintenance Facilities

Constraint: There will be a need to provide effective buffers and strategic placement of maintenance yards and associated facilities (e.g., vehicle storage, irrigation lay-down areas, etc.) to minimize potential visual and noise impacts for adjacent residents.

Parking

Opportunity: The wide (110’) public right-of-way for Chynoweth Avenue may provide an opportunity to work with the City of San Jose on additional streetscape treatments as well as potential areas for on-street parking for the park since the additional right-of-way would not be needed to accommodate typical traffic volumes for a through street.

Constraint: The location, distribution, and design of the park circulation system, parking and staging areas may have potential implications on factors such as visual character, neighborhood traffic, noise levels, etc.

Constraint: The master plan needs to consider the potentially large land area needed to accommodate special event parking as well as the more limited daily parking. It should also consider the character and use of special event areas during non-event periods. Alternative solutions for event parking may alleviate the impacts of long-term parking facilities.

Soils

Opportunity: Areas of the park with fertile, well-drained soil provide potential for growing agricultural crops.

Opportunity: Areas of poorly drained soils located through the mid-section of the park present opportunities to:

• re-establish native vegetation (e.g., seasonal wetlands) that are endemic to such conditions

• incorporate recreation uses that are not dependent on good drainage


• Develop community gardens in above-grade beds.

Access and Circulation

Site Access

Opportunity: If permitted by CALTRANS and the City of San Jose respectively, future easements through the underpass of Highway 85 and on the City’s property located on the south side of Highway 85 may provide the potential pedestrian/bicycle trail connections to the park from a trail easement that Mr. Lester recently donated to the County on his property adjacent to Blossom Hill Road south of the freeway.

Opportunity: The four streets that dead-end into the west side of the park offer potential pedestrian and bicycle access points for the public as well as emergency or service vehicles.

Opportunity: The unpaved maintenance roads on either side of the Canoas Creek corridor may provide the potential for pedestrian/bicycle access within the park, or connection between the neighborhoods located at Hyde Park Drive and light rail station.

Circulation

Opportunity: The park site is bounded by Branham Lane, Snell Avenue, Chynoweth Avenue and Highway 85, presenting the potential for a bicycle corridor, pedestrian trail, and service road connections to facilitate walk-in access to the park.

Opportunity: The City’s future street widening along Branham Lane and Snell Avenue provides an opportunity to create attractive, comfortable pedestrian/bicycle connections along the park frontage that would provide adequate buffer for pedestrians and cyclists from traffic and establish appropriate visual character.

Constraint: The existing and future speed and volume of traffic along Snell Avenue and Branham Lane would require the master plan to:

• consider appropriate site access from adjacent streets for non-public, user-related access (e.g., maintenance vehicles, tractors, etc.), as well as park visitors and residents

• provide for pedestrian safety of park visitors and residents using street intersections at Branham Lane and Snell Avenue.

Transit

Opportunity: The Blossom Hill VTA light rail station, located in the Highway 85 right-of-way that is southeast of the park, provides convenient regional transit access to the park.


Opportunity: Bus routes on Snell Road (#122, 304, 305, and 66) provide local and regional bus service to the park as well as linkages to light rail at the Blossom Hill light rail station.

Opportunity: Existing bicycle lanes on Branham Lane , Snell Avenue and Blossom Hill Road provide the potential for connections to bicycle trails within the park.

Constraint: Although close by, the Blossom Hill light rail station still leaves visitors nearly a mile from the Life Estate property.

Constraint: Although bus stops are located adjacent to the park, the absence of comfortable and protected facilities does not encourage active transit use.

Visual and Aesthetic Character

Adjoining Uses

Opportunity: The City’s future widening of Branham Lane and Snell Avenue provides an opportunity to create an edge treatment for the park that visually buffers the park from external views and adjoining uses, and enhances public views and reinforces a rural, agricultural character to the park’s edge.

Constraint: The proximity of existing development and the busy roadways create buffer issues for Park views.

Constraint: The views into the backyards of homes adjacent to the west side of the park create the potential for privacy conflicts between park visitors and existing homeowners.

On Site Resources

Opportunity: The mature valley oaks located in the northeastern portion of the park are dramatic visual features that contribute to the visual quality of the park.

Opportunity: The historic buildings and structures in the life estate are distinctive built features within the open park landscape that both contribute to the park’s scenic character and convey the site’s rich history.

Opportunity: The Canoas Creek channel provides an opportunity to create a more natural-appearing creek corridor.

Utilities and Infrastructure

Water

Opportunity: The property has active wells that will provide substantial water for the park development.

Constraint: Well water may not be appropriate for potable water for public safety reasons. The park may need to connect to the municipal water system for potable water.


Sewer

Constraint: Given the urban context and future programmed uses for the property, the master plan will need to consider expanding the property’s septic system and/or connecting to the municipal sewer system.


PROGRAM ELEMENTS Introduction

The following program elements will be considered during the development of the park master plan alternatives. The listed program elements have been derived from a number of sources, including the Donor’s Vision, California State Parks and County Parks staff, members of the Project Team, TAC, Task Force, and the public. The listed program elements are considered to be generally consistent with the Donor’s Vision and Master Plan goals. However, some of the park’s program elements have been slightly modified based on discussions with the Donor and his representatives, and based on public input from various Committees and the community. These program element variations include:

Multi-purpose Hall or Pavilion (a variation based on the Donor’s Vision for a Community Hall)

Off Leash Dog Park Facility (not part of the earlier 1996 version of the Donor’s Vision completed by MPA Design or 2003 version of the Donor’s Vision completed by the California State Parks Department)

Not all of the program elements will be included in each alternative, and some program elements may not be included in the final preferred alternative for the master plan. The purpose of the alternatives process will be to identify the appropriate mix and distribution of program elements in the park. In addition, as the spatial and operational relationships among the elements are further discussed, the size, scope, and character of some of the program elements may be refined.

The recommended program elements are organized into the following broad categories:

• Recreation

• Agriculture

• Education

• Community and Visitor-Serving Uses

• Natural Resources

• Access and Circulation

• Operations

Summary List of Program Elements for Consideration:

Recreation

• Trails


• Health and fitness programming

• Picnic areas for small and large groups

• Equestrian center

• Dog Park (off-leash facility)

• Grassy Park

• Fishing

• Ornamental gardens

Agriculture

• Historic demonstration farm

• Production agriculture with educational and interpretive programs

• Demonstration/research agriculture and agricultural education

• Facilities for selling/marketing park produce

• Miscellaneous agricultural programs

Education

• Interpretive elements

• Hands-on educational facilities

• Indoor classroom and multi-use space

• Outdoor “classroom” space

• High-tech facilities and access

• Visitor Center

• Museum

Community and Visitor-Serving Uses

• Multi-use hall or pavilion (Identified in the Donor’s Vision as “Community Hall”)

• Outdoor event space

• Community gardens

• Retail shop

• Café/ Food Concession


Natural Resources

• Native and sensitive wildlife and vegetation restoration and preservation

• Canoas Creek ecological enhancement

• Lake, pond, or seasonal wetland

• Native plant nursery

• Soil restoration and enhancement


Pedestrian/Bicycle

• Points of entry

• Perimeter trails

• Internal trails

• Sidewalks/walkways along adjoining streets

• Connections to the public transit systems

Vehicular

• Vehicular entry point

• Emergency and service vehicle access

• Parking

Maintenance and Farming Equipment

• Internal farm/service roads

• Site access from adjacent streets

• Parking and storage

Alternative Transportation

• Transit connections (external)

• Shuttle or horse-drawn carriages for park visitors (internal)


Operations

• Office/Ranger Station

• Caretaker Residence

• Entry Kiosk

• Maintenance Facilities


Recreation

Trails

Trails are anticipated to be among the most significant recreational amenities at Martial Cottle Park. The Donor’s Vision suggests a perimeter trail around the park and several interior trails that provide access through the park and between program elements. Trails for multiple uses are under consideration, including walking, hiking, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding, and horseback riding. Trails may be designed as multi-use trails or as separate trails for various uses, such as a separate equestrian trail network.

Because the park property is essentially flat, it is expected that all trails will offer the same low level of difficulty. Potentially, all trails on the site could be designed to standards for universal accessibility (i.e., less than 5% slope); decisions about trail surfacing will determine whether all trails will be universally accessible.

Trail design will need to respond to proposed trail function. While most trails will serve a dual function as both recreational and circulation routes, trails that serve primarily a recreational function will be designed differently from those serving primarily a circulation function. Factors influencing trail design include the trail location and alignment, destinations served, volume of projected users, and the type of projected users. A trail hierarchy may be established through trail design and signage to aid in wayfinding.

Support Facilities: Restrooms, benches, potable water, shade areas, staging areas (see under Access and Circulation below), water and hitching facilities for equestrian trails, bicycle parking facilities, emergency and service access, gates and fencing where needed, limited lighting (where appropriate), signage, parking (including parking for horse trailers)

Considerations:

• Trail sections and standards should be consistent the Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (1995) and the Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Use, Design and Management Guidelines (1999).

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines for whole access trails

• Buffers and distance separation from adjacent on-site and off-site land uses

• Fencing and security for adjacent land uses

• Accessibility of perimeter trails during hours that park is closed

• Balancing lighting for public safety with avoidance of light pollution


Area Requirements: To be determined; depends on the extent and types of trails.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type of trail, landscaping, special facilities (e.g. number of bathrooms, lighting, benches, etc), and other features. Trails offer minimal opportunities to generate on-going revenue to cover O&M costs. However, various volunteer and/or alternate labor programs can help defray some O&M costs (e.g. planting or clean-up crews). Funding for capital costs can be obtained through private donations and naming rights programs, as well as local, State and Federal funds.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives:

• Separated versus combined multi-use trails

• Trail locations and associated staging areas

• Trail network complexity and configuration

• Buffers and separations from adjacent land uses, streets and interior program areas

• Relation of trails to other program elements, e.g. trail interface with and access to agricultural areas

• Off-hours trail accessibility

Health and fitness programming

The Donor’s Vision precludes active recreational uses such as sports fields, basketball or volleyball courts and swimming. However, many passive health and fitness amenities could be included in the park, such as a par course along the trail network and more recreation elements associated with rural life, such as horseshoe pits or bocce courts.

Support Facilities: Restrooms, potable water, shade areas, emergency and service access, gates and fencing where needed

Considerations: Passive health and fitness programming is not precluded by the Donor’s Vision, however the spirit of the Donor’s Vision should be followed with regard to the park’s main purpose and theme as a historical agricultural park. Recreational amenities should not overwhelm the park’s main theme.


Area Requirements: To be determined, depends on nature and quantity of amenities. Bocce courts require an area of approximately 20’ x 100’ per court. Horseshoe pits require an area of approximately 10’ x 40’ per pit.

Financial Implications: Capital and O&M costs are generally minimal but can vary depending on type of facility. Programming, if any, is generally covered by separate funding sources. Revenue from user fees can help defray some O&M costs but are generally negligible and should be weighed against impact on user groups and administration.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Types, location and quantity of amenities

Picnic areas for small and large groups

Large picnic areas serving up to 200 people could be available for rental for weddings, community events, school groups, and company picnics. Small picnic areas could be as simple as a single picnic table near a trail. Walk-in picnic areas could be provided as well as picnic areas with automobile access. Picnic areas could include barbeques, outdoor kitchen areas, potable water, restrooms, shade structures and rain shelters. They could be associated with an outdoor amphitheater or stage element.

Support Facilities: Restrooms, potable water, shade areas, emergency and service access, parking, garbage and recycling facilities (including for wastes to be composted on site)

Considerations:

• The size and amenities provided at large group picnic areas needs to be balanced with the agricultural theme of the park.

• Large group picnic areas should be sensitively located to minimize the impact to adjacent homes and ensure compatibility with adjacent in-park land uses.

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance

• Grouping picnic areas to allow flexibility of group sizes (i.e., large groups can rent more than one picnic area)

• Proximity to parking and restrooms


Area Requirements: Area requirements are flexible. The following approximate sizes are presented for general guidance. These guidelines do not include area for parking.

• 300 – 500 people: 8,000 square feet

• 150 – 200 people: 3,000 square feet

• 50 people: 1,600 square feet

• 8 people: 250 square feet

Financial Implications: Capital cost will vary by size and type of facility. O&M costs are generally minimal but will also vary depending on type of facility and intensity of usage. Programming, if any, is generally covered by separate funding sources. Revenue from facility reservations can help defray some O&M costs but are unlikely to cover the full expense of facility upkeep. Fees charged to all users pose difficulties in administration and may decrease usage of the facility.


• Locations and sizes of picnic areas

• Amenities to be provided

• Grouping of picnic areas to allow flexibility for larger group uses of multiple sites

Equestrian center

An equestrian center could range in size from a simple equestrian staging area to a regional facility for equestrian shows, events and trainings. Based on the Donor’s input and public input from the Task Force and Community Workshop, the equestrian center is not envisioned to be an overnight boarding facility for privately-owned horses. The equestrian center could house horses that are associated with the agricultural components of the park, such as draft horses for demonstration agriculture, interpretive programs and hay rides. Boarding could be provided for a limited number of horses available for rental. Horse rental would most likely be operated by a concessionaire. Equestrian facilities could also be used for non-equestrian events. For example, an arena or corral could be used for occasional agricultural and youth group’s animal display.

Elements of an equestrian center could include the following:

• Barn/stables

• Corral/exercise field


• Arena (may be a covered area)

• Round pen

• Wash areas

• Tack room/storage area

• Horse troughs

• Interpretive displays

• Manure stockpiling for agricultural use

Support Facilities: Restrooms, potable water, electricity, emergency and service access, manure management area, parking (including parking for horse trailers)

Considerations:

• Per the Donor’s Vision, the equestrian center should be primarily for day use, and not an overnight stable facility for private use.

• Regional market/need for various equestrian features

• Ability to use existing structures and facilities (i.e., future use of structures within the Life Estate)

• Compatibility with adjacent on-site and off-site uses

• Non-point source pollution control

• Manure management issues

• Possible combination of equestrian facility with off-leash dog facility (see below)

• Phasing

Area Requirements: The following sizes are based on recommendations from the Santa Clara County UC Cooperative Extension.

• Horse barn: 20 to 30, 14 x 14 ft. stalls

• Arena: 200 x 100 ft.

• Round pen: 60 ft. diameter

• Wash area: 12 x 12 ft. each (more than one may be provided)


The above facilities would total approximately 1 acre, minimum. The Donor’s Vision plan includes an equestrian center that is approximately 7.8 acres in size.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be relatively high. A market analysis of potential utilization would help inform the type and benefit of such facilities. A well run equestrian center can operate as a financially self-sufficient or even revenue generating enterprise. However, this requires a successful operator and depends on such factors as location, competition, marketing, and the quality of facilities.


• Various locations

• Various sizes

• Potential phasing to incorporate into Life Estate

Potential Partnerships:

• Concessionaire

• Non-profit educational organizations such as 4-H

Dog Park (off-leash facility)

An off-leash dog facility has been requested by members of the community. Santa Clara County Parks Department policy supports the creation of off-leash dog facilities in County parks. Currently, the closest County park that provides an off-leash dog park facility is Hellyer County Park at Hellyer Avenue.

An off-leash facility would need to be entirely fenced-in. Amenities may include seating, doggie-bag dispensers, dog waste receptacles, a dog-washing stand, and drinking fountains with dog bowls.

Support Facilities: Parking, potable water, fencing, seating

Considerations:

• Location sensitive to impacts to adjacent on-site and off-site uses

• Compatibility with overall theme of park

• Expected number of users

• Location options will be limited to the County parcel, as State Parks policy does not allow off-leash dog facilities.


• Possible combination of off-lease dog facility with equestrian facility (see above)

• Potential for access when remainder of park is closed

Area Requirements: Size varies depending on the expected number of users. A small dog run would be approximately 200 x 50 feet.

Financial Implications: Capital and O&M costs are generally minimal but can vary depending on type of facility. Appropriate user policies and ordinance enforcement can help reduce O&M costs (e.g. self clean-up). Dog parks provide negligible opportunity for revenue generation.


• Various sizes

• Various locations

• Alternatives without an off-leash dog facility should be considered.

Potential Partnerships: Volunteer organizations, neighborhood associations

Grassy Park

A grassy park (i.e., lawn or turf) area is included in the Donor’s Vision Plan. The grassy park would serve primarily as an area for passive recreation, since field sports are not permitted by the Donor’s Vision. The grassy park may be used for picnicking or seating. Informal, low-impact recreational activities such as disc throwing and kite flying may be permissible. Plantings of trees and shrubs could frame the grassy park, providing buffers and shade.

Support Facilities: Access, parking, potable water, seating, irrigation

Considerations:

• Location should be compatible and complementary with adjacent uses.


• Location should allow for agriculture on the most fertile soils.

• Water use and impact on water quality and park sustainability objectives (i.e., non-point source pollution control related to fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.)

• Long-term operations and maintenance implications

• Control of nuisance animals, such as gophers, ground squirrels, and Canada geese

• County’s adherence to the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Ordinance

Area Requirements: Flexible

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type and size of park, landscaping, and special facilities (e.g. bathrooms, lighting, and other structures). Parks offer minimal opportunities to generate on-going revenues to cover O&M costs. However, various volunteer and/or alternate labor programs can help defray some O&M costs (e.g. planting or clean-up crews). Funding for capital costs may be obtained through private donations and naming rights programs.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various sizes and locations

Fishing

Fishing facilities could be incorporated in conjunction with the lake or pond. (See Natural Resources, below, for more information about the lake or pond.) Facilities could include a pier to provide access and fish-cleaning stations. A perimeter trail around the lake/pond could provide lake/pond access at multiple places. The lake/pond would need to be stocked with fish. The design of the lake/pond would need to provide appropriate fish habitat.

Support Facilities: Parking, potable water for fish-cleaning stations, waste receptacles, recycling stations for fishing line and hooks, seating


Considerations:

• The habitat values of the lake or pond would need to be balanced with fishing activities. For example, wetlands establishment might preclude access to at least parts of the lake/pond.

• Compatibility with adjacent on-site and off-site uses

• Feasibility of fish stocking operations

• Maintenance of fish-cleaning stand; disposal of fish waste

Area Requirements: Facilities would require minimal area in addition to the area dedicated to the lake or pond. Additional parking may be desirable near the lake/pond.

Financial Implications: Capital and O&M costs are generally minimal but can vary depending on type of facility (e.g. docks, replenishment). Appropriate user policies can enhance sustainability and help reduce O&M costs. Revenue from user fees can help defray some O&M costs but are generally negligible and should be weighed against impacts on user groups and administration.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Alternatives should explore whether or not to include fishing facilities.

Ornamental garden

An ornamental garden that is not directly associated with the agricultural theme of the park may be incorporated. An ornamental garden may be a purely aesthetic amenity, or it may be incorporated into an educational program such as the Master Gardeners and California Native Plant Society. An ornamental garden may be a demonstration garden for sustainable residential gardening practices, incorporating drought-tolerant and native species and low-water irrigation technologies. Heirloom varieties may be grown. Arbors and other built structures may be incorporated.

Support Facilities:

Seating, water, irrigation system, trash and recycling receptacles, mulch storage area, composting area, tool shed, fencing

Considerations: An ornamental garden may or may not be incorporated with the agricultural theme of the park. Demonstration gardens including heirloom vegetables and orchard trees are described in the Agriculture section below. Ornamental plants


may be grown seamlessly with these agricultural demonstration crops. Other considerations may be a partnership opportunity between the Master Gardener Program and the California Native Plant Society in developing gardens for hummingbirds, butterflies and caterpillars. Consider implementation of County’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Ordinance.

Area Requirements: Variable

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be significant but will vary depending on nature of garden and complimentary features (e.g. bathrooms, benches, fountains etc). Various volunteer and/or alternate labor programs can help defray some O&M costs (e.g. planting or clean-up crews). Funding for capital costs can be obtained through private donations and naming rights programs.


• Various sizes and locations should be considered.

• Types of gardens and garden themes

• Whether or not to include ornamental gardens should be considered.


• Non-profit agricultural education program (e.g. U.C. Cooperative Extension, Master Gardeners)

• Non-profit organizations such as California Native Plant Society Santa Clara County Chapter

• Community volunteer program

Agriculture

The programs described below are not exclusive of each other. For example, production agriculture could also have a public-education component and demonstration/research and agricultural education programs can also be productive. These programs may share some facilities, but there may be a need to provide separate facilities for certain programs, such as separate greenhouses or animal facilities for research.


In adhering with the County of Santa Clara’s Integrated Pest Management Ordinance and the Master Plan Goals and Objectives, all agricultural operations at the Park will employ sustainable agricultural practices, including organic farming practices.

Production agriculture

Consistent with the Donor’s Vision of providing “a public historical agricultural park,” production agriculture will be an important land use integrated with the educational and interpretive program at Martial Cottle Park. The Donor’s Vision allows for production of agricultural products for commercial sale, though it focuses on education and interpretation of the agricultural heritage of the Santa Clara Valley. Given the agronomic conditions and scale of the Park, it will be possible to produce most of the crops and other agricultural products that historically were produced in Santa Clara Valley. These include: fruits, nuts and vegetables; grains, such as wheat, barley, oats, and corn; legumes, such as field beans and peas; animal feed and forage crops, such as grain hay and alfalfa; rangeland and pasture for livestock production; seed crops; oilseed crops, such as safflower; nursery stock such as Christmas trees, ornamentals, and cut flowers; livestock, such as cattle, sheep, swine and horses; and poultry. Which products are produced will likely be determined by the producer or producers involved, by the demands of their target markets, and by conditions of their lease agreement.

In keeping with the goal of having mixed, integrated uses at the Park, producers should be recruited who have the following qualifications:

• experience with organic production and other sustainable farming practices, including crop rotations;

• experience with farming in a suburban setting;

• interest in educating the public about agriculture, including providing interactive, hands-on learning opportunities; and

• financial sustainability and experience in successfully marketing agricultural products directly to consumers in implementing the agricultural program at the Park.

In addition, collectively the producers recruited should produce a diversified range of products primarily for direct sale to local consumers, businesses, and institutions and culturally appropriate for the diverse demographics of San Jose that would be consistent with the Donor’s deed restrictions and property transfer agreement.

Also in keeping with the mission of California State Parks and County Parks, it is critical that the production agriculture program element incorporate an educational component. Production agriculture operations should in the very least be made observable to the public both in the field and in the local farmers market. Interpretive elements, such as explanatory signage could be incorporated into the production agriculture areas. Hands-on opportunities, such as U-Pick programs and special events such as harvesting festivals could be incorporated. (Refer to the program element descriptions under the “Education” category below for additional information.) Lease terms could require that educational


programs and interpretive elements be incorporated into the production agricultural operations.

Support Facilities: Some of these facilities could be shared.

• Storage yard, storage barn with offices, equipment barn and repair shop, area for fuel storage, pesticide storage area

• Animal facilities (coops, sheds, barns, pens, corrals, etc., outdoor pasture/runs, veterinary facilities, feed equipment,)

• Small-scale dairy

• Greenhouse

• Nursery

• Compost area

• Irrigation system

• Packing and processing facility including walk-in cooler

• Fencing and buffers, e.g., hedgerows

• Equipment roads

• Auxiliary small sheds at the edge of field for storage and shelter

• Housing for overnight caretaker (to provide security for farm and livestock and occasional overnight observation of animals)

• Area for retail sales (i.e. fruit stand, parking lot)

• Restrooms and wash facilities for field workers

Considerations:

• Donor’s grant deed restrictions and property transfer agreement relating to commercial uses such as agricultural leases, produce stands, community gardens, farmer’s markets, interpretative programs or similar uses

• The production agriculture component will entail a range of crop and livestock operations, produced over a range of scales, and likely by multiple producers.

• It will be critical to assess specific agronomic conditions, especially soil conditions in order to site those uses in the optimal locations in the Park.

• Compatibility with adjacent on- and off-site uses, including the desirability of proximity to or distance from residences and the development of appropriate buffers


• Circulation and access for farm equipment

• Irrigation system design

• Development of a lease agreement which can be used for multiple growers producing a range of crop and livestock products over a range of scales. The lease agreement may have more detailed terms than typical agricultural leases in rural areas, with specific requirements related to developing an urban agricultural park, while allowing the producers a measure of flexibility to adapt crop types to changing weather conditions and market conditions within the urban areas.


• Potential use of native plant materials for landscape buffers between agricultural uses, other park uses and neighborhood uses

Area Requirements: There should be a range of plot sizes. Medium to large-scale plots (i.e. 10 - 100 acres) would accommodate uses such as pasture, grain and forage crops, seed and oilseed crops, and orchards. Small to medium-scale plots (i.e. 2 – 10 acres) would accommodate uses such as smaller livestock pastures and rotations of annual row crops, including vegetables, strawberries, melons, and flowers. Small-scale plots (i.e. .25 – 2 acres) would accommodate uses such as herbs and specialty crops and could be available as allotment plots for part-time and/or beginning farmers. Assuming that lease terms and management systems will be conducive to the success of qualified farmers, there is no upper limit on the acreage that could be dedicated to the production agriculture use. However, the size of the farming operations will be determined by the balance of program elements in the park.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be substantial but will vary greatly depending on specific project elements. Programming costs will also depend on their specific nature and implementation however funding may be provided by separate entities and/or external sources. Financially self-sufficient agricultural activities will likely involve a ground lease to an independent operator. Ground lease revenue may help defray some but not likely all of the costs associated with the programs’ public components. O&M costs may also be partially defrayed through volunteer and/or other alternate labor programs and initiatives. The lease will need to be able to accommodate capitalization by the agency as well as the ability for a lessee to either amortize or sell improvements.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: A variety of scales of agriculture operations will be considered in the alternatives. Alternative management structures will also be explored. It is neither likely nor desirable that a single farmer will be able to produce the range of crops and livestock products for the diverse local market. Options could include: a “master” farmer who would have the right to sublease to smaller operators; an agricultural


operator selected to operate the livestock components and other selected to operate the crop components; a farmer who would develop a diversified and integrated crop and livestock operation combined with an operator who would oversee an small/beginning farmer training and allotment program. Alternatives should explore the desirability, feasibility and potential locations for a permanent or temporary caretaker residence.

Potential Partners:

• Agricultural education organizations and programs such as the UC Cooperative Extension Small Farm Advisor program

• Non-profit agriculture preservation agencies such as the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau

• Agricultural training organizations such as the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association and California FarmLink

• Agricultural non-profit organizations promoting sustainable farming practices and community-supported agriculture, such as the WildFarm Alliance and Community Alliance with Family Farmers

• Non-profit organizations promoting agricultural education and outreach programs for the community, schools, etc., such as Healthy Silicon Valley, Conexions’ Valley of the Heart’s Project and other programs

• Non-profit harvesting cooperative programs such as Village Harvest in Santa Clara Valley

Demonstration/research Agriculture and Agricultural Education

There is a wide range of potential demonstration/research agriculture programs and agricultural education activities that may be incorporated into the Park’s agricultural program, including: sustainable practices demonstrations; agriculture research for advanced practices; demonstration orchards and gardens; greenhouse/plant conservatory; master gardener programs; Master Composters programs, Farm to School programs, permaculture programs, and plant science education centers.

Considerations:


• In order to evaluate these possibilities, selection criteria could include: interest of the part of potential partners/operators; demographic of audience served; type of facilities needed; program demand and competition; programming mix with other Park elements; management resources and needs; and financial resources and needs.


• Agricultural and youth programs such as the 4-H program and Master Gardener demonstration and testing gardens are well-established in the area and are actively seeking a site to consolidate facilities and programming that are currently scattered and to develop new facilities.

• Creation of new programs such as demonstration orchards, Plant-a-Row for the Hungry, a plant conservatory, botanical garden, and plant science education center would most likely require a funding and operating partner.

• Programs such as sustainable agriculture practices demonstration and research activities could potentially be accommodated on the production agriculture plots.

• Farm to School programs and demonstration sites designated to connect schools and local farmers (i.e. Conexions programs)


• Potential use of native plant materials for landscape buffers between agricultural uses, other park uses and neighborhood uses

Support Facilities: Some of these facilities could be shared with the production agriculture component.

• Small storage yard, small storage barn with offices, and equipment barn

• Animal facilities (coops, sheds, barns, pens, corrals, etc., outdoor pasture/runs, veterinary facilities, feed equipment,)

• Flexible indoor/outdoor space for meeting rooms, classrooms, tasting, etc.

• Small greenhouse and nursery

• Demonstration compost area

• Irrigation system

• Packing and processing facility including walk-in cooler

• Fencing and buffers, e.g., hedgerows, native plant materials

• Equipment roads

• Housing for overnight caretaker (to provide security for farm and livestock and occasional overnight observation of animals)

• Restrooms and wash facilities for field workers


Area Requirements: Dedicated demonstration and research gardens could each range from part of an acre to 10 acres. Facilities for 4-H livestock programs including pasture could range from a couple of acres to 20 acres depending on many factors. Some programs, such as bee hives could fit into a fraction of an acre. Yet other programs, such as a demonstration orchard or hedgerow or beneficial insect border could be established in areas alongside the trail system.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be substantial but will vary greatly depending on specific project elements. Programming costs will also depend on their specific nature and implementation however funding may be provided by separate entities and/or external sources. Ground lease revenue may help defray some but not likely all of the costs associated with the programs’ public components. O&M costs may also be partially defrayed through volunteer and/or other alternate labor programs and initiatives.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various types and mixes of programs, locations and sizes will be explored. Alternatives should explore the desirability, feasibility and potential locations for a permanent or temporary caretaker residence.

Potential Partners:

• Agricultural education organizations and youth programs such as the UC Cooperative Extension Master Gardener Program, Master Composters Program, 4-H Program, Future Farmers of America and others

• Local garden clubs

• Higher education institutions such as UC Santa Cruz, Agroecology Program, San Jose State (e.g. Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Biological Sciences; and Environmental Studies), Community Colleges (San Mateo, Cabrillo, Merritt) Environmental Horticulture and Design departments

• Non-profit organizations promoting agricultural education and outreach programs for the community, schools, etc., such as Healthy Silicon Valley, Conexions’ Valley of the Heart’s Project, Ecology Action, Permaculture World and other programs

• Non-profit harvesting cooperative programs, such as Village Harvest in Santa Clara Valley


Historic Demonstration Farm

A historic demonstration farm could be developed at a range of scales and include a range of components and activities. Components could include: a demonstration planting of historic crops, including row crops, orchards, and field crops; an area for heirloom breeds of livestock, typical of the area; and a demonstration of historic farming techniques. For any of these components, a specific historic component would be selected on which to base authentic curation. Creation of such a demonstration farm would depend also on factors including interest of the part of potential partners/operators and analysis of program demand and competition.

Considerations: The Santa Clara Valley is an area that is extraordinarily rich in natural resources that provided the basis for millenniums of land stewardship by indigenous peoples followed by centuries of bountiful agriculture by the new settlers. It is this story – the use of this rich, productive land over time by many kinds of people, growing many kinds of crops, including acorns, native grass seeds and bulbs, and wetland plants – that might provide the most engaging approach for agricultural historical interpretation. It is also the story that is likely to appeal to the vital mix of cultures in the area today. It is also quite likely that some of the newest residents to the area will be most interested in farming today and keeping alive their agricultural traditions. In that sense, the historic component will be presented in the context of the Park overall representing a living agricultural tradition.


Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be substantial but will vary greatly depending on the nature of the demonstration, (e.g. the historic period). Programming costs will also depend on their specific nature and implementation, however, funding may be provided by separate entities and/or external sources. O&M costs may also be partially defrayed through volunteer and/or other alternate labor programs and initiatives. This element also may provide a small source of revenue, depending upon the inclusion of a sales component within the program.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations and sizes of the historic demonstration farm component will be explored.

Potential Partners

• Organizations representing historic or heirloom agriculture and artisan techniques, such as the Rare Fruit Society and Slow Food.

• Local historic societies and organizations


• Native plant societies, such as California Native Plant Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter

• Non-profit environmental science organizations, such as San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI)

Facilities for packing/processing, selling/marketing, and preparing and serving park-grown produce

The financial success of the agricultural operations depends as much on the post-harvest activities and facilities, as it does on the production capacity. In turn, by creating opportunities to add value to the agricultural products produced onsite, the Park could increase its own revenue.

Facilities:

• Produce Stand (where Park farmers/gardeners would sell)

• Farmers’ Market (where farmers from Park and beyond would sell)

• Café/Food Concessionaire

• Food carts for deployment around the Park

• Catering facilities

• Value-added production facilities (kitchen, canning)

• Infrastructure such as cold storage, packing line and etc.

Considerations:


• The onsite produce stand is an essential facility and continues an existing use at the Park. This stand needs to have ample parking and good access. It could also include or adjoin the packing facility, so that it would then also serve as a broader distribution facility for whole case orders and for potential Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) distribution.

• The inclusion of a farmers’ market where farmers from beyond the Park would sell would depend on a demand analysis and on logistics, such as access and parking.

• The kitchen production facility would likely be important to farmers to add value to their products and to thereby extend their marketing season.

• On-site food preparation and serving facilities, including a café, catering facilities, and food carts, could also add value to the farmers’ products. As


exemplars of top-quality, good-value, locally produced food, these facilities could also add identity and destination value to the Park.

• Potential for public use beyond the Park’s hours of operation, including potential access from outside the Park with dedicated access and parking.

• Consistency with the California State Department’s Concessionaire and Lease Policies

• Consistency with the County Parks Department’s Concessionaire and lease policies.

• Potential for direct farmer access and distribution to individual homeowners (other than Community Supported Agriculture) and direct contact with customers

• On-site storage for agricultural produce once harvested

Area Requirements: Variable depending on program element

Financial Implications: Capital costs for this type of program element may be substantial, depending upon needed improvements. This element has a strong potential for revenue-generation, potentially generating revenue from leases which cover associated O&M costs. A detailed financial analysis of the specific uses being proposed will be needed to better assess the financial performance and revenue-generating potential of such a component.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations and mixes of the program elements will be explored.

Potential Partners:

• Farmers’ market association such as Pacific Coast Farmers Market Association and the California Farmers’ Market Association

• Culinary associations, such as the San Francisco Professional Food Society and Local Slow Food Chapter

• Initiatives to build a local and regional food system, such as the Bay Area Buy Fresh, Buy Local Campaign, Healthy Farms Healthy Schools Campaign, Healthy Silicon Valley and Farm to School (F2S) Programs

• Local institutions, including schools, hospitals, and businesses that are committed to buying food produced on locally farms


Education

Interpretive elements

Interpretive elements designed for both self-guided tours and staffed educational programs may be incorporated throughout the park both as outdoor and indoor exhibits/facilities. Interpretation of historical and current agriculture, cultural history, and natural history are possible. Agricultural interpretative elements could describe the history of the crops grown in the area, the people who grew them, and changes in key resource elements of the site (e.g. the amount of energy used on site, amount of energy generated on site, amount of food produced, amount of water used, etc.). Historical interpretive elements could demonstrate the changes in land use over time, from prehistoric times through the present. These could describe not only the park site, but the changes in the entire Valley of the Heart’s Delight. Interpretation of the park’s natural history could describe the site’s hydrology, geology and its relation to agriculture (i.e., soils) and the changes to the site’s plant communities and ecology. The site has the potential to provide actual, living examples of not only how the land was used in the 1850s through the 20th century, but also how landscape-scale conditions shaped its use.

An interpretive center may be incorporated into the park as its own building or structure, or as part of another building.

Interpretive elements could include a memorial to the Donor and Cottle family, and display cases for the park’s historical displays, youth program awards, etc.

Support Facilities: Shared multi-use and flexible office for use by the public, staff, docents and volunteers

Considerations:

• Appropriate elements and themes to be interpreted that utilize the site’s historical, cultural, physical, and resource assets

• Incorporating a range of interpretative that engages the public in different ways (e.g., hands-on activities, interactive elements, public art, traditional exhibits, etc.)

• Phasing

Area Requirements:

On-site interpretive elements would require minimal space. The size of an interpretive center is variable depending on what is being interpreted.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs are generally modest, although staffing costs would need to be considered since dedicated Park Interpreter staff would be required for the program. Programming costs will depend on the program elements included


in and the nature of the interpretive elements, however funding may be provided by separate entities and/or external sources. O&M costs may also be partially defrayed through volunteer and/or other alternate labor programs and initiatives.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: It is assumed that an interpretive program would be incorporated into the preferred alternative. The alternatives may consider whether or not an interpretive center would be included.


• Non-profit agricultural education program (e.g. U.C. Cooperative Extension, Healthy Silicon Valley, Conexions’ Valley of the Heart’s Project, Ecology Action, etc.)


• Historical and Educational organizations

• Agricultural tenants

• Local health and hospital organizations (i.e. Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross, etc.)

Hands-on educational facilities

Examples of hands-on educational activities include planting, plant propagation, harvesting, gardening, animal feeding, milking, and food preparation. Hands-on activities could be provided for children, from pre-schoolers to teenagers, and for adults. Options for both informal and organized activities could be provided by youth agricultural programs and other agricultural education organizations.

Facilities would vary depending on the activities provided:

• Planting, propagation, harvesting: Access to farm fields

• Gardening: Dedicated garden plots and demonstration sites

• Animal feeding, milking: Animal pens/livestock handling area

• Food preparation: Kitchen

Considerations:

• Safety, sanitation and liability

• Supervision of animal-related activities must be provided.


Area Requirements: N/A

Financial Implications: Programming cost will depend on the type, variety and implementation of the educational facilities, however funding may be available from separate entities and/or external sources. Revenue from user fees can help defray some O&M costs but may generally be negligible and should be weighed against impacts on user groups and administration.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Hands-on educational facilities would correspond to related program elements that will be explored in the alternatives.


• Non-profit agricultural education program (e.g., U.C. Cooperative Extension)

• Youth agricultural organization (e.g., 4-H, FFA)

• Master Gardeners/Master Composters programs

• Schools and outdoor education programs

• Agricultural tenant

Indoor/outdoor classroom and multi-use space for educational programs

One or more indoor/outdoor classrooms or multi-use spaces could be provided. These facilities may be located in a stand-alone building or they may be incorporated into a building that serves other functions. A demonstration kitchen would provide the opportunity to offer classes in cooking and nutrition.

Support Facilities:

Emergency and service vehicle access, potable water, restrooms, electricity, conduit/cabling for technology, internet service, sewer/septic

Considerations:

• Projected number of students at a given time

• Design flexibility to accommodate multiple functions, e.g., easily alterable in size and shape

• Location relative to associated outdoor educational facilities and programs

• Integrating horticultural education projects with the park’s agricultural uses (i.e. children programs could include growing plants, such as


pumpkins, carrots, beets, onions and berries, that will lend themselves to dying art materials as well as cooking and eating)

Area Requirements: The current California Code of Regulations (Title 5) requires that classrooms be at least 960 square feet or not less than 30 square feet per student, based on an average of 30 students per classroom.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be substantial but will vary greatly depending on specific project elements. Programming costs will depend on the nature and implementation of the programs however funding may be provided by separate entities and/or external sources. O&M costs may be partially defrayed through volunteer and/or other alternate labor programs and initiatives. Revenue from user fees can help defray some O&M costs but are generally negligible and should be weighed against impacts on user groups and administration.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Locations and sizes of facilities


• Non-profit agricultural education program (e.g., U.C. Cooperative Extension)

• Higher education institutions

• Schools

• Youth agricultural organizations (e.g., 4-H, FFA)

Outdoor “classroom” spaces

Outdoor classroom spaces may be in the form of an amphitheater, patio, courtyard, pavilion or incorporated into other defined outdoor spaces. The space may include a stage or presentation area and seating, or be more informal.

Support Facilities: Electricity, trash/recycling receptacles

Considerations:

• Compatibility with adjacent uses

• Flexibility of use


Area Requirements: Size can vary with proposed program from 400 to 2,000 square feet

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be substantial but will vary greatly depending on the specific outdoor project. Programming costs will also depend on the activities and implementation however funding may be provided by separate entities and/or external sources. O&M costs may also be partially defrayed through volunteer and/or other alternate labor programs and initiatives. Revenue from user fees can help defray some O&M costs but are generally negligible and should be weighed against impacts on user groups and administration. Potential for joint-use with other program elements should be considered.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations

High-tech facilities and access

Educational and interpretive programming could make use of contemporary technologies such as wi-fi Internet access and computer stations with interactive programs to enhance its educational programs. A self-guided tour could make use of either portable devices or computers at interpretive signage locations. Real-time data could enhance the interpretation of the agricultural operations. High-tech facilities could be located throughout the site or limited to classrooms or a visitors’ center.

Support Facilities: Wi-fi transmitters, data lines, electrical service

Considerations:

• Ongoing maintenance

• Vandalism and theft

• Program design and upkeep

Area Requirements:

N/A

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be substantial but will vary greatly depending on specific project elements. Programming cost will depend on their specific nature and implementation however funding may be provided by separate entities and/or


external sources. O&M costs may also be partially defrayed through volunteer and/or other alternate labor programs and initiatives. Revenue from user fees can help defray some O&M costs but are generally negligible and should be weighed against impact on user groups and administration.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: High-tech facilities should be considered an overlay that would apply to any alternative being considered.


• Non-profit agricultural education program (e.g., U.C. Cooperative Extension, Healthy Silicon Valley, Conexions’ Valley of the Heart’s Project, Ecology Action, etc.)


• Schools


• County Executive Office’s Corporate Sponsorship and Marketing Plan

Visitors’ Center

A visitor center would be a gathering place, information center for park visitors and a point of contact between visitors and staff. Visitors could collect park information such as maps and program guides, and docents or staff could give visitors an introduction and orientation to the park. A small library could store educational materials about history and agriculture. Docent-led tours could begin at the visitors’ center. The visitors’ center could also house administrative facilities for interpretive staff and docent/volunteers, such as an office, break room, storage space, and meeting space.

Support Facilities: Electrical, water, sewer, data and gas service; parking; service and emergency vehicular access; trash and recycling facilities and service

Considerations:

• A phased approach could allow for interim facilities until such time as structures in the Life Estate becomes available for use.

• The visitors’ center could be combined with other program elements such as classrooms, multi-purpose public-use pavilion, and staff offices.

• Compatibility with adjacent on- and off-site uses


Area Requirements: Variable, approximately 2,000 - 3,000 square feet

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be substantial but will vary greatly depending on specific project elements. Programming cost will also depend on their specific nature and implementation however funding may be provided by separate entities and/or external sources.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations and configurations will be considered, including a separate or combined facility. Phasing will be considered.




• Friends group

• Volunteer staffing and docents

Museum Complex

A museum facility would be located on the Life Estate, once it becomes available for park use. The museum facility may incorporate the Cottle Ranch residence, outbuildings, and farm equipment and other artifacts, deemed appropriate by the Donor.

Support Facilities:

Restrooms, parking, emergency and service vehicle access

Considerations: Accessibility upgrades will be necessary to provide access not only to the residence, but also throughout the Life Estate and to various outbuildings. Restoration and ongoing maintenance of the buildings and artifacts would be a long-term project, requiring significant investment and expertise.

Area Requirements: The museum complex would occupy the existing buildings and related outdoor areas of the Life Estate.


Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be substantial but will vary greatly depending on specific project elements. Programming cost will also depend on their specific nature and implementation however funding may be provided by separate entities and/or external sources. O&M costs may also be partially defrayed through volunteer and/or other partnership programs and initiatives. Revenue from user fees can help defray some O&M costs but are generally negligible relative to costs and should be weighed against impacts on user groups and administration.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: As the museum complex would be developed after the Life Estate becomes available, the Master Plan process will not explore alternatives addressing the museum complex.




• Schools


• Friends group

• Historical societies

Historic Craft Demonstration

Historic crafts may be demonstrated as part of the historical interpretive component of the Park. Demonstrations could include such crafts as blacksmithing, woodworking, yarn spinning and other textile crafts, and historic food production such as butter churning. Such demonstrations would most likely occur in the Museum Complex described above, but could also be associated with other program elements, such as the produce stand or farmers’ market.

Support Facilities:

Support facilities would vary depending on the craft. Blacksmithing would require a blacksmith’s shop, including a furnace and exhaust system, water supply, and the necessary safety and fire-prevention measures. Textile crafts or woodworking would require space to house equipment and supplies. Historic food preparation may require kitchen facilities and refrigeration, or it may require as little as a wood-burning stove or butter churn. Concessionaires may bring self-sufficient facilities to the park, such as on a trailer.


Considerations:

• Historic craft demonstration will depend on the availability and interest of concessionaires or volunteers.


• Health and safety

Area Requirements: Variable. A blacksmith shop would require approximately 200 square feet.

Financial Implications: Potential for revenue generation through leasing to private operator. Market viability will depend on success of overall site program.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Historic craft demonstration is an option that could apply to any alternative.


• Concessionaires

• Historical societies

Community and Visitor-Serving Uses

Retail Uses

Retail uses could include a gift shop/store whose purpose would be to sell educational and interpretive materials pertaining to the mission of the park and goods produced from ingredients grown on the site.

Support Facilities: Utilities service, parking

Considerations:

• Retail uses could be combined with a visitors’ center.

• Per the Donor’s Vision, any retail component should support the overall mission and theme of the park, i.e., products should relate to the historical or agricultural program.

• Consistency with the California State Parks Department’s Concessionaire and Leases Policies


Area Requirements: Variable; approximately 500 to 1,500 square feet


Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Alternatives should explore whether or not the park should have a retail component and where such a component would be located.

Potential Partnerships

Concessionaires

Multi-use Hall or Pavilion

A multi-use hall or pavilion could serve large groups for special events and gatherings such as harvest festivals, interpretive programs, farmers’ market uses, and community events and meetings. The design of a multi-use hall or pavilion should allow for flexibility, such as providing spaces that could be subdivided and the ability to open the space to the outdoors, such as with roll-up or barn-style doors. The multi-use hall or pavilion could be combined with other program elements such as classroom space and a demonstration kitchen.

Support Facilities: Utilities including electricity, gas, data/communications, water and sewer; parking; trash/recycling facilities; emergency and service vehicle access

Considerations:

• After-hours access could be provided on a special use permit basis; groups using the facility after hours would pay for County Parks staff supervision, as they currently do at other County Parks facilities.

• The design of a hall or pavilion should fit with the rural agricultural character of the park.

• The building design should employ sustainable, green design and technologies.

• Programming flexibility


• Phasing (due to land use restrictions under Williamson Act Contract)


Area Requirements: Variable; the Donor’s Vision plan indicates a 14,000-square-foot area for a “Community Hall.”

Financial Implications: Capital costs cost can vary significantly depending on nature of facility. Programming and O&M costs are generally covered by user groups. User or rental fees can be sporadic and vary significantly depending on a variety of factors including location, competition, marketing, use policies, and the attractiveness of the venue itself. A potential for revenue generation through the leasing of the site to private operator(s) may be explored. Market viability will depend on success of overall site program.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations and sizes should be considered. Possible combination with other program elements should be explored.

Outdoor Event Space

A large outdoor gathering area allowing for flexible uses and good access would provide for events and gatherings such as a harvest festival, a farmers market and community celebrations. The outdoor event space could include a stage area for performances and a garden structure such as a gazebo for events such as weddings.

Support Facilities: Restrooms, potable water, electricity, emergency and service access, parking, lighting (for after-dark break down or set-up), recycling facilities

Considerations:

• Vehicular access and overflow parking


• Type/flexibility of surfacing, i.e. native soil, grass, decomposed granite, etc.

Area Requirements: Variable.


Financial Implications: Capital costs cost can vary significantly depending on nature of facility. Programming and O&M costs are generally covered by user groups. User or rental fees can be sporadic and vary significantly depending on a variety of factors including location, competition, marketing, use policies, and the attractiveness of venue itself, among other factors.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations and sizes will be considered.

Potential Partnerships: Concessionaires

Café/Food Concession

A food concession such as a café could be incorporated into an existing building on the Life Estate, or as part of a new building developed for another program element, such as a multi-use hall/pavilion. It is not anticipated that a separate building would be built to house a café. A café could serve the educational mission of the park by serving food grown at the park or elsewhere in the Santa Clara Valley, and/or organically grown food that demonstrates current trends in organic agriculture.

Support Facilities: Utilities infrastructure, service and emergency vehicular access, trash/recycling facilities, parking.

Considerations:

• Lease terms could require an educational component to the concessionaire’s promotional materials, menu, etc.

• A food concession could include catering operations for private events held at the park.

• Consistency with the California State Parks Department’s Concessionaire and Leases Policies

• Phasing

• Building design should employ sustainable, green design and technologies.

Area Requirements: Variable, approximately 1,500 to 3,000 square feet



Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations and combinations with other park program elements, such as a multi-use hall or visitors’ center should be explored. Alternatives with and without a café/food concession should be explored. Potential for inclusion in a long-term future phase, contingent on maturing facilities, established programs, etc.


• Concessionaire

• The State of California’s “Healthy Food Initiative”

• Healthy Silicon Valley

Community gardens

Community gardens contain publicly-accessible garden plots for the use of City and County residents for raising fruit, vegetables and ornamental plants. Community garden plots are often rented to members of the public, and are assigned on a first come, first served basis.

Community gardens may also serve certain populations, in the form of school gardens, special needs gardens (e.g. disabled), and senior gardens.

Support Facilities: Potable water, water meter, irrigation system, restrooms, tool shed, service and emergency vehicular access, compost areas, trash/recycling facilities, fencing and gates, parking.

Considerations:


• Fencing and possible separate access, with locked gate

• Separate water metering to establish water fee

• Hours of access and hours of operation

Area Requirements: Community gardens typically range from approximately one-half an acre to five acres in size. Typical plots range from 10'x10' to 20'x30'.


Financial Implications: There is potential for revenue generation through leasing to partner organization, and/or direct leasing of garden plots to individuals.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations, sizes and relationships with other park program elements should be explored. (A location has been established for an initial City of San Jose-developed community garden; however the preferred alternative may suggest a new or expanded area for the ultimate community garden location.)

Potential Partnerships: The City of San Jose and County Parks have entered into a partnership agreement whereby the City will develop community gardens on a portion of the park site. Other potential partners include:

• City of San Jose Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood Services

• Non-profit agricultural education programs (e.g., U.C. Cooperative Extension, Conexions’ Valley of the Heart’s Delight Project and Home Food Gardens Program)

• Youth agricultural organization (e.g., 4-H, FFA)

• Master Gardeners program

• Schools and outdoor education programs

Natural Resources

Native and sensitive wildlife and vegetation restoration and preservation

Native and sensitive wildlife and vegetation restoration and preservation could include the following components:

• Protect and enhance roosting and nesting areas for red-tailed hawks and other birds of prey that currently nest or forage on site.

• Restore limited areas of native habitats typical of the southern Santa Clara Valley (e.g., riparian, hedge rows, seasonal wetlands) that could contribute to the interpretation of the park’s natural history and ecology.

• Preserve the existing mature valley oaks as attractive locations for park programming and/or potential for restoration of the natural oak savanna habitat that existed on the site prior to cultivation.

• Establish new oak trees and other native species to supplement and replace aging trees.


• Explore the potential for re-establishing native species such as burrowing owls and other native ground nesting birds.

Support Facilities: Temporary irrigation system, maintenance tool and equipment storage, fencing, signage for interpretation and access control

Considerations:

• Native habitat and species restoration requires significant ongoing maintenance, such as weeding, until established.

• Ongoing management of non-native wildlife, such as red foxes and feral cats, would be necessary to allow for re-establishment of species such as burrowing owls.

• Ongoing management of urban wildlife such as rodents, deer, opossum, skunk and raccoons along the creek corridor

• Compatibility of restoration sites with other program elements and access routes


Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be significant but will vary depending on nature of programs. Various volunteer and/or alternate labor programs can help defray some O&M costs. Funding for capital and O&M may be available through private donations and naming rights programs. Outside funding potential through other Federal, State, or County programs or private sector habitat mitigation.


• Different conservation strategies and areas for habitat restoration will be explored.


• Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)

• Native plant societies

• Institutions of higher education

• Schools and youth organizations

• Outdoor education programs

• Volunteer programs, community groups and neighborhood associations


• Agricultural tenant, with funding from Natural Resource Conservation Service

• California Department of Fish and Game

• Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley

• Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

Canoas Creek ecological enhancement

Enhancement of Canoas Creek to provide a more naturalistic riparian corridor more in keeping with SCVWD’s current practices would enhance the creek corridor’s habitat potential visual/aesthetic character, recreational amenity value, and educational and interpretive value while still performing its required hydrologic function.

Support Facilities: Temporary irrigation system, maintenance tool and equipment storage, fencing, signage for interpretation and access control

Considerations:

• Creek enhancement must maintain the hydrologic capacity of the creek channel and be consistent with SCVWD flood management requirements.

• While creek enhancement would substantially upgrade the quality of the riparian habitat, native wildlife species would still need to compete with non-native species that would continue to access the channel from upstream and downstream areas.

• An enhanced creek channel or floodplain could potentially enhance groundwater recharge, though the soil type adjacent to the creek may limit its value as a recharge zone.

• Vector control issues should be considered, i.e., control of nuisance and disease-carrying insects.

• Environmental educational program opportunities

Area Requirements: Will vary according to enhancement strategies, but could require additional setbacks on either or both sides of the existing creek channel to accommodate channel reconfiguration and/or revegetation.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be significant but will vary depending on the nature of program. Various volunteer and/or alternate labor programs can help defray some O&M costs. Funding for capital and O&M may be available through grants, private donations and naming rights programs. Outside funding potential


through other Federal, State, or County habitat mitigation programs may provide another revenue source.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Alternatives should consider various levels of creek channel enhancement, including what might be done within the existing SCVWD easement as well as a larger-scale restoration effort including regrading of the creek channel geometry to create a meandering creek with floodplains and wetland areas. Alternatives should also include exploring trail routes with the SCVWD to provide access to and along the creek corridor.








• Agricultural tenant, with funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service


Lake, pond or seasonal wetland

The Donor’s Vision Plan indicates a lake/pond in the western portion of the park where the soils are poorly drained and rich in clay. In addition to providing a visual and recreational amenity, a lake/pond in this area could potentially contribute to groundwater recharge and the addition of sensitive wetlands habitat. Historically, the area of poor drainage was a significant portion of the “Tulares de las Canoas,” one of the largest wetland complexes in the Santa Clara Valley. Restoration of the wetlands in this area could include the reintroduction of rare as well as common wetland plants and species such as freshwater marshes, willow groves, and open water ponds.

Support Facilities:

The creation of a body of water may require water to be pumped from wells. Overflow systems may need to be constructed.


Considerations:

• The area’s poor drainage may limit the opportunity for groundwater recharge, but it may be ideal for the restoration of a wetland.

• Habitat value (i.e. wetland species such as native fish, birds, and plants) will need to be balanced with passive recreational uses.

• The combination of a lake/pond and turf area as shown in the Donor’s Vision could attract Canada geese and associated management issues.

• Vector control issues should be considered, i.e., control of nuisance and disease-carrying insects.

• Recreational opportunities for fishing activities

• Opportunities for wetland restoration areas

• Opportunities for flood protection and/or groundwater recharge (i.e. receiving excess flows from the creek in a flooding event)

• Opportunities to use recycled water for the lake/pond recharge

• Environmental educational program partnership opportunities (i.e. with the SCVWD, etc.)

Area Requirements: Variable. The Donor’s Vision indicates a lake of approximately 6.5 acres in size.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be significant but will vary depending on nature of program. Various volunteer and/or alternate labor programs can help defray some O&M costs. Funding for capital and O&M may be available through grants, private donations, non-profit organizations and naming rights programs. Outside funding potential through other Federal, State, or County programs for habitat mitigation may provide a source of revenue.


Various sizes and the nature of the lake/pond or wetland will be explored. Various levels of access and lakeside activities will be explored. Alternatives should explore areas of wetland restoration in the design of the edge treatments for the lake/pond.










Native plant nursery

A portion of the site could be used as a native plant nursery, to provide plants for on-site habitat restoration, for use in a native plants demonstration garden, and habitat restoration projects in other County parks. Growing native stock onsite would enhance plant viability and provide an ongoing source for replacement materials. Additionally, a native plants nursery could become an integral component of the park’s educational program that involves the community, students and volunteers in the propagation and planting processes.

Support Facilities: Irrigation system, shade structures, compost and soil storage, tool and equipment storage shed, vehicular access, staff parking, greenhouse

Considerations:

• Responsibility for managing a nursery would need to be determined

• Location of nursery would need to consider compatibility with adjoining uses

• Different types of licensing and infrastructure needs would need to be considered with a production nursery or a retail nursery

Area Requirements:

Variable. For reference, the native plant nursery at the Presidio in San Francisco is approximately 1.5 acres.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can be significant but will vary depending on the nature of program. Various volunteer and alternate labor programs can help defray some O&M costs. Funding and grant sources for capital and O&M may be available through private donations, non-profit organizations and naming rights programs. Outside funding potential through other Federal, State, or County programs or private sector species protection and habitat mitigation. Sales and


admissions fees may help defray costs but would need to be weighed against other public policy objectives.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations and sizes should be explored. Options with and without a native plant nursery should be explored.



• Native plant societies

• Non-profit urban forestry organizations, such as Our City Forest





• Concessionaire

Soil restoration and enhancement

Sustainable, organic agricultural practices can remediate degraded soils and will enhance fertility, tilth, and permeability of the soils. These practices will be incorporated into the agricultural program (see above).


• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Resource Conservation District

• UC Small Farms Advisor

• UC Cooperative Extension Master Composters Program


Pedestrian/Bicycle/Equestrian

(Refer to Trails under Recreation above for more information.)

Points of walk-in/bicycle entry Pedestrian and bicycle access points may include the following:


• Pedestrian/bicycle trail connections to the park via easements under Highway 85

• Points of entry at dead-end streets along western edge of property

• Points of entry along Snell, Branham and Chynoweth

Perimeter trail A perimeter trail offers the opportunity for a long-distance circuit for joggers, bicyclists, and horseback riders. A perimeter trail around the entire park would be approximately three miles in length. Access to the perimeter trail could be provided at the various locations described above.

Internal Trails Internal trails would provide access to the various program elements within the site. Internal trails could include interpretive tour routes, recreational routes, and access routes between program elements. Pedestrian/bicycle connections may be made from the maintenance roads on either side of the Canoas Creek corridor, within the SCVWD easement, pending approval by the SCVWD.

Sidewalks/walkways along adjoining streets Sidewalk and/or other trail or walkway improvements may be made in coordination with the City of San José to the following streets:

• Snell Avenue

• Branham Lane

• Chynoweth Avenue

• Colony Field & Velasco Drives

• Vista Park Drive

• Blossom Hill Road (south of Highway 85) – requires additional coordination with CALTRANS and City of San José

Bicycle lanes/routes on adjoining streets Bicycle lanes exist on Snell Avenue and Branham Lane. The widening projects on these two streets may offer the opportunity to connect these bicycle lanes with the park’s circulation network. In addition, the City of San José Bicycle Master Plan identifies bike lanes on Chynoweth Avenue that also provides connections to the park.


• City of San José (Department of Public Works, Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Program)


• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Transportation for Livable Communities program.

• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

Connections to public transit Connections to the following nearby transit stops should be considered in the alternatives.

• Blossom Hill light rail station

• Caltrain station at Santa Teresa Blvd.

• Bus stops along Branham Lane and Snell Avenue


• Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Transportation for Livable Communities program.

• City of San Jose (Department of Public Works, Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Program)

• CALTRANS

Staging Areas Staging areas should be included throughout the park. Equestrian staging areas would include parking for horse trailers, while bicycle and pedestrian staging areas may be associated with bicycle and pedestrian access points around the perimeter or parking lots within the park. Staging area components include:

• Car/Truck Parking, including handicap and school bus parking

• Horse trailer parking for equestrian trails

• Trail map/information

• Signage (including park entrance sign, interpretive panels, etc.)

Support Facilities/Amenities: Restrooms, potable water, emergency phones, access control gates/fencing, trash/recycle containers, signage, bicycle racks or other bicycle parking facilities


Considerations:

• Number of points of pedestrian/bicycle entry

• Location of points of pedestrian/bicycle entry to consider potential conflicts with adjacent residences

• Buffers between trails and adjacent residences and adjacent roads

• Security and boundary control after hours

• Park edge and access treatments in conjunction with the widening of Snell Avenue and Branham Lane, including adequate turn lanes for vehicles and adequate buffer for pedestrians and cyclists from traffic and appropriate visual character.

• Whether sidewalks are appropriate pedestrian facilities along Snell, Branham and Chynoweth, or whether separated trails or walkways would be more in keeping

• Trails to serve as part of a buffer transect, to be bordered by plantings (i.e. native plant materials, fruit trees and low-growing shrubs) and shade trees that also provide habitat for beneficial species or birds that hunt rodents.

• Provide for pedestrian safety of park visitors and residents using street intersections at Branham Lane and Snell Avenue.

• A perimeter trail may be located outside of the park’s access control fence so that it can be accessible to the public after park hours.

• Consistency with the California State Parks Department’s Branding Policy Handbook for design of the park entrance sign

• Maintaining visibility and sight lines into the park along park edges while balancing the need for visual and noise buffers

Area Requirements: Varies.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type of trail, landscaping, special facilities (e.g. number of bathrooms, lighting, benches, etc), and other features. Trails offer minimal opportunities to generate on-going revenue to cover O&M costs. However, various volunteer and alternate labor programs can help defray some O&M costs (e.g. planting or clean-up crews). Funding for capital costs can be obtained through private donations and naming rights programs.


Number and locations of pedestrian/bicycle access points, various circulation routes, types of buffers between trails and adjacent residences (e.g., vegetation, grading, fencing, or distance buffers).


Vehicular

Vehicular entry point The park will have a single vehicular entry point. The entry point may be located on Chynoweth Avenue, Snell Avenue, or Branham Lane. Emergency and service vehicle access points may be provided at additional locations.

Support Facilities: Fencing and gate, entry kiosk, fee collection machine, entrance signage, map display, vehicular stacking lanes

Considerations:

• Location of entry point to consider potential conflicts with adjacent residences and neighborhoods

• Traffic impacts and the potential need for left-turn, right-turn and stacking lanes on city streets

• Traffic management for park entrance to accommodate high volume of users during special event periods

• Security and boundary control after hours

Area Requirements: An entry road should have at least two lanes, a minimum of 10 feet wide each.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type and length of facilities. Vehicular access point offers potential for vehicular entrance fee collection if demand analysis suggests adequate market support.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations on each of the streets listed above will be explored. The Donor’s Vision identifies Chynoweth Avenue as a potential park entry for vehicles, however the Donor is willing to consider alternative locations such as Branham Lane and Snell Avenue.

Emergency Access Emergency access points should be located at several places around the park perimeter.


Support Facilities: Removable bollards or gates with Knox boxes

Considerations:

• Code requirements

• Emergency access routes may be combined with multi-use trails and farm equipment and maintenance routes.


Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type and length of facilities.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Emergency access locations and routes will depend on the locations of other program elements and will therefore vary in the alternatives.

Parking Although there will be a single vehicular entry point, parking may be provided at several locations within the park. Parking should be located near various program elements as listed above. Parking should be provided for horse trailers, vans and school buses, as well as automobiles and trucks. Separate parking for farm workers and park staff should be provided. Accessible parking spaces should be provided to comply with code requirements. Bicycle racks should be provided at all parking areas.

Parking should be provided for regular day-use and large events. Event parking may incorporate off-site shared parking strategies.

Support Facilities: Fee collection machines, signage, map/information displays, trash/recycling containers, access control gates and fencing, lighting, emergency phones, restrooms

Considerations:

• Number and types of vehicles to be accommodated

• Compatibility and adequate buffers to adjacent on- and off-site uses

• Americans with Disabilities Act compliance


• Impact of parking on the park’s programs and visual character

• Preservation of most fertile soils

• Shared parking opportunities

• Possible location of perpendicular overflow parking on Chynoweth Avenue

• Potential impact on adjacent properties and on-street parking in the adjacent neighborhoods

• Overflow parking area for large events and seasonal activities

• Sustainable stormwater management practices

Area Requirements:

• Will depend on the number and types of vehicles to be served

• Assume a total of approximately 400 square feet per car and 1,000 square feet per truck/trailer or bus. Parking for 100 cars would require about 1 acre and parking for 50 horse trailers would take about 1.15 acres.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type and length of facilities. Parking fees offer a potential revenue source, provided demand analysis suggests adequate market support.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Locations and sizes of parking lots; surfacing for parking areas

Maintenance and Farming Equipment

Internal farm/service roads

Internal farm equipment and service roads should be separated from public recreational or access routes to ensure safety and improve the efficiency of farming and maintenance operations. Smaller vehicles (e.g. electric golf cart size) could share recreational trails; tractors would need their own roads.

Site access from adjacent streets

Access points in addition to the public vehicular entrance point should be provided.

Parking and storage

Separate parking and storage facilities should be provided for farm and maintenance vehicles.


Support Facilities: Gates and fencing

Considerations:

• Safety and security at points where farm/maintenance routes intersect with public recreational routes

• Some farm/maintenance routes may be combined with recreational routes, provided adequate width, signage, fencing and supervision where required.

Area Requirements: Farm and maintenance routes would be approximately 20 feet in width.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type and usage of equipment. Leasing opportunities may generate some income but should be weighed against administration costs.


• Farm and maintenance vehicular routes will depend on the locations of other program elements to be explored in the alternatives.

• Various surfacing materials, such as gravel or decomposed granite may be considered.

Alternative Transportation

Transit Connections (external) Connections to existing public transit stations and bus stops are described above. In addition, bus stop locations could potentially be modified or added, in cooperation with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), to provide more direct access to the park entrances.

Potential Partnership:

• VTA

Shuttle or horse-drawn carriage for park visitors (internal) A shuttle or horse-drawn carriages may be provided to transport park visitors throughout the park. Shuttle service may take the form of a van or shuttle bus, golf-cart-type vehicles, multi-cart vehicles, bicycle taxis, or horse-drawn carriages/hay rides.


Support Facilities: Parking and storage of shuttle vehicles, paved routes (paving material to be determined), service facilities, fueling system or electricity supply for electric vehicles, fare collection system, barns/corrals for horses

Considerations:

• A shuttle may be run by a concessionaire, local transportation agency or by County Parks.

• Safety and code compliance

• Compatibility of a horse drawn shuttle with other equestrian uses in park


Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type, number and usage of vehicles. User fee may generate some income but should be weighed against administration costs and other program goals.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various shuttle types and shuttle routes should be considered. Donor’s Vision by the 1996 MPA Design identified a miniature train system for internal park transportation. More recently, the Donor has accepted the exclusion of this element from the Vision, as noted in the 2003 Donation Agreement.


• Concessionaire

• Metropolitan Transportation Commission or Valley Transportation Authority (if shuttles provide service to transit stations or bus stops)

Operations

Office/Ranger Station

An office and ranger station for park staff may be developed as a stand-alone facility, or it may be incorporated into another structure, such as the visitors’ center or multi-purpose hall.


Support Facilities: Utilities connections, including electricity, gas, communications/data, water, sewer; staff parking; trash/recycling receptacles; emergency and service vehicle access

Considerations: A phased approach may be desirable, such that a temporary structure to house the office/ranger station until such time as the Life Estate becomes available for park use. The building design should employ sustainable, green design and technologies.

Area Requirements: Approximately 1,000 square feet

Financial Implications: Cost will depend on amount and type of staffing required. Funding will need to be allocated through County budget process.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations will be explored. A phased approach will be explored.

Caretaker Residence

A 24-hour staff presence may be desirable for security at the park if animals are boarded overnight for any of the program elements. Occasional overnight observation may be necessary at certain periods (such as calving season).


Considerations:


• Potentially a temporary structure, such as a camp host site

• Possible phasing to ultimately incorporate into an existing building within the Life Estate

• Possible combination with other facilities, such as office/ranger station


Area Requirements: A small mobile home is approximately 550 square feet (46’ x 12’).

Financial Implications: Cost will depend on amount and type of staffing required. Funding will need to be allocated through County budget process.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Various locations

Entry Kiosk

An entry kiosk would serve primarily a “customer service” function, since County Parks can collect vehicle entry/parking fees via automated machines. Staff at a kiosk can give visitors directions, park information, and serve as a point of contact for emergencies.

Support Facilities: Utilities connections, including electricity, data/communications, gas (for heating), water

Considerations:

• Road geometry for adequate stacking distances and turning radii

• Staffing requirements

• Visual impact and kiosk design

Area Requirements: Approximately 100 square feet (building footprint only)

Financial Implications: See Vehicular Entry Point above.

Options to be Considered in Alternatives: Kiosk locations will be determined by alternative vehicular entry point locations.

Maintenance Facilities

Maintenance facilities will vary depending on park program. Maintenance facilities may include:


• Corporation yard for vehicle storage and maintenance

• Irrigation lay-down areas

• Maintenance yard

• Repair shop

• Maintenance staff office

• Staff parking


Considerations:


• Visual impact

• Non-point pollution source control

• Access and circulation

Area Requirements: To be determined.

Financial Implications: Both capital and O&M costs can vary significantly depending on type and usage of facilities. Leasing opportunities may generate some income but should be weighed against administration costs.


Various locations and relationships with adjacent on- and off-site uses will be explored. Various sizes will be considered.


PARKLAND CLASSIFICATION State Parks Classification and Naming Process

Because the Park is a joint planning effort of State Parks and County Parks, the Master Plan document will include State Parks General Plan elements. A State Parks General Plan is the primary management guideline for a unit defining a framework for resource stewardship, interpretation, facilities, visitor use and services. State Parks General Plans are required by law before any permanent commitment of the unit resources is made.

Before the development of a State Parks General Plan, the park project must be classified and named. State Parks classification will apply to the state-owned portion of the land. The classification system for state park units is established by law and provides for a unit’s designation as one (or more) of several unit types. Classification provides the broadest management guideline for a unit. The classification and naming component consists of an identification of the unit’s primary values and intended purpose based on a review and evaluation of Departmental goals, system-wide plans and policy, and the unit’s data file. Classification documents are informational documents for public review and comment. They are accompanied by a classification and naming recommendation to be considered for approval by the State Parks and Recreation Commission. The steps in the State Parks Classification and Naming Process are as follows:

1.0 Identify Significant Natural and Cultural Resources 2.0 Prepare Inventory of Features 2.1 Assess Opportunities

3.0 Recommend appropriate unit classification 3.1 Recommend Unit name

4.0 Select preferred name and unit classification 4.1 Submit proposed classification to the SP&R Commission

5.0 Naming and classification hearing 6.0 Notice to Department of Parks and Recreation Divisions of Commission action 6.1 Collect and Publish Materials

The Martial Cottle Park Resource Inventory and this Master Plan Program Document will inform steps 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1 of the process. Pending future action by the State Parks and Recreation Commission, the State-owned portion of the Park is proposed for classification as a “State Recreation Area with Historic Park Theme.”

County Parks Regional Parkland Classification

The Strategic Plan for the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation System defines the regional parkland classification system with the goal of developing a well-balanced park


system. Through park classification, the dominant character and principal values of an area are defined. According to the Strategic Plan, “classification provides a framework within which systemwide use and management strategies may be applied for the programming, orderly development, and use of regional parks. Standardization of the classification system further assures uniform implementation of system-wide strategies.” The regional park classification system establishes five categories of regional park use in Santa Clara County, which can be applied in whole to an individual park, or to individual zones within a park.

Possible Regional Parkland Classification Options for Consideration

The proposed regional parkland classifications are described below. The Life Estate will be classified separately from the rest of the County-owned portion of the Park property, when it becomes available for incorporation into the Park.

Life Estate Area Proposed future classification when it becomes available to the public: Historic Site

• Allows for education facilities, restored structures, outdoor museum complex, agriculture in support of historic interpretive programs, and related support facilities

• Allows for limited low-impact recreational facilities in Life Estate (e.g., trails and picnic facilities).

County-owned portion outside of Life Estate Proposed classification: Urban Recreation Area and Historic Site (combined classification)

In addition to the limited low-impact recreation allowed on a Historic Site, the Urban Recreation Area designation allows for the following potential Martial Cottle Park program elements:

• Open meadow play areas

• Off-leash dog areas

• Special recreation use facilities (i.e. par course, special events and festivals, horseshoes, equestrian center)

• Large group and corporate picnicking

• Developed use facilities (i.e. family and group picnic facilities)

• Trails

• Parking/staging

• Allows for agriculture in support of historic interpretive programs.


Note: Scientific research is considered a recreational activity generally permitted under Urban Recreation Area and Historic Site classifications. Agriculture would be permitted under this regional parkland classification as it relates to a historic and interpretive theme.

Refer to Figure 10 for a map of the classification areas described above.


REFERENCES California State Parks. January, 2007. Planning Handbook with Draft Revisions.

LSA Associates, Inc. November, 2007. Martial Cottle Park Draft Resource Inventory.

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. August, 2003. Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation System Strategic Plan.

Sustainable Agriculture Education. October, 2007. Martial Cottle Park Master Plan Case Studies Report.


APPENDIX A: MEETING SUMMARIES AND PUBLIC INPUT

• Project Team Meetings

• Technical Advisory Committee Meetings

• Task Force Meetings

• Public Workshop

• Public Input


APPENDIX B: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REFERENCES

• Grant Deeds

• Donor’s Vision Plan

• Easement Agreement for Trail Connection South of Highway 85

• Joint Powers and Operating Agreement

final draft program document for martial cottle park ......martial cottle park master plan ii final...

Documents