Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-26 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members ofthe public are welcome to attend this public meeting. AGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 26th, 2019 AGENDA City Hall Chambers 250 Hamilton 7pm *In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the Lucie Stern Community Center at 1305 Middlefield Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-463-4912. Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at the appropriate time. I.ROLL CALL II.AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS III.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable timerestriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oralcommunications period to 3 minutes. IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT V.BUSINESS1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 26th, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – PRC Chair McDougall – Action (10 min) ATTACHMENT 2. Urban Forest Master Plan – Walter Passmore – Discussion (45 min) ATTACHMENT 3.Sea Level Rise Policy – Julie Weiss - Discussion (45 min) ATTACHMENT 4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min) VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 23rd, 2019 MEETING VII.COMMENTS AND ANNOUCEMENTS VIII.ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC LETTERS DRAFT Draft Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING 7 February 26, 2019 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Ryan McCauley, Don McDougall, 13 David Moss, and Keith Reckdahl 14 Commissioners Absent: Jeff LaMere 15 Others Present: Council Member Cormack 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Natalie Khwaja 17 I. ROLL CALL 18 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS 19 Chair McDougall: The next item on the agenda is any changes, requests, deletions from 20 the agenda as it was published. If there are no changes, then we'll proceed with the agenda 21 as it's set. 22 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 23 Chair McDougall: I have a number of speaker cards. So far, they're all relative to the 24 tennis/pickleball item that's on the agenda, Agenda Item Number 3. Agenda Item Number 25 3 follows approval of minutes, so I'm not going to change the order to accommodate the 26 speakers. If there are cards that are not pickleball- or tennis-specific, please say so. The 27 last two I have do not say what project we're addressing, so I assume they're pickleball. 28 There are no other oral communications that are not specific to an agenda item, so we'll go 29 on with the Department Report. Mr. Anderson. 30 IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 31 Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson, Community Services Department. I've 32 just a few brief updates. The first of which is last night the City Council authorized the 33 City Manager to submit an offer to purchase the 0.64-acre parcel located at 3350 Birch 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 2 Street. The next steps are the Real Estate Department will assemble and submit an offer. 1 Those offers will be reviewed by the seller on February 28th. Exciting news. There's a 2 joint study session planned between the Parks and Recreation Commission and City 3 Council scheduled for April 1st. I apologize. There was some miscommunication and 4 changing of dates earlier in the day. April 1st is the date we'd like to make sure you're 5 available. If you'd please let Natalie or Kristen know as soon as possible, that would be 6 appreciated, if that date works for you. The reason for the last-minute change was there 7 were only two dates open, the 1st and the 8th. The Youth Council was the other CSD spot 8 we wanted to fill. They were only available to go on the 8th, so we swapped. 9 Unfortunately, the Baylands Boardwalk ribbon-cutting got canceled due to weather. We 10 will be scheduling a new date for that, and I'll be sure to let you know as soon as we can. 11 I did want to let you know that to date all the visitors that have been stopping by and using 12 it really appreciate it, are very happy with it, and had nothing but positive things to share 13 with staff. I mentioned this via email but, to reiterate for others who may be watching or 14 in the audience, the wash-out on Los Trancos Trail that required the closure has been 15 repaired. The trail is open, and people are enjoying it. My last update relates to the Peers 16 dog park. The grass has worn prematurely there. It's really beloved and heavily, heavily 17 used. The grass failed kind of quick. When the rainy season hit, it turned a good deal of 18 the dog park into a mud pit, which has not slowed the use one bit. We brainstormed with 19 some of the users, saying "let's look at our options, what we can do." The best option 20 seemed to be going with some mulch out there. We put down approximately 4 inches of 21 mulch over about three-quarters of it to see if people would like it, how it would take, how 22 it performed. That went in last week, and so far so good. People are enjoying it. It's 23 holding up. We'll see how it does. The remainder of the dog park, we're hoping we can 24 try to reestablish grass. It was a special request from some of the users. Staff is not 25 especially hopeful. In fact, the people who were using the dog park after we put in the 26 mulch said, "Don't bother with the grass. This is really nice, and you're never going to get 27 grass to grow." We're playing that one by ear, but I think we'll give it one more try. If not 28 and if the mulch performs well, we'll continue to spread the rest of that mulch. It seems to 29 be helping cut down on the mud and the problems there. That concludes the Department 30 Report. 31 Commissioner Reckdahl: I have a question. 32 Chair McDougall: Before I go to questions from the Commission, I would like to welcome 33 Council Member Cormack to our meeting and give her the chance to comment on AT&T 34 from a Council perspective. 35 Council Member Cormack: Thank you so much, Chair McDougall. It's a pleasure to be 36 here. It was very exciting last night. I know the community at large, certainly the Parks 37 and Rec Commission and the Ventura neighborhood, is very excited about the opportunity 38 for us to potentially acquire that land. It's likely, as Council Member Kniss said last night, 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 3 that there will be others who are interested in land in Palo Alto. Everyone should keep that 1 in mind. As the report indicated, there's limited funding in the parkland dedication. I know 2 there are many things on the Parks and Rec Commission list of interest. It's certainly 3 exciting, but I just want everyone to understand that it is a competitive situation. We're 4 very happy to be moving, and we'll see how it goes. 5 Chair McDougall: Thank you very much. Commissioner Reckdahl. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl: About the dog park, at one time we had talked about perhaps 7 having a fence in the middle and during the rainy season only using half the dog park at a 8 time to give it a little rest. Is that something we're considering or is that … 9 Mr. Anderson: It doesn't seem like that's going to be successful in terms of getting the 10 grass to stay. It's either shaded out and got leaf-drop problems on parts of it that we would 11 close. There's no chance no matter what you do of growing grass. The parts that do have 12 grass or have the potential to grow grass are so heavily used that you would have to shut it 13 down for probably three months out of the year. The feeling that I'm getting from the users 14 is that's not what they'd prefer. I'd really love to see how this mulch performs, if they're 15 happy with it, and look at that option. I don't have a feeling they're going to be in support 16 or want that closure period necessary to establish grass, only to have it fail really quickly. 17 Chair McDougall: Commissioner Moss. 18 Commissioner Moss: That's better than the Astroturf that they're using at San Antonio 19 Road, that dog park? 20 Mr. Anderson: Did you ask if we have Astroturf at Peers Park? No, this is natural grass. 21 Commissioner Moss: Is that an option? 22 Mr. Anderson: It could be. It's really from the design up, and it's quite expensive. There 23 are other elements to those too where you'd have to sanitize it on a regular basis because 24 not being natural grass, you're not irrigating it. There's a base under it. Not all of our dog 25 park users support that amenity either. For right now, I'd probably recommend sticking 26 with this. As we look at new sites, as we do the outreach, if there's a really strong push 27 towards it, I'd say we pitch it knowing the funding right now that we have allocated to the 28 every-other-year dog park CIPs is inadequate to give us synthetic turf. 29 Chair McDougall: Are there any other questions? 30 Vice Chair Greenfield: I just want to call attention to the Foothills Park trail fix that went 31 in. It's not often that problems get addressed quickly and faster than anticipated. It's good 32 to highlight the rare occasions when this does happen. That's awesome. Thank you. 33 DRAFT Draft Minutes 4 Mr. Anderson: Thanks so much. 1 Chair McDougall: My notes also say congratulations on fixing the trail. Let's hope we 2 don't have to do it again in the immediate future at some other location with the weather 3 we're having. Thank you for that. If there are no other questions to the staff report, we can 4 go on with regular business. 5 V. BUSINESS 6 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the January 22, 2019 Parks and Recreation 7 Commission Meeting 8 Approval of the draft January 22, 2019 Minutes was moved by Commissioner Reckdahl 9 and seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. Passed 6-0, LaMere absent 10 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 7, 2019 Parks and Recreation 11 Annual Retreat 12 Approval of the draft February 7, 2019 Minutes was moved by Vice Chair Greenfield and 13 seconded by Commissioner Reckdahl. Passed 6-0, LaMere absent 14 3. Update on Dedicated Courts for Pickleball 15 Chair McDougall: Welcome, Adam. 16 Adam Howard: Good evening. Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager with 17 the City of Palo Alto's Recreation Department. Thank you for hearing me tonight. We are 18 here to talk about the possibility of adding dedicated pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. 19 This has come about just with really overwhelming demand to the Rec Commission and 20 the City Council to provide pickleball space. This started with the Palo Alto Pickleball 21 Club, formerly Silicon Valley Pickleball Club, who has been very active at the courts at 22 Mitchell Park, on 5, 6, and 7. When they originally started, they were just showing up on 23 a first-come-first-serve basis. On August 29, 2018, Staff made a recommendation to 24 change the Court Use Policy so that this would allow pickleball some time on these three 25 courts. Previously, the policy was very strict to only allowing tennis, so we wanted to 26 make this change to also allow pickleball to be played on the courts and to provide some 27 designated times and days. That policy was approved on October 15th by the City Council. 28 In that time, we also redesigned and resurfaced the small paddleball courts in Mitchell 29 Park, so they are now two pickleball courts. With that policy change, there was still a 30 strong request for designated space. The policy allowed for multiuse space, which it's good 31 to have flexibility, but it certainly made it that pickleball had to have an organized structure 32 to come out, set up nets, put everything away when they were done. That really didn't 33 allow for drop-in play. It really had to be a very organized movement at certain times that 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 5 would allow for pickleball to be played on those courts. We felt the need to provide some 1 designated space. I just want to start quickly with the current distribution of tennis courts 2 in Palo Alto. There are 54 public tennis courts; 17 of those courts are lit. This is a list and 3 distribution of where they are in Palo Alto. The highlighted areas are the ones that are lit. 4 This "P" should be lit over the Palo Alto High School courts. This list does include the 5 school tennis courts. The asterisk shows that those courts are only available to the general 6 public after school hours, 4:00 p.m. on, and weekends and during the summer when there's 7 no summer school. I want to make sure that information is out there. A little bit on the 8 proposal. This has been brought up multiple times, as we know. We keep coming back to 9 the Mitchell Park site. The reasoning for that is staff has looked at other new areas, areas 10 where we could build independent of tennis courts and provide new space. That just wasn't 11 something we were able to find that would work. Some of the reasons for that are pickleball 12 is a little bit of a louder sport, so you can't be in close proximity to the neighbors because 13 that would cause real issues for their wellbeing. Also, it tends to have a large group of 14 people playing at one time, so you really need a lot of parking, which even at Mitchell Park 15 can be a concern, an issue. We can't always house all the parking, but it's one of the bigger 16 parking lots that we have attached to a park. Cubberley has come up often, especially as 17 we go through this redesign process. Staff would love to continue to keep Cubberley in 18 the discussion for additional designated pickleball space, somewhere where we could 19 separate tennis and pickleball. At this point, with really no timeline for when that process 20 could actually take place, we didn't feel like that was any kind of solution that would satisfy 21 us any time soon. When we say no timeline, we could be looking at 10, 15, 20 years. 22 There's really just no timeline as to how we could make that process work, so we didn't 23 feel it was right to put all our eggs in that basket. To the proposal itself. If you look up at 24 the map, the area currently highlighted in yellow would be the addition of two designated 25 pickleball courts that would be outside of what is currently Court 5. The palm trees that 26 line that fence would be relocated into the park, and the fence line would be bumped out 27 so that those courts were included in the main playing area. The light towers would not be 28 moved or altered. Now highlighted is Court 5. The proposal is to promote those to four 29 designated pickleball courts. Those courts would be lit because of the current lights at the 30 site. The current fencing, which is really hard to see, lies between Courts 5 and 6. That 31 fencing would be extended to allow both spaces to be used without interfering with one 32 another. Courts 6 and 7 would remain multiuse courts with tennis given priority 3:00 p.m. 33 to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. Pickleball priority is 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. seven days 34 a week. This is really trying to give each sport their designated time during their peak 35 hours. It's not perfect; we understand that. We felt that was the best compromise for that. 36 We would look at adding a bump-out in the fence area that would allow pickleball rolling 37 nets to be stored. When those courts wanted to be pickleball courts, the nets could be rolled 38 out and placed rather than having to be put together and moved away. They could just roll 39 them into a space that wouldn't interfere with play. At that time, all courts would be 40 resurfaced, so the surface for all the courts would be new. This proposal gives eight 41 designated pickleball courts in Mitchell Park, and that includes the two recently redesigned 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 6 paddleball courts, four designated tennis courts with lights; and two multiuse courts which 1 would either be two tennis courts or seven pickleball courts depending on the priority time. 2 On Tuesday, February 19th, we held a public meeting, invited tennis players, pickleball 3 players, and general park users to attend. We had about 60 people in attendance at that 4 meeting. Some feedback we got. Pickleball would like to see seating incorporated into 5 this plan, which is something staff will look into. There are some issues around if we add 6 seating, it gets a little close to the creek, and we want to know what that involves putting 7 forward before we put it into any plan. They asked for the addition of a water fountain, 8 which would benefit everyone that uses that area. Staff will look into that. They felt the 9 split of dedicated hours would work well for them. Of course, the trees that line those 10 courts are an ongoing issue that has been around for a long time. We continue to trim them, 11 but there's not a lot we can do outside of removing them, which is probably not a real 12 possibility. Some of the feedback from the tennis community. A real strong desire to keep 13 the courts multiuse. The more flexible the spaces, the better they feel it would be used by 14 the community. The lit court is a real big desire for them. They want to keep as many lit 15 courts as they can. A lot of talk about tennis having a lot of young kids involved. Mitchell 16 Park, especially weekend mornings, is very busy, so there's not a lot of room for tennis. 17 When we talked a little bit about the 54 tennis courts in Palo Alto, there was at least some 18 discussion that the grouping of tennis courts is important to their community as well. We 19 didn't get to go into a lot of detail on that because that might be an important part of why 20 some of those other spread-out courts aren't being used as much as Mitchell Park courts. 21 Some additional questions that came post-meeting via email that I thought would be 22 important. There's a thought process that Palo Alto is taking on the bulk of pickleball. I 23 wanted to look into that a little bit. Foster City has designated two tennis courts to eight 24 dedicated pickleball courts. Redwood City dual striped I'm going to say all their courts, 25 which are only six, and provide indoor space. Menlo Park has added pickleball to their 26 Master Plan, putting as a high priority to find space for them. Mountain View currently 27 under construction has three outdoor courts, two will be permanent pickleball courts and 28 one will be flex use. The tennis center there offers pickleball lessons, and they have multi-29 striped those courts. Sunnyvale took two tennis courts and made them seven pickleball 30 courts. San Jose really has a wide range of courts with five permanent courts, four 31 temporary courts, and a long list of multiuse areas. Pickleball is not something that just 32 Palo Alto is trying to solve. It is up and down the Peninsula. We're not creating the hub 33 of pickleball in Palo Alto. The next steps of this process would be tonight's review. If this 34 moves forward, we would turn this into a park improvement plan, which is a more detailed 35 plan of the drawings. We get specific about lines, showing the bump-outs, all the fencing 36 design work. That would come back to the Parks and Rec for review. Ultimately, that 37 would get approved by the City Council. Once City Council makes an approval, then they 38 would be ready to go out to bid and start construction. Questions? 39 Chair McDougall: I have a number of cards here for speaking. What I'm going to do is a 40 process that allows the three members of the field and facility ad hoc, Jeff Greenfield, Keith 41 DRAFT Draft Minutes 7 Reckdahl, and Anne Cribbs, to ask questions and comment. Then, I'll go through the public 1 statements. We have enough of those that it'll be limited to 2 minutes. Then, I'll come 2 back to the whole Commission. I hope that will be an efficient way to move through this. 3 The thing I will comment on is we have a number of separate emails that were sent to the 4 Commission and that are part of the information and input we have as well as the speakers 5 that are here tonight. I'll start on my left with Commissioner Reckdahl. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't have any questions. I was at the meeting. You did a nice 7 job moving the meeting along and keeping it from getting bogged down. I thought it was 8 productive. People on both sides were able to voice their opinions. We have such few 9 pickleball courts that we really need to add these pickleball courts. We should do it sooner 10 rather than later. I'm more worried about schedule. Can we do the planning in parallel? 11 Have we submitted anything to the Planning Department and have them give a preliminary 12 assessment before we do the final plans? 13 Mr. Howard: Some of that process has already started. We are trying to do it in 14 conjunction. We do feel that, if we move forward with this, the plan could literally be 15 ready to go out to bid the day after Council approves. That process could be as quick as 16 coming back next month with the park improvement plan, which means it could go to 17 Council the following month. 18 Commissioner Reckdahl: It has to go through Planning before it comes to us, right? 19 Mr. Howard: Yes. We'll meet with Planning and have them … 20 Commissioner Reckdahl: Those skids have been greased? 21 Mr. Howard: Yeah. 22 Vice Chair Greenfield: I want to thank Adam and Stephanie for all of the persistent work 23 on the pickleball project. We've been at this for a while. The ad hoc's been working with 24 you as well and taken a lot of community input. I don't have a specific question. I do feel 25 like, given the work that's been put in and the consideration of all the different angles and 26 looking for creative solutions and considering all the factors, the compromise proposal 27 that's being floated is the best compromise for all. It was heartening at the public meeting 28 to hear a number of people from both the tennis and pickleball community recognize that 29 this does seem like a good compromise. It's not perfect for everyone, but it does increase 30 the number of dedicated pickleball courts for the community, and tennis does lose one lit 31 court, but it's not losing three lit courts, which would seem a little closer to what some other 32 communities are doing. I applaud your efforts. Thank you. 33 Commissioner Cribbs: Me too, I applaud the efforts. Thank you very much, Adam, for all 34 the work that you've done. Thanks to the community too for all of the input. We have 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 8 been at it a long time. I'm going to ask the question. Once the Council approves, how long 1 is it going to take to go to bid and then get things built? After a year of use, would you go 2 back and review the usage with the community and staff and the Commission with maybe 3 look to see how we can light more courts, both tennis and pickleball, if there are not funds 4 in the City coffers, if there are funds someplace else to do that? 5 Mr. Howard: Daren might help me with the construction timeline. In terms of reviewing 6 policy, that's key. We constantly need to be doing that, not just get comfortable with what 7 it is, but constantly going out and making sure things are working, getting feedback from 8 the community, and making sure everything is working to the best of its ability. We would 9 definitely commit to reviewing it again in a year. 10 Mr. Anderson: To answer that question about the timeline, I believe starting in August and 11 completing in October is reasonable and achievable. Your question about lighting is a little 12 more complicated. The permitting process, if we were to try to lump it in this round, (a) 13 we don't have money so it's not feasible. It is an added complication that will slow things 14 down and make it challenging. We can certainly revisit it and keep an eye out. I think it's 15 wise and prudent not to have it linked to the project right now because of the delays. 16 Commissioner Cribbs: I hope I didn't misspeak. I don't want to put it in the project right 17 now. Let's wait and get this done quickly, as fast as we can, and then later see about lights. 18 Chair McDougall: Thank you, ad hoc. I'm going to start with the public comments. Many 19 of the cards do not have email addresses. I would remind people that there's a space there 20 for it, and we like to have the email addresses so we can follow up and get comments. The 21 cards are in random order because they were sent up here in batches. This is not necessarily 22 in the order that they were handed in. I'm going to start with Thomas Shoe [phonetic]. 23 Following Thomas Shoe is Susan McConnell, if you can anticipate that you're coming next. 24 Thomas Shoe: My name is Thomas Shoe, and I'm representing tennis players, mainly a 25 tennis friend of mine. His concern was about time limit enforcement issue. Currently, 26 each court may be used for 60, 75, 90 minutes each, but people including tennis players 27 and pickleball players do not honor that rule. Sometimes a large group of pickleball players 28 will just play there a long, long time. Again, I'm representing someone else. There's 29 concern about how we can change that rule, enforcement, clear signs. In general, tennis is 30 usually a 1.5-2-hour game. I also play pickleball. They can play all day; they can play 31 half a day; they can play 4 hours at a time because they have a huge group. We're just 32 thinking there's a way to enforce that on both sides. Are you guys going to answer? I just 33 say my piece? 34 Chair McDougall: The Commission will not respond to any of the questions. We'll take 35 the input. We appreciate the input. 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 9 Mr. Shoe: Number two, lighting is a very important issue. For the pickleball courts, the 1 current court right next to Courts 1-4 is not lit, and it would benefit both pickleball players 2 and tennis players if that was lit. Of course, pickleball players would have more options at 3 nighttime. Same goes for the walls, which should be lighted. Also, at night there are ne'er-4 do-wells smoking pot behind the walls, and it's unsafe for the general public. That was 5 feedback. I would propose to tear down the tennis walls to create more tennis courts, if 6 possible, in that location. Thank you. 7 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Susan McConnell followed by Ann Lemmenes [phonetic]. 8 Susan, I'll have to start your 2 minutes. 9 Susan McConnell: Good evening. My name is Susan McConnell, and I am a member of 10 the Palo Alto Pickleball Club and a resident of Palo Alto for 46 years. For 18 years, I 11 captained many Palo Alto USTA teams until my knees gave out. I would like to thank the 12 Palo Alto Parks and Rec Department, particularly Adam Howard, for their plan to add 13 pickleball courts to Mitchell Park. This is a very fair compromise. Tennis players will 14 have 16 lit courts instead of 17. The tennis players will still have six lit courts at Mitchell 15 Park, four in the front that have been newly resurfaced and two in the back. This is a win-16 win for everyone, plus the pickleball players will finally, finally have a real pickleball 17 venue. I cannot wait for this to happen. Thank you. 18 Chair McDougall: Susan, thank you for your comments. I'd ask people not to be 19 applauding. It's inappropriate, and I would ask people to copy what Susan did and state 20 what city you're from. Ann. Ann will be followed by Susan Kearney. 21 Ann Lemmenes: Hi, good evening. My name is Ann Lemmenes, and I'm a member of the 22 Palo Alto Pickleball Club and a resident of Palo Alto. As you all know by this point, 23 pickleball can't be played on just any court. The court has to have lines taped or painted, 24 nets have to be assembled and put on the courts and then taken down after play. It's a 25 lengthy and laborious process and, quite frankly, it's time and energy that would be better 26 spent playing pickleball. This is also just one of the reasons why dedicated courts are so 27 essential for Palo Alto. I strongly support the plan. It looks great. Thank you, Adam. 28 Let's get it done. Thank you. 29 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Susan Kearney followed by Sam Friedman. 30 Susan Kearney: Good evening. My name's Susan Kearney, and I'm member of the Palo 31 Alto Pickleball Club. I reside currently in Los Altos. I too would like to thank the Palo 32 Alto Parks and Rec Department, particularly Adam Howard, for the plan to add pickleball 33 courts to Mitchell Park. I know it's taken a lot of work to get where we are right now. The 34 courts at Mitchell Park are packed with pickleball players seven days a week, Monday 35 through Sunday. Often the newly resurfaced front four tennis courts are empty. Our free 36 clinics are regularly over-subscribed and have waiting lists as do the classes taught through 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 10 Palo Alto Parks and Rec by our club ambassador, Monica Williams. When our club runs 1 clinics or round-robin tournaments, we no longer have enough courts for open play. The 2 popularity of pickleball is exploding in Palo Alto just as it is in the rest of the country. 3 Mitchell Park is a wonderful facility, but there is simply not enough court capacity to meet 4 the demand for everyone who wishes to play pickleball there. Many of us are former tennis 5 players, and we welcome pickleball newcomers including tennis players. Our club motto 6 is arrive as a stranger, leave as a friend. We welcome the kind of support from civic leaders 7 that will enable us to continue to extend this hospitable outreach. Thank you. 8 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Sam Friedman followed by Lori Michelle [phonetic]. 9 Sam Freedman: Good evening. My name is Sam Friedman; I'm a Palo Alto resident since 10 1972 and a member of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. I wouldn't blame the Commissioners, 11 when seeing pickleball courts on the agenda, for bracing for the horde of passionate 12 pickleball players to once again plead their case for dedicated courts. I thank the 13 Commission and the staff for listening to us and for, through a dedicated and well-thought-14 out process, a viable and fair plan for Palo Alto to join other local communities in providing 15 court space and time for this wonderful game. This is one time where I'd say the sometimes 16 maligned Palo Alto process is working well. I also wish to give a special thanks to Adam 17 Howard for chairing an open-forum meeting last week on the plan to be presented tonight. 18 Adam hosted a meeting that enabled everyone to have a chance to express views pro and 19 con and to hear each other through a civil discourse. The tennis and pickleball players 20 found some common ground, especially in relation to a needed water fountain and longer 21 bathroom hours. I look forward to approval of this plan by the Commission, the City 22 Council, and then construction later this year. Thank you. 23 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Lori Michelle followed by Monica Williams. 24 Lorie Michelle: Hi. My name is Lorie Michelle. I'm a Palo Alto resident and a member 25 of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. I've been a resident for over 30 years. This is only my 26 second Council meeting, so I'm a little nervous. Even though pickleball is the fastest 27 growing sport in America, Palo Alto is really not leading the pack in addressing these 28 needs. Our neighboring cities, like Foster City, Sunnyvale, Concord, and Santa Cruz, 29 already have permanent courts. Some are so expansive that they're actually sponsoring 30 tournaments, which attract a lot of business into town. I strongly support the Mitchell Park 31 plan, and I thank Adam and the Rec Department for putting so much thought into it and 32 trying to work with both the tennis community and the pickleball community to work out 33 the best plan. Thank you. 34 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Monica Williams followed by Mark Nadel [phonetic]. 35 Monica Williams: Good evening, Chair McDougall and Commissioners. I'm Monica 36 Williams, President of Palo Alto Pickleball Club and past member of the Board of the Palo 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 11 Alto Tennis Club. I was an avid tennis player for 60 years, and I'm now a confirmed 1 pickleball addict. In respect for all your time, by the way, we decided our pickleball group 2 will just be a few speakers. The sport of pickleball is rapidly growing, and cities all over 3 the nation are providing facilities for their communities. I have discovered that one or two 4 courts scattered in a variety of parks does not work for pickleball. Pickleball is a gathering 5 and a coming-together of a community like no other sport. The ideal facility is one with 6 many courts all grouped together. Players know the block of time people will be there so 7 that anyone can drop in at any time, pick up a game by placing their paddle next to the net, 8 and challenging the winners. Mitchell Park is a destination for pickleball friendship and 9 fellowship. Young people are now discovering pickleball and becoming professional 10 competitors. Some tennis players are crossing over because they've heard about the many 11 tournaments held every month and the cash prizes that are awarded. I'm very excited about 12 these proposed plans that Adam and Stephanie have presented. I'm very impressed with 13 the creative work that's being done by the Recreation Department to add more pickleball 14 courts. I've been teaching pickleball to adults for two years and now want to concentrate 15 on sharing pickleball with our youth, but we need permanent courts so they can practice. 16 Everyone should have the same privilege to play as tennis players have had for years and 17 permanent nets on courts so that they can drop in to practice whenever they choose. I'm so 18 grateful for all the hours and work you all have spent on this creative court proposal that is 19 not ideal but a very good compromise for both tennis and pickleball players alike. All we 20 both want is to be able to play a fun sport and to get some good exercise in a safe place. 21 On behalf of the 400 members of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club, I urge you to support the 22 proposed plans. Thank you very much. 23 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Mark Nadel followed by Najool [phonetic] N. 24 Mark Nadel: Thank you for your time. I am a Palo Alto resident. My name's Mark Nadel, 25 and I am representing a chat group with 83 tennis players called the Palo Alto Tennis 26 Group. It's one of very many tennis chat groups, leagues, associations, whatever that spend 27 part of their time at Mitchell Park playing tennis. I first want to acknowledge the pickleball 28 players because in the near future I'll probably be one because I can't really play tennis that 29 much anymore. I do have to say that they are a well-oiled, well-organized, slightly militant 30 organization. They show up in force, which is great. The reason why I'm here almost alone 31 representing my group is they're younger than me and they have children. They usually 32 get underrepresented at 6:00 or 7:00 when their children have activities or it's dinner time. 33 I hope you will take that into your consideration. Tennis players, just for your information, 34 are six times as many nationwide as pickleballers according to the two associations, tennis 35 and USPATA, whatever the acronym is. Eighteen million tennis players, just over 3 36 million pickleball players. There's nothing that would lead you to believe—6:1 is a very 37 generous ratio if you consider how many tennis players there are in Palo Alto. Our own 38 estimate would say roughly 2,000. I would encourage you to do some neighborhood 39 surveys and figure out what the specific numbers are. Just seeing who's here or doing some 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 12 random samples at the tennis courts is not very accurate. When our members were asking 1 you for the data and to understand the analysis, there was no transparency. You're going 2 to have 2,000 or so upset people because a lot of us go there. We go to a lot of clubs but, 3 from what I hear, there's a lot of pickleball clubs around here, tennis courts being made in 4 Mountain View and other locations. I would urge you to consider not making some of the 5 mistakes that I saw proposed. Permanently dedicating Court 5 only for pickleball is a big 6 mistake. It doesn't make much sense. 7 Chair McDougall: Mark, I'm going to let you continue for 20 more seconds because you're 8 representing 83 other people. 9 Mr. Nadel: No, I'm done. (Crosstalk) got my message. I want you to consider the families 10 of Palo Alto. It's not just the players themselves, but the parents whose kids want to get on 11 the high school tennis team. They want to get a scholarship for tennis. They may want to 12 become a professional tennis player like Roger Federer. You should consider that Serena 13 and Venus Williams all played on public tennis courts all through high school. You should 14 think about those things. 15 Chair McDougall: Thank you, Mark. 16 Mr. Nadel: Thank you. 17 Chair McDougall: Najool N. 18 Mr. N.: Thank you for having me. I've been a Bay Area resident for 20 years, and I live 19 in Palo Alto for 10 years. I'm a very big tennis fan and so is my family, my son. I know 20 many families live here. Their kids go to high-level national and northern California, and 21 they play in Palo Alto. We are having constantly to move around to two or three tennis 22 courts to find just one damn tennis court. You won't believe how much my son goes 23 through every single day, every weekend. He does his homework early or goes to bed early 24 just to play tennis. Every single weekend, Friday through Sunday, every morning until 25 afternoon, pickleball, tennis takes up Mitchell Park last three courts. First two courts are 26 taken by City, assigned by the coaches. We only have two courts, so we don't go to 27 Mitchell Park at all because we will never find a court. At Cubberley, the City's offering 28 courts to the adult league, so they occupy all the courts. There is illegal coaching going on 29 in Palo Alto like crazy. I can name three or four tennis facility where they occupy it for 30 hours. You cannot argue with them. It becomes sometimes physical and bad language and 31 all of that. You don't want to do that with your young kid. Where do we take our kid? 32 Sometimes I go to Redwood City. This is not an ideal situation for everybody. You guys 33 need to understand that you have to provide a separate facility for pickleball because tennis 34 players and young players do not get any opportunity to play. My son (inaudible) tennis 35 for a long period of time, so he knows, but not the younger player and the parents who 36 want to get kids into tennis. They'll get discouraged because they don't find the court, and 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 13 they'll just walk away and never play tennis again. Pickleball is for old generation, not 1 new generation. That's a separate opinion. 2 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Cam W. Followed by Kay Carey. 3 Mr. W.: Hi. I'm a Palo Alto resident, and I'm both a tennis player and a pickleball player 4 when there are no open tennis courts. I'm against converting any existing tennis courts into 5 any other use permanently. This just happened to be pickleball. Although we have a lot 6 of lit tennis courts, 17, Mitchell Park is the only site that has lit tennis courts south of 7 Oregon Expressway. Also, two of those courts are occupied by City coaches 24/7. The 8 public has no access to those two courts. This is for my daughter; I'm going to read what 9 she writes. As a current high school varsity tennis player at Paly, play at the number one 10 slot, these few tennis courts are not just a way to improve my tennis skills through practice 11 but a way to relieve the stress from school work being in high school. Oftentimes, when I 12 spend hours studying at home, I need a quick mental break from staring at my computer. 13 My father, who is also my coach, and I would go out and play some tennis. Now, a high 14 school freshman, practicing tennis has continued to be the recipe of my stress relief; yet, 15 this soon turned into a big distress. Oftentimes, we drive all over town between tennis 16 courts searching for an open tennis court. First, we headed out to Mitchell Park, but the lit 17 tennis courts were occupied by pickleball players and mostly unauthorized tennis coaches 18 teaching lessons. Next, my dad drove me to Rinconada Park, and the six lit courts were 19 taken. Then, we drive to Paly, and courts are taken up by unauthorized coaches and meet-20 up crowds. An hour has gone by, and I did get to play any tennis let alone any mental 21 stress relief. This is just one typical night I often encounter nowadays. Exercise is a healthy 22 stress outlet for most high schoolers, and tennis is a popular sport loved by many. I do not 23 want any existing tennis courts taken away since I have already encountered difficulties 24 finding an open court to play on. Please let my voice be heard. Camila, I'm 14 years old, 25 Paly High School freshman. 26 Chair McDougall: Thank you. I've already said something about the applause, and the 27 applause is not helping the people who are applauding. Kay Carey followed by Andy Reid 28 [phonetic]. 29 Kay Carey: Hi. I'm Kay Carey. I'm a longtime Palo Alto resident. I'm also a former 30 President of the Palo Alto Tennis Club, still playing tennis, doesn't mean I won't play 31 pickleball. I have been involved in following the process of the court conversion. I want 32 to commend the Palo Alto Park and Rec on this compromise solution. It's clearly just a 33 compromise for now so that you can get pickleball going, get it evaluated, and also find 34 out what the lacks are in the tennis community. It strikes me that you should think about 35 putting in a public bathroom back there because you're talking about a lot of people coming 36 to pickleball events. I can foresee problems. Since Mitchell Park is so popular, long term 37 you really should be thinking of keeping Cubberley in sight and lighting the courts at 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 14 Cubberley. There is a need for more tennis courts than we have now. There may or may 1 not be a need for additional pickleball courts. You'll be in a better position to assess it after 2 you've worked through this plan. Quite a few tennis players feel that this is a reasonable 3 compromise, but you should still keep working on it to get a better tennis and pickleball 4 complex in the future. Thank you. 5 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Andy Reid followed by Jenny Chin [phonetic]. 6 Andy Reid: Thank you, Chair McDougall and the Parks and Rec Commissioners, for all 7 your work for the City. We are so lucky as citizens of Palo Alto to have many lovely 8 outdoor recreational areas available for our use for free. Recreational assets include many 9 permanent tennis courts that often go unused. Pickleball players have temporary nets that 10 they have been setting up on Courts 5, 6, and 7 for the last three years. We could get 11 11 pickleball courts out of three tennis courts. Mitchell Park is the only place to play 12 pickleball in Palo Alto, and eight to 40 pickleball players will show up every morning. 13 Pickleball is currently in the ascendant and is very popular. Thanks to the posted schedules, 14 that works out really well with the designated times and days, and it is very rare that we 15 step on any tennis toes. It actually works out very well. All we ask is that tennis share the 16 limited recreational facilities. These current plans include repurposing one tennis court in 17 order to make four permanent pickleball courts which, when added to the proposed two 18 adjacent new courts, makes six designated pickleball courts close together. As Monica was 19 saying, the way pickleball works is that people can show up and pick up a game, no partner 20 necessary. Critical mass is important. We gather in groups. We switch players and teams. 21 These six permanent courts will help out a lot so that we don't have to set up and take down 22 movable pickleball nets all the time but can set them up on the busy days during the 23 designated pickleball time. We are not saying that tennis has had all of these 54 courts for 24 20 years and now we want them. We are saying, "Let's share." We are asking tennis to 25 lose one permanent court, a very modest request. We hope you can get this show on the 26 road. Thanks very much for your hard work. 27 Chair McDougall: Thank you. Jenny Chin. The last card I have is a second Mark Nadel. 28 Jenny Chin: Hi. My name's Jenny Chin, and I'm a Palo Alto resident. I first want to thank 29 Adam. He worked really hard on this whole project. He's been very objective and really 30 creative. Two things I'd really like to bring to your attention. One was mentioned by this 31 gentleman. We have seven lit courts in South Palo Alto, two are used by coaches. We're 32 down to five. When you take away one of the five, you're taking away 20 percent of our 33 lit courts. It is detrimental to the tennis community. If you had 17, no, but you're looking 34 at one of five. At last Tuesday's meeting, I overheard one of the pickleball players mention 35 that the pickleball club has 400-plus members. Out of those 400 members, only 45 percent 36 are Palo Alto residents, so 55 percent are not. That's 200-plus non-Palo Alto residents 37 coming to Mitchell Park to use our parking spaces, to use our bathroom. I am a Palo Alto 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 15 resident. I hate it if I know I can't find parking space because 200-plus nonresidents are 1 using up my parking space. If this plan gets approved, I'd like to ask the City, "Do you 2 plan to add more parking spaces? Can you add more bathrooms?" We have the Magical 3 Bridge, which draws a lot of people from outside Palo Alto. We have Mitchell Park 4 Library. If we put in these permanent pickleball courts, we may draw even more pickleball 5 players than we have right now. On weekends, I cannot find a parking space at Mitchell 6 Park. It's really frustrating. We have USTA tennis tournaments at Mitchell Park on 7 weekends. Our opponents always complain to us because they cannot find parking space. 8 They're late usually by 20 minutes. This is a real issue. I feel Palo Alto should try to find 9 space for pickleball players. Cubberley should be a place to be evaluated. There's a lot 10 more land. There's a bigger parking lot, maybe even more bathrooms. I don't know how 11 many bathrooms there are. Cubberley is an ideal home for pickleball. Mitchell Park is just 12 too small. The parking lot is just too small. Thank you. 13 Chair McDougall: Thank you. I'm going to open it up to the Commission for questions 14 and comments. I'll start with Commissioner McCauley. 15 Commissioner McCauley: One thing I noticed this evening in the course of comments, 16 that I don't think I've seen before, is there is some levity between folks and people are 17 smiling and recognizing people's points from other sides of the aisle, so to speak. That's 18 certainly something that I appreciate. There's common understanding and respect, which 19 is excellent to see. It's been very clearly underscored that we have a scarcity of resources. 20 We've talked about this before. Certainly, your voices are heard on that. One thing I'm 21 concerned about is we've pitted pickleball players against tennis players. If there is a silver 22 lining, it is that we are underscoring the needs that are unmet in the City. That's for both 23 pickleball players and tennis players who need more resources. We've identified just this 24 evening—I'm sure at the community meeting last week you did as well—a number of 25 places for improvement. Perhaps we need to look at the timing and schedule of City-26 sponsored lessons as part of this overall assessment. Adam, you've presented to us on 27 numerous occasions on pickleball and at least one other time on this specific plan. I think 28 it was in December. Has anything changed from the December presentation or was this 29 essentially reflecting the feedback you received from further public comment? 30 Mr. Howard: That's correct. The only addition is the priority hours that we provided 31 evenings to tennis and mornings to pickleball. Otherwise, the plan is basically the same. 32 We haven't gone deeper yet. 33 Commissioner McCauley: A number of people commented that this is a compromise, and 34 that was the feedback from your public meeting as well. Perhaps, it's the right compromise. 35 How onerous is it to move the pickleball nets on and off the courts, which is the plan for 36 Court 5? With the addition of the new space that you're planning, will that ameliorate that 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 16 concern? Is there consideration for doing the same thing for 6 and 7? Excuse me, you're 1 doing that for 6 and 7; doing it for 5 as well. 2 Mr. Howard: If I'm understanding the question correctly as could the storage areas work 3 across the board, in some regards yes. Ultimately, that self-storage is going to have to be 4 locked so that we don't lose stuff. That would not allow for drop-in use because you'd have 5 to either get a permit or be one of a couple of people that have a combination much like 6 goals on soccer fields. It would not allow the general pop-in use. 7 Commissioner McCauley: In light of that, this is an excellent compromise. The hours that 8 you propose are also pretty solid. I echo the comments from the committee that we should 9 evaluate this after a year or whatever you think is the right period of time to determine 10 whether this is the permanent state of play for these particular courts and think about the 11 broader opportunities within the park system. 12 Commissioner Moss: You said that there are no tennis courts available at Mitchell Park 13 on weekend mornings. Can you clarify that? 14 Mr. Howard: I think the feedback is they're often full. There will be four courts available 15 on weekend mornings. The front one and two do have City lessons on them. When lessons 16 aren't in play, they're available to the public. Courts 3 and 4 would be available to the 17 public. 18 Commissioner Moss: Are those lessons taught anywhere else in the City, on any other City 19 … 20 Mr. Howard: They also have two courts at Rinconada. 21 Commissioner Moss: They could move those to another park if push came to shove. Is 22 that right? 23 Mr. Howard: Right now, it's in contract. When the contract is over, we could redesign 24 how that looked. 25 Commissioner Moss: I've said a number of times before that, because land is so expensive, 26 we are not going to get many more tennis courts. Therefore, the long-term solution is to 27 light every single tennis court in the City, every public tennis court in the City. You've 28 said a number of times that it'll cost about $100,000 to light tennis. How much is it costing 29 to add these two pickleball courts and to restripe Court Number 3? 30 Mr. Howard: The new construction we thought was about $80,000. I don't have a very 31 good number for the restriping because it's something we do every two years. It's part of 32 an ongoing contract, unless Daren has real specifics on striping. Because we have 33 DRAFT Draft Minutes 17 restriping in our general spending, I don't know exactly what that would be because we 1 would be doing it regardless. 2 Commissioner Moss: I want to emphasize what Anne Cribbs said earlier that we have a 3 501(c)(3) called Friends of Palo Alto Parks. It certainly would be nice if the pickleball 4 community would contribute something towards this $80,000 so that we could light another 5 tennis court with some of that money. I also encourage the Palo Alto tennis community to 6 contribute to that same fund to help expedite the lighting of another court or two. It's 7 absolutely essential that we get a public-private partnership for this kind of thing. None of 8 this was in any CIP plan or anything like that. What's the earliest that people can play 9 tennis and what's the latest that they can play tennis? Can we stretch those hours? 10 Mr. Howard: It starts at sunrise and ends at 10:00 p.m., which is the ordinance for all lights 11 in Palo Alto. All of our stadium-type lighting is off at 10:00. 12 Commissioner Moss: Even in a park like Mitchell Park that has no residences anywhere 13 near it? I can see that for Cubberley. 14 Mr. Howard: That is the current policy. It's something we could revisit when there are no 15 neighbors. 16 Commissioner Moss: Going back to the 501(c)(3), it disturbs me that there is such a high 17 percentage of non-Palo Alto residents using the pickleball courts. They should pay 18 something. I don't know how that can be dealt with, but I would encourage them to deal 19 with that within their club. We lost valuable field space to the solar panels at JLS. Any 20 chance we can raise those panels and put pickleball courts underneath? You don't need 21 sun. That's all I have. 22 Mr. Howard: I don't have a good answer for that. The possibility is there. The space is 23 wide enough to add something. It is School District land. 24 Chair McDougall: That's a School District question, not a Commission question. Before 25 I ask the ad hoc members if they'd like to add comments, I do have two cards that came in 26 after the Commission started talking. I'm afraid I can't allow those to speak. There will be 27 lots of other opportunities. I'm sorry that I can't allow them, but I don't think it's appropriate 28 to start changing the rules of when we have public comment. Commissioner Reckdahl, do 29 you have anything you want to add? 30 Commissioner Reckdahl: Nothing more. 31 Chair McDougall: Commissioner Greenfield? 32 Vice Chair Greenfield: There have been some very useful comments from the public both 33 at the public meeting and today. A couple that I'd point out is about adjusting the hours of 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 18 pickleball priority versus tennis priority and put a little gap between them so that they didn't 1 bunch into each other. That was a great idea. It would be worthwhile to further clarify 2 how to vacate courts for priority play. For example, if pickleball players are playing and 3 tennis players show up and it's tennis priority time, finish the existing game not to exceed 4 15 minutes or something like that would be worth putting that into policy. 5 Mr. Howard: That's part of the current policy recently developed and shown on the signs 6 that are up. The feedback that I have heard about those signs is they have worked and 7 helped avoid some conflict. It does spell out "finish your game or 20 minutes, whichever 8 comes first" and "be respectful of open courts before you come to full courts." We would 9 continue that. 10 Vice Chair Greenfield: There have been a number of comments regarding illegal use of 11 the court. There have been comments regarding soccer players using the courts for 12 practicing when it's wet out. There have been comments regarding private coaching. I'm 13 not surprised to hear that there's private coaching taking place. I'm wondering what your 14 take is in terms of the current awareness of this issue and what the potential for enforcement 15 of this is. 16 Mr. Howard: That's something that has come up with this and that we've tried to look into 17 a little bit. We do hear about it. There are a couple of issues. One, it's hard to go out as a 18 staff and prove what the relationship is between this individual and the student. It could 19 be a father/son. It could be someone's neighbor teaching. We have to deal with that a little 20 bit. We have got some positive feedback. This goes back to looking at the tennis policy 21 with the tennis community because we want it to be best for the tennis players. One thing 22 we heard is if you do some kind of rule—I'm going to throw out a number—that you're 23 only allowed five tennis balls on the court at a time, that takes away the ability to have a 24 true lesson. Typically, there are hundreds of balls out when that takes place. We want to 25 start getting some of that feedback so that we make sure courts are being utilized the way 26 the tennis community wants them to. Everything they're talking about, the private lessons, 27 it's all tennis, but are we doing it to the best of our ability. Regardless of what happens 28 here, we need to go into that communication with the tennis players to make sure the 29 policies we have are working to the best of their abilities. 30 Vice Chair Greenfield: We all know that Cubberley is in the midst of a redevelopment 31 process. There may be a potential solution for expanding the overall number of lit courts 32 in Palo Alto if the courts end up getting located far enough away from residents so that 33 lighting could be considered. That could be something very useful to consider because we 34 presume that pickleball is going to grow as well, and they're going to request additional lit 35 courts in the future. That's a bit of an ace in the hole that we should keep in mind. We 36 should encourage both the tennis community and the pickleball community to pursue 37 alternate transportation methods for getting to Mitchell Park. I don't foresee that parking 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 19 is going to increase at Mitchell Park in the future. It is a popular place for a variety of uses. 1 Any way that we can reduce the parking crunch will benefit everyone. The simplest place 2 to start is carpooling. Thank you. 3 Commissioner Cribbs: I'm really very pleased about the tone and the tenor of the 4 discussion over pickleball and tennis. We've all learned a lot. Some things have come up 5 that I wasn't aware of in terms of private coaching and maybe extending hours. Over the 6 next year as we get these courts going, we'll have time to evaluate and continue working 7 together to make the courts even better for everybody. I'd just like to thank everybody who 8 has participated. 9 Council Member Cormack: I want to echo all of the comments from the Commissioners 10 about the work that staff has done. It's not often in these chambers there are this many 11 compliments. I hope you appreciate them. Adam, it certainly sounds like you deserve 12 them. I'm sorry I wasn't able to attend the outreach meeting. Thank you all for that. Very 13 interesting to surface a few of the issues with tennis situations. It looks like we'll be taking 14 those on. I appreciate that. Full disclosure, former tennis player, and I have played 15 pickleball and absolutely enjoyed it. I want to touch on Cubberley. I am very sensitive to 16 the differences between south and north Palo Alto. I appreciate the member of the public 17 who pointed out the difference in lit courts in north and south. Cubberley is a personal 18 passion project for me. I very much hope that we'll be able to continue to move this 19 forward. I freaked out when you said 20 years. I'm like, "Not on my watch." Whatever I 20 can do to move that forward I will. It had not occurred to me nor had I seen it on the 21 plans—that doesn't mean it hasn't been there—about lighting the courts at Cubberley both 22 for pickleball and tennis. I'll take that back in the event that no one else has connected the 23 dots. I'm sure someone has, but I'll make a note of that. That'd be an opportunity to 24 improve the situation for everyone. What a pleasure for my first meeting with the 25 Commission to see this process working so well. 26 Chair McDougall: I'm not inclined to try and echo what other people have said. I doubt 27 that, Adam, you did this without some help from Stephanie. I'd like to mention Stephanie 28 as part of the work that's been done. Thank you for that, Stephanie. I'm sure other 29 Commissions deal with the issue of scarce and valuable resources. The whole idea this 30 Commission deals with is the scarce and valuable resources of our parks and recreation 31 facilities and open spaces and the fact that what the City wants, what the citizens want is 32 more of everything. They want more lights. They want more courts. They want more 33 bathrooms. They're all right. That puts us in a really interesting, difficult position. I want 34 to thank all of the speakers that we had tonight for the respect they showed one another, 35 for the enthusiasm for the compromise that we have. Some of the things that I learned 36 from the speakers is that we need to manage the rules. The first speaker talked about 37 whether the rules were being followed. Adam, you commented. I don't know how we go 38 about that. It's not just the rules, but it's the etiquette. Both of these sports, if you ask them, 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 20 would tell you that they're the epitome of etiquette in sports unlike football or baseball or 1 soccer. We need to call them on the etiquette. Talking with the schools about their courts, 2 making sure that we measure over the next year in some way. We need to ask both 3 communities to help us with that measurement. The whole idea of coaches. I'd like to 4 echo that the Cubberley project is going on. We're continuing to have meetings and input 5 sessions. I would encourage people who want to see pickleball or tennis or lighting or 6 whatever at Cubberley to participate in those meetings. If there are no other real pressing 7 questions, Adam, I'll give you the chance to close. 8 Mr. Howard: I wanted to add one comment that did come up in the public meeting. It 9 seems like a good time to let them know we addressed it. There was an issue that it sounds 10 like the bathrooms were being locked at 9:00 even though the lights were on until 10:00. 11 We have addressed that issue, and it's resolved. Bathrooms will stay open until 10:00. 12 Chair McDougall: Thank you all very much. Adam and Stephanie, thank you very much. 13 When should we expect you back here? 14 Mr. Howard: Ideally and hopefully, we will be back next month. 15 4. Rinconada Park Improvement Project Overview 16 Chair McDougall: The next item on the agenda is Rinconada Park improvement project 17 and Peter Jensen. Welcome, Peter. 18 Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commission. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the City 19 of Palo Alto. I'm going to be reviewing tonight the Rinconada improvement plan. It's been 20 a long time coming. We've gone through an extensive long-range planning process that 21 has contributed the ideas and design concepts that are going to be in the plan presented 22 tonight. I'm going to go through the items and the scope of the project and answer questions 23 from the Commission as well. I don't know if there is any public comment concerning this 24 topic. This is Rinconada Park. One of the most important aspects of Rinconada Park is it 25 acts as a connection to all the public facilities around it, including the JMZ, the Rinconada 26 Library, the park center, the Children's Museum, the theater. Walter Hays school is right 27 next to it. It has the only pool in the City. It is more a complex than a park. The park is 28 the central feature that connects all the pieces. The scope of our project is going to look 29 more towards the end closest to Lucie Stern. We've tried to extend the budget as far as we 30 could to have the most impact for improvements on the park. This is the area we're going 31 to focus on. We decided to look at this end of the park to coincide with construction of the 32 new Junior Museum and Zoo, which is slated to be completed around this time next year 33 and open in June of next year. We are hoping we can get through the design process and 34 start construction so that the park is complete when the Junior Museum and Zoo is ready 35 to open. A few images of existing conditions at Rinconada Park. This one is closest to the 36 Girl Scout House. This is the only rentable, group picnic area in the park that we want to 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 21 renovate. The design of the park has two components that use a majority of the budget, 1 the reconstruction of the playground. There is an older kids' playground adjacent to the 2 Girl Scout House, and adjacent to the tennis courts is a tot lot. Those are separated right 3 now. We'll get into how the new design incorporates those two into one. The pathways 4 are another big component of this project. The project was slated to renovate the pathways 5 in 2008, so it's been a while going through the process of the Long Range Plan and the 6 environmental report that linked the JMZ to Rinconada. It's very exciting that we're at this 7 point because it needs it. The condition of the asphalt pathway is deteriorating in most 8 spots. It's an older asphalt pathway with no edge. There are expanses of asphalt in the 9 park that we can reduce to gain more open space. At the back of the school, you can see 10 not the prettiest chain-link fence and the portable buildings. We can address that with some 11 planting along that edge and pulling the pathway off. The turf field is not really 12 programmed, but it is used for group activities and used by Community Services for events 13 like Movies in the Park. We do want to keep that area as expansive as possible. Another 14 exciting aspect of the project is the entryway. If you have visited Rinconada Park and the 15 parking lot, there was no entry into the park. It was the back-of-house area for the zoo, and 16 dumpsters are located there. Now, we're going to make a clean connection from Lucie 17 Stern across the park. This project coincides with the Rinconada Long Range Plan, which 18 was adopted by Council in 2017. These are the goals of that plan and putting it together. 19 The main thing that came from the community process was the community would like to 20 keep the character of Rinconada Park. It's a beautiful park, and the layout is very 21 advantageous to the community. We talked about all the amenities and facilities around 22 there. That's a major aspect of the Long Range Plan. Of course, we want to update the 23 resources and amenities out there. The group picnic area needs new amenities like 24 barbecues, benches, tables. Rinconada Park is used a lot, and the neighborhood bears the 25 brunt of parking for Rinconada Park. We want to make sure what we're planning fits with 26 the environment and the parking facilities. We can never have enough parking and 27 restrooms, so we want to be aware of those things. We're always working on accessibility 28 and infrastructure improvements, especially with the ADA requirements. A major part of 29 the Long Range Plan is to get all the user groups together and discuss what they envision 30 for the park. This is the concept plan proposed by the Long Range Plan, and it is 31 development of the entire park. We're going to focus on this area down here and the 32 recommendations from the Long Range Plan for this project. This slide shows all the 33 connections and pathways of the park. I included this because the main aspect is this 34 yellow path that cuts through the park and connects the facilities on both ends. We are 35 going to focus on enhancing that pathway up to a certain point, as far as the money will 36 take us, which is in the middle where the existing restroom is. The new Junior Museum 37 and Zoo project is well underway, and the building is framed. The development of the 38 parking lot and better flow of the parking was an aspect of the Long Range Plan. The 39 exciting part of this is the connection into the park from the surrounding neighborhood. 40 Kellogg is designated as a bike lane. The driveway entering Lucie Stern is going to be 41 reduced and will be dedicated for bike and pedestrian traffic to bring you into the main 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 22 entry of the park. Right now, this does not exist, and you have to weave your way through 1 the old parking lot. This is a great amenity that is not part of our improvement project but 2 coincides with the Long Range Plan and the connection to the park. The budget for the 3 CIP is $1.7 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but it goes very quickly for a big 4 piece of land like this. The things we want to focus on are the playground improvements. 5 That's the tot lot and the older kids' playground. An aspect that came out of the Long Range 6 Plan is it's better to put both playgrounds together than have them separate. It was very 7 difficult for caregivers to watch the younger kids so far away from the older kids. The 8 design joins the two playgrounds. There is a hierarchy of pathways. The main pathway 9 through the park is going to be wider and enhanced with some integral color to denote the 10 linking. Eventually, that pathway will extend all the way to the Newell side. Like I said, 11 it will stop at the bathroom area in this project. The hierarchy of the pathways is to control 12 some of the maintenance traffic through the park. Right now, it's a free-for-all out there 13 with driving all over the place. We want to make one main connection for them to service 14 the park without traveling through the park. Site furnishings include tables, benches. We 15 want to replace all of those. They're older and outdated. We want to improve the group 16 picnic area and make it better for the community. It is the only rentable group picnic area 17 in the park. The expansion of the turf area will include new irrigation and some drainage. 18 That seems to be an issue with the turf area. That's something the community keeps 19 bringing up, to resolve that issue and make it a little bit more usable. The renovation of 20 planting is mostly reducing turf areas and small unusable pieces of turf area and 21 transforming them into native/habitat planting or pollinator landscapes. All of those things 22 will be part of the different landscape areas we'll propose for the park. There are a few bid 23 alternate items that we're going to include in the project's bid scope. I'm not overly hopeful 24 that we'll be able to afford these things, but we will be adding them in future projects. We 25 looked at a restroom for that end of the park. The original Junior Museum and Zoo plan 26 had a restroom facility in the structure that would be accessed from the park, but it went 27 away during the design process because the zoo encroached into the park. The plan does 28 call for a restroom to be located there. There's a decomposed granite pathway that follows 29 the pathway loop. From our renovation of Eleanor Pardee Park, we heard a lot of feedback 30 that people who use the pathway for walking would like to work on a softer surface than 31 concrete. That will be in the plan. These are all bid alternate items that depend on having 32 the budget to make them happen. The ramp at Wilson Street is skewed from the sidewalk, 33 so it would be nice to straighten it. The design of the playground includes a playhouse, 34 which is a bid alternate because of the cost. Conversations with the tennis community 35 during the Long Range Plan included interest in a covered pavilion or field house that could 36 be used by the tennis community or for picnics. I have contacted them, and they were 37 interested in funding such a thing. They are discussing the funding process and how much 38 they can contribute. The next time I bring the plan back, I will discuss that more and see 39 if we can make it happen. This is a vision of the proposed improvements for the park. 40 We'll start at the Lucie Stern end of the park. You can see the zoo and how it encroaches 41 into the park more than before. That has a direct relationship to the alignment of the 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 23 pathways and how they move around. The existing pathway goes through the zoo. Of 1 course, we've had to reconfigure that. We'll start at the parking lot. We're going to make 2 a new entry, add more bike parking in this location, build another group picnic area closer 3 to the zoo. This would be the main walkway around. It's colored concrete that marks the 4 hierarchy of the pathways. The playground is designed in the Magical Bridge style, where 5 it's fully inclusive and breaks the area into play zones. Number 5 is the swing zone. 6 Number 6 is an adult fitness area incorporated into the playground. Number 7 is the tot 7 area. Eight represents the slide mound, which is not an actual mound but a platform-and-8 post structure. A spin zone also makes up the playground. The playground will have all 9 resilient surfacing. There is no proposal to replace the sand. Sand is difficult to make 10 accessible to everyone. It's also tough to maintain, especially with the rubber surfacing of 11 the playground. The playground equipment and rubber surfacing make up half the budget 12 amount for the park. Replacing that all the time is difficult and burdensome on our funding 13 resources. Maintaining the sand away from it as much as possible is a good idea. The 14 playground will be fenced. Just like Magical Bridge, it will have a defined area with gates. 15 Number 10 is the group picnic area. Number 12 is one of the existing large redwood trees. 16 We're proposing this space become either a pollinator or native/habitat garden, as well as 17 along the back of the school to soften the edge. We're in conversation with the Junior 18 Museum and Zoo about what we'd like to plant along the back of the wall. Unfortunately, 19 that wall is not the prettiest wall; it is a cinder block wall. We're going to screen and soften 20 it a lot with plant materials. I'm not sure yet what it's going to be. It's going to be either a 21 native California garden or a pollinator/butterfly garden. They're also looking to see if they 22 have funding to do some type of mural on the wall. I'll bring that back to you next time 23 with what's been decided. Thirteen is the back of the Girl Scout House where we'll renovate 24 the landscape planting and change out the irrigation. From day one of the Long Range 25 Plan, the community has asked for a direct route to the back of the schools. School access 26 is in area Number 14. Most kids, biking or walking, cut across the turf area, which is 27 sometimes soggy and not the nicest situation. We are proposing a walkway immediately 28 to the back of the school and that sets up nicely with the other walkways. Fifteen is the 29 expanded turf area. The purple colors are the bid items. The restroom is proposed in this 30 location by the group picnic area due to its close proximity to the street. It's easier to build 31 it closer to the street and the sewer line. The playhouse is this structure. Most likely the 32 playground will not have a playhouse. The decomposed granite runs around the perimeter 33 of the turf area. We did try to make the concrete loop a full lap. The current pathway cuts 34 diagonally through here and makes a mishmash of different sized turf areas, so we pushed 35 the walkway out further to gain some space and make the pathway a little bit longer. It's 36 pretty close to an exact lap around the park. Towards the tennis court end, our main 37 pathway comes through and ends here. Eventually, this will be a full circle in the middle 38 of the park, and the pathway will continue. This is the existing restroom facility that will 39 remain in the location. Eleven is the secondary pathway through here. This one is 8 feet 40 wide and defines the hierarchy of the pathways. You can see the decomposed granite 41 pathway follows itself around here. Twelve is some type of native planting along the back 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 24 of the school and Hopkins. Sixteen in this area is where the tot lot used to be. It's sitting 1 currently underneath a heritage oak. Having the compaction and sand underneath that tree 2 has probably diminished its life by a good 20, 30 years. It is a grand tree, and we want to 3 protect it as much as possible. We're going to take out the play equipment and mulch the 4 area and let it be for a little while. Eventually, we will develop next to it Number 5, which 5 shows where the tennis/picnic pavilion will be built either this time with help from the 6 tennis group or in another phase. Seventeen is enhanced paving of some sort where our 7 paving project is going to end that eventually will be a full circle. I do anticipate that we'll 8 have another CIP for Rinconada Park. We didn't discuss that this year in our CIP process, 9 but we'll bring it up next year to get it on the books for funding to complete the rest of the 10 park renovation, especially the pathway that goes down there. These are some images to 11 convey the ideas of what we're trying to achieve in our playground. One of the most 12 difficult parts of the playground is providing ADA access to a higher point such as the 13 slides. ADA requires a transfer deck. No law requires a specific means of access for a 14 person to reach the highest point once he has transferred from a wheelchair. We would 15 like to go further and ensure that everyone can enjoy the slides and reach the top of slides. 16 This would be a larger ramp structure. No other play equipment has this long ramp to 17 access the top, so it is unique in that respect. The other nice part is the structure can provide 18 shade. The terminus of the ramp would be the top of the slide mound and would be a post-19 and-platform structure. It'll be very similar. We're anticipating this playground will cost 20 $600,000-$700,000, where the Magical Bridge was about $4 million. You can see the 21 economic value of trying to get the same thing by using prefabricated equipment. Since 22 we're constantly replacing our playgrounds, I've been looking at making them more 23 inclusive and keeping them in a price zone that we don't have to raise funds from outside 24 groups. This is a highly feasible way to move forward with a lot of our playgrounds. I'm 25 going to bring back Bowden Park pretty soon to talk about how this can be incorporated 26 into that. This is the color we're proposing for the main walkway, a tan or sandy brown 27 color. This is the resilient surfacing in the playground. We're looking at incorporating tiles 28 in the high-use area. Rubberized surfacing has a high price tag and doesn't last very long. 29 After 7-9 years, it needs to be replaced. In the areas that do not have high traffic, we can 30 use the rubberized surfacing. We can also use a tile that we can replace, which is much 31 more economical and prolongs the life. The fencing around the playground will not be as 32 ornate as Magical Bridge. Mostly, it's there to blend in with the background. This is an 33 idea of what our native or butterfly gardens will look like. Last Thursday, we had a 34 community meeting and received good feedback from the community. Unfortunately, 35 there were only five members of the community present, so it carries some weight but not 36 like 100 people expressed their views on the park renovation. Most of the people that had 37 been part of the Long Range Plan reviewed the project and were mostly satisfied with it. 38 Most of the five members present lived across the street on Hopkins and supported the 39 bathroom. We've talked a few times before about how it's difficult to add a bathroom to a 40 park. It's always nice to hear that there's support for it, especially in close proximity to the 41 playground. The community using the playground at that end of the park was using the 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 25 Junior Museum and Zoo's bathroom. Because the Junior Museum and Zoo is going to be 1 a paid facility, that is not going to be an option. You will have to walk to the center of the 2 park to use the bathroom. Children's Library or Lucie Stern will be ad hoc bathrooms for 3 the facility as well. In the future, we will add it if we can't get it this time. That's what I 4 have as far as the renovation goes. I'll turn it over to you, Commissioner McDougall, and 5 see if there are any questions or comments. 6 Chair McDougall: Peter, thank you very much. In the next revision of the plan, if you 7 suggested converting some of the tennis courts to pickleball courts, you'd have a lot more 8 people show up at your meetings. Just a little advice. 9 Mr. Jensen: No renovation of the tennis courts is planned for this project. 10 Chair McDougall: Did any of ad hocs participate in any of these discussions? 11 Mr. Jensen: We did have a conversation with the restroom ad hoc, which was very 12 constructive, about using the funding we have for the current CIP restroom to construct 13 this restroom. I will let the ad hoc discuss their thoughts about that. The ad hoc felt it 14 would be nice to have a restroom there. The current CIP and the way it's set up is to 15 construct restrooms in parks that don't have any facility. Rinconada does have a facility. 16 We're going to leave it in the construction documents and see how the bidding goes. It's 17 probably not going to make it. We're not going to use the CIP money for it. 18 Chair McDougall: People will appreciate you trying. Is there anybody who participated 19 and would like to speak first or can I go left to right? 20 Commissioner McCauley: Peter captured perfectly the conversation with the ad hoc about 21 the restroom and whether to use the restroom CIP for this purpose. You've done the right 22 thing in seeing how this plays out with the bids that come back. This is an excellent plan. 23 If there is one thing that seems slightly redundant, it is the decomposed granite pathway. 24 You're going to be taking away from part of the beauty of the park if you expand that 25 pathway. Almost the entire route of it is going to run side-by-side with concrete pathway. 26 While I appreciate the idea of a decomposed granite pathway, that would perhaps be a low 27 priority in terms of the bid alternatives. That's it for me. 28 Commissioner Moss: I want to put my vote for the restroom being a higher priority if 29 there's any way we can do that. Otherwise, can we piggyback on the Girl Scout House 30 bathroom or the Lucie Stern bathroom? The Junior Museum bathroom in the lobby, do 31 you have to pay to use the bathroom? 32 Mr. Jensen: You're going to have to pay to go into the facility. It's going to stop most 33 people that aren't paying from using that bathroom. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 26 Commissioner Moss: If you bring up the picture of the map, at one time we were going to 1 have a small amphitheater behind the zoo where you could bring an animal or a bird out 2 and show it to park residents. Because they were taking some land away from the park, 3 we could get some benefit from the zoo. Is that still a possibility? Somewhere along that 4 wall. 5 Mr. Jensen: I am meeting with John Aiken and the zoo staff to discuss the space behind 6 the zoo wall. Mostly it is about screening the wall, but we can talk about having an area 7 back there for joint purposes. That was one of the ideas of putting the picnic area there, 8 that it would serve a dual function. It would provide a space where people could gather for 9 JMZ events, such as flying the eagle around. When it wasn't used for JMZ events, it could 10 be used as a picnic area, which would be the majority of time. That's how that developed. 11 If there is a desire to develop a space that is more like an amphitheater, we can look at that. 12 Commissioner Moss: Are those tennis courts lighted? 13 Mr. Jensen: The Rinconada courts are lit, yeah. 14 Commissioner Moss: The ones behind the redwood grove, are those lighted? 15 Mr. Jensen: No, those are not. 16 Commissioner Moss: I was wondering why the tennis community would prefer to put 17 money towards a field house rather than perhaps lighting a couple more courts. 18 Mr. Jensen: My conversation with them is that a long time ago they brought up lighting 19 those courts. Because of their close proximity to the neighbors, the neighbors pushed back 20 on light pollution in their houses and yards. That wasn't seen as feasible. 21 Commissioner Moss: If you bring up the map of the playground, Number 6 is the adult 22 fitness area. Is it possible to move that outside the center of the children's area? Could it 23 be moved, for instance, near the Wilson loop? I prefer the adult fitness on the outside 24 somewhere rather than in the very center, unless you're expecting the adults who are 25 watching the tots to use it. What was your idea? 26 Mr. Jensen: That is the idea of setting it in the middle. A caregiver in the playground 27 watching kids could use the equipment while observing them in the playground. It's not a 28 large area. There is an opportunity for another area of workout equipment somewhere 29 outside the playground. We looked at a location down here as another space for another 30 grouping of equipment. That's something we can look for. 31 Commissioner Moss: Thanks for thinking about that. I'm so glad that you are taking 32 features from the Magical Bridge where possible. I encourage you to put as many of those 33 features as we can afford. I notice the spin area is pretty sparse. There might be room in 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 27 the future to add an additional feature from the Magical Bridge. We're supposed to have 1 Magical Bridge come to speak to the Commission. I hope that'll happen in the next month 2 or two. I'd like to see Magical Bridge features in all the parks when you're renovating 3 playgrounds. This is a big playground. 4 Mr. Jensen: We would agree with you. We want to make all playgrounds more inclusive 5 than they are right now. That's definitely not just part of the Long Range Plan for 6 Rinconada but one of the goals of the Parks Master Plan. 7 Commissioner Reckdahl: Talking about the back wall of the JMZ, at one time the design 8 had some windows that you could look into where the animals were kept. Has that been 9 phased out? In the bottom left is the zoo portion, and on the right is where they keep the 10 animals. 11 Mr. Jensen: I don't believe that's an aspect of the zoo design any longer, from what I've 12 seen. 13 Commissioner Reckdahl: I applaud the bike access. Crossing Middlefield is not trivial. 14 Are there going to be lights there? We were talking at one time at Kellogg having those 15 lights that are in the roadway, so it wouldn't be a traffic light. If people are crossing, they 16 could give some cover. 17 Mr. Jensen: That's something I can discuss with Transportation. Not that I've heard that 18 they're going to put anything there. They did work on making the little bulb-outs there, so 19 the distance of crossing isn't as far. Kellogg is designated a bike route, but it'll stay the 20 same way as it is now unless Transportation wants to put a light there. With a stop sign, 21 you have to stop and then ride your bike across Middlefield to get to the park. 22 Commissioner Reckdahl: Down by Heritage Park, we put one of those in with the lights 23 on it, and it had very good feedback. With all the kids crossing at that point because of the 24 school, if Transportation wants to do it, it'd be a very good idea. Have we talked to teens 25 at all? What do teens want in parks? Are there any features? 26 Mr. Jensen: That was an aspect of the Long Range Plan. I can't say that a lot of teens 27 participated. Their feedback was mostly concerning the skating bowl and trying to 28 modernize that a little bit. For this current plan, we haven't solicited specifically teen 29 feedback. Most of the playground design is not built for them to use. The loop path is 30 more adult exercise. The amenities that we're proposing out there don't quite fit that 31 demographic group, and we haven't done direct outreach to them to find out if there's 32 anything else that they'd like to do. If that's a wish of the Commission, we can reach out 33 to them. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 28 Commissioner Reckdahl: Doesn't Adam have some regular meetings with the teens, 1 Daren? 2 Mr. Anderson: We could find a way to check in with the Youth Council. 3 Commissioner Reckdahl: It'd be good for them to take a look at this and see what we 4 should change. Now we can change it. Once we build it, it's going to be very expensive 5 to make any changes. We really do want the kids in the park, so we should keep them in 6 the loop. I was happy to see the shade canopies. Being stuck inside on rainy days with 7 kids, I really want those shade canopies as big as possible. If they can be usable during the 8 rainy season, that would be really good. You can only do so many art projects before your 9 head wants to explode. It'd be really good to have at least one park in Palo Alto where you 10 can still take your kids on rainy days. 11 Vice Chair Greenfield: Peter, thank you for all the detailed work that's gone into this. It's 12 very much appreciated. It's pretty clear what's going on, which is a challenge. A lot to like 13 in this. I really like the pollinator gardens, the bike parking. The turf rearrangement is 14 great, consolidating contiguous turf area for activity. Otherwise, focusing on planting 15 natives is a great approach. I had some similar questions regarding the adult fitness area. 16 Could you explain what equipment is going to be in that area? 17 Mr. Jensen: We're still working with the playground manufacturer to determine that. They 18 have a broad array of equipment. From my experience, the resistance equipment seems to 19 be the best. They have a stationary bike that's pretty good. They have a lifting this way 20 that is pretty good. They also have this one that's not too bad. The next time I come back 21 I'll show more of what that adult equipment is, and we can look at it. 22 Vice Chair Greenfield: Is there any potential for hazard for children or youth using this 23 equipment? 24 Mr. Jensen: The fitness equipment is treated just like playground equipment. It's got a fall 25 zone. It's all under rubberized material. There is adult fitness equipment in Magical Bridge 26 that the kids use and climb on. It's built for everyone to go on. We don't anticipate a 27 problem with that. 28 Vice Chair Greenfield: There's not concerns about locating this in proximity to the kids' 29 play area? 30 Mr. Jensen: No. They'll definitely play on it. It's going to be another piece of play 31 equipment out there. Adults won't feel that way about it, but kids will. 32 Vice Chair Greenfield: I appreciate the idea of having the adult recreation area in the 33 middle of the kids' play area. That would be very appealing to some adults, but far less 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 29 appealing to other adults, depends on whether you're going there with your children or not. 1 You mentioned there was another area you might use for adult equipment. Would it be 2 appropriate to have two different areas perhaps with complementary equipment? One's a 3 quieter area for adults. 4 Mr. Jensen: I don't see why not. I've also seen it laid out in parks where the equipment 5 doesn't sit together in a little group. There's a thing over there, and something over here. 6 We could disperse them around a little bit. They're easier to incorporate into the fabric of 7 the park than play equipment because they aren't as big and don't have the fall zones. That's 8 something we can look at. 9 Vice Chair Greenfield: Regarding the bid alternate items, is there a prioritization list for 10 these? If we had budget for one or two of the items but not the other, would you be coming 11 to the Commission or park amenities ad hoc for feedback? It sounds like a restroom would 12 be at the top of the list. 13 Mr. Jensen: The way it's numbered on the list of restroom, playhouse, decomposed granite 14 loop set up the priority. I made the list, so that's my priority. That could be not what the 15 Commission feels. That would be the things we'd want to focus on with the picnic area 16 covered as the final one because that is going to require more funding that hopefully the 17 tennis group will be involved in. 18 Vice Chair Greenfield: Could you go to page 9? I was very interested and excited to hear 19 about the ideas of trying to focus bike traffic out of the parking lot. For people who are 20 coming from Middlefield and Embarcadero, when they get to the parking lot entrance, are 21 they going to be compelled to—is that going to look like the shortest path to get to the main 22 park or is it going to be close enough that people might consider biking to the true bike 23 path? What can we do to encourage bike traffic to use the bike path as opposed to winding 24 in the midst of cars? 25 Mr. Jensen: That's a great question. The biggest factor is Kellogg is designated a bike 26 street for that connection. People coming up Middlefield do have the opportunity to turn 27 on this pathway that goes in front of the Junior Museum and Zoo to get you there. I can't 28 say that will be the best place to ride a bike because of the number of people walking on it. 29 Are people going to turn into the driveway and go up the parking lot? Probably so. We 30 can look at some type of signage directing people to the bike path they should use. At first, 31 it won't be as successful as it will be in the future when people learn that direction and 32 connection. 33 Vice Chair Greenfield: One of the solutions might be the bike signage within the 34 neighboring community guiding people to not go down Middlefield but to go on a side 35 street to end up following Kellogg. I really like Commissioner Reckdahl's idea of the 36 flashing lights on Kellogg. That would be a great part of the solution. 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 30 Commissioner Moss: Before you go on, Mitchell Park has a very similar situation. A 1 tremendous number of kids bike from JLS past the library to get to the neighborhood on 2 the other side of Middlefield. There's no bike path or anything like that, so they ride on the 3 sidewalk. If you look at that, you might want to look at Mitchell Park first. 4 Mr. Jensen: We did a little improvement at Mitchell Park when we did the Adobe Bridge 5 and added a ramp by the tennis courts, so you could get on the sidewalk. There was no 6 area to go from that parking lot. The other thing to note is, just like the Mitchell Park 7 Library, in the morning hours the JMZ and the library probably will not be open, which is 8 fine. The parking lot is wide open and will probably be used for access points. At least 9 for some of the high-commute hours for kids, that parking lot will be less used. In the 10 afternoon, it will be used. As they're coming through the park, they'll be channeled to go 11 on that bike path and around instead of cutting through the parking lot. The way it's laid 12 out will enhance people, especially kids, using that bike lane. We'll also work with Safe 13 Routes to School to make sure kids understand clearly that is a new connection point. 14 Vice Chair Greenfield: Is there any transit going down Middlefield right now? Does the 15 shuttle go down Middlefield that far? Where is the transit stop on … 16 Mr. Jensen: The shuttle stop is down from the Junior Museum in front of Walter Hays. 17 Vice Chair Greenfield: It may not be in the purview of this group, but maybe we should 18 be considering how to funnel the transit stop closer to Rinconada Park at least on weekends. 19 Maybe it makes sense to have it in front of the school on weekdays. 20 Mr. Jensen: We can take a look at that. I'm not sure how it was sited in the first place. 21 There's nothing special about it as far as it doesn't pop in right there. You are correct that 22 it would be nicer to get it down to the main connection into the park. We can look at that. 23 Vice Chair Greenfield: As you're looking at redesigning the driveways and the bike 24 entrances, we should make plans for a transit stop. We all understand we're going to hear 25 the same thing about the Rinconada Park parking lot as we're hearing about Mitchell Park. 26 There're not enough parking spaces. We've added what we can, but it's not going to grow. 27 What is the lap distance? It wasn't clear. 28 Mr. Jensen: It's a quarter mile. 29 Commissioner Cribbs: I wanted to talk about the bathroom, but I'm pretty intrigued with 30 the idea of the adult exercise area in the middle of the park. I wondered if you'd seen it 31 someplace in another community. Thinking back to when I used to take my kids to the 32 park when they were little, I don't know that I would have exercised while I was watching 33 them at the park. I also don't know if I would go to a park to exercise in the middle of a 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 31 kids' playground. I wanted to exercise by myself without my kids. I'm intrigued if you've 1 seen it someplace before. 2 Mr. Jensen: Usually they are grouped in close proximity to the playground because of the 3 rubberized surfacing. Usually they are on the perimeter of the playground and defined in 4 their own space. It's not as integrated into the playground as this design is. 5 Commissioner Cribbs: It's interesting. 6 Mr. Jensen: It's mostly taking the idea that the playground is not just for children but is 7 inclusive to everyone. From our learning of Magical Bridge, some adults operate on a 8 child's level. We want to build that playground so everyone can play on it no matter what 9 your ability or cognizant development is. Incorporating it is a new idea of trying to get it 10 inside and right in the middle. 11 Commissioner Cribbs: When we had the ad hoc, I was pretty interested when we started 12 the conversation in utilizing the money to put the bathroom in Rinconada Park because 13 people get exasperated when you start a park and say you're going to finish it, and all of a 14 sudden, you're digging it up again to start something else. It seemed like it was great to 15 have it be altogether. Commissioner McCauley was persuasive about the other parks in 16 Palo Alto that have no bathrooms at all. I'm thinking about how much this park bathroom 17 slated for Rinconada is going to cost. What's the price tag for that? Just so we know. 18 Mr. Jensen: The CIP for the restrooms is a pretty standard price, about $350,000 to install 19 a restroom. The restroom itself is about $250,000. It's a prefabricated structure. It's craned 20 into place. It's built offsite and set into place. The rest of the money goes to utilities and 21 getting it set up for that. I have positioned the bathroom in a location so that if we had to 22 do it in the future, it wouldn't have a big impact on that end of the park. We wouldn't have 23 to shut down the playground or close pathways to get it in there. It could be added fairly 24 seamlessly. The Long Range Plan, I can't remember the length of time that we planned for 25 Rinconada, but it was 15-20 years. There's going to be a project in Rinconada every four 26 or five years for the next couple of decades as we get it all built. There is a future 27 opportunity to get it in there. 28 Commissioner Cribbs: A really good solution would be to find $350,000 someplace else, 29 put one in the park that doesn't have one in south Palo Alto, and put the other one in 30 Rinconada when you're doing the plan. If you could go back to the playground material, 31 the blue area in the swing or the spin zone, what is that blue? 32 Mr. Jensen: That's all rubberized surfacing, attenuated surfacing. 33 Commissioner Cribbs: This is a great plan. Thank you very much for your explanation. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 32 Chair McDougall: Council Member Cormack, do you have any questions or comments? 1 Council Member Cormack: Bravo indeed. All of my questions were answered. The fact 2 that it's inclusive is spectacular. Shade is certainly important, the natural environment. It's 3 incredibly thoughtful. The time you've put into this absolutely shows. Initially, I was yes 4 on the restroom, but I was absolutely persuaded by places that we don't have restrooms. 5 While I'm torn on that, the priority should be parks where we don't have restrooms. Does 6 anyone know how many of our parks don't have restrooms? 7 Mr. Anderson: We identified parks by size. I think it was 2 acres and above, there are 8 seven that need restrooms. 9 Council Member Cormack: I should probably not weigh in, but if I were to weigh in, I'd 10 be supportive of doing the ones that we don't have yet. I might or might not know a mother 11 who once had difficulty at this park with two children of different ages and some migration 12 that was not observed based on it. Well done for putting everyone in the same place. 13 Mr. Jensen: About the restroom, the Commission worked very hard on the Master Plan to 14 identify those locations that need restrooms. There are a few of those locations that it's 15 going to be a struggle to get them in. We will need the full support of the Council to make 16 that happen. It was in the Master Plan from the general community an overwhelming yes 17 that people want bathrooms. Once we embark on putting a restroom there, there will be 18 discussion on it. 19 Council Member Cormack: Can you give me a list of those seven parks? 20 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 21 Council Member Cormack: One of my fondest memories was when Seale Park opened 22 and Mayor Kleinberg and many other people were down there. They added a bathroom, 23 which made a very big difference to me and my family and many others. I know some 24 people think it sounds trivial, and I understand it's expensive, but it changes it from we can 25 go for a little bit of time, whether it's a younger child or an older parent or grandparent, to 26 something that really is accessible for everyone. Again, bravo. 27 Chair McDougall: How many phases? You were talking a minute ago about every three 28 or four years over a couple of decades. How many phases are currently defined? 29 Mr. Jensen: Five phases are defined. This one incorporates a phase and a half. The original 30 phase was the playground end, not the turf area. We are trying to stretch our funding as 31 far as we can to make those phases progress faster. The fifth phase is focused on the pool, 32 which is a more ambitious phase, and the expansion of the pool area and building a 50-33 DRAFT Draft Minutes 33 meter lap pool, which will be a large-scale project one day. Really, it's four phases to do 1 the park. 2 Chair McDougall: I remember that. If you looked at it maybe not as phases but there's 3 three areas to all of Rinconada. There's the family area, the athletic area, and then the 4 nature area. Maybe those aren't exactly three phases. The thing that allows me to do in 5 terms of thinking about it is to say the things you've got in here, the butterfly zone, maybe 6 aren't particularly expensive. This is the family area, maybe that money could be spent 7 later in the nature phase even if it's not specifically in the nature area. The same thing with 8 the exercise. The second set or even the first set of exercise equipment, maybe we don't 9 spend the exercise money in this phase. Maybe we spend the exercise money in the 10 recreation phase when you're doing the tennis and the pool. Maybe that allows us to move 11 money back and forth between phases, and you don't have a CIP allocated for some of 12 those future phases. Maybe that would get you—then you say, "What's the bathroom all 13 about? The bathroom's all about the family phase." Maybe that makes sense. You want 14 Council's support, and they've said, "Climate change is a big deal, and you're putting 15 concrete all over the place." We all know, because Bill Gates told us, concrete and cows 16 are the biggest contribution to climate change, and we're putting concrete in. Rather than 17 not doing the DG path—because there's concrete there, how about not doing the concrete 18 path because DG's there? That would be in the direction of what Council's looking for. I 19 don't know if DG is more expensive than concrete. I don't even know if the middle path 20 that goes through the whole thing is going to have so much truck traffic on it that it needs 21 to be concrete. DG these days is, number one, permeable, and, number two, a maintenance 22 issue. Maybe that would be a win in terms of what we're trying to accomplish. I appreciate 23 you thinking about parking. I really appreciate the fact that you've got the goals up here. 24 What we still don't have is what the audience is. People are asking can we get the teens 25 out, but we haven't necessarily said who are the users and defined the groups of users. 26 When Monique wanted to look at what was happening in the library, what they identified 27 was all the different kinds of users. The fact that she identified 48 different kinds of users 28 was probably over-identifying. It's been particularly useful in terms of looking at the 29 libraries. There's been no mention of whether there was any art planned for here. There 30 was that art project in the Baylands where the art was contributing to the environment. I 31 would hate to think that we could have made some part of the playground or something 32 else in here into a piece of art that could have been paid for by the Arts Commission instead 33 of later on saying we're going to put a piece of art in the middle of the field so it can't be 34 used for anything. We know what that's done to some of our parks. Holistically, at least 35 we should anticipate that now if there's the possibility that they could be contributing to 36 the oak tree by turning it into a piece of art. I totally agree with all the comment about 37 connections to the whole thing. We need to pursue more kinds of funding support for what 38 you're doing. Maybe we need to start a new 501(c)(3), Friends of the Bathrooms. We do 39 need to really pursue that. What you've done is really good. Rinconada is a gem in the 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 34 whole system. In the field, you're not trying to turn that into a playing field or anything 1 because it's not today, right? 2 Mr. Jensen: No. We just want to maintain the open space. Grass is easier to take care of 3 when it's one large area. Right now, there are a lot of pathways dividing it up, especially 4 close to Hopkins. 5 Commissioner Reckdahl: It does get a lot of AYSO use. 6 Chair McDougall: The question is what's the purpose of it. Some of our parks have—not 7 necessarily too many of our parks, but parks today end up with little hills in them. What 8 you're trying to do is turn it into something that's a little more aesthetically interesting than 9 a flat area. Some of the good remembrances that I have of Rinconada is the concerts in the 10 park. I don't see anything here that's specifically an accommodation. Maybe this should 11 have a place where the power cable comes up through the turf in a particular spot because 12 that's where we're anticipating putting all the wiring for the concerts. That should be 13 anticipated in this. Once again, it's in the family area of what we're trying to do, if that 14 makes any sense. What you've done is great. 15 Mr. Jensen: I will address the art question. Unfortunately, the Art Commission doesn't 16 have any funding or do any funding of art. We will be contributing our 1 percent to art for 17 this project. We will be taking something to them to review. I have been in conversation 18 with the JMZ. There is a very interesting thing we've been talking about, an art piece that 19 will link the entryway of—it's starting right here. It's a scale model—I don't know what 20 the scale is—of the solar system. I can't tell you if Pluto is in there anymore because I don't 21 know if it's a planet. It actually extends out to the opposite side of Rinconada closer to the 22 garden. We would use that as a connection to the whole area. You would come across 23 these things, and it would tell you about the planet. It's on a stand, and the Earth is about 24 that big on this little stand. It is an actual scale model. We are looking at things like that 25 to use art as a way to connect one end of the park to the other. They also have a sundial 26 that they would like to use, but there isn't a good place in front of the JMZ right now 27 because of the building and the trees that are planned. We could bring that into the park. 28 Those are some of the discussions we will be having. I've also touched a little bit on a 29 mural on the back of the zoo wall that would face into the park. There are a few options 30 that we can explore. 31 Chair McDougall: Thanks for addressing that. Does anybody else have a burning question 32 or should we Peter go and thank him? 33 Vice Chair Greenfield: Is the GSI team reviewing this plan for potential mitigations like 34 could pavers be used instead of paths? 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 35 Mr. Jensen: I haven't reviewed it specifically with Pam and her group. It's something we 1 can do. I do assist them a lot on the development of their plan because it is a landscape 2 architect thing that they're working on. We talked about the concrete before. We're 3 actually eliminating about 5,000 square feet of asphalt. We're going to use concrete, which 4 is a harder material, but it's a lot less of nonpermeable paving. That paving will have 5 landscape on either side that it will drain to. There won't be any runoff in the park. If there 6 is the opportunity to build a larger—we looked at that for the JMZ parking lot, some type 7 of infiltration pond. Unfortunately, that end of the park has so many large trees that it's 8 hard to incorporate that aspect. No matter what the project is, that is from my standpoint 9 always incorporated into the project. 10 Chair McDougall: Peter, thank you very, very much. Appreciate it. Did you put up 11 something about next steps? When would we expect to see you back? 12 Mr. Jensen: We'll be having another community meeting in March and April. We tried 13 very hard to get people to come to community meetings. I was hoping more of the 14 community would come. We did a flyer to 600 residents around the park. It was posted 15 on the webpage, the home page, the Community Services page, and the Public Works 16 webpage. We reached out to all the liaisons of all the neighborhood groups around there 17 to send email blasts to all the residents. Unfortunately, only five people showed up. 18 Hopefully, there will be more people at the next meeting. We will have another community 19 meeting to address some of the comments here and from the meeting we had. We're 20 coming back to the Commission with a revised plan. We'll come back a third time with a 21 Park Improvement Ordinance for the final design that will go to Council. After the project 22 is bid, they'll approve the Park Improvement Ordinance and the construction contract. We 23 hope to start construction in the fall and end around this time next year. 24 Chair McDougall: Please let us know the date of that community meeting as soon as you 25 can. One of our roles should be to make sure we're attending, if we possibly can, and to 26 help the community know about it. Council Member Cormack. 27 Council Member Cormack: Did you mention the Walter Hays PTA in that long list of 28 things? 29 Mr. Jensen: I did not send it to them. That's a good one. 30 Council Member Cormack: The other one to think about would be the Palo Alto/Menlo 31 Park Parents Club. That's the two easy ways to access lots of people. 32 Commissioner McCauley: Because Addison school is right around the corner, Addison 33 PTA is another one. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 36 Vice Chair Greenfield: I know Cubberley's across town, but it's a big group that's diverse 1 across the community. It might be worth reaching out to them. 2 Mr. Jensen: The project has a webpage. The webpage is on the screen now, 3 cityofpaloalto.org/rinconadapark. It has a link to the Long Range Plan. They were called 4 the same webpage at some point earlier today. We separated those things, and now it's 5 working there. We will be posting all the presentations on there, so there will be transparent 6 lineage of what has transpired as far as planning. Anytime you want to see any of this 7 information, that information will be there. 8 Commissioner Cribbs: I was just going to add extra people or extra groups. All of the user 9 groups who use the park, like the Girl Scouts, you probably did all that. 10 Mr. Jensen: I have a list of all those people from the Long Range Plan that I did email. I 11 had an email list of about 65 people. They were all in one email, but I emailed them 12 individually to come to the meeting. 13 Commissioner Reckdahl: I have one request. If you blast out to the neighbors of a park, 14 it'd be really good if you would carbon copy our group so that we're always in the loop. 15 5. Review Parks and Open Space 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan 16 Chair McDougall: Daren, would you like to introduce the next session, which is a brief 17 review of the CIP. 18 Mr. Anderson: Thank you very much, Chair McDougall. I'd like to introduce my 19 colleague, Lam Do. He's the Superintendent of Open Space, Parks, and Golf. He'll be 20 presenting tonight on the capital program and our five-year program related to Community 21 Services. 22 Lam Do: Good evening, Chair McDougall, members of the Commission, and Council 23 Member Cormack. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the capital 24 improvement projects of the Community Services Department. This presentation is brief, 25 but it's intended to supplement the staff report. Hopefully, the remaining time would be 26 for our discussion. If I could introduce you and go over the definition of a capital 27 improvement project and how it morphs from a proposal to a proposed project. There are 28 minimum thresholds that a project has to meet in order to be considered a capital 29 improvement project. They have to have a useful life of at least five years or it needs to 30 extend an existing asset for an additional five years. It has to be a minimum cost of $50,000 31 in order to be funded through the capital improvement project plan. When there is a need 32 that is under $50,000, departments are asked to see if they can fund it through the operating 33 budget. That's where the $50,000 threshold comes into play, so it can be considered for 34 funding through the capital improvement plan instead of the operating budget. Aside from 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 37 these criteria, there are other aspects of a capital improvement project that come into play. 1 There are new and emerging needs that come about, so we submit those as capital 2 improvement projects. We also take a look at maintenance projects or what are known as 3 catch-up and keep-up projects of existing facilities. These are projects that were identified 4 in 2011 through the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission, which assessed infrastructure 5 assets Citywide. Within their report is the need to identify and plan for catch-up and keep-6 up needs as well. We also take that into consideration when we look at what CIPs we want 7 to propose. This commission has also been referred to as IBRC. As projects are 8 considered, they go through a prioritization process. With the prioritization process, we 9 take a look at how it fits in with City Council priorities. Keep in mind the priorities change 10 with Council, so that does influence a project and what we consider. Also, we look at how 11 it aligns with the City's IBRC report. We look at health and safety needs of our assets. We 12 look at the certainty and the feasibility of funding and the scope and what resources are 13 required and whether or not that's realistic and we can bring the project to fruition. In 14 addition, we also have to consider things such as unanticipated aging of existing assets that 15 may not have been previously identified. Some assets don't last as long as we intended 16 them to last. That's something that is not in any catch-up or keep-up plan; however, it 17 becomes a need. Thus, we consider those as CIP requests as well. We also consider 18 projects that have outside funding sources. The reason is the outside funding source 19 alleviates the burden on the general fund, which is by default the funding source for capital 20 improvement projects. We then take projects that have been identified by Community 21 Services Department staff and managing supervisors and vet them in the department. We 22 also vet those against Citywide projects that other departments have recommended. There 23 is a Citywide committee that reviews proposed projects, formulates them all, and then 24 formulating them leads to a submittal to the City Manager's Office for approval. Upon 25 approval, it becomes a part of the City Manager's budget proposal. At this point, projects 26 start a review process with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and their purpose 27 in the review of the proposed CIP is to ensure they meet the City's Comprehensive Plan, 28 meaning the goals and the policies that are set aside in the Comprehensive Plan. After the 29 Planning and Transportation Commission review, they move on to the City's Finance 30 Committee for review. The Finance Committee makes a recommendation to the full 31 Council for their review and their budget adoption. A couple of things to keep in mind 32 with how CIPs work and how they're packaged. The staff and the City present them as a 33 five-year plan. It's a five-year CIP plan. However, when City Council approves the budget, 34 the Council is only approving the first year of the five-year plan. The remaining four years 35 are used for planning and forecasting purposes. We operate on a fiscal year for the CIPs, 36 just like the operating budget, with the fiscal year starting July 1. Our current fiscal year 37 started July 1, 2018 and runs through June 30, 2019. With all proposed CIPs, there is a 38 project page. Within the project page, we provide a description of the project, a 39 justification. We provide a timeline of when we think the project will start, when it will 40 complete. Because we present projects in a five-year window, during that five-year 41 window projects change, whether it be budgetary needs or the life cycle of the project could 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 38 be extended. We also identify what changes we have over the year. In this example of a 1 project in Ramos Park, we made several changes over the years. We originally proposed 2 a project in the 2016-2020 CIP. In the 2017-2021 CIP, we received direction from the 3 Finance Committee and City Council to push out the project, which we did. Most recently, 4 we had to shift this project further from fiscal year 2018-2020 due to reprioritization as we 5 weighed it against other City needs. Being in a five-year cycle, projects are looked at for 6 planning purposes as well. Here's an example of what can occur to a project during its life 7 cycle. In addition to that, the project page will identify a funding source. In this case, it's 8 the capital improvement fund, which is underwritten mostly by the general fund. It could 9 be development impact fees depending on what type of project it is, or it could be outside 10 funding as you discussed earlier in some of your discussions today. A friends group may 11 come forward with funding as well. What year it has been slated for most recently during 12 the five-year window is identified here as well. We also identify which policies and 13 programs and goals that the CIP meets in regard to the City's Comprehensive Plan. That's 14 the makeup of a project page. We have project pages for new proposed CIPs and for 15 existing CIPs that are ongoing and recurring. In the Community Services Department for 16 example, we have about six CIPs that occur every year, so the CIP page repeats each year. 17 Generally, Council has funded these projects annually. These tend to be non-general. For 18 example, the CIP for benches, signage, fencing, walkways, and perimeter landscaping is 19 funded at $160,000. We use that CIP throughout the park system, so we don't identify 20 specifically a park or location. We use those funds as these needs come up. In total, there's 21 about $810,000 to cover trail maintenance, lake and pond maintenance, and tennis and 22 basketball court surfacing. These are maintenance-based CIPs, and we ask for funding for 23 them annually. Aside from that, we also ask for funding for specific projects. In the past, 24 we've presented to you the fiscal year 2019 CIPs. I have here a status update on where the 25 fiscal year '19 CIPs stand. Some of the projects are complete. We have initiated others or 26 will start them this summer. I'll be able to speak to a specific question you may have in 27 regard to any of these projects towards the end of the presentation during our discussion. 28 For fiscal year 2020, we are proposing these CIPs. All of these have not been funded yet. 29 These will go through the vetting process internally, the Finance Committee, and the full 30 Council. Fiscal year 2020 is part of the fiscal year 2020-2024 CIP plan. This is year 1 of 31 the plan, which is what we will be asking Council to fund. For the full list of the five-year 32 plan, I did include that as Attachment A in your staff report. Although we have a five-year 33 CIP plan, it's not really inclusive of everything we're looking at. We do have some CIP 34 needs that we have identified; however, we have not been able to put it in the plan for 35 proposal at this time. Here's a list of them. For various reasons, they have not made it to 36 the level of an actual plan proposal. Some of them need further scope development. Some 37 of them may need an identified funding source. They may need more direction from a 38 conservation plan to be completed. They may need more public outreach, or they may 39 need support from other departments. We within Community Services work with the 40 Public Works Engineering Division in particular on many of our projects. They support 41 us for many of our larger projects, anywhere from construction of the Baylands Golf Links. 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 39 Although the project was highlighted through Community Services, it was actually a Public 1 Works Engineering project. For various reasons, we have not formulated these projects 2 into a CIP proposal, but we do plan on doing it in the future once we are able to complete 3 a scope or find a funding source. In regard to how CIPs work and how they make it through 4 the review process, I want to go over a timeline with you. In October and November, staff 5 begins to collectively discuss our emerging needs and plan for what we want to submit. 6 We also discuss them with an ad hoc committee of this Commission. This year we had 7 several discussions with Chair McDougall and Commissioner McCauley and Vice Chair 8 Greenfield. Thank you for your participation in helping us formulate this. In December 9 and January, we vet it internally with the Citywide CIP committee. This committee 10 consists of mostly department heads and/or assistant directors who weigh one department's 11 needs versus another department's needs. Ultimately, it's formulated into a proposal for 12 the City Manager's Office. We submit that through the Office of Management and Budget 13 because they're also a key stakeholder in all this. In April and May, the Planning and 14 Transportation Commission will take a look at this to ensure it adheres to the City's 15 Comprehensive Plan. In May, the Finance Committee holds a public hearing. From there, 16 the Finance Committee will make a recommendation on projects to the full Council. 17 Generally, the full Council holds a further Citywide public hearing for the operating 18 budget, CIP budget, and goes through a budget adoption process in June. Once projects 19 are approved, it establishes a budget in the coming fiscal year. From there, departments 20 access funds for which projects are approved. That wraps up in a brief nutshell how capital 21 improvement projects are developed within our department. At this time, I'm sure you 22 have questions about specific projects. I'd be happy to answer questions for you. Thank 23 you. 24 Chair McDougall: Thank you for going through the presentation. I'm going to use the 25 procedure that says the ad hoc members should speak first. Since I was on the ad hoc, I'm 26 going to be preemptive and speak first. I see these numbers all the time, and I've been in 27 meetings with you. I'm not going to say anything that I didn't say in ad hoc meetings about 28 whether this helps me or frustrates me. I'm really reluctant to open up discussion to the 29 Commission to go through and say, "What about this turf management plan?" There's 30 some amount of control that you have over all of this. There's visibility that we have. It's 31 a very complicated process. Even though it's laid out in five years, it's only one year. It's 32 made even worse by the fact that you're talking about the fiscal year when we don't operate 33 on a fiscal year. We operate on a calendar year. Projects are planned to come before us, 34 like Ramos, that are in '20 but were in '19. I look at it slightly differently. I appreciate 35 your comment that the money comes from the general fund. On the slide that said $22 36 million, it's not $22 million. The general fund is accounting for, I'm guessing, $10 million 37 because I don't know how much of the bridge we're paying for versus we're getting grants. 38 I'm guessing that's $10 million, and $0.5 million is the Cubberley fund, and $2.8 million 39 out of the impact fees, and $1.8 million in donations and $6 million in grants. We're not 40 getting to play with the $21 million. It's the $10 million. I'm not sure that told me anything 41 DRAFT Draft Minutes 40 useful, but I did the math. Then I said I'd look at 2019 and where and how we're spending 1 the money. I showed it to Jeff at lunch today, and he reminded me of this fiscal year versus 2 calendar year thing. I combined them in 2019 and 2020 and started to look at how much 3 of this money is being spent on the Baylands and Foothills, how much is being spent on 4 parks, how much is being spent on design for either one of them, and how much money is 5 just major projects that really don't fall in either. If I do it that way, now I've got $27 6 million in there, ignoring where the funding comes from. $1.3 million of that is being spent 7 in the Baylands and Foothills, and $6.1 million is being spent in the parks, or $1.4 million 8 is being spent on design. We're spending as much on design as we are in the Baylands and 9 the Foothills. I'm not sure if I'm talking to you or if I'm talking to our Council representative 10 to say it's not clear to me in all of this. In the process you explained, you find this project 11 or somebody identifies a project. In the grand scheme of things, over the next two years 12 we're spending $1.3 million on the Baylands and the Foothills, which is an incredibly 13 valuable resource. That's not enough. On the other hand, we're spending a total of $27 14 million and $14 million for the bridge and $3 million or $4 million is the zoo. Those are 15 good things. I'm not saying that money shouldn't be spent. Including that in the total here 16 says we're running a pretty small shop in terms of the amount of discretionary money that 17 that you have to spend. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I do know that the work 18 I—we sat, and I showed you this. If I do the same thing for all five years, not just that, it's 19 the same story. You end up saying we're $40 million short of what we might need. That 20 was probably more of a rant than either questions or answers. I'll turn it over to my other 21 two ad hoc members, Commissioner McCauley and Vice Chair Greenfield. I have other 22 comments. I'm sorry, I'm not through my rant. For example, on the chart, one of the things 23 I would have appreciated is a column on the left that said which one of the Comprehensive 24 Plan or Parks Master Plan projects that have been identified calls that out. In the one you 25 had before, that was frequently buried in the description, but it would be useful to be able 26 to reference back to where we started. 27 Commissioner McCauley: I tortured Daren during a very long phone call going line by 28 line through all this. I won't do that again here. To build on Don's comments, something 29 that strikes me, having gone through this with you in some depth, is how little discretion 30 there is. This is Don's point, how much of this is really just maintenance as opposed to 31 new facilities or new parks being brought online. There are some exceptions. The big ones 32 in my mind are the dog park improvements, which are every other year; and the park 33 restroom installations, which are scheduled for every other year. There are some other big 34 ones as well that stand out as you look at this. By and large, it's really about maintenance, 35 which is interesting. The other thing that strikes me and is interesting is the fluidity of the 36 process. It's a necessary component, but how much things move from one year to the next. 37 Obviously, as urgent needs come up, that has to happen. If you look at our calendar for 38 fiscal year 2019, a number of these things are going to be done in fiscal year 2020 if we're 39 lucky. That's part of the process. I'd be interested to hear from you if you think there are 40 ways we as a Commission could help to highlight things that are not getting into the CIP 41 DRAFT Draft Minutes 41 as it makes its way through the bureaucratic process at the City, if there is some political 1 pressure we can bring to bear to make sure CSD is getting its fair share and relatedly if 2 there are things we can do to help make sure we stay on schedule. Obviously, Public Works 3 is trying to fulfill all of these CIPs, and they have limited resources and competing 4 demands. If there's something we can do that would be helpful, I'd be interested to hear it. 5 Mr. Anderson: I appreciate that. It's something the ad hoc and staff have discussed at great 6 length. The challenge, as you say in 2019—ideally, what we're saying is these projects 7 will be done in 2019. Yet, you see a number didn't get there, and why is that? It's not 8 because the funding was lacking. It's because there wasn't enough staff to implement it or 9 we have a backlog of projects and other things that were dedicated. I'm proud of what our 10 team has accomplished, especially with our partnership with Public Works. The list of 11 what we did do is really good. It is a stretch to get what we got, and still we didn't reach 12 our target. We think about that consciously as we propose the next budgets. If you look 13 at FY '20, it's still ambitious. Ultimately, the onus is on staff to make it happen. I'll have 14 to ruminate more on the ways the Commission can be of support. What helps me a lot is 15 when I meet with the ad hoc we go through line item by line item. That kind of stuff is a 16 big help to make sure we're prioritizing things that need to be done first. How to get them 17 all done is a tough one. I feel like we're up against a rock because the resources aren't 18 there. There doesn't seem to be a lot of avenues to request more. If I did, would that be an 19 extra staff person to help manage this; another landscape architect? My personal wish list 20 would be yes. I realize the City has a lot of challenges that make that very difficult. The 21 place Lam and I are at, as well as Peter and the Public Works team, is to do the best with 22 what we've got. I'll have to get back to you with more ideas on what we can do. 23 Chair McDougall: Daren, I want to make sure that my comments and, I believe, 24 Commissioner McCauley's comments—I'll let him speak for himself. We're not at all 25 complaining about or suggesting that you're not putting in the effort or doing the things. 26 We're saying we need to help you get more money to get the resources to do this. There's 27 an advocacy role that any commission needs to have. What Commissioner McCauley is 28 calling out is how do we do that advocacy to help. We think you're doing spectacular with 29 what you've got. 30 Commissioner McCauley: I echo that entirely. I'd also say your response is incredibly 31 diplomatic given all the different complex moving parts within the City. I appreciate the 32 response. If there are things we can do, don't hesitate to let us know. 33 Mr. Anderson: I'll discuss it with our department head and see what we can come up with. 34 Vice Chair Greenfield: Between Don's grilling and Ryan's phone call, I wasn't sure if I 35 was left in the role of being the nice guy in the process. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with 36 that or that's a good thing. We'll go from here. A couple of observations. The rollover 37 CIPs that are renewed each year, a lot of tremendous good things come out of those. That's 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 42 great that those are in place. The IBRC process in identifying the catch-up and the keep-1 up project is also extremely important. An example of what could have been is the 2 Baylands Boardwalk replacement project that cost $1 million. If the proper maintenance 3 were done at the allotted time, we would have saved a lot of money. It probably would 4 have cost $150,000 or so. That's the kind of thing to keep in mind. It's hard to do preventive 5 maintenance when there are other more glamorous projects that can take the dollars, but 6 we need to keep the focus. We need to hear from staff the reminders that it may not sound 7 glamorous or critical at this time, but this is the important path to embark on. Related to 8 that, I thought the Buckeye Creek Tier 1 basic critical maintenance project, replacing the 9 aging gabions and deteriorating structures, had been in the CIP plan down the road for '22 10 or '23. I'm not seeing that there now. 11 Mr. Anderson: Inside the Foothills Park improvement project, there's money for design 12 for the gabions and the pedestrian bridge. That's in fiscal year 2021. 13 Mr. Do: That's fiscal year 2021 and $455,000. 14 Vice Chair Greenfield: That's the improvement project. 15 Mr. Anderson: We added the design money to the existing CIP. 16 Vice Chair Greenfield: I didn't recognize it as that listing. That's great to see. The Buckeye 17 Creek hydrology study was post-IBRC, so that wouldn't have necessarily been identified 18 as a maintenance project or whatever the designation is that came out of the IBRC. I'm 19 curious how that may apply. 20 Mr. Anderson: Buckeye Creek was identified in IBRC. It's been a very longstanding issue, 21 back to the '70s. 22 Vice Chair Greenfield: It was identified, and the hydrology study confirmed the … 23 Mr. Anderson: And gave us a path forward to resolve it. 24 Vice Chair Greenfield: The other thing I'm struck by is in the annual plans. The last table 25 summarizes the dollars spend for '22, '23, and '24. The line items for Baylands, Foothill, 26 and Pearson-Arastradero are all blank, the last page of the presentation. 27 Mr. Do: Are you referring to the table in Attachment A? 28 Vice Chair Greenfield: Yeah, it must be the attachment. That last page of the … 29 Chair McDougall: Staff report. 30 Mr. Do: Let me find a copy of that. 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 43 Vice Chair Greenfield: Maybe it's more productive to comment later. 1 Chair McDougall: An answer to that to the whole Commission would probably be the 2 appropriate way rather than looking for it now. 3 Vice Chair Greenfield: Looking at the sample CIP items, we can see where the 4 Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs are listed. Is there any effort to include 5 other Comprehensive Plans, in this case I'm obviously referencing the Parks, Trails, Open 6 Space, and Recreation Plan, for the similar goal, policy, and program listings, or is this too 7 much overheard because there's too many different overlapping Comprehensive Plans? It's 8 something they apply to, whether it's the Urban Forest Master Plan or whatever. 9 Mr. Anderson: It is germane. It's incumbent on staff to incorporate that and the 10 justifications for CIPs. As you look at that individual page for Ramos Park, in there it's an 11 element tied to the Parks Master Plan. It's relevant and doable for us to add a sentence to 12 say this correlates to Goal 2 to increase pollinator pathways or something to that effect to 13 show the community, the Council, and the Commission that we're tying in all the work we 14 did on the Master Plan to our capital plan. That's doable. We could probably go in before 15 the submittal and make some adjustments to add some of those. I'm looking at Lam to see 16 if that's true. 17 Mr. Do: Correct. We're still in the draft stage for the preparation of the budget document. 18 It has not made it to print form yet. We can still make edits. 19 Chair McDougall: Would it be worth adding one more column that was simply a checkbox, 20 is this something that is useful relative to climate change or not? 21 Mr. Anderson: If I can chime in, Lam. There's another document that we maintain 22 internally and use to convey the capital plan with the Commission. That's an Excel 23 spreadsheet that Chair McDougall helped revise and convey in different ways. It's very 24 helpful as a tool both to staff and perhaps the Commission for us to add that column to that 25 document. It'd be very useful, but it might not make it onto the Council book because I'm 26 not sure there's space for it in there. We could see if that's an option. We definitely could 27 add it to our Excel spreadsheet that we share and work with the Commission. 28 Chair McDougall: Particularly considering they've now made it their number one priority, 29 you may want to tell them you're aware of it. 30 Mr. Anderson: Good point. I think we can do that. 31 Vice Chair Greenfield: I echo the appreciation from the Commission to the staff for all the 32 detailed effort that goes into the CIP and the general frustration that we have minimal 33 discretionary dollars at our disposal. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 44 Mr. Anderson: If I could tie into one thing you mentioned earlier about the Baylands 1 Boardwalk about had we invested money into regular maintenance, we did invest money 2 but not enough and not with enough regularity. You'll see in the capital plan—maybe it's 3 not readily apparent—that a park emergency fund, which is one of our ongoing CIPs, 4 originally funded $50,000. It's so often used for those things. We don't have another pot 5 of money to maintain the Baylands Sailing Station dock, for example. What are we going 6 to do there? If you let it go the same way as the Boardwalk, it's a lot more than $1 million 7 to replace that. It's probably on the order of $5 million. With the right maintenance—for 8 example, we got $30,000 from the park emergency CIP two years ago to fix the lower 9 dock, and another $30,000 to do the upper dock this year. That dock is going to go another 10 decade and potentially even longer if we're prudent. We asked for more money to that 11 particular CIP to catch those kinds of things and to have funds to avoid those mistakes and 12 need to fully replace them. We're trying to take action to remedy what happened on the 13 Boardwalk for the rest of our assets. 14 Commissioner Cribbs: What is the Esther Clark Park project? What are you doing? 15 Mr. Do: It's in combination with Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. It's 16 also to develop a comprehensive conservation plan. We've done that for the Baylands. 17 Daren is wrapping that one up. Once that's wrapped up, we'll focus on the three other 18 preserves. 19 Commissioner Cribbs: What is the golf course turf replacement project? 20 Mr. Do: The driving range is made of artificial turf instead of natural turf. That turf is way 21 beyond its life cycle. Those that have been out there or you may see our balls get scuffed 22 up faster because the turf has thinned out. We're looking at replacing the artificial turf 23 within the driving range. 24 Commissioner Cribbs: Is part of the agreement with the vendor that we pay for that? 25 Mr. Do: That's correct. The agreement with the vendor is based on the preface that it 26 remains a City property. They are not leasing the property; they are managing and 27 operating the property on behalf of the City. That would be on us. 28 Commissioner Moss: When we have the Council/PRC working session in four weeks, this 29 is going to come up. Our most important thing is help you prioritize our stuff. We're not 30 going to get a bigger piece of the pie. For the piece of pie we get, we have to make sure 31 that the priorities are right. We've had a tremendous relationship with staff on an ongoing 32 basis to hone that list. This is not a surprise, these priorities. I want to make sure that—I 33 love the fact that it's a well-greased ongoing process of honing this list. When we have the 34 Council meeting, they're going to ask us if we're happy with the priorities for our little 35 piece of the pie. Asking for a bigger piece of the pie may not happen, but at least they 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 45 should know what we're working on. There was a tremendous amount of interest early last 1 year when we came up with the Parks Master Plan. The first thing Council Members 2 Scharff and Kniss asked us was how much the whole thing would cost and can we get a 3 bond measure tomorrow to do it all. This 20-year plan is going to take 20 years, but you 4 can't wait until the 19th year to start some of this stuff. You've got to be working on it 5 piecemeal. The best thing we can do is try to prioritize within the limits of our budget. If 6 there's any way that—if the Council has some high-priority items and they want to shuffle 7 the priorities that we've come up with, by all means let us know. They've been pretty happy 8 with the input we've given them for the past couple of years. I'm not expecting big 9 surprises. Isn't that what we're going to talk about in that Council/PRC working session? 10 Mr. Anderson: It's an opportunity for both the Commission and the Council to 11 communicate and figure out what they want to discuss. It's up to you, the Commission, 12 and what Council wants to hear. 13 Commissioner Moss: Earlier in the meeting, there are some of these items here that you're 14 only going to get money from the CIP process, but other areas really should have a public-15 private partnership. Our chairperson is the point person for outside funding, but I can't 16 emphasize enough that the pickleballers and the tennis players should help pay for some of 17 the things they want and that are not in the CIP, for instance, lighting the tennis courts. 18 You talk about in the next four years we're going touch about 13 different community 19 parks. We're not talking about open space. Some of them have tennis courts, and if you're 20 doing improvements in those parks, would you want to light some of those tennis courts? 21 Maybe we could get some money from the tennis community to help get more benefit out 22 of the CIP dollars. 23 Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm happy to see Boulware Park on here. It's been on the list 24 ever since I've been on the Commission. Either things cut in front or, in some cases, the 25 Council doesn't have enough money, so we squeeze down the list. That said, looking at 26 the list for 2020 projects, if you look in your crystal ball, are we going to get fully funded 27 for that or is the Council not going to have money to fund everything? 28 Mr. Anderson: Our indication is it will be funded. 29 Council Member Cormack: The good news is your liaison happens to be on the Finance 30 Committee. The bad news is climate change was not the number one thing. Traffic and 31 transportation was at the top followed closely by fiscal and budget sustainability. It's not 32 news to anyone that we are actively looking as a City to reduce our operating budget on a 33 structural basis. There's your good news and bad news. Having observed pretty carefully 34 the budget process last year, probably some members of the Finance Committee feel about 35 the budget the way you feel about this, like not as much. That's just the reality of it. The 36 staff are the professionals, and they're the ones in charge of helping us. We take a look at 37 that and provide input as appropriate. It looks like FY 2019 was an extraordinary year with 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 46 more than $1.3 million in seven plans—that's unusual—and more than $18 million in three 1 projects, most of which is what I keep calling the mythical bike bridge. I know it's coming, 2 and I'm very excited when it will no longer be mythical. I echo the Boulware Park. As 3 Commissioner Cribbs knows, when I did my tour of all the parks, it was the one that jumped 4 at me that one of these things is not like the others. I know we have a tree trimming cycle. 5 Are parks the same way? Is there an appropriate number of years after which we need to 6 touch each park or is it different? 7 Mr. Anderson: The IBRC report did have them on cycles based on the lifespan of the 8 particular asset, not necessarily to come back and do a whole park. For example, the 9 playground at a given park was given, let's say, 15 years lifespan, the park bench 25 years, 10 drinking fountains 10, lights 30, something like that. What we usually do is look at that 11 IBRC report, and group together what's near one another. If the lights are coming two 12 years later and the playground is due now, can we lump them in? That's how we typically 13 do it. It's not so cyclical for each park. It's more the amenity inside it. 14 Council Member Cormack: It looks like we get to do one restroom next year—no, one 15 restroom this year. If there's a list of seven, sometimes it helps to say we're going to do 16 one every year. It's just a thought as you think about what would be a structured way to 17 move through the process. Obviously, I leave that to your discretion. 18 Chair McDougall: The current structure basically has one restroom every other year, right? 19 Mr. Anderson: Yes, that's correct. 20 Chair McDougall: And a dog park every other year. 21 Mr. Do: That's correct as well. 22 Chair McDougall: If there are no other questions, I want to thank Lam again for the 23 attention he's given to this, for all the effort behind it, and for his tolerance of us and these 24 questions. 25 6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 26 Chair McDougall: Going on to Item Number 6, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this 27 right now. I will ask if there's any pressing ad hoc comments. Through Natalie, I will send 28 out a new—what I'd like to do is a new process. I would like to make sure—Vice Chair 29 Greenfield and I have talked about this. He's initiated the thought that we need to do a 30 better job relative to the ad hocs. I'm going to ask that we submit a written report ahead of 31 every meeting so that we don't have to at 10:30 at night say we don't have time to talk about 32 the ad hocs and that we have information ahead of time and have the opportunity to do that. 33 I'm not going to ask that for the liaisons; the liaison can be verbal unless you think you've 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 47 got substantial interesting information, then you should submit it. I'm going to try and 1 write that up in a way that you can understand. I'm sure everybody understood what we're 2 talking about right now. I'm going to write that up a little bit and through Natalie will get 3 it distributed. In the meantime, if I go through the ad hoc list from the retreat, do we have 4 any comments from the Foothills Park ad hoc? 5 Vice Chair Greenfield: No status right now. 6 Chair McDougall: Any status from the BCCP, the Bay plan? 7 Commissioner Reckdahl: No. 8 Chair McDougall: CIP, we just went through that. The 10.5 acres? 9 Commissioner Reckdahl: Nothing on that. 10 Chair McDougall: Cubberley Master Plan? 11 Vice Chair Greenfield: Kristen is going to be organizing a meeting with the ad hoc to 12 review input to date and talk about how we can contribute in the near term. That's coming 13 in the next week or so. 14 Chair McDougall: The park and facility policy? 15 Vice Chair Greenfield: The pickleball discussion covered that. 16 Chair McDougall: Park amenities? I would say no. Recreation opportunities? 17 Commissioner Reckdahl: No, we haven't done anything on that. 18 Chair McDougall: Park rules and regulations, I don't think we've had any updates. 19 Vice Chair Greenfield: We're waiting to get that rolling again. 20 Chair McDougall: I'm not going to go through the liaison list. I'm just going to do it from 21 the back. Commissioner Cribbs, do you have anything to add on yours? 22 Commissioner Cribbs: No. 23 Chair McDougall: Commissioner Moss? 24 Commissioner Moss: No. 25 Chair McDougall: Commissioner Reckdahl? 26 DRAFT Draft Minutes 48 Commissioner Reckdahl: No. 1 Chair McDougall: Commissioner McCauley? 2 Commissioner McCauley: No. 3 Chair McDougall: Vice Chair Greenfield? 4 Vice Chair Greenfield: In an effort to end on some very positive news, yes. Word on the 5 community gardens is—we've been talking about working towards opening a new garden. 6 The new garden agreement is now in the signature process, and there's hope of having a 7 start date of April 1 to begin work on the garden cleanup and make it ready for new 8 gardeners. Hopefully, it'll open to the public for the summer season. That's really exciting 9 news and certainly ties in with the sustainability and climate change goal. It's a low-cost 10 fiscal item for us as well. 11 Chair McDougall: From my perspective, the funding. I did talk to Roger Smith, Friends 12 of the Palo Alto Parks today. He has been actively working with the team relative to the 13 signs. They set up a go fund me, I think it was. I don't believe they made any progress 14 with that. In the meantime, they realized that maybe they could ask for some grants. They 15 actually have two grant applications that they're very optimistic about. I can't say anything 16 more than that. He also mentioned that they've now come to the conclusion that the 17 proposal I made, that there should be a Friends of the Baylands—they may, instead of 18 making it separate or just putting it under theirs without name, make it a separate part of 19 their organization. Maybe we've made some real progress there. I'm excited about that. 20 VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 26, 2019 MEETING 21 Chair McDougall: The last item is future agenda items. I'm not going to, unless Daren has 22 comments on that, spend time on that now. We'll do that via email. 23 Commissioner Moss: I just want to make sure that we have that Magical Bridge 24 somewhere. 25 Mr. Anderson: We've got a partnership presentation from Walter Passmore, the City 26 Arborist. He'll be at the March meeting. 27 Chair McDougall: We have that. Anything else? 28 Vice Chair Greenfield: On the ad hoc and liaison roles, the field and facility use policy 29 should probably revert to the name we were using before, which was park and facility use 30 policy. Park covers fields and courts. I'd like to request we change the name of that ad 31 hoc. It was basically a typo from our retreat. Park dedication was an ad hoc. At the retreat, 32 DRAFT Draft Minutes 49 we talked about moving that to a liaison role, which I'd like to continue pushing. I want to 1 add park dedication to the liaison list. 2 Chair McDougall: Both of those, we'll make sure that happens. 3 Commissioner McCauley: I was going to ask if I could be added to the CIP committee. 4 I'm a glutton for punishment. 5 Chair McDougall: You'd like to be added? 6 Commissioner McCauley: If I could. 7 Chair McDougall: Yes, you could be. 8 VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 9 None 10 VIII. ADJOURNMENT 11 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Commissioner 12 Moss at 10:20 p.m. Passed 6-0, LaMere absent 13 1 Sustaining the Legacy Parks and Recreation Commission March 26, 2019 2nd Edition of the Urban Forest Master Plan 2 2nd Edition Enhancements 1.Species 2.Goal 5 (Planning) 3.South Palo Alto 5.Agricultural landscaping 6.Partnerships (environmental groups) 7.Habitat 8.Development impacts (opportunities) 3 Implementation Operating environment –Climate (S/CAP), Development (Comp Plan), Land Use (Parks MP), Fiscal (Budget), Regulatory (WELO, Fire, Stormwater), Culture (Citizen Survey), Staff/Contracts Integration/Collaboration –Interdepartmental, partnerships (volunteers), sponsors Goals –No net loss of canopy, maximize benefits, sustainability 4 New Goal 2 prioritizes regeneration of woodland and riparian landscapes. New and enhanced programs call for: –Update/expand inventory of existing native species. –i-Tree wildlife assessment. –Emergency water during severe drought. –Review use of mulch. –Workshops about benefits. Species and Habitat (Slide 1 of 2) 5 Species and Habitat (Slide 2 of 2) Goals for increased percentages of native species—modified to be more aggressive: –Street trees: 20% with 20 years. –Urban parks: 50% within 20 years. Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. 6 Policies & programs augmented to ensure relevant review and updates: –Municipal Code. –Citywide plans & policy documents. –Permitting procedures. New programs call for: –Analysis of dewatering impacts and use of recycled water. –Flexible staffing model—to avoid delays. Goal 5 and Development Impacts (Slide 1 of 2) 7 Goal 5 and Development Impacts (Slide 2 of 2) Policies enhance coordination with green building, green infrastructure, and water efficient landscape. Programs strengthened to: –Require street trees. –Avoid root damage. –Limit locations for underground utilities. –Result in less impacting maintenance procedures. –Provide incentives to retain / plant trees. –Adjust fees and enforcement. 8 Canopy Disparity Study –2011 report. –Input from residents & community leaders. –Study of vacant tree sites. –Study of successful canopy growth programs. New programs: –Emphasize incentives (pilot with RTRP). –Contract with Canopy utilizing Forestry Fund. –Exploring a carbon offset project. Canopy in South Palo Alto (Slide 1 of 1) 9 Agricultural Landscaping (Slide 1 of 1) New program to: –Utilize public space opportunities. –Encourage the use of private space opportunities. New program to conduct i-Tree wildlife assessment. Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. 10 Environmental Groups (Slide 1 of 1) “2nd Edition Enhancements” reflect collaboration: –Acterra –Audubon Society –California Native Plant Society –Sierra Club –Canopy. Programs augmented to stipulate further participation by same groups. 11 2nd Edition Costs & Benefits –Intensification of project review. –Inter-departmental coordination requirements. –Additional surveys (canopy cover and landscaping), monitoring, and analyses. –Additional workshops, education and outreach. –Expanded stakeholder involvement. –Maintenance efficiency, partnership expansion, and expanded production of benefits (ecosystem services). “2nd Edition Enhancements” are being analyzed. Anticipated increases relate to: (Slide 1 of 1) 12 36,215 total trees 0 Selected Sites Total Yearly Eco Benefits $17,940,508.06 Greenhouse Gas Benefits $61,790.74 3,513,544.74 lbs CO2 avoided 6,016,521.33 lbs CO2 sequestered Water Benefits $214,569.72 53,642,430.94 gallons saved Energy Benefits $700,840.17 4,822,603.24 kWh saved 91,933.44 Therms saved Air Quality Benefits $180,678.22 14,156.82 lbs pollutants saved Property Benefits $16,782,629.21 3,623,703.04 leaf surface area (sq.ft.) Total trees along streets and in developed parks (9% of land area) Total Yearly Eco Benefits not including human health Greenhouse Gas Benefits not including storage City Revenue Benefits not included, but are closely correlated to property values. Urban Forests influence property values/taxes, property transfer fees, development review and permitting fees, and sales taxes. Benefits of Public Trees 13 Role of Urban Forestry—citywide. Incorporation of UFMP policies and programs: –Municipal Code Chapter 8. –Municipal Code Chapters that regulate development and infrastructure. –Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. –Parks Master Plan. –Comprehensive Plan (multiple elements). –Green Infrastructure Plan Key Issues (Slide 1 of 2) 14 Resources for: –Intensification of project review. –Additional assessments and monitoring programs. –Incentive programs. –Invasive Species control and native species management Key Issues (Slide 2 of 2) 15 Recommendations Ongoing community forum Formalization of the role of Urban Forestry staff. Updates to multi-departmental sections of the Municipal Code. Inter-departmental coordination and potential program integration with other plans. Fiscal commitment to implementation. (Slide 1 of 1) City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 Goals, Policies, and Programs Goal 1. A well developed contiguous, healthy, and ecologically resilient citywide urban forest that: ‡ ,s a mix of native and introduced climate adap- tive species—to minimize vulnerability to disease, storms, drought, pests, and other stressors. ‡ (PpKasi]es locallyeYolYed species ZitK particular focus on regenerating a native woodland ecosystem on a landscape scale. ‡ AYoids inYasiYe species ‡ ,s a Pi[ of younJ sePiPature and Pature aJes—to facilitate uniformity in annual maintenance costs and continuity of benefits ‡ 0a[iPi]es Kabitat enYironPental and aestKetic benefits while trying to minimize minimizing conÀicts with infrastructure and water-conservation goals. ‡ 0a[iPi]es tKe potential in eacK neiJKborKood—to achieve the greatest possible canopy equity. Policy 1.A. Strive for: ‡ A Jreater percentaJe of natiYe drouJKttolerant and fruit tree species. ‡ 6pecies cKoices tKat are appropriate to tKe settinJ and site conditions e.g., ‡ 0a[iPi]e opportunities for fruit nut and ÀoZer bearing trees where there are fewer maintenance concerns. ‡ 0a[iPi]e opportunities to include less drouJKt tolerant trees where water is not as limited such as riparian corridors, special design or bioretention landscapes, or where groundwater level is higher e.g., plant riparian trees such as box elder, syca- mores, cottonwood and willows near creeks and where groundwater conditions allow. ‡ 0a[iPi]e opportunities for species JroupinJs tKat form interconnected ecosystems and an ecologi- cally resilient landscape that supports birds, pollina- tors and otKer beneficial insects ZitK an ePpKasis on oak woodland species based on the principles of 6an )rancisco (stuary ,nstitute¶s ³/andscape re- silient )raPeZorN´ and ³9ision for a resilient 6ilicon 9alley /andscape´ • 0iniPi]e infrastructure conÀicts Ka]ards and maintenance issues. ‡ Appropriate aJe diYersity ‡ 1o loss of benefits²as defined in i7ree eco analysis (or other peer-reviewed benefits-estimation model.) ‡ ,ncreased Kabitat KealtK and social benefits Program 1.A.i. Work with Canopy to complete the online “Tree Library”— to achieve a helpful tool for staff and property owners. Include information from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Native Plant Society about the value for birds and butterflies of species listed in the library. Ensure that searches can include multiple attributes. Program 1.A.ii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop a “Preferred and Restricted Species List” that will be a helpful tool for staff and property owners. The list will acknowledge differing priorities for: •Public street trees •Public park trees near playing fields or playing fields, paths, or hardscape. 2nd (dition Attachment A At t a c h m e n t A Page 1 of 16 Draft Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 ‡3ublic parN trees furtKer froP playinJ fields patKs or Kardscape ‡3ublic trees in nature preserYes ‡3riYate trees on single-family residential property ‡3riYate trees on multi-family residential property ‡3riYate trees on coPPercial property. ‡All trees in riparian corridors 7Ke list Zill consider ‡+abitat Yalue and attractiYeness for birds butterÀies and pollinators ‡2pportunities to create riparian Kabitat ‡(coloJical benefits sucK as sKelter food and breedinJ sites for botK resident and PiJratory birds and pollinators ‡(nerJy use reduction potential ‡Carbon seTuestration potential ‡6torPZater treatment potential. ‡City Joals for conserYinJ potable Zater ‡City Joals for recycled Zater ‡,nfrastructure conÀicts ‡0aintenance issues ‡AestKetics ‡City¶s Joal of 0 sKadinJ Joals for riJKtsofZay parNinJ lots and Keat islands ‡City¶s Joal to ePpKasi]e natiYe species ‡1eed for aJe diYersity ‡7o[icity to birds ‡3otential to becoPe inYasiYe ‡3otential to proYide KealtKy local food to residents. Notes: •The resulting list should be searchable by attributes. • Special consideration should be given to the golf course. •A comprehensive conservation plan is needed to ad- dress the complexity of the ecosystems of preserves, and open spaces recognizing that the desirability of traits is often contingent upon location or limited rooting area i.e., problems on one site may be benefits on another. For example, species with maintenance concerns such as those that drop fruit, nuts, and flow- ers might not be appropriate in some urban areas. • Although allergens are a concern, current research does not support species selection for allergens. 3roJraP 1Aiii :orN ZitK Canopy and staNeKolders to deYelop sitespecific speciesselection protocols to coPplePent tKe ³3referred and 5estricted 6pecies /ist´ ,n addition to tKe criteria aboYe include consideration of ‡ 5esident¶s reTuests ‡ 5eJeneration of natiYe Zoodland ‡ 6urroundinJ species tKePe and tKe past perforPance of that species. ‡ AdMacent property use ‡ 3otential Yisibility issues eJ at intersections  ‡ AYailable soil YoluPe ‡ AYailable Zater ‡ 3otential conÀicts ZitK oYerKead poZer lines ‡ 3otential conÀicts ZitK Kardscape ‡ 3otential conÀicts ZitK underJround utilities ‡ AYoidance of Ponocultures. ‡ AYoidance of inappropriate species in areas tKat are ideal for rainwater bioretention areas. ‡ Creation of Kabitat corridors and ecoloJically resilient landscapes contribution to natiYe Zoodland recoYery )or sites ZitKin parNs selection sKould also consider ‡7Ke Comprehensive Plan’s Yision tKat parNs sKould inte-Jrate nature ZitK recreation and aestKetics and striYe tobring people closer to nature. ‡([istinJ and future irriJation systePs for nearby parN turf ‡0aintenance issues specific to eacK parN eJ litter on playinJ fields ‡:ildlife Kabitat needs eJ tKe creation of understory to proYide sKelter for birds Page 2 of 16 Draft City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 Additionally species selection for trees in natural areas sKould prefer natiYe species and also consider ‡7Kreats tKat Pay be Pore liNely to a൵ect trees in natural areas tKan in urban areas²especially 6udden 2aN 'eatK ‡ 5elationsKip and iPpact to trails ‡6oil types and natural KeritaJe ‡2pportunities for plantinJ species that drop fruit nuts and ÀoZers in areas where maintenance is not as big of a concern. Note: As mentioned earlier, a separate Resource Manage- ment Plan—or Comprehensive Conservation Plan—is needed to address the complexity of the ecosystems of preserves, and open spaces. 3roJraP 1AiY 0anaJe species diYersity in sucK a Zay as to ‡(PpKasi]e reJeneration of an natiYe Zoodland landscape through the creation of species patches at a scale that sup- ports regional ecological resilience. ‡AYoid Ponocultures tKat create Yulnerability to cata-stropKic losses due to speciesspecific tKreats²especially in tKe urbani]ed area Note: Urban forestry guidelines suggest that—as a pre- caution against catastrophic losses due to species-specific threats—no one species should account for more than 10% of the population and no one genus for more than 20% of the population. Policy 1.B. Endeavor to ensure commercial availability of appropriate tree species. 3roJraP 1%i 8pon coPpletinJ tKe ³3referred and 5estricted 6pecies List”, work with Canopy to encourage local and reJional nurseries and Jarden centers to defer to stocN tKe ³pre-ferred´ species²ZitK ePpKasis on increasinJ tKe aYailabil-ity of species tKat are drouJKttolerant as Zell as tolerant to recycled Zater²and to aYoid stocNinJ inYasiYe species 3roJraP 1%ii Consider feasibility of a cityoZned nursery or partnersKip with California 1atiYe 3lant 6ociety Acterra or otKer local nonprofits Policy 1.C. Conserve viable street tree planting sites. Program 1.C.i. :orN ZitK releYant departPents to develop criteria for viable street tree plantinJ sites increased plantinJ of street trees and related protocols to ensure optiPal stocNinJ leYel of 8 Add criteria to Tree Technical Manual. 3roJraP 1Cii 8se criteria for Yiable street plantinJ sites to reYieZ and update inforPation about e[istinJ and aYailable Yiable sites in 7ree.eeper and *,6—as well as an interactive open- source PappinJ solution sucK as 2pen7ree0ap Program 1.C.iii. :orN ZitK releYant departPents to eYaluate iPplePentation and e൵ectiYeness of tKe reTuirePent for 0 sKadinJ for parNinJ lots public and priYate and identified Keat islands ,dentify reasons for success and or failure 0odify as needed Program 1.C.iv. :orN ZitK releYant departPents to deYelop reTuirePents for neZ coPPercial Pultiunit and sinJlefaPily Kous-inJ deYelopPent proMects to proYide street trees or space for future trees and related irriJation systePs Note: The requirement for public art may be a useful model. Policy 1.D. Strive for optimal stocking levels for street trees. Plantings should exceed removals until a goal of 98% full stocking of identified viable planting sites within right-of-ways and parks is achieved. Assume an average 50 year life span and consistent replacement and removal rates. Fluctuations should be ex- pected due to past trends of planting as well as other variables. 3roJraP 1'i 'eYelop a PonitorinJ proJraP and produce annual reports of rePoYals and plantinJs to sKoZ proJress toZard tKe Joal of 8 full stocNinJ of identified Yiable plantinJ sites ZitKin riJKtofZays and parNs Page 3 of 16 Draft Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 Goal 2. Re-generated native woodland and riparian land-scapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat. Policy 2.A. Conserve and grow native and introduced climate adaptive tree population to regenerate and recover native woodland ecosys- tem on a landscape scale . 3roJraP 2Ai :orN ZitK Canopy to update tKe 2aNZell surYey to ‡Assess cKanJes in tKe population of natiYe oaNs since 1997. ‡(Yaluate tKe KealtK of e[istinJ natiYe trees and taNe actions to iPproYe conditions as needed eJ rePoYe KardscapinJ or turf ZaterinJ around tree drip line ‡(Yaluate Japs and opportunities to plant natiYe oaNs and natiYe Zoodland species to create a Posaic of natiYe Zoodland species distribution tKat PiPics tKe spatial distribution of an natiYe Zoodland ecosysteP Program 2.A.ii. Consider incorporatinJ Incorporate the 2aNZell surYey data into 7ree.eeper tKe City¶s *,6 and an interactiYe opensource PappinJ systeP sucK as 2pen7ree0ap 3roJraP 2Aiii 'eYelop a plan for restorinJ a cityZide natiYe Zoodland landscape by increasinJ tKe percentaJes of natiYe trees especially oaNs and by tracNinJ proJress ,PplePentation sKould beJin as soon as possible by proYidinJ Pore natiYe trees and introduce cliPate adaptiYe species for all tree installations²²to create a Posaic of natiYe Zoodland species distribution tKat PiPics tKe spatial distribution of an natiYe Zoodland ecosystePs 6pecifically acKieYe tKe folloZinJ Joals ‡6treet trees ,ncrease natiYe Zoodland and introduced cliPate adaptiYe trees froP 7 to 10 ZitKin tKe life of tKis 10year plan²and to 20 ZitKin tKe ne[t 20 years ‡8rban parNs ,ncrease natiYe Zoodland and introduced cliPate adaptiYe trees froP 11 to 2 ZitKin tKe life of tKis 10year plan²and to 0 ZitKin tKe ne[t 20 years ‡2pen spaces and preserYes ([istinJ to at least 80 natiYe Zoodland and introduced cliPate adaptiYe trees ZitKin tKe life of tKis 10year plan ‡3riYate land ,ncrease percentaJe of natiYe trees byproYidinJ property oZners Jardeners landscapers and deYelopers ZitK educational resources supply inforPa- tion and incentiYes for natiYe plants ePpKasi]inJ natiYe Zoodland species ‡5eoaNinJ ZKere oaNs are appropriate²ensurinJ tKat oaNs are spaced so tKere are no Japs Zider tKan 100ft among the trees. 3roJraP 2AiY ,nitiate ³tree JiYeaZay´ eYents tKat proYide residents ZitK free fruit trees natiYe trees and introduced cliPate adaptiYe trees 3roJraP 2AY :orN ZitK Canopy and staNeKolders sucK as tKe California 1atiYe 3lant 6ociety and Acterra to ‡ ,nYentory tKe inYasiYe tree species population as defined by tKe 5ecoPPended and 5estricted list ‡ )orPali]e a plan for decreasinJ tKat population (Note: This will need to be a recurring task..) 8pon coPpletion of tKe inYentory and establisKPent of a plan worN ZitK Canopy and staNeKolders sucK as tKe Cali- fornia 1atiYe 3lant 6ociety and Acterra to ‡ 'eYelop procedures and coordinate field actiYities for re- moving invasive species—with special attention given to the rePoYal of seedlinJs and saplinJs ‡ 3roYide education and incentiYes to KoPeoZners to re- move invasive species on their property. ‡ 'eYelop specifications for inYasiYe species rePoYal to be conditionally applied durinJ 3lanninJ deYelopPent reYieZ for proMects ZKen appropriate in all ]oninJ districts or abut- tinJ creeN areas eJ open space residential estates coPPer- cial researcK parN etc ‡'eYelop PonitorinJ proJraPs to tracN proJress 3roJraP 2AYi 8tili]e public space opportunitiesand encouraJe tKe use of private space opportunities--to implement manage-Pent tecKniTues tKat enable trees sKrubs and coPpatible Page 4 of 16 Draft City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 YeJetation to coe[ist ZitK tKe Joals of producinJ ecosysteP benefits aestKetic interest layered Zildlife Kabitat and food for people. 3roJraP 2AYii Create educational Paterials on oaN tree care and pro ac- tiYely reacK out to property oZners landscapinJ firPs real estate aJents and otKer audiences to educate tKeP about tKe iPportance of oaNs otKer natiYe and introduced cliPate adaptiYe trees and KoZ to care for tKese trees 3roJraP 2AYiii :Ken a property transfers proYide inforPation on KoZ to care for oaks Goal 3. A citywide Sustainability Plan that integrates the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan with other sustainability goals such as those related to water conservation, carbon neutrality, and solar en- ergy—and communicates the value of the urban forest and the importance of tree protection. Policy 3.A. The City’s Sustainability Plan shall... • Incorporate the contributions and needs (including water needs) of the urban forest emphasizing the importance of habitat as well as carbon sequestration by the urban forest and the need to preserve canopy and ecosystems. • Identify conflicts as well as alignment between urban forest goals and those of other sustainability concepts especially Green Building water use review and the as- sociated Water Use Classification Of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) plant species list. • Describe procedures for prioritizing and mitigating con- flicts. Program 3.A.i. Work with the city¶s Office of Sustainability as well as Canopy and other related organizations (herein after et.al.) to eYaluate tKe ³3referred and 5estricted 6pecies /ist´ to ensure tKat it coPplePents tKe City¶s Sustainability Plan and incorporates tKe need to preserYe public KealtK as Zell as ecoloJical and Kabitat benefits pro-Yided by natiYe species sucK as oaN trees cottonZood and ZilloZs larJe broadleaf trees and Ney introduced cliPate adaptiYe species 3roJraP Aii :orN ZitK tKe city¶s Office of Sustainability et.al. to evaluate future participation in carbon credit proJraPs 3roJraP Aiii :orN ZitK tKe city¶s Office of Sustainability et.al. to evaluate the establisKPent of an oYersiJKt Jroup elected or appointed by tKe City Council  to inYestiJate and coPPent on tKe iPpact of proMects on tKe urban forest and oYerall ecosys-teP²and Ponitor tKe proJress of tKe Urban Forest Master Plan goals. 3roJraP AiY :orN ZitK tKe 8tilities 'epartPent to publisK tools and priorities for sitinJ of solar collection deYices 3roJraP AY:orN ZitK tKe city¶s Office of Sustainability et.al. and/or tKe 8tilities 'epartPent and Canopy to create a Juidance docu-Pent²KoZ to successfully incorporate solar collection and trees into site desiJn²for tKose considerinJ solar 3roJraP AYi :orN ZitK tKe city¶s Office of Sustainability et.al to e[plore new fundinJ sources for tKe 8rban )orestry proJraP 3roJraP AYii :orN ZitK tKe city¶s Office of Sustainability et.al. to reevaluate costs and fees related to efforts to coordinate sustainability programs.. Policy 3.B. The well being of the urban forest and preservation of its ecological, environmental, public health, aesthetic, economical, social, and community benefits will be considered in all deci- sions pertaining to the environment, sustainability, and capital improvements. 3roJraP %i )orPali]e tKe 8rban )orester¶s role relatiYe to ‡CityZide Sustainability Plan. ‡'eYelopPent of cityZide policy ‡,nterdepartPental collaboration ‡7ecKnical adYice Program 3.B.ii. Work with the city¶s Office of Sustainability et.al. to deYelop a ³/andscape 6ustainabil-ity CKecNlist´²for deYelopPent reYieZ²tKat incorporates Page 5 of 16 Draft Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 cityZide Joals for Zater use sustainability storP Zater PanaJePent tree pruninJ tree retention and tree selection —and striYes for ecoloJical balance and resilience ,ncorpo- rate into the Landscape Technical Manual. Program 3.B.iii. Work with the city¶s Office of Sustainability et.al. to educate staff about tKe iPportance of describinJ potentially neJatiYe²or unintended²iPpacts to tKe urban forest and ecoloJic bal-ance/resilience in staff reports about Capital ,PproYePent 3roMects²ZKetKer or not California (nYironPental 4uality Act C(4A reYieZ is reTuired Policy 3.C. Monitor the salinity levels of recycled water and explore options for adjusting potable/recycled mix rates, soil modification/aug- mentation—to improve leaching—on a site by site basis. 3roJraP Ci 5eYieZ e[istinJ PonitorinJ proJraPs reJardinJ tKe use of recycled Zater for landscape irriJation at tKe 0unicipal *olf Course and *reer 3arN 0odify as needed 3roJraP Cii 'eYelop a report describinJ ZKat Kas been acKieYed rela-tiYe to tKe City¶s Joals for reducinJ tKe salinity of recycled water froP tKe 5eJional :ater 4uality Control 3lant since Council adopted 5esolution 0 in -anuary of 2010 7Ke report sKould include a draft Kandout brocKure for property oZners considerinJ conYersion to recycled ZateroutlininJ site drainaJe e[pectations e[ePption process and neZ plant Paterial conYersion and responsibilities (nsure tKat sta൵ are aZare of tKis City policy and understand its iPpli- cations. 3roJraP Ciii :orN ZitK Canopy and staNeKolders sucK as tKe California 1atiYe 3lant 6ociety Acterra and tKe 6anta Clara 9alley Audubon 6ociety to deYelop a list of tree species appropri- ate for use in areas ZKere recycled Zater is or Pay be used for irrigation. Incorporate into the Landscape Technical Manual. 3roJraP CiY :orN ZitK releYant departPents to deYelop an ePerJency proJraP to proYide Zater to trees durinJ seYere drouJKt 3roJraP CY :orN ZitK releYant departPents to encouraJe construc- tion of rain Jardens and use of condensation Zater froP airconditioninJ units JroundZater deZaterinJ Zater and Kydrant ÀusKinJ Zater to proYide Zater for ³tKirsty´ Kabitat trees sucK as ZilloZs sycaPores and cottonZoods 3roJraP CYi (PpKasi]e tKe 8tilities 'epartPent¶s ³:aste AYoidance´ proJraPs for Zater on tKe 8rban )orestry Zebsite Policy 3.D. Use wood chips and mulch appropriately. 3roJraP 'i 5eYieZ e[istinJ procedures and protocols for usinJ PulcK to suppress Zeeds includinJ state reTuirePents and deYelop sitespecific criteria to ensure PiniPal iPpacts to Zildlife±especially in tKe Zetlands and natural areas Upon coPpletion ‡ ,ncorporate into tKe Tree Technical Manual. ‡ ,ncorporate into tKe Landscape Technical Manual (Pro-gram 6.F.i.) ‡ :orN ZitK staNeKolders sucK as tKe California 1atiYe 3lant 6ociety Acterra tKe 6anta Clara 9alley Audubon 6ociety on an outreacK proJraP to educate property oZn- ers and residents about PulcK use 3roJraP 'ii 7o preYent runo൵ of polluted Zater aYoid use of recycledtire or syntKetic PulcK and discouraJe use of recycledtire or synthetic mulch on private property 3roJraP 'iii 7o preYent runo൵ of polluted Zater aYoid use of dyed PulcK and discouraJe use of dyed PulcK on priYate property 3roJraP 'iY ([plore an e[pansion of tKe e[istinJ urbanZood recyclinJ proJraP to include KiJKer end products tKat do not breaN tKe Zood doZn ,nclude consideration of tKe folloZinJ ‡%reaNinJ Zood up to create PulcK releases preYiously seTuestered carbon ‡ConYersion to enerJy reTuires burninJ ZKicK releasespreYiously seTuestered carbon ‡5ecyclinJ urban Zood as a KiJKer end product tKat does not breaN it doZn eJ usinJ loJs for Kabitat or outdoor furniture Zill alloZ tKe carbon to rePain seTuestered ZitKin tKe Zood ‡Carbon credit proJraPs Page 6 of 16 Draft City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 Goal 4. A community that appreciates its urban forest and partners with the city, Canopy, and other local organizations and stakeholders to steward it. 3olicy A 2ptiPi]e coPPunication betZeen tKe City residents property owners, business owners, other cities and other government aJencies and nonprofits Program 4.A.i. Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the Califor-nia Native Plant Society, Acterra, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to conduct at least 4 community outreach meetings to educate and get feedback: •Introduce the website as a resource. •Discuss “Hot Topics” from Master Plan survey. •Discuss interactive open-source mapping. Program 4.A.ii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, the Santa Clara Valley Audu- bon Society and the community to develop outreach proce- dures to follow prior to making any significant changes to the urban forest —whether or not California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is required. Program 4.A.iii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to establish a recurring forum that pro-vides the community an opportunity to communicate with staff and members of the decision making bodies about tree benefits, concerns, and ideas. Note: this may coincide with the similar ideas for the citywide Sustainability Plan. Program 4.A.iv. Continue pruning workshops and tree walks and consider additional ways for community and staff to interact. Program 4.A.v. Coordinate with the Palo Alto Unified School District re-garding plantings, species selection, maintenance, manage-ment of landscapes, Arbor Day, and other events. Program 4.A.vi. Develop a capability for community input on the Urban Forestry website. Program 4.A.vii. Work with Canopy the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop the content for outreach possibilities such as city mailings, e-mail blasts, door hangers, bill inserts, social media, press releases, and newspaper columns. Program 4.A.viii. Partner with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the Palo Alto Christmas Bird Count, Spring Bird Count, and the Backyard Bird Count. Program 4.A.ix. Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop programs to familiarize residents with Palo Alto’s urban forest’s birds and butterflies—and ways to attract them. Program 4.A.x. Educate citizens about correct pruning at the best time to protect bird habitat and nesting. Program 4.A.xi. Partner with Acterra, Audubon and California Native Plant Society to develop educational materials and workshops on native woodland ecosystems, other native habitats and the benefits of native tree species in the urban landscape for both the public and urban forestry staff. 3olicy % (nsure e[KaustiYe e[ploration into tKe coPPon concerns tKat ePerJed froP tKe responses to tKe 0aster 3lan surYey and ensure that the resulting information is well communicated. Program 4.B.i. Work with relevant departments to develop ways to avoid root damage to sidewalks beyond just matching growth charac-teristics to the conditions of the planting site. Explore root barriers and special design solutions such as meandering sidewalks around trees, suspending sidewalks above tree roots, and replacing concrete sidewalks with sidewalks made of recycled rubber or other material. Program 4.B.ii. Work with relevant departments to develop ways to prevent conflicts between tree roots and underground infrastructure such as requirements that limit the location of underground utilities to a corridor—preferably coincident with driveway. Program 4.B.iii. Work with relevant departments to develop ways to avoid disfigurement of trees from power line clearing such as run- ning the power lines through protective conduits that don’t require as much clearance. Program 4.B.iv. Work with relevant departments to develop funding goals and strategies to obtain desired tree pruning cycle. Page 7 of 16 Draft Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 *oal  An eႇectiYe and eႈcient 8rban )orestry 'iYision 3olicy A (nsure tKat tKe City Kas adeTuate baseline inforPation²so cKanJes in tKe urban forest and ecoloJical benefits can be monitored. Program 5.A.i. Follow up the 2010 canopy cover assessment done by UC Davis that established the baseline for this master plan—with a similar assessment in approximately 2020. Present a comparison of the two assessments to the City Council. Ensure that the follow-up canopy cover assessment consid- ers the open spaces as well as the urban forest. Note: This type of survey will provide canopy density of the entire urban forest—both public and private trees and is generally accepted as the best method for comparisons be-tween municipalities, assessing canopy equity, and monitor-ing change from development impacts etc. Program 5.A.ii. Follow up the 2010 inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis done by Davey Resources with either: •A similar comprehensive inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis in approximately 2020. •OR a series of seven partial inventories done—annually—on one-seventh of the entire street tree population. •Ensure that follow-up analyses consider open spaces as well. •Ensure that any economic analysis of tree value consider the costs inherent in invasive trees. Note: This type of survey will provide multi-faceted and detailed data about each city-owned tree and is essential to the City’s asset management requirements. Program 5.A.iii. Conduct an i-Tree eco analysis (or similar) to establish a city wide benchmark that spans the entire population of both public and private trees and then to monitor change in the future. Metrics should be compared to changes in order to craft policies, provide incentives, and adapt partnerships. Note: This type of survey will provide multi-faceted infor- mation such as health and composition of the entire urban forest—both public and private trees. Program 5.A.iv. Conduct an i-Tree wildlife (or similar) assessment of the existing habitat and biodiversity—to establish a baseline and help identify and prioritize needs. Note: The software used for this type of analysis is relative- ly new. This type of survey will provide information about the potential for both public and private trees to provide habitat or to damage habitat (e.g., species that can be in- vasive) and will help the City incorporate ecological needs into the decision making process for many issues. Policy 5.B. Strive for best possible tools—such as technology, information about the trees, procedural documentation, knowledgeable staႇ and fiscal resources²to support tKe 8rban )orest 0aster Plan vision, goals, policies and programs. Program 5.B.i. Conduct electronic tree surveys to enable analysis of devel- opment impact. Program 5.B.ii. Develop database management tools to assist with monitor-ing, documentation, and evaluation of tree restoration work. Program 5.B.iii. Develop open portals for data entry–as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and to improve data currency and accuracy: • Electronic submittals of tree surveys might allow moreaccurate queries and reports to quantify the influence ofdevelopment. •Open source mapping might allow input by anyone agree- ing to comply with standards and complete training. •Open portals might accommodate reports of maintenanceneeds from community members. Note: Any such tools should be compatible with the mobile reporting application that is currently being developed for the city to both report and monitor service requests. Program 5.B.iv. Update the City’s GIS and Tree Keeper database informa-tion about trees within the 32 parks, Municipal Golf Course, Page 8 of 16 Draft City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 utility easePents city facilities and cityoZned property sucK as fire stations²to ensure coPpleteness and accuracy 3roJraP %Y ,nteJrate tKe inforPation in 7ree.eeper ZitK tKe city¶s *,6 to enable reYieZ of tKe relationsKip betZeen trees and otKer releYant JeoJrapKic inforPation sucK as parcel lines land uses ]oninJ soil types ZatersKeds creeNs paYePent Ka]ard areas and utility infrastructure 3roJraP %Yi 8se tKe City¶s *,6 systeP to KiJKliJKt natiYe trees especial- ly oaN species and create a layer tKat identifies connectiYity and spatial distribution of oaNs and riparian tree species 3roJraP %Yii 'eYelop or obtain a Pore uptodate and accurate soils Pap and add it into tKe *,6 3roJraP %Yiii 'eYelop a Pap sKoZinJ tKe deptK of aYailable Zater ZitKin the urban forest. 3roJraP %i[ 8pdate tKe Tree Technical Manual. 7Ke update sKould be coordinated ZitK tKe Landscape Technical Manual as well as the Sustainability Plan—and sKould ‡,nclude neZ and innoYatiYe Zays to add trees in di൶cult circumstances. ‡5eYieZ and e[pand tKe reTuirePents and options for PitiJatinJ tKe rePoYal of e[istinJ trees for deYelopPent proMects and consideration of alternatives to removal For initially but have a long term life cycle may be worth more as a mitigation measure than a transplanted tree–which often suffer from diminished survival potential. ‡,nclude inforPation specifications and standard details for ePployinJ structural Jrids to proYide an adeTuate Yol- uPe of Tuality soil to JroZ trees to desired Pature si]e ‡(stablisK soil YoluPe reTuirePents in a Panner siPilar to tKose described in tKe city of 5aleiJK¶s /andscape 0anual ‡:orN ZitK 3ublic :orNs sideZalN Paintenance to con- sider contract lanJuaJe to iPplePent rootinJ cKannels for confined e[istinJ or neZ trees to acKieYe lonJer life and tree benefits ‡(stablisK reTuirePents for proYidinJ independent spaces for trees and turf so tKat Zater can be applied appropri- ately and e൶ciently and nearby plantinJs Zill support optiPal perforPances eJ only forest species sKould be planted near trees ZKere as turf areas Pay support orna- Pental landscape plants or riparian Kabitat trees and sKrubs ‡3roKibit tKe plantinJ of neZ turf in public riJKtsofZay Pedians planter strips and otKer roadZay adMacent areas of landscapinJ Note: In addition to the above listed enhancements, the Tree Technical Manual will be the repository for many of the prod-ucts called for by programs in this master plan such as: crite-ria for a viable street tree planting site. As a result, the role of the Tree Technical Manual will be significantly expanded. 3roJraP %[ ,ncorporate storPZater treatPent and bioretention best management practices into the Tree & Landscape Technical Manual, 6tandard Conditions of ApproYal and 6tandard 'etails and cityZide Sustainability Plan Include best practices and otKer reTuirePents froP botK 0unicipal and 5eJional 3erPits and ePpKasi]e tKe adYantaJes or disad- YantaJes of ‡ 3lantinJ trees sKrubs and Jround coYer to proYide an understory and a Pore coPple[ Kabitat for birds in priYate and public landscapinJ ‡ 3lantinJ less drouJKt resistant species eJ natiYe ripar- ian species tKat proYide Kabitat  ZKere tKere is a natu- ral water sources such as a creek or higher water table leYel²to Kelp proYide diYersity ‡3lantinJ larJer broadleaf trees ZKere tKere are no oYer- Kead Zires²to Kelp proYide ecoloJical benefits ‡ 3lantinJ introduced cliPate adaptiYe trees in areas tKat are ideal for bioretention of storPZater ‡5ain Jardens and use of condensation Zater froP aircon-ditioninJ units to proYide Zater for ³tKirsty´ Kabitat trees sucK as ZilloZs sycaPores and cottonZoods Page 9 of 16 Draft example, roof top plantings-which are expensive Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 3roJraP %[i CoPplete tKe update of tKe Street Tree Management Plan. ,nclude inforPationcriteria procedures and strateJies reJardinJ ‡ 6electinJ street tree species ‡3roYidinJ for aJe diYersity ‡ (nsurinJ tKat plantinJ parallels tree rePoYal to aYoid canopy and benefit loss ‡<ounJ tree care ‡3reYentinJ loss of Yiable street tree sites ‡2ptiPi]inJ opportunities for addinJ trees for neZ priYate deYelopPent and Capital ,PproYePent proMects ‡Canopy disparity betZeen nortK and soutK 3alo Alto ‡6tandards used for line clearinJ and criteria for selectinJ contractors. ‡6ideZalN repair ‡5ecycled Zater and proJress relatiYe to tKe 6alinity 5e- duction 3olicy for 5ecycled :ater ‡%enefits to local birds butterÀies bees and otKer pollinators ‡5eJeneration of spatially connected natiYe Zoodland ecosystem. ‡6Kade for pedestrians 3roJraP %[ii :orN ZitK releYant departPents to iPproYe tKe Zay Paintenance ZorN done by field creZs is docuPented and uploaded into 7ree.eeper and/or tKe City¶s *,6 Improve- Pents sKould e[plore 6Part 3Kone capabilities as well as the ability for the public to both access information about tree Paintenance and contribute inforPation about potential Paintenance needs 3roJraP %[iii Consider transferrinJ Paintenance responsibilities from CoPPunity 6erYices 3arNs 'iYision to 3ublic :orNs 8rban )orestry 'iYision for ‡All trees on tKe Jolf course ‡7rees in deYeloped areas of 2pen 6pace alonJ parN roads and around structures/parN facilities 3roJraP %[iY 1urture e[istinJ Yolunteer support Jroups and ZorN ZitK nonprofit orJani]ations to reacK out to businesses and corporate sponsors for forestrestoration proMects 3roJraP %[Y :orN ZitK releYant departPents to e[plore a collaboration betZeen releYant local fire protection districts and CA/ ),5( reJardinJ an educational caPpaiJn to inforP KoPe- oZners about selectinJ species and pruninJ trees to acKieYe ³defensible spaces´ as part of YeJetation PanaJePent in appropriate areas of the city. Incorporate into Sustainability Plan as well as the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. 3roJraP %[Yi 3roYide opportunities for traininJ 8rban )orest sta൵ and parN ranJers tKat include ‡Certification as arborist ‡ Certification in pesticide application ‡ (ducation in ,nteJrated 3est 0anaJePent ‡ (ducation in %est 0anaJePent 3ractices for PanaJePent of invasive plants. ‡ (ducation in ecoloJy and natiYe plant PanaJePent ‡ 3roficiency in releYant softZare proJraPs ‡ 7ree 5isN 0anaJePent 3rotocols 5eYieZ sKould include e[ploration of conferences inKouse traininJ online traininJ etc 3roJraP %[Yii 'eYelop a fle[ible staffinJ Podel tKat ensures staffinJ coP- Pensurate to ZorN load increases and decreases Manpow- er shortages cause delays in project review.) 3roJraP %[viii :orN ZitK releYant departPents to update deYelopPent reYieZ fees²to accoPPodate intensification of tKe reYieZ process to ensure tKat all ecoloJical and enYironPental concerns are met. 3roJraP %[i[ (Yaluate tKe cost resources needed Work with relevant departPents to establish written risk management protocol and traininJ for scKeduled inspections Page 10 of 16 Draft City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 3roJraP 6Aii :orN ZitK releYant departPents to auJPent proMectreYieZ standard conditions of approYal ZitK ‡5eTuirePents for no net canopy loss per proMect site ‡6oil YoluPe reTuirePents for trees per species Jroup ‡+abitat connectiYity and reJeneration of an natiYe Zood- land ecosysteP on a landscape scale 3roJraP 6Aiii (nsure tKat (in addition to building standards) 3alo Alto¶s standards for landscape installations and renoYations con- sider appropriate species selection and placePent of trees² especially relatiYe to e[istinJ trees and Kabitat Yalue 3roJraP 6AiY :orN ZitK releYant departPents, Canopy and related organi- zations to analy]e tKe iPpact of basePent construction²and dewaterinJ by Zells and basePent suPp puPps²on tree KealtK and tKe urban forest )ocus sKall include but not be liPited to ‡ 6oil YoluPe ‡ :ater table ‡ 5oot iPpact on tKe deYelopPent and/or adMacent sites Policy 6.B. Review of both private and public projects will: • Occur early in the design phase. • Be coordinated with the reviews of other departments. • Seek ways to add trees, canopy, and habitat benefits. • Promote solutions that promote regional ecosystems and natural functions including watersheds and wildlife connectivity. • Promote regionally native and introduced climate adaptive plants and discourage the use of invasive species. • Promote green space systems within/among communities. • Promote bicycle and public transportation nodes and routes. • Promote shade to encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility. •Consider absorption of carbon dioxide and air pollutants. •Evaluate impacts to ecosystems and natural functions. •Evaluate impacts to watersheds and wildlife corridors. •Evaluate impacts to stormwater systems. •Evaluate impacts to existing impervious surfaces. •Evaluate impacts to groundwater. •Evaluate impacts to soil volume and quality. •Evaluate impacts to bird especially re: nesting seasons. Goal 6. An Urban Forest that enhances the built environ-ment and connects it to the natural environment. Policy 6.A. Updates to Palo Alto’s Zoning Regulations, Green Building Standards, Standard Conditions of Approval, Standard Details, Green Infrastructure Practices, and stormwater permitting procedures shall consider the following as key factors: •Conservation of existing trees and replacement of undesirable species when appropriate. •Appropriate native and introduced climate adaptive species and placement for new trees. •Respect for regional ecosystems and natural functions. •Respect for watersheds and wildlife corridors. •Habitat overlay zones. •Green space systems within and among communities. •Absorption of carbon dioxide and air pollutants. •Responsible storm water management. •Responsible ground water management. •Responsible soil conservation. •Vibrancy of the community. •Quantification of ecological benefits based on peer-reviewed models such as the analytical software, iTree. 3roJraP 6Ai :orN ZitK releYant departPents diYisions Canopy, and related organizations to reYieZ uptodate sources for neZ Peasures and possible Podifications to 3alo Alto¶s =oninJ 5eJulations %uildinJ 6tandards *reen %uildinJ 6tandards 6tandard Conditions of ApproYal 6tandard 'etails *reen ,nfrastructure 3ractices storP Zater perPittinJ procedures and otKer releYant docuPents²to ensure currency ZitK enYironPental laZs best practices and innoYatiYe solutions and to enable tKe policies and Joals of tKis plan 5eYieZ to include but not be liPited to tKese resources ‡8pdated *reen %uildinJ 6tandards ‡6ustainable 6ites ,nitiatiYe ‡ APerican 3lanninJ Association recoPPendations for land use obMectiYes and actions ‡%est 3ractices for responsible storPZater PanaJePent ‡ %est 3ractices for soil conserYation ‡ /andscape 5esilience )raPeZorN and 9ision for a resilient 6ilicon 9alley /andscape 6an )rancisco (stuary ,nstitute Page 11 of 16 Draft Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 Program 6.B.i. :orN ZitK releYant departPents and diYisions to ensure tKat tKe 8rban )orestry 'iYision is included in tKe early pKases of desiJn and reYieZ of priYate proMects )or discretionary reYieZed proMects ZorN ZitK tKe 3lanninJ 'epartPent to ensure tKat in eacK enYironPental assessPent prepared it Zill include trees in tKe aestKetic resources section desiJ- nated landscape and public trees and bioloJical resource section protected trees as applicable in tKe early reYieZ phase. 3roJraP 6%ii :orN ZitK tKe releYant departPents and diYisions to ensure tKat tKe 8rban )orestry 'iYision is included in tKe early pKases of budJetinJ for sta൵ resources as Zell as tKe early pKases of desiJn for Capital ,PproYePent 3roMects 3roJraP 6%iii 3roYide education to 8rban )orestry sta൵ about innoYatiYe Zays to add trees to deYelopPent proMects and in liPitinJ situations. 3roJraP 6%iY 3roYide education to all releYant sta൵ about tKe ³3referred and 5estricted 6pecies /ist´ 3roJraP 6%Y 3roYide education to cityZide deYelopPent reYieZ sta൵ about City Sustainability Plan priorities and need for sta൵ reports to include inforPation about tKe role of trees in PoderatinJ potential neJatiYe iPpacts to tKe enYironPent or add beneficial serYices related to ‡Canopy ‡%irds and pollinators ‡:atersKed KealtK ‡6torP Zater systePs ‡*round Zater stability ‡7Ke need for adeTuate soil YoluPe and/or Tuality ‡6oil stability on Killsides ‡7Ke Yalue of trees ZitK reJard to aestKetics and priYacy concerns. 3roJraP 6%Yi (ducate cityZide deYelopPent reYieZ sta൵ about City priorities and need for sta൵ reports to include inforPation about potential opportunities to enKance ‡7Ke Yibrancy of tKe coPPunity includinJ econoPy and ePployPent opportunities eJ teen career opportunities traininJ and local food production ‡ +uPan KealtK benefits ²botK pKysical and psycKosocial KealtK²of Jreen spaces ZitKin and aPonJ coPPunities ‡ %icycle and publictransportation nodes and routes 3roJraP 6%Yii 3roYide education to cityZide deYelopPent reYieZ sta൵ to ensure tKat tree Paintenance practices continue to consider bird nestinJ seasons 3roJraP 6%Yiii :orN ZitK Canopy and otKer staNeKolders to educate tKe deYelopPent coPPunity about tKe need to discuss trees durinJ tKe early staJe of a proMect¶s desiJn 3roJraP 6%i[ :orN ZitK 6anta Clara 9alley Audubon 6ociety and otKer orJani]ations to educate tKe deYelopPent coPPunity about PiniPi]inJ proMect e൵ects on local Zildlife Policy 6.C. Strive for no net loss /increase in canopy cover. Program 6.C.i. Continue to enforce tKe City¶s 7ree 3rotection 2rdinance but also reYieZ it to ensure tKat it reÀects state Zater ef- ficiency standards as Zell as tKis Paster plan¶s Joals for reJeneration of natiYe Zoodland landscape 3roJraP 6Cii (Yaluate needs and benefits of a possible reTuirePent tKat diJital inforPation about protected trees be subPitted to tKe City as a condition of approYal for perPit applications 3roJraP 6Ciii :orN ZitK releYant departPents to deYelop canopy tKresK- olds²possibly based on ]oninJ and land use Joals of tKe Comprehensive Plan Consider appropriateness to tKe ecotype eJ %aylands canopy sKould be PucK less tKan riparian corridors Note: This program does not intend to concentrate plant- ings in open space grasslands and, thereby, reduce plant- ings in developed areas. Thresholds suggested by orga- nizations such as American Forests may be helpful as guidelines. However, where such suggestions are less than existing density, they should not imply a need or desire to reduce density. Page 12 of 16 Draft City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 3olicy 6' 6triYe for canopy eTuity²prioriti]inJ areas in ZKicK tKe 8C Davis report indicated a decrease between 1982 and 2010. Program 6.D.i. Investigate reasons for less canopy in south Palo Alto. This should include evaluation of: •Development review procedures. •Maintenance activities and contracts •Property-owner objections to street trees. •Prohibitive physical conditions such as soil type, absence of planting strip, etc. Program 6.D.ii. Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto e.g., •Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as Acterra, the California Native Plant Society, and the Audubon Society on an outreach program to ensure residents, property owners, and business owners understand how their decisions affect the canopy and encourage them to plant trees. •Create incentives for home and business owners. •Add new planting sites for street trees where possible—and focus on planting native species. • Incorporate the use of interactive open source mapping. Program 6.D.iii. Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increas- ing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced cli-mate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. Program 6.D.iv. Ensure adequate budget to accomplish the strategies—in- cluding incentives—for preserving and increasing the canopy in South Palo Alto. 3olicy 6(  5ecoJni]e (l CaPino 5eal¶s iPportance as tKe preePinent linN between Palo Alto and adjoining communities. Program 6.E.i. Utilize the following resources when reviewing projects on El Camino Real: •El Camino Real Master Planning Guidelines and Appen- dices. Incorporate into sidewalk maintenance replacement contracts and Landscape Technical Manual, the remedial specification BMP’s for existing trees (Appendix 5) and design guidelines for new trees.(Section 5.4) •Appropriate scenic design plans •Appropriate plans of nearby jurisdictions and agencies •Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution PreventionProgram Program 6.E.ii. Coordinate with nearby jurisdictions and agencies regarding trees within the El Camino Real Corridor e.g., • Management of existing trees.• Development impacts and opportunities.• Projected future needs.• Grand Boulevard Project. Note: These guidelines for reviewing projects within the El Camino Real Corridor should be reflected in the Tree Technical Manual. Policy 6.F. Private and public landscape and irrigation plans that include both trees and turf will be reviewed to ensure that each is pro- Yided enouJK independent space to ensure tKat tKeir diႇerinJ Paintenance needs can be Pet eႈciently eJ so tKat ‡ :ater can be applied appropriately and eႈciently ‡ 1earby plantinJs Zill support optiPal perforPance eJ only forest species (e.g., understory species) should be planted near trees whereas turf areas may support ornamental landscape plants (e.g., plants requiring more frequent watering.) Program 6.F.i. Develop a Landscape Technical Manual that aggregates landscape requirements and best management practices from all relevant sections of the Municipal Code as well as the Baylands Master Plan, El Camino Real Master Plan and Appendices, Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Plan, Green Building Code, and Tree Technical Manual. Focus to include but not be limited to: Page 13 of 16 Draft Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 ‡6olutions to proPote canopy eTuity for 6outK 3alo Alto eJ plantinJ soil and ZaterinJ recoPPendations ‡6pecial concerns related to tKe deYelopPent of properties ZitKin 26 2pen 6pace and 5esidential (state =oninJ 'istricts eJ fire safe landscapes and KydroseedinJ ‡5etention of e[istinJ Pature noninYasiYe trees ‡5eJeneration of an natiYe Zoodland ecosysteP on a land- scape scale. Policy 6.G. Provide incentives to increase canopy and ecological benefits. 3roJraP 6*i :orN ZitK releYant departPents to monitor and comment on proposed changes to relevent zoning policies and reJulations to ensure that the process considers the impacts on the ability to add tree canopy and to preserve planting sites. If changes to zoning policies and regulations occur, look for opportunities to increase the canopy. 3roJraP 6*ii :orN ZitK releYant departPents to deYelop incentiYes to retain and plant trees²and ZKere appropriate trees of KiJK Kabitat Yalue and fruit trees²tKrouJK additional points Yia /((' certification  %uild ,t *reen %,* *reen 3oints %acNyard +abitat 3roJraPs and/or siPilar certification systePs sucK as tKose defined by tKe 6ustainable 6ites ,nitiatiYe tKe 1ational :ildlife )ederation and tKe 6an )rancisco (stuary ,nstitute¶s 9ision for a 5esilient 6ilicon 9alley 3roJraP 6*iii :orN ZitK releYant departPents to e[plore tKe feasibility of a tree adoption proJraP²possibly to be Podeled after proJraPs o൵ered by tKe 6acraPento 0unicipal 8tility 'istrict 608' ZKicK Kas been operatinJ successfully for 1 years Policy 6.H. Minimize the negative effect on the urban forest from develop- ment and infrastructure maintenance. 3roJraP 6+i :orN ZitK releYant departPents to reYieZ line clearinJ stan- dards and criteria for selectinJ contractors publisK on tKe Urban Forest website. 3roJraP 6+ii :orN ZitK releYant departPents to analy]e and resolYe con- Àicts reJardinJ tKe space reTuired betZeen utilities under- Jround eTuipPent and otKer criteria related to ZKat PaNes a planting site viable for street trees. 3roJraP 6+iii (Yaluate tKe current street tree pruninJ proJraP and tKe possible adYantaJes of a Pore freTuent pruninJ cycle (n- sure tKat pruninJ continues to consider bird nestinJ seasons 3roJraP 6+iY :orN ZitK releYant departPents to create criteria for Pini-PuP tree plantinJs as deYelopPent reTuirePents 3roJraP 6+Y :orN ZitK releYant departPents to reYieZ and update current fines and incentiYes as related to tree Palpractice and Yan- dalisP 3roJraP 6+Yi :orN ZitK releYant departPents to aPend fee scKedule to include deYelopPent fees to enable appropriate participa- tion in proMect reYieZ buildinJ and otKer perPit issuance reJulatory coPpliance and auditinJ Policy 6.I. Approved development plans shall not be modified in any way that may affect street trees or approved landscape plans without review of those modifications by the Urban Forestry Division. 3roJraP 6,i :orN ZitK releYant departPents to reeYaluate and adMust de- YelopPent reYieZ fees to accoPPodate ZorN load increases and sta൶nJ iPpacts if necessary in order to address ‡)ailure to include tree protection reYieZ in tKe perPittinJ process.‡)ailure to coPply ZitK tree protection reTuirePents‡8napproYed Podifications to approYed plans²Pade intKe field Page 14 of 16 Draft City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 Policy 6.J. Strive for optimal conditions in the natural areas of the city preserves and open spaces. 1ote tKe needs of preserYes and open spaces Pay di௺er froP tKose of tKe urban forest and 5esource 0anaJePent 3lans²specific to tKose enYironPents²are needed Program 6.J.i.. Ensure that the follow up citywide canopy cover analy- sis (Program 5.A.i.) is sufficient to establish a baseline of canopy cover in the city’s preserves and open spaces. Note: Natural habitats are complex and it is important to keep both habitat diversity and specific species interactions in mind when dealing with natural areas. Therefore, al- though the percentage of canopy cover in the natural areas is worth monitoring, it may not have the same relevance—in terms of optimal conditions—as it does in the urban forest. Program 6.J.ii. Establish a baseline for relevant information to be moni- tored—in addition to canopy cover—such as native versus non-native species populations. A statistically valid sample should be collected to analyze current conditions. Sampling methodology should enable long term monitoring, direct management decisions, and analyze the effectiveness of current practices. A permanent plot system would be an option. Experimentation in conjunction with analysis of natural regeneration practices, simulated disturbance regimes, and predation relationships should be employed. Note: This is not redundant with programs 5.A.iii. the analysis of 5.A.iii. will inform this task. Program 6.J.iii. Work with relevant departments to develop a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in the open spaces that includes: •Tree inspections. •Tree removal and replacements. •Forest restoration. •Training for rangers. •Technology for tracking maintenance tasks. •Retention of dead trees and snags. •Protection of native volunteer saplings. •Survey of invasive tree species. •Mapping of soil types and depth to water table to informselection of ideal locations for a variety of tree species. •A plan to increase native canopy and decrease the popula- tion of invasive tree species—and monitor results. Program 6.J.iv. Work with relevant departments to develop a Comprehen- sive Conservation Plan that includes and/or considers: • Up-to-date information regarding Sudden Oak Death Dis- ease and other pathogens that impact the local ecosystem. • Maintaining healthy ecosystems by reducing the impacton trees by the implementation of fire management plans. • Best Management Practices for forest restoration. • A well-defined plan for tree replacement within the parks and open spaces. • Detailed map of locations of sensitive species. • Consideration of snags and dead trees. • Protection of native volunteer tree saplings. • Consideration for removal of invasive trees and replace- ment with native trees. • Trail placement that avoids impacts to native trees and sensitive understory species. Program 6.J.v. Work with relevant departments to update existing park plans and/or develop new plans to ensure that tree issues are ad- dressed. Program 6..J.vi. Coordinate between departments and outside partners re: •Appropriate mixes of trees, shrubs, and grasses •Natural cycles of disturbance such as fire •Response to use and impacts. •Appreciation by the community. Program 6.J.vii. Ensure that the “Restricted Species List” includes consid- eration of species appropriate for the golf course, parks, preserves, and open spaces e.g., •Importance of native species in natural areas. Page 15 of 16 Draft Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan2nd Edition + final edits directed by Council in April 2016 ‡,Pportance of aYoidinJ inYasiYe species ‡,Pportance of fruit trees ‡ 1eed for eYerJreen canopy to support ZatersKed protec- tion and Zildlife Kabitat ‡1eed for sKrub and understory species for increased and Pultilayered canopy and Kabitat ‡0aintenance iPpacts of root daPaJe to trails ‡0aintenance iPpact of litter on playinJ fields 3roJraP 6-Yiii :orN ZitK Canopy to educate tKe coPPunity reJardinJ tKe necessity of tree rePoYals² and ZKere safe snaJ preserYa- tion²in tKe parNs and open spaces 3roJraP 6-i[ :orN ZitK releYant departPents to ensure consideration of tree preserYation and tree replacePent for capital iPproYe- Pent proMects ZitKin city parNs and open spaces Page 16 of 16 Draft Implementation PlanPalo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan In May of 2015, the City Council adopted the Urban Forest Master Plan—and directed staff to develop a 2nd Edition of the “Goals, Policies, and Programs. In April of 2016, the City Council adopted the 2nd Edition “Goals, Policies, and Programs”--and directed staff to make minor modification The following timeline, implementation plan, and annual budget needs apply to the 2nd Edition programs (adopted in April 2016) as well as the modifications directed by the City Council at that time. Timing and amounts are approximate. Some programs will require collaboration between departments and/or changes to the Municipal Code. Some programs support the main focus by means of technology, administration, partner-ships, and monitoring. For readability, the program are abbreviated; for complete language, see “Goals, Poli- cies,& Programs” section. 2nd Edition Attachment B At t a c h m e n t B 2nd Edition as of 9/20/18 page 1 of 26 Blank Page SDJH  RI  3456789101112 2017 ‐ 2018 2018 ‐ 2019 2019 ‐ 2020 2020 ‐ 2021 2021 ‐ 2022 2022 ‐ 2023 2023 ‐ 2024 2024 ‐ 2025  2025 ‐ 2026 2026 ‐ 2027 1. South PA 1. South PA 1. South PA 1. South PA 1. South PA 1. South PA 1. South PA 1. South PA 1. South PA 1. South PA 2. Pruning cycle 8. Oversight 13. ECR  No budget $150,000 $310,000 $460,000 $195,000 $290,000 $508,000 $140,000 $60,000 $110,000 $2,223,000 Implementation Timeline & Annual Budget Needs for the Remaining Years of the 2nd Edition of the Urban Forest Master Plan  The   d o m ina n t   p r o g ra m s  i n   Y e a r   1 1   a r e   t h e   C om pr e h e n s i v e   C on s e r v a ti o n   P l a n   a n d   up d a t i n g  o f   t h e   i n d i v i d u a l   p a r k   p l a n s   a l t h o u g h   t h e   s t a t u s   o f   t h is   p r o g ra m s  a n d   p r e c i s e   ne e d s   a r e   n o t   p r e d i c t a b l e   a s   t h i s  p r o j e c t   i s   l e d   b y   t h e   C om m u n it y   S e r v i c e s   D e p a r t m e n t   an d   a l r e a d y   i n   p r o g re s s .  Y e a r   1 1 al s o   c o n t a i n s   p r o g ra m s  f o r   e x p an d i n g  t h e   G I S   d a t a b a s e . Th e  p r o g ra m s  o f   Y ear   1 2 a r e   e x c i tin g  a n d   a i m   t o w a r d s   n e w   l e v e l s  o f   o p e r a t i o n ;   ho w e v e r ,   t h e y   a r e   s c h e d u l e d   a t   t h e   e n d   o f   t h e   I m ple m e nt a t i o n   P la n   s o   a s   n o t   t o   co m p et e   w i t h   m o r e   f u n d a m ent a l   n e e d s . 9. Oakwell survey 10. Recycled water  3. Revise Title 8 4. Funding  5. Technical Manual 6. Website/open portals Ye ar   3   i s   s o m ewh a t   d e f i n e d   b y   i t s  l a c k   o f   f u n d i n g .   H ow e v e r ,  s o m e  p r o g ra m s  w i l l   p r o g r e s s   b y   m e a n s   o f   sh i f t i n g  f u n d s   w i t h i n   t h e   U F   b u d g et   i n c l u d i n g   p r o g ra m s r e l a t e d   to   c a n o p y   d i s p a r i t y   i n   S o u t h   P a l o   A lto .   Co m p l e t i o n ,  ho w e v e r ,  w i l l   r e q u i r e   a d d i t i o n a l   f u n d s   s o   i t   i s   s c h ed u l e d   a n d   b u d g e t e d     i n   Y ear   4 . Ye ar   4   w i l l   f o c u s   o n   c o m pl e t i n g  i n ‐ pr o g r es s   p r o g ra m s  t h a t   w ere   in t e r u p t e d   b y  l a c k   o f   f u n d i n g   i n   Y ear   3 . 11. Utility conflicts 12. 2nd canopy assessment 14. Zoning analysis/Muni Code update 15. Street tree protocols Ye ar   9   p r o g ra m s  f o c u s   o n   e c o l o g ica l   a n d   w i l d l i f e   c o n c e r n s   wh i c h   a r e   s e c o n d a r y   o n l y   t o  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   c o n f l i c t s ,   de v e l o p m en t   i m pa c t s ,  a n d   w a t e r   c o n c e r n s ‐ ‐ add r e s s e d   i n   ea r l i e r   y e a r s   o f   t h i s   i m pl e m en t a t i o n   p l a n . Ye ar s   8   & 10  t a c k l e   t h e   l o g i s t i c s   o f   i n c o r p o r a t i n g   t h e   kn o w l e d g e  g ain e d   f r o m   MP  e f f o r t s   i n t o   t h e   d a i l y   a c t i v i t i e s   o f   th e   c i t y   a n d   c o m mun i t y .   Y ear   1 0   f o c u s e s   o n   e d u c a t i o n   &   do c u m e nt   u p d a t e s . Pr o g r a m s  i n   Y rs  6   & 7 go  f u r t h e r   t h a n   e v e r   b e f o r e   t o   ex h a u s t i v e l y   s e a r c h   f o r   w ays   t o   i m p r o v e   p r o c e d u r e s   &   min i m i ze   n e g a t i v e   i m p a c t s   t o   t h e   u r b a n   f o r e s t .   Yr  6   f o c u s e s   o n   p r o g ra m s  t h a t  m ust   b e   c o o r d i n a t e d   w i t h   th e   U til i t i e s   D e p t .   & O f f i c e   o f   S us t a i n a b i i t y .  N o t e :   t h e 1 0‐ ye a r    f oll o w  u p   t o t he  c an o p y  an a l y s i s  o f 2 0 1 0   i s a l so   bu d g et d   f o r   Y ear   6 . Ye ar   7     f o c u s e s   o n   z o n i n g   r eg ul a t i o n s   w h i c h   m u s t   b e   co o r d i n a t e d   w i t h   t h e   P la n n i n g  D i v i s i o n   a n d   De v e l o p m en t   C ent e r .   7. Preferred/restricted species Ye ar   5   w i l l   f o c u s   o n   c o m mun i t y   r el a t i o n s h i p s   i n c l ud i n g  t h e   O a k w el l   S u r v e y   w h i c h   w a s   pr o m ot e d   b y   l o c a l   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   gr ou p s   d u r i n g   t h e   M a s t e r   P l a n   p ro c e s s . Ye ar s   8   &   1 0   t a c k l e   t h e   l o g i s t i c s   o f   in c o r p o r a t i n g  t h e   k n o w le d g e  g ain e d   f r o m MP  e f f o r t s   i n t o   t h e   d a i l y   a c t i v i t i e s   o f   t h e   cit y   a n d   c o m mun i t y .   Y ear   8   f o c u s e s   o n   te c h n o l o g y  a n d   m on i t o r i n g  p r o g ra m s.   16. Monitoring enhancements (technological) 17.Street tree  inventory update (iTree?) 18.Invasive species mgmt. 19. Ecological protocols 20. Inhouse catch‐up 21. Conservation & Park Plans 10‐year total 22. Soil/water GIS layers 23. Street tree mgmt plan 24. Carbon credit & CalFIRE 25. City Nursery, wood recycling,  Tree Give Away, etc. SMJH  RI                Blank Page       SDJH  RI  'UDIP Costs 1 2 3 4 Yrs 1‐2 NA NA NA NA NA NA COMPLETED as 3.A.iv.: Stanford tree tour piloted in October of 2015. Stanford pruning workshop held in July 2016.4. A . i v . Continue pruning workshops and tree tours and consider additional ways for community and staff to interact. Completed Years 1 & 2           July 1, 2015 thru June 30, 2017    In years 1 & 2 the South Palo Alto analysis was completed enabling work towards increasing that area of canopy to begin in year 3. The online tree library was  also completed providing a helpful tool for species selection. The UF staff began several inhouse interdepartmental dialogs pertaining to organization and  procedure‐‐which will be continued as other programs are implemented. Staff collaborated with local environmental groups and produced the 2nd Edition of  the UFMP in which programs have been added or enhanced to A) require more rigorous attention to ecological concerns during development review and B)  collect and monitor more data about ecological conditions.   Overview of Program or Program Group Individual Programs COMPLETED as 1.A.i.: Tree library is now available via UF & Canopy websites.1. A . i . Work with Canopy to complete the online “Tree Library" to achieve a helpful tool for staff and property owners. Completed programs continuted on next page COMPLETED as 3.Ai., 3.A.vii., & 4.i.xiii. UF Division collaborated with Canopy, California Native Plant Society, Acterra, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to incorporate additional ecologically oriented paramaters and requirements into the programs for this 2nd Edition. UF Division collaborated w/stakeholders to revise outreach/notification procedures for utility pruning--and w/ local realtors about distributing FAQ list. Stewardship Agreement with Acterra enhanced to protect native seedlings within Arastradero Preserve. 4. A . i . Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to conduct at least 4 community outreach meetings to educate and get feedback: Introduce the website as a resource, Discuss “Hot Topics” from Master Plan survey, Discuss interactive open-source mapping. 4. A . v i i . Work with Canopy the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop the content for outreach possibilities such as city mailings, e-mail blasts, door hangers, bill inserts, social media, press releases, and newspaper columns. 5. B . x i v . Nurture existing volunteer support groups and work with non-profit organizations to reach out to businesses and corporate sponsors for forest-restoration projects. NA City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  6. D . i . Investigate reasons for less canopy in south Palo Alto…NA NA NA COMPLETED as 1.D.i.: Findings presented to CC in 2017. SMJH D RI  5 6 NA NA Completed Programs (Yrs 1 & 2) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5. B . x i i i . Consider transferring maintenance responsibilities from Community Services Parks Division to Public Works Urban Forestry Division for: • All trees on the golf course. • Trees in developed areas of Open Space (along park roads and around structures/park facilities) COMPLETED as 3.A.iv.: Stanford tree tour (by Canopy) piloted in October of 2015. Stanford pruning workshop held in July 2016.4. A . i v . Continue pruning workshops and tree tours and consider additional ways for community and staff to interact. 3. B . i . Formalize the Urban Forester’s role relative to: • Citywide Sustainability Plan; • Development of citywide policy; • Inter-departmental collaboration; • Technical advice. 4. B . i . Explore ways to avoid root damage to sidewalks… explore root barriers and solutions such as meandering sidewalks around trees, suspending sidewalks above tree roots, and replacing concrete sidewalks with recycled rubber sidewalks. 5. B. x v i i . Develop a flexible staffing model that ensures staffing commensurate to work load increases and decreases. 6. J . i x . Ensure consideration of tree preservation and tree replacement for capital improvement projects within city parks and open spaces. 6. B . i . Ensure that the UF Division is included in the early phases of design and review of private projects. For discretionary review projects, work with Planning to ensure that each environmental assessment... will include trees in the aesthetic resources section... and biological resource section... as applicable in the early review phase. 6. B . v i i i . COMPLETED as 2.B.i,. 4.B.ii., 4.K.ii., 4.K.iii., 4.I.xii., 4.I.xi., 3.B.i., The new Urban Forester has begun discussions to identify and mitigate the potential conflicts between the multiple departments and disciplines of the city's functions. So far.... UF Division’s role at the DRC meetings formalized / counter technicians trained to provide back up for UF staff. Power Point presentation developed for both staff & developers (at DC.) Initiated contract for an arborist to review the IR compliance requirements regarding tree protection. The UF and Parks Divisions jointly updated language in Parks Master Plan-- also coordinating with the JPA and SCVWD regarding impacts along San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Golf Course. Parks Division staff can now log into TreeKeeper to input data / produce reports. The UF Division developed / presented possible design solutions to the Engineering Division re: future sidewalk design and maintenance tasks. NA NA Work with Canopy to educate the development community about the need to discuss trees during the early stage of a project’s design. SDJH  RI  Program Group 1 2 3 Yr 3 NA NA NANA 6. D . i i i . Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. 6. H . i i i . Evaluate the current street tree pruning program and the possible advantages of a more frequent pruning cycle. Ensure that pruning continues to consider bird nesting seasons. This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 1000 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Continued progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on specific funding. 6. D . i i . Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. The City Council identified this as a priority and although there is no funding for Year 3, it is scheduled for completion by means of shifting funds within the UF budget. Year 3 continuted on next page NANA This program is ongoing and even though there is no funding in Year 3, progress will continue by means of shifting funds within the UF budget. The main task in Year 3 will be to revise Title 8 of the Muni Code, "Trees and Vegetation." 6. C . i . Continue to enforce the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance but also review it to ensure that it reflects state water efficiency standards as well as this Master Plan's goals for regeneration of native woodland landscape  Overview of Program or Program Group Individual Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  Year 3          July 1, 2017 thru June 30, 2018    Year 3 is somewhat defined by its lack of funding. However, some programs progressed by means of shifting funds within the UF budget.  Note: Programs related to canopy  disparity in South Palo Alto will also progress in Year 3 by means of shifting funds within the UF budget; however, completion will require additional funds so it is scheduled and  budgeted  in Year 4. Costs SMJH  RI  4 NAYear 3 total NA These funding-oriented programs reflect multiple constituencies and vantage points; however, they have been consolidated in Year 3 for discussion--with the goal of precipitating funding in Years 4-12. Discussion resulted in the conclusion that implementation of the UFMP should be an ongoing budget adjustment. Ensure adequate budget to accomplish the strategies for preserving and increasing the canopy in South Palo Alto. 6. J . i i i . Develop long range operating budget that includes: •Inspections; •Removal / replacements; • Restoration.; Training; •Technology; •Retention of dead trees and snags; •Protection of native saplings.; Survey of invasive species; •Mapping of soil and water table; •Increase native/decrease invasives—monitor results. NA NA 3. A . v i i . 3. 6. D . i v . A. v i . 6. H . v . Review and update current fines and incentives as related to tree malpractice and vandalism. Work with relevant departments to update development fees--to accommodate intensification of the review process to ensure that all ecological and environmental concerns are met. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to reevaluate costs and fees related to efforts to coordinate sustainability programs. Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to explore new funding sources for the Urban Forestry program. 6. H . v i . Amend fee schedule to include development fees to enable appropriate participation in project review, building and other permit issuance, regulatory compliance, and auditing. NA 5. B. x vi i i . 6. I . i . Reevaluate and adjust development review fees to accommodate work load increases and staffing impacts… Work with relevant departments to develop funding goals and strategies for desired tree pruning cycle.4. B . i v . 6. B . i i . Ensure that the Urban Forestry Division is included in the early phases of budgeting (for staff resources) as well as the early phases of design for Capital Improvement Projects. page 8 of 26 Program Group 1 5 Year 4 continuted on next page 3. B . i i . Work with the Office of Sustainability and environmental groups to develop a “Landscape Sustainability Checklist”—for development review. $0 $50,000 Review existing procedures and protocols for using mulch to suppress weeds (including state requirements) and develop site-specific criteria to ensure minimal impacts to wildlife… $50,000 $0 6. D . i i . Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs." Year 4 July 1, 2018 thru June 30, 2019 Develop a Tree & Landscape Technical Manual (T&LTM) 6. J . v i . Coordinate between departments and with partners re: • Appropriate mixes of trees, shrubs, and grasses; • Natural cycles of disturbance such as fire; • Response to use and impacts; and • Appreciation by the community. Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. Update the Tree Technical Manual This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 300 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Continues progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on specific funding.6. D . i i i . Overview of Program or Program Group Individual Programs Costs Year 4 will focus on completing in-progress programs that were interupted by lack of funding in Year 3. Updating the Tree Technical Manual is now merged with devleoping a Tree & Landscape Technical Manual-- and is in progress. Completion of the manual will encompass all the programs within this group. Note: Funding will be provided by means of shifting $55,000 from existing funds previously allocated for Years 1& 2. Yr 4 5. B . x . Incorporate stormwater treatment and bioretention BMPs into the T&LTM…. To prevent runoff of polluted water, avoid use of recycled-tire or synthetic mulch and discourage use of recycled-tire or synthetic mulch on private property To prevent runoff of polluted water, avoid use of dyed mulch and discourage use of dyed mulch on private property. 5. B . i x . 6. F . i . 3 . D . i . 3 . D . i i . 3. D . i i i . page 9 of 26 7 15 $10,000 $60,000 21 $150,000 5. B . i i i . Develop open portals for data entry as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and to improve data currency and accuracy….Ensure compatibility with mobile reporting application developed by the city. $10,000 $10,000 These programs aim to make the UF website an easy means of communication--and a useful tool. 4. A . v i . Develop a capability for community input on the Urban Forestry website. Year 4 total Update the City’s GIS and Tree Keeper database information about trees within the 32 parks, Municipal Golf Course, utility easements, city facilities, and city-owned property such as fire stations—to ensure completeness and accuracy. 5. B . v . Integrate the information in Tree-Keeper with the city’s GIS to enable review of the relationship between trees and other relevant geographic information such as parcel lines, land uses, zoning, soil types, watersheds, creeks, pavement, hazard areas, and utility infrastructure. $100,000 5. B . x i i . Improve the way maintenance work is documented/uploaded into TreeKeeper/GIS. Explore Smart Phone capabilities as well as the ability for the public to both access information about tree maintenance and contribute information about maintenance needs. $10,000 5. B . i v . page 10 of 26 Program Group 1 6 1. A . i v . Manage species diversity in such a way as to: •Emphasize regeneration of a native woodland landscape. • Avoid monocultures that create vulnerability. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs." $0 Year 5 will focus on community relationships including the Oakwell Survey which was promoted by local environmental groups during the Master Plan process. Year 5 July 1, 2019 thru June 30, 2020 Yr 5 Individual Programs Costs 6. D . i i i . Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. Overview of Program or Program Group This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 300 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Continues progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on specific funding. 6. D . i i . Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. $0 1. A . i i . Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop a “Preferred and Restricted Species List" that will be a helpful tool for staff and property owners. Year 5 continuted on next page Work with Canopy to encourage local and regional nurseries and garden centers to defer to stock the "preferred species"… $75,000 $75,000 6. J . v i i . Ensure that the “Restricted Species List” includes consideration of species appropriate for the golf course, parks, preserves, and open spaces e.g., importance of native species, avoiding invasive species, fruit trees, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, need for understory species, layerd canopy, root damage to trails, and litter on playing fields. Development of the "Preferred and Restricted Species List" will be informed by the "Tree Library" (Program 1.A.i.) and will--inturn-- inform the Tree & Landscape Technical Manual (Program 6.F.i.,) Completion will encompass the other programs in this group. Funding for this group is budgeted for Year 5; completion may take more than one year. 3. A . i . Work with the Office of Sustainability and environmental groups to ensure that the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” complements the City’s Sustainability Plan. 1. A . i i i . Develop site-specific species selection protocols to complement the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” 1. A . i i i . Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop site-specific-species-protocols to complement the "Preferred Species List"… 6. B . i v . Provide education to all relevant staff about the "Preferred and Restricted Species List." 1. B . i . page 11 of 26 8 4. A . i i i Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to establish a recurring forum that provides the community an opportunity to communicate with staff and members of the decision making bodies... 9 $310,000Year 5 total 2. A . v i i . 2. A . i i . Local environmental groups have expressed an urgent need to update the Oakwell survey done in 1997 and have contributed several programs related to that need. These programs will involve the participation of Canopy and local environmental groups. Funding is budgeted for Year 5; it may take multiple years to complete these programs. Update the Oakwell survey to: • Assess changes since 1997; • Evaluate the health/take actions to improve conditions; • Evaluate gaps and opportunities.2. A . i . 5. B . v i . 4. A . x i . 2. A . v i i i . Use the City’s GIS system to highlight native trees especially oak species, and create a layer that identifies connectivity and spatial distribution of oaks and riparian tree species. Partner with Acterra, Audubon and California Native Plant Society to develop educational materials and workshops on native woodland ecosystems, other native habitats and the benefits of native tree species in the urban landscape for both the public and urban forestry staff. These programs seek to establish a forum for interaction and explore the possibility of an oversight group simililar to existing boards and commissions. 3. A . i i i . Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to evaluate the establishment of an oversight group... to investigate and comment on the impact of projects on the urban forest and overall ecosystem—and monitor the progress of the Urban Forest Master Plan goals. $55,000 $55,000 When a property transfers, provide information on how to care for oaks Create educational materials on oak tree care and pro actively reach out to property owners, landscaping firms, real estate agents and other audiences to educate them about the importance of oaks, other native, and introduced climate adaptive trees and how to care for these trees. Incorporate the Oakwell survey data into Tree-Keeper, the City’s GIS, and an interactive open-source mapping system such as OpenTreeMap. $180,000 $30,000 $45,000 $45,000 $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 page 12 of 26 Program Group 1 10 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  Year 6            July 1, 2020 thru June 30, 2021 Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. Programs in Yrs 6 & 7 go further than ever before to exhaustively search for ways to improve procedures & minimize negative impacts to the urban forest. Yr 6 focuses on  programs that must be coordinated with the Utilities Dept. & Office of Sustainabiity. Note: the10‐year  follow up to the canopy analysis of 2010 is also budgetd for Year 6. These Year 6 programs address a variety of water concerns. Success will involve the cooperation of the Office of Sustainabiity, multiple departments, and possible changes to the Munidipal Code. * Note: Program 3.C.iv. (emergency program to provide water to trees during severe drought) aims to ensure that money is held in reserve for if and when needed. These reserves do not necessarily need to be associated with funding for the UFMP. Rather, these funds can be part of citywide emergency funds. 3. C . i i . Develop a report re: achievements towards reducing salinity of recycled water from the RWQCP since Resolution 9035. $235,000 3. C . i i i . Work with Canopy and stakeholders… to develop a list of tree species appropriate for use in areas where recycled water is or may be used for irrigation. 3. C . i . Review existing monitoring programs regarding the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation at the Municipal Golf Course and Greer Park. Modify as needed. 3. C . v i . This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 1000 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on partnership funding beyond the budget shown. 6. D . i i . $0 6. D . i i i . Emphasize the Utilities Department’s “Waste Avoidance” programs (for water) on the Urban Forestry website. 3. C . i v . Yr 6  Overview of Program or Program Group Individual Programs Costs $8,000 Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. $0 Year 6 continuted on next page $17,000 $1,000 $8,000 $1,000 $200,000 Work with relevant departments to encourage construction of rain gardens and use of condensation water from air-conditioning units, groundwater dewatering water, and hydrant flushing water to provide water for “thirsty” habitat trees… Work with relevant departments to develop an emergency program to provide water to trees during severe drought.* 3. C . v . SMJH  RI  11 12 $460,000 5. A . i . Follow up the 2010 canopy cover assessment done by UC Davis that established the baseline for this master plan—with a similar assessment in approximately 2020. Present a comparison of the two assessments to the City Council. These Year 6 programs focus on improvements that must be worked out with the help of the Utilities Department and are fundamental to sustaining Palo Alto’s legacy of beautiful tree- lined streets. * Note: Programs 6.H.ii., 4.B.ii, 6.H.i., & 4.B.iii. funded by Utilities Depart. 3. A . v . Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability and/or the Utilities Department and Canopy to create a guidance document—how to successfully incorporate solar collection and trees into site design—for those considering solar. A canopy comparison (1982 to 2010) was done to inform this MP. It clarified many questions about development impacts and identified where the urban forest most needed help. Subsequent discussions indicated a desire to repeat a similar comparison every 10 years. 6. J . i . Ensure that the follow up citywide canopy cover analysis (Program 5.A.i.) is sufficient to establish a baseline of canopy cover in the city’s preserves and open spaces. 6. J . i i . Establish a baseline for relevant information to be monitored (in addition to canopy cover). Note: This is not necessarily redundant with Program 5.A.iii.. $0 $175,000 $50,000 4. B . i i . Explore ways to prevent conflicts between tree roots and underground infrastructure such as requirements that limit the location of underground utilities to a corridor…* 6. H . i . 6. H . i i . Analyze and resolve conflicts regarding the space required between utilities underground equipment and other criteria related to what makes a planting site viable for street trees.* 3. A . i v . $175,000 Year 6 total $25,000 $25,000Work with the Utilities Department to publish tools and priorities for citing of solar collection devices. Same Review line clearing standards and criteria for selecting contractors; publish on the Urban Forest website.* 4. B . i i i . Develop ways to avoid disfigurement of trees from power line clearing such as running the power lines through protective conduits that don’t require as much clearance.* SDJH  RI  Program Group 1 13 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  Programs in Years 6 & 7 go further than ever before to exhaustively search for ways to improve procedures and minimize negative impacts to the urban forest. Year 7  focuses  on zoning regulations which must be coordinated with the Planning Division and Development Center.  This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 1000 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on partnership funding beyond the budget shown. 6. D . i i . Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. Year 7            July 1, 2021 thru June 30, 2022 Like Group 12, these programs also involve Zoning; and therefore, coordination with the Planning Division. The initial scope of these programs was completed in 2016; however, 2nd Edition augmentation will likely require furrther review and additional efforts. *Note: Most costs associated with these programs should be funded by application fees. Although some changes to the fees and fines were accomplished in Year 2, additional changes may be required. Further review of fees and fines is scheduled for Year- -Program Group 4. 6. E . i . Utilize the following resources when reviewing projects on El Camino Real (ECR): • ECR Master Planning Guidelines.; •... scenic design plans; • ... plans of nearby jurisdictions and agencies; and • County Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.* 6. E . i i . Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. Yr 7  Overview of Program or Program Group Individual Programs Costs $0 6. D . i i i . $0 $0 Coordinate with nearby jurisdictions/agencies re: trees within the ECR Corridor e.g., • Management of existing trees; • ...impacts and opportunities; and •...future needs; • Grand Boulevard Project.* Year 7 continuted on next page $0 SMJH D RI  14 $195,000 Work with relevant departments to create criteria for minimum tree plantings as development requirements. Augment project-review standard conditions w/ • Requirements for no net canopy loss per project site; • Soil volume requirements for trees per species group.; and • Habitat connectivity and regeneration of a native woodland ecosystem on a landscape scale. Ensure that (in addition to building standards) Palo Alto’s standards for landscape installations and renovations, consider appropriate species selection and placement of trees—especially relative to existing trees and habitat value. Develop incentives to retain/plant trees...of high habitat value and fruit trees—through... LEEDs , Build It Green, Green Points, & Backyard Habitat Programs, and/or similar...such as defined by Sustainable Sites Initiative, National Wildlife Federation, and San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Vision for a Resilient Silicon Valley. Develop requirements for new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family housing development projects to provide street trees (or space for future trees) and related irrigation systems. Note: The requirement for public art may be a useful model. 1. C . i v . Work with relevant departments to monitor and comment on zoning changes. Develop canopy thresholds— possibly based on zoning and land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan… 6. These Year 7 programs focus on improvements that can only be provided through zoning-and can only be accomplished with the help of the Planning Division. These programs are fundamental to sustaining Palo Alto’s legacy of an urban canopy that is above average in density. These programs will likely require changes to Title 18 of the Municipal Code, "Zoning." $195,000 G. i i . 6. C . i i i . 6 . G . i . 6. A . i v . Analyze the impact of basement construction—and dewatering by wells and basement sump pumps—on tree health and the urban forest. Focus shall include but not be limited to: • Soil volume; • Water table; • Root impact on the development and/or adjacent sites. $50,000 $100,000 6. A . i i . 6 . H . i v . Year 7 total 6. A . i i i . 1. C . i i i . Evaluate implementation/effectiveness of the requirement for 50% shading for parking lots and identified heat islands. Identify reasons for success and or failure. Modify as needed. $45,000 SDJH  RI  Program Group 1 15 $70,000 1. C . i . Year 8 continuted on next page 1. C . i i . Use criteria for viable street planting sites to review and update information about existing and available viable sites in TreeKeeper, and GIS—as well as an interactive open-source mapping solution such as OpenTreeMap. Develop criteria for viable street tree planting sites, increased planting of street trees, and related protocols to ensure stocking level of 98%. These programs aim to monitor the city’s commitment to achieving a 98% stocking level for street trees. 5. B . v . Integrate the information in Tree-Keeper with the city’s GIS to enable review of the relationship between trees and other relevant geographic information such as parcel lines, land uses, zoning, soil types, watersheds, creeks, pavement, hazard areas, and utility infrastructure. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  Year 8            July 1, 2022 thru June 30, 2023 1. D . i . Develop a monitoring program and produce annual reports of removals and plantings to show progress toward the goal of 98% full stocking of identified viable planting sites within right-of-ways and parks. Years 8 & 10 tackle the logistics of incorporating the knowledge gained from MP efforts into the daily activities of the city and community. Year 8 focuses on technology and  monitoring programs.  This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 1000 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on partnership funding beyond the budget shown. 6. D . i i . Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. $0 6. D . i i i . Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority.  Overview of Program or Program Group Individual Programs Yr 8 $70,000 $0 Costs 5. B . x i i . Improve the way maintenance work is documented/uploaded into TreeKeeper/GIS. Explore Smart Phone capabilities as well as the ability for the public to both access information about tree maintenance and contribute information about maintenance needs. SMJH  RI  16 17 $290,000 6. C . i i . Evaluate needs and benefits of a possible requirement that digital information about protected trees be submitted to the City as a condition of approval for permit applications. These programs aim to grow a database of explicit knowledge about individual properties and development projects. Conduct electronic tree surveys to enable analysis of development impact. The street tree inventory was updated in 2010 as part of this MP. 2022 is a logical time for a follow up. Year 8 total $140,000 $20,000 $2,000 $58,000 Develop database management tools to assist with monitoring, documentation, and evaluation of tree restoration work. 5. B . i i . 5. A . i i . Follow up 2010 inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis with either: • A similar cmprehensive inventory & analysis OR a series of 7 partial ones done annually.$140,000 $80,000 5. B . i . SDJH  RI  Program Group 1 18 $508,000 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  Year 9           July 1, 2023 thru June 30, 2024 5. A . i v . Conduct an i-Tree wildlife (or similar) assessment of the existing habitat and biodiversity—to establish a baseline and help identify and prioritize needs. Year 9 programs focus on ecological and wildlife concerns which are secondary only to infrastructure conflicts, development impacts, and water concerns‐‐addressed in earlier  years of this implementation plan. $508,000 This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 1000 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on partnership funding beyond the budget shown. 6. D . i i . Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. $0 6. D . i i i . Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. Yr 9  Overview of Program or Program Group 4. A . v i i i . 5. A . i i i . Individual Programs Costs $0 2. A . v . Work with Canopy/stakeholders to: • Inventory the invasive tree species population as defined by the Recommended and Restricted list; • Formalize a plan for decreasing that population; • Develop procedures...;• Develop specifications…• Develop monitoring program.* 4. A . i x . Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop programs to familiarize residents with Palo Alto’s urban forest’s birds and butterflies—and ways to attract them. $95,000 $3,000 $45,000 $60,000 $275,000 $30,000 Year 9 total Conduct an i-Tree eco analysis (or similar) to establish a citywide benchmark...both public and private trees and then to monitor change in the future. Metrics should be compared to changes in order to craft policies, provide incentives, and adapt partnerships. Partner with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the Palo Alto Christmas Bird Count, Spring Bird Count, and the Backyard Bird Count. The i-Tree eco analysis (or similar) and the i-Tree wildlife (or similar) assessment will be demanding endeavors. These programs will involve working closely with local environmental groups. * Note: Inventory of invasive species (a component of Program 2.A.v.) to be coordinated with the Parks & Open Spaces Division--and may begin as early as Year 3 or 4. 2. A . i i i . Develop a plan for restoring a city-wide native woodland landscape..... Specifically, • Street trees: from 7% to 10% within 10-year plan / 20% within 20 years.• Urban parks: from 11% to 25% within 10-year plan / 50% within 20 years. • OS/preserves: to at least 80% within 10-year plan.... SMJH  RI  Blank Page SDJH  RI  Program Group 1 19 Year 10           July 1, 2024 thru June 30, 2025 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  Years 8 & 10 tackle the logistics of incorporating the knowledge gained from MP efforts into the daily activities of the city and community. Year 10 focuses on education and  document updates. This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 1000 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on partnership funding beyond the budget shown. 6. D . i i . Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. $0 6. D . i i i . Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. $0 6. B . i x . Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and other organizations to educate the development community about minimizing project effects on local wildlife. $40,000 Work with Canopy to educate the community regarding the necessity of tree removals… 4. A . i i . Work with Canopy and stakeholders such as the California Native Plant Society, Acterra, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the community to develop outreach procedures to follow prior to making any significant changes to the urban forest —whether or not CEQA review is required. 6. J . v i i i . 4. A . x . Educate citizens about correct pruning at the best time to protect bird habitat and nesting. Utilize public space opportunities--and encourage the use of private space opportunities--to implement management techniques that enable trees, shrubs, and compatible vegetation to coexist with the goals of producing ecosystem benefits, aesthetic interest, layered wildlife habitat, and food for people. Yr 10 10000 $1,000 $11,000 $13,000 Year 10 continuted on next page These educational and outreach programs aim to share the benefits--derived from the MP programs--with the community--to enhance the urban forest and ecological environment.  Overview of Program or Program Group Individual Programs Costs $5,000 2. A . v i . SMJH  RI  20 $140,000 $100,000 5. Provide training UF staff and park rangers that includes: • Certification as arborist & pesticide application; • Education in Integrated Pest Management, .mgmt of invasive plants, and ecology and native plants; • Proficiency in relevant software; • Tree Risk Management Protocols. ... B. x ix. 5. B . x v i . 6. B . v i i . Provide education to DR staff about City Sustainability Plan priorities and need for staff reports to include information about the role of trees in moderating potential negative impacts... or add beneficial services related to... Provide education to staff and ensure that tree maintenance practices continue to consider bird nesting seasons. Year 10 total Establish written risk management protocol and training for scheduled inspections. 6. B . v . 3 . B . i i i . Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to educate staff about the importance of describing potentially negative—or unintended—impacts to the urban forest and ecologic balance/ resilience ...whether or not CEQA review is required. These programs aim to ensure that staff are informed and equipped to make use of the benefits derived from the MP programs to enhance the urban forest and ecological environment. 6. A . i i . Augment project-review standard conditions w/ • Requirements for no net canopy loss per project site; • Soil volume requirements for trees per species group; • Habitat connectivity and regeneration of an native woodland ecosystem on a landscape scale. 6. A . i . Review up-to-date sources for ... possible modifications to Zoning Regss, Building Standards, Green Building Standards, Standard Conditions of Approval, Standard Details, Green Infrastructure Practices, storm water permitting procedures, etc. 6. B . v i . Educate DR staff about City priorities and need for staff reports to include information about potential opportunities to enhance: • The vibrancy of the community..; • Human health benefits ...; • Bicycle and public-transportation… $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $50,000 page 22 of 26 Draft Program Group 1 21 22 $60,000 6. J . i v . Develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan * $20,0006. J . v . Update existing park plans and/or develop new plans to ensure that tree issues are addressed. $0 6. D . i i i . Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. Individual Programs $0 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto….  Overview of Program or Program Group $15,000 $20,000 Year 11 total Yr 11 Costs $0 $25,000 Year 11        July 1, 2025 thru June 30, 2026 The dominant programs in Year 11 are the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and updating of the individual park plans although the status of this programs and precise needs  are not predictable as this project is lead by the Community Services Department and already in progress. Year 11 also contains programs for expanding the GIS database. $40,000 5. B . v i i i . Develop a map showing the depth of available water within the urban forest. Having this information in the GIS is a lofty goal that would provide unprecedented guidance towards species selection and other choices relevant to the urban forest. 5. B . v i i . Develop or obtain a more up-to-date and accurate soils map and add it into the GIS. The specific tasks and budget needs of these programs to be further defined through future collaboration with the Parks Division. * Note: Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Program 6.J.iv.) to be coordinated with Parks & Open Spaces Division--and funded by Parks & Open Spaces CIP. This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 1000 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on partnership funding beyond the budget shown. 6. D . i i . page 23 of 26 Blank Page SDJH  RI  Program Group 1 23 24 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan : Implementation Plan 2nd Edition Note: programs abbreviated; for complete language see "Goals, Policies & Programs."  Year 12        July 1, 2026 thru June 30, 2027 The programs of Year 12 are exciting and aim towards new levels of operation; however,  they are scheduled at the end of the Implementation Plan so as not to compete with  more fundamental needs. Yr 12 Costs Overview of Program or Program Group Individual Programs The needs of this program will be informed by the success of the site-specific species selection protocols (Program 1.A.iii. - in Year 4).5. B . x i . Complete the update of the Street Tree Management Plan ….$70,000 3. A . i i . Work with the city’s Office of Sustainability to evaluate future participation in carbon credit programs. $0 $10,000 $70,000 These valuable programs may happen sooner; however, as mentioned, they're scheduled at the end of the Implementation Plan so as not to compete with more fundamental needs. 5. B . x v . Explore a collaboration between relevant local fire protection districts and CAL FIRE regarding an educational campaign...about vegetation management in appropriate areas of the city. Incorporate into Sustainability Plan as well as the T&LTM..$10,000 This MP priority is long range and recurs in each remaing year of the plan. Based on the analysis done in Yrs 1 & 2 (Program 6.D.i.), these programs aim to ensure the addition of at least 1000 trees per year. Work commences in Year 3--even without specific funding by shifting existing funds within the UF budget. Progress inYears 4 through 12 will rely on partnership funding beyond the budget shown. 6. D . i i . Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in South Palo Alto…. $0 6. D . i i i . Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that preserving and increasing the canopy—and focus on native and introduced climate adaptive species—in South Palo Alto is a City priority. $0 Year 12 continuted on next page SDJH  RI  25 $110,000Year 12 total If exploration of these possibilities indicates feasibity, they could become unique enhancements to both the city and community. 1. B . i i . Consider feasibility of a city-owned nursery or partnership with California Native Plant Society, Acterra, or other local non-profits.$10,000 $2,500 $15,000 $2,500 $30,000 6. G. i ii .Explore the feasibility of a tree adoption program—possibly to be modeled after programs offered by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) which has been operating successfully for 15 years. 3. D . i v . Explore an expansion of the existing urban-wood recycling program to include higher end products that do not break the wood down… 2. A . i v . Initiate “tree giveaway” events that provide residents with free fruit trees, native trees and introduced climate adaptive trees. SDJH 26 RI 26 1 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT—WATERSHED PROTECTION DATE: MARCH 26, 2019 SUBJECT: SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPATION POLICY AND PLAN PROGRESS RECOMMENDATION This is informational report about the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy which was approved by Palo Alto City Council on March 18, 2019 (Attachment A), and next steps for the development of a Sea Level Rise Adaption Plan. The March 26 meeting is to: • answer questions about the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy; • answer general questions about impacts from sea level rise in San Francisco Bay, and; • hear initial feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission about what is important to include in a City-wide Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an overview of Palo Alto’s draft Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy. The purpose of the policy is to provide guidance in planning for rising tides that could impact Palo Alto’s neighborhoods, economy, and the Baylands habitat. The Policy strives to ensure consistency and integration with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (November 2017), the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) (November 2016) and related Sustainability Implementation Plans (SIPs) (December 2017), the Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (March 2017), the Baylands Master Plan (2008), Parks Master Plan (August 2017) and the Urban Forest Master Plan (February 2019), and the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which is currently under development. The Policy will guide the development of a detailed Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan (Plan) to protect Palo Alto’s neighborhoods, economy, and Baylands habitat. The Policy and Plan are needed to complete the 2018-2020 SIPs which were accepted by Council in 2017 (Staff Report 8487). The Plan will be delivered for Council review by December 2020 and will serve as the Sea Level Rise Implementation Plan chapter of the 2020 S/CAP Update. The Plan will include suggested measures to protect infrastructure, determine sea level height triggers for the Plan’s various actions, and initiate adaptation strategies. The adaptation strategies of the Plan will likely include measures such as revising building requirements, staff and public education, and integrating sea level rise policy elements into other City operational procedures and plans. 2 BACKGROUND On May 31, 2016, staff presented a Study Session on Sea Level Rise to City Council (Staff Report 6953). At that study session, Staff identified facility-specific and programmatic issues that involve sea level rise. Facilities that could be impacted by sea level rise include the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, the Palo Alto Golf Course, the Palo Alto Airport, and the Municipal Service Center. Services that could be impacted by sea level rise include critical underground utilities, Highway 101, and emergency response capabilities. Six “Guiding Principles” and three generic “Tools” (Protect, Adapt, and Retreat) were presented as a framework for Council discussion on future sea level rise plans and projects, including the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update. On November 28, 2016, Palo Alto City Council unanimously adopted the draft Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Framework (Staff Report 7304), which included goals and strategies for sea level rise. The S/CAP Framework also included six Guiding Principles and four goals for Sea Level Rise Response: 1. Plan for coming changes in our climate and environment 2. Protect the City from climate change induced hazards 3. Adapt to current and projected environmental conditions 4. Empower the local community and foster regional collaboration DISCUSSION Greenhouse gases trap the earth’s heat which warms land and oceans. This causes both thermal expansion of the oceans and Antarctic and Greenland ice melt which together are the primary sources of sea level rise globally and in San Francisco Bay. Sea level rise threatens the operational integrity of critical services and facilities, e.g., Palo Alto’s electrical, gas, water and wastewater utilities, the Municipal Service Center, the Palo Alto Airport, Highway 101 and surrounding roads. Business districts and residential neighborhoods within the projected sea level rise area are vulnerable to a rising Bay and potential future FEMA insurance zone requirements. Sea level rise is also likely to affect the elevation and salinity of groundwater close to the Bay. Rising groundwater could have impacts on belowground infrastructure which may be subject to corrosion and buoyancy effects and could contribute to liquefaction. In the case of very low-lying areas, groundwater may result in surface flooding and long-term ponding. Under the State of California’s Ocean Protection Council (OPC) 2018 Probabilistic Sea Level Rise Projections, the Palo Alto Baylands may be submerged by mid-century which would eliminate their ability to buffer upstream or Bayside flooding sources, attenuate storm surge, or sequester carbon. The encroachment of Bay water may alter or eliminate habitat for endangered species that reside in Palo Alto Baylands and the millions of birds that use the Palo Alto segment of the Pacific Flyway for seasonal migration. The recreational and inspirational services of the Palo Alto shoreline could change if Baylands trails, playing fields, and golf course are surrendered to encroachment of San Francisco Bay. 3 The decisions that Palo Alto makes in future years to adapt to rising tides extend beyond the City’s borders. Implications with built features such as levees will impact adjacent communities and thus require close coordination with surrounding local and regional agencies. The proposed Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy: 1. Recognizes that the best way to avoid long-term impacts from the worst sea level rise predictions and to minimize adaptation response costs is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) contributions locally and to support regional, state, and national initiatives that reduce GHGs. 2. Guides staff to lead by example and coordinate on sea level rise studies and planning efforts with East Palo Alto, Mountain View, and other cities and public agencies, including counties, as needed as well as utilities and public-private partnerships. 3. Standardizes the use of the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) 2018 Probabilistic Sea Level Rise Projections for the City’s sea-level rise planning efforts for proposed development projects, renovations and possible property acquisitions and other City planning. 4. Provides a framework for the development of a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan which would include a vulnerability assessment, short-term and long-term plan components, and roles and responsibilities of staff. The draft policy reflects extensive input from staff, subject matter experts working on sea level rise and climate adaptation planning, and Palo Alto residents. Reviewers included: • Staff across City of Palo Alto Departments (Planning, Public Works, Utilities, Community Services, Office of Emergency Services, City Manager’s Office, Open Space); • The San Francisco Estuary Institute–Resilient Landscapes Program. This program develops innovative ecosystem restoration and management strategies to re-establish and sustain key ecological functions and services. These strategies integrate natural and human infrastructure to create systems that are more adaptive to climate change and other stressors; • The Bay Area Climate Action Network (BayCAN). BayCAN is a collaborative network of local government staff helping the Bay Area respond to the impacts of climate change on human health, infrastructure and natural systems; • UC Berkeley scientists and professors affiliated with the Climate Readiness Institute (CRI). CRI utilizes experts from the region’s leading research institutions with expertise in climate science, civil engineering, urban planning, ecology, oceanography, and law; • Staff from the cities of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, San Mateo County Sea Change (oversees sea level rise planning efforts for the County); and, 4 • Palo Alto residents who attended a public meeting on Wednesday February 27, 2019. Invitees included members from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Committee, Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater and other interested public members. Current Palo Alto Sea Level Rise Planning Efforts The development of a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy and a proposal for a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan are two efforts among several to plan for sea level rise. Additional current City of Palo Alto sea level rise-related planning efforts include: 1. A feasibility study for levee Improvements along the Palo Alto’s San Francisco Bay edge via the Strategy to Advance Flood Control, Environmental Protection and Recreation (SAFER) Project. This project will propose options for new and upgraded levee alignments around Palo Alto Bay edge which also enhance habitat and recreation opportunities. Palo Alto’s levees currently do not meet standards for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) accreditation and may be vulnerable to overtopping from future rising tides and storm surge. SAFER feasibility study and coordination with East Palo Alto and Menlo Park is supported by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. Staff will bring a feasibility study for proposed levee alignments to City Council in 2019; 2. A conceptual design for a horizontal levee to be integrated into the SAFER alignment. Horizontal levees are wide, engineered planted landscapes that mimic nature to attenuate storm surge and rising tides, and sequester carbon. The preferred location that was identified is at the east end of Embarcadero Road. A 30% design development is in process; 3. The Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP). This document includes a chapter on Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands and an Action Plan with initial adaptation recommendations. This document describes the potential impacts of sea level rise on physical assets and habitats in the Baylands and high-level measures that the City can take to adapt to climate change and sea level rise. This document can be used as a starting point for planning efforts to address potential future impacts caused by sea level rise and climate change. Public Works–Watershed Protection hopes to build upon this work to prioritize projects that would protect critical infrastructure and to develop “Adaptation Pathways.” “Pathways,” in relation to adaptation, is an approach designed to schedule adaptation decision-making. It identifies the decisions that need to be taken now and those that may be taken in future. The approach supports strategic, flexible and structured decision-making. The pathways approach allows decision makers to plan for, prioritize, and stagger investment in adaptation options. Sea level rise trigger points and thresholds help them identify when to revisit decisions or actions. Examples of pathways approaches can be translated into visual aids that help with stakeholder communication. The adaptation pathway approach has been successfully applied in adaptation planning for infrastructure and water management projects, and broader cross- 5 sector adaptation planning1; 4. Improved Stormwater Management. Stormwater runoff travels to low-lying areas in Palo Alto which may also be impacted by sea level rise. Two recent stormwater management efforts will reduce stormwater ponding contributions to projected sea level rise inundation areas: a) The Stormwater Management Fee. The Stormwater Management Fee ballot measure passed in April 2017 with 64% of Palo Altans voting for the measure. The Storm Water Management Program funds stormwater system maintenance and provides for stormwater system improvements that prevent street flooding and protect water quality. The program also provides litter reduction, creek pollution prevention programs, commercial and residential rebates, and flooding emergency- response services. Constructing Green Stormwater Infrastructure projects is a new priority which includes infiltrating and cleansing storm water to decrease peak flows to the conveyance system. ; b) Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Framework. The GSI Framework was adopted by Council in June 2017. Its purpose is to describe how the City will gradually integrate GSI features into its urban landscape and stormwater conveyance systems over several decades. GSI uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage stormwater runoff. It can help to avoid additional ponding in areas that may also be flooded in future years by rising tides. GSI is partially funded by the Stormwater Management Fee. 5. Sea level rise integration into City Planning Documents. Planning for Sea Level rise is now referenced in the Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan Revision and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and, 6. There are many Bay Area Regional efforts working to coordinate and provide resources to public agencies for sea level rise planning. See Attachment B–Regional Sea Level Rise Planning Efforts for a summary table. 1 CoastAdapt. (2019). Retrieved from https://coastadapt.com.au/pathways-approach 6 Next Steps for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan Development The next step towards the development of a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan is to begin a Vulnerability Assessment of City infrastructure and business areas that may be impacted by sea level rise and possible adaptation strategies and adaptation pathways (adaptation pathways identify the decisions that need to be taken now and those that may be taken in future). Public Works will leverage the work of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Vulnerability Assessment using the following timeline: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan Development Timeline FY2020 tasks are subject to budget approval Spring-Winter 2019 ` • Begin vulnerability assessment and menu of possible adaptation strategies (requires consultant RFP) • Create a SLR Community Task Force • Staff education, establish regular interdepartmental meetings • Expand regular meetings with surrounding public agencies • Public outreach and communication Winter 2020- Fall 2020 • Sea Level Rise Plan Development • Public input/revisions • CEQA review (part of Sustainability Climate Action Plan CEQA) December 2020 • Bring draft SLR SIP plan to Council • Goals that can be accomplished within two years will serve as the sea level rise chapter of the S/CAP 2021 and after • Implement plan and provide annual Council updates with S/CAP • Fine tune long-term SLR Plan as needed and with five-year Ocean Protection Council Sea Level Rise Guidance revisions Ongoing • Progress reports will be provided as part of annual April Earth Day Council meeting with additional updates as needed. Resource Impacts Staff’s preliminary estimate is a one-time cost of $250,000 for development of the Vulnerability Assessment and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, with ongoing costs for implementation of the plan that will be evaluated during plan development. These budget needs, as well as a position reclassification to provide coordination of the plan, are being considered through the annual budget process. Once the City’s Policy and Plan are complete and the regional efforts are developed, the more difficult issues of locating funding for implementation will commence. Policy Implications The Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy aligns with the 2019 Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Council Priority. 7 Environmental Review Acceptance by Council of and direction to staff regarding next steps concerning the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Rise Policy is not a “project” approval under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the action constitutes acceptance of a work program to develop a plan, and the work program is subject to change, is non-binding and its acceptance would not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment. If the action were considered a project, it would be exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) for the same reasons. The plan that will be developed will be evaluated under CEQA prior to its consideration by Council. 8 Attachment A– Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy #-#/MGR Approved March 18, 2019 SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION OVERVIEW The State of California anticipates that relative sea level rise (SLR) projections stemming from greenhouse gas emissions and related climate change pose significant economic, environmental and social risks to communities along the San Francisco Bay Shoreline, including the City of Palo Alto. Research shows that these projections may worsen if greenhouse gas emission trajectories continue unabated.2 Sea level rise in San Francisco Bay is anticipated to range between three feet to more than ten feet by 2100 with rising tides likely thereafter.3 In Palo Alto, many City services and infrastructure that are essential to the City’s public health, safety and economy are located within areas that are predicted to be inundated by Bay water if adaptation measures are not implemented.4 PURPOSE OF POLICY The purpose of this policy is to plan for rising tides that could impact Palo Alto’s neighborhoods, economy and the Baylands habitat, and to ensure consistency and integration with the range of City plans that call for SLR planning such as the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 2017), the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) (November 2016) and related Sustainability Implementation Plans (SIPs), the Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (March 2017), the Baylands Master Plan (2008), Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (in development), and the Urban Forest Master Plan (February 2019), and other key planning documents that are produced. This policy will serve as a blueprint for the development of a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, and is not intended to establish requirements on new development for implementation prior to Plan adoption; however, projects may be encouraged in advance to consider sea level rise as part of the development process. Definitions and terminology relevant to this policy are listed in Appendix 1– Policy Definitions and Related Terminology. POLICY SUMMARY The City recognizes that the best way to avoid long-term impacts from the worst SLR predictions and to minimize adaption response costs is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) contributions locally and to support regional, state and national initiatives that reduce GHGs. 2 Ocean Protection Council. (2018). State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update. Retrieved from http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf. Page 12. 3 Reference 1, page 18. 4 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Adapting to Rising Tides Program (2018). Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Shoreline Flood Explorer online tool. Retrieved from https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/home. 9 Palo Alto will lead by example and coordinate on SLR studies and planning efforts with East Palo Alto, Mountain View, and other cities and public agencies, including counties, as well as utilities, and public-private partnerships, as needed. Palo Alto will establish interdepartmental SLR Planning responsibilities into City procedures and planning (see, e.g., Appendix 2–Departmental Responsibilities for Sea Level Rise Planning). Palo Alto will use the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) 2018 Probabilistic SLR Projections published by the State of California (Appendix 3) for proposed development projects, renovations and possible property acquisitions and other City planning unless a more suitable reference is identified and agreed upon by local agencies tasked with SLR preparedness. City of Palo Alto, business and residential investments in new property, development, and infrastructure should be designed based on OPC SLR projections for the useful life of the asset to avoid flooding or erosion. To that end, the forthcoming Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan should consider the following best practices: 1. Upgrades to existing property or infrastructure that are considered less-critical (not essential to immediate public health and safety, e.g. trails or playing fields) should consider the impacts of SLR beyond 2050 using the Low Risk Aversion or Medium-high Risk Aversion Projection listed in Table 1; 2. For critical development and infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment facility or utilities that are essential to public health and safety), a risk assessment should be completed based on the SLR projections to 2100 and to include the lifetime of the building using the Medium-high or Extreme Risk Aversion Projections; 3. All designs and engineering strategies, where possible and financially feasible, should be adaptable to changing climate predictions. Each new development should be required to develop and maintain an individual “adaptation pathway plan” to prepare for changes in rising sea level, and related groundwater intrusion. In all sea level rise assessments, and where data are available, the City will consider Base Flood Elevations, storm surge, groundwater table changes due to rising sea levels, and wave runup, where appropriate. BACKGROUND Greenhouse gases trap the earth’s heat which warms land and oceans. This causes both thermal expansion of the oceans and Antarctic and Greenland ice melt which together are the primary sources of SLR globally and in San Francisco Bay. SLR threatens the operational integrity of critical services and facilities, e.g., Palo Alto’s electrical, gas, water and wastewater utilities, the Municipal Service Center, the Palo Alto Airport, Highway 101 and surrounding roads. Business districts and residential neighborhoods within the projected SLR area are vulnerable to a rising Bay and potential future FEMA insurance zone requirements. SLR is also likely to affect the elevation and salinity of groundwater close to the Bay. Rising groundwater could have impacts on belowground infrastructure which may be subject to corrosion and buoyancy effects and could contribute to liquefaction. In the case of very low-lying areas, 10 groundwater may result in surface flooding and long-term ponding. Under current SLR predictions, the Palo Alto Baylands may be submerged by mid-century which would eliminate their ability to buffer upstream or Bayside flooding sources, attenuate storm surge or sequester carbon. The encroachment of Bay water may alter or eliminate habitat for endangered species that reside in Palo Alto Baylands and the millions of birds that use the Palo Alto segment of the Pacific Flyway for seasonal migration. The recreational and inspirational services of the Palo Alto shoreline could change if Baylands trails, playing fields and golf course are surrendered to encroachment of San Francisco Bay. The decisions that Palo Alto makes in future years to adapt to rising tides extend beyond the City’s borders. Implications with built features such as levees will impact (help or imperil) adjacent communities and thus require close coordination with surrounding local and regional agencies. PROCEDURES FOR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 1. The City will: a) conduct a SLR vulnerability assessment, which will: i. identify critical and less-critical City infrastructure and ecosystem assets to manage risks given predicted SLR scenarios through 2100 and beyond; ii. Identify hazards and determine tolerable risks of the City and community members (risk = hazard x exposure x vulnerability; risk ($/year) = frequency (events/year) x consequences ($/event); iii. include an economic assessment of SLR vulnerability for public and private property and cost estimates for inaction; iv. engage community members in the process. b) develop a multi-year SLR Implementation Plan to coordinate internal and regional SLR planning, project funding and public outreach. The Plan will include a SLR adaptation plan and timeline which will: i. align with the intent and language of the City’s various plans, policies and documents that intersect with SLR Policy and Plan (e.g., the Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Baylands Master Plan, Regional Water Quality Control Plant Long Range Facility Plan, Urban Water Management Plan, Recycled 11 Water Strategic Plan, Parks Master Plan, etc.); ii. include a table of prioritized adaptation pathways to manage risks to natural and built assets based on the SLR Vulnerability Assessment. Adaptation pathways provide a menu of recommendations and logically staged phases for adaptation over time based on triggers related to SLR levels. Adaptation pathways factor in cost/benefits, the lengthy time to plan, fund and build response strategies and potential additional benefits of carbon sequestration, GHG reduction, wildlife protection and social equity; iii. include a development plan for public and private property anticipated to be impacted by SLR which may include: a. changing the city zoning map and amending requirements, restrictions, or municipal codes to be stricter than state or federal requirements as necessary and when feasible to reduce risks; b. adding conditions of approval for project permits in areas where there is a SLR or groundwater intrusion risk; c. establishing geographic areas and/or triggers for requiring consideration of relocation; d. developing restrictions or additional criteria; and e. funding identification f. educate and engage community members in the process of SLR planning, including creating a SLR Task Force and meeting with stakeholders (e.g., realtors, property owners, etc.) to educate them about SLR and the options, tradeoffs, and costs, for resilience; iv. address budget and funding considerations for additional or existing staff to perform SLR planning, adaptation and Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs); v. provide guidance on managing and enhancing Baylands, creek and open space ecosystem services to mitigate SLR impacts through carbon sequestration and absorption. Examples of this include the use of horizontal levees, expanding or improving Baylands habitat; this guidance should consider the use of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and the concept of “Operational Landscape Units” developed by San Francisco Estuary Institute which delineate Bay shoreline ecosystem functions and services within the natural and built environment and not by jurisdictional boundaries, and; vi. include the development of educational materials and technical assistance for staff and developers, including: a. a checklist and primer on SLR, risk and sharing risk, and planning guidance; b. technical and regulatory guidance to City engineers and public developers so that projects are designed based on accepted OPC SLR assumptions and 12 which prompt design-standard revisions, and protect, adapt, retreat responses for threatened areas; c. a risk assessment process to be used during CIP site selection, planning and property purchases; d. a SLR and groundwater projection zone map which also shows the intersection of the FEMA flood zone and associated insurance requirements; 2. Recognize policy limits: This policy does not establish specific requirements for all projects because each site condition is unique, but instead provides expectations for developing guidance and tools to answer key building and infrastructure design and SLR response strategies. This policy also recognizes that not all codes and regulations that govern construction are yet synchronized with OPC SLR predictions, however Palo Alto will incorporate SLR guidance and planning into its own construction and planning process proactively for both public and private structures until regional standards are adopted for use. 13 Attachment A–Appendix 1: Policy Definitions and Related Terminology Adaptation Pathway: “Pathways” in relation to adaptation is an approach designed to schedule adaptation decision-making. It identifies the decisions that need to be taken now and those that may be taken in future. The approach supports strategic, flexible and structured decision-making. The pathways approach allows decision makers to plan for, prioritize and stagger investment in adaptation options. Trigger points and thresholds help them identify when to revisit decisions or actions. Examples of pathways approaches can be translated into visual aids such as “route maps” that support communication and consultation with stakeholders. The adaptation pathway approach has been successfully applied in adaptation planning for infrastructure and water management projects, and broader cross-sector adaptation planning5. Baylands: Lands which are located between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide (California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance). Base Flood Elevation (1% annual chance flood): A flood that has a 1% probability of occurring in any given year. The 100-year floodplain is the extent of the area of a flood that has a 1% chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year. This is indicated by the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on FEMA flood maps. Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan: A plan currently being prepared by the City of Palo Alto that provides specific programs and projects to achieve the goals and policies of the Baylands Master Plan. Baylands Master Plan: A plan prepared by the City of Palo Alto to provide a framework and guide for actions in the Baylands that seek to preserve the area’s unique natural, recreational and flood- prevention resources. Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes projects that help maintain or improve City assets, often called infrastructure. To be included in the City of Palo Alto Capital Budget, a project must meet the following criteria: • Must have a minimum cost of $50,000 for each stand-alone unit or combined project. • Must have a useful life of at least five to seven years (the purchase or project will still be functioning and not be obsolete at least five to seven years after implementation). • Must extend the life of an existing asset or provide a new functional use for an existing asset for at least five years. Examples include extensive roof rehabilitations. These improvements are distinguished from ongoing maintenance work that may extend the life of the asset but is done on a routine basis. Climate change: Any long-term change in climate conditions in a place or region, whether due to natural causes or as a result of human activity. 5 CoastAdapt. (2019). Retrieved from https://coastadapt.com.au/pathways-approach 14 Comprehensive Plan: The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (or Comp Plan) is the primary tool for guiding land use and development in Palo Alto. The Plan fulfills the State requirement that the City adopt a General Plan. The Plan provides a foundation for the City’s development regulations, capital improvements program, and day-to-day decisions. Critical infrastructure: City built assets with a long-projected life span (greater than 50 years) which if compromised by rising tides could potentially have catastrophic results on public health, safety or well-being, e.g., wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater infrastructure, levees or impoundments, bridges along major evacuation routes, airports, seaports, railroads, and major highways, EOC/Fire/Police/Healthcare, schools, homeless shelters, landfills and contaminated sites. Less-critical Infrastructure: City assets that have an expected lifetime of 10-20 years or is replaceable and adaptable, or has limited interdependencies and limited consequences should the system fail or be inundated by water. Examples include isolated parks, unpaved trails. Design life: The life expectancy of a project as determined during design. As opposed to useful life (see below). Erosion: The wearing away of land by natural forces; on a beach, the carrying away of beach material by wave action, currents, or the wind , the loss of marsh due to the erosion of the marsh edge by waves. Development and other non-natural forces (e.g., water leaking from pipes or scour caused by wave action against a seawall) may create or worse erosion problems (California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance). Facilities: All buildings, communications facilities, energy systems, industrial facilities, all transportation networks, water and wastewater systems, and parks. Flood (or Flooding): Refers to normally dry land becoming temporarily covered in water, either periodically (e.g., tidal flooding, king tides) or episodically (e.g., storm surge or tsunami flooding). Greenhouse gases (GHGs): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride. Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI): Infrastructure that uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage stormwater runoff and reduce peak flows in flood control channels or creeks. Examples of GSI include landscape-based stormwater “biotreatment” using soil and plants ranging in size from grasses to trees; pervious paving systems (e.g., interlocking concrete pavers, porous asphalt, and pervious concrete); rainwater harvesting systems (e.g., cisterns and rain barrels); and other methods to capture and use stormwater as a resource. Groundwater: The water found below the surface of the land and contained in the pore spaces of saturated geologic media (sand, gravel). Groundwater is either rain water that has seeped 15 through the soil surface and by means of gravity of soil conditions drained from high to lower elevation areas. Groundwater can also come from the bay transferred via bay mud under the existing levees. Groundwater can be source of water found in wells and springs. Hazard: A situation involving danger such as coastal flooding, earthquake rainfall and local flooding. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan: The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) requires all cities, counties, and special districts to adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to receive disaster mitigation funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazard mitigation planning is the process used by state, local and tribal leaders to understand risks from natural hazards and develop long-term strategies to reduce the impacts of disasters on people, property, and the environment. The Palo Alto Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is updated every three years. Mean Sea Level: The average relative sea level over a period, such as a month or a year, long enough to average out transients such as waves and tides. Ocean Protection Council (OPC): The Council was created pursuant to the California Ocean Protection Act (COPA), which was signed into law in 2004 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The mission of the OPC is to “…ensure that California maintains healthy, resilient, and productive ocean and coastal ecosystems for the benefit of current and future generations. The OPC is committed to basing its decisions and actions on the best available science, and to promoting the use of science among all entities involved in the management of ocean resources.” The OPC published the State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance Document and subsequent updates which provides an estimated range of predicted SLR and subsequent updates. Operational Landscape Units: A delineated area that effectively provides specific ecosystem functions and services within the natural and built environment. Pacific Flyway: A major north-south flyway for migratory birds in America, extending from Alaska to Patagonia. Every year, migratory birds travel some or all of this distance both in spring and in fall, following food sources, heading to breeding grounds, or travelling to overwintering sites. Protect, adapt, retreat strategies: Responding to SLR generally involves three general concepts: • Protect: Implementing strategies that reduce the risk of SLR impacts to land e.g., levees, horizontal levies, floodwalls, flood gates, and wetlands; • Adapt: Adjusting to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which minimizes harm or takes advantage of beneficial opportunities. This includes building any new or substantially-improved structures elevated above future flood levels or as structures that can be submerged without sustaining appreciable damage. 16 • Retreat: Surrendering an area partially, seasonally or completely to rising sea level; Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP): Owned and operated by the Palo Alto, the Plant treats wastewater for the communities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Stanford University and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. The mission of the RWQCP is to protect San Francisco Bay by cleaning and treating wastewater before it is discharged. Relative Sea Level: Sea level measured by a tide gauge with respect to the land upon which it is situated. Risk: Often expressed as “hazard x exposure x vulnerability;” in terms of costs per year it can be expressed as “frequency (events/year) x consequences ($/event). SAFER Bay Project Feasibility Report: SAFER (Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystem and Recreation along San Francisco Bay) has prepared a feasibility report that is in the review and comment phase. Once City staff comments are made and report revised as needed, the report will be available for public review and comment. Sea level: The height of the ocean relative to land; tides, wind, atmospheric pressure changes, heating, cooling, and other factors cause sea level changes. Sea level rise (SLR): Sea level can change, both globally and locally, due to (a) changes in the shape of the ocean basins, (b) changes in the total mass of water and (c) changes in water density. Factors leading to SLR under climate change include both increases in the total mass of water from melting land-based snow and ice, and changes in water density from an increase in ocean water temperatures and salinity changes. Relative SLR occurs where there is a local increase in the level of the ocean relative to the land, which might be due to ocean rise and/or land level subsidence. Storm Surge: A rise above normal water level due to low atmospheric pressure associated with storms and the action of wind stress on the water surface. Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP): Palo Alto’s plan to reduce the city and community’s greenhouse gas emissions to meet climate protection goals and also consider broader issues of sustainability, such as sea level rise, land use and biological resources. Sustainability Implementation Plans (SIPS): Specific actions needed to achieve S/CAP goals. Useful life: The period over which a project is expected to be available for use by an entity. This period of time typically exceeds the design life (see above). 17 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA): A THIRA helps communities better understand the hazards from natural, technological, and human-caused threats that pose the greatest risk. The Palo Alto THIRA report is updated every two years. Vulnerability: The extent to which a species, habitat, ecosystem, or human system is susceptible to harm from climate change impacts. More specifically, the degree to which a system is exposed to, susceptible to, and unable to cope with, the adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, as well as of non-climatic characteristics of the system, including its sensitivity, and its coping and adaptive capacity. Vulnerability Assessment: A practice that identifies who and what is exposed and sensitive to change and how able a given system is to cope with extremes and change. It considers the factors that expose and make people or the environment susceptible to harm and access to natural and financial resources available to cope and adapt, including the ability to self-protect, external coping mechanisms, support networks, and so on. 18 Attachment A–Appendix 2: Departmental Responsibilities for Sea Level Rise Planning The following table is a menu of potential actions to be confirmed in the plan for each department. Lead Department Responsibility Administrative Services Department 1. Revise Purchasing Department construction solicitation templates and contract documents to include SLR and sustainability considerations. 2. Prioritize SLR planning and budget equal to other performance indicators for projects within projected SLR areas. City Manager’s Office 1. Implement the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission contributions. 2. Include SLR update with annual Earth Day and Sustainability Implementation Plan reporting. 3. Consider development of key performance indicators to track if the City is meeting its SLR planning goals. 4. Provide outreach through City Manager Office communication channels about how the City is preparing for sea level rise in coordination with Public Works and Utilities Department outreach. 5. Prioritize SLR projects equal to other Council priorities. Community Services/Open Space Implement the recommendations of the 2019 Palo Alto Baylands Vulnerability Assessment for flood control, access, non-recreational features and facilities, habitats and wildlife where feasible, e.g.: 1. Seek funding to expand and enhance Baylands habitat to leverage wave attenuation, water absorption and other ecosystem services that mitigate SLR. 2. Develop climate-smart planting palettes that are projected to survive under changing climate conditions. Office of Emergency Services Continue to consider sea level rise in community risk assessments, such as Threat and Hazard Identification Risk Assessment and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, with appropriate risk considerations and weighting. Planning & Community Environment 1. Update zoning code and related requirements, such as design standards for public and private development based on OPC predictions. Public Works–Airport 1. Plan for SLR to reduce risk of impacts to Airport operations. 2. Seek funding opportunities with the Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Public Works– Interdepartmental 1. Coordinate groundwater management in recognition that SLR will push groundwater levels inland and closer to the surface. 19 2. Explore the interaction between groundwater, Sea Level Rise and Stormwater. Public Works– Engineering 1. Plan, design, identify funding, build and maintain resiliency features in City planning and CIP projects per the City’s Comprehensive Plan, e.g.: a) Manage the preparation of SAFER feasibility report and potential environmental review, funding, public outreach and construction of SAFER levees and related projects to mitigate SLR. b) Seek grants and other funding for design alternatives and structures that mitigate SLR. c) Build design alternatives and structures that mitigate SLR. 2. Manage the implementation of large-scale stormwater infrastructure rehabilitation projects to minimize flooding from upstream sources, e.g.: a) Construct the high priority projects identified through Storm Drain Master Plan and listed with the Stormwater Management Fee and consider integration of GSI Plan elements. b) Address FEMA regulations (flooding risks) and sea level rise associated with at least 100-year storm events for at least the design life of the structure. c) Manage stormwater rebate program and coordinate with development services, inspect project sites once completed and issue rebates to property owners for installed rainwater capture devices. d) Work with Development Services to help developers of private projects comply with SLR policy and plans and FEMA regulations. e) Implement County Hazard Mitigation Plan (FEMA). f) Implement Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan requirements. g) Design new infrastructure to be flexible so that it may be incrementally enhanced as sea level rise increases Public Works– Environmental Services 1. Coordinate internal discussions on SLR planning at a frequency that facilitates proactive planning, e.g., quarterly or as needed. 2. Manage SLR risks to allow for ongoing operations of the RWQCP and the sanitary landfill; 3. Seek opportunities and funding to enhance the Baylands ecosystem and build and nature-based features such as horizontal levees. 4. Maintain AB2516 Ocean Protection Council semi-annual 20 report. 5. Conduct Public Outreach on SLR education and planning in coordination with the City Manager’s Office and Utilities. 6. Prepare Policy updates. 7. Lead Green Stormwater Infrastructure planning and implementation. Utilities 1. Execute energy portfolio-related actions in the SIPs Plan for Utilities-related asset protection from flooding, SLR and erosion. 2. Increase climate and SLR messages in ongoing water conservation public awareness campaigns in coordination with the City Manager’s Office and Public Works–Watershed Protection. 21 Attachment A–Appendix 3: Ocean Protection Council 2018 Probabilistic Sea Level Rise Projections Rising Seas Report, State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance* Low Risk Aversion Likely Range (ft.) 66% Probability Medium-high Risk Aversion (ft.) 0.5% probability 1-in-200 chance Extreme Risk Aversion (ft.) (No probability yet available)** Use for less-critical infrastructure and services e.g., trails, playing fields, golf course that could potentially be surrendered to SLR. Use for critical infrastructure and services e.g., Regional Water Quality Control Plant, Municipal Service Center, Utilities infrastructure 2030 0.5 0.8 1.0 2040 0.8 1.3 1.8 2050 1.1 1.9 2.7 2060 1.5 2.6 3.9 2070 1.9 3.5 5.2 2080 2.4 4.5 6.6 2090 2.9 5.6 8.3 2100 3.4 6.9 10.2 SLR rates in this table show the upper-range predictions for how SLR may increase in future years and the SLR rate assumptions that should be used for different facilities and development. Probabilistic projections in the first two columns are with respect to a baseline of the year 2000, or more specifically the average relative sea level over 1991 - 2009. These numbers do not include impacts of El Niño, storms or other acute additions to sea-level rise.6 The time period referenced should be based on the useful life of the structure. The low and medium-risk projections listed in this table may underestimate the likelihood of extreme sea-level rise, particularly under high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios which as the writing of this policy are projected to continue to increase. Not all infrastructure and development need to be designed to withstand the most extreme SLR predictions. This table suggests the types of facilities that could be designed to withstand the low, medium or extreme risk scenarios. Buildings for which there is an extreme risk aversion (e.g. wastewater treatment facilities) require more extensive and thus more costly designs and retrofits. *The relative SLR heights above as it relates to Palo Alto’s shoreline can be viewed at Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Shoreline Flood Explorer online tool at https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/home. ** OPC guidance also includes an Extreme Risk Aversion scenario (aka H++ Scenario (Sweet et al 2017 Single scenario)). The probability of this scenario is currently unknown, but its consideration is important, particularly for high stakes, long-term decisions for critical infrastructure and given the uncertainties of projected GHG emissions discussed above. 6 Ocean Protection Council. (2018). State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update. Retrieved from http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf. Page 18. 22 Attachment B–Summary of Regional Sea Level Rise Planning Efforts Organization Name Organization Description Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) ART is a collaborative planning effort led by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center to understand how San Francisco Bay Area communities can adapt to sea level rise and storm event flooding. The ART Project has engaged local, regional, state and federal agencies, as well as non- profit and private stakeholders, to explore how the Bay Area can increase resilience to sea level rise and storm events, while protecting critical ecosystem and community services. Bay Area Climate Adaptation Network (BayCAN) BayCAN is a collaborative network of local government staff helping the Bay Area respond effectively and equitably to the impacts of climate change on human health, infrastructure and natural systems. Resilient By Design A year-long collaborative design challenge bringing together local residents, public officials and local, national and international experts to develop innovative community-based solutions that will strengthen our region’s resilience to sea level rise, severe storms, flooding and earthquakes. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) The BCDC is a 27-member commission authorized to control bay filling and dredging, and bay-related shoreline development. San Francisco Bay Regional CHARG - Coastal Hazards Adaptation Resiliency Group (CHARG) CHARG is a forum at which local, regional, state, and federal scientists, engineers, planners, and policy makers can develop a common understanding about regional coastal hazards issues. CHARG’s participants represent many Bay Area cities (including Palo Alto), all nine Bay Area counties, and regional, state, and federal agencies. CHARG shifted its focus in 2017 to supporting technical studies and solutions to inform regional adaption, policy, and funding decisions. In 2018, CHARG became a Strategic Initiative of the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA). CHARG seeks to engage all local flood control districts and stakeholders from San Francisco Bay through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to advance the scientific foundation needed to direct sea level rise adaptation at a regional scale. 23 San Francisquito Creek JPA (SFCJPA) The SFCJPA is a regional government agency founded by the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto, the San Mateo County Flood Control District and Santa Clara Valley Water District in 1999 following a major flood the preceding year. The SFCJPA plans, designs and implements capital projects which are comprehensive in terms of geography and function because they cross jurisdictional boundaries and serve to reduce a proven flood threat, enhance ecosystems and recreational opportunities, and connect our communities. San Mateo County Sea Change Sea Change SMC addresses the challenge of sea level rise by working together with and providing resources to local governments, stakeholder agencies and communities groups to create a prepared and stronger County. South Bay Shoreline Study The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project is a Congressionally authorized study by the US Army Corps of Engineers together with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the State Coastal Conservancy to identify and recommend flood risk management projects for Federal funding. The Corps is looking at projects that will reduce flood risk, restore some of the region's lost wetlands, and provide related benefits such as recreation and public access. Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems, and Recreation (SAFER) The SFCJPA’s SAFER Bay project will evaluate infrastructure alternatives to protect Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and Palo Alto against extreme tides with sea level rise and enhance shoreline habitat and trails.