HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-24 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketParks and Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 24, 2022
7:00 PM
Council Chambers and Virtual
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
Pursuant to AB 361, Parks and Recreation meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the
option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety
while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to
participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and
participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://zoom.us/join)
Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1 (669) 900-6833
The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV and through Channel 26 or 29 of the
Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/.
IN PERSON PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT:
• Masks are strongly recommended
• Maintain social distancing
• If you cannot or do not wish to comply, you can still participate virtually
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom meeting. All requests to
speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public
comments can be submitted in advance to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and
will be provided to the Commission. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are
referencing in your email subject line.
Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda.
Commissioner Names, Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available
online:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Other-
Services/Commissions/Parks-and-Recreation-Commission
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
BUSINESS
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency - Action – Attachment -
(5 min)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the Board on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on this
agenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
This is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve
meeting management.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the April 26, 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission
Meetings - Action - Attachment - (5 min)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
3. Department Report
BUSINESS
4. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison: Reports and Assignments - Discussion - (15 min)
5. Review of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) – Daren Anderson -
Discussion - Attachment - (90 min)
6. Advanced Water Purification System (AWPS) – Tom Kapushinski - Discussion -
Attachment - (45 min)
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily
accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require
auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-
2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted
at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below for the
appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following
instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If
using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser:
Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality
may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The
moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to
unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting
ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745
Phone number: 1 (669) 900 6833
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: MAY 22, 2022 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF TELECONFERENCING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING COVID-19 STATE OF
EMERGENCY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its committees
due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency.
BACKGROUND In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect.
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act, effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at
least once every 30 days.
AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances:
(A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
(B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the
purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a result of the
emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of
attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).)
In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and
at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists:
1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to
promote social distancing.
DISCUSSION At this time, the circumstances in Section 54953(e)( 1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and
other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. (See August 2, 2021 Order.) In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including
physical distancing and other social distancing measures. Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and
constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing are protected.
To comply with public health directives and promote public safety, Palo Alto policy bodies
have been meeting via teleconference since March 2020. On September 27, 2021, the City
Council considered the format for future Council, committee, and Board and Commission
meetings. Council determined that beginning November 1, 2021, Council meetings would be
conducted using a hybrid format that allows Council Members and the public to decide
whether to attend in person, following masking and distancing protocols, or participate via
teleconference. Council directed that Council standing and ad-hoc committees and Boards and
Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference through January 2022.
Adoption of the Resolution at Attachment A will make the findings required by Section
54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and its committees.
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ____
Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government
Code Section 54953(e)
R E C I T A L S
A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene
by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency
Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and
B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency
in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state
of emergency remains in effect; and
C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the
Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were
subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and
those declarations also remain in effect; and
D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act
to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency
without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the
policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and
E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of
vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County
Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues
to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing
measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and
F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations,
which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees
about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other
social distancing measures; and
G. The City’s Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) has met remotely during the COVID-
19 pandemic and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and
transparency while minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present
with in-person meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore,
NOT YET APPROVED
The Parks and Recreation Commission RESOLVES as follows:
1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, PRC has considered the circumstances of the state of
emergency.
2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures
to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some
settings.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of PRC will occur using
teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of PRC that occur using teleconferencing technology
will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address the body and
its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional
rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing; and, be
it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the PRC staff liaison is directed to place a resolution substantially similar to
this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of PRC within the next 30 days. If PRC does not meet
under the Brown Act within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on
the agenda of the immediately following Brown Act meeting of PRC.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
PRC Staff Liaison Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Assistant City Attorney Director, Community Services
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 SPECIAL MEETING 6 April 26, 2022 7 Council Chambers and Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Vice Chair LaMere, Commissioners Nellis 11 Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, Anne Cribbs and Amanda Brown 12
Commissioners Absent: 13
Others Present: 14
Staff Present: 15
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 16
Chair Greenfield welcomed the attendees to the April 26th regular meeting of the Parks 17
and Recreation Commission. 18
BUSINESS 19
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 20
Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency 21
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve the Resolution. Seconded by Vice Chair 22
LaMere, the motion passed, 6-0, by roll call vote. 23
PUBLIC COMMENT 24
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 25
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 26
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the March 22, 2022, Parks and Recreation 27 Commission Meeting 28
Chair Greenfield noted the conversation at the last meeting regarding making sure the 29 actions are included in the minutes so that it would be possible to record them properly for 30 viewing. In this month’s minutes, the action is referring to all of the items that were 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
documented by Mr. Do in the meeting, but the actual attachment of the work plan which 1
was voted on was not included and consequently he would not be voting to approve the 2
minutes until this is included. Chair Greenfield noted the importance of including the 3
attachment of any presentation given at a Commission meeting. 4
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2022, Parks and 5
Recreation Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Kleinhaus, the motion 6
passed, 5-1, by roll call vote. 7
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 8
3. Department Report 9
Mr. Anderson noted that City Council interviewed five applicants for the vacant Parks and 10 Recreation Commission position and will make their appointment at the Monday, May 2nd 11 meeting. The topic will come up at around 6:30. Council also reviewed the work plans for 12 the Public Arts Commission, the Utilities Advisory Commission and the Stormwater 13 Oversight Committee. The Parks and Recreation Commission work plan is scheduled for 14 Council review on Wednesday, June 1st, at 5:00 p.m. 15
Mr. Anderson passed on a request from Adam Howard for two Commissioners to join the 16
Judges Task Force for the May Fete Parade floats. Commissioner Brown has volunteered 17
but two more are needed. To volunteer, email Adam Howard for information. The May 18
Fete Parade is on May 7th at 10:00 a.m. This year’s theme is “What Empowers You?” 19
which honors and pays tribute to the resilience of Palo Alto’s youth and puts a focus on 20
sustainability. The parade will start at 10:00 a.m. at the corner of University Avenue and 21
Emerson Street. 22
Mr. Anderson updated the Commission on recreation camps. Summer camps are coming 23
soon, and in-person camps are at 81 percent capacity already. Some of the more popular 24
camps, such as cooking, Lego, invention camps already have large wait lists. Recreation 25
staff are trying to accommodate the wait lists by adding additional sessions, spaces 26
available and looking to add more instructors, as available. 27
The Rinconada Park project was successfully completed on April 1st. The new playground 28 is popular, with children at play on it the day it opened. There are also new park benches, 29 picnic tables, repaved pathways, and some native plantings. There will be a community 30 celebration and official grand opening of the Junior Museum and Zoo, Rinconada Park 31 and the JMZ’s new solar system exhibit on Saturday, May 14th, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 32 p.m. There will be an official ribbon-cutting ceremony; speakers’ program with City and 33 Friends of the JMZ officials; family-friendly entertainment, including a DJ; opportunities 34 to encounter animals at the Junior Museum; free tours of the newly-renovated JMZ; and 35 other fun things, such as free ice cream by Treatbot and food trucks. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
Mr. Anderson reported that the Cubberley tennis courts are scheduled to be resurfaced 1
starting Monday, May 2nd. The project should be completed by approximately June 30th. 2
Regarding recruitment, with Community Services being down positions, particularly in 3
Parks and Open Space for quite some time, they recently filled the vacant park ranger 4
position, filled by Nate McClure, who was promoted from a seasonal Assistant Ranger to 5
a full-time Park Ranger. He will be stationed at the Baylands but filling in throughout the 6
Open Space Preserves. Postings for the Garden Coordinator position formerly held by 7
Catherine Bourquin, a Parks Maintenance position and a Parks Irrigation position are all 8 closed on their postings, which means they will be moving on to interviews very soon. It 9 will be a big help to have the new people on, probably around early June. 10
Mr. Anderson reported that a bobcat with kittens was observed at Foothills Nature 11 Preserve, not far from the Interpretive Center. Also, the wildflowers are blooming at 12 Foothills, and Mr. Anderson encouraged people to go and take a look. The barn and cliff 13 swallows have returned to the Baylands and are busy building their nests at the Baylands 14 Nature Center. 15
Vice Chair LaMere asked how visitation has been at Foothills Preserve. Mr. Anderson 16
responded that it is staying steady, at about 100 percent over the historic average fairly 17
consistently, with no closures. According to the Rangers, it has been manageable, and they 18
have not had the problems on weekends that were experienced at the initial opening, such 19
as vehicles parked in inappropriate places, pedestrian/vehicle interactions, et etcetera. 20
Commissioner Cribbs asked if there was an update on the gyms at Cubberley. Mr. 21
Anderson said Gyms A and B are still closed. They are waiting for a second environmental 22
analysis report. They are encouraging people to use the Pavilion or other neighboring 23
gyms, like the YMCA. He did not anticipate reopening of the gyms very soon but will find 24
out more with the new report. 25
Commissioner Freeman asked about the tennis court repairs and whether this was being 26 communicated to the public. Mr. Anderson said this involves the outside courts at 27 Cubberley. He said they had signage there which got pushed out one week. The contractor 28 was not available on the originally published date, so the signage was updated and the 29 Cubberley staff was notified. Mr. Anderson thought it would be open again around June 30 30th. Commissioner Freeman wondered if there were limitations on what people can and 31 cannot do on the new courts and if this information would be posted; for example, certain 32 types of shoes, et cetera. Mr. Anderson said they hoped when it was opened it would go 33 back to standard hours and operations. The delayed start may compromise the end date, 34 but he will provide updates to the PRC and to the signage for users of the Cubberley courts. 35
Chair Greenfield commented that it is exciting news that the third staff position is being 36 filled, the Garden Coordinator/Parks Maintenance/Parks Irrigation position. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Commissioner Brown wondered if there were any drought impacts which will affect the 1
fields in the near term in light of the Governor’s Executive Order regarding jurisdictions’ 2
non-functional turf. Mr. Anderson said it is something they are expecting soon and are 3
planning for. The rule specifically says if it is for aesthetic purposes, or non-functional, 4
that the turf cannot be irrigated using potable water. Also, if it is not used for some sort of 5
recreation, there must be trees connected. Anderson said they are brainstorming and 6
planning where they will turn off heads selectively. He noted that it will look a little 7
strange, because they are going to do everything they need to do in order to make sure the 8 trees stay alive. This may mean that on a given piece of turf with scattered trees, they are 9 only able to turn off certain heads. So little brown circles or semi-circles and then green 10 on the exterior may be noticed and can be explained by their efforts to keep the trees alive. 11 He said they do have some explanatory signs which will be placed to inform the public. 12 He will also be working with the Utilities Department on something clever to post, to 13 explain the strange look, such as, “Brown Is the New Green” or something to that effect. 14
Chair Greenfield asked if there were plans to expand the irrigation to add bubblers near 15 the trees which could be left on while the sprinkler heads are disabled. Mr. Anderson 16
replied that what is needed is when new irrigation systems are designed, the trees should 17
be on a totally separate system. It is difficult to do this piecemeal after the fact, and they 18
have talked about this in certain situations. For special situations, it may be possible, but 19
currently is not a tactic they are considering. Chair Greenfield noted the importance of 20
stressing trees’ need for water, even during periods of shortage. 21
BUSINESS 22
4. Ad Hoc Reports 23
Chair Greenfield invited any updates from the committees or liaisons. 24
Commissioner Cribbs reported on the Recreational Opportunities Ad Hoc. They have met 25
on a weekly basis and are making progress collecting information from various parties 26 regarding the gym and wellness center. They have been reviewing the list of items that 27 would be needed to be in such a center, and they will also be looking at potential locations. 28 She thought they would have some cost analysis in the next couple of weeks, and they feel 29 positive about how things are going. Regarding the skate park, there is a meeting coming 30 up on May 4th. She thought the First Tee MOU or Letter of Intent would go to Council 31 around the first or second week in May. 32
Commissioner Brown met with staff and a representative from the dog park group to 33 review proposed modifications to the dog park area at Mitchell Park and got some great 34 information. She anticipated coming to the full Commission in the future. On the court 35 usage, the Ad Hoc is reviewing information from staff on restriping in advance of the 36 Senior Games. They will be reporting on that at the next meeting. Chair Greenfield 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
wondered about the date of the Senior Games and when the work would need to be 1
completed, and also what the work involves. Commissioner Brown said it involves 2
changing the color of the pickleball striping on the multi-use courts to a different color. 3
Commissioner Freeman had seen the striping and commented that it is a very subtle 4
yellow. He was also very impressed that they were able to squeeze two courts on each side 5
of the nets. The thought was that the color changes could be accomplished without any 6
complaints from the public, but will answer the demands of the pickleball community. He 7
said they will reach out to find out if there were any complaints from any of the tennis 8 players, but from what they’ve heard, people have been able to go along with the changes, 9 which make the courts multi-use for the benefit of everyone concerned. He thought it was 10 something they would want to support. 11
Chair Greenfield asked for clarification that this is for the 23:01 sports at JLS. 12 Commissioner Freeman said this is the case. The stripes are currently he. Commissioner 13 Freeman thought for the Senior Games, the objective was to try to make it uniform, to 14 mirror other pickleball courts. Commissioner Cribbs added that the Senior Games are on 15 Memorial Day Weekend, the end of May. 16
Chair Greenfield reported that the Electric Conveyances Ad Hoc had their first meeting 17
and spent the time on a framing discussion to narrow down what it is they are looking to 18
make a policy recommendation on. They will be trying to put together timeframes and 19
some constraints in terms of what is in their purview and what is reasonable and realistic 20
to aim for. They appreciate all of staff’s support on this, and Mr. Anderson is confident 21
that they can get a policy recommendation done this calendar year. 22
Chair Greenfield encouraged the Ad Hoc Committees to try to meet in the coming month 23
before the next meeting and work to make some incremental progress on goals and projects 24
they are aiming towards. 25
5. Save the Bay Presentation 26
Mr. Anderson introduced Jesse McKeen-Scott, Restoration Program Manager at Save the 27 Bay. Mr. Anderson shared that about 22 years ago he was a ranger at the Baylands and 28 was running different habitat restoration projects. He was doing the best he could with 29 limited resources and staff, but would reach out to the Boy Scouts or others and would 30 lead programs to remove invasive plants. He recounted that Marilyn Latta had reached out 31 to him, offering to partner with him. This was the beginning of a 21-year relationship that 32 has been outstanding, Mr. Anderson said it has been totally problem-free and their 33 expertise and resources have been a gift to their operation and goals of reaching habitat 34 improvements. He was grateful to Ms. McKeen-Scott for coming to share about the 35 partnership and about Save the Bay. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
Ms. McKeen-Scott gave a presentation on Save the Bay, which is the oldest and largest 1
non-profit organization working exclusively to celebrate, protect and restore the San 2
Francisco Bay. It was established in 1961. The organization works on policy issues, 3
education and restoration around the Bay. Save the Bay has partnered with the City of Palo 4
Alto and the Palo Alto Baylands for the past 20 years to restore the wetlands transition 5
zone between the extensive marshes at the park. The habitats are important refuges for 6
marsh-dependent wildlife and also provide buffers between critical infrastructure and 7
rising sea levels, as well as provide scenic natural areas for Bay Area residents. 8
Save the Bay has a staff of around 25 people in the entire organization. Their team is made 9 up of five full-time staff members, as well as some additional seasonal staff members, 10 fellows and super volunteers. They can be seen out in the fields in the Baylands. Ms. 11 McKeen-Scott encouraged Commissioners, if they see them out doing work, to come and 12 ask questions, as they love interacting with the public and answering questions they might 13 have. 14
The habitat restoration team has three key areas of focus, which include mobilizing the 15 public to help restore transition zone habitat; educating community members, including 16
the next generation of Bay savers; and working with partners and land managers to 17
contribute to large-scale restoration efforts. 18
Ms. McKeen-Scott shared some history of the San Francisco Bay in general. Ninety 19
percent of tidal marshland has been lost in the Bay. There are currently 80,000 acres that 20
are protected, enhanced or restored in some way, and an additional 30,000 acres designated 21
for upcoming restoration. The goal at Save the Bay is to help re-establish the tidal marsh 22
ecotone to create habitat for Bay wildlife and to help communities adapt to sea level rise 23
from climate change. 24
The habitat restoration work is located specifically within the transition zone, which is 25
fairly unique to Save the Bay. It means they are working adjacent to the tidal marsh, but 26 not actually going into it. They work in the zone generally in the midpoint in the mid-level 27 marsh. The zone provides many important ecosystem services in an area with rich species 28 biodiversity. It is an important habitat for endangered and endemic plant and animal 29 species, including the salt marsh harvest mouse and the Ridgeway’s Rail. It is a buffer 30 from upland anthropogenic inputs entering the waterways as well as vice versa, protecting 31 communities from storm surges and rising sea levels. It is also an important carbon sink, 32 trapping carbon instead of having it go into the atmosphere. 33
Save the Bay focuses on this transition zone to help kickstart the reestablishment of this 34 habitat, a process that might take 10 to 15 years on its own. They hope to speed this up to 35 have the transition zone reestablished in three to five years. In thinking about the rate at 36 which climate change is impacting bayside communities, speeding up the process is 37
important. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
Specific work toward this goal includes highly seasonal and fairly predictable work. They 1
just finished the winter out-planting season, having planted 30,000 to 40,000 container 2
plants at different sites around the Bay. They direct-sowed native seed and also 3
experimented with farming equipment, to distribute rhizomatous plant material into the 4
transition zones. They are now transitioning into the spring season with a focus on sowing 5
seeds and transplanting in the nurseries. 6
Alongside of restoration work the organization also provides public programming. There 7
are seven restoration sites around the Bay, five of which include nurseries. They have 8 worked at the Martin Luther King Shoreline, part of the East Bay Regional Parks District, 9 as well as the Palo Alto Baylands for nearly 20 years. The sites are primarily used to 10 engage the public, student and corporate groups through onsite and nursery programs. 11 They have also taken on some larger scale transition zone restoration projects after a very 12 successful completion of the Oro Loma Horizontal Levee Project in the East Bay. Newer 13 projects have included work at Eden Landing in Hayward as well as a large seasonal 14 wetland complex of 42 acres at Bel Marin Keys in the North Bay and two sites in the 15 South Bay Salt Pond Levee Project at Ravenswood. 16
Ms. McKeen-Scott shared some of the upcoming work planned for the Palo Alto Baylands 17
starting this year. One of their container plant nurseries is located near the Palo Alto Duck 18
Pond. Two upcoming sites will include the entry lot site and the nature center. At the entry 19
lot site is a 1,400-meter square site currently characterized by large patches of invasive 20
Italian Buckthorn shrub and locally introduced Big Saltbush, with grassy clearings of non-21
native annual grasses and perennial smilo grass also spread throughout. The goals for this 22
site include removing the Italian Buckthorn and Big Saltbush which are obstructing the 23
view of the marsh from the parking lot and re-vegetating with diverse locally-sourced 24
native plants that are adapted to the site conditions and that will provide a beautiful 25
experience for park visitors as well as critical habitat for wildlife. 26
The Nature Center lot is divided into two sections. The southern section totals around 27 1,400 meters square and the northern section is approximately 650 meters square. The 28 restoration goals for this site are similar to those for the Entry Lot, but with increased 29 opportunity with this site to experiment with more wetland species in the swale. 30
A big part of work happening in the fall and winter are team planting days when the 31 thousands of plants grown in the nursery are taken into the field and planted, where they 32 can grow and fill in the site. This work includes monitoring, especially in the spring and 33 early fall, which is important in gauging the success of new restoration techniques, as well 34 as identifying whether they are hitting goals around native plant cover versus non-native, 35 et cetera. Questions come up while monitoring sites, such as which plant species are found 36 in the transition zone and at what abundance; or how many plant species are found in the 37
transition zone. Monitoring sites over multiple years allows for gauging success and 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
increased understanding. 1
Another frequent event in the coming weeks and months will be on Thursdays at the 2
Baylands with students, running educational programs and community programs. In a non-3
COVID year Save the Bay would bring up to 2,700 students out to the shoreline for free 4
service learning programs. The programs include educational curriculum as well as hands-5
on restoration work. While they are not quite up to the level of in-person program 6
participation they were at pre-pandemic, they are very happy to be able to welcome 7
students to the shoreline again and work with them in the field. They have also connected 8 with a larger audience through their new online platform, Outdoor Learning Online 9 (OLO). As with many organizations, during they pandemic the organization pivoted to an 10 online interface in 2020 due to COVID restrictions. The hope is that the portal will be a 11 space to enrich onsite programming and engage with a wider student audience. 12
Ms. McKeen-Scott concluded by stating that Save the Bay is grateful for the partnership 13 they have had at the Palo Alto Baylands, and with the City of Palo Alto, for the past 20 14 years. It has allowed them to do important work. 15
Chair Greenfield offered appreciation for the enlightening presentation. He invited 16
questions and comments from the public. Hearing none, he invited questions or comments 17
from the Commissioners. 18
Commissioner Freeman was impressed with the presentation. He asked about the people 19
helping, including the students, and wondered if they were reaching out to local colleges 20
and universities and schools for that assistance. He said the fact that it takes a number of 21
years from the time they actually start their work until they actually see progress is 22
impressive as well. He asked if there are any special tools that they use for that purpose. 23
Ms. McKeen-Scott responded that when it comes to monitoring, they are usually visiting 24
a site over a course of three to five years to measure the progress, depending on specific 25
contracts or grants they are operating under and how long they want to monitor. She said 26 they have specific protocols but the actual tools include things like meter tapes, elevation 27 measurement tools to measure consistently at correct heights across a habitat. They use 28 the Fulcrum app, which is a data app which allows them to track their data over time. They 29 also use PVC quadrants to simply identify which plants are seen in a given plot, measure 30 them and observe how it changes over time. The equipment is not complicated, although 31 it takes a little training to get everyone on the same page and make sure they are monitoring 32 in the same manner and identifying the species correctly. 33
Commissioner Brown thought it was a lot of work for five full time staff, and she was very 34 impressed with their great work in partnering with the City. 35
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked about the Palo Alto restoration sites and wondered if there 36 is any conflict in any of the sites with the Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Project. Ms. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
McKeen-Scott did not know of any. They have been working with the Rangers at the Palo 1
Alto Baylands specifically to select their sites. Commissioner Kleinhaus thought that one 2
of them was quite close. She asked why they are removing the Saltbush. Ms. McKeen-3
Scott this is partly to create a safer space for members of the public who are using the 4
parking lot because the bushes grow very large in that space, and they want members of 5
the public to feel safe and feel that they have a clear view of the marsh and the area when 6
they are recreating there. Also, because the species is very good at growing quickly and 7
taking over a large amount of space, it makes it difficult for other native species to compete 8 in that area. She said they won’t be coming in and wiping out these species at once, but 9 will be very selective about how it is done, paying close attention to impacts on people 10 and wildlife. Commissioner Kleinhaus said she felt strongly that Saltbush is a native plant 11 which grows there, and if it hides the Bay, then it should be planted somewhere else before 12 removing it, and allowed to grow. She didn’t agree with removing an important habitat 13 and said Saltbush is not all over the place but is in that area. She had a strong reservation 14 about removing habitat and felt it was an assumption that people didn’t feel safe. She 15 understood removing the Buckthorn, which is not a native species. She also noted that 16
Atriplex needs to be a lot more. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked about collecting biological information and wondered if 18
it available to the public. Ms. McKeen-Scott thought they did release some of their 19
information and they do present information to members of the public. She was not totally 20
sure how the data has been presented in the past, other than coming to speak at different 21
events. She would check on this. Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested using a naturalist to 22
help people see what is there and what was there, with public transparency about the 23
information collected, perhaps posted online. 24
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there was monitoring for species that are coming in, 25
perhaps not yet in large populations but are expanding and invasive. Ms. McKeen-Scott 26 they are, and they monitor not only for the specific native species that they planted, but 27 generally looking at which other species are coming in and establishing in an area. As they 28 see populations expanding they are able to target those as they do their projects onsite. 29 Commissioner Kleinhaus thought this was great and could also be posted online to educate 30 others to be able to identify such species. 31
Commissioner Kleinhaus noted with the Saltbush that there is so little vegetation that 32 removing a stand of an important native species should possibly be reconsidered. Chair 33 Greenfield asked Mr. Anderson to comment on the oversight process for work that the 34 Save the Bay is doing, and how their projects are presented and approved. Mr. Anderson 35 said that it is typically done hand-in-hand with the Supervising Ranger at the sites, who 36 would do much of the coordination, although Save the Bay is probably so integrated with 37
other projects that some level of the organization is already tied to things like the 38
Horizontal Levee. Where they are not, their conduit would be the Supervising Ranger, 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Lisa Myers [phonetic], who would be the nexus point to ensure cooperation and 1
coordination, in addition to tying into other organizations like the EVs who are on site, 2
too. 3
Ms. McKeen-Scott clarified that they will not be removing all of the Saltbush, but just 4
stemming it back some so that there is more species biodiversity in the area to promote 5
increased species richness and biodiversity there. Commissioner Kleinhaus replied that 6
she understands from an ecological point of view large stands of native plant provide a 7
lot more for pollinators and other wildlife. She said patch size matters ecologically so 8 having more diversity in one spot may actually reduce the value of that spot. She said she 9 has done some research on these things, and doesn’t think they necessarily need to 10 diversify every spot. When there is a plant that is part of the Baylands historical ecological 11 system that is thriving then it brings species with it –species which eat it and species which 12 hide in it, et cetera, and removing some of it to diversify the spot can impact that species. 13 Commissioner Kleinhaus said they are impacting the ecosystem so much that restoration 14 projects should be very careful not to remove or degrade habitat in any way. She noted 15 that it is one of the species that they try to plant in certain places, such as campuses, in Bay 16
View at Moffit, because it brings so much with it. She concluded by saying if they are 17
going to remove it here, then they should make a nice stand of it somewhere else. 18
Mr. Anderson shared that when he was a Ranger at the Baylands there were many areas 19
that were barren or completely dominated, 100 percent, with invasive weeds. Save the Bay 20
was just starting, focused on one area. He said he looked at those species – such as Coyote 21
Bush – that some agencies, including Fish and Wildlife Service would remove when it had 22
become such a monoculture. He said when he heard this he wondered why, if it was a 23
native species and good habitat. He said in certain situations he planted hundreds of Coyote 24
Bush, and they filled in the barren areas. He felt it made a lot of sense, and likewise with 25
Atriplex. There were areas where it strategically made more sense to have it than take it 26 out and run the risk of some invasive taking over, unless it could be replanted very well, 27 as Save the Bay does. He said the point of Commissioner Kleinhaus was well-taken and 28 thinks it is a good thing to keep an eye on, and if an adjacent area is barren, perhaps that 29 should be the first focus for some of the plantings. He said he also had a great deal of trust 30 in Save the Bay, and they can discuss this and see if there is a happy medium to reach. 31
Mr. Anderson also commented on another benefit provided by Save the Bay – the effect 32 they have had on youth, both regionally and in Palo Alto. He shared that in the beginning 33 he would often join them on their programs, and the difference between the City-run, 34 Ranger-run programs was significant. He said they set an example of how to inspire people 35 to care. He said one day when they were planting, at the end of the day, after three hours 36 of hard work, each kid had a small water bottle and, rather than drink it, they were pouring 37
out the last of their drinking water to water their newly-planted plants. He was impressed 38
by the creation of future environmental stewards Save the Bay was creating – teaching 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
and including them in every phase of the restoration process, with litter and trash removal 1
as well as invasive species removal, growing the seeds in the nursery and collecting them 2
and re-planting them out in the field. He commended and thanked Save the Bay for the 3
impact it has had on their community and their youth. 4
Commissioner Cribbs loved the program and has been aware of it for a long time. She 5
appreciated all that Ms. McKeen-Scott and the team has done. She wondered if there was 6
anything that the Commission could do for Save the Bay outside of what the City and Mr. 7
Anderson’s staff does. Ms. McKeen-Scott said she would have to think about it and said 8 it as been a wonderful partnership. The Rangers have been very helpful and there for them 9 to answer any questions, and they are very grateful for this. 10
Vice Chair LaMere appreciated the presentation and the work of Save the Bay. He said 11 getting so many youth involved is wonderful. He asked about the financial relationship 12 between the Commission and Save the Bay and the process of funding by the City. Mr. 13 Anderson advised that there is no financial relationship, just a mutual exchange of the 14 rangers supporting them wherever they can. They used to leave bags of the invasive 15 species where they were working and the rangers would come and pick them up. He said 16
Save the Bay just gives tremendous support, and there is no financial reimbursement for 17
it. Vice Chair LaMere asked how the organization raises their funds. Ms. McKeen-Scott 18
responded that they are a non-profit and largely funded by grants and private donors. Some 19
of the funding comes from when they leave programs with corporate groups, they pay to 20
participate in volunteer work, and some of that funding goes to work they are doing in the 21
Palo Alto Baylands. They also just got a large donation from Salesforce who is funding 22
some of the work, as well as some other sites. This is a large grant that just came in. 23
Vice Chair LaMere asked where their nursery is located. Ms. McKeen-Scott said one is 24
located at the Palo Alto Baylands, out of their five nurseries spread around the Bay. It is 25
just off of the Duck Pond. Vice Chair LaMere wondered if they ever monetize the amount 26 of work that they do to benefit the Baylands and Palo Alto. He thought it would be 27 interesting to see a number of all the hours and all that they are doing, which is such a 28 benefit to the community and the entire Bay. 29
Chair Greenfield agreed it would be a helpful point for future presentations to point out 30 that there is no financing coming from the City for all of the work they do for the 31 community. He said he is excited to learn about the nursery. When he used to take his kids 32 to the Duck Pond to throw bread into the pond, he always wondered about the area with 33 all of the plants growing, and now it’s good to connect the dots. He asked what percentage 34 of the work that Save the Bay does is at the Palo Alto Baylands. Ms. McKeen-Scott 35 estimated in the ballpark of around 25 percent. That number may be going up a little bit as 36 they dive into some of the new sites. She estimated that staff is at the nursery at least once 37
a week and also sprinkled throughout the week as well. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
Chair Greenfield noted that all the work done with five employees is incredible. He asked 1
if their full time staff level fluctuated much, during COVID, or in general. Ms. McKeen-2
Scott said they are looking to the future as they kick off new programs and bring students 3
back into the field. They are starting look at bringing a few more staff members onto the 4
team. She said during COVID they maintained about five staff members throughout. In 5
the winter they do hire a couple additional staff. There were two seasonal staff members 6
working only in the field to help plant the massive number of plants. She also 7
acknowledged their “super volunteers,” folks who have been coming out just to volunteer 8 with them on a regular basis. Many have been with the organization longer than some of 9 the staff, so they rely on their support to help them expand their impact. 10
Chair Greenfield asked regarding the sites mentioned, both near parking lots, whether they 11 expect foot traffic through these areas and if so, how they will accommodate or prevent it, 12 and how it might affect what they choose to put in the area. Ms. McKeen-Scott responded 13 that many of the areas have trails that run alongside them. She didn’t necessarily expect a 14 lot of increased foot traffic in the area, because hopefully people will stick to the paths. 15 However, with certain species, as they get established, it is possible that they might put up 16
some markers or flags around some of them so make people aware of them and pay 17
attention to them while wandering through. She said they mostly stay on the pavement, 18
and there is not much reason to go off the path because there are already trails right 19
alongside where they will be planting. 20
Chair Greenfield asked for more information about the major partners that they work with 21
and asked if they are working with San Francisco Estuary Institute and what their role is 22
in the Horizonal Levee Project proposal. Ms. McKeen-Scott said they do have a lot of 23
partners and are a part of the Estuary Institute. They also partner with East Bay Regional 24
Parks District, the Novato Baylands Stewards and are generally part of many larger 25
organizations working to protect the Estuary. Their policy team also collaborates with 26 other organizations to advance their work. They are a part of the Horizontal Levee. She 27 said she came onboard recently and hasn’t been entirely introduced to the project but 28 knows that it is something that they are involved in. 29
Chair Greenfield invited further questions or comments. Hearing none, he extended thanks 30 to Ms. McKeen-Scott for the presentation and the organization’s work in the community. 31 He hoped to have them back for a return visit in a year or two for an update. 32
6. Review of the Proposed Updates to the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance 33
Chair Greenfield explained this item is looking at proposed changes to Title 8 of the 34 Municipal Code, Trees and Vegetation. He invited the staff presentation and outlined the 35 agenda for the item. 36
Mr. Anderson introduced Peter Gollinger, Acting Urban Forester, Public Works 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Department. 1
Mr. Gollinger shared the presentation on this item. The Ordinance was first passed in 1951 2
with the last major update in 1996. There have been new City policy documents adopted 3
since the last update but not yet backed by Municipal Code. There has also been new state 4
legislation that has taken place since the last update, including the Model Water Efficiency 5
Landscape Ordinance and new regulations around wildfire prevention. In addition, there 6
have been numerous recent studies that have expanded upon benefits provided by the 7
urban forest which are much greater than previously thought. 8
A timeline of the historical updates for Title 8 include adoption of the Tree Ordinance by 9 Palo Alto in 1951 to protect city trees. In 1995, oaks were included as a protected species. 10 In 1999, the Preservation and Management Guidelines for private trees were enacted. 11 Redwoods were added 2001, and in 2011 the tree removal requirements for the Hospital 12 District were updated. One of the policy documents that has been adopted since the last 13 update is the Urban Forest Master Plan. Some specific goals in the Master Plan relate to 14 the Ordinance. These include achieving a greater percentage of native, drought-tolerant 15 species; ensuring there is no net loss of benefits during development; increasing habitat 16
health and social benefits; striving for no net loss of canopy; and increasing canopy cover. 17
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted since that update as well, and it includes 18
several goals and key actions related to the Ordinance, some in other chapters besides 19
“Natural Environment.” The urban forest plays a role in many portions of the 20
Comprehensive Plan, primarily improving the overall distribution of citywide canopy 21
cover; periodical updating of the Tree Ordinance, and striving towards the aspirational 22
long-term goal of achieving 50 percent canopy cover across the city. 23
The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan currently in process also has a number of goals 24
and key action related to the Urban Forest. One is to increase tree canopy to 40 percent by 25
2030 and ensure no net loss of tree canopy for all projects. The state laws referenced are 26 Executive Order B-29-15, which is the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that 27 basically ensures that large landscape projects are waterwise and water-efficient. They 28 must follow a water budget and submit landscape plans to be approved. Also, SB 247, the 29 Wildfire Prevention bill put additional restrictions on vegetation management for fire 30 prevention. 31
Mr. Gollinger went over some of the benefits of the Urban Forest. He said he saw a recent 32 article equating canopy cover with prescription of antidepressants, and the higher the 33 canopy cover, the less prescriptions were written, which was fascinating. There is good 34 health data published tied to canopy cover. Quantifiable benefits, depending on the total 35 number of trees calculated in the Urban Forest – for which there is no accurate inventory, 36 only estimate – 29 to 49 tons of CO2 are sequestered annually. Almost a million gallons 37
of stormwater are diverted away from storm drains during regular rain years. Almost 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
300,000 pounds of air pollutants are removed, and almost 84 million kilowatt hours of 1
energy are saved. 2
Details of the changes proposed were outlined and categorized into three main sections. 3
First, updates to lists of authorized officers and relevant staff positions. Many of the 4
positions involved with the maintenance of the ordinance and enforcement were not in 5
existence when it was written. They are restructuring some of the chapters and sections to 6
increase clarity and document flow and have some substantive changes to align the 7
Ordinance with existing policies and state laws. 8
Permits for work on public trees, which are permits that a resident would apply for to do 9 work on a City-owned tree. This often happens if a resident would like to have more 10 frequent pruning than is provided by the City’s seven-year cycle. Or it could involve work 11 on a tree in conjunction with a development project, for which permission is needed. This 12 process has been streamlined and the reasons for it and steps clarified for in this section of 13 the Ordinance. 14
Two sections of the Ordinance focus on enforcement, one for enforcement for public trees 15 and one for private trees. These sections have been updated to clarify what types of 16
penalties can be applied and the list of employees who are authorized to issue violations. 17
The main types of penalties used are administrative penalties which are handled through 18
the City’s Administrative Penalty schedule and process. Civil penalties would be handled 19
in a court of law, and stop work actions, or development moratoriums, handled through 20
the development process. 21
A big change proposed is a Designated Arborist system in which the City would create a 22
list of qualified, certified selected arborists from which an applicant could choose to hire 23
to complete any documents relating to their application. The main items the designated 24
arborist would be responsible to fill out would be the Tree Disclosure Statement 25
accompanying an application for development; Tree Preservation Reports; Hazard 26 Assessments; or other arborist reports. The current draft specifies that applicants would 27 select and hire from the list on their own, unless the project automatically triggered a 28 hearing, in which case the City would reserve the right to select an arborist appropriate for 29 the project. Menlo Park has a similar program, and the selection process would probably 30 be modeled off of that. Ideally, there would be a set of clear and concise standards that an 31 arborist would need to meet to be on the list. This would avoid any preferential treatment 32 of any arborist. 33
The definition of excessive pruning has been expanded in the proposed draft. Currently, 34 the definition does not include roots, so roots have been included into the standard 25-35 percent definition, meaning if 25 percent of the tree was removed during a specific period 36 of time. The current ordinance states 12 months and the proposal is to revise the time 37
window to 36 months. If 25 percent of any portion of a tree were removed within a 36-38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
month period, it could be a violation of excessive pruning. Also, oaks have been separated 1
out of the main definition, and now pruning of 15 percent or more is considered excessive 2
for oak species, to prevent damaging the root systems of native oaks. 3
Some of the biggest changes to the ordinance are in regard to protected trees. The proposal 4
is to add several additional native species to be protected at 11.5 inches, which is the 5
current threshold for Valley Oaks and Live Oaks. Also added would be Big Leaf Maples, 6
Incense Cedars, Blue Oaks and California Black Oaks. All other species would be 7
protected at 15 inches with the exception of invasive species, which would be listed on the 8 Cal-IPC list and high water users on the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species 9 (WUCOL) which is run by the Department of Water Resources and the UC system. 10 Redwoods would be the least protected of all the protected species, which is a big change 11 and is more in line with neighboring municipalities. 12
Most of the other protected tree categories are in existence currently. Any tree designated 13 for protection during review and approval of a development project; any tree designated 14 for carbon sequestration and storage or environmental mitigation purposes; and any 15 replacement mitigation tree or other tree designated to be planted due to the conditions in 16
the Ordinance. This essentially protects replacement trees that are planted when a 17
protected tree is removed. One of the key pieces of the current ordinance process is the 18
Tree Technical Manual, the “tree bible” for anyone working with development or 19
protected trees within the city. The new ordinance would be supported by an updated 20
manual, called the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. The addition of landscape 21
would be needed to cover some of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance 22
(MWELO) requirements. Specifications within the manual will include prioritization of 23
locally native species, the inclusion of climate-adaptive and drought tolerant species as a 24
secondary priority, and the goal of net tree canopy increase on the property within 15 years. 25
Landscape design, irrigation and installation standards will also be included. 26
Updates to the Prohibited Acts section include re-organization into several different 27 categories to discuss when a protected tree may be removed in certain situations. The 28 categories include: Outside of the development process; as part of development on a 29 residential lot; as part of a project with a subdivision of land; as part of any other project 30 requiring discretionary approval by the City; and any other circumstances other than the 31 previous ones listed. This was intended to clarify where the current ordinance has all of 32 these lumped together into one section. 33
Allowable reasons for tree removal outside the development process would include when 34 the tree is dead, hazardous or a nuisance; the tree is a detriment to or is crowding an 35 adjacent protected tree or is impacting the foundation or eaves of a primary residence. 36 Trees removed under this category may trigger and 36-month development moratorium 37
with mitigation measures required to lift the moratorium early. This clause prevents a 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
loophole where a dead or dying tree can be removed with a tree permit and the applicant 1
could immediately apply for a development permit. This would ensure that any tree 2
removals would be considered as part of the development permit, which is the preferred 3
method. 4
Allowable reasons for removal as part of development on a residential lot are the same as 5
the previous situation, with the addition of a category intended to capture language from 6
the previous ordinance, but clarify it. The tree is so close to the proposed development that 7
construction would result in the death of the tree and there is no financially feasible and 8
reasonable design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree. 9
Allowable reasons for a project that has a subdivision of land include the when the tree is 10 dead, hazardous or a nuisance and removal is unavoidable due to restricted access or is 11 deemed necessary to repair a geologic hazard. 12
Most other projects would fall under the category of a project requiring discretionary 13 approval by the City. This would be where the 25-percent rule currently in place is 14 addressed. They have added the specification that no financially feasible and reasonable 15 design alternative is available that would permit the preservation of the tree. Additionally, 16
the tree could be removed if it is dead, hazardous or a nuisance. In such cases, equal area 17
of the drip line would need to be preserved for mitigation. This is an area equal to the 18
canopy of the tree which needs to be preserved so that mitigation plantings can occur. 19
Changes to the care of protected trees were discussed next. The list of items which may 20
negatively impact protected trees has been expanded to include some other items, such as 21
underwatering. A requirement is added for owners of protected trees to notify the City and 22
publicly post their intent to maintain their tree. This is to educate neighbors and the public 23
and prevent panicked calls from residents worried that a tree is being removed when, in 24
fact, it is being pruned for maintenance. Owners would also have to verify that they will 25
be following best management practices in hiring an arborist to do this work. This also 26 educates the owners on the proper maintenance of the tree and notifying neighbors that the 27 work will be happening. 28
Tree removal in the Wildland Urban Interface Area – the WUI in Palo Alto is essentially 29 everything south and west of 280 and is considered a higher fire danger zone. 30 Consequently, any issues that come up in this area will be ruled by the fire ordinances. An 31 additional update to the Tree Ordinance is planned which has a separate set of rules for 32 dealing with protected trees in the WUI, but it was felt it more important to have the rest 33 of the ordinance go before Council now. Some changes have also been made to 34 applications, notices and appeals to streamline the language and increase clarity in the 35 process. Also added are some additional notification requirements for protected tree 36 removal applications, including posting on the property on the City website and by mail 37
to addresses within 600 feet. It also requires notice when applying for a permit and when 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
a decision is made, as well as an appeals process. The draft of this has the exact process 1
used in Chapter 18.78 which may be modified to include an appeals process based on this 2
but stays inside of Public Works as opposed to the Development Center. This is still being 3
worked on. 4
A summary of the potential impacts to residents that may cause the most impact would 5
include having to file for a protected tree removal permit to remove trees that were 6
previously unprotected. These must qualify and meet removal guidelines in order to get 7
the permit. Also, the new requirement regarding notifying neighbors and the City prior to 8 maintenance. It is expected that many more applications will be submitted for development 9 projects that will now require an arborist report. Tree disclosure statements and arborist 10 reports must be completed by a designated arborists, where currently the architect or 11 homeowner could complete this to be reviewed by City staff. 12
Mr. Gollinger stated that they will be continuing to work on the Ordinance and will be 13 presenting it most likely at the first meeting in June, to the Council. If all goes well, they 14 will proceed from there. 15
Chair Greenfield thanked Mr. Hollinger for the presentation, which is a major and very 16
detailed, comprehensive change, and fitting since the policy has not been updated in 20 17
years. Chair Greenfield disclosed that he is an advisor to Canopy and has also been 18
working as part of a resident ad hoc group on reviewing and recommending updates to the 19
Ordinance in conjunction with Canopy and staff and subject matter experts, including 20
former Urban Forester, former City Arborist and consultants in the field. He pointed out 21
that this was a discussion item/study session, so no action would be taken. 22
Chair Greenfield invited questions from members of the public connected via Zoom. 23
Seeing none, he noted that the staff report included last October’s City Council review of 24
the recommended changes to the Ordinance and directed staff to conduct further public 25
outreach. The item under consideration is part of the public outreach. Also, at the October 26 City Council meeting, staff was directed to formalize the relationship between the PRC 27 and the Urban Forestry Section, so they now have a formal role as the community forum 28 for Urban Forestry issues, including review and recommendation on policy updates. The 29 Commission normally considers parks and open space areas, so Chair Greenfield asked 30 Mr. Gollinger to clarify the scope of the Ordinance with respect to open space areas. 31
Mr. Gollinger explained that as far as parks go, anything outside of the WUI would be 32 handled just like other part of the Ordinance. They have historically held City projects that 33 are run by Urban Forestry or Utilities, or any department, with the same standards as they 34 have in the Ordinance, and that will continue. This includes replanting requirements, 35 posting requirements, et cetera. Regarding open space, because the majority of the open 36 space with the exception of the Baylands is in the high fire danger zone, he felt that the 37
fire regulations would trump tree preservation. So, if there was a protected tree that needed 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
to be removed due to fire clearance requirements, then that would be allowed. 1
Chair Greenfield wondered if this refers in general to everything east of I-280. Mr. 2
Hollinger stated this is the case. Chair Greenfield invited questions from the 3
Commissioners. 4
Commissioner Kleinhaus noted the discussion of building permits and demolition, and 5
asked where in the process the grading permit is issued. Mr. Hollinger said it is rare to 6
have a grading permit that is not part of a larger project, so it would be handled as part of 7
the larger project. If the project required discretionary review from Planning, then it would 8 be handled with those requirements. If it was a residential project, then it would be subject 9 to those requirements. He believed it would fall into the category of the overall project. 10 Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested including grading specifically in the document, as she 11 has seen grading permits that were provided that ended up with no trees and no buildings, 12 just a graded area. Mr. Hollinger said it was something they could look into. They do 13 require a tree fencing inspection before anything is done, including grading or trenching. 14
Commissioner Freeman asked, since it has been over 20 years since there’s been any 15 change, if there had been any thought to the types of communication that would be used 16
to educate the public once the ordinance is implemented. Additionally, he asked what level 17
of enforcement would take place. Mr. Hollinger said they have an outreach plan in place, 18
and much of that would be done by the non-profit partner, Canopy. They have also begun 19
discussions about a phased-in approach in regard to enforcement. Meaning, once the 20
ordinance goes into effect, all of the protection measures exist, but they could perhaps 21
allow a little bit of time before starting to write violations for lack of posting for 22
maintenance. The big changes will require some education and outreach to not only 23
residents, but the tree companies as well. The protections for additional species would 24
need to be in place from the moment the ordinance goes into effect. On the other hand, 25
issues such as the designated arborist list will take some time to establish, so perhaps that 26 wouldn’t be put into effect for the first few months. They are discussing this and will make 27 a proposal before Council regarding what they recommend for implementation. 28
Commissioner Kleinhaus said one of the letters received asks about removal of invasive 29 trees on City properties, such as Trees of Heaven, and she wondered where that would fit 30 within the ordinance, or if there is a program to remove some of the invasive trees. Mr. 31 Hollinger responded that Tree of Heaven and privets and a few others are definitely on the 32 invasive, not protected, list. It is part of the Urban Forest Master Plan that they have a 33 program to selectively remove these, and they have done some work with internal staff on 34 this and are looking to expand upon it, but there is currently no formal program. 35
Commissioner Freeman asked how they determine nuisance, as it seems somewhat vague. 36 Mr. Hollinger said there is a very specific definition of nuisance in Title 8. It spells out 37
exactly what constitutes a nuisance, so a resident couldn’t just claim something is a 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
nuisance because it’s dropping leaves in their pool. It must meet qualifications of the 1
ordinance. 2
Chair Greenfield invited comments from members of the public. He noted that five letters 3
have been received, from Ann Balin, Claire Elliott, Melanie Grondel, Joe Hirsch and 4
Catherine Martineau from Canopy. 5
Catherine Martineau, Executive Director of Canopy, spoke on behalf of the Canopy Board 6
and staff to express support for the updates and their thanks to staff for their work and 7
thoughtfulness that has been put into the preparation of this version. She said they are 8 pleased that the important changes that they advocated for have been incorporated. More 9 native trees will be protected, and the ordinance will align better with the tree protection 10 in neighboring cities. She mentioned that a week ago, the East Palo Alto City Council 11 approved their first Urban Forest Master Plan, and it includes an update to their City Tree 12 Protection Ordinance to strengthen tree protection through measures that are similar to 13 those proposed for Palo Alto. Another important detail is the alignment with the Water 14 Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). The project has been a long time in the works. 15 She said in 2018, a few years after the Urban Forest Master Plan for Palo Alto was adopted, 16
Walter Passmore started the process of updating the ordinance, but it was stalled until last 17
summer. It came to City Council in October and has been in the works since then. She said 18
they are happy that there is momentum to get the ordinance passed in early June. Ms. 19
Martineau noted that large trees are regularly being felled, and that Canopy receives many 20
calls from residents, upset when they see trees going down. The ordinance update will 21
protect many more trees. She commented that there is only one solution to lower ambient 22
temperature in urban areas, and that is the urban forest. Each time a tree falls, it is like an 23
air condition is shut off, but amazingly this air conditioner is natural, beautiful and runs 24
on renewable energy. 25
Rob Levitsky spoke on behalf of the trees of Palo Alto, which have been taking a beating 26 the last few years. He said he spent the last six years working with Dave Doctor [phonetic], 27 Walter Passmore and Peter Gollinger to try to understand the existing rules in Palo Alto 28 regarding trees, which have been pretty vague. He felt it was important to get the new tree 29 ordinance approved to tighten up the rules. Mr. Levitsky shared a photo of a garage which 30 formerly had a tree next to it. He said on a weekend, it just went away. None of the rules 31 applied because no one applied for a permit. He said it was hidden behind an LLC with no 32 code enforcement to chase it down. He said if they can afford to pay code enforcement to 33 chase down a leaf blower, hopefully they can chase down people that cut down oak trees. 34 He showed another photo of a very large oak tree next to the Post Office, which during 35 election time people do their canvassing there, at the farmer’s market. He said he heard a 36 chain saw one day a couple weeks ago and found a crew up in the tree cutting it down. 37
Apparently, one of the chief Planning officials signed a “death warrant” for the tree. He 38
said in the first case, people cut trees down without a permit and just hide. In another case, 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
the City sanctions it because one part of the City doesn’t know what the other part of the 1
City is doing. He was able to make a call to Mr. Gollinger, and ultimately enough of the 2
tree was left that there is still a tree there, but in another five to ten minutes the tree would 3
have been gone. In a third case, in his front yard, he said there were five branches, and a 4
crew came by a few weeks ago and cut off two of them – 45 percent of the tree – with no 5
permit, just an arbitrary decision. Mr. Levitsky said he is in favor of the tree ordinance and 6
hoped they could get some teeth behind it. He said if trees keep coming down, they may 7
need a system that can be triggered by the sound of chain saws to stop such things from 8
happening. 9
Karen Holman thanked staff for their efforts working on this much-needed ordinance. She 10 related that she has been thinking about the long view and the short view of things. There 11 used to be a rail line from Stanford University to Santa Cruz, but it was taken out, so people 12 drive on Highway 17. There used to be trolleys in many towns, including Palo Alto, that 13 took people to the downtown. Most of them are gone, including in her hometown, so 14 everyone drives to downtown. If the long view had been applied perhaps things would be 15 different. During the pandemic, when traffic was light, the skies were such a deep rich 16
blue and the air was clean. Also, the birds came back, more birds than had been seen in a 17
long time. Mr. Holman said according to a 2019 issue of Audubon, in the last 50 years 18
North America has lost one in four birds, not only threatened species, but backyard birds. 19
In the Western Forest Area of study they have lost 140 million birds, nearly a 30 percent 20
decline as of 2019, prior to the last couple years of devastating wildfires. Other studies 21
speak of frightening numbers of species going extinct in the last 20 years. The Audubon 22
article lists a few reasons. Noteworthy among them is the significant loss of trees. 23
Ms. Holman quoted ecologist Doug Ptolemy, who said, “Every time we force another 24
species into extinction, we encourage our own demise.” Regarding Palo Alto and the long 25
view, she said among the numerous benefits of trees is how they clean the air and also 26 provide habitat. She said if birds are the “canary in the coal mine” it seems obviously what 27 they need to do is everything they can do to support a robust urban forest. With wildfires 28 continuing as an annual threat it is even more important for cities to support a healthy 29 urban canopy to compensate to the extent that they can for the loss of these forested lands. 30 Projects of all kinds need to embrace trees. When looking over Palo Alto, rooftops should 31 not replace treetops. Smart, environmentally responsible projects incorporate trees. Ms. 32 Holman mentioned other issues that impact trees and habitat, such as light pollution. 33 Regarding the Parks Commission, she hoped they would keep the long and broad view in 34 sight. She said, as Director of the Board of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, 35 they talk trees a lot and but it is not the complete picture. Surrounding communities must 36 also provide avenues for wildlife migration to and from the open spaces. The Commission 37
has a big hand on whether Palo Alto takes the long view or looks back and wishes they 38
had made better accommodation for trees. She urged the Commission to listen to what the 39
birds are telling them. 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Winter Dellenbach spoke on the essential value of trees in Palo Alto, which lend a sense 1
of place, with tree-lined streets and cool, tree-shaded parks and preserves that contribute 2
to civic pride. She said trees are lovely, majestic, provide wildlife habitat and simply make 3
people feel good. Also, as science informs, trees in the urban forest are essential during 4
this time of rapid climate change and need for sustainability. According to UC Davis, 5
proximity to urban trees is critical for interruption of climate change and to foster good 6
human health. All trees sequester carbon, some more than others. The bigger they get, the 7
more carbon they hold onto. Older trees such as oaks and coastal redwoods may contain 8 tons of carbon, so they need to protect the trees they have and plant more of them. She said 9 removal of trees releases their stored carbon back into the atmosphere, so they needed to 10 be thoughtful about removing trees. Ms. Dellenbach quoted Environmental Professor, 11 Brian Stone, stating that “trees are the most effective strategy and natural technology we 12 have to guard against heat in cities.” Trees mitigate heat island effects by cooling buildings 13 and homes, lowering air temperature in neighborhoods by up to ten degrees. The U.S. 14 Department of Energy states that carefully positioned trees may reduce a home’s energy 15 costs by 25 percent and demand for electricity for air conditioning is reduced by shade 16
trees, sparing money and emissions, while helping to avoid potentially catastrophe power 17
failures during heat waves. Ms. Dellenbach asked that the Commission approve the draft 18
Tree Protection Ordinance as written to ensure the many critical benefits that the Urban 19
Forest provides if Palo Alto is to keep its climate and sustainability commitments by the 20
year 2030, including increasing the urban forest canopy to 40 percent. 21
Keith Reckdahl noted that he was speaking only for himself. He spoke on trees’ ability to 22
improve Palo Alto’s quality of life. Whether in parks, yards or along streets, they make 23
lives better. Trees beautify neighborhoods, provide shade that cools, create habitat for 24
wildlife and improve air quality by removing particulates and pollutants. He said Palo Alto 25
is fortunate to have a better tree canopy than many neighboring communities. However, it 26 is increasingly under pressure. New construction often results in loss of large trees that 27 will take decades to replace; larger buildings leave less room for yard trees, and climate 28 change is reducing the rainfall that trees require to survive. Mr. Reckdahl said the updated 29 Tree Ordinance will protect more trees and help preserve the valuable canopy. It will 30 require practical alternatives to be considered before a protected tree can be removed and 31 will prioritize planting species appropriate for the local climate. Mr. Reckdahl’s only 32 complaint with the new Ordinance was that while its maximum $10,000 fine is significant, 33 he fears within the world of multi-million-dollar houses, some builders may consider 34 $10,000 to be a small price to pay in order to build the trophy house they desire. Overall, 35 he strongly supports the updated Tree Ordinance as an important step to preserve the tree 36 canopy and the livability of Palo Alto. 37
Chair Greenfield invited comments and questions from the Commissioners. 38
Commissioner Cribbs offered a thank you for this long-overdue change, and commended 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
everyone that has been working on it. She was interested in the cost to the City and asked 1
if it had been calculated in terms of staffing, communication costs, and other costs that 2
will be associated with the ordinance. Mr. Gollinger said he had a meeting earlier where 3
this was discussed. He said they have been pulling historical data from the permit system 4
to try to determine the percentage of permits that are routed to Urban Forestry for review 5
so that they can anticipate what that percentage will look like once the number of protected 6
trees is expanded. He did not have any preliminary numbers to share yet, but will make 7
sure they are detailed in their staff report to Council. Commissioner Cribbs asked about 8
staffing and if it will be included as well. Mr. Gollinger said it would be included as well. 9
Commissioner Cribbs asked how the life of a citizen will be different dealing with the 10 updated Tree Ordinance, going through the process. Mr. Gollinger thought it might 11 actually be easier. Due to the designated arborist system, many details would be handled 12 by the arborist working with the architect or builder on a project. Somewhat less would 13 need to be hands-on from the owner’s perspective. The difference is more projects would 14 need Urban Forestry review and would need arborist reports because there will be a much 15 larger number of properties with protected trees. Commissioner Cribbs was glad that 16
Canopy is in full support as a partner, and state that whatever they say is a good thing. 17
Vice Chair LaMere also appreciated the hard work on this and said the importance of the 18
canopy cannot be overstated. He liked the mention of mental health, climate change and 19
many other important reasons for keeping the trees. He found interesting Mr. Reckdahl’s 20
point about the $10,000 fine potentially being seen as just a cost of doing business in 21
comparison to the cost of the property. He inquired, when protecting an oak at 11.5 inches, 22
how old of a tree that might be, and looking at the DBA to the diameter at breast height, 23
what the ages are of some of the trees. Mr. Hollinger said it would depend on the growing 24
conditions. He felt the fastest that a Coast Live Oak, for example, could reach 11.5 inches 25
could be between 12 and 20 years old. If it is in a situation where it is growing much 26 slower, it could be quite a bit older. Tree species can vary dramatically in amount of growth 27 per year, depending on conditions. 28
Vice Chair LaMere thought one of the main points is even if 12 to 20 years, the time 29 horizons they look at to replace the trees is so long that taking something out even if it 30 wasn’t that big, it may have taken 20 years just to grow to 11.5 inches. He felt the standards 31 were reasonable and on par with surrounding communities, but it was staggering to think 32 about how much time it takes to replace trees. He appreciated the tremendous amount of 33 time and effort in capturing many different aspects of what they hope to accomplish. 34
Commissioner Kleinhaus offered thanks to the people involved in developing the 35 ordinance. She agreed with previous comments about importance of trees in the urban and 36 suburban forest and environment and how important it is to include the birds in the trees 37
as well. She felt the update to the Ordinance is critically important at this time as they see 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
hemorrhage of trees in every community in the valley due to development, drought and 1
other situations. She shared that she was at the Google campus earlier that day, where there 2
is an egret rookery and in half a block there were nesting Great Egrets, Snowy Egrets, 3
Black-crowned Knight Herons, bluebirds, Black Phoebies, and a White-tailed Kite. She 4
said the reason they can do that is that they take care to protect the area during the nesting 5
season. She recommended going to see it on Shorebird Way. 6
Commissioner Kleinhaus commented on the grading permit, reiterating that it should be 7
included. She referenced the Tree and Landscaping Manual as written in the 8 Comprehensive Plan looks to mainly prioritize native trees, but says in Section 810.030 to 9 include non-native trees if the arborist recommends it. She said in her experience, arborists 10 do not know how to work with native trees, so they usually recommend things out of their 11 toolbox which often does not include many native trees, and she was concerned about that 12 and not sure how it can be addressed in a way that potentially they can explain why they 13 did not include native trees as the first selection. Also, she felt in some areas, allowing 14 thirsty trees that are not drought tolerant would be okay because the ground water level is 15 so high that it can support plants that are not drought-tolerant. She thought they should 16
allow that if they know that the groundwater can support the tree without irrigation. She 17
said it is possible in the future that there will be recycled water available for irrigation and 18
they won’t have to be as strict about drought. 19
Commissioner Kleinhaus said the manual talks about replacement ratios and does not 20
explain them and whether in lieu fees would be allowed or not. During COVID she noted 21
the birds could sing without a lot of chain saw noise, and she thought during the nesting 22
season they could potentially limit how much pruning and cutting and removing of trees 23
could be done. This potentially could be somewhere in the permit. City protocols could 24
address what could be deferred to a time when the birds are not nesting, such as September 25
through January. If someone is given a permit to remove a tree and they don’t need to start 26 building right away, she wondered if they could be asked to not remove the tree until after 27 the nesting season. She felt that cutting vegetation during those months should be avoided 28 in general, although it is impossible to completely prohibit it. Incorporating the bird 29 nesting season into the ordinance somehow would make it a step ahead of many other 30 communities, a step in the right direction. 31
Commissioner Brown noted this was a lot of work and thanked staff and all those involved 32 in the project. She felt the timing was great, and in addition to the challenges of the 33 drought, air water, and climate change there has been talk about the pandemic. Many 34 people were at home, many are still working from home and hear what their neighbors are 35 doing. She especially like the neighbor noticing piece of the ordinance and that neighbors 36 will be partners in this, in terms of enforcement, so making sure the community is educated 37
is essential as the ordinance is implemented. She also liked the development moratorium, 38
to Vice Chair LaMere’s point. Many times developers bake that it to their costs, 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
unfortunately, and she felt that the development moratorium is an effective strategy. She 1
referenced the case in Los Angeles with a ten-year development moratorium for trees. She 2
felt it was a good strategy and would be very effective in implementing the ordinance. 3
Commissioner Brown commented on the designated arborist system, stating she like it 4
because it eliminates some of the “he said/she said” that sometimes comes up with tree 5
removals and differing opinions conflicting with one another. She said the staff report 6
stated it may be an RFP process. She was concerned that it would be a lot of staff time to 7
redo the RFP and keep it updated, making sure that the review of arborists on the list is 8 evaluated in a timely manner to make sure they are still meeting their requirements and 9 getting regular education and, as they have staff turnover, they are still up-to-date on the 10 requirements in Palo Alto. 11
Commissioner Brown asked about the removal of protected trees section and how it would 12 interact with the state legislation related to SB 9 and ADUs. She wondered how it would 13 work if someone were to try to build an ADU through the state legislation building permits 14 and which requirements would trump the other in that situation. Mr. Gollinger responded 15 that the state regulations would trump if someone was on the state compliance pathway. If 16
the project triggers the local compliance pathway, then they would be able to enforce the 17
tree ordinance more fully. Commissioner Brown posed the question if some was using SB 18
9 rules, whether they could take out an oak or other protected tree, with the City having 19
no protection against it. Mr. Gollinger said they would be able to work with them on the 20
approval process to try to save as many trees as possible, but if it came down to having to 21
remove one in order to make the project happen or not happen, then they would have 22
preference under the state law. So there is some leeway, but ultimately, state law would 23
trump. Commissioner Brown asked if this would be the same for SB 9 lot splits. Mr. 24
Gollinger said they are consulting the Attorney’s Office now to determine whether they 25
should include a bullet point on the subdivision section that would say basically if it 26 happened to be an SB 9, that other conditions may apply. He thought the original intent 27 was for larger projects to avoid wholesale removal of trees on lot lines for larger projects 28 outside of the SB 9 category. 29
Commissioner Brown asked about the increase from a risk perspective, how they work 30 with the City Attorney’s office on that and how the City would monitor tree maintenance 31 on the existing street trees and in public areas to ensure that the trees that are protected are 32 kept healthy. As more trees are preserved there is some additional risk accompanying that, 33 both to the property owners with the trees and with the City. She asked how the City 34 Attorney’s Office is looking at that and whether there would be additional maintenance or 35 inspection programs for City trees to ensure that they are healthy as more of them are 36 protected and retained in the City. Mr. Hollinger said that City-owned trees are protected 37
already, regardless of size or species. Their procedure for removal of a City street tree 38
would have to do with the risk assessment on the tree, and he did not think it would change 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
dramatically with the new ordinance, because street trees are determined based on 1
availability of the particular site, and their goal is to have the largest canopy tree in each 2
site that they can find. Regarding additional risk for private tree owners, he thought the 3
provisions for tree removal would allow for removal of a tree that is considered a hazard, 4
as determined by an arborist’s assessment. 5
Commissioner Brown asked if there might be certain carve-outs. For example, Saratoga 6
waives certain things for their WUI area, but wanting to keep it as simple as possible, there 7
are some trees that might not fall into either the drought or invasive species lists. For 8 example, Bradford Pears that shed limbs after a certain amount of time that could cause 9 damage. She asked if there was any consideration to expanding that list to include some 10 of those more risky tree species. Mr. Hollinger thought it was something they could look 11 at in a future update, although they hate to condemn an entire species due to a proclivity, 12 but that is one where he might agree. He said they thought it would be more concise to 13 follow existing lists that are actively maintained by Cal IPC and by the Water Use 14 Classification of Landscape Species, which seemed like a consistent and steady way to 15 determine what would not be protected. 16
Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Hollinger to comment on the maximum fine possible for a tree 17
being removed. He stated it as being $10,000, and Chair Greenfield thought it could be 18
increased above that. He asked Mr. Hollinger to comment on the RFP issue that 19
Commissioner Brown brought up. Mr. Hollinger said the new Tree and Landscape 20
Technical Manual has not been drafted yet. As they get closer to going to Council that will 21
be up and ready as soon as possible. The replacement ratios will probably be similar to 22
what is included in the current manual; however, they will probably find a way to prioritize 23
natives. The way the in-lieu fees works is the applicant would have to work with the 24
reviewer to explain why they need to do an in-lieu fee, and they will work with them to 25
try to get as many trees in the ground as possible, so it won’t be a blanket approval if they 26
say they want to pay for six in-lieu trees and they only plant two. 27
Regarding the maximum fine, Mr. Hollinger said there is some leeway, especially if they 28 use the administrative penalty process. They can re-write the administrative penalty 29 schedule, and certain violations could be 100 or 200 percent of the fine. Chair Greenfield 30 thought there was a provision where the fine would be either a dollar amount or the value 31 of the tree. Mr. Hollinger said that was correct, and if the assessed value of the tree was 32 higher than the $10,000, they thought it would be the higher value. In certain situations it 33 could be double the assessed value of the tree as well. Chair Greenfield asked what the 34 range might be for the assessed value of a tree. Mr. Hollinger replied it depends on the 35 situation and the species, but could be anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000 for a large oak 36 in good condition. On the RFP question, he said they considered this because it was the 37
method that Menlo Park used. With concerns about staff turnover, this is listing the specific 38
arborist by name, not the company. A specific arborist must be on the list in order to 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
perform anything having to do with a designated arborist assignment. This is how Menlo 1
Park is arranged. Palo Alto may not end up following the RFP process and do something 2
similar but not a formal process. He said this was discussed at the ARB meeting, that they 3
feel it’s important to have clear and concise standards that they need to meet so it is not 4
ambiguous. If the arborist can prove that they are qualified and meet all the certification 5
requirements then they would be included in the list. 6
Commissioner Freeman gave a shout out to the public which would be helping in the 7
enforcement in making sure that the ordinance is followed. Also, since it took 20 years to 8 get to this point, he felt that they ought to treat this as a living document and adjust as 9 things changes. He thought this would also include adjusting by adding additional trees to 10 the inventory based on whatever the need might be. He brought up the maintenance and 11 noted that trees can become diseased over time, but a lot of that can be avoided by being 12 proactive upfront to make sure that those things don’t happen, such as sudden oak death, 13 which would lead to taking out more trees. He liked the phased-in approach to the process, 14 which gives the public a lot more time to have a good understanding of what it is they are 15 trying to accomplish and what the benefits are going to be for the public, as well as 16
neighboring communities, with the people responsible for taking care of not only their 17
private trees, but even the public trees that might be out on the sidewalk. 18
Chair Greenfield noted that their city that is named after a tree has a great love for their 19
urban canopy. He agreed with Commissioner Freeman about looking at the ordinance as 20
a living document. It may not be perfect from the outset but it will be something they can 21
adapt and can return to the Commission to review over time to tweak as needed. However, 22
getting the changes adopted as soon as possible is important for the trees. 23
Chair Greenfield said the updates are broad and the increase in transparency and clarity is 24
very important, from adding purpose statements to cleaning up language, to making things 25
more transparent with a designated arborist program. The process improvements also 26 improve clarity and transparency in terms of application, notice and appeals and 27 enforcement, making the overall process for tree removal and tree care more 28 understandable. The increased tree protections in terms of increased number of species 29 and diameter protection is very important and fits in directly with the S/CAP goals. 30 Increasing the canopy and the number of trees is low-hanging fruit in hitting the goals. 31 Chair Greenfield appreciated the effort and encouraged adoption quickly. He felt there 32 were good comments in the letters from the public. He thought the idea regarding 33 removing the redundancy in 808.10 regarding the indigenous grass is worth taking a look 34 at. He said it is important for everyone to understand that the Ordinance is part of it. The 35 Tree and Landscape Technical Manual is part of it as well, but some of the questions also 36 can be addressed by the City’s tree selection tool that is being worked on by Canopy in the 37
city. This will help residents go through a process to help understand and get ideas on 38
optimum recommended trees based on site conditions. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Commissioner Kleinhaus supported the comment about nuisance, that native plants should 1
really not be considered nuisance. The same letter also mentioned a few species to 2
potentially add to the protected species list. She felt that at least Western Sycamore should 3
be added, as they are under threat and disappearing from the landscape. Regarding the 4
nuisance issues, she thought the language was probably copied from a previous version 5
and seemed a little excessive. For example, requiring complete clearance between three 6
and nine feet, she felt they could be a little more flexible than that. She suggested they 7
look again at the nuisance tree list and what constitutes nuisance. She thought they need 8 to reconsider some of the removals. She saw some of that at Cubberley, and she didn’t 9 understand why the limbs had to be removed to the extent that they were. They were very 10 large oaks with large limbs removed. She thought re-evaluating what is a nuisance should 11 probably be a little more liberal about what is allowed to stay on the tree. 12
Commissioner Kleinhaus noted, regarding in-lieu fees, in other cities they have a lot of 13 money accumulated from in-lieu fees and nowhere to plant trees, so she discouraged in-14 lieu fees and potentially identifying where the trees are going before agreeing to accept 15 them. 16
Chair Greenfield thanked the participants in the discussion and Mr. Gollinger for his work 17
and noted that project is in good hands. Mr. Gollinger said it has been a group effort and 18
he looks forward to bringing it across the finish line. 19
COMMISSIONER/BOARDMEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 20
ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 21
Chair Greenfield asked if any of the Commissioners were ready to volunteer for judging 22
at the May Fete Parade. Hearing none, he turned the discussion to the upcoming agendas. 23
Mr. Anderson noted for the May agenda that one item is on the advanced water purification 24
system at the Water Quality Control Plant. Their staff is looking for feedback on their 25
landscaping which will be on Embarcadero Road Corridor associated with the purification 26
system. The second item is on the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 27
Commissioner Cribbs commented that during the retreat Mr. Anderson talked about 28 priorities for the department and one of them was resumption of more swimming lessons 29 for more kids this summer and the plans for that. She asked if there might be a report on 30 summer swim and maybe more group lessons, less private. Mr. Anderson said he could 31 reach out to them and get some feedback to email to the Commission and add it to his 32 department report in May. 33
Chair Greenfield stated that before the next meeting the work plan will have been approved 34 by City Council. He asked if they needed to agendize any discussion of that. Mr. Anderson 35 will look into that in more detail. He thought they could cover it under the Ad Hoc 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
discussions, but he will find out what other Commissions are doing. Chair Greenfield said 1
they also look forward to having a new member join the Commission at the May meeting. 2
Chair Greenfield invited further comments. Hearing none, he closed the meeting with 3
thanks to staff for their support and time. 4
ADJOURNMENT 5
Meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. 6
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: MAY 24, 2022
SUBJECT: BAYLANDS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) discuss and provide feedback on the draft Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND The purpose of the BCCP is to develop goals, policies, prioritized action steps, and best management practices to holistically manage the Baylands Nature Preserve over the next 15 years and beyond. The BCCP will provide staff, the PRC, and the City Council with clear direction on
how to manage the Baylands using an ecosystem-based approach that will help guide the
protection of the preserve’s habitat, wildlife, and natural resources; ensure that stewardship and access to nature-friendly recreational opportunities are available for park visitors to enjoy the Baylands now and in the future; and help the City manage the Baylands in a way that allows the preserve to thrive in the face of challenges such as sea level rise and climate change. It also
incorporates opportunities to provide art in appropriate public spaces.
On December 18, 2018, the PRC discussed elements of the BCCP and focused their feedback on the Draft Design Plan for Byxbee Park (staff report and meeting minutes). The PRC supported the Draft Design Plan for Byxbee Park, and recommended the parking lot improvement option
(Concept 2), which allows vehicles to drive a loop through the parking lot. The PRC also requested adding bus parking to the design. The PRC feedback was incorporated into the Final Design Plan
for Byxbee Park.
On May 7, 2019, staff met with the PRC Ad Hoc Committee to discuss the draft BCCP. The Ad Hoc Committee expressed support for the draft plan, and recommended a few minor changes:
•ITT conceptual plan—keep the one low to the ground antenna in the former ITT area.
•Include bio-blitzes as a method of monitoring and measuring wildlife and habitat.
•Do not clutter the Baylands with too many interpretive signs.
•The action plan mentions “native plants” and “climate smart plants”. Consider using theterm “habitat supportive plants”. The idea is that at some point it might not just be nativeplants that are best for supporting habitat given sea level rise.
•Include an appendix page with a list of volunteer partners.
•For Byxbee trails, include the mileage of the loops.
DISCUSSION
2
On May 28, 2019, the PRC reviewed the draft BCCP (staff report and meeting minutes). The PRC expressed support for the draft plan. Staff had planned on returning to the PRC with the CEQA for
the BCCP in December 2019. Unfortunately, due to a combination of challenges (numerous staff
vacancies, the COVID-19 Pandemic, competing priorities, and the lack of Planning Department staff to assist with the project) the BCCP CEQA process was placed on hold. The City is currently preparing a Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the BCCP, which it intends to release for public review prior to the June 28, 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission hearing. The hearing will provide an opportunity for the PRC and the public to comment on the draft during the public comment period. Given the time that has elapsed since the PRC reviewed the previous BCCP draft, staff, in coordination with AECOM, will utilize this study session to provide an overview of the Draft
BCCP for commissioners and the public. The draft BCCP includes the following sections:
• Existing Conditions;
• Planned Future Improvements and Activities;
• Vision, Goals, and Objectives;
• Opportunities and Challenges Analysis;
• Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands;
• Action Plan and Best Management Practices;
• Design Plan for Byxbee Park; and
• Concepts for the Former ITT Property/Renzel Wetlands. Public, stakeholder, and PRC involvement has been integral to the development of the BCCP; providing valuable insight and guidance throughout the planning process. Public and Stakeholder Involvement included the following opportunities for participation and input into development of the BCCP:
• Stakeholder Meeting 1 on October 18, 2017
• Tour of former ITT Property/Renzel Wetlands on November 13, 2017
• Stakeholder Meeting 2 on December 5, 2017
• Stakeholder Meeting 3 on February 15, 2018
• Onsite Baylands User Survey in April and May 2018
• Stakeholder Meeting 4 on November 29, 2018
• Project website as an alternative opportunity for the community top review and provide feedback on BCCP chapters.
• The PRC discussed the BCCP on February 27, 2018; June 26, 2018; September 25, 2018;
and December 18, 2018
• Review of draft sections of the BCCP via email Five overarching themes emerged as important throughout the public and stakeholder process
including:
• Natural Resources;
• Public Access and Facilities;
3
•Public Engagement;
•Public Art; and
•Operations and Management
These themes formed the basis of topic areas that are the focus of the BCCP. For example, Natural Resources were identified as an important asset of the Baylands, and Natural Resources
Management is a prominently featured topic in the Goals and Objectives developed for the BCCP.
It is also included as a main topic in the Opportunities and Challenges Analysis. Natural resources and habitats are specifically addressed in the Sea Level Rise and Climate Change Assessment chapter.
The BCCP also includes specific natural resources management action plans, specifically the
Habitat Conservation and Restoration Plan and the Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan. Natural resources conservation is included as a main objective in the Byxbee Park Plan and the former ITT/Renzel concepts. Natural resources/ecology is also a major theme of the Art Overlay section of the BCCP.
NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE
Staff will return to the PRC once the CEQA analysis is available for public review in order to
discuss the findings of the environmental analysis and to request a formal recommendation
from the PRC to Council on the BCCP. Staff anticipates returning to the PRC at the end of June and to return to Council for a decision on the plan following Council’s July recess.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
May 2022
DRAFT
Attachment A
Table of Contents iii
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
Open Space, Parks & Golf
Daren Anderson, Division Manager
Prepared by:
2020 L Street Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
Contact:
Diana Edwards, Deputy Project Manager
Petra Unger, Project Manager
DRAFT
iv Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Sections Page
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan ........................................... 1
1.2 Planning Process ................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Planning Framework ......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Content of the Plan ........................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Organization of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5
Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Public Access and Facilities ............................................................................................. 17
2.3 Public Engagement .......................................................................................................... 21
2.4 Public Art ......................................................................................................................... 22
2.5 Operations & Management ............................................................................................ 22
2.6 Key Areas ......................................................................................................................... 26
Public and Stakeholder Involvement ........................................................................... 28
3.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan ........................................................................................ 28
3.2 Stakeholder Engagement Activities ................................................................................ 29
Planned Future Improvements and Changes to Land Uses and Activities................... 32
4.1 Capital Improvement Projects......................................................................................... 32
4.2 Restoration Efforts .......................................................................................................... 34
Vision, Goals, and Objectives ....................................................................................... 35
5.1 Purpose and Background ................................................................................................ 35
5.2 Vision for the Baylands and the Comprehensive Conservation Plan .............................. 36
5.3 Goals and Objectives of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................... 36
Opportunities and Challenges Analysis ........................................................................ 40
6.1 Natural Resource Management ...................................................................................... 40
6.2 Public Access and Facilities ............................................................................................. 42
6.3 Public Engagement .......................................................................................................... 44
DRAFT
Table of Contents v
6.4 Public Art ......................................................................................................................... 45
6.5 Operations and Management ......................................................................................... 45
6.6 Key Areas ........................................................................................................................ 47
6.7 Additional Limitations and Restrictions .......................................................................... 47
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands .................................................... 49
7.1 Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 49
7.2 Predictions of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise ......................................................... 51
7.3 Analysis Methodology..................................................................................................... 53
7.4 Impacts............................................................................................................................ 67
7.5 Management Adaptations to Sea Level Rise .................................................................. 82
Action Plan and Best Management Practices .............................................................. 86
8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 86
8.2 Natural Resources Management .................................................................................... 87
8.3 Public Access and Facilities ........................................................................................... 117
8.4 Public Engagement ....................................................................................................... 118
8.5 Public Art ....................................................................................................................... 123
8.6 Operations and Management ....................................................................................... 129
Design Plan for Byxbee Park ...................................................................................... 140
9.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 140
9.2 Site History .................................................................................................................... 140
9.3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 141
9.4 Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative ...................................................... 141
9.5 Conceptual Plan Design Elements ................................................................................ 142
Concepts for the Former ITT Property/ Emily Renzel Wetlands ................................ 154
10.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 154
10.2 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 154
10.3 Potential Future Uses ................................................................................................... 155
References ................................................................................................................. 161
vi Table of Contents
Figures
Figure 1. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2. Project Vicinity .................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 3. Habitat Types .................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Site Features ..................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 5. Existing Weed Species ...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 6. Project Reaches and Restoration Options in the Strategy to Advance Flood
Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along the Bay ...................................................... 54
Figure 7. Inundation Map Depicting 12-Inch Sea Level Rise............................................................ 63
Figure 8. Inundation Map Depicting 24-Inch Sea Level Rise............................................................ 64
Figure 9. Inundation Map Depicting 36-Inch Sea Level Rise............................................................ 65
Figure 10. Inundation Map Depicting 66-Inch Sea Level Rise.......................................................... 66
Figure 11. Baseline Elevation-Based Habitat Map for Year 2010 .................................................... 75
Figure 12. Elevation-Based Habitat Map for Year 2050: Low-Sedimentation, Low-Organic-
Materials Scenario .............................................................................................................. 76
Figure 13. Elevation-Based Habitat Map for Year 2050: High-Sedimentation, High-Organic-
Materials Scenario .............................................................................................................. 77
Figure 14. Prioritized Preservation, Enhancement, and Restoration Areas .................................... 99
Figure 15. Examples of Existing Interpretive Panels at the Baylands. ........................................... 119
Figure 16. Existing and Proposed Interpretive Signage ................................................................. 121
Figure 17. Existing Art Installations in the Baylands ...................................................................... 125
Figure 18. Locations for Potential Future Art in the Baylands ....................................................... 128
Figure 19a. Seasonal Weed Management Map (Winter) .............................................................. 132
Figure 19b. Seasonal Weed Management Map (Spring) ............................................................... 133
Figure 19c. Seasonal Weed Management Map (Summer) ............................................................ 134
Figure 21. Byxbee Park Parking Plan .............................................................................................. 146
Figure 22. Potenital Design Concept Elements .............................................................................. 159
Table of Contents vii
Tables
Table 1. Habitat Types and Locations................................................................................................ 9
Table 2. Existing Weed Species ....................................................................................................... 23
Table 3. Chronology of Stakeholder/Public Involvement ............................................................... 31
Table 4. Sea Level Rise Projections for San Francisco Bay .............................................................. 52
Table 5. Summary of Sea Level Rise Exposure for Baylands Assets ................................................ 67
Table 6. Summary of Sea Level Rise Exposure and Projected Habitat Type Conversion ................ 74
Table 7. Conservation and Restoration Priority List ........................................................................ 91
Table 8. Sea Level Rise and Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan ........................................... 107
Table 9 Adaptation Actions with Co-benefits ............................................................................... 115
Table 10. Existing Art Installations in the Baylands ....................................................................... 123
Table 11. Locations for and Types of Potential Future Public Art in the Baylands ....................... 127
Table 12. Priority Rating and Locations of Weeds ........................................................................ 131
Table 13. Weed Management Methods and Treatment Window ................................................ 137
Table 14. Restoration and Management Activities by Management Zone .................................. 150
Appendices
A Stakeholder Engagement Summary
B Art Overlay
C Former ITT Property
D Byxbee Park Mowing and Vegetation Management Plan
viii Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay San Francisco Bay
Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area
Baylands Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve
Bay Trail San Francisco Bay Trail
BCCP Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
City City of Palo Alto
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
Comprehensive Plan City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
EIR environmental impact report
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
Flood Control Basin Palo Alto Flood Control Basin
Future Tidal Marshes Tool Future San Francisco Bay Tidal Marshes planning tool
Interim Byxbee Park Master
Plan
Palo Alto Baylands Preserve, Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park
Concepts Narrative
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
KEY Key Areas
LID Low Impact Development
MHHW mean higher high water
NRM Natural Resources Management
OEI Olofson Environmental, Inc.
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
OM Operations and Management
OPC California Ocean Protection Council
PA Public Art
PAF Public Access and Facilities
Parks and Recreation Master
Plan
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation
Master Plan
PE Public Engagement
Point Blue Point Blue Conservation Science
Public Art Master Plan City of Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan
RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant
SAFER Bay Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and
Recreation along the Bay
Sailing Station Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SFBRA San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
SFCJPA San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute
Silicon Valley 2.0 Silicon Valley 2.0 Climate Adaptation Guidebook
Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and
Central California
U.S. 101 U.S. Highway 101
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Introduction 1
Introduction
The Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Baylands) is an approximately 1,976-acre open space located
along the edge of San Francisco Bay (Bay) in northern Santa Clara County (Figure 1). The Palo Alto
Baylands include multiple habitats including wetlands, uplands, and marshes that provide important
habitat for imperiled species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris),
California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).
The Baylands provide a wide variety of recreational and educational benefits: wildlife viewing, hiking,
bike riding, water sports, and use of public lands for art installations. The Palo Alto Baylands also include
recreational facilities such as the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and the Baylands Athletic Center.
Nonrecreational facilities within the Palo Alto Baylands include the Palo Alto Airport, the Baylands
Ranger Station, and the City of Palo Alto (City) Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP).
Operations and management of the Palo Alto Baylands are the responsibility of the Palo Alto Open
Space, Parks & Golf Division.
The Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Parks and Recreation
Master Plan) (City of Palo Alto 2017a) contains policies for the protection of natural habitat, natural
ecosystems, and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan calls
for the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for the Baylands to “…identify strategies to
balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation, and environmental education. The protection of
biological resources from visitor use impacts shall be the priority in these open space preserves” (City of
Palo Alto 2017a).
1.1 Purpose of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The purpose of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) is to build upon the Baylands
Master Plan Update (City of Palo Alto 2008) to articulate guiding principles for holistic management of
the Palo Alto Baylands for the next 15 years and beyond. Implementation of the plan will provide
continued opportunities for recreation access, education, and art while protecting natural resources,
such as wildlife and functioning habitats. The BCCP also addresses trends such as climate
change and sea level rise with the inclusion of an assessment of potential future impacts,
combined with potential adaptation strategies.
2 Introduction
The BCCP is a vision for the Baylands for the next 15 years; the intent of the plan is for this vision to be
achieved within that time frame. The BCCP includes actions and best management practices (BMPs) that
address natural resources management, public access and facilities, public engagement, public art, and
operations and management. The BCCP also provides conceptual site plans for the recently acquired
former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands and a design plan for improvements at Byxbee Park, a
former landfill that has been closed, capped, and dedicated as parkland. The Byxbee Park Design Plan
improvements would be implemented as part of the BCCP. Aside from ongoing baylands maintenance
and management activities discussed in this document and implementation of the Byxbee Park Design
Plan, any physical improvements (including but not limited to potential future flood control projects or
implementation of any one of the specific concept plans for the ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands)
would be analyzed further in accordance with CEQA and require approval through a separate public
process.
1.2 Planning Process
The BCCP builds upon previous plans and planning efforts: the 2008 Baylands Master Plan Update, the
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve, Byxbee
Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative (Interim Byxbee Park Master Plan), the City’s Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, and the City of Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan (Public Art Master Plan). The
BCCP was developed with input from City of Palo Alto staff, including Baylands Rangers, staff from other
City departments, and Baylands partners.
Public involvement was critical for the preparation of the BCCP. The planning process included public
and stakeholder outreach and engagement, which included four stakeholder workshops, presentations
to the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, a user survey, site tours, and stakeholder review of
draft deliverables. Chapter 3 and Appendix A present details of public and stakeholder engagement and
outreach efforts.
1.3 Planning Framework
The BCCP is consistent with, and advances, the goals and policies set forth in other City plans including
the Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and Public Art Master Plan.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan, the City’s general plan, contains goals and policies that reflect the
community’s priorities. The BCCP is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
particularly the following policies:
Policy N-1.1: Preserve, protect, and enhance public and private open space and ecosystems.
Policy N-1.4: Protect special-status species and plant communities.
Policy N-1.5: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other
natural water or wetland areas as open space, functioning habitats, and elements of a larger,
interconnected wildlife corridor.
Policy N-1.7: Carefully manage access and recreational use of environmentally sensitive
areas.
Introduction 3
Policy N-1.13: Evaluate and mitigate the construction impacts associated with park and recreational
facility creation and expansion.
Policy N-3.1: All creeks are valuable resources for natural habitats, connectivity, community design,
and flood control, and need different conservation and enhancement strategies.
Policy N-3.2: Prevent the further channelization and degradation of Palo Alto’s creeks.
Policy N-3.4: Recognize that riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose integrity
provides vital habitat for fish, birds, plants, and other wildlife, and carefully monitor and preserve
these corridors.
Policy N-3.5: Preserve the ecological value of creek corridors by preserving native plants and
replacing invasive, nonnative plants with native plants.
Policy N-3.8: Work with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the San Francisquito Creek Joint
Powers Authority (SFCJPA), and other relevant regional and nongovernmental agencies to enhance
riparian corridors, provide compatible low-impact recreation and ensure adequate flood control.
Policy N-4.13: Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement
and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment, and infiltration
of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects, and recreation
projects where practical.
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan provides a vision for all parks, trail, and open spaces in the
city of Palo Alto, including the Baylands, and includes goals and policies that further the needs of the
community. The BCCP specifically addresses multiple policies of the plan, including the following
policies:
Policy 1.I: Encourage volunteerism and stewardship.
Policy 3.B: Incorporate art into park design.
Policy 4.A: Protect natural habitat.
Policy 4.B: Connect people to nature and the outdoors.
Policy 4.D: Promote, expand, and protect habitat.
Policy 5.D: Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland.
Policy 5.G: Pursue other/private funding sources.
Policy 6.H: Coordinate with other City plans.
Policy 6.I: Engage other City departments.
Policy 6.J: Participate and support regional plans.
Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan
The Baylands Master Plan Update (City of Palo Alto 2008) serves as the overarching plan and vision for
the Baylands. The BCCP advances the vision and policies of the plan, including the following
Environmental Quality policies:
4 Introduction
Ensure that the landfill area ultimately becomes an environmental asset and a continuation of the
natural green space.
Recognize and maintain the relationship between the urbanized Embarcadero Road corridor in the
northwest and the remaining recreation-oriented three-quarters of the Baylands. Allow no more
urban intrusion.
Keep marshes open to the Bay along the entire shoreline.
Control access to environmentally sensitive marshland and upland meadow habitat.
Restore the diversity of plants and animals to disturbed upland sites.
Ensure there is sufficient native food and cover for wildlife.
See that the landfill ultimately becomes an environmental asset and a continuation of the natural
open space.
Maintain both the salt water and freshwater marshes that have been created.
Clean up all areas outside the antenna field.
Remove the antenna field and replace it with marshland.
Allow natural processes to restore the marsh in the former harbor.
Maintain the 11 acres of restored marsh at Harbor Point.
Open the Harriet Mundy Marsh area to tidal action and reclaim the area as marshland.
Prohibit access to Hooks Island.
Complete the management plan for the Baylands.
Provide screen planting along the southerly urbanized edge of the private property facing the
former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands.
Maintain access to the regional trail system.
1.4 Content of the Plan
Five overarching themes emerged from input collected during the public and stakeholder engagement
process. These themes formed the basis of planning elements of the BCCP, and appropriate feedback
was included in the plan. Additional key areas, including the Byxbee Park Design Plan and the concepts
for the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands, were included in the scope of work for the BCCP.
The elements of the plan include:
Natural Resources Management
Public Access and Facilities
Public Engagement
Public Art
Operations & Management
Key Areas:
• Byxbee Park Design Plan
• Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
Introduction 5
1.5 Organization of the Plan
The BCCP is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter includes general background information, summarizes the planning process, and outlines
the contents and organization of the document.
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Chapter 2 provides a description of the Baylands’ current physical conditions, natural resources, public
access and facilities, public outreach efforts, and operations and management practices.
Chapter 3: Public and Stakeholder Engagement
Chapter 3 details public and stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts completed as part of the
planning process. Themes that emerged from the public and stakeholder engagement process were
guiding elements during the planning process and were included in the plan.
Chapter 4: Planned Future Improvements and Changes to Land Uses and Activities
Chapter 4 describes projects in and around the Baylands that are planned to be implemented during the
next 15 years.
Chapter 5: Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Chapter 5 presents a vision for the Baylands for the next 15 years and beyond. This chapter includes
goals and objectives developed through the public and stakeholder process that will direct future
management and operations in the Baylands.
Chapter 6: Opportunities and Challenges Analysis
Chapter 6 identifies and documents opportunities and challenges for implementing the vision, goals, and
objectives of the plan.
Chapter 7: Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
Chapter 7 includes an assessment of potential future sea level rise and climate change scenarios at the
Baylands. The chapter includes two assessments: an exposure analysis for assets within the Baylands,
and an analysis of potential habitat changes. The end of the chapter presents high-level potential
adaptation actions for reducing exposure and preparing the Baylands for potential future conditions.
Chapter 8: Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Chapter 8 summarizes prioritized implementation and management actions and BMPs that will achieve
the vision and goals of the plan, except for Byxbee Park and the former ITT Property/Emily
Renzel Wetlands (which are addressed in Chapters 9 and 10). This chapter also describes
potential partners, potential funding sources, and timelines for implementing the
6 Introduction
recommended potential actions. The action plan also includes a reproducible prioritization methodology
that can be applied regularly as site conditions and priorities change.
Chapter 9: Byxbee Park Design Plan
Chapter 9 presents the Byxbee Park Design Plan, developed through the public and stakeholder process
described in Chapter 3. The design plan includes specific improvements at the park including signage,
benches, and parking lot improvements.
Chapter 10: Concepts for the Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
Finally, Chapter 10 of the plan includes potential design concepts and elements for the former ITT
Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands that was developed from a list of common objectives and key design
elements, based on interviews with staff and stakeholders, research, and site visits.
Existing Conditions 7
Existing Conditions
The 1,976-acre Baylands is a jewel within the South Bay’s wetlands (Figure 1). The Baylands provide a
wide variety of recreational and educational benefits to the public and support the Bay’s important
ecosystem functions. The Baylands’ myriad natural wetlands, marshes, and uplands are ecologically
important, as they provide important habitat for imperiled species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys raviventris), California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), and western
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).
The Baylands provide unique nature and recreational experiences for the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay
Area) community. Facilities and intersecting trails throughout the Baylands allow for wildlife viewing,
hiking, bike riding, water sports, and use of public lands for art installations. The Baylands also include
facilities for other recreation opportunities such as the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and the Baylands
Athletic Center. Nonrecreational facilities within the Baylands include the Palo Alto Airport, the Baylands
Ranger Station, and the RWQCP.
City Baylands Rangers have partnered with Save the Bay, a non-profit that aims to protect and restore
San Francisco Bay, with the goal of restoring and enhancing the Baylands’ habitats. The Baylands is
home to Save the Bay’s plant nursery, which provides approximately 20,000 plants for restoration
projects around the Bay’s shoreline. The Baylands also provide a backdrop for education programs that
promote environmental stewardship and volunteerism. The City and its partners work together to
manage the Baylands holistically for ecosystem function, safety, and public access.
Project Site
82
237
1
24
1
4
13
87
92
84
17
85
35
101
101
80
280
980
238
680
880
580
P a c i f i cOcean
S a nFranci s c oBay
SanFrancisco
Fremont
Newark
Danville
Hayward
Livermore
PaloAlto
SantaClara
Sunol
Dublin
Alamo
BrentwoodLafayette
Moraga
Orinda
Saratoga
Aptos
Day Valley
M a r i nCounty
C o n t r a C o s t a C o u n t y
A l a m e d a C o u n t y
S a n M a t e o C o u n t y
S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y
S a n t a C r u z C o u n t y
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ExistingConditions\Fig1_ProjectLocation.mxd
FIGURE 1Project Location
Project Boundary
Project Site
505
80
580
5
Oakland
Fremont San Jose
Fresno
Sacramento
San Francisco
0 10
Miles
Esri, 2019
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Existing Conditions 9
2.1 Natural Resources
The Baylands, located along San Francisco Bay, are characterized by flat topography near sea level with
the exception of Byxbee Park, a former landfill that has been capped and is characterized by rolling hills.
Habitat Types
The Baylands, located along the South Bay shoreline (Figures 1 and 2), historically supported a mosaic of
diverse vegetation types. Today, approximately 36 percent of the Baylands is composed of tidal marsh
and other wetland habitats (SFEI 2016). Tidal marsh vegetation can be subdivided into tidal salt marsh
and tidal brackish marsh, depending on the salinity of the water supporting the wetland. The Baylands
provides foraging and nesting habitat for overwintering shorebirds and waterfowl that migrate
seasonally along the Pacific Flyway. Approximately 50 species of shorebird and waterfowl can be found
in the Baylands. Common species observed include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta
canadensis), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus),
lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), willet (Tringa semipalmata), long-billed curlew (Numenius
americanus), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and sandpipers (Calidrid
spp.).
Several habitat types are found throughout the Baylands: tidal salt marsh, tidal brackish marsh, diked or
muted salt marsh, freshwater marsh, non-native annual grassland, aquatic, and riparian habitat. Table 1
and Figure 3 detail the locations of these habitat types within the Baylands.
Table 1. Habitat Types and Locations
Habitat Type Location(s)
Tidal Salt Marsh -Faber-Laumeister Tract
-Harbor Point
-Harriet Mundy Marsh/Sand Point
-Hooks Island
Muted Salt Marsh -Palo Alto Flood Control Basin
-Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
-Mayfield Slough
-Los Altos Treatment Plant
Brackish Marsh -Unnamed slough (near the Regional Water Quality Control Plant outfall)
Freshwater Marsh -Emily Renzel Freshwater Pond
Annual Nonnative Grassland -Byxbee Park
-Trails and Levees
-Lagoon shoreline
-Inner harbor southwest shoreline
Riparian Along the banks of:
-Adobe Creek
-Matadero Creek
-San Francisquito Creek
Aquatic -Duck Pond
-Inner Harbor
-Lagoon
-Adobe Creek
-Matadero Creek
-San Francisquito Creek
City ofPalo Alto
City ofEast Palo Alto
City ofMountainView
Oregon Expy
EBayshore Rd
Okeefe St
E m b a r c a d e r o R d
Waverley St
Alma
St
Arastradero RdPage
Mill
Rd
Willow Rd
N
Shoreline
Blvd
B a y R d
Louis
Rd
FoothillExpy
San
Antonio
Rd
E
M eado w
Dr
Channing Ave
Loma
Verde
AveSeale
Ave
Fabian
Way
84
114
82
85
101
MataderoCanal
Ado be
Cr e e k
M atad e r o
C
r
eek
Mtn
V
i
ew
Slou g h
PermanenteCreek
Dry
C
r
e
ek
Mayfield Slo
ugh
WhismanSlough
Sterling
Canal
Stev
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
kDry
Cre e k
H e t c h
Hetchy
SanFrancisquit o Creek
ShorelineLake
SanFranciscoBay
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ExistingConditions\Fig2_ProjectVicinity.mxd
FIGURE 2Project Vicinity
Project Boundary
101 SanFranciscoBay
280
80
680580
880
Oakland
Fremont
San Jose
San Francisco
Hayward
Sunnyvale
Danville
0 0.5
Miles
Esri, 2019
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12 Existing Conditions
Salt Marsh
Tidal salt marsh, or salt marsh, in the Baylands is subject to tidal action and dominated by Pacific
cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) and pickleweed (Salicornia spp.). Other common species present include
dodder (Cuscuta salina), gumplant (Grindelia stricta), alkali-heath (Frankenia salina), and invasive
species including pepper grass (Lepidium latifolium). Populations of the federally listed endangered salt
marsh harvest mouse and California Ridgway’s rail (discussed in Section 2.1.3, “Special-Status Species,”
below) are found only in this habitat type. Other more common species include Virginia rail (Rallus
limicola) and sora (Porzana carolina). Habitat areas identified as salt marsh include Faber-Laumeister
Tract, Harbor Point and the inner harbor channel, Harriet Mundy Marsh, Hooks Island, and Sand Point.
Muted Salt Marsh
Diked or muted salt marsh in the Baylands consists of areas of historic tidal salt marsh that has been cut
off from full tidal influence by dikes or levees, but that maintains wetland features (Goals Project 2015).
Vegetation communities in muted salt marsh are similar to those in salt marshes; typically, however,
fewer native plant species are present, and non-native plant species are a large component (Goals
Project 2015). Areas of the Baylands characterized by muted salt marsh are dominated by non-native
plant species including common reed (Phragmites australis), arundo (Arundo donax), and tall wheatgrass
(Thinopyrum ponticum), with other common plant species present including pickleweed, bulrush
species, and cattails (Typha spp.). Muted salt marsh is found in the Palo Alto Flood Control Basin (Flood
Control Basin), the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands, the site of the former Los Altos
Treatment Plant, and the Mayfield Slough (Figure 3).
Tidal action and freshwater outflows in the Flood Control Basin are controlled by the existing tide gate
system, creating conditions in which the basin receives muted tidal flows. As a result, the northern area
of the Flood Control Basin closest to the tide gate experiences more saline conditions than the southern
area. The southern portion of the basin is mostly dry, with marsh panne formations present throughout
this area, indicating seasonal ponding. A large open area in the northeastern corner of the basin is
denuded of vegetation and supports roosting by numerous seabirds throughout the day. The southern
and eastern portions of the Flood Control Basin are dominated by invasive common reed and creeping
wildrye, with pickleweed, alkali heath, and non-native grasses and herbaceous species common
throughout the basin.
Brackish Marsh
Brackish marsh occurs in areas of the Baylands where freshwater locally reduces salinity, namely the
unnamed slough where RWQCP treated water is discharged south of San Francisquito Creek. This
vegetation community is characterized by the dominance of bulrush (Bolboschoenus spp.). Brackish salt
marsh provides habitat for the saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), a regional
subspecies found in the Baylands. This regional subspecies is found primarily in tidal salt marshes
throughout the Bay Area, with about 60 percent of yellowthroats occupying brackish marsh (Shuford
and Gardali 2008).
Freshwater Marsh
The 15-acre Emily Renzel Freshwater Pond was created in 1992 as part of the Emily Renzel Wetlands
restoration project, using a perimeter earthen berm and a pipeline extending from the
RWQCP that provides tertiary-treated wastewater to the pond that is then discharged
into Matadero Creek. The freshwater marsh likely supports species associated with this
Existing Conditions 13
habitat type such as sora rails, herons and egrets, and passerine species, as well as amphibian and turtle
species.
Annual Nonnative Grassland
The Baylands’ non-native grassland vegetation community is characterized by annual grassland species
introduced from Europe. Before the introduction of European grazing and agriculture in California,
native grasslands consisted of perennial “bunchgrass” communities. Grassland communities throughout
the Bay Area have since shifted to Euro-Asian grassland species that have become naturalized to the
region. Areas identified as non-native grassland are dominated by wild oats (Avena spp.), Italian ryegrass
(Festuca perennis), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), various non-native thistle species, and fennel
(Foeniculum vulgare). Common native species in the Baylands include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis)
and creeping wildrye (Elymus triticoides). Areas where trails and levees intersect the Baylands are
dominated by grassland comprising non-native annual grasses and invasive forbs including fennel, wild
mustard (Brassica spp.), non-native shrub and tree species, and various non-native annual grasses and
thistles (Cirsium spp., Carduus spp.). This habitat type is found in Byxbee Park, along most trails and
levees, the lagoon shoreline, and the inner harbor southwest shoreline. The grassland community of
Byxbee Park supports a variety of wildlife species, with known occurrences of nesting burrowing owl and
black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). These areas can also provide important hunting and foraging
habitat for many raptors that rely on grassland habitat, such as white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).
Riparian
Riparian habitat borders the edges of creeks in the Baylands and is characterized by lush understory
vegetation and high biodiversity (Goals Project 2015). Within the Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek
corridors, riparian forest is dominated by willow (Salix spp.), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa),
walnut (Juglans spp.), and non-native eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) and acacia (Acacia spp.). Common
understory species include California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), elderberry (Sambucus spp.), wild rose
(Rosa californica), and non-native grasses. Riparian corridors are of great ecological importance for the
Bay, as they feature very high biodiversity in species composition and support the greatest total number
of plant and animal species (Goals Project 2015). Riparian habitat is found along the banks of Matadero
Creek and Adobe Creek, which empty into the Flood Control Basin, and San Francisquito Creek Aquatic
The Duck Pond and adjacent tidal lagoon provide foraging, nesting, and roosting habitat for various
shorebirds and waterfowl throughout the year. A grove of palm trees located northwest of the Duck
Pond is protected with fencing and designated as a bird sanctuary for herons and egrets, which utilized
this area as a rookery during breeding season in 2005–2010 (City of Palo Alto 2008; Bicknell, pers.
comm., 2017). The tidal lagoon is connected to the bay through two culverts underneath Embarcadero
Road. The lagoon is characterized by fine-grained silt and clay soils that become inundated twice daily by
tidal action and support an extensive invertebrate community including diatoms, polychaete worms,
mussel species, amphipods, and crustaceans (USFWS 2013a). Native horn snails (Cerithidea californica)
occupy the mudflats within the tidal lagoon in the marsh near the Baylands Nature Center. Invasive
eastern mud snail (Ilyanassa obsolete) now dominates many of the mudflat areas once occupied by the
horn snail. These invertebrates are an important food source for waterfowl and larger shorebirds.
14 Existing Conditions
Critical Habitat
No U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)–designated critical habitat is present in the Baylands.
However, the USFWS Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California
focuses on recovery of federally listed endangered and threatened species occurring in the Baylands
through habitat restoration and conservation efforts (USFWS 2013a). The nearest designated critical
habitat for the western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus ssp. nivosus), a federally listed threatened
species, is adjacent to the Baylands near Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
Special-Status Species
Many of the endemic species that reside in Bay Area tidal marshes are federally listed as threatened or
endangered or are otherwise considered special-status species by the regulatory agencies, including the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern
and Central California (USFWS 2013a) addresses 11 special-status plant and wildlife species; three of
these species presently occur in the Baylands.
California Ridgway’s Rail
The California Ridgway’s rail is a marsh-dwelling bird with short, rounded wings, large feet, and long
toes, and secretive habits that make it difficult to detect (USFWS 2013b). This species was federally
listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 (USFWS 2013b). The range of California Ridgway’s rail may
have extended from the tidal marshes of Humboldt Bay to Morro Bay, but the species is now localized to
the Bay Area, where it occurs only within the tidal and brackish salt marshes of Suisun, San Pablo, and
San Francisco bays, including the South Bay. The species is currently restricted to less than 10 percent of
its former geographic range, with Bay wide habitat loss as the primary threat.
California Ridgway’s rails are found almost exclusively in tidal and brackish salt marsh habitats with
unrestricted tidal flows and require well-developed tidal channel networks connected to upland areas
that provide escape refugia and nesting habitat (USFWS 2013b). The tidal marshes of the Baylands,
including the former Palo Alto Harbor and Hooks Island, currently support a population of approximately
15–29 individuals (Point Blue 2011; OEI 2016). Faber-Laumeister Tract supports approximately 82
individuals (Point Blue 2011; OEI 2016).
The Baylands are along the urban edge of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Mountain View, where tidal
marsh habitat is a patchwork of high-quality narrow fragments with limited or absent upland refugia.
A reduction in upland refugia combined with anticipated sea level rise poses a future threat to this
species, and current opportunities for upland migration from high-tide events are very limited, if not
completely absent. Other threats include predation by terrestrial predators and encroachment by
invasive Spartina alterniflora and Lepidium spp. on the tidal marshes of the Baylands.
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
The salt marsh harvest mouse is generally restricted to saline or subsaline marsh habitats around
San Francisco Bay and, with some exception, brackish areas in the Suisun Bay area (USFWS 2013a). The
distribution of salt marsh harvest mouse correlates with the presence of pickleweed and native
cordgrass vegetation in tidal and diked salt marshes, where saline conditions are required for suitable
habitat to support the species’ food source and nesting habits.
Similar to California Ridgway’s rail, populations of salt marsh harvest mice in the
Baylands appear to be limited by the distribution of high-tide cover and refugia habitat.
Existing Conditions 15
During high-tide events, the salt marsh harvest mouse seeks refuge in upland habitat and climbs to the
top of vegetation to avoid inundation. The importance of landward migration opportunities to the
survival of this species indicates that anticipated sea level rise will present a severe threat in the long
term, particularly in the Baylands, where opportunities for upland migration from high-tide events are
very limited or absent because of the surrounding urban edge.
Western Burrowing Owl
Western burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern because of declining populations
related to loss of habitat. In California, burrows are most commonly dug by ground squirrels, but owls
also use badger or fox dens or holes. Before 2005, eight to 10 nesting pairs occupied the dry grassland
areas of the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands and Byxbee Park. By 2005, nesting burrowing
owls had vanished from the area, and there are currently no documented occurrences of nesting;
however, several owls have been sighted overwintering in and around Byxbee Park (Anderson, pers.
comm., 2017). The adjacent shoreline property in Mountain View supports one of the largest
populations of burrowing owl in Santa Clara County, as implementing various management strategies
has enhanced and protected burrowing owl habitat (City of Mountain View 2012a).
Wildlife Corridors
The Baylands provide crucial habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl traveling along the Pacific
Flyway during seasonal migrations by providing foraging, resting, and nesting habitat. The large tracts of
natural area present in the Baylands also provide some of the best remaining contiguous marsh and
wetland habitat in the Bay Area. However, these areas have lost the majority of adjacent upland habitat
and tidal transition zones, which act as important travel corridors for wildlife of the tidal marshes. These
areas are important for wildlife escaping high-tide events, particularly salt marsh harvest mice and
Ridgway’s rails. The migration habits of the Baylands’ wildlife coincide with tidal flows, with many
species moving through the tidal wetland habitat via channelized streams, tidal marsh vegetation, and
riparian corridors.
Human-made features such as trails and levees in the Baylands may act as travel corridors for interior
mammalian species to reach more outer portions of the tidal flats that are not normally accessible by
overland travel. Local wildlife species known to use these structures for travel include coyote (Canis
latrans), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
These corridors may also be accessed by feral cats (Felis catus) and other non-native terrestrial species,
exposing marshland wildlife populations to increased predation pressures. Nonnative predators such as
feral cats and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes regalis) have been shown to prey on California Ridgway’s rails and
California black rails during high-water events (Evens and Page 1986; Foin et al. 1997; Harding et al.
2001).
16 Existing Conditions
These same human-made features are known to create passage obstacles for wildlife species in tidal
marshes, particularly during storm surges and extreme high tides (Eddleman and Conway 1998). Human-
made levees, dikes, and seawalls may obstruct dispersing Ridgway’s rails and other rail species, which
are less mobile and rely on vegetation cover for movement. Similarly, salt marsh harvest mice will move
to denser upland vegetation but may become stranded on levees and other structures during extreme
high-tide events, leaving them vulnerable to predation.
Mitigation and Restoration Areas
Restoration projects completed in the Baylands since 1988 include Harbor Point, the harbor itself, and
the Emily Renzel Wetlands. The Harbor Point project, completed in 1997, restored 11 acres of salt marsh
and since has maintained intact functioning habitats. Since 1987, the former Palo Alto Harbor has been
allowed to naturally fill with silt, with results observed in 2007 indicating that enough natural silting had
occurred to provide soil to support plants.
The Emily Renzel Wetlands, a beneficial use project completed in 1992, created a 15-acre freshwater
marsh through installation of an earthen berm and a pipeline extending from the RWQCP that provides
tertiary treated wastewater to the freshwater marsh, where it is then discharged to Matadero Creek.
The restoration project also restored 12 acres of saltwater marsh along the northern edge of the former
ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands. The saltwater marsh is connected to the former yacht harbor via
pipe, allowing muted tidal flow to occur. Water from the restored freshwater marsh also is discharged
into Matadero Creek to the north of the freshwater marsh outfall.
Hydrologic Connections
Features throughout the Baylands are connected through culverts, pipe, pumps, and through the tide
gate. Tidal flow connects the harbor and the lagoon through a bridge topped culvert. Freshwater from
Adobe, Barron, and Matadero creeks flows into the Flood Control Basin. Muted tidal flow connects the
Flood Control Basin to the Bay through the tide gate. Fresh water from San Francisquito Creek flows
directly into the Bay. Muted tidal flow connects the Emily Renzel Wetlands and the inner harbor through
and underground pipe, where the salt water then disperses throughout the wetlands, and is discharged
through a levee by pipe into Matadero Creek. Approximately 95 percent of the recycled wastewater
from the RWQCP discharges to the Bay through and underground pipe to an unnamed slough located
south of San Francisquito Creek. The remainder of the treated wastewater flows through underground
pipe to the Emily Renzel Freshwater Pond, where it is then discharged through a levee by pipe into
Matadero Creek. The Duck Pond also receives recycled freshwater from the RWQCP by underground
pipe.
Existing Conditions 17
2.2 Public Access and Facilities
The Baylands have been used by people since the Ohlone tribe of the Bay Area used the tidal marshes
for foraging and hunting. During the late 1800s, settlers established themselves in the area and utilized
the marshlands for agriculture, constructing dikes and levees and filling the wetlands for development.
In the past 50 years, continued land use changes and development have resulted in the presence of
managed salt ponds, a landfill (converted to Byxbee Park), a radio communications station (the former
ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands), the RWQCP, the Palo Alto Airport, and the Palo Alto Municipal
Golf Course (Figure 4).
Today, the Baylands provide unique natural and recreational experiences for Bay Area communities.
Facilities and intersecting trails throughout the Baylands allow wildlife viewing, hiking, bike riding, water
sports, and use of public lands for art installations, viewing, and recreation. Acquisition of new
properties and planned expansion of the trail networks will enhance access to the different sites on and
surrounding the Baylands, while providing connectivity to other City park facilities and the surrounding
communities including Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Mountain View.
Existing Trails
The Baylands, including Byxbee Park, contain the most extensive trails network in the City’s open space
system. More than 16 miles of multiuse trails provide access to the Baylands’ unique mixture of habitats
and wildlife. Trails within the Baylands also provide regional connectivity, including to the
San Francisquito Creek Trail, which connects the Baylands to the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) and
the city of East Palo Alto. Farther south, the Renzel Trail connects the Baylands to the city of Mountain
View and points beyond. A pedestrian bridge at Embarcadero Road connects the Baylands to the greater
Palo Alto area west of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101).
Within the Baylands there are many popular trails for hiking and bicycling, including the 5.6-mile Adobe
Creek Loop, 0.7-mile Duck Pond Loop, and 1-mile Marsh Front trails. Most Baylands trails are on flat,
easy terrain and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, although the terrain on a few Byxbee
Park trails is hilly and steep in places. Trails in the Baylands are constructed of oyster shell, baserock, or
decomposed granite, or are paved. Many trails are located atop levees and are designed to reduce
impacts on habitat while still providing access for wildlife viewing. No trails currently exist on or connect
to the newly acquired former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands. Only one trail provides access to the
Flood Control Basin; that trail floods during extreme rain events.
Informal trails created by foot traffic from people or animals occur throughout the Baylands, with the
majority located in Byxbee Park. Other informal trails are adjacent and parallel to the Adobe Creek Trail,
on the Flood Control Basin side. These trails are often created when bicyclists, hikers, and runners look
for more challenging terrain.
!f
!f
!f
!f
!Õ
!Õ
!Õ
!Õ
!Õ
!Õ
!Õ
!Õ !Õ !Õ
!Õ
!Õ
!Õ!Õ
!Õ
!Õ
!\
!\
!\
!\
!\
!\
!\
!j!_
!Æ
!j
!_!j
!_
!j !j
!j
!j!_
!Æ
!_
!j
Faber-LaumeisterTract
FormerLATPSite
DuckPond
Cooley Landing
Tide Gate
SailingStationLagoon
Ecocenter
San Francisquito Creek Trail
Faber-Laumeister Trail
B
ay
Tra
il
Renzel Trail
MarshFrontTrail
FormerITT Property
M a t a d er o C r e e k
Embarcadero Rd
City ofPalo Alto
City ofEast Palo Alto
City ofMountainView
San Francisquito Creek
Friendship Bridge
AdobeCreek
L
o
o
p
Trail
ShorelineLake
CharlestonSlough
SanFranciscoBay
Palo AltoGolf Course
HarrietMundyMarsh
Hooks IslandPalo AltoAirport
RWQCP
Palo AltoFlood ControlBasin
ByxbeePark
Emily RenzelWetlands
BaylandsRanger Station
Lucy EvansBaylands NatureInterpretive Centerand Boardwalk
Animal ServicesCenter
BaylandsAthletic Center
Save theBay Nursery
Middlefield
Rd
E m b a r c a d e r o Rd
Bay R d
Louis
Rd
Oregon
Expy
Colorado Ave
Pu
lgas
Ave
Lo ma
Verde
Ave
101
A do be Creek
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ExistingConditions\Fig4_SiteFeatures.mxd
!Õ Interpretive Sign
!f Bridge
!j Parking Lot
!\Public Art
!_Restroom
!Æ Wildlife Viewing Platform
TrailLeveeFormer ITT PropertyProject Boundary
City of Palo Alto, 2014-17Esri, 2019
FIGURE 4Site Features
0 0.5
Miles
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Existing Conditions 19
Other Public Access Areas
Other public access areas within the Baylands include the Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station (Sailing
Station), the Baylands Athletic Center, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, the Duck Pond, the
EcoCenter (formerly Sea Scout Base), the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, picnic areas,
and parking lots. The Sailing Station consists of a pier that leads to a dock via a gangway and provides
Bay access for small hand-launched, nonmotorized boats such as kayaks, canoes, and sailboats, in
addition to sailboards and windsurfing boards.
Baylands Athletic Center
The Baylands Athletic Center is a 6-acre facility consisting of a lighted baseball field with a 500-seat
grandstand, one lighted softball field with bleachers, a parking lot, restrooms, and concession facilities.
The fields are scheduled for organized league play in the spring and fall and are open to casual users at
other times (City of Palo Alto 2017a). Many organized walking/running events begin at the Baylands
Athletic Center. The Golf Course Reconfiguration Project added 10.5 acres of land to the Baylands
Athletic Center site for future use.
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
The Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course is a 169.8-acre, 18-hole public golf course. Since summer 2016, the
golf course has been undergoing reconfiguration, with 10.5 acres of existing golf course to be
incorporated into the Baylands Athletic Center. Approximately 7.4 acres of the golf course will be
incorporated into SFCJPA’s San Francisquito Flood Reduction Project. The reconfigured course will
encompass approximately 156 acres and will include 18 holes, a clubhouse, a parking lot, a practice
range, practice putting greens, and a new on-course restroom.
Duck Pond
The Duck Pond is a very popular location of the Baylands for public access. It was built in 1930 as a
saltwater swimming pool before being converted to a duck pond in 1947. The Duck Pond is no longer
tidal or brackish and is filled with 8.5 million gallons of recycled water from the RWQCP. The Duck Pond
area consists of the Duck Pond, an adjacent trail, a parking lot, and one portable toilet.
EcoCenter
Across Embarcadero Road from the Duck Pond is the EcoCenter, formerly known as the Sea Scout
House. Built in 1941 as a base for the Sea Scouts, the EcoCenter now houses the Environmental
Volunteers, an environmental education nonprofit organization, and was rehabilitated in 2008. The
EcoCenter is open to the public free of charge and includes touchscreen science displays, hands-on
nature exhibits, and environmental education programs. It serves as a launch point for Baylands hikers,
and as a resource for marshland ecology education and the advancement of environmental stewardship
in California.
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center
The Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center is built on pilings at the edge of Harriet Mundy
Marsh (Figure 4). The Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Improvements Project, completed in April
2017, added eight interpretive stations, improved deck access surrounding the center, nest
platforms for swallows, and glass-viewing windows providing improved views of the
marsh. The Baylands Boardwalk, located behind the center, extends to the edge of the
marsh and into the Bay.
20 Existing Conditions
Nonrecreational Features and Facilities
Palo Alto Airport
The 101-acre Palo Alto Airport, located north of Embarcadero Road, is a general-aviation field owned
and operated by the City. It has one paved runway measuring approximately 2,443 feet by 70 feet and is
the 10th busiest single-runway airport in California. Regional Water Quality Control Plant
The 25-acre RWQCP is operated by the City and treats wastewater for Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, Stanford University, and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. The facility has
significantly reduced the pollutant load in the Bay by removing organic pollutants from wastewater.
Tertiary treated water is discharged to an unnamed slough south of San Francisquito Creek, and also to
the Emily Renzel Freshwater Pond. Recycled water from the plant is to fill the Duck Pond and is used to
irrigate restoration sites within the Baylands.
Levees
A series of locally and federally constructed levees and dikes protect critical infrastructure and features
within the Baylands. The Palo Alto Airport is protected by a levee that is topped by the San Francisquito
Creek Trail. The RWQCP is protected by a levee topped by the Marsh Front Trail. Byxbee Park is
protected by perimeter dike that is topped by a perimeter trail. The dike surrounding the Flood Control
Basin is topped by the Adobe Creek Loop Trail. Additional levees and dikes are located along the
boundary of Faber-Laumeister Tract and the City of East Palo Alto.
Tide Gate
The tide gate, located at the end of Mayfield Slough, includes a two-way gate that allows Bay water to
flow into the Flood Control Basin under controlled conditions. Improvements to the tide gate were
made in 1993 and 2002 to maintain the marsh environment within the Flood Control Basin. Baylands
Rangers are responsible for operating the tide gate, with the objectives of allowing adequate space
within the Flood Control Basin for rain flow from Adobe, Matadero, and Barron creeks; managing
habitat in the Flood Control Basin; and controlling vectors in the basin. A bridge over the tide gate
connects Byxbee Park with the Adobe Creek Loop Trail (Figure 4).
Palo Alto Flood Control Basin
The 618-acre Flood Control Basin collects flows from Adobe, Matadero, and Barron creeks and includes
Mayfield Slough (Figure 4). The basin was built in 1956 to prevent floods in Palo Alto. The water level in
the Flood Control Basin is typically between -2.2 and -2.0 feet. The basin comprises muted tidal wetland
habitat. Historically the flood basin was salt marsh, and since the 1930s a levee system and tide gate
have reduced saltwater flow into the basin.
Plant Nursery
The plant nursery, located near the Duck Pond, is operated by Save the Bay, a nonprofit organization
that has partnered with the City of Palo Alto for habitat restoration, habitat enhancement, weed
management, and environmental education at the Baylands. The plant nursery was built in 2004 and
includes the greenhouse, a shade structure, and a workspace. The entire plant nursery is located on
City-owned property (Figure 4).
The fruitful partnership between Save the Bay and the City produces approximately
20,000 plants per year from the plant nursery (Olson, pers. comm., 2017). Of these,
Existing Conditions 21
approximately 8,000 plants are installed in the Baylands each year, and 12,000 plants are installed at
other Save the Bay restoration sites around the Bay.
Other Nonrecreational Facilities
Other nonrecreational facilities in the Baylands include the Baylands Ranger Station, restrooms, water
fountains, public phones, and garbage cans (Figure 4). The Ranger station is housed in the former Harbor
Master’s House adjacent to the Duck Pond and is on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory List.
2.3 Public Engagement
Interpretive Messaging/Signage
Signage and interpretive messaging are located throughout the Baylands. Many different styles of
signage are present, including wayfinding signs, trail marker signs, signs listing park regulations, and
interpretive displays. Signs are made of various materials including rustic wood, aluminum, and other
weather-resistant panels.
Interpretive messaging is found throughout the park and describes environmental processes,
wastewater treatment processes at the Emily Renzel Wetlands, and descriptions of wildlife and habitats
that occur within the Baylands. Like the other signage in the Baylands, the interpretive messaging
comprises multiple graphic designs, styles, and materials.
Volunteer Programs
The Baylands are home to several volunteer programs, including Ranger programs, partnerships with
Save the Bay and Grassroots Ecology, and one-off efforts such as Boy Scouts projects and 1-day
volunteer events by school classes (Bicknell, pers. comm., 2017). Save the Bay relies heavily on
volunteers to accomplish their objectives in the Baylands. Volunteers for Save the Bay focus on plant
propagation at the plant nursery, removal of nonnative/invasive species and weeding, and installation of
native plants. Baylands Rangers work closely with Save the Bay and Grassroots Ecology to focus
volunteer efforts on habitat restoration and enhancement.
Organized Recreational Camps and Programs
Organized programs and recreation camps at the Baylands are offered by the Baylands Rangers and
partners including Bay Camps, Environmental Volunteers, Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, and the
Audubon Society. Active programs led by the Baylands Rangers include hikes, canoeing with a Ranger,
and bike riding with a Ranger. These programs are designed to attract visitors to the Baylands and to
teach them about the area’s history and ecology. Additionally, Baylands Rangers offer programs to the
public, school groups, families, scout troops, and other City departments that focus on pollution in the
Bay, the history of the Baylands, and bird identification.
Other programs in the Baylands focus on environmental education. The City-operated Bay Camp, a
weeklong science camp for students in kindergarten through sixth grade, engages youth in activities to
educate them about the Baylands and Bay ecology. Similarly, Environmental Volunteers hosts
environmental education programs at the EcoCenter, including hands-on programs and interactive
displays and exhibits. The Junior Museum and Zoo and the Audubon Society also offer programs for
groups of elementary school–age children to learn about the Baylands.
22 Existing Conditions
Recreation
Recreation at the Baylands includes running, hiking, biking, kayaking, canoeing, windsurfing, dog
walking, fishing, hunting, sailing, paddle boarding, and kite-surfing. Casual users engage in most of the
recreation at the Baylands; however, organized running activities such as the Moonlight Run & Walk also
occur. Groups of 25 or more must obtain a use permit for all activities in the Baylands. Additional
recreation activities in the Baylands include picnicking, open-air painting, birdwatching, geocaching,
wildlife observation, operation of amateur ham radios, and barbequing.
2.4 Public Art
Palo Alto has supported public art since the 1970s, and the City’s collection includes more than 300
pieces. A few of the treasures of the outdoor collection are located in and around the Baylands and
include murals, land art, and sculptures (Figure 4). The largest public artwork by Peter Richards and
Michael Oppenheimer is located in Byxbee Park and comprises several elements that were installed in
1990, including Chevrons, Pole Field, and Wind Wave. Other pieces of public art located in the Baylands
include sculptures such as Bliss in the Moment by James Moore, located along Embarcadero Road at the
Flood Control Basin; Riding the Currents and the companion mural Currents, both by Martin Webb, at
the RWQCP; Kaikoo V by Betty Gold and Birdie by Joyce Hsu on Embarcadero Road at the entrance to
the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course; Streaming by Ceevah Sobel at the pump station at East Bayshore
Road and San Francisquito Creek; and Foraging Island by Mary O’Brien and Daniel McCormick in Byxbee
Park.
The Public Art Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2016a) proposes additional installations throughout the
Baylands, including opportunities at the Friendship Bridge and Adobe Creek Bridge and throughout
Byxbee Park. The Public Art Master Plan also recommends developing a public art plan specific to the
Baylands and the Embarcadero Road corridor east of U.S. 101.
2.5 Operations & Management
Vegetation Management
Weed Management
The City of Palo Alto has an integrated pest management protocol in which using chemicals in pest
management is minimized or avoided altogether. As a result, controlling weed species in the Baylands
involves frequent mowing and hand pulling. Pest management control with a weed torch is sometimes
used in areas that cannot be mowed (Bicknell, pers. comm., 2017). Table 2 lists weed existing weed
species known to occur in the Baylands. Weed species in the Baylands include nonnative invasive
species, and species that are native in origin but growing in a way that is a concern to the site, including
a monotypic stand of Phragmites australis in the Flood Control Basin, and coyote brush in Byxbee Park,
where concern exists that the deep taproot can damage the clay landfill cap. Coyote brush is not
considered to be a species of concern in other parts of the Baylands.
Spartina alterniflora has been a concern in the Baylands since 1997, when it became a threat to displace
native cordgrass. The California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project
has conducted treatment of invasive spartina annually since 2002. Methods of control included hand
application of herbicides. The treatment of spartina has been very effective in controlling the
spread of invasive spartina in the Baylands but has not eradicated the species.
Existing Conditions 23
Nonnative Phragmites australis is dominant in the Flood Control Basin (Figure 5). Approximately 22
acres of phragmites were treated with herbicide under a grant from the local Water District. However,
the control was not successful and phragmites continues to dominate the Flood Control Basin
(Anderson, pers. comm., 2017).
Table 2. Existing Weed Species
Species Name Common Name
Acacia spp. acacia
Arundo donax giant reed
Baccharis pilularis* coyote bush
Brassica spp. wild mustard
Carpobrotus chilensis sea fig; ice plant
Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle
Cirsium vulgare, Carduus pycnocephalus thistles
Cortaderia sellanoa (or C. jubata) pampas grass; jubata grass
Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort
Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
Foeniculum vulgare fennel
Genista monspessulana French broom
Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed
Malva spp. mallow
Phragmites australis* common reed
Salsola tragus Russian thistle
Spartina alterniflora smooth cordgrass
*Indicates species that are native in origin but growing in a way that is a concern to the site.
Source: City of Palo Alto; data compiled by AECOM in 2018.
Mayfield
Slough
City ofPalo Alto
City ofEast Palo Alto
City ofMountainView
San Francisquito
Creek Trail
Faber-Laumeister Trail
Adobe Creek Loop Trail
San Francisquito Creek
MarshFront Trail
Embarcadero Rd
ShorelineLake
CharlestonSlough
SanFranciscoBay
B
ay
Tr
ail
Former ITT PropertyandEmily RenzelWetland
M a t a d e r o C r e e k
Middlefield
Rd
E m b a r c a d ero
Rd
B a y R d
Louis
Rd
Oregon
Expy
Colorado
Ave
Lom a
Verde
Ave
101
UnnamedSlough
AdobeCreek
Adobe CreekLoop Trail
Faber-LaumeisterTract
Palo Alto FloodControl BasinByxbee Park
Inner HarborSW Shoreline
Lagoon AreaSanFrancisquitoCreek Trail
Lower SanFrancisquitoCreek
AdobeCreek
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ExistingConditions\Fig5_InvasivePlants.mxd
TrailProject BoundaryHabitat TypeAnnual Non-Native GrasslandRiparianSalt MarshTidal Brackish MarshMuted Salt MarshFresh Water MarshFresh WaterUrban
FIGURE 5Existing Weed Species
0 0.5
Miles
AECOM, 2017Esri, 2019
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
AdobeCreek
Location Weed SpeciesAdobe Creek acacia, giant reed, eucalyptus
Adobe Creek Loop Trail wild mustard, ice plant, fennel, pampas grass, stinkwort
Byxbee Park coyote brush*, Italian rye grass, perennial pepperweed, French broom, stinkwort, Russian thistle, yellow starthistle
Faber-Laumeister Tract perennial pepperweed, ice plant, Russian thistle, smooth cordgrassInner Harbor SW Shoreline wild mustard, thistles, stinkwort
Lagoon Area fennel, smooth cordgrass
Lower San Francisquito Creek perennial pepperweed, Russian thistle, eucalyptusPalo Alto Flood Control Basin Russian thistle, common reed*
San Francisquito Creek Trail fennel, perennial pepperweed, thistles, wild mustard, mallow, stinkwortUnnamed Slough perennial pepperweed
*Indicates species that are native in origin but growing in a way that is of concern to the specific site.
Existing Conditions 25
Irrigation
Habitat restoration and enhancement sites are irrigated largely by hand, using recycled water from the
RWQCP (Bicknell, pers. comm., 2017; Olson, pers. comm., 2017). Baylands Rangers water once per
month during the winter as needed, and two to three times per month in the spring and summer. The
amount of water used for irrigation varies by season, with water use being as high as 3,800 gallons per
month in the summer months. Save the Bay irrigates habitat restoration and enhancement areas by
hand up to four times per year, but usually waters new plantings only once per year.
The “vegetated islands” at Byxbee Park are irrigated from a 2,000-gallon water tank, using recycled
water from the RWQCP. This mechanical irrigation system uses the leachate air system to pump water
to the irrigation lines. The system is largely experimental and resulted from a focus on habitat, trees,
and shrubs during the public visioning phase of the planning process for landfill closure.
Routine Vegetation Management
Routine vegetation management is the responsibility of the Baylands Rangers and consists largely of
mowing vegetation along the edges of trails to allow public access. Rangers also mow other grassy areas
for fire control. In addition to mowing, Rangers regularly trim shrubs and trees, particularly around
trails, to allow public access to the Baylands.
Restoration Practices
Restoration efforts consist largely of enhancing existing habitats to improve ecosystem function. The
Baylands Rangers work closely with partners such as Save the Bay and Grassroots Ecology to utilize
volunteers to focus on removing nonnative species and planting native species. Restoration activities
vary by season: planting occurs largely in the fall and winter; plants are propagated in the spring and
summer; and nonnative plants are removed year round, with more concerted efforts in the winter and
summer. Currently, areas of the Baylands that are prioritized for restoration or enhancement are those
that are easily accessible to volunteers, can be addressed during the available volunteer hours, or have
been identified in the field as potential restoration areas.
Mowing or weed-whacking is the first step in preparing a site for restoration or enhancement. This
action is typically undertaken in the spring or summer. Preparation begins with soil amendments, such
as sheet mulching using cardboard or wood chips. The mulch is then placed on the restoration site and
left for a season, usually summer. After mulching, the site is planted with native plants from the plant
nursery, usually in fall or winter. The site is then maintained through hand pulling of non-native and
weedy species. The new plantings are irrigated as needed; however, seasonal precipitation in the fall
and winter is often enough to aid in the establishment of the plantings. Save the Bay conducts
quantitative monitoring for vegetative cover at sites where it has conducted restoration and
enhancement. Baylands Rangers do not conduct quantitative monitoring on sites where they have
conducted restoration.
Wildlife Management
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided predator control services in the Baylands on and off
over the past 20 years, with the objective of protecting endangered species such the California
Ridgway’s rail and burrowing owl from mammalian predators. Target species for control
include feral/free-ranging cats, raccoons, striped skunks, red foxes, and feral/free-
ranging dogs.
26 Existing Conditions
The Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts includes a management plan for the western burrowing owl
(City of Palo Alto 2015). This plan includes three areas for burrowing owl nesting habitat and includes
details plans for artificial burrows seeded with grasses. However, because this plan requires burrowing
into the landfill cap, it required approval from regulatory agencies, and the approval has not yet been
granted. As a condition of the permits required for landfill closure, ground squirrel abatement is
currently implemented in Byxbee Park. The City is attempting to balance the ecosystem benefits that
squirrels provide with the regulatory requirements imposed. The purpose of ground squirrel control is to
project the clay cap layer that encases and seals buried refuse and contains methane within the sealed
area.
General Maintenance
Other maintenance and management activities in the Baylands include controlling litter and installing
and rehabilitating park facilities such as benches, tables, and fences. General maintenance also includes
trail maintenance activities such as trailside mowing, tree and shrub trimming, and general upkeep.
2.6 Key Areas
Byxbee Park
The 137-acre former City landfill has been closed, capped, dedicated as parkland and opened to the
public in phases as refuse disposal capacity was reached. Final landfill closure and cap construction was
completed in and opened to the public in April 2015 and features trails, benches, restrooms,
interpretive signage, and public art. The park is typically used for walking, hiking, biking, wildlife viewing,
and dog-walking. Vegetation in Byxbee Park consists largely of non-native grasslands, with four sets of
“vegetated islands,” irrigated from recycled water from the RWQCP, that support native shrubs and
other native plantings.
In August 2015, Council adopted the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concept. The Byxbee Park Hills
Interim Park Concepts provides guidance on improving and managing the habitats within Byxbee Park
while also ensuring that the closed landfill can meet all of its regulatory requirements. The Byxbee Park
Hills Interim Park Concepts documents the existing park areas currently open to the public, proposes an
adaptive management maintenance regime, and identifies opportunities for park improvements. The
main purpose of management and maintenance activities in Byxbee Park is to guard public safety,
enhance recreational opportunities in the area, protect the landfill cap, and minimize impacts on air and
water quality from potential landfill gas and leachate.
This BCCP and the included Byxbee Park Design Plan (Chapter 9) build upon the concepts proposed in
the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concept Plan. The Byxbee Park Design Plan proposes specific
improvements at the park, such as signage, benches, and parking lot improvements and this BCCP
addresses long-term maintenance and habitat management of the site as part of a holistic management
approach for the greater Baylands area.
Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
The 36.5-acre former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands located in the Emily Renzel Wetlands was
acquired by the City in 2016 and has been dedicated at parkland. The former antenna field was originally
part of a 200-acre marshland area purchased and built into a radio telegraph transmitting
station to serve as the hub of Pacific Coast ship-to-shore communications. The 200 acres
were bought by ITT in 1930 and later recognized as an integral part of the Baylands
rehabilitation plan in the 1970s. The City purchased 154 acres in 1977 and dedicated
Existing Conditions 27
the property as parkland in 1982, excluding the 36.5-acre easement that remains in use by ITT. In 1992
the Emily Renzel Wetlands project was completed that created a 15-acre freshwater pond and restored
muted tidal flow to 12 acres of salt marsh along the northern edge of the former ITT Property/Emily
Renzel Wetlands. The saltwater marsh is connected to the former yacht harbor via pipe, allowing muted
tidal flow to occur. Water from the freshwater pond and salt marsh is discharged into Matadero Creek.
Two buildings, an access road, and antennas are on the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands. The
Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008) contains recommendations for removing the
antenna field and replacing it with marshland, with the goal of unifying the land with the rest of the
Baylands. As discussed in Chapter 10, the City is exploring different design concepts and elements for
the ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands. A preferred concept plan has not been selected and no specific
improvements to the property are proposed at this time. Future improvements will require further
discussion and inter-departmental coordination and would be subject to further review pursuant to
CEQA once the proposed plan for the site is selected and designs move forward.
Public and Stakeholder Involvement 28
Public and Stakeholder
Involvement
Public and stakeholder involvement has been an integral part in the development of the BCCP. To
ensure that input from the public and stakeholders was incorporated into the plan, a stakeholder
engagement plan was developed. In addition, a Stakeholder Advisory Group and project Web site were
established, and all project meetings were open to the public. The Parks and Recreation Commission
and a Baylands user survey provided additional feedback opportunities. The following sections describe
public and stakeholder involvement for the BCCP, and Appendix A summarize stakeholder and public
input.
3.1 Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Early in the BCCP planning process, the stakeholder engagement plan was developed to serve as a road
map for stakeholder engagement activities. The main goals of the BCCP engagement process were to
solicit input and ideas from stakeholders and the public; collect feedback on key deliverables; filter
stakeholder comments through the City’s planning team; and integrate the comments and feedback into
the BCCP as appropriate. In addition, the stakeholder engagement process sought to foster buy-in and
ongoing support among participants.
Identification of Target Audiences and Key Stakeholders
A key component of the stakeholder engagement plan was the establishment of the Stakeholder
Advisory Group. This group served an advisory role for development of the vision, goals, and objectives;
opportunities analysis; action plan and BMPs; Byxbee Park Design Plan; and former ITT Property/Emily
Renzel Wetlands alternatives components of the BCCP. The Stakeholder Advisory Group participated in
several meetings leading up to various project milestones. The group was composed of City staff
members from multiple departments; Save the Bay staff members; representatives from Grassroots
Ecology, Environmental Volunteers, and the Santa Clara Audubon Society; members of the Parks and
Recreation Ad Hoc Committee; and other interested community members and government agencies.
Project Web Site
A Web site hosted by the City was developed in November 2017 to post and share project
deliverables and meeting notices, located at the following address:
Public and Stakeholder Involvement 29
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/parks/preserves/baylands_comprehensive_conservation
_plan.asp
Public Participation
Following feedback received in the first Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting, future meetings were
opened and advertised to the general public. Flyers were placed at various points throughout the
Baylands and a meeting notice was posted on the project Web site. In addition, Baylands Rangers
administered a park user survey to Baylands visitors over the course of multiple weeks to gather wider
input for the development of the BCCP.
3.2 Stakeholder Engagement Activities
As described below, the primary mechanisms for engaging stakeholders during development of the
BCCP were meetings of the Stakeholder Advisory Group, reviews of deliverables, and a survey of
Baylands users. At the beginning of each key project milestone, the planning team requested
stakeholders’ input and ideas to obtain buy-in and participation during task development. The City
distributed select draft deliverables to stakeholders for review, collected and reconciled the comments
received, and incorporated appropriate comments and input into the final deliverables. Table 3 details
the chronology of stakeholder involvement.
Meetings
Five Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings were held during development of the BCCP. The meetings
were scheduled to maximize participation by group members. The themes that emerged from each
meeting were documented and distributed to the Stakeholder Advisory Group and are included in
Appendix A.
First Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting
The first meeting, held on October 18, 2017, was a brainstorming session to solicit ideas and input,
brainstorm vision statements, identify goals and objectives for the BCCP, and identify concerns.
Information gathered at this first meeting was used to develop the draft vision, goals, and objectives of
the BCCP.
Second Community/Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting
The second Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting, held on December 5, 2017, focused on identifying
opportunities for the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands and Byxbee Park. Input gathered at
this meeting was used to develop use alternatives at the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands and
formed the basis for elements to be included in the Byxbee Park Design Plan.
Third Community/Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting
The third meeting, held on February 15, 2018, was a working session to refine the future steps in the
planning process. The intent of this meeting was to develop the opportunities analysis, identify BMPs,
and start defining the objectives of plan implementation. Input gathered at the second meeting was
used to develop the final vision, goals, and objectives.
Fourth Community/Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting
The fourth meeting, held on November 29, 2018, focused on gathering input on the draft
action plan and the draft Byxbee Park Design Plan. Feedback received from this meeting
was incorporated into the early development of both plans.
30 Public and Stakeholder Involvement
Fifth Community/Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting
The fifth and final meeting will be a presentation on the draft BCCP. This meeting, scheduled for May 28,
2019, will focus on the planning process and the methods of incorporating stakeholder input into the
plan.
Stakeholder Review of Draft Deliverables
Key draft deliverables were posted on the project Web site and distributed to the Stakeholder Advisory
Group for review. The goal was to obtain input and help from stakeholders early in the development of
deliverables. Appropriate comments and information were incorporated into the final deliverables.
Stakeholder and public engagement for key areas of the BCCP – Former ITT property/Emily Renzel
Wetlands and Byxbee Park – are discussed in more detail below.
Stakeholders reviewed the following project deliverables:
Draft Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Draft Future Planned Projects
Draft Opportunities Analysis and BMPs Report
Draft Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands Design Concepts (discussed briefly below)
Draft Action Plan
Draft Byxbee Park Design Plan (discussed briefly below)
Draft BCCP
Design Concepts for the Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
Four design concept scenarios were developed for the potential future uses of the former ITT
Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands. The concept scenarios were circulated to City staff, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and the Stakeholder Advisory Group for review and posted on the project’s
Web site.
Byxbee Park Design Plan
The conceptual design for Byxbee Park incorporates feedback from park users, staff members, and the
Stakeholder Advisory Group. This conceptual design was provided to the City and stakeholders for
additional review. As discussed in Chapter 2, the Byxbee Park Design Plan builds upon the concepts
proposed in the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concept Plan, adopted in 2015, and proposes specific
minor improvements at the park, such as signage, benches, and parking lot improvements.
Public and Stakeholder Involvement 31
Baylands User Survey
In April and May 2018, Baylands Rangers administered a six-question survey questionnaire to Baylands
visitors. The purpose of the survey was to provide additional input to development of the BCCP, beyond
the feedback received during focused stakeholder meetings. Approximately 73 people completed the
survey, including a mix of adults and youth.
Table 3. Chronology of Stakeholder/Public Involvement
Date Activity
October 2017 First Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting
November 2017 Project web site established
November 2017 Stakeholder Advisory Group tour of the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
December 2017 Second Stakeholder Advisory Group/public meeting
February 2018 Third Stakeholder Advisory Group/public meeting
March 2018 Stakeholder Advisory Group review of draft vision, goals, and objectives
April–May 2018 Baylands user survey conducted
June 2018 Stakeholder Advisory Group review of future planned projects
June 2018 Consultant presentation to Parks and Recreation Commission
September
2018 Stakeholder Advisory Group review of draft concepts for the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
October 2018 Stakeholder Advisory Group review of opportunities and challenges analysis and best management
practices
December 2018 Fourth Stakeholder Advisory Group/public meeting
February 2019 Stakeholder Advisory Group review of the action plan
February 2019 Stakeholder Advisory Group review of final concepts for the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
February 2019 Stakeholder Advisory Group review of the Byxbee Park design plan
Planned Future Improvements and Changes to Land Uses and Activities 32
Planned Future
Improvements and Changes
to Land Uses and Activities
Several long-term planning projects in and around the Baylands have the potential to affect future land
uses at the Baylands. The following sections describe projects located within or near the Baylands. Many
of the projects identified below provide opportunities for coordination with the BCCP.
4.1 Capital Improvement Projects
San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project
Upstream of Highway 101
SFCJPA prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) that studied a range of alternatives that could be
undertaken to reduce flows and reduce flood potential in the flood-prone reach of San Francisquito
Creek upstream of U.S. 101. As of 2022, SFCJPA is refining the range of issues and alternatives to be
addressed in the Draft EIR. The project is expected to be completed in 2025 or 2026, depending on the
sequencing of in-channel work and top or bank work (SJCPA 2022).
Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation
SFCJPA’s Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along San Francisco Bay
(SAFER Bay) seeks to reduce the risk of coastal flooding and remove properties from areas within the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain and accommodate 3 feet of sea
level rise. The project will restore and sustain existing marsh habitat for flood attenuation in
coordination with regional flood control efforts. The project will also increase recreational opportunities
by improving bayfront levees in collaboration with the Bay Trail Program. In October 2019, SFCJPA
completed a bayfront levee feasibility study that described 19 alternatives over nine reaches covering
7 miles of shoreline.
Baylands Athletic Center 10.5-Acre Expansion/Improvements
The City’s capital plan includes a project to conduct public outreach and develop conceptual plans for
the future use of a 10.5-acre expansion of the Baylands Athletic Center from land that was previously
part of the golf course. The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2017a) calls
for evaluating the optimal use for the 10.5-acre area.
Planned Future Improvements and Changes to Land Uses and Activities 33
Horizontal Levee
The City is considering implementing an expanded version of an experimental levee design tested by the
Oro Loma Sanitary District. The experiment used a bayside transitional slope planted with a mix of
upland and hydrophytic vegetation to manage nutrient loads, remove particulates, and manage
floodwater. The City and its partners are exploring the possibility of expanding the technology to a larger
geographic area and connecting the experimental levee design to tidal action. This project has published
a preliminary design report with grant funding secured from the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (City
of Palo Alto 2019). Design, permitting, and CEQA are planned to be completed in 2022, with
construction slated to start in 2023.
Airport Apron, Runways, and Taxiways
The City is implementing the Airport Apron Reconstruction Project as a result of a 2015 Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) request for a pavement maintenance management plan. This is required by the
FAA to ensure that the City remains eligible for federal grant funds. The plan identified 38 acres of
pavement needing repairs, most critically on the airport apron. Construction began in 2018 and is
expected to be completed in summer 2022.
Byxbee Park Completion
The City developed the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concept Plan in 2015 to complete the conversion
of the closed Palo Alto Landfill to a park. The Byxbee Park Design Plan (Chapter 9) and this BCCP build
upon the concepts proposed in the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concept Plan. The Byxbee Park Design
Plan (Chapter 9) proposes specific physical improvements at the park and this BCCP address long-term
maintenance and habitat management of the site as part of a holistic management approach for the
greater Baylands.
The use of $2.8 million of park impact fees in fiscal year 2020 was included in the City Council–approved
infrastructure plan. The design for completing Byxbee Park is included in Chapter 9 of this BCCP. The City
anticipates proposal and adoption of the Byxbee Park Design Plan through a Park Improvement
Ordinance process, which requires a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and
Council approval. The physical improvements associated with that Design Plan, as shown in Chapter 9,
would be evaluated as part of the approval of this BCCP. The BCCP also addresses long-term
maintenance and habitat management of the site as part of a holistic management approach for the
greater Baylands.
Soil will be added to areas of Byxbee Park to approved grades where settling and subsidence has
occurred. The work will occur in the spring of each year and will be limited to 10 acres or less per year.
South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Phase II
Improvements to Baylands flood protection levees are being led by the USACE and are in the scoping
phase. The project covers flood protection levees in the Baylands between San Francisquito Creek and
the city of Mountain View. Originally part of the SAFER Bay study, the project will evaluate the SAFER
levee alignments in more detail. The project objectives include reducing the risk of flooding;
incorporating features that facilitate climate change adaptation by using tidal marshes for their
ecological function; expanding opportunities for recreation and connectivity; minimizing future
maintenance; and creating partnership opportunities.
34 Planned Future Improvements and Changes to Land Uses and Activities
Regional Water Quality Control Plant—Effluent Outfall Pipe Project
The RWQCP is pursuing the construction of an additional outfall pipe to convey effluent (cleaned and
treated wastewater) to San Francisco Bay. The new pipe would run adjacent to the existing outfall pipe,
which releases effluent near the Palo Alto Airport. Construction efforts would also include maintenance
for the existing 52-year-old outfall pipe, and pump replacement for effluent discharged to nearby Emily
Renzel Freshwater Pond adjacent to East Bayshore Road. The project would ensure reliable transport of
treated effluent under projected climate change and sea level rise scenarios. The new, larger outfall
pipeline would increase capacity to counteract sea level rise, while the new Emily Renzel Freshwater
Pond Pump would allow for increased flows to the marsh. Council approved an initial design of the
project in May 2018; however, modifications may be necessary to accommodate levee designs being
considered as part of the SAFER Bay project. Therefore, construction of the project is currently on hold
and the City anticipates that this project will resume in 2023. Additional design work and further analysis
and Council approval for a modified design, if required, is anticipated.
4.2 Restoration Efforts
South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project
The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is the largest tidal wetland restoration project on the
West Coast and consists of restoration at three pond complexes. The Alviso Complex is immediately
southeast of the Baylands, and the Ravenswood Complex is north of the Baylands in East Palo Alto and
Menlo Park. The final environmental impact statement/EIR for the project was published in 2016.
Phase 1 of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project constructed tidal and muted wetlands and
enhanced managed ponds, trails, and access features. Phase 2 will restore additional former salt ponds
and enhance the project’s long-term goals of restoration. The goal of Phase 2 is to restore 50 percent of
the acreage to tidal marsh. Construction is set to begin in 2022. Activities at the Alviso ponds in Phase 2
include breaching levees to open ponds A1 and A2W to tidal action; constructing habitat islands for
birds; constructing upland transitional habitat along Mountain View Shoreline Park; building public
access trails and viewing platforms; and raising levees along the Coast Casey Forebay and the southern
end of Charleston Slough.
Vision, Goals, and Objectives 35
Vision, Goals, and Objectives
5.1 Purpose and Background
Purpose
The purpose of the BCCP is to develop goals, policies, prioritized action steps, and BMPs enabling the
City to holistically manage the 1,976-acre Baylands over the next 15 years and beyond by balancing
ecosystem protection, environmental education, and recreational uses. The Baylands Master Plan
(updated in 2008) laid out policies and goals for management of the Baylands. The BCCP builds on the
master plan to incorporate clear direction for managing the Baylands, using an ecosystem-based
approach that strikes the appropriate balance of conservation and recreation goals, and considers future
projects and current trends such as climate change and sea level rise.
The planning team has conducted workshops with key stakeholders, City staff, and the public to solicit
ideas and input, identify goals and priorities, determine opportunities, and identify concerns.
Background
The Baylands Master Plan, originally published in 1978, provided a framework and guide for actions in
the Baylands that also sought to preserve and enhance the area’s unique resources. The 2008 update to
the master plan calls for completion of the BCCP as a document that may include specific programs to
achieve the goals and policies of the Baylands Master Plan. Some of the goals established in the 2008
Baylands Master Plan are listed below.
Recreation activities and facilities at the Baylands are to exist in harmony with resource
preservation.
Existing and proposed activities are to be compatible with the ecological and physical constraints
and opportunities of the natural Baylands systems.
Transform Byxbee Park from landfill into a rolling pastoral park that would be an environmental
asset and a continuation of the natural open space.
The vision, goals, and objectives of the BCCP build on the goals of the master plan and include goals and
actionable objectives developed from the stakeholder engagement process.
36 Vision, Goals, and Objectives
5.2 Vision for the Baylands and the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Baylands is an ecological safe haven where the habitat, wildlife, and natural resources entrusted to
Palo Alto are protected and preserved. The Baylands is a sanctuary that rekindles the human spirit
through introspection and passive recreation and offers a living link to our cultural history.
Implementing the BCCP will help guide protection of the preserve’s habitat, wildlife, and natural
resources; ensure that stewardship and nature-friendly recreational opportunities are available for park
visitors to enjoy the Baylands now and in the future; and help the City manage the Baylands in a way
that allows the preserve to thrive in the face of challenges such as sea level rise and climate change.
5.3 Goals and Objectives of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Natural Resources Management
Natural Resources
NRM Goal 1: Maintain, protect, and preserve existing functioning native habitats, ecosystem
functions, and wildlife corridors.
NRM Objective 1.1: Identify existing functioning habitats and wildlife corridors.
NRM Objective 1.2: Establish procedures for prioritizing and preserving existing functioning
habitats and wildlife corridors.
NRM Goal 2: Manage the Baylands as habitat for native species and the preservation of biodiversity.
NRM Objective 2.1: Identify locations, opportunities, and constraints for ecological processes
and habitats that support native and diverse biological resources.
NRM Objective 2.2: Restrict access to areas that support sensitive native biotic resources.
NRM Goal 3: Enhance and restore degraded habitats and habitat corridors.
NRM Objective 3.1: Identify locations of sensitive and degraded areas in the Baylands that
should be prioritized for restoration.
NRM Objective 3.2: Identify feasible and appropriate locations and opportunities for
enhancing and restoring riparian habitat.
NRM Objective 3.3: Create a strategy to prioritize the areas that should be enhanced or
restored.
NRM Goal 4: Protect and enhance hydrologic connectivity.
NRM Objective 4.1: Identify existing hydrologic connections.
NRM Objective 4.2: Identify opportunities for feasibly enhancing hydrologic connectivity.
Sea Level Rise
NRM Goal 5: Incorporate climate change and sea level rise into long-term management and policies.
NRM Objective 5.1: Determine which areas of the Baylands and the adjacent city are most
vulnerable.
NRM Objective 5.2: Employ adaptive management strategies to natural resource
management to adapt to climate change.
NRM Objective 5.3: Encourage pilot study of a “horizontal levee” and other
innovative sea level rise adaptation strategies.
Vision, Goals, and Objectives 37
NRM Objective 5.4: Coordinate with regional planning efforts and projects such as SFCJPA’s
SAFER Bay Project and Resilient by Design.
NRM Objective 5.5: Coordinate with regional planning efforts to identify high-level protection
measures for critical infrastructure such as the Palo Alto Airport, the RWQCP, and U.S. 101.
NRM Objective 5.6: Promote the development of educational programs that focus on sea
level rise and adaptive strategies.
Public Access & Facilities
Recreation/Access
PAF Goal 1: Provide opportunities for recreation/access via a habitat-compatible trail network to
enable wildlife observation and ensure that future generations develop an appreciation for wildlife,
other wildlife-compatible recreational activities, and connections to the greater Palo Alto area.
PAF Objective 1.1: Identify and develop recommendations for connection points for trails to
the greater Palo Alto area.
PAF Objective 1.2: Identify areas for wildlife observation that will limit disturbance to habitats
and wildlife, such as areas near existing infrastructure including roads and parking lots.
PAF Goal 2: Provide appropriate facilities for visitors to the Baylands.
PAF Objective 2.1: Identify appropriate locations for facilities and park amenities such as
parking, restrooms, benches, and water fountains.
Former Los Altos Treatment Plant
PAF Goal 3: Identify alternatives for land uses at the former Los Altos Treatment Plant site.
PAF Objective 3.1: Identify locations for potential restoration opportunities and actions at the
Los Altos Treatment Plant site. Develop priorities and recommendations for actions to
improve the site’s ecological health.
Palo Alto Airport
PAF Goal 4: Promote ecologically sensitive policies for areas at and near the Palo Alto Airport.
PAF Objective 4.1: Coordinate projects and planning efforts with airport management staff to
align with the City’s federal obligations of operating a public use airport.
PAF Objective 4.2: Collaborate with airport management staff to promote safety and
implement wildlife management measures near runways.
Public Engagement
Public Engagement
PE Goal 1: Promote thoughtful, well-advertised, and transparent community involvement
opportunities that encourage participation by partner organizations, community groups, and
environmental education programs to foster greater public engagement in the Baylands.
PE Objective 1.1: Invite community groups, stakeholders, partner organizations, and
environmental education programs to participate in visioning workshops.
PE Objective 1.2: Connect with visitors to the Baylands to engage and encourage
feedback, foster buy-in, and educate the public.
38 Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Public Art
Public Art
PA Goal 2: Include appropriate environmental art in the Baylands that builds on Palo Alto’s Public
Art Master Plan.
PA Objective 2.1: Identify appropriate locations for additional public art installations and
artist engagement.
PA Objective 2.2: Promote ecologically and/or educationally beneficial art that minimizes
disturbance to natural areas.
PA Objective 2.3: Collaborate with Parks and Open Space staff members, partner
organizations, and stakeholder groups to ensure diverse community engagement in
environmentally based public art projects.
Operations & Management
Management
OM Goal 1: Holistically manage the Baylands to strike the appropriate balance between recreation
and natural resource protection, and ensure that existing and proposed activities are compatible
with the ecological and physical constraints.
OM Objective 1.1: Identify ecological and physical constraints of the natural Baylands system.
OM Objective 1.2: Develop policies that promote activities that are ecologically beneficial.
OM Objective 1.3: Coordinate management actions and priorities with other City
departments/divisions and local and regional planning activities such as SFCJPA’s SAFER Bay
Project.
OM Objective 1.4: Seek funding for additional planning and enhancements that further the
implementation of projects envisioned in the BCCP.
OM Objective 1.5: Maximize use of partnerships to implement the BCCP vision.
Projects
OM Goal 2: Strategically phase projects within the Baylands to minimize disturbance to wildlife and
visitor use.
OM Objective 2.1: Identify planned and future projects, project proponents, and project
timelines.
OM Objective 2.2: Ensure that proposed projects are sensitive to environmental impacts and
maintain land use compatibility with surrounding uses and habitats.
OM Objective 2.3: Coordinate projects and plans with local and regional projects and
planning efforts.
Invasive Species
OM Goal 3: Reduce the extent of invasive species in the Baylands.
OM Objective 3.1: Create a methodology for determining which invasive weeds should
be prioritized for removal.
OM Objective 3.2: Identify locations where invasive weeds should be prioritized
for removal.
Vision, Goals, and Objectives 39
OM Objective 3.3: Implement an early detection eradication system.
OM Objective 3.4: Develop and implement a monitoring system to track long-term
effectiveness.
OM Objective 3.5: Create/enhance an integrated pest management approach to incorporate
best available science.
Key Areas
Byxbee Park
KEY Goal 1: Develop a design and management plan for Byxbee Park that builds upon the 2015
Interim Byxbee Park Master Plan, which includes guidance for the completion of interpretive
signage, incorporates policies for appropriate management of wildlife and native habitats, contains
plans for trail connections to the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands, and completes plans
for parking at Byxbee Park.
KEY Objective 1.1: Develop a parking design for Byxbee Park.
KEY Objective 1.2: Create a methodology for determining which invasive weeds should be
prioritized for removal.
KEY Objective 1.3: Identify and develop recommendations for potential trail connections to
the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands.
KEY Objective 1.4: Identify opportunities for additional locations to expand habitat islands.
KEY Objective 1.5: Determine the feasibility of opportunities to include burrowing owl habitat
in Byxbee Park.
Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
KEY Goal 2: Restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, uplands, and hydrologic connectivity to the
site.
KEY Objective 2.1: Identify and maintain existing functioning habitats.
KEY Objective 2.2: Identify the locations of potential trails and connections that promote
habitat-compatible access to the site that maintains important ecological process and
functions.
KEY Objective 2.3: Analyze the feasibility of restoring hydrological connectivity to improve
habitat.
KEY Objective 2.4: Identify and develop recommendations for potential trail connections from
the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands to other parts of the Baylands.
KEY Objective 2.5: Incorporate current projects at the Emily Renzel Wetlands into future
planning and site design.
Key Objective 2.6: Further explore use alternatives for the potentially historic building at the
former ITT Property as well as alternatives that include removal of the building.
Opportunities and Challenges Analysis 40
Opportunities and
Challenges Analysis
The opportunities and challenges presented in this chapter were identified for topics addressing the
themes, goals, and objectives for the BCCP, which were developed through outreach to the public,
agencies, and stakeholders. The existing-conditions inventory and input from stakeholders, City staff,
and Baylands partners also contributed to development of the lists of opportunities and challenges.
Opportunities and challenges were identified for a variety of topics including natural resource
management, public access, facilities, public art, public engagement, operations, management, and the
key areas of Byxbee Park and the former ITT Property.
6.1 Natural Resource Management
Natural resource management was identified as a key theme for the BCCP. Many opportunities exist at
the Baylands for habitat preservation, restoration, and connection. Both opportunities and challenges
are listed below.
Habitat Preservation and Protection of Ecosystem Functions
Opportunities
The Baylands boast areas of functioning ecosystems that support sensitive and special-status
species, such as the salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail. These areas can provide important
seed banks, connection, and gene flow to local and regional habitats.
Existing habitats that support common species and species diversity can be maintained through
careful monitoring and follow-up restoration, which could include invasive species management and
native plantings when necessary.
Opportunities exist to expand and connect these functioning habitats.
Challenges
Non-native and invasive species at the Baylands threaten biodiversity.
There is a declining trend in local populations of some special-status and sensitive species
including burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
Opportunities and Challenges Analysis 41
User impacts, such as off-trail activities, littering, and vandalism, within the Baylands’ habitats and
ecosystem functions need to be avoided. The Baylands Rangers and City staff have limited resources
for enforcement of trail use regulations.
Special-status species are subject to regulatory restrictions such as seasonal avoidance, habitat
buffers, permitting, and mitigation.
The Baylands Rangers, City staff, and partner organization have limited resources for habitat
monitoring.
Regulatory requirements exist for control of ground squirrel populations at Byxbee Park.
Surrounding urban land uses such as office buildings and homes can lead to the introduction of
domestic predators, pests, and domestic animal diseases.
There is interest in expanding trails and recreation activities that may be incompatible with habitat
protection and preservation.
Enhancement and Restoration of Biodiversity and Degraded Habitats
Opportunities
The 2008 Baylands Master Plan identified locations for restoration and enhancement.
Degraded habitats are located near, or are connected to, existing functioning habitats and
ecosystems.
Restoration and enhancement efforts are ongoing at many locations throughout the Baylands.
Large tracts of land at the Baylands, including Byxbee Park and the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel
Wetlands, are available for preservation, restoration, and enhancement.
Opportunities exist to expand structures for nesting birds including swallows.
The Baylands Rangers, Save the Bay, Environmental Volunteers, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society,
and Grassroots Ecology provide volunteer labor resources.
Challenges
The Baylands are surrounded by urban development.
Infrastructure, consisting of the RWQCP, the flood basin, the Palo Alto Airport, golf course, roads,
and levees, is embedded within the Baylands.
Hydrology and hydrologic connections have been altered throughout the Baylands.
Climate change has resulted and continues to result in shifts in the Baylands’ natural communities.
Staff time and resources are limited for restoration activities.
Hydrologic Connectivity
Opportunities
Tidal, muted tidal, and freshwater hydrologic connections are available.
The Baylands are located on San Francisco Bay and are subject to tidal influences.
Freshwater flows in from San Francisquito, Matadero, Adobe, and Barron creeks.
Opportunities exist to explore expanding and enhancing hydrologic connections.
Challenges
Some hydrologic connections are limited by pipe size.
42 Opportunities and Challenges Analysis
Channel maintenance and flow obstructions limit the effectiveness of the Baylands’ hydrologic
systems.
Many hydrologic connections are part of a managed system including tidal connections to the Emily
Renzel Wetlands and the Flood Control Basin. For example, they are artificially managed to maintain
desired water levels and are not part of the “natural” hydrology of the Baylands.
Hydrology and hydrologic connections have been altered throughout the Baylands.
The long-term effects of climate change and sea level rise are difficult to predict.
Water quality must be maintained.
Numerous diverse opinions exist regarding the best courses of action.
Flood control must be maintained within the flood basin.
Mosquito abatement is required within the flood basin.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Adaptation
Opportunities
The potential exists to adopt pilot adaptation strategies such as creating living or horizontal levees.
Local and regional adaptation planning efforts are under way.
Many willing partners, both private and public, are available locally and regionally.
Grant funding may be available for actions to adapt to sea level rise and other effects of climate
change.
Challenges
Infrastructure within the Baylands must be protected from the effects of climate change, including
sea level rise.
Protection measures such as raising levees around the airport could be deemed unsafe for flight.
Addressing the effects of large-scale change, such as the alteration of habitats and weather patterns
by climate change, may be difficult.
6.2 Public Access and Facilities
Habitat-Compatible Trail Network
Opportunities
The potential exists to create trails connecting the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands to
Byxbee Park.
The existing trail network is well suited for walking, running, hiking, and bicycling.
Connections to adjacent trails and regional pathways could be formalized and enhanced, and the
trail network could be integrated with regional transportation and circulation plans.
Challenges
Trail access must be balanced with habitat protection, as trails and human activity can have adverse
effects on sensitive habitat.
Some potential trail connections may require easements from private landowners and
permits from regulatory agencies.
Opportunities and Challenges Analysis 43
The Baylands Rangers and City staff have limited resources for enforcement of trail use regulations.
Reconfiguration of 10.5-Acre Parkland at the Baylands Athletic Center
Opportunities
10.5 acres of parkland are available for multiple uses, including sports fields and restored habitats.
The City will build upon previous outreach efforts to seek public input to create conceptual plans for
use of the site.
Challenges
The 10.5 acres are surrounded by diverse land uses including athletic fields, the golf course, office
building, and San Francisquito Creek.
Conflicting ideas have been expressed regarding the best use of the site.
Nonrecreational Facilities (Restrooms, Water Fountains, Benches)
Opportunities
The public restroom at the Duck Pond/Baylands Ranger Station could be upgraded.
The conceptual plan for Byxbee Park, developed as part of the BCCP, includes appropriate locations
for park benches.
Challenges
Funding for facility upgrades is limited and completing such upgrades requires considerable time.
Vandalism and destruction of facilities are concerns.
There is a lack of agreement regarding the right amount of developed infrastructure and facilities.
Wildlife forage on human food waste throughout the preserve. Feeding wildlife can increase
populations of pest species and decrease biodiversity.
Parking
Opportunities
The parking lots at the Sailing Station and near the picnic area could be improved, and the Byxbee
Park parking lot could be enlarged and improved.
The golf course parking lot could be used as overflow for Baylands and Byxbee Park visitors.
Challenges
Space for parking is limited, and there is a lack of agreement about the right amount of space that
should be allocated to parking.
Palo Alto Airport
Opportunities
The Baylands and the City could explore potential mutually beneficial projects with the airport
including a land swap with the Palo Alto Airport, wildlife management, and potential
funding opportunities from the FAA to help finance infrastructure protection
measures from sea level rise for the airport levee system.
44 Opportunities and Challenges Analysis
Challenges
Regulatory or stakeholder issues complicate a potential land swap with the airport.
Environmental considerations exist for infrastructure protection measures, and may require permits
from regulatory agencies.
The San Francisquito Creek Trail is located close to the end of the runway.
Former Los Altos Treatment Plant
Opportunities
Natural areas could be dedicated as parkland.
Challenges
Many competing ideas exist for use of the site.
Measure E Compost Facility at Byxbee Park
Opportunities
The City can explore the potential future park use of the 10-acre Measure E compost facility site
once the Measure E deadline expires in November 2021.
Challenges
Until November 2021, the only permitted uses of the site are those described in Measure E.
The site will not become available for alternate use until November 2021.
6.3 Public Engagement
Public Engagement and Volunteer Involvement
Opportunities
Partnerships exist with organizations that promote volunteerism and offer programs at the
Baylands, including Save the Bay, Environmental Volunteers, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society,
Grassroots Ecology, and the Baylands Rangers. There are opportunities to expand these
partnerships.
Numerous projects throughout the Baylands engage visitors, including citizen science events such as
bioblitzes.
Environmental education programs are offered, including the Junior Museum's science classes, Bay
Camp, interpretive programs led by Rangers and naturalists, and events at the Lucy Evans Baylands
Nature Interpretive Center and the Environmental Volunteers’ EcoCenter.
Many organized running and walking events bring people to the Baylands.
Art events such as painting classes are held in the Baylands.
Challenges
The Baylands Rangers and City staff have limited time and resources to expand City programs and
ensure that third-party programs are consistent with City goals, and do not adversely affect
Baylands resources.
There is limited staff oversight for third-party events in the Baylands.
Opportunities and Challenges Analysis 45
Interpretive Messaging
Opportunities
A unifying theme/design could be created for interpretive displays, and existing signage could be
refreshed and integrated with the new design.
The Baylands could coordinate with the Interpretive Signage Program developed by the Junior
Museum and Zoo to create signage for the San Francisquito Creek Trail to Cooley Landing.
Multilingual, accessible signage could be developed to reflect visitors’ diversity while explaining and
describing the Baylands’ natural and cultural history and its future.
On-site signage could be supplemented or enhanced by materials on the Baylands Web site.
Challenges
There are already many interpretive signs with differing design themes throughout the Baylands,
with more planned.
Vandalism is a concern for interpretive signage.
6.4 Public Art
Opportunities
With its strong history of public art, the Baylands can incorporate ecologically sensitive, nature-
inspired art that engages and educates visitors.
Low-profile interpretive art about water and the Bay could be installed in multiple locations,
including Harbor Point, near the Sailing Station. The art in these locations could have multiple uses,
such as serving as a gathering spot or outdoor classroom.
Opportunities for public art installations exist at many of the previously developed entrances to the
Baylands.
Adding public art can enhance visitors’ experiences by allowing them to interact and engage with
nature-facing interpretive art.
An artist-in-residence at the RWQCP could bring attention to the plant and educate visitors about its
operations.
Embarcadero Road is heavily used and highly visible, and temporary or permanent interpretive art
could be added along its alignment to mark the transition from the urban city fabric to the Baylands.
Art along roadways and trails could provide pedestrian and bicycle safety features.
Challenges
Disagreement exists about the need for, and the extent of, public art in the preserve.
Feasible locations for public art installations are limited because art installations should only be sited
outside of sensitive habitats.
6.5 Operations and Management
Management
Opportunities
Dedicated Baylands Rangers perform most operations and management tasks.
Opportunities exist and workload levels are sufficient to increase Ranger staffing.
46 Opportunities and Challenges Analysis
Challenges
Funding for additional staff is limited, making it difficult to hire hourly staff.
Co-management of Faber-Laumeister Tract between USFWS, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge, and the City of East Palo Alto can be complicated.
Repair and Maintenance
Opportunities
Dedicated Rangers perform much of the repair and maintenance at the Baylands.
Challenges
Rangers must address multiple competing priorities: vegetation control, repair and maintenance of
park facilities, park safety, and interpretive programs.
Planning/Projects
Opportunities
The City can coordinate with other municipal, local, and regional planning projects: SFCJPA’s SAFER
Bay Project; management of the South Bay Salt Ponds; and projects led by San Mateo County,
SCVWD, and the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works.
Grants and other project funding sources may be available.
Baylands/park staff members can participate in stakeholder, planning, and policy working groups.
Challenges
Timelines for planning efforts vary and may not overlap, which complicates collaboration and
integration with other planning efforts.
Multiple planning efforts can have different focuses and conflicting goals.
Disagreements on the best courses of action often occur.
Management of Invasive Species
Opportunities
Community volunteers are available to continue weeding and planting with Ranger staff and
stewardship partners.
Contractors, stewardship partners, and staff equipment are available to mechanically control weeds.
Stewardship partners provide guidance for maintenance and invasive species management.
A long-term integrated pest management plan could be developed, including mapping location and
extent of areas where invasive species and monitoring of success.
Challenges
Staff time and resources are limited.
The enthusiasm of volunteers needs to be sustained.
The topography of different parts of the Baylands constrains some invasive
species control methods.
Opportunities and Challenges Analysis 47
6.6 Key Areas
Byxbee Park
Opportunities
Opportunities may exist to enhance wildlife habitats in areas where fill dirt has been added to the
landfill cap to counteract settling.
Opportunities for additional plantings may exist in areas with engineered soils that may have a
better potential so support shrubs and small trees.
Volunteers are available to “adopt” habitat islands.
A connection could be created between Byxbee Park and the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel
Wetlands.
Additional seating and interpretive messaging could be added at Byxbee Park.
The parking area could be enhanced/expanded.
An opportunity exists to expand the parkland once the prior designation for the composting facility
expires.
Challenges
Restrictions exist on the depth of roots and burrows that can be allowed on the landfill cap.
Increasing the number of native plant habitat islands will require irrigation to be plumbed to the
site.
Staff time and resources are required for managing volunteers.
Disagreements exist regarding the right amount of access and facilities.
Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
Opportunities
Trail connections to Byxbee Park could be provided.
The historic building on-site could be restored and repurposed for park use.
The historic building on-site could be removed and the area restored with native plants.
The trail network around the property can be expanded to provide better/additional connections.
Opportunities for habitat restoration exist on-site.
Challenges
Buildings may not be suitable for restoration, nor does the City have funds for doing so.
Some stakeholders wish to keep the Emily Renzel Wetlands as habitat and minimize human access.
Sensitive biological resources such and wetlands and special-status species known to occur on-site
require permits from regulatory agencies for projects with potential impacts.
6.7 Additional Limitations and Restrictions
Physical Limitations and Restrictions
Nonrecreational facilities in the Baylands such as the RWQCP and the Palo Alto Airport
must be protected from sea level rise.
48 Opportunities and Challenges Analysis
Physical limitations within the Baylands include infrastructure such as roadways, buildings, and
levees.
Regulatory and Governance
The Baylands cross the jurisdictions of multiple management agencies including the City of Palo Alto,
USFWS, SFCJPA, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), State
Lands Commission, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the City of East Palo
Alto, the RWQCP, SCVWD, the Palo Alto Airport, the FAA, and the California Department of
Transportation.
Staffing and Funding
The Baylands Rangers, City staff, and volunteers have limited time and resources.
49 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the
Baylands
7.1 Executive Summary
Sea levels in the Bay Area have increased by 8 inches since recordkeeping began in the mid-1850s (NOAA
2018), and there has been significant acceleration of sea levels since 2011 (Ackerly et al. 2018). As water levels
rise in the Bay, the frequency and areal extent of flooding will increase. Areas once considered to be outside
the floodplain will begin to experience periodic coastal flooding or permanent inundation. The Baylands,
located along the Bay, are vulnerable to future flooding.
The goal of this section is to describe the potential impacts of sea level rise on physical assets and natural
resources in the Baylands and to describe high-level concepts that the City could take to adapt to climate
change and sea level rise. This analysis and adaption plan (Chapter 8) aligns with, and advances the goals
presented in the City’s Sea Level Rise Adaption Policy (City of Palo Alto 2019), and Policies L-2.12, L-10.5, M-
8.1, N-8.3, N-8.4, S-2.11, S-2.12 in the City Comprehensive Plan (City of Palo Alto 2017), and with the City
Council’s priorities for 2020.
The discussion below should be used as a starting point for planning efforts to address potential future
impacts caused by sea level rise and climate change. The City of Palo Alto is currently developing a Sea Level
Rise Adaptation Plan and a Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (scheduled for 2023 completion), that builds
upon the analysis in this BCCP. Physical strategies below are speculative and have not been developed and are
discussed as potential options that the City could take. Any specific projects related to sea level rise that result
from this analysis would be evaluated by Council and would be subject to further CEQA review as a separate
project from the BCCP; these projects are only provided herein for context. Some informational strategies,
such as further studies, will help inform the details of specific physical actions that could be
considered in the future.
50 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
The text includes descriptions of existing nearby planning efforts and aims to expand upon those efforts to
focus on the Palo Alto Baylands.
The effort to map the Baylands’ coastal flood exposure leveraged existing sea level rise layers prepared as a
part of the BCDC program “Adapting to Rising Tides” (ART). The sea level rise exposure assessment for the
Baylands involved completing a spatial analysis using a geographic information system to estimate the timing
and extent of permanent inundation for the site’s features and assets: flood control structures, access, and
nonrecreational features and facilities. The habitat assessment mapping effort used elevation-based habitat
maps produced by the Future San Francisco Bay Tidal Marshes planning tool (Future Tidal Marshes Tool) to
understand changes to potential future habitat types in the Baylands.
The results of the exposure assessment show that many areas within the Baylands would experience a tipping
point for coastal inundation, with 36 inches of sea level rise where portions of many flood control levees and
berms may be overtopped, causing widespread inundation throughout the Baylands. Other areas of the
Baylands, including the unprotected Harriet Mundy Marsh and Faber-Laumeister Tract, may be exposed to
flooding with 12 inches of sea level rise. Byxbee Park, the City of Palo Alto’s capped former landfill, will not be
affected under any of the sea level rise scenarios assessed in this document because of its higher elevation.
The results of the habitat assessment show that under a no-management scenario—a scenario in which the
landscape is not managed through levees, pumps, routine maintenance, or other management actions—
deposition of sediment and organic material at the Baylands will likely keep pace with sea level rise through
the late 21st century. However, the rate at which this accretion will occur depends on the amount of available
sediment and organic material. The results show that under most sea level rise and sedimentation scenarios,
by 2050, the unprotected Harriet Mundy Marsh and Faber-Laumeister Tract would maintain a mid marsh
habitat, but that much of the other Baylands habitat types would convert to higher elevation habitat types
(e.g., mudflat to mid marsh). The exception is the high sea level rise and low sedimentation scenario, where
rising sea levels would slowly outpace the sediment accretion rate, and the mid marsh and high marsh habitats
could transition to low marsh and mudflat habitats.
Beyond sea level rise, changes in climatic conditions such as temperature and precipitation could alter future
growing seasons, along with the amount of freshwater soil moisture available. These changes could ultimately
lead to a change in the composition of plants and the wildlife that depend on them. Species with broader
temperature and precipitation tolerance are likely to persist better than highly specialized species.
Potential high-level adaptation measures may include physical, governance, and initiative strategies that may
be used to better prepare the Baylands for future environmental conditions resulting from sea level rise and
climate change. Baylands-specific potential strategies are discussed further in Chapter 8.
Physical adaptation measures may include the following:
Raising and improving flood control structures such as levees and berms.
Increasing the capacity of the Flood Control Basin.
Elevating critical roadways, trails, and structures to minimize flood damage.
Installing climate-smart restoration plantings to enhance the ecological function of degraded
or destroyed areas to prepare them for the consequences of climate change (Point Blue 2018).
Constructing tidal marsh transition zones.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 51
Governance measures may include the following:
Coordinating with neighboring stakeholders and regional and local planning efforts.
Incorporating sea level rise language into guidance documents (e.g., Baylands Master Plan, Comprehensive
Plan, City of Palo Alto Design Standards, and City of Palo Alto Storm Drain Master Plan) and emergency
plans to provide a means for guiding future decision making.
The following informational initiatives could be taken:
Monitoring changing conditions in the short term to inform the timing for implementing adaptation
measures.
Identifying and addressing data gaps by conducting studies to better understand flood risk at the Baylands.
Identifying co-benefits, which have the potential to reduce impacts on human and ecological health at the
same time.
Securing funding for proposed adaption actions.
7.2 Predictions of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
The global climate continues to exhibit rapid changes compared to the pace of natural variations observed
throughout Earth’s history. Widespread evidence exists to show climate trend deviations. Scientists have
documented increases in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, melting of glaciers, reduction of ice sheets
and snowpack, shifting rainfall patterns, intensification of storm events, and rising sea levels. Increasing
atmospheric temperatures influence global sea levels: as average air temperatures rise, thermal expansion of
warming ocean water occurs and land ice melts.
Latest Climate Science
In 2017, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) Science Advisory Team Working Group compiled,
reviewed, and summarized the latest research on sea level rise (Griggs et al. 2017). The study’s findings were
incorporated into an updated sea level rise guidance document for the State of California, which OPC adopted
in 2018 (OPC 2018). The update presents the latest peer-reviewed projections of sea level rise; describes an
extreme scenario for sea level rise caused by rapid ice sheet loss from the West Antarctica ice sheet, and
scenario selections using risk-based (probabilistic) planning capabilities. The 2018 update also lays out
preferred approaches for planning for vulnerable assets, natural habitats, and public access.
Trends in Sea Level Rise and Future Projections for San Francisco Bay
Since the installation of the San Francisco tide station in the mid-1850s, local water levels have increased by
8 inches (NOAA 2018). Rising sea levels represent new challenges for San Francisco Bay. As Bay water levels
rise, the frequency and areal extent of flooding will increase. Areas once considered to be outside of the
floodplain will begin to experience periodic coastal flooding or permanent inundation.
Table 4 shows sea level rise projections for the Bay. Based on the latest climate science, sea levels in the
Bay Area are likely (67 percent probability) to rise between 7.2 and 13.2 inches by the middle of the
21st century and between 12 and 40.8 inches by the end of the century. OPC recommends using the upper
limit of the likely range for projects with a high tolerance to flooding (e.g., park trails).
Because there is uncertainty regarding future greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise
projections with a lower probability of occurring are also considered. In the Bay Area, there is
52 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
a 0.5 percent probability (1-in-200 chance) that sea level rise will reach or exceed 22.8 inches by the middle of
the 21st century and 82.8 inches by the end of the century (OPC 2018). OPC recommends using the lower
probability projections (particularly the 0.5 percent probability projections) when planning for assets with a
lower tolerance to flooding, such as water treatment facilities.
Table 4. Sea Level Rise Projections for San Francisco Bay
Year
Median
(50% probability of
exceedance [inches])
Likely Range
(67% probability of
exceedance [inches])
1-in-20 chance
(5% probability of
exceedance [inches])
1-in-200 chance
(0.5% probability of
exceedance [inches])
H++
(extreme risk
aversion [inches])
2030 4.8 3.6 to 7.2 7.2 9.6 12
2050 10.8 7.2 to 13.2 16.8 22.8 32.4
2100 19.2 to 30 12 to 40.8 38.4 to 52.8 68.4 to 82.8 122.4
Notes:
- Projections represent a sea level rise increase above the 1991–2009 mean sea level.
- 2100 projection ranges depend on the future condition scenario, as described in the International Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
(IPCC 2013).
The latest sea level rise guidance also includes an extreme scenario that extends to 122.4 inches by 2100.
OPC recommends using this scenario when planning for projects with an extremely low flood tolerance,
such as nuclear power plants.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 53
7.3 Analysis Methodology
The following sections present the methodology for assessing the impacts of sea level rise on the Baylands.
Methods used included conducting a literature review of local studies of sea level rise and flood protection,
assessing sea level rise exposure to determine the potential timing and extent of impacts on Baylands assets,
and conducting habitat modeling to estimate the evolution of marshes as they are exposed to rising Bay levels.
Literature Review
Previous studies of sea level rise and climate change have been conducted at or near the Baylands. These
studies are summarized below.
Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along the Bay—Draft
Feasibility Reports
The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority was founded by the Cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
and Palo Alto, San Mateo County Flood Control District, and SCVWD in 1999, the year after a major flood
occurred (SFCJPA 2016). SFCJPA and its member agencies seek to protect people, property, and public
infrastructure in East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto from Bay coastal flooding; restore habitat in the
Bay’s tidal marsh ecosystem; and enhance recreation opportunities along the Bay shoreline (SFCJPA 2016).
SFCJPA and its member agencies are planning the SAFER Bay Project to protect its communities located within
the FEMA 1 percent (100-year) flood zone from Bay coastal flooding (SFCJPA 2015, 2016). The goal of SFCJPA is
to implement the SAFER Bay Project and thereby remove these communities from FEMA’s coastal floodplain,
while enabling adaptation to climate change by using tidal marsh areas for flood protection in a way that
sustains marsh habitat and facilitates marsh restoration (SFCJPA 2015). SAFER Bay aims to align with regional
efforts that promote adaptation to sea level rise in the context of developed shoreline areas, including the
South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project and other restoration efforts. It is designed to support the objectives
of the San Francisco Estuary Partnership’s 2016 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (SFCJPA
2016).
SAFER Bay is divided into two project areas: SAFER Bay North, from the Redwood City/Menlo Park border
south to San Francisquito Creek; and SAFER Bay South, from San Francisquito Creek south to the
Palo Alto/Mountain View border. SAFER Bay is divided into 11 reaches. Restoration options have been
proposed for each reach: modifying existing levees, establishing new levees, establishing ecological transition
zones, and constructing floodwalls at Matadero Creek to the 100-year water surface elevation (Figure 6).
Reaches 1–9 are located in SAFER Bay North and associated with East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Reaches 10
and 11 are located in SAFER Bay South and extend from San Francisquito Creek to the Palo Alto/Mountain
View border. Reaches 8–11 overlap the Baylands.
54 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
Figure 6. Project Reaches and Restoration Options in the Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along the Bay
Source: SFCJPA 2015
56 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
SAFER Bay North 2016 East Palo Alto and Menlo Park Feasibility Report
The SAFER Bay North feasibility report recommends installing transition zone habitat in the Baylands
adjacent to existing tidal marshes at the Laumeister and Faber Tract marshes (Reaches 8 and 9) because
these marshes support special-status species, including California Ridgway’s rail (formerly known as
California clapper rail; Rallus longirostris obsoletus) and salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
raviventris) (SFCJPA 2015).
Reach 8—Laumeister Marsh
Reach 8 extends from Bay Road to Runnymede Street in East Palo Alto (Figure 6). The SAFER Bay North
feasibility report recommends restoring Reach 8 by building a new levee on the Bay side of the existing
levee, with a restored transition zone habitat. Transition zone habitat would increase the quantity and
quality of habitat for rails and harvest mice and would provide a greater opportunity for creating high-
tide refugia and improved marsh resiliency to sea level rise.
Reach 9—Faber Tract Marsh
Reach 9 extends from Runnymede Street in East Palo Alto to the O’Connor Pump Station in Palo Alto
(Figure 6), which is the terminus of SFCJPA’s San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project for flood
projection, ecosystem restoration, and recreation. The SAFER Bay North feasibility report recommends
coordinating with partners for restoration actions, which consist of constructing a new levee with
restored transition zone habitat along Faber Tract from the Runnymede Street Outfall to the O’Connor
Pump Station at the Friendship Bridge, avoiding the East Palo Alto Sanitary District sewer line (SFCJPA
2015). Restoration of such a transition zone adjacent to Faber Tract Marsh would significantly enhance
marsh habitat that supports California Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. It also would
increase the resiliency of the tidal marsh to sea level rise and help to meet the objectives of USFWS’s
Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California (Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan)
by creating high tide refugia (SFCJPA 2015).
SAFER Bay 2015 South Baylands Draft Feasibility Report
In SFCJPA’s SAFER Bay South project area, the project aims to protect the cities of Palo Alto and
Mountain View from flooding. SAFER Bay South consists of Reaches 10 and 11, which traverse the
Baylands from San Francisquito Creek to the Palo Alto/Mountain View border (Figure 6). The project
objectives include reducing the risk of flooding; incorporating features that facilitate climate change
adaptation by using tidal marshes for their ecological function; expanding opportunities for recreation
and connectivity; minimizing future maintenance; and creating partnership opportunities.
Figure 6 shows the restoration options for Reaches 10 and 11. No recommendations were made for a
preferred option for each reach.
Reach 10—Palo Alto Airport
Reach 10 begins at the San Francisquito Creek levee at the Friendship Bridge in Palo Alto, wraps around
the Palo Alto Airport along the landward side of the Baylands tidal marsh wetlands, and ties into higher
ground at Byxbee Park. The 2015 SAFER Bay South Draft Feasibility Report considered three options for
flood control through levee creation and associated restoration along Reach 10, as
described below.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 57
Reach 10, Option 1 (shown in red in Figure 6) consists of installing a levee that would tie into the
San Francisquito Creek Project, running along the Bay side of the Palo Alto Airport and continuing
southeast before terminating in Byxbee Park. This option presents the opportunity to restore transition
zone habitat on the outboard side of the levee east of Embarcadero Road. Option 1 would require
installing floodgates at the runways or elevating the runways.
Reach 10, Option 2 (shown in light pink in Figure 6) is similar to Option 1. Under this option, the levee
adjacent to the airport would be closer to the runway, allowing more space for restoration of a
transition zone at a gentle slope. Option 2, however, would result in the loss of seasonal wetlands (diked
former tidal marsh) because the habitat would be converted to high marsh and transitional habitat.
Thus, this option represents an ecologically beneficial trade-off between seasonal wetlands and tidal
marsh/transitional habitat (SFCJPA 2015).
Under Reach 10, Option 3 (shown in bright pink in Figure 6), the levee would wrap around the Bay side
of the Duck Pond and Baylands Ranger Station rather than being located adjacent to the airport. This
option would require installation of a pipe connecting the Duck Pond to the Bay to control flows into the
leveed basin (SFCJPA 2015). Option 3 would have greater impacts on tidal marsh habitat than the other
two options; however, transition zone habitat could be added on the outward (Bay) side of the levee
(SFCJPA 2015).
Reach 11—Palo Alto Flood Control Basin
Reach 11 extends from Byxbee Park to a tie-in point at the City of Mountain View border near Coast
Casey Forebay. The SAFER Bay 2015 South Baylands Draft Feasibility Report considered three options for
flood control through levee creation and associated restoration along Reach 11, as described below
(SFCJPA 2015).
Reach 11, Option 1 (shown in bright green in Figure 6) consists of enhancing the existing levee where it
begins at the north end of Byxbee Park, wraps around the outside of the perimeter levee for the Flood
Control Basin, and ties in at the City of Mountain View border near Coast Casey Forebay. The option
does not allow for significant restoration of transition zone habitat because space is not available.
Option 1 would fill and otherwise affect diked salt marsh habitat in the basin along roughly 2 miles of
levee improvements (SFCJPA 2015).
Reach 11, Option 2 (shown in bright blue in Figure 6) consists of installation/enhancement of three
levees. The first levee extends from the south end of Byxbee Park and runs southwest along the Emily
Renzel Wetlands, then along the north side of Matadero Creek to East Bayshore Road. The second levee
extends from East Bayshore Road along the south side of Matadero Creek and around the southern end
of the Baylands along East Bayshore Road to Adobe Creek. A third, proposed levee would continue along
the Adobe Creek Loop Trail on the south side of Adobe Creek, from East Bayshore Road to a tie-in at the
City of Mountain View border near Coast Casey Forebay (SFCJPA 2015). This option would require raising
floodways along Matadero, Barron, and Adobe creeks.
According to the SAFER Bay 2015 South Baylands Draft Feasibility Report, Reach 11, Option 2 provides a
significant opportunity to restore tidal marsh and transition zone habitat on a large scale
along the Bay side edge of the Baylands, and to further the objectives of USFWS’s Tidal
Marsh Recovery Plan. This restoration could also include reconnecting the Flood Control
Basin to tidal exchange; restoring the basin to marsh; and removing the existing levee
58 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
between the Flood Control Basin and Charleston Slough to create a large, contiguous marsh with
freshwater input from Adobe Creek.
Reach 11, Option 3 (shown in yellow in Figure 6) consists of two levees. The first levee extends from the
southern edge of Byxbee Park, through the Flood Control Basin, and along the north side of Adobe Creek
to East Bayshore Road. The second levee would run along Adobe Creek to the City of Mountain View,
the same as in Option 2. Under this option, the northern portion of the Flood Control Basin could be
restored to tidal marsh habitat and Adobe Creek would be directly connected to the Bay. As with Option
2, floodwalls would be required along Adobe and Matadero creeks, and opportunities for a tidal marsh
transition zone would be created along the Bay side.
Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California
The Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan, proposed by USFWS, is the largest ever tidal marsh recovery effort on
the West Coast. The goal of this effort is the comprehensive restoration and management of tidal marsh
ecosystems (USFWS 2013a). The Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan aims to restore the habitats of five species
that are federally listed as endangered: two endangered animals, the California Ridgway’s rail and salt
marsh harvest mouse, and three endangered plants, Suisun thistle (Cirsium hydrophilum var.
hydrophilum), soft bird’s-beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. molle), and California sea-blite (Suaeda
californica).
The Baylands are located within the Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan’s Central/South Bay recovery unit, which
identifies three species for recovery: California sea-blite, Ridgway’s rail, and salt marsh harvest mouse.
California Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse are known to occur in the Baylands, particularly
in outer Bayside marshes. According to the Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan, “[c]overed species in this
recovery unit face unique management issues that vary substantially from other recovery units (e.g.,
invasive Spartina control, the current planning and implementation of extensive tidal marsh restoration,
and high human density and recreational pressure)” (USFWS 2013a:152).
Restoration and sea level rise adaptation efforts should be planned to align with the Tidal Marsh
Recovery Plan to ensure the success of these federally listed endangered tidal marsh species and their
unique habitats.
Shoreline Regional Park Community Sea Level Rise Study Feasibility Report and
Capital Improvement Program
The City of Mountain View led the Shoreline Regional Park Community Sea Level Rise Study Feasibility
Report and Capital Improvement Program in 2012 to address long-term flood protection from sea level
rise for Mountain View’s Shoreline Regional Park Community (City of Mountain View 2012b). The
Shoreline Regional Park Community is located adjacent to the Baylands, just south of the Flood Control
Basin, and is susceptible to overflow flooding from the Flood Control Basin. The study recommends the
following adaptation projects in the vicinity of the Baylands:
• Charleston Slough and Palo Alto Flood Control Basin Levee Improvement: As a shared effort by the
Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View, improve a 6,600-foot section of the levee that separates
Charleston Slough and the Flood Control Basin by raising the elevation of the levee crest and
providing erosion protection.
• Coast Casey North Levee Improvement: Construct a coastal levee to help
protect property in Mountain View’s northwest corner from flooding caused by the Bay.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 59
The levee would extend 1,300 feet from the high ground of Mountain View’s Shoreline Park landfill
to the boundary with Palo Alto.
• Coast Casey Pump Station Improvement: Improve pump station capacity at the Coast Casey
Stormwater Pump Station to counter sea level rise impacts on the pump station’s hydraulics.
Palo Alto Flood Control Basin Hydrology July 2016 Update
In 2016, SCVWD published a study that examined the hydraulic performance of the Flood Control Basin
during a variety of tidal and watershed conditions. The study focused on exploring ways to improve the
tidal barrier system during large flood events and potential future sea level rise of up to 66 inches.
The study found that the Flood Control Basin has sufficient volume to store storm runoff generated
during high-flow events under existing conditions. However, as tides start to rise beyond the elevation
originally accounted for in the structure’s design, the basin may become too small to effectively control
backwater flooding conditions. As sea level rises, the time period when stored floodwater can be
released to the Bay will be compressed, thereby limiting the duration of discharge into the Bay. In
addition, the gravity-driven tide gate will be less efficient at quickly draining stored floodwater because
the pressure differential between water levels in the basin and in the Bay will be lower. As the duration
and rate of discharge to the Bay is affected, the water level in the Flood Control Basin may exceed its
design. An impact scenario not explored by the 2016 study is the potential for Bay water levels to
exceed the elevation of the Flood Control Basin’s levee.
Adapting to Rising Tides (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission)
ART is a regional collaborative interagency program supported by BCDC, the California Department of
Transportation, the Bay Area Toll Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the
Bay Area Regional Collaborative. ART projects address climate change vulnerability and adaptation
projects (BCDC 2018a, 2018b). As part of the ART program, the Bay Shoreline Flood Explorer tool
(https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/home) was developed to help Bay Area communities
prepare for the impacts of current and future flooding caused by sea level rise and storm surges. ART
Bay Area, a project in the ART program, involves conducting a regional vulnerability assessment of the
Bay Area’s transportation infrastructure, Priority Development Areas and Priority Conservation Areas as
identified in Plan Bay Area, and vulnerable and disadvantaged communities (BCDC 2018c).
Future San Francisco Bay Tidal Marshes Planning Tool (Point Blue Conservation
Science)
The Future San Francisco Bay Tidal Marshes planning tool (Future Tidal Marshes Tool;
http://data.prbo.org/apps/sfbslr/) used by Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue) projects future
habitat evolution in response to different scenarios for sea level rise and sedimentation (Veloz et al.
2014). The models that generate the maps provide a range of projections to address the uncertainty in
future rates of sea level rise and availability of suspended sediment. The models identify the areas of the
landscape that are vulnerable or resilient to sea level rise, enabling planners to make informed decisions
about sea level rise adaptation and restoration potential (Veloz et al. 2014).
The Future Tidal Marshes Tool assesses marsh accretion as modeled by ESA PWA using the
Marsh-98 model. The model assumes that the rate at which the elevation of the marsh
plain changes depends on the availability of suspended sediment and organic material,
60 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
the water’s depth, and the duration of inundation periods. If enough suspended sediment is available,
then the tidal marsh’s elevation can accrete to keep pace with increased inundation from sea level rise
(SFCJPA 2016; Orr et al. 2003). Outputs from the model show the projected future composition of marsh
habitat (e.g., percent subtidal, mudflat, low marsh) based on the elevation. Point Blue’s Future Tidal
Marshes Tool can be used to assess future elevation-based habitat types, allowing the user to toggle
between differing degrees of sea level rise, sedimentation, and organic materials over time (Veloz et al.
2014). This tool was used for this analysis, as described in Section 7.3.2.2, “Habitat Models/Mapping.”
Silicon Valley 2.0 Climate Adaptation Guidebook (County of Santa Clara)
The Silicon Valley 2.0 Climate Adaptation Guidebook (Silicon Valley 2.0) is a Santa Clara County–wide
effort to understand and minimize the anticipated impacts of climate change and to prepare the County
of Santa Clara to collaborate across agencies and municipalities for adaptation (County of Santa Clara
2015). The project developed the geo-economic Silicon Valley 2.0 Climate Change Preparedness
Decision Support Tool (http://www.siliconvalleytwopointzero.org/) to evaluate the vulnerability of key
assets to potential climate change scenarios and the consequences of such scenarios on those assets.
The assessment of climate vulnerability evaluated sea level rise, riverine flooding, wildfire, extreme
heat, drought, and air quality deterioration. Various elements of shoreline flood protection were
assessed, including engineered flood protection (dikes and levees), nonengineered berms, and wetlands.
Natural landscapes such as the Baylands were assessed qualitatively at a high-level habitat scale.
Habitats related to the Baylands that were assessed included coastal wetland, riparian and riverine, and
grassland habitats. Water and wastewater, including water treatment plants, were also assessed.
Silicon Valley 2.0 recommends the following climate adaptation strategies for shoreline flood protection
related to the Baylands:
Conduct an overtopping analysis of existing shoreline flood protection assets.
Use the updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps to identify the source of flooding (e.g., riverine
versus coastal) associated with 100-year flood events.
Increase pump station capacity and provide protection for pump stations.
Enhance monitoring and/or maintenance programs for levees and floodwalls.
Increase the design criteria for current and future flood protection projects from 100-year flood
events to higher impact flood events.
Model projected change in the frequency and magnitude of riverine flooding caused by precipitation
in the County.
Silicon Valley 2.0 recommends the following climate adaptation strategies for ecosystems related to the
Baylands:
Develop climate-smart planting palettes and education campaigns to support restoration of plants
that are projected to better survive under changing climate conditions. Climate-smart restoration
and land conservation is the process of enhancing the ecological function of degraded or destroyed
areas in a manner that prepares them for the consequences of climate change (Point Blue 2018).
Maximize the retention of local water supply and quality through climate-smart land conservation
and stewardship.
Protect biodiversity through multi-agency and multi-county conservation of climate-
smart wildlife corridors.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 61
Implement a fine-scale habitat assessment utilizing climate water deficit data as a proxy for future
vegetation health and persistence under changing climate regimes.
Prioritize cold water habitat conservation and restoration through amendments to habitat
conservation plans and in-creek projects.
Develop best practice standards for water retention design for habitat restoration and habitat
creation projects on natural lands.
Increase climate messages in ongoing water conservation public awareness campaigns.
Understand vector-based impacts of climate and address invasive species through the pursuit of
stronger state laws and programs.
Data Analysis
Sea level rise mapping models were used to assess the exposure of Baylands features and habitat
evolution caused by changing water levels. All data layers were leveraged from readily available sources
and no additional modeling was completed for this effort.
Flood Models/Mapping
Inundation maps are a valuable tool for evaluating the potential exposure of habitats, infrastructure,
and other assets to future water level conditions. The maps are a useful means to evaluate the timing
and extent of flooding that may be experienced based on projections of sea level rise. Inundation maps
also help planners to identify critical flooding thresholds where an entire area may be compromised.
The effort to map the Baylands’ coastal flood exposure used existing sea level rise layers prepared as a
part of BCDC’s ART program (AECOM 2016; BCDC 2018b). The ART mapping provides the geographical
extent and depth of inundation for the Bay Area’s nine counties using a combination of 10 sea level rise
scenarios, tidal datums, and extreme tides modeled to represent local conditions along the shoreline. In
addition to areas directly exposed to flooding and inundation, the model identifies low-lying,
hydraulically disconnected areas that may experience drainage issues caused by backflow through the
stormwater collection system during high tides; elevated groundwater levels; or ponding during times of
heavy rain. Also included in the ART mapping dataset are maps for all 10 scenarios that depict where the
Bay may overtop the shoreline. The inundation maps do not account for wave height, rainfall, or other
potential variations in conditions that could affect the depth of inundation at any given location.
Four sea level rise amounts—12, 24, 36, and 66 inches—were selected for flood exposure (Figure 7
through Figure 10). The scenarios represent mid-range to high-end projections for the years 2050 and
2100 based on the state’s latest sea level rise guidance (OPC 2018). To evaluate future daily exposure to
inundation, projections of future sea level rise were added to the average high-tide elevation, represented
by mean higher high water (MHHW). The MHHW + 66-inch scenario is equivalent to the extent of flooding
that could occur during a 100-year coastal storm event with 24 inches of sea level rise (the high-range
projection for 2050).
The assessment of the Baylands’ exposure to sea level rise involved conducting a spatial analysis in a
geographic information system to estimate the timing and extent of permanent inundation of flood
control structures, access, and nonrecreational facilities. Sea level rise layers were overlaid on
the locations of site features to estimate exposure to future water level conditions.
62 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
Habitat Models/Mapping
Understanding the vulnerabilities of Baylands habitat to sea level rise is important for future land
management and species conservation. The marshes at the Baylands provide valuable ecosystem
services and habitat for a diversity of plant and animal species. Habitat modeling is a valuable means of
predicting future changes to tidal marsh habitats that will result from sea level rise and climate change,
to enable better understanding and preparation for how these systems may change. The Future Tidal
Marshes Tool was used to project the evolution of habitat in the Baylands in response to different sea
level rise and sedimentation scenarios.
For this effort, projected habitat change was assessed using the elevation parameter, which shows
marsh elevation and habitat type in meters relative to MHHW. A time horizon of 2050 and a sea level
rise rate of approximately 65 inches per century were selected (e.g., 65 inches by 2110). According to
the model, sea levels are projected to rise by approximately 24 inches by 2050. Future Baylands habitats
were assessed under two scenarios: a low-sedimentation, low-organic-materials scenario, and a high-
sedimentation, high-organic-materials scenario. These scenarios were selected to explore the range of
possible future conditions. A baseline map from 2010 was used to compare the projected results to
near-present-day habitat conditions. All future habitat scenarios assume full tidal action and do not take
into account land management of elevation, including levees, even if a levee is present.
!f
!f
!f
!f
!j!_
!j
!_!j
!_
!j !j
!j
!j!_
!_
!j
!j
CharlestonSlough
ShorelineLake
M a tad
e
ro Cre e k
Adobe C r e e k
SanFrancisquitoCreek
Embarcadero Rd
E
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
SanFranciscoBay
B ay R d
Middlefield Rd
Waverley St
W Bay shoreRdEmbarcadero R d
Louis RdOregon Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulgas Ave
Loma Verde Ave
SanAntonioRd
G a r c i a Ave
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\SLR\Fig7_SeaLevelRise_12in.mxd
Site Feature
!f Bridge
!j Parking Lot
!_RestroomTrailProject BoundaryShoreline Overtopping PotentialDepth (in)0 - 1224364860Non-overtopped Shoreline
Sea Level Rise InundationDepth (in)0 - 2425 - 4849 - 7273 - 9697 - 120121 - 144Protected Low-lying Areas
AECOM, 2017
FIGURE 7Innundation Map Depicting 12-Inch Sea Level Rise
0 0.5
Miles
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
San Mateo County
Santa Clara County
RWQCP
Lucy EvansBaylands NatureInterpretive Center
Palo AltoAirport RangerStation HooksIsland
HarrietMundyMarsh
Faber-LaumeisterTract
ByxbeePark FloodControlBasin
BaylandsAthleticCenter
EmilyRenzelWetlands
Former ITTProperty
SLR + STORM SURGE SCENARIOS LISTEDBELOW COULD BE APPROXIMATED BY THEINUNDATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP.0" SLR + 1-Year Storm Surge
Palo AltoGolf Course Tide GateDuckPond
EcoCenter
!f
!f
!f
!f
!j!_
!j
!_!j
!_
!j !j
!j
!j!_
!_
!j
!j
CharlestonSlough
ShorelineLake
M a tad
e
ro Cre e k
Adobe C r e e k
SanFrancisquitoCreek
Embarcadero Rd
E
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
SanFranciscoBay
B ay R d
Middlefield Rd
Waverley St
W Bay shoreRdEmbarcadero R d
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulgas Ave
Loma Verde Ave
SanAntonioRd
G a r c i a Ave
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\SLR\Fig8_SeaLevelRise_24in.mxd
Site Feature
!f Bridge
!j Parking Lot
!_RestroomTrailProject BoundaryShoreline Overtopping PotentialDepth (in)0 - 1224364860Non-overtopped Shoreline
Sea Level Rise InundationDepth (in)0 - 2425 - 4849 - 7273 - 9697 - 120121 - 144Protected Low-lying Areas
AECOM, 2017
FIGURE 8Inundation Map Depicting 24-Inch Sea Level Rise
0 0.5
Miles
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
San Mateo County
RWQCP
Lucy EvansBaylands NatureInterpretive Center
RangerStation HooksIsland
HarrietMundyMarsh
Faber-LaumeisterTract
FloodControlBasin
BaylandsAthleticCenter
EmilyRenzelWetlands
SLR + STORM SURGE SCENARIOS LISTEDBELOW COULD BE APPROXIMATED BY THEINUNDATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP.0" SLR + 5-Year Storm Surge6" SLR + 2-Year Storm Surge12" SLR + 1-Year Storm Surge
Santa Clara County
Palo AltoAirport
Palo AltoGolf Course
DuckPond
EcoCenter
Tide Gate
ByxbeeParkFormer ITTProperty
!f
!f
!f
!f
!j!_
!j
!_!j
!_
!j !j
!j
!j!_
!_
!j
!j
CharlestonSlough
ShorelineLake
M a tad
e
ro Cre e k
Adobe C r e e k
SanFrancisquitoCreek
Embarcadero Rd
E
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
SanFranciscoBay
B ay R d
Middlefield Rd
Waverley St
W Bay shoreRdEmbarcadero R d
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy Colorado Ave
Pulgas Ave
Loma Verde Ave
G a r c i a Ave
101
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\SLR\Fig9_SeaLevelRise_36in.mxd
Site Feature
!f Bridge
!j Parking Lot
!_RestroomTrailProject BoundaryShoreline Overtopping PotentialDepth (ft)0 - 1224364860Non-overtopped Shoreline
Sea Level Rise InundationDepth (in)0 - 2425 - 4849 - 7273 - 9697 - 120121 - 144Protected Low-lying Areas
AECOM, 2017
FIGURE 9Inundation Map Showing 36-Inch Sea Level Rise
0 0.5
Miles
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
San Mateo County
RWQCP
Lucy EvansBaylands NatureInterpretive Center
RangerStation HooksIsland
HarrietMundyMarsh
Faber-LaumeisterTract
FloodControlBasin
BaylandsAthleticCenter
EmilyRenzelWetlands
SLR + STORM SURGE SCENARIOS LISTEDBELOW COULD BE APPROXIMATED BY THEINUNDATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP.0" SLR + 25-Year Storm Surge6" SLR + 10-Year Storm Surge12" SLR + 5-Year Storm Surge18" SLR + 2-Year Storm Surge24" SLR + 1-Year Storm Surge
Santa Clara County
Palo AltoAirport
ByxbeeParkFormer ITTProperty
Palo AltoGolf Course
DuckPond
EcoCenter
!f
!f
!f
!f
!j!_
!j
!_!j
!_
!j !j
!j
!j!_
!_
!j
!j
CharlestonSlough
ShorelineLake
M a tad
e
ro Cre e k
Adobe C r e e k
SanFrancisquitoCreek
Embarcadero Rd
E
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
SanFranciscoBay
B ay R d
Middlefield Rd
Waverley St
W Bay shoreRdEmbarcadero R d
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy Colorado Ave
Pulgas Ave
Loma Verde Ave
G a r c i a Ave
101
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\SLR\Fig10_SeaLevelRise_66in.mxd
AECOM, 2017
FIGURE 10Inundation Map Depicting 66-Inch Sea Level Rise
0 0.5
Miles
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
San Mateo County
RWQCP
Lucy EvansBaylands NatureInterpretive Center
RangerStation HooksIsland
HarrietMundyMarsh
Faber-LaumeisterTract
FloodControlBasin
BaylandsAthleticCenter
EmilyRenzelWetlands
Site Feature
!f Bridge
!j Parking Lot
!_RestroomTrailProject BoundaryShoreline Overtopping PotentialDepth (ft)0 - 1224364860Non-overtopped Shoreline
Sea Level Rise InundationDepth (in)0 - 2425 - 4849 - 6061 - 9697 - 120121 - 144Protected Low-lying Areas
18" SLR + 100-Year Storm Surge24" SLR + 50-Year Storm Surge30" SLR + 25-Year Storm Surge36" SLR + 10-Year Storm Surge42" SLR + 5-Year Storm Surge48" SLR + 2-Year Storm Surge54" SLR + 1-Year Storm Surge
SLR + STORM SURGE SCENARIOS LISTEDBELOW COULD BE APPROXIMATED BY THEINUNDATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP.
Santa Clara County
Palo AltoAirport
ByxbeeParkFormer ITTProperty
Palo AltoGolf Course
DuckPond
EcoCenter
Tide Gate
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 67
7.4 Impacts
An initial assessment of the Baylands’ exposure to sea level rise was performed, using inundation maps
to evaluate the potential vulnerability of Baylands features and assets to permanent inundation. A “no
action” scenario was assumed to examine the effect of not implementing strategies to protect existing
assets.
Some sections of the Baylands, such as the unprotected Harriet Mundy Marsh and Faber-Laumeister
Tract, are already exposed to the MHHW + 12-inch scenario during the exceptionally high tides known
colloquially as “King Tides.” However, the Baylands do not experience a tipping point for coastal
inundation until the MHHW + 36-inch scenario occurs. During that scenario, portions of many protective
levees and dikes would be overtopped, causing widespread inundation throughout the Baylands.
Because the MHHW + 36-inch scenario is equivalent to a 50-year coastal storm event under existing
conditions, portions of the Baylands could experience temporary flooding during a storm today. Also,
nearly all of the Baylands (except for Byxbee Park) are located in low-lying protected areas, making
these areas susceptible to flooding during heavy rain, which may cause local ponding.
Table 5 summarizes the analysis of inundation exposure by geographic location. The table lists the asset
category (flood control, access and recreation, or nonrecreational features) that corresponds to each
feature in parentheses after the asset name. Additional details regarding inundation pathways and
potential consequences for the specific assets in each category are detailed in the following sections.
Table 5. Summary of Sea Level Rise Exposure for Baylands Assets
Baylands Assets
Sea Level Rise and Equivalent
Storm Surge Scenario
MH
H
W
+
1
2
-In
c
h
(K
i
n
g
T
i
d
e
)
MH
H
W
+
2
4
-In
c
h
(5
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
)
MH
H
W
+
3
6
-In
c
h
(5
0
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
)
MH
H
W
+
6
6
-In
c
h
(1
0
0
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
+
24
-in
c
h
s
e
a
le
v
e
l
Major Roadways
Embarcadero Road (access and recreation)
East Bayshore Road (access and recreation)
Byxbee Park
Trails (access and recreation)
Interpretive signs (access and recreation)
Byxbee parking lot (access and recreation)
Restroom (access and recreation)
68 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
Baylands Assets
Sea Level Rise and Equivalent
Storm Surge Scenario
MH
H
W
+
1
2
-In
c
h
(K
i
n
g
T
i
d
e
)
MH
H
W
+
2
4
-In
c
h
(5
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
)
MH
H
W
+
3
6
-In
c
h
(5
0
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
)
MH
H
W
+
6
6
-In
c
h
(1
0
0
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
+
24
-in
c
h
s
e
a
le
v
e
l
Regional Water Quality Control Plant
Regional Water Quality Control Plant (nonrecreational features)
“You Are Here” sign (access and recreation)
Permanently installed art (Riding the Currents) (access and
recreation)
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
Golf course (access and recreation)
“You Are Here” sign (access and recreation)
Permanently installed art (Birdie/Kaikoo V) (access and recreation)
Golf course parking lot (access and recreation)
Restroom (access and recreation)
Palo Alto Airport
Runway (nonrecreational features)
Airport terminal (nonrecreational features)
Emily Renzel Wetlands
Former ITT Property and access road (nonrecreational features)
Matadero Creek bridge (access and recreation)
Interpretive signs (access and recreation)
“You Are Here” sign (access and recreation)
Wildlife viewing platform (access and recreation)
Renzel Trail and Faber Bike Path (access and recreation)
Harriet Mundy Marsh and San Francisquito Trail
Sailing Station parking lot (access and recreation)
Sailing Station (access and recreation)
EcoCenter (nonrecreational features)
Interpretive signs (access and recreation)
“You Are Here” sign (access and recreation)
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center (access and
recreation)
Nature center boardwalk* (access and recreation)
Wildlife viewing platform (access and recreation)
Restroom (access and recreation)
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 69
Baylands Assets
Sea Level Rise and Equivalent
Storm Surge Scenario
MH
H
W
+
1
2
-In
c
h
(K
i
n
g
T
i
d
e
)
MH
H
W
+
2
4
-In
c
h
(5
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
)
MH
H
W
+
3
6
-In
c
h
(5
0
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
)
MH
H
W
+
6
6
-In
c
h
(1
0
0
-ye
a
r
s
t
o
r
m
+
24
-in
c
h
s
e
a
le
v
e
l
Trails (access and recreation)
Flood Control Basin
Tide gate (flood control)
Flood Control Basin parking lot (access and recreation)
Animal services center (nonrecreational features)
“You Are Here” sign (access and recreation)
Adobe Creek Loop Trail (access and recreation)
Faber-Laumeister Tract
East Palo Alto Marsh Trail (access and recreation)
Friendship Bridge (access and recreation)
Duck Pond
Baylands Ranger Station (nonrecreational features)
“You Are Here” sign (access and recreation)
Duck Pond parking lot (access and recreation)
Restroom (access and recreation)
Save the Bay nursery (nonrecreational features)
Baylands Athletic Center and Central Business Plaza
San Francisquito Creek stormwater pump station (nonrecreational
features)
“You Are Here” signs (access and recreation)
Permanently installed art (Streaming) (access and recreation)
Athletic center and ballpark parking lots (access and recreation)
Baylands Athletic Center (access and recreation)
Former Los Altos Treatment Plant Site
Adobe Creek Bridge (access and recreation)
Restroom (access and recreation)
Terminal Boulevard parking lot (access and recreation)
Notes:
Flood Control Basin = Palo Alto Flood Control Basin; MHHW = mean higher high water; Sailing Station = Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station
* The boardwalk is scheduled for upgrades in early 2019. Once complete, it will have the same elevation as the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive
Center and will likely not be exposed until the MHHW + 36-inch SLR scenario.
Flood Control
The Flood Control Basin is a 618-acre floodwater retention basin that receives inflow from
Matadero, Adobe, and Barron creeks and the Coast Casey Stormwater Pump Station.
Incoming floodwaters are stored in the basin and released to the Bay through a gravity-
70 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
driven tide gate structure when water levels in the Flood Control Basin exceed the Bay’s tidal elevation.
As the Bay’s tides rise, the tide gate closes to prevent Bay water from entering the basin. The City of
Palo Alto opens the tide gate in the summer to allow water to circulate in the basin.
During the MHHW + 36-inch scenario, the tide gate and levee barriers would become vulnerable to
overtopping by elevated Bay tides. The depth of flooding caused by such overtopping ranges from 12 to
24 inches along the basin’s north and east sides and from 24 to 60 inches on the south and southwest
sides of the basin levee (Figure 9. Inundation Map Depicting 36-Inch Sea Level RiseFigure 9). When Bay
waters would enter the basin, the capacity and efficiency of the flood control structure may be reduced
further. Coastal floodwaters may spill into neighboring basins and wetlands, and may back up the lower
reaches of nearby creeks. The potential also exists for scouring of the levee walls, and for levee failure
during overtopping events. Depending on its size, extent, and location, levee failure could lead to
widespread flooding of adjacent development and loss of the Flood Control Basin.
Public Access and Facilities
The Baylands accommodate a wide range of public and recreational activities such as running, cycling,
water sports, golfing, picnicking, and wildlife viewing. Flood exposure to roads, trails, and other public
access areas was evaluated to assess the impacts of human use of the Baylands.
Access to and within the Baylands
Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road are the primary access routes into the Baylands and connect
the area’s major assets. During the MHHW + 36-inch scenario, floodwater would overtop protective
levees and dikes, and both roads would be exposed to permanent inundation. Once these primary
routes are inundated, overland access to Baylands assets would be extremely limited.
The Adobe Creek and Matadero Creek bridges were identified as vulnerable to future flooding
conditions. Although much of the area surrounding the bridges would be inundated under the MHHW +
36-inch scenario, the bridge approaches would not be exposed to coastal flooding until the MHHW + 66-
inch scenario occurs. Loss of bridge crossings would access to and within the Baylands. Depending on
bridge design and flood velocity, the bridges may also sustain long-term structural damage.
Trails
The Baylands have a network of public, multiuse trails extending through the region for more than
18 miles. Trails located along the Bay in the unprotected Harriet Mundy Marsh, including approximately
1 mile of the San Francisquito Creek Trail, are first exposed to inundation during the MHHW + 12-inch
scenario (King Tides).
The MHHW + 36-inch scenario represents a tipping point when portions of nearly all of the area’s trails
are exposed to permanent inundation. Byxbee Park is the only area of the Baylands not anticipated to
be permanently inundated under the sea level rise scenarios evaluated. However, as sea levels rise, the
former landfill at Byxbee Park should be protected to prevent the release of contaminants.
Permanent inundation would affect much of the access to the Baylands’ trail system. Flooding would
inhibit regional connectivity, as the San Francisquito Creek Trail also provides a link to the Bay
Trail, the city of East Palo Alto, and points beyond. Similarly, flooding of the Renzel Trail
would eliminate a pedestrian link to other sites outside of the Baylands, including the city
of Mountain View.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 71
The many location maps and interpretive signs located along the trails are vulnerable to future
inundation. However, signage has a high capacity for adaptation and can be relocated relatively easily.
Other Public Access Areas
The Baylands provide access to numerous public access and recreation opportunities, educational
facilities, and wildlife access areas. Assets such as the Sailing Station, Sailing Station parking lot, Lucy
Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center boardwalk, and wildlife viewing platform, located in the
unprotected Harriet Mundy Marsh, are the first to be exposed to permanent inundation during the
MHHW + 12-inch scenario.
Overtopping of the protective levees and dikes during the MHHW + 36-inch scenario would expose most
public access areas and facilities. Permanent inundation of public facilities would result in a loss of
recreational options in the area and require removal or relocation of buildings.
Many permanent art installations are located throughout the Baylands and may be exposed to coastal
inundation, especially during the MHHW + 36-inch scenario. Depending on their construction materials,
many of the pieces may be sensitive to water, but can be relocated.
Nonrecreational Features and Facilities
In addition to public recreation, the Baylands has several nonrecreational features and facilities,
including several critical assets such as the Palo Alto Airport and the RWQCP. An inundation exposure
analysis was completed to evaluate how future water levels may affect these assets in the absence of
additional flood protection.
Palo Alto Airport
The Palo Alto Airport terminal and runway are located close to the Bay and largely protected by a
Bayfront levee that is not accredited under FEMA’s flood protection standards. Both the runway and the
terminal would be first exposed to coastal inundation during the MHHW + 36-inch scenario. Inundation
would cut off access to the airport, which may also limit emergency response capabilities.
Regional Water Quality Control Plant
The RWQCP would be exposed to permanent inundation under the MHHW + 36-inch scenario. Many of
the plant’s features are highly sensitive to water, which could lead to large amounts of damage if they
are exposed, even temporarily. Pollutants may be introduced to the Bay if plant operations cease.
Former ITT Property
The buildings at the former ITT Property and access road would be vulnerable to coastal inundation
during the MHHW + 36-inch scenario. Even temporary flooding could damage the buildings.
Other Nonrecreational Facilities
The EcoCenter, located in the unprotected Harriet Mundy Marsh, would be subject to coastal inundation
during the MHHW + 12-inch scenario. By the MHHW + 36-inch scenario, facilities such as the Baylands
Ranger Station and the Save the Bay plant nursery would be exposed to inundation. Permanent
inundation would result in a loss of use for the area, cessation of Ranger station operations, and
a loss of growing space for many plants used in local restoration projects.
72 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
The San Francisquito Creek Stormwater Pump Station, located along East Bayshore Road near San
Francisquito Creek, may be exposed to inundation during the MHHW + 24-inch scenario. Pump stations
contain electrical and mechanical components highly sensitive to flood exposure. Rising sea levels may
also overwhelm the capacity of the pump station and cause localized flood conditions in the southwest
portion of the Baylands, which is served by the pump.
Natural Resources
Habitats
Elevation-based habitat maps were produced by Point Blue’s Future Tidal Marshes Tool for the present
day (baseline year set to 2010) and 2050. Figure 11 displays the baseline (2010) map, showing the
present-day elevation and associated general habitat types, according to the Future Tidal Marshes Tool.
The results are driven by elevation compared to MHHW; therefore, the habitat types shown serve as a
general proxy for their associated elevations. The map can be interpreted as the expected default
habitat type by elevation under a no-management scenario (e.g., levees, pumping).
As shown in Figure 11, the elevation-based estimates of the Baylands’ present-day habitat types include
higher elevation mid marsh (depicted as dark green) along the Bayside marshes including Faber Marsh,
Laumeister Marsh, and tidal marshes on the Bay side of the Baylands levees, and in the Palo Alto Harbor
and Hooks Island areas. Because of their higher elevation, Byxbee Park and the area between the Palo
Alto Municipal Golf Course and the harbor are shown as upland habitat (depicted as light green), which
accurately represents the present-day habitat type. The golf course, based on its low-lying elevation
alone, is represented as mudflat in the model (depicted as brown), although it is actually managed as an
upland golf course system. The remaining Baylands areas are shown mostly as being at subtidal and
mudflat elevations, which is consistent with the Flood Control Basin’s role as a flooding catchment basin.
Low marsh (depicted as bright green) is shown scattered throughout the mid marsh and mudflat
habitats. Subtidal areas (depicted as light blue) are areas of elevation below the tidal inundation line and
are generally consistent with the present-day locations of standing water.
Figure 12 shows the Baylands’ elevation-based habitat types for the year 2050 under a low-
sedimentation, low-organic-materials scenario. This scenario represents one end of the range of
potential future habitat scenarios. Figure 13, which shows the elevation-based habitat types for the year
2050 under a high-sedimentation, high-organic-materials scenario represents the opposite end of the
range.
Both scenarios show sediment accretion and an overall rise in the elevation of the Baylands preserve.
The low-sedimentation, low-organic-materials scenario depicts mild accretion of marsh habitats and
overall elevation, while the high-sedimentation, high-organic-materials scenario depicts conversion of
nearly the entire Baylands area beyond Byxbee Park and Mayfield Slough to mid marsh.
Under the potential low-sedimentation, low-organic-materials scenario, the landscape is expected to
remain at a lower elevation, close to baseline conditions. Deposition of organic materials and
sedimentation would lead to marsh accretion, shown as a transition from the lower lying subtidal areas
to higher elevation mudflats. Under this scenario, the Bayside’s present-day mid marsh
wetlands would remain mid marsh wetlands. The Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, if
unmanaged, would accrete sediment and rise in elevation, transitioning to low marsh.
Byxbee Park is expected to remain upland; however, the sliver of upland between the
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 73
golf course and the park would be reduced in scale and an increase in wetland area may occur along the
edges.
According to the model mapping results, under the potential high-sedimentation, high-organic-materials
scenario, the landscape would accrete sediment, raising the overall elevation to potentially support
mid marsh wetlands throughout the entire Baylands (Figure 13). Under this scenario, the Bayside
wetlands are expected to remain at a mid marsh elevation and Byxbee Park would remain at an upland
elevation. The open water of Matadero Slough in the Flood Control Basin would remain as subtidal open
water in this scenario.
It is important to remember that the models predict changes to the landscape’s elevation under a
no-management scenario and do not predict changes incorporating land management, such as dredging
and other elevation-controlling activities. Furthermore, the model does not consider existing levees.
Therefore, the selected scenarios should be interpreted as showing how the landscape could change if
the levees no longer functioned. Raising the existing levees and implementing further flood protection
solutions, assuming that water management of the marshes and Flood Control Basin would remain as is,
would allow habitats landward of the levees to remain more similar to existing conditions. Management
of the Baylands landscape and elevations will be essential to determining the future conditions suitable
for maintaining marshland habitats.
Table 6 shows a summary of sea level rise exposure and projected habitat type conversion for Baylands
habitat assets, based on Point Blue’s Future Tidal Marshes Tool.
74 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
Table 6. Summary of Sea Level Rise Exposure and Projected Habitat Type Conversion
Present-Day Habitat
Type/Location
Sea Level
Rise
Scenario1
Projected Future Habitat Type2
2050 Low-Sediment,
Low-Organic-Materials
Scenario3
2050 High-Sediment,
High-Organic-Materials
Scenario3
Aquatic:
-Duck Pond
-Lagoon
-Emily Renzel Freshwater
Pond
MHHW + 36-
inch
Conversion to low marsh
Maintenance as lagoon
Open water
Mid marsh
Salt marsh:
-Harriet Mundy Marsh
-Faber-Laumeister Tract
MHHW + 12-
inch
Mid marsh (through
2100)
Mid marsh (through
2100)
Muted salt marsh:
-Flood Control Basin
(present-day subtidal and
mudflat habitats)
-Emily Renzel Wetlands
(marsh)
-Former ITT Property
MHHW + 36-
inch
Mudflat
Mudflat
Mid marsh
Mid marsh
Riparian corridors:
-Matadero Creek
-Mayfield Slough
-Adobe Creek
-San Francisquito Creek
MHHW + 12-
inch
Riparian corridor
conversion to brackish
marsh streambank
Riparian corridor
conversion to brackish
marsh streambank
Uplands habitat:
-Byxbee Park N/A Upland Upland
Notes:
Flood Control Basin = Palo Alto Flood Control Basin; MHHW = mean higher high water; N/A = not applicable
1 The sea level rise scenario that was mapped at which the habitat type is first projected to be affected.
2 Data from Point Blue Conservation Science’s Future San Francisco Bay Tidal Marshes planning tool.
3 Projected habitat type changed based on a no-management scenario.
Embarcadero Rd
E
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Middlefield Rd
W BayshoreRd
E m b a r c a d e r o R d
Bay R d
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulgas Ave
Loma Verde Ave
101
M a ta de r o C a nal
D ry Creek
M ayfield
Slou g h
Sterling
Canal
San
F
rancisquito
Creek
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\SLR\Habitat\Fig11_2010_Baseline.mxd
Point Blue Conservation Science, 2018;Esri Imagery, 201600.5
Miles
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
San Mateo County
RWQCP
Lucy EvansBaylands NatureInterpretive Center
RangerStation HooksIsland
HarrietMundyMarsh
Faber-LaumeisterTract
FloodControlBasin
BaylandsAthleticCenter
EmilyRenzelWetlandsSanta Clara County
Palo AltoAirport
Palo AltoGolf Course DuckPond
EcoCenter
Tide Gate
ByxbeeParkFormer ITTProperty
Renzel Freshwater Pond
Harbor
Lagoon
LeveeProject BoundaryHabitat< -1.8 m (subtidal)-1.9 - -0.6 m (mudflat)-0.5 - -0.3 m (low marsh)-0.2 - 0.1 m (mid marsh)
0.2 - 0.3 m (high marsh)> 0.3 m (upland)
FIGURE 11Baseline Elevation-Based Habitat Map for Year 2010
Embarcadero Rd
E
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Middlefield Rd
W BayshoreRd
E m b a r c a d e r o R d
Bay R d
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulgas Ave
Loma Verde Ave
101
M a t a d e ro C a n al
D ry Creek
M ayfield
Slou g h
Sterling
Canal
San
Francisquito
Creek
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\SLR\Habitat\Fig12_2050_LowSed_LowOrg.mxd
Point Blue Conservation Science, 2018;Esri Imagery, 2016
FIGURE 12Elevation-Based Habitat for Year 2050:Low Sediment/Low Organic Materials
0 0.5
Miles
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
San Mateo County
RWQCP
Lucy EvansBaylands NatureInterpretive Center
RangerStation HooksIsland
HarrietMundyMarsh
Faber-LaumeisterTract
FloodControlBasin
BaylandsAthleticCenter
EmilyRenzelWetlandsSanta Clara County
Palo AltoAirport
Palo AltoGolf Course DuckPond
EcoCenter
Tide Gate
ByxbeeParkFormer ITTProperty
Renzel Freshwater Pond
Harbor
Lagoon
LeveeProject BoundaryHabitat< -1.8 m (subtidal)-1.9 - -0.6 m (mudflat)-0.5 - -0.3 m (low marsh)-0.2 - 0.1 m (mid marsh)
0.2 - 0.3 m (high marsh)> 0.3 m (upland)
Embarcadero Rd
E
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Middlefield Rd
W BayshoreRd
E m b a r c a d e r o R d
Bay R d
Louis Rd
Oregon Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulgas Ave
Loma Verde Ave
101
M a t a d e ro Ca nal
D ry Creek
M ayf
ield
Slou g h
Sterling
Canal
San
Francisquito
Creek
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\SLR\Habitat\Fig13_2050_HighSed_HighOrg.mxd
Point Blue Conservation Science, 2018;Esri Imagery, 2016
FIGURE 13Elevation-Based Habitat for Year 2050:High Sediment/High Organic Materials
0 0.5
Miles
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
San Mateo County
RWQCP
Lucy EvansBaylands NatureInterpretive Center
RangerStation HooksIsland
HarrietMundyMarsh
Faber-LaumeisterTract
FloodControlBasin
BaylandsAthleticCenter
EmilyRenzelWetlandsSanta Clara County
Palo AltoAirport
Palo AltoGolf Course DuckPond
EcoCenter
Tide Gate
ByxbeeParkFormer ITTProperty
Renzel Freshwater Pond
Harbor
Lagoon
LeveeProject BoundaryHabitat< -1.8 m (subtidal)-1.9 - -0.6 m (mudflat)-0.5 - -0.3 m (low marsh)-0.2 - 0.1 m (mid marsh)
0.2 - 0.3 m (high marsh)> 0.3 m (upland)
78 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
Aquatic
Duck Pond and Lagoon
The Duck Pond and tidal lagoon are low-lying areas of the Baylands that are currently protected by a
series of levees and dikes for up to MHHW + 36 inches of sea level rise. Once sea levels rise above this
level, the area would be exposed to permanent inundation, resulting in a transition of habitats.
Based on existing conditions, the habitats in this area consist of open water. Under the low-
sedimentation, low-organic-materials scenario, the landscape would likely remain similar to present-day
conditions up to MHHW + 36 inches of sea level rise. The Future Tidal Marshes Tool predicts that
beyond MHHW + 36 inches of sea level rise, the lagoon would remain open water and the Duck Pond
may accumulate sediment and organic material and fill in to transition into a low marsh habitat. A grove
of palm trees northwest of the Duck Pond is protected by fencing and designated as a bird sanctuary for
herons and egrets, which used this area as a rookery during breeding season in 2005–2010. Rising sea
levels may cause this palm tree grove to become exposed to brackish water. Although palm trees
support a higher level of salinity than other tree species, significant increases in salinity through
intrusion of brackish water could reduce the viability of these trees. In addition, the areas fringing the
lagoon could begin to fill in and covert to low marsh.
The Future Tidal Marshes Tool predicts that under the high-sedimentation, high-organic-materials
scenario, marsh habitats would accrete and the Duck Pond and lagoon could become mid marsh habitat
if sea levels exceed MHHW + 36 inches and the surrounding levees no longer protect the area.
Emily Renzel Freshwater Pond
The present-day Emily Renzel Freshwater Pond is fed by tertiary-treated wastewater from the RWQCP.
If sea level rise causes salt water to intrude into the pond, the present habitat type would likely
transition to a brackish marsh habitat and the plant community would likely change accordingly. Existing
freshwater wetland plants would likely decline and new brackish water–tolerant plant species would
establish. Cattail could remain present depending on the amount of salinity, but other more saline-
tolerant species could also establish.
According to the Future Tidal Marshes Tool, under the low-sedimentation, low-organic-materials
scenario at 2050, the Emily Renzel Wetlands and the Emily Renzel Freshwater Pond would convert to
mudflat. Under the high-sedimentation, high-organic-materials scenario at 2050, the Emily Renzel
Freshwater Pond would accrete to mid marsh habitat.
Salt Marsh
Salt marsh in the Baylands is subject to tidal action, and tidal brackish marsh occurs in areas of the
Baylands where freshwater locally reduces salinity, such as the unnamed slough south of San
Francisquito Creek. For salt marsh habitats, the Future Tidal Marshes Tool was used to assess the effects
of sea level rise on the composition of marsh habitat. As shown in Table 6, the Harriet Mundy Marsh and
Faber-Laumeister Tract would be exposed to sea level rise at MHHW + 12 inches and MHHW + 36
inches, respectively.
The Future Tidal Marshes Tool predicts that under the low-sedimentation, low-organic-
materials scenario, the habitats at Faber-Laumeister Tract, Harbor Point and the inner
harbor channel, Harriet Mundy Marsh, Hooks Island, and Sand Point would remain as
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 79
mid marsh habitat into 2100. Habitat types are projected to maintain accretion rates comparable to
future sea levels. Lower lying areas that currently consist of mudflat and higher areas of high marsh are
projected to become more equilibrated in elevation and to convert to mid marsh habitat. The high-
sedimentation, high-organic-materials scenario is also projected to maintain accretion rates comparable
to future sea levels, with little to no expected change in marsh habitats.
According to the Future Tidal Marshes Tool, the only scenario in which elevation-based marsh habitat is
projected to change type is a scenario of high sea level rise and low sedimentation. In this scenario, the
rising sea levels would slowly outpace the sediment accretion rate, and the mid marsh and high marsh
habitats could transition to low marsh and mudflat habitats.
Muted Salt Marsh
The Flood Control Basin, the Emily Renzel Wetlands, the site of the former Los Altos Treatment Plant,
and the newly acquired former ITT Property would protected by levees tying into Byxbee Park for up to
MHHW + 36 inches of sea level rise. Existing habitat types consist of managed diked or muted salt
marsh.
Palo Alto Flood Control Basin
Beyond MHHW + 36 inches, the Flood Control Basin would be overtopped, exposing the habitats
landward of the levees to sea level rise. According to the Future Tidal Marshes Tool, under the potential
low-sedimentation, low-organic-materials scenario, the Flood Control Basin would accumulate sediment
and convert from present-day subtidal and mudflat elevations to a homogenous mudflat elevation. The
model infers that the elevation of these areas would increase slightly as a result of the increase, albeit
low, in sediment and organic materials, thus allowing more marsh habitat to accumulate as the overall
elevation rises.
Under the potential high-sedimentation, high-organic-materials scenario, these areas are expected to
accumulate sediment and organic materials at a greater rate than under the low-sedimentation, low-
organic-materials scenario. The elevation increase could lead to a conversion to a mid marsh elevation
habitat complex, with the channel areas remaining open water.
Emily Renzel Wetlands and Former ITT Property
The present-day Emily Renzel Wetlands and the former ITT Property comprise muted tidal wetland
habitat. Sea level rise scenarios for MHHW + 36 inches and MHHW + 66 inches show that these areas,
under a no-management scenario, will likely be inundated under several feet of water as Bay water
overtops levee structures, fills in the Flood Control Basin, and flows into the Emily Renzel Wetlands.
According to the Future Tidal Marshes Tool, under the low-sedimentation, low-organic-materials
scenario at 2050, the Emily Renzel Wetlands and the former ITT Property would convert to mudflat.
Under the high-sedimentation, high-organic-materials scenario at 2050, the Emily Renzel Wetlands and
former ITT Property would accrete and convert to mid marsh habitat.
Riparian Corridors
The habitats and riparian corridors of Matadero Creek and Mayfield Slough, Adobe Creek, and
San Francisquito Creek will be largely affected by the increased salt water inflow up the
creek corridors as sea level rises. As sea level rises, the tideline location where freshwater
80 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
and salt water converge will move upstream, causing the amount of salt water to increase throughout
the Baylands’ riparian corridors.
The Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek riparian corridors currently consist of a mix of native and
nonnative riparian species that largely depend on fresh groundwater, acquiring water for survival
through their root systems. The habitat composition of the riparian corridors could be affected as the
creeks become more saline. The riparian tree species that presently grow alongside the creeks depend
on fresh groundwater and have little salinity tolerance. If saline water intrudes into the local
groundwater sources, the health of the established tree populations may decline, thereby reducing the
amount of riparian tree habitat. Saline-tolerant species such as pickleweed may replace the trees along
the creeks, shifting the creeks’ estuarine habitats farther inland and pushing the freshwater-dominant
riparian corridors farther upstream. This transition will have secondary impacts by reducing the number
of freshwater-dependent shade tree canopies in the Baylands.
Upland
The upland habitat of Byxbee Park comprises annual nonnative Euro-Asian grassland species that have
become naturalized to the region. This habitat is not expected to be substantially affected by sea level
rise under any condition, as it is located at a higher elevation than any of the evaluated sea level rise
scenarios. Although most of Byxbee Park would remain unchanged under the modeling scenarios, the
Bay side of the landfill levee road may evolve and become more marsh-like if the surrounding habitats
are converted to brackish marshland or brackish open water. Other climate stressors, such as
temperature and precipitation, could alter future growing seasons and the amount of freshwater soil
moisture available. Changes in growing seasons and soil moisture content may cause changes in the
composition of plants and the wildlife that depend on existing conditions. Species with broader
temperature and precipitation tolerances are likely to persist better than highly specialized species.
Wildlife
Impacts on wildlife will be driven primarily by habitat transitions. Based on the MHHW + 36-inch sea
level rise scenario, the Duck Pond and tidal lagoon would accrete and to fill in with marsh vegetation.
Under this scenario, the grove of palm trees currently located northwest of the Duck Pond could decline,
eliminating suitable nesting habitat for herons and egrets.
The tidal lagoon currently serves as important foraging and nesting habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl
that migrate seasonally along the Pacific Flyway. As the existing habitat changes from mudflats to mid
marsh, the invertebrate community and migratory birds dependent on mudflats may be affected.
The present-day outer tidal mid marsh habitats are projected to be unaffected by rising sea levels
through the late-century projections, with the exception of a high sea level rise, low-sedimentation
scenario. The stable mid marsh habitat will continue to provide habitat for mid marsh–dependent
wildlife, including the federally listed endangered salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail, and the
state-listed threatened California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), which are found only in this habitat
type. Other more common species occurring in mid marsh that will continue to be supported include
Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) and sora (Porzana carolina).
If Bay levels exceed the Flood Control Basin’s walls, as expected during the MHHW + 36-
inch sea level rise scenario, much of the Baylands will be inundated with salt water.
Increased saline water creates an opportunity for expansion of tidal marsh species,
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 81
including rail species and the salt marsh harvest mouse. Seabird roosting habitat may transition as large
open areas become inundated or filled in with dense marsh vegetation.
A freshwater pond is located in the muted tidal Emily Renzel Wetlands. Wildlife species associated with
freshwater ponds include sora, rails, herons, egrets, and passerine species, as well as amphibian and
turtle species. If sea levels exceed levee elevations and inundate the Emily Renzel Wetlands, the berm
surrounding the freshwater pond could become overtopped and infiltrated with brackish water,
affecting the freshwater plant communities and wildlife associated with the pond.
Along riparian corridors, an increase in brackish water and saline conditions may cause the riparian tree
canopy to decrease. A loss of riparian habitat will result in a loss of nesting areas for many canopy-
dependent wildlife, including songbird and raptor species.
The upland nonnative grassland habitat at Byxbee Park is expected to remain largely unchanged by sea
level rise, given its higher relative elevation. Therefore, it is assumed that the wildlife species found in
Byxbee Park will remain consistent. However, the loss of surrounding marsh habitat will cause upland
habitat to become isolated and less connected to surrounding upland habitats, potentially reducing
overall habitat quality.
Beyond sea level rise, changes in climatic conditions such as temperature and precipitation could alter
future growing seasons, along with the amount of freshwater soil moisture available. These changes
could ultimately lead to a change in the composition of plants and the wildlife that depend on them.
Species with broader temperature and precipitation tolerance are likely to persist better than highly
specialized species.
82 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
7.5 Management Adaptations to Sea Level Rise
The following discussion presents a range of high-level risk reduction solutions for habitats, wildlife,
flood control, access and recreation, and nonrecreational features and facilities, to be evaluated for
implementation within the planning time frame of the BCCP. Adaptation strategies may include physical,
governance, and informational strategies that may be used to better prepare the Baylands for future
environmental conditions as a result of sea level rise. Physical strategies below are speculative and have
not been developed and are discussed as potential options that the City could take. Any specific projects
related to sea level rise that result from this analysis would be evaluated by Council and would be
subject to further CEQA review as a separate project from the BCCP; they are only provided herein for
context. Some informational strategies, such as further studies, will help inform the details of specific
physical actions that could be considered in the future.
Flood Control
The Flood Control Basin’s tide gate and levees are overtopped during the MHHW + 36-inch scenario,
which may reduce the ability of the structures to provide flood protection. Potential adaptation
strategies are discussed below.
Physical
The following actions could be implemented in conjunction partners including the SFCJPA, USACE, and
Valley Water.
Expand the flood retention capacity area by connecting with other basins (SCVWD 2016).
Introduce pumps to efficiently discharge stored floodwaters (SCVWD 2016).
Modify the elevation of the levee walls and tide gate (SCVWD 2016).
Replace the tide gate structure to improve the functionality of the flood barrier system (SCVWD
2018). (Project completion is scheduled for mid-2022.)
Construct horizontal/living levees (such as an expanded version of the Oro Loma Sanitary District’s
experimental levee) and tidal marshes to provide large-scale flood protection for a greater
geographic area, and to create the potential for increased tidal action (SFCJPA 2015).
Governance
Incorporate sea level rise language into guidance documents (e.g., Baylands Master Plan,
Comprehensive Plan, City of Palo Alto Design Standards, and City of Palo Alto Storm Drain Master
Plan) and emergency plans to provide a means for guiding future decision making.
Use comparable sea level rise scenarios across City departments and external agencies, and in
compliance with various local legislative requirements, to provide a consistent level of protection for
the region.
Informational
Develop monitoring programs to evaluate the impacts of sea level rise on Baylands operations and
physical damage caused by ongoing flooding events.
Identify and address data gaps by conducting studies to better understand the flood risks to the
Baylands’ critical infrastructure.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 83
Public Access and Facilities
To maintain uninterrupted Baylands access, the following strategies are considered for roadways and
trails.
Access to and within the Baylands
Critical roadways are exposed during the MHHW + 36-inch scenario, which will limit access to Baylands
assets and could inhibit emergency access. Potential adaptation strategies are discussed below.
Physical
The following actions could be implemented in conjunction partners including Caltrans and Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority.
Elevate critical roadways to maintain public and staff access to and within the Baylands.
Add alternative transportation routes within the Baylands area to increase the redundancy of
roadway access.
Upgrade current pedestrian paths to be used as alternative emergency evacuation routes during
flood events.
Governance
Incorporate coastal flooding scenarios into emergency planning and decision-making processes that
involve evacuations to avoid flood damage and ensure public safety in the Baylands.
Trails
Nearly all multiuse trails, interpretive signs, and public art are exposed to flooding during the MHHW +
36-inch scenario, thus limiting recreational use of the Baylands and diminishing regional trail
connectivity. Potential adaptation strategies are discussed below.
Physical
Reroute pedestrian trails to increase redundancy for visitor and staff access.
Elevate low-lying trails or incorporate a boardwalk into trail design to maintain access during high-
water events.
Abandon or relocate low-lying trails that experience frequent flooding to allocate resources to
protecting other Baylands assets.
Relocate, elevate, or adapt interpretive signage and public art, as necessary, to maintain their
function.
Governance
Incorporate sea level rise language into guidance documents (e.g., Baylands Master Plan,
Comprehensive Plan, City of Palo Alto Design Standards, and City of Palo Alto Storm Drain Master
Plan) and emergency plans to provide a means for guiding future decision making.
Incorporate language about sea level rise and flood protection measures into trail plans and
maintenance plans to provide a mechanism for adapting future trail placement and/or preserving
trails.
Informational
Install signage along trails regarding flood protection and future flood challenges to
update visitors about ongoing climate adaptation programs and opportunities.
84 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands
Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track instances of trail flooding, and thus to provide a
means to quickly identify trails, or trail sections, that experience repeat flooding conditions. This
information can also inform the process of adapting vulnerable trails (e.g., boardwalk installations)
or relocating trails for which maintenance is not cost effective.
Nonrecreational Features and Facilities
The Palo Alto Airport, the RWQCP, and the former ITT Property are exposed to sea level rise during the
MHHW + 36-inch scenario, which may cause flood damage to sensitive assets and cut off access to
critical facilities. Potential adaptation strategies are discussed below.
Physical
The following actions could be implemented in conjunction with partners including the Palo Alto Airport,
Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and other public and private entities that operate within the
Baylands.
Flood-proof facilities where possible to prevent damage from temporary flooding conditions.
Flood-proofing techniques include:
elevating structures to allow floodwaters to pass through quickly, thereby minimizing flood
damage;
making buildings watertight up to expected flood heights; and
flood-proofing electrical equipment.
Add backup power at on-site facilities, with sufficient fuel for several days, to minimize interruptions
to critical assets.
Governance
Incorporate sea level rise into Baylands and Palo Alto design standards for new infrastructure and
improvements to protect critical elements of facility design.
Collaborate with adjacent landowners, agencies, and organizations to find a shared, multi-objective,
regional solution that can be planned and implemented through a joint effort.
Informational
Conduct a study regarding the influence of sea level rise on groundwater levels and the associated
impact of increased liquefaction potential during earthquakes to inform future site and emergency
planning for critical facilities.
Establish a flood emergency management plan for vulnerable facilities to limit on-site employees’
injuries and potential loss of life.
To inform long-term planning and priority setting, develop and maintain an asset management plan
that includes asset-specific information such as location, age, elevation, condition, and replacement
cost.
Perform an economic analysis of critical assets to evaluate the cost of protecting the assets versus
retreating or relocating the assets to sites less vulnerable to coastal flooding.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise at the Baylands 85
Natural Resources
If future sea levels overtop the levees during the MHHW + 36-inch scenario, nearly all Baylands habitat
will transition to new habitat types, depending on the amount of sediment. Potential adaptation
strategies are discussed below.
Physical
The following actions could be implemented in conjunction partners including the USFWS, SFCJPA,
USACE, and Valley Water:
Construct tidal marsh transition zones consistent with USFWS’s Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan to
enhance the habitat of threatened species that are vulnerable to sea level rise.
Create strategic openings in the levees to connect interior habitats to the Bay and allow the growth
of tidal marsh habitat to preserve vulnerable habitat areas.
Implement climate-smart restoration plantings, consistent with the Silicon Valley 2.0 adaptation
strategy, to promote vegetation with a wider climate tolerance zone.
Create new tree roosting habitat for birds in areas with a freshwater source suitable of supporting
riparian species to expand vulnerable habitats.
Governance
Consider the ecological impacts of water modifications on the landscape by collaborating with the
Baylands Group, Point Blue, USFWS, and others during planning efforts.
Take a community approach to habitat and wildlife restoration and persistence at the Baylands.
Collaborate directly with regional and local planning efforts and surrounding partners, including
SAFER Bay, Silicon Valley 2.0, and the neighboring Cities of Mountain View and East Palo Alto.
Informational
Form a stakeholder working group and technical advisory committee to aid in development,
management, funding, and implementation of actions to protect the Baylands.
Implement climate-smart restoration plantings to increase the likelihood of long-term
establishment.
Implement water conservation and management initiatives for future-focused management of
wetlands habitats.
Install public signage to inform the public of sea level rise and landscape connectivity.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 86
Action Plan and Best
Management Practices
8.1 Introduction
This action plan draws from prior elements developed as part of the BCCP. The action plan seeks to
advance the vision of the BCCP through prioritized action steps that clearly direct the management of
the Baylands. The plan uses an ecosystem-based approach that strikes the appropriate balance of
ecosystem protection, environmental education, and nature-friendly recreational opportunities now
and in the future, and that considers challenges such as climate change and sea level rise.
The action plan also supports the goals and policies of the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan
(City of Palo Alto 2017a), such as:
Policy 1.I: Encourage volunteerism and stewardship.
Policy 3.B: Incorporate art into park design.
Policy 4.A: Protect natural habitat.
Policy 4.B: Connect people to nature and the outdoors.
Policy 4.D: Promote, expand, and protect habitat.
Policy 5.D: Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland.
Policy 5.G: Pursue other/private funding sources.
Policy 6.H: Coordinate with other City plans.
Policy 6.I: Engage other City departments.
Policy 6.J: Participate and support regional plans.
The action plan also furthers the policies of the Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008), such as
controlling access to environmentally sensitive areas; restoring diversity of plants and animals; ensuring
sufficient native food and cover for wildlife; maintaining trails; and supplying quality interpretive signs.
This action plan provides guidance for future actions and project implementation by major topic area,
including natural resources management, public access and facilities, public engagement, public
art, and operations and management. The action plan includes the following five plans:
Habitat conservation and restoration plan
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 87
Climate change and sea level rise adaptation plan
Interpretive messaging plan
Public art plan
Weed management plan
The action plan aims to achieve the goals and objectives of the BCCP by including specific actions, BMPs,
and desired timelines, and by identifying lead potential implementing parties, potential partners, and
potential funding sources for recommended actions. The repeatable prioritization methodologies
included are intended to be applied periodically throughout the life of the BCCP as conditions and
priorities change.
Physical and long-term actions are speculative and have not been developed and are discussed as
potential options that the City could take. Any specific projects that result from this section would be
evaluated by Council and would be evaluated further in accordance with CEQA as a separate project
from the BCCP and are only provided herein for context.
Additional BMPs were developed to help achieve BCCP planning goals not specifically addressed in the
five plans listed above. The BMPs included are practices, guidelines, methods, or techniques that are
effective and practical means of achieving goals and objectives. The BMPs were developed from a range
of sources: prior plans, stakeholder input, research, and review of BMPs applied by leaders in the field of
integrated resource planning.
Recommended actions for conservation and restoration include applying the proposed methodology, to
identify functioning and degraded habitats. Short-term actions include continuing to manage access to
people and pets, managing weeds and installing climate-smart native plantings, monitoring habitat, and
securing funding for long-term actions. Long-term actions include conducting feasibility and technical
studies and constructing restoration projects.
Actions to adapt to climate change and sea level rise include short-term actions such as monitoring,
collaborating with adjacent landowners, establishing resilient habitat for wildlife, and conducting long-
term planning. Long-term actions include physical interventions such as elevating or relocating assets.
Operations and management actions focus on weed management, as nonnative invasive plants are on
the greatest threats to biodiversity, habitat function, and wildlife. These species spread quickly, displace
native plants, prevent native plant growth, and create monocultures. The change in native biodiversity
affects the structure, quality, and quantity of wildlife habitat, and sometimes hydrology.
8.2 Natural Resources Management
Habitat Conservation and Restoration Plan
The habitat conservation and restoration plan seeks to achieve the following BCCP Natural Resources
Management (NRM) goals as identified in BCCP Chapter 5: Vision, Goals, and Objectives.
Goal 1: Maintain, protect, and preserve existing functioning native habitats,
ecosystem functions, and wildlife corridors.
88 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Goal 2: Manage the Baylands as habitat for native species and the preservation of biodiversity.
Goal 3: Enhance and restore degraded habitats and habitat corridors.
Goal 4: Protect and enhance hydrologic connectivity.
To help achieve these goals, this habitat conservation and restoration plan identifies and prioritizes
areas in the Baylands for wildlife and habitat conservation, restoration, and hydrologic enhancement.
Managing natural resources helps support, sustain, and safeguard ecosystems and the services that they
provide including clean air, clean water, healthy soil, flood protection, and genetic variability. Natural
resources management also promotes biodiversity of habitats and wildlife, and can enhance visitor
experiences and sense of place. This habitat conservation and restoration plan should be used to
identify the areas of the Baylands that should be prioritized for conservation and restoration, and the
conservation actions that should be implemented in those areas.
This habitat conservation and restoration plan describes the existing functioning habitats, wildlife
corridors, and degraded habitats invaded by weeds. The plan includes a methodology for prioritizing
areas for conservation and restoration based on key considerations that include feasibility with existing
resources, existing wildlife habitat and linkages, chance of long-term success, safety, or previous
identification as a potential restoration opportunity. The plan includes a multi-pronged approach to
conservation and restoration, with recommendations of three types of conservation actions—
preservation, enhancement, and restoration—based on the condition and quality of the habitats. The
plan also includes a discussion of timing, BMPs, partnerships, and funding that can be leveraged to
implement the actions.
Management Priorities
This section describes a methodology for prioritizing areas for habitat preservation, enhancement, and
restoration. The methodology should be applied periodically to reevaluate priorities. This section applies
the methodology for existing functioning habitats and degraded habitats in the Baylands to produce a
prioritized management list. It should be noted that priorities may change as conditions change, or as
wildlife use changes.
Prioritization Methodology
The methodology involves prioritizing areas based on key considerations that include achievability with
existing resources; conservation or preservation of existing wildlife habitats and linkages/corridors;
conservation of existing habitats that support sensitive species; level of impact; weed vector reduction;
safety; long-term success of habitat and corridors; and areas in the Baylands that have been identified
previously for potential restoration or enhancement.
First-Priority Key Considerations:
Areas where implementation of recommended conservation actions is achievable with existing
resources.
Potentially areas where the greatest opportunities exist for minimizing harmful weed vectors,
particularly along trails and other public access areas.
Areas supporting existing, functioning habitats, wildlife corridors, and habitats that
support sensitive wildlife species such as the California Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh
harvest mouse.
Second-Priority Key Considerations:
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 89
Areas where implementation of conservation actions will improve safety, reduce flood control
concerns, minimize impacts on levees and berms, and avoid impacts on the landfill cap at Byxbee
Park.
Areas that have a high chance of long-term success.
Byxbee Park and the former ITT Property, which are identified as key planning areas in the BCCP.
Areas where conservation and restoration of hydrologic connectivity will have the greatest benefit,
such as the Flood Control Basin and Mayfield Slough remnant.
Third-Priority Key Considerations:
Areas previously identified in the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008), such as the
lagoon and inner harbor shorelines; and areas that have been identified throughout the BCCP
planning process, including the stakeholder engagement process and identified in the goals and
objectives and the opportunities and challenges analysis, and that are not included in first- or
second-degree priority lists.
Fourth-Priority Key Considerations:
Other areas identified as degraded or invaded by weeds.
Conservation and Restoration Priority List
This section includes a prioritized list of areas in the Baylands that have been identified for preservation,
enhancement, or restoration to conserve the habitat for wildlife. Table 7 shows the results of applying
the methodology described in the previous section; includes conservation actions that can be taken at
each location in the short and long term; and identifies an implementing party. Figure 14 shows areas
that have been prioritized for preservation, enhancement, or restoration. Conservation action types
were assigned to locations based on habitat quality and condition, identified through field visits and
City and stakeholder input.
Conservation Actions
Conservation actions fall into three categories: preservation, enhancement, and restoration.
Preservation is recommended for areas where functioning habitats, including wildlife linkages, already
exist. Enhancement is recommended to maintain previously restored areas, or areas degraded by weeds
or currently of low biodiversity or habitat value to sensitive wildlife species. Restoration is
recommended for areas where desired habitat currently does not exist. This section describes necessary
steps that can be taken to preserve, enhance, and restore the habitats and specific areas listed above.
Preservation
The goal of preservation is to keep functioning habitats that support wildlife intact and prevent habitat
degradation in the future. Preservation is recommended for areas that are currently functioning, have
high habitat value, support local and migratory wildlife, and have the highest chance of long-term
success. Preservation generally requires the least level of effort and specific actions to preserve can be
implemented successfully by Rangers or volunteers. Preservation actions include access restrictions for
people and pets to reduce encroachment on wildlife, light weed management accompanied with
installation of climate-smart native seeding and planting, and habitat monitoring. Preservation
activities should be documented to inform future management activities and to monitor
success.
90 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Management of Access
Managing access by people and pets to sensitive habitats and continuing to prohibit access to areas
closed to public access is essential to preserving existing functioning habitats. Limiting access will
minimize impacts on wildlife species from human activities and habitats by minimizing vectors for
weeds, reducing disturbance to habitat and wildlife, and minimizing trash. It will also prevent
establishment of informal trails and other unauthorized use.
Weed Management and Climate-Smart Restoration Plantings
Invasion by nonnative species is second only to habitat loss among the greatest threats to global
biodiversity. Weeds displace native species, diminish the biodiversity of native species, and can affect
wildlife by altering food supply, habitat structure, and potentially hydrology. To preserve habitat,
weed management should be accompanied by native and appropriate plant seeding and planting in an
effort to promote native diversity and foster resilient natural areas. In the short term, light weed
management of incipient populations should be implemented. Light weed management will entail
management of weeds, according to the weed management plan in this action plan (Section 8.6.1).
Actions will generally be performed infrequently by a small number of staff members, volunteers, or
partners using light equipment.
Weed management should be accompanied by planting of climate-smart native species, appropriate for
the intended habitat type, that provide a similar ecological function. Climate-smart native restoration
practices, as described in Point Blue’s Climate-Smart Restoration Toolkit
(http://rdjzr2agvvkijm6n3b66365n-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/
CSRToolkit.pdf), allow habitats to adapt under different future climate change scenarios. These practices
provide multiple benefits for wildlife including seed, fruit, and nectar sources for pollinators, insectary
plants, and cover/refugia (Point Blue 2018). Native species that provide important insect and wildlife
benefits should also be considered.
Climate-smart native plants include native species that are also resilient to disturbance, are drought and
salt tolerant, and are likely to survive sedimentation and sea level rise (Thalmayer et al. 2016). For
example, climate-smart native species for the marsh-upland transition zone include purple needle grass
(Stipa pulchra), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), gumplant (Grindelia stricta), marsh goldenrod (Euthamia
occidentalis), and pickleweed (Salcornia virginica). Example species appropriate for riparian areas may
include arroyo willow (Salix s lasiolepis) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Example species
appropriate for upland areas can be found in the Byxbee Park Design Plan (in this BCCP).
It should be noted that the native species appropriate for selection may change as conditions change.
See Point Blue’s Climate-Smart Restoration Toolkit for a current list of climate-smart native species that
could be installed in the Baylands. Areas appropriate for climate-smart native tree planting should be
identified and setbacks should be established.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 91
Table 7. Conservation and Restoration Priority List
Priority Location Habitat Type Description/Rationale Conservation
Action Type Conservation Actions
Potential
Implementing
Party
First Trail System Various -Trails (except for Byxbee Park) are the primary weed
problem hotspots identified by Baylands Rangers, and
weeds along trails are a conduit for moving seeds around
and exacerbating habitat degradation.
-Action areas along trails are easily accessible to Rangers
and volunteers, and these areas are the most visible to the
public.
-Highly degraded and invaded (pepperweed, fennel,
mustard, thistles, stinkwort, wild radish, tall wheat grass,
New Zealand spinach, pampas grass, ice plant, and mallow).
-Trails and the adjacent areas are used as linkages for
wildlife movement.
Enhancement Short Term
-Weed management
-Climate-smart native plantings
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Long Term -Monitoring -Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Rangers -Volunteers -Partners
First Wildlife
Corridors/ Linkages
Various -Provide connectivity and linkages for wildlife movement
and migration. -Terrestrial wildlife species such as grey fox and raccoon use
these areas. -Planting of dense vegetation can provide cover and refugia for wildlife using these corridors.
Enhancement Short Term
-Weed management -Planting climate-smart native
plantings that provide refugia, food, and insectary sources
-Rangers
-Volunteers -Partners
Long Term
-Monitoring
-Survey of wildlife usage and
movement patterns
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Feasibility studies for expansion
of wildlife connectivity linkages
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
First Harbor Point Salt marsh -11 acres of salt marsh were restored in 1997.
-Existing functioning habitat that supports native plant and wildlife species is generally intact. -Results of habitat models show that this area will maintain mid-marsh with sedimentation and sea level rise. -High chance of long-term success.
Preservation Short Term
-Continue current practice to keep this area closed to public access -Light weed management -Climate-smart native plantings
-Rangers
-Volunteers -Partners
Long Term -Rangers
92 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority Location Habitat Type Description/Rationale Conservation
Action Type Conservation Actions
Potential
Implementing
Party
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Volunteers
-Partners
First Harriet Mundy
Marsh/Sand
Point
Salt marsh -Existing functioning habitat that supports native plant and
wildlife species is generally intact.
-Results of habitat models show that this area will maintain
mid-marsh with sedimentation and sea level rise.
-High chance of long-term success.
-Preservation actions will preserve and maintain intact
habitats.
Preservation Short Term
-Continue current practice to keep
this area closed to public access
-Light weed management
-Climate-smart native plantings
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Long Term
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
First Hooks Island Salt marsh -Existing functioning habitat that supports native plant and
wildlife species is generally intact.
-Results of habitat models show that this area will maintain mid-marsh with sedimentation and sea level rise.
-High chance of long-term success.
Preservation Short Term
-Continue current practice to keep
this area closed to public access -Light weed management
-Climate-smart native plantings
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Long Term
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Second Byxbee Park Nonnative annual grassland
-Key area for BCCP. -Heavily invaded (stinkwort, Russian thistle, French broom, and yellow star thistle are nonnative invasive weeds; coyote brush is a native plant that is not desirable because its tap root can penetrate the clay cap). -Has engineered clay cap that must be maintained and limits what can be planted; limited areas of engineered soils have more capacity to support perennial plants. -Known occurrences of burrowing owl.
Enhancement Short Term -Weed management -Climate-smart native plantings -Manage habitat according to Byxbee Park Design Plan as part of this BCCP -Continue to discourage development in areas designated in the Burrowing Owl Management Plan
-Rangers -Volunteers -Partners
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 93
Priority Location Habitat Type Description/Rationale Conservation
Action Type Conservation Actions
Potential
Implementing
Party
-Continue to promote the
implementation of the Burrowing
Owl Management Plan
Long Term
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Second Former ITT
Property/Emily
Renzel Wetlands
Muted salt
marsh
-Key area for BCCP.
-Somewhat invaded by weeds.
-Hydrologic connections can be improved/restored.
-The Emily Renzel freshwater pond provides habitat for
aquatic species.
-High chance of long-term success.
Restoration Short Term
-Weed management
-Secure funding for long-term
actions
-Install climate-smart native
plantings in areas of recent
disturbance
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Long Term
-Implement elements in the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands concepts (as part of this
BCCP) -Technical studies to explore feasibility of improving hydrologic connections -Install dendritic channels
-City of Palo Alto
RWQCP
Second Faber-Laumeister
Tract
Salt marsh -Adjacent levee trails are degraded and invaded (fennel,
mallow, and thistles).
-Functioning habitat is generally intact. Some weeds in the
marsh (Russian thistle, ice plant, pepperweed).
-Results of habitat models show that this area will maintain
mid-marsh with sedimentation and sea level rise.
-High chance of long-term success.
-Home to a high number of endangered Ridgway’s rails.
Enhancement Short Term
-Coordinate all actions with
USFWS
-Weed management
-Climate-smart native plantings
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Long Term
-Coordinate all actions with USFWS -Monitoring
-Rangers
-Volunteers -Partners
94 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority Location Habitat Type Description/Rationale Conservation
Action Type Conservation Actions
Potential
Implementing
Party
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
Second Adobe Creek Riparian -Arundo invasion along both sides of the creek.
-Arundo can clog waterways and cause flooding and safety
issues.
Enhancement Short Term
-Weed management
-Climate-smart riparian native
plantings (e.g., willows)
-Identify locations to extend or
expand wildlife corridors
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
-City of Palo Alto
-SCVWD
Long Term
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
-SCVWD
Second Palo Alto Flood
Control Basin
Muted salt
marsh
-Degraded and invaded (phragmites, Russian thistle, tall
wheat grass).
-Large-scale phragmites management effort. -Restoration of the Flood Control Basin can benefit a large
area. -Models show overtopping of Flood Control Basin levees at 36 inches of sea level rise.
-Areas in the Flood Control Basin adjacent to Matadero Creek support terrestrial wildlife species.
Restoration Short Term
-Explore feasibility of periodic tidal
inundation -Coordinate planning with SCVWD
-Secure funding for long-term actions -Coordinate future flood control
and sea level rise adaptation actions with regional and local agencies and partners
-City of Palo Alto
-SCVWD
-SFCJPA
Long Term
-Feasibility/technical studies to
better understand the hydraulics
and salinity of the basin
-Site design
-Impact assessment and
permitting
-Site preparation
-Construction
-Climate-smart native plantings
-Monitoring
-City of Palo Alto
-SCVWD
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 95
Priority Location Habitat Type Description/Rationale Conservation
Action Type Conservation Actions
Potential
Implementing
Party
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
Third Nursery shoreline
(northeast of
Save the Bay
nursery/Duck
Pond)
Muted salt
marsh
-Identified as potential restoration area in the Palo Alto
Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008) and WRA and
Santina study (City of Palo Alto 2008). The plan called for
technical studies on the hydrologic connection and
sedimentation of the lagoon and restoration of fill at the
southern shoreline of the lagoon.
-This area is connected to the Bay through a set of culverts.
-Former home of egret rookery.
-Results of habitat models show that this area is likely to
convert to low-mid marsh by 2050, with sedimentation and
sea level rise.
Restoration Short Term
-Secure funding for long-term
actions
-City of Palo Alto
Long Term
-Feasibility/technical studies
-Site design for long-term success
and wildlife habitat
-Impact assessment/permitting
-Construction
-Climate-smart native planting
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-City of Palo Alto
Third Mayfield Slough
remnant
Muted salt
marsh
-Identified as potential restoration area in the Palo Alto
Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008). -Identified as potential restoration area in the BCCP stakeholder process.
-Hydrologic connectivity can be improved. -Used by terrestrial wildlife and bird species including Wilson’s snipe.
Restoration Short Term
-Secure funding for long-term actions
-City of Palo Alto
Long Term
-Feasibility/technical biology and
hydrologic studies
-Site design
-Impact assessment/permitting
-Construction
-Climate-smart native planting
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-City of Palo Alto
Third Lagoon shoreline Nonnative annual
grassland
-Identified as potential restoration area in the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008).
-Degraded and invaded (fennel, stinkwort).
Enhancement Short Term -Weed management
-Climate-smart native plantings
-Rangers -Volunteers
-Partners
Long Term
-Monitoring
-Rangers
-Volunteers
96 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority Location Habitat Type Description/Rationale Conservation
Action Type Conservation Actions
Potential
Implementing
Party
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Partners
Third Lagoon culvert Aquatic -Identified as a potential restoration project in the Palo Alto
Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008). The plan calls
for a study on how improved/enlarged culverts can or will
affect habitat/silting of the harbor and lagoon.
Restoration Short Term
-Secure funding for long-term
actions
-City of Palo Alto
Long Term
-Feasibility/technical hydrologic
studies
-Site design
-Impact assessment and
permitting
-Construction
-City of Palo Alto
Third Inner harbor
southwest
shoreline
Nonnative
annual
grassland
-Identified as potential restoration project in the Palo Alto
Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008) and WRA and
Santina study (City of Palo Alto 2008). The plan called for excavation and restoration of fill in the southern yacht
harbor along Embarcadero Road. -Degraded and invaded (tall wheat grass, mustard, thistles, stinkwort).
-Area has been identified as a potential location for a horizontal levee.
Restoration Short Term
-Coordinate with the RWQCP to
explore feasibility of a horizontal levee
-Install native plants in previously disturbed locations -Secure funding for long-term
actions
-City of Palo Alto
-RWQCP
Long Term
-Feasibility/technical studies
-Permitting
-Site planning and design
-Climate-smart native planting
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-City of Palo Alto
-RWQCP
-Volunteers and
partners can help
with planting and
monitoring
Fourth Unnamed slough (near the RWQCP
outfall)
Brackish wetlands
(freshwater
-Degraded habitat and invaded with weeds (pepperweed). -Stands of alkali bulrush because of freshwater outfall from
the RWQCP.
Enhancement Short Term -Weed management
-Climate-smart native plantings
-Rangers -Volunteers
-RWQCP -Partners
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 97
Priority Location Habitat Type Description/Rationale Conservation
Action Type Conservation Actions
Potential
Implementing
Party
outfall for the
RWQCP)
-Continued monitoring of habitat
conversion near the RWQCP
outfall
Long Term
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Fourth
Baylands Athletic
Center 10.5 acres
Various -10.5 acres dedicated as parkland following golf course
reconfiguration.
Undetermine
d
-Obtain funding for the
development of alternative use
concepts as part of a
comprehensive planning process
-Assess the feasibility of potential
land use alternatives
-Conduct outreach with City staff,
the public, and stakeholders to
gather input and buy-in for
potential land uses for the site
-City of Palo Alto
Fourth Former Los Altos Treatment Plant
Various -Portions of the site have a land use designation of “Public Conservation Land.” Undetermined -Obtain funding for the development of alternative use
concepts as part of a comprehensive planning process. -Assess the feasibility of potential land use alternatives -Conduct outreach with City staff, the public, and stakeholders to gather input and buy-in for potential land uses for the site
-City of Palo Alto
98 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority Location Habitat Type Description/Rationale Conservation
Action Type Conservation Actions
Potential
Implementing
Party
Fourth Lower San
Francisquito
Creek
Riparian -Degraded habitat and invaded with weeds (pepperweed,
Russian thistle).
-SFCJPA project recently completed project in the area that
enhanced habitat for Ridgway’s rail.
Enhancement Short Term
-Weed management
-Climate-smart riparian native
plantings (e.g., willows)
-Identify locations to extend or
expand wildlife corridors
-Monitor California Ridgway’s rail
population
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Long Term
-Monitoring
-Maintenance of plantings and
areas managed for weeds
-Rangers
-Volunteers
-Partners
Notes: Bay = San Francisco Bay; BCCP = Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan; City = City of Palo Alto; Flood Control Basin = Palo Alto Flood Control Basin; RWQCP = Regional Water Quality Control Plant; SCVWD = Santa Clara Valley Water District; SFCJPA = San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sources: Anderson, pers. comm., 2018; City of Palo Alto 2008; data compiled by AECOM in 2018
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MayfieldSloughRemnant
LagoonShoreline
SanFranciscoBay
San
F
rancisq
uit
o
C
re
e
k
M
a
y
f
i
eldSl
ough
Dry Creek
M a t a d e r o C a n a l
BaylandsAthleticCenter (10.5 Acres)
Former LATP Site
Harriet MundyMarsh/Sand Point
HooksIslandInner HarborSW Shoreline
UnnamedSlough
Palo Alto FloodControl Basin
HarborPoint
ByxbeePark
Former ITTProperty/RenzelWetland
Faber-LaumeisterTract
NurseryShoreline
AdobeCreek
Lower SanFrancisquitoCreek
Trail System
Lagoon Culvert
E
Bayshore Rd
W
Bayshore
Rd
E m b a r c a d ero
R d
Middlefield
Rd
B ay R d
Louis
Rd
Oregon
Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulgas
Ave
Lo ma
Verde
Ave
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ActionPlan\Fig1_Prioritized_Preservation_Enhancement_Restoration.mxd
FIGURE 14Prioritized Preservation, Enhancement,and Restoration Areas
Wildlife CorridorProject BoundaryAction TypeEnhancementUndeterminedPreservation
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!RestorationPriority1234
0 0.5
Mile
Aerial Imagery: Esri, 2019
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
100 Action Plan
Monitoring
Long-term annual surveying, monitoring, and mapping of existing habitats and wildlife should be
conducted to detect emerging problems and trends, and to evaluate habitat conditions and the
effectiveness of weed management and native plant establishment. Preservation activities should be
adapted over time to attain an effective long-term level of preservation and maintenance. A repeatable
monitoring methodology, including biological resources assessments, should be established to provide
results that can be compared between years. This monitoring methodology should include documenting
locations and cover of weed species and desirable native species, documenting survivorship of individual
plantings, and conducting wildlife surveys. Monitoring may include photo stations or interpretation of
aerial photos, along with field observations. Monitoring should be conducted annually and can be
conducted by Rangers, by Ranger-trained volunteers, or through citizen science such as bio blitzes, or
can be provided by partners such as Save the Bay, Grassroots Ecology, Environmental Volunteers, the
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and academic
institutions. Records of monitoring data should be summarized annually and should be made available
to interested partners and City staff for use in determining effectiveness of actions. These data may also
be used as supporting documentation when seeking funding for future planning, project
implementation, and monitoring.
Enhancement
Enhancement actions are recommended to maintain previously restored areas and enhance habitats
that are degraded by weeds. Enhancement actions require a higher level of effort than preservation
actions; in particular, weed management and native planting should occur more frequently and
extensively, cover larger areas, and may include the use of heavy equipment for site preparation such as
weed removal or grading.
Weed Management and Climate Smart Restoration Plantings
The goal of weed management, accompanied by climate-smart native planting, is to prevent and reduce
weedy infestations, and to promote native plant establishment, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat. Some
enhancement actions, such as controlling Arundo donax along Adobe Creek, may require the use of
heavy equipment and vegetation maintenance crews. Habitats adjacent to trails should be managed for
weeds according to the weed management plan in this action plan (Section 8.6.1), accompanied by
planting a wide band of climate-smart native plants, or by broadcasting an appropriate native seed mix,
to provide cover and refugia for wildlife using these areas. Climate-smart native species such as willows
could be established in riparian, freshwater marsh, or brackish marsh habitats to support sensitive
species such as the San Francisco common yellowthroat. Weed management and native planting can be
implemented by Rangers, volunteers, or partners, and aided by vegetation maintenance crews. Weed
management and native species planting that enhance habitats may require multiple years of control
efforts to be effective and some weed species may never be fully eradicated.
Monitoring
Monitoring as described above should be implemented as staffing allows to detect problems, evaluate
habitat conditions, and determine the effectiveness of weed management and native plant
establishment. Results of monitoring should inform adaptive management or remedial
actions, if the data indicate that plantings are not progressing toward the desired
outcome.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 101
Restoration
The goals of restoration are to create, establish, or reestablish functioning habitat types that currently
do not exist but may have been present in the past. Restoration actions require the highest level of
effort and can take years to plan, permit, and implement. Short-term restoration actions include
securing funding for long-term restoration actions, and conducting weed management accompanied by
installing climate-smart native plantings.
Feasibility/Technical Studies
Feasibility and/or technical studies should be conducted to understand whether the proposed
restoration actions are feasible, what actions can be taken, what the impacts on wildlife may be, and
how actions may change a site, particularly where hydrologic connections can be improved. For
example, the hydraulics and salinity of the Flood Control Basin should be studied and better understood
to inform restoration planning and design and potential tidal inundation regimes. Some areas, like the
lagoon/nursery shoreline and harbor, were identified in the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo
Alto 2008), to understand how improved/enlarged culverts may affect habitat/silting of the harbor and
lagoon. Additionally, studies could be conducted to understand how restoration actions would affect
wildlife habitat in the short term, and provide insight as to the long term.
Local knowledge should be used to inform the analyses of these studies; knowledge can come from
Rangers, local naturalists, and others who are familiar with the site. The results of feasibility/technical
studies should form the basis for site planning and design, and environmental review and permitting.
Site Planning and Design
Site planning and design should be developed based on the findings of technical and feasibility studies.
The plans may include alternatives and need to include concepts for habitat restoration, hydrological
connections, and recommendations for planting palettes. Where appropriate and compatible with other
goals of the BCCP, site planning and design may also consider stormwater management features and
include recreational amenities such as trails, benches, and signage. Site planning and design should be
informed through a public and stakeholder engagement process, driven by long-term restoration goals,
and conducted in the context of required environmental review and permitting.
Environmental Review and Permitting
Restoration plans should undergo environmental review as appropriate, and any necessary permits
should be acquired before ground-disturbing activities are implemented. Plan concepts and alternatives
should be evaluated based on their ability to achieve restoration objectives, and potential impacts on
sensitive species and habitats should be avoided or minimized. Long-term gains in habitats and sensitive
species benefits should outweigh short-term impacts. Permitting complexity and cost should also be
considered during evaluation of alternatives.
Construction
Restoration activities may include construction of hydrological channels, landforms, and habitat
features. Construction may require the use the heavy machinery and work crews, and should include the
presence of environmental monitors, to ensure that permit conditions and mitigation
measures identified during environmental review are implemented. Seasonal
construction restrictions, based on permit conditions, also need to be taken into
consideration.
102 Action Plan
Climate-Smart Native Plantings
Restoration should favor climate-smart native plantings and other native species. Areas along wildlife
corridors should be planted with a wide band of diverse native plantings suitable to the site for use as
wildlife cover and refugia. Trees should be planted in areas with a freshwater source, to encourage
roosting habitat for egrets, herons, and other tree roosting or perching species. Roosting trees or
artificial features, such as perches, should not be established in the immediate vicinity of salt marsh
habitat, as they may serve as perches for predators on sensitive or protected salt marsh species such as
the salt marsh harvest mouse and California Ridgway’s rail.
Monitoring
Monitoring (as described above) should be implemented to detect problems and evaluate habitat
condition and the effectiveness of restoration actions and native plantings. Monitoring may also be
required as a permit condition and may require reporting to regulatory agencies to demonstrate
progress toward performance criteria.
Best Management Practices for Long-Term Maintenance
BMPs for long-term maintenance include the following:
Planning
Use prioritization methodology to leverage staff and volunteer time, to achieve the best possible
results of preserving and establishing functioning habitats and maximizing habitat value for wildlife.
Identify areas that are recovering naturally and “help them along” through weed management and
climate-smart native planting.
In conjunction with weed management, plant native species, appropriate for the intended habitat
type, that provide a similar ecological function to the species being removed.
Provide buffers for existing native habitats, ecological systems, and wildlife corridors, both physically
and temporally. Trees and roosting/perching structures should be planted at least 150 feet from
marsh areas to discourage predation of marsh species from raptors.
Promote stewardship of natural resources through environmental education, volunteer activities,
signage, and naturalist/Ranger programs.
To reduce overall negative impacts on natural resources, plan projects in accordance with the
mitigation hierarchy process to achieve no net loss in biodiversity. In this process, the first step is to
avoid impacts on natural resources when feasible. The second step is to reduce impacts that cannot
be avoided. If a project is unable to avoid or minimize impacts, then restoration is the next step.
Enforce regulations and City ordinances including those restrict off-leash dogs, feeding of wildlife,
and unauthorized off-trail use.
Use wildlife-compatible lighting at the lowest intensity possible while still meeting other lighting
objectives.
Keep current on best available science and regional trends, including climate-smart restoration
practices, and plan local projects in the Baylands in accordance with the most recent science and
best practices.
Coordinate all actions at the Faber-Laumeister Tract with USFWS.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 103
Monitoring
Control the spread of sudden oak death in accordance with the Best Management Practices for
Sudden Oak Death in the City of Palo Alto Open Space District Regulations (City of Palo Alto 2007).
Phytosanitary practices should be employed to prevent introducing Phytophthora spp. and other
harmful pathogens into native environments.
Keep detailed records of natural resource management actions, including environmental review and
permitting records, and monitoring efforts and results.
Develop metrics to measure the success of habitat restoration and enhancement. Implement a
restoration monitoring plan that includes active management actions. Keep records of management
actions and monitoring data.
Conduct surveys to assess the health and quality of existing habitats. Identify the locations and
conditions of existing habitats and natural systems; wildlife usage patterns; and wildlife corridors.
Monitor these parameters over time and implement adaptive management techniques to maintain
habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors.
Maintain a database of habitat and wildlife inventory data to facilitate ongoing monitoring.
Create a list of priority plant and wildlife species to survey and a protocol for surveying.
Participate in and support local, regional, statewide, and nationwide monitoring efforts, as
applicable.
Construction
Practice “good housekeeping” and pollution prevention during active projects.
If feasible, limit activities during the breeding season.
If construction activities are planned during the breeding season of common and special-status
birds, conduct a preconstruction survey of the construction zone and appropriate buffer (as
determined by a qualified biologist or published protocols) within 1 week of the onset of
construction. If breeding birds are documented, establish appropriate buffer zones around the
occupied nests, to protect the birds until the young have fledged.
Before and during construction, abide by all avoidance, minimization, conservation, and mitigation
measures required as a result of environmental review or project specific permitting.
Restore project areas, including staging areas, to pre-project conditions.
Plant or disperse native seeds in areas denuded of vegetation by unauthorized trails.
Avoid planting trees or installing perches in the immediate vicinity of salt marsh habitat
(approximately 150-feet), as they may serve as perches for predators of sensitive or protected salt
marsh species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail.
Avoid locating facilities in areas delineated as jurisdictional waters of the United States, including
wetlands; areas that qualify as waters of the state under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act of 1969; and areas subject to regulation by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife under
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Where avoidance is not feasible, such as for trail
crossings, design facilities to minimize impacts.
Determine the acreage of direct impacts (for example, fill of wetlands) and indirect
impacts (for example, alterations to wetland hydrology) that would result from
project implementation, and obtain necessary permits.
104 Action Plan
Timeline
The conservation actions detailed above will require long-term and short-term actions. Short-term
actions (1–3 years) include managing weeds, installing climate-smart native plantings, and securing
funding for long-term restoration actions. Long-term actions include conducting ongoing monitoring,
managing weeds as needed, securing long-term funding, conducting restoration design and
environmental review, constructing restoration projects, and conducting long-term monitoring as
required by permits and to track project success.
Habitat conditions, restoration priorities, and goals may change over time, and the prioritization
methodology should be applied periodically to reflect these changes. The recommended timing for
assessing conservation and restoration plans is as follows:
Annually: Apply methodology and assess the conservation and restoration priority list when
planning maintenance budgets.
Mid-term (3–5 years): Set larger goals and assess successes and challenges; recalibrate the priority
list.
Long term (lifetime of BCCP): Assess the success of overall actions in light of local and regional
trends.
Implementing Party
Volunteers
Ranger-led volunteer efforts can implement multiple conservation actions, including managing weeds,
installing climate-smart native plantings, and monitoring. Partner organizations that can provide
volunteers for these activities include Grassroots Ecology, Save the Bay, Environmental Volunteers, the
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, CNPS, and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society.
Volunteer groups may come from Scouts, companies, nonprofit organizations, schools, church groups,
or community service groups, fraternities or sororities, or through artists and artist-in-residence
projects.
Rangers
Rangers can implement weed management, climate-smart native plantings, and habitat monitoring.
Rangers also should lead volunteers in these actions. Recordkeeping of conservation and restoration
actions, habitat conditions, wildlife encounters, and monitoring data should be implemented or directed
and overseen by Rangers. In addition, Rangers should be involved in the planning of restoration projects,
and their intricate knowledge of the Baylands should be leveraged to achieve restoration goals.
City of Palo Alto
The City, particularly the Open Space, Parks & Golf Division, should lead planning, site design, securing
funding, feasibility/technical studies, and environmental review and permitting for implementation
projects. Some actions may require coordination with other City departments, including the RWQCP or
other agencies, such as the SFCJPA and SCVWD. The City also should lead larger efforts that may require
the use of heavy equipment or vegetation management crews.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 105
Partners
Technical expertise and leadership can be provided by partners, such as Save the Bay, Grassroots
Ecology, Environmental Volunteers, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, CNPS, Point Blue, the
San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), and academic institutions or other groups as appropriate.
Volunteer efforts from these organizations should be leveraged to implement weed management and
climate-smart native plantings.
Funding
Funding for conservation and restoration actions can come from various sources, including annual City
maintenance budgets, the City special projects budget, grants, and direct in-kind donations. Grants
available for conservation and restoration actions can include Proposition 1 and Proposition 68
watershed restoration grants, San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority grants, Santa Clara County mini
grants, flood mitigation assistance grants (from FEMA), California Sea grants, The Nature Conservancy
grants, and other restoration grants. Additional funding sources will likely become available over the
lifetime of the BCCP. The City and its partners could apply for grants to fund conservation and
restoration actions by identifying available funding sources and preparing and submitting proposals. The
City and its partners should develop relationships to take advantage of direct and in-kind donations from
private organizations that can be leveraged to achieve restoration goals.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan
The climate change and sea level rise assessment developed as part of the BCCP includes potential
actions that can be taken in the short term and long term to address negative impacts from climate
change and sea level rise on Baylands resources. This action plan leverages the BCCP’s climate change
and sea level rise assessment (Chapter 7) to develop a Baylands-specific prioritized list of recommended
potential actions to achieve NRM Goal 5 (Incorporate climate change and sea level rise into long-term
management and policies). The results of applying the methodology are shown in Table 8, which
identifies prioritized locations, potential actions, a timeline, potential lead implementing party, potential
partners, and potential funding sources for implementing adaptation measures. Physical and long-term
actions are speculative and have not been developed and are discussed as potential options that the
City could take. Any specific projects related to climate change and sea level rise that result from this
section would be evaluated by Council and would be evaluated further in accordance with CEQA as a
separate project from the BCCP and are only provided herein for context. Some informational strategies,
such as further studies, will help inform the details of specific physical actions that could be considered
in the future.
Prioritization Methodology
The prioritization methodology includes prioritizing actions based on key considerations including first
exposure to flooding because of sea level rise, severity of consequences, and achievability with existing
resources. Actions fall into two categories: short term, which can be implemented in the next 5 years;
and long term, which can be implemented in 5 years or longer.
As future conditions and City activities and priorities evolve, climate action priorities may change.
Therefore, the prioritization methodology should be applied periodically for appropriate allocation of
funds.
106 Action Plan
First-Priority Key Considerations:
Areas projected to experience sea level rise exposure by 24 inches of sea level rise.
Areas likely subject to high consequences (e.g., life safety, extreme flood risk, or large-scale impacts
on the area) after being exposed to future sea levels.
Areas where implementation of recommended actions is achievable with existing resources or that
already have funds allocated.
Second-Priority Key Considerations:
Areas that are projected to experience sea level rise exposure by 36 inches of sea level rise and
subject to moderate consequences as a result of exposure to future sea levels.
Areas where implementing actions will improve suitable habitat for existing native species.
Third-Priority Key Considerations:
Areas that are projected to experience flood exposure by 36 inches of sea level rise and subject to
low consequences as a result of future sea levels.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 107
Table 8. Sea Level Rise and Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan
Priority Potential Adaptation
Action Description/Rationale Location(s) Timeline
(years)
Potential Lead
Implementing
Party
Potential Partners
Potential
Funding
Sources
Short-Term Actions
First Develop monitoring programs to evaluate the impacts of sea
level rise on Baylands habitats, wildlife, operations,
and potential physical damage to Baylands assets.
Monitoring programs that track impacts because of
storms requires little investment, can be started
immediately, and provides strong evidence for areas
that require adaptation.
-Flood Control Basin
-Baylands -Baylands Region
0–5 -Rangers -RWQCP -SFCJPA -SCVWD
-Santa Clara Office of Sustainability (Silicon
Valley 2.0 project [SV 2.0]) -RWQCP
-Local universities
-SCVWD funds -Academic grants
First Identify and address data
gaps by conducting studies to
better understand flood risk
to habitats, wildlife, and
critical infrastructure in the
Baylands.
Partnering to perform
additional studies requires
little investment, can be
started immediately, and can
provide key information
about vulnerable areas that
are currently not well
understood.
-Flood Control
Basin
-Baylands
-Baylands Region
0–5 -City of Palo Alto -Local universities
-SV 2.0
-SFEI
-SFCJPA
-RWQCP
-Palo Alto Airport
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
-SCVWD funds
-Academic grants
First Collaborate with adjacent
landowners, agencies, and
organizations to find shared,
multi-objective, nature-
based, regional solutions that
can be planned and
implemented through a joint
effort.
Collaboration requires little
investment, can be started
immediately, and may
provide large-scale benefits
to multiple stakeholders.
-Baylands Region 0–5 -City of Palo Alto -Private landowners
-SFCJPA
-Local universities
-Facebook, Inc.
-Google
-SCVWD
-SV 2.0
-USFWS
-Point Blue
-Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG)
-San Francisco Bay
Conservation and
-City of Palo Alto
annual budgets
-Planning grants
108 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority Potential Adaptation
Action Description/Rationale Location(s) Timeline
(years)
Potential Lead
Implementing
Party
Potential Partners
Potential
Funding
Sources
Development Commission
(BCDC)
-City of Mountain View
-City of East Palo Alto -City of Menlo Park
-San Mateo County
-Santa Clara County
First Incorporate language about
sea level rise and flood
control measures into trail
and maintenance plans, to
provide a mechanism for
adaptation of future trail
placement and/or
preservation.
Adding climate change
language and policies
requires little investment and
may prevent costly damages
by early consideration of
future conditions.
-Baylands 0–5 -City of Palo Alto N/A -City of Palo Alto
annual budget
First Incorporate coastal flooding
scenarios into emergency
planning, to avoid flood
damage and ensure public
safety in the Baylands.
Adding climate change
language and policies
requires little investment and
may prevent costly damages
and disaster situations by
early consideration of future
conditions in emergency
planning.
-Baylands
-Baylands Region
0–5 -City of Palo Alto -SFCJPA
-ABAG
-USFWS
-City of East Palo Alto
-City of Mountain View
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
-Emergency
planning grants
First Add sea level rise language to guidance documents, to consider future sea levels early in the design process.
Adding sea level rise language and policies requires little investment and may prevent costly damages by consideration of future conditions early in project planning and design.
-Flood Control Basin -Baylands -Baylands Region -RWQCP -Palo Alto Airport
0–5 -City of Palo Alto -SCVWD -SFCJPA -California Sea Grant -City of Palo Alto annual budget
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 109
Priority Potential Adaptation
Action Description/Rationale Location(s) Timeline
(years)
Potential Lead
Implementing
Party
Potential Partners
Potential
Funding
Sources
First Develop and maintain an
asset management plan for
assets such as buildings,
roads, pump stations, and trails that includes asset-
specific information, such as
location, age, elevation,
condition, and replacement
cost, to inform long-term
planning or prioritization.
Collecting specific asset
information requires little
investment, is critical for
understanding specific future asset impacts, and provides a
co-benefit of informing
maintenance/replacement
schedules.
-Baylands
-City of Palo Alto
0–5 -City of Palo Alto -SFCJPA
-RWQCP
-Palo Alto Airport
-SCVWD
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
First Form stakeholder working
group and a technical
advisory committee to aid in
development, management,
funding, and implementation
of actions to protect Baylands
habitats, infrastructure, and wildlife.
Forming a stakeholder group
requires little investment and
is necessary to pursue
funding for future actions.
-Baylands Region 0–5 -City of Palo Alto -SFCJPA
-SFEI
-RWQCP
-Palo Alto Airport
-SCVWD
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
First Coordinate with City
departments, external
agencies, and local regulators
to use comparable sea level
rise scenarios for consistent
level of protection for
habitats, infrastructure, and
wildlife.
Coordination requires little
investment, can be started
immediately, and may be
necessary to provide
effective large-scale
protection for future
conditions.
-Flood Control
Basin
-Baylands
-Baylands Region
-RWQCP
-Palo Alto Airport
0–5 -City of Palo Alto -SCVWD
-SFCJPA
-BCDC
-California Sea
Grant
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
First Take a community approach to habitat and wildlife restoration and persistence in the Baylands.
Provides enhanced habitat for native species. -Baylands Region 0–5 -City of Palo Alto -Citizens of partner cities in the SFCJPA -Environmental Volunteers -Save the Bay -Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society -CNPS
-The Nature Conservancy -City of Palo Alto annual budget -Restoration grants
110 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority Potential Adaptation
Action Description/Rationale Location(s) Timeline
(years)
Potential Lead
Implementing
Party
Potential Partners
Potential
Funding
Sources
-Grassroots Ecology
First Replace tide gate structures
to improve the functionality
of flood retention systems.
Failure of the tide gate will
have big impacts on the
region (financially, socially,
and environmentally).
-Flood Control
Basin
3–5 -SCVWD -City of Palo Alto
-City of Mountain View
-SCVWD funds
First Implement the City’s Green
Stormwater Infrastructure
(GSI) Plan per Municipal
Regional Stormwater Permit
requirements.
The GSI Plan provides the
framework and
implementation plan for
designing projects that can
help minimize flooding and
protect stormwater quality in
the Baylands as a result of
stormwater discharge from
upstream sources.
-City of Palo Alto 0-5 -City of Palo Alto -RWQCP
-Palo Alto Airport
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
-Stormwater
Management Fee
First Install bioretention areas in the Byxbee Park parking lot. These areas will slow, capture, and filter
stormwater runoff, reducing the potential for concentrated runoff flows during storms that could cause erosion and gullying and improving stormwater runoff quality.
-Byxbee Park 0-5 -City of Palo Alto -Public Works -City of Palo Alto annual budget
Second Conduct a study of sea level
rise influence on groundwater
levels and the associated
impact of increased
liquefaction potential during
earthquakes.
Although an important
hazard to consider,
groundwater impacts on
liquefaction are poorly
understood and groundwater
data can be sparse.
Collection of the data often is
dependent on other agencies
-Baylands Region 0–5 -SFCJPA -Local universities
-ABAG
-BCDC
-SFEI
-FEMA
-USGS
-FEMA
-ABAG
-Academic grants
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 111
Priority Potential Adaptation
Action Description/Rationale Location(s) Timeline
(years)
Potential Lead
Implementing
Party
Potential Partners
Potential
Funding
Sources
(e.g., U.S. Geological Survey
[USGS]), and therefore the
timing may not be an
immediate action.
Second Perform an economic analysis
of critical assets to evaluate
the cost of protection versus
the cost of retreat or
relocation to a site less
vulnerable to coastal
flooding.
Although important for
prioritizing actions and areas
of implementation, it may be
outside Baylands existing
resources that are allocated
for flood control.
-Baylands Region 3–5 -City of Palo Alto -SFCJPA
-BCDC
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
-Planning grants
Second Establish new tree roosting
habitat for birds in areas with
a freshwater source, suitable
for supporting riparian
species to expand vulnerable
habitats.
Provides enhanced habitat
for native species.
-Matadero Creek
riparian corridor
-Adobe Creek
riparian corridor
-San Francisquito
Creek riparian
corridor
3–5 -Rangers
-City of Palo Alto
-USFWS
-California Department of
Fish and Wildlife
-Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society
-Environmental Volunteers
-Grassroots Ecology
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
-The Nature
Conservancy
-Restoration grants
Third Install signage along trails
regarding flood control and future flood challenges, to update visitors regarding
ongoing climate adaptation programs and opportunities.
Although effective in
engaging the public, outcomes from implementing will not be
critical to providing flood control.
-Flood Control
Basin -Baylands -Baylands Region
0–5 -City of Palo Alto -Local universities
-SFCJPA -Environmental Volunteers -Lucy Evans Baylands
Nature Interpretive Center
-Academic grant
-City of Palo Alto annual budget
Long-Term Actions
First Elevate critical roadways to maintain public and staff access to and within the Baylands.
Loss of critical access ways during storm events is a life safety hazard.
-Embarcadero Road -Embarcadero Way 20 -City of Palo Alto -SFCJPA -California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
-San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (SFBRA) -State of California -Federal Highway Administration
112 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority Potential Adaptation
Action Description/Rationale Location(s) Timeline
(years)
Potential Lead
Implementing
Party
Potential Partners
Potential
Funding
Sources
First Establish horizontal levees
and tidal marshes to provide
regional flood control that
expands marsh habitat.
A loss of flood control will
have big impacts on the
region (financially,
environmentally, and socially). Also, horizontal
levees provide higher quality
habitat and co-benefits than
traditional levees or sea
walls.
-Flood Control
Basin
-RWQCP
-Baylands Region
10–20 -SFCJPA
-City of Palo Alto
-Facebook, Inc.
-Google
-Palo Alto Airport
-BCDC -U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE)
-SCVWD
-State of California
-USFWS
-SFBRA
-SFCJPA Cities -Private sector
(e.g., Facebook,
Inc.)
-Caltrans
First Upgrade current pedestrian
paths to be used as
alternative, emergency
evacuation routes during
flood events.
Loss of critical access ways
during storm events is a life
safety hazard.
-Adobe Creek Loop
Trail
10 -City of Palo Alto -SFCJPA -City of Palo Alto
annual budget
First Introduce pumps at the Flood
Control Basin–Bay interface
to efficiently discharge stored
floodwater. As sea level rises,
gravity flow will no longer be
sufficient to discharge stored
floodwater and it will need to
be pumped against high tide.
A loss of flood control will
have big impacts on the
region (financially,
environmentally, and
socially).
-Flood Control
Basin
10–20 -SCVWD -City of Palo Alto
-City of Mountain View
-State of California
-USFWS
-SFBRA
-SFCJPA cities
-Private sector
(e.g., Facebook,
Inc.)
-Caltrans
First Modify the elevations of levee walls. A loss of flood control will have big impacts on the region (financially, environmentally, and socially).
-Flood Control Basin -Baylands Region
10–20 -SCVWD -SFCJPA -City of Palo Alto -City of Mountain View -BCDC -USACE
-State of California -USFWS -SFBRA -SFCJPA cities -Private sector (e.g., Facebook, Inc., Google) -Caltrans
Second Install climate-smart native
plantings, consistent with
Provides enhanced habitat
for native species.
-Baylands 5–10 -Rangers
-Volunteers
-Environmental Volunteers
-Save the Bay
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 113
Priority Potential Adaptation
Action Description/Rationale Location(s) Timeline
(years)
Potential Lead
Implementing
Party
Potential Partners
Potential
Funding
Sources
Silicon Valley 2.0 adaptation
strategy, to promote
vegetation, with a wider
climate tolerance zone.
-Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society
-CNPS
-Grassroots Ecology
-The Nature
Conservancy
-Restoration grants
Second Flood-proof nonrecreational
facilities to prevent damage
from temporary flood
conditions.
Although it is important to
flood-proof facilities to
ensure business continuity
during storm events, the
action may be outside the
existing Baylands budget.
Nonrecreational assets also
are not affected until a 36-
inch sea level rise scenario,
allowing more time for
implementation.
-Palo Alto Airport
-RWQCP
-Save the Bay
nursery
-Baylands Ranger
Station
10 -City of Palo Alto -Palo Alto Airport
-RWQCP
-SFCJPA
-Federal Aviation
Administration
-Transportation
Research Board
-City of Palo Alto
annual budget
-Adaptation grants
Second Construct tidal marsh
transition zones, consistent
with USFWS’s Tidal Marsh
Recovery Plan, to enhance
the habitat of threatened
species vulnerable to sea
level rise.
Will provide enhanced
habitat for native species to
migrate as sea levels rise.
-Baylands 10 -City of Palo Alto -SFCJPA
-USFWS
-SFEI
-USFWS
-The Nature
Conservancy
-Restoration grants
-Adaptation grants
Second Add backup power with fuel for several days for on-site nonrecreational facilities, to minimize interruptions to critical assets.
Although it is important to provide backup power to ensure business continuity during storm events, the action may be outside the existing Baylands budget. Nonrecreational assets also are not affected until a 36-inch sea level rise scenario, allowing more time for implementation.
-Palo Alto Airport -RWQCP -Save the Bay nursery -Baylands Ranger Station -Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center
10 -City of Palo Alto -Palo Alto Airport -RWQCP -SFCJPA
-City of Palo Alto annual budget
114 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority Potential Adaptation
Action Description/Rationale Location(s) Timeline
(years)
Potential Lead
Implementing
Party
Potential Partners
Potential
Funding
Sources
Second Explore the feasibility of
expanding the flood
retention capacity area by
connecting with other basins or marshland, such as Emily
Renzel Wetlands (as
mentioned in Palo Alto Flood
Control Basin Hydrology
[SCVWD 2016]).
Will provide enhanced
habitat for native species and
increased flood basin
capacity.
-Flood Control
Basin
-Emily Renzel
Wetlands
10–20 -SCVWD -City of Palo Alto
-City of Mountain View
-State of California
-USFWS
-SFBRA
-SFCJPA Cities Authority Cities
-Private Sector
(e.g., Facebook,
Inc.)
-Caltrans
Third Elevate low-lying trails to maintain access during high-water events.
Trails are not exposed until a 36-inch sea level rise scenario, allowing more time for implementation. Temporary loss of trail use will not have big impacts on the region.
-Adobe Creek Loop Trail 10–15 -City of Palo Alto -SFCJPA -City of Palo Alto annual budget
Third Relocate, elevate, or adapt
interpretive signage and
public art, as necessary.
Although it is important to
adapt local artwork and
signage, exposure to flooding
will not cause big impacts on
the region.
-Baylands region 20 -City of Palo Alto -Palo Alto Public Art
Program
-Palo Alto Public
Art Program
Third Relocate low-lying trails that
experience frequent flooding.
Although it is important to
coordinate retreat strategies,
trail exposure to frequent
flooding will not cause big
impacts on the region.
-Adobe Creek Loop
Trail
20–30 -City of Palo Alto N/A -City of Palo Alto
annual budget
-Adaptation grants
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 115
Actions with Co-Benefits
Many of the proposed actions have other positive effects, or co-benefits, on other aspects of
management of the Baylands and implementation of the BCCP. Taking co-benefits into account
demonstrates that actions can not only pay off in the long term, but can also have immediate effects. By
serving multiple purposes, co-benefits can also offset the cost of climate change and sea level rise
adaptation. Table 9 shows several examples of co-benefits for proposed actions.
Table 9 Adaptation Actions with Co-benefits
Action Co-Benefit
Short-Term Actions
Conduct study for sea level rise influence on groundwater
levels and the associated impact of increased liquefaction
potential during earthquakes.
Understanding sea level rise influence on groundwater levels
will also inform the vulnerability of underground
infrastructure such as utilities. Understanding groundwater
will also inform appropriate species selection for long-term
restoration planting success.
Develop and maintain an asset management plan that
includes asset-specific information such as location, age,
elevation, condition, and replacement cost to inform long-term planning or prioritization.
More thorough understanding and record of existing assets
and component conditions.
Take a community approach to habitat and wildlife
restoration and persistence at the Baylands,
Community involvement will foster a sense of ownership
and support for adaptation actions within the Baylands.
Replace tide gate structure to improve functionality of flood retention system. The tide gate can also serve as a barrier between Bay tides and low-lying developed areas upstream during high tide events.
Enhance tree roosting habitat for birds in areas with a
freshwater source suitable of supporting riparian species to
expand vulnerable habitats.
Enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities.
Action Co-Benefit
Long-Term Action
Implement climate-smart restoration plantings, consistent with the Silicon Valley 2.0 adaptation strategy, to promote vegetation with a wider climate tolerance zone.
Enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities.
Construct tidal marsh transition zones consistent with
USFWS’s Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan to enhance the habitat
of threatened species vulnerable to sea level rise.
Enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities.
Horizontal levees and tidal marshes to provide regional flood control that expands marsh habitat. Preservation of existing marsh ecosystems and recreation opportunities at the Baylands.
Expand flood retention capacity area by connecting with
other basins.
Expansion of existing marsh ecosystem habitat and
recreational opportunities.
Introduce pumps to efficiently discharge floodwaters. Preservation of existing marsh ecosystems and recreation
opportunities inside Flood Control Basin area.
Modify elevation of levee walls. Preservation of existing marsh ecosystems and recreation
opportunities at the Baylands.
Elevate critical roadways to maintain public and staff access
to and within the Baylands.
Elevation of Embarcadero Road could be tied in with
regional flood control strategy.
Relocate low-lying trails that experience frequent flooding. Former trail alignments can be converted to transitional
marsh habitat.
Partners
Regional partnerships are necessary for the long-term resilience of the Baylands to
impacts from climate change and sea level rise. Regional partnerships allow
116 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
information sharing, planning, and advocacy between groups and stakeholders. Coordinating flood
control efforts also can lead to larger regional resiliency options and provide a more effective advocacy
voice than that of an individual city or department. Partners may include federal, state, and local
governmental agencies that have a large-scale perspective of standards and resources for flood control
and how it is applicable to the local area; local universities and research organizations that have the
capabilities to complete additional studies or fill data gaps; nonprofit organizations that have interest of
habitat and species; or the private sector (e.g., Facebook and Google), which also may be exposed to
flooding during the same planning time frame as Baylands and may be able to offer additional
information, support, and/or funding potential.
Funding
To maintain safety and operations of the Baylands during future climate conditions, the City will be
challenged to identify and have access to capital for project development, such as the actions identified
in this plan.
Funding for climate adaptation actions can come from a variety of sources, including federal grants,
annual city maintenance budgets, the City special projects budget, direct in-kind donations, and other
grants. Grants available for climate adaptation include those from SFBRA, Santa Clara County (mini
grants), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (coastal resilience grants), FEMA (flood
mitigation assistance grants), the State of California (sea grant), California Coastal Conservancy, USACE,
and The Nature Conservancy. Private businesses (e.g., Facebook and Google) will be vulnerable to
flooding at the same time as the Baylands and may provide an additional source of funding to complete
a regional approach to flood control. Direct and in-kind donations from private organizations can be
leveraged to achieve adaptation goals or protect vulnerable public art.
Timing
Climate adaptation actions (as detailed above) will require implementation in the long term and short
term. Short-term actions (1–5 years) will include incorporating sea level rise language into planning and
design documents, addressing data gaps, acquiring funding for future action implementation, replacing
tide gate structures, expanding suitable habitat areas, and collaborating with neighboring stakeholders.
Long-term actions will include flood-proofing and elevating vulnerable assets, constructing tidal marsh
zones, placing large-scale flood control components (e.g., horizontal levees, expanding flood retention
capacity, and elevating existing levees), elevating roadways, and introducing pumps to efficiently
discharge water from the Flood Control Basin.
As future conditions and Baylands activities evolve, they may affect climate action priorities. Therefore,
the prioritization methodology should be applied periodically for appropriate allocation of funds.
Recommended timing for assessing climate adaptation action plans is as follows:
Annually: Assess the prioritized list when planning for maintenance and capital improvement budgets.
Mid-term (3–5 years): Set larger goals and assess successes and challenges; recalibrate the priority list.
Long term (lifetime of BCCP): Assess the success of overall actions in light of local and regional trends
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 117
8.3 Public Access and Facilities
Best Management Practices
BMPs are practices, guidelines, methods, or techniques that are effective and practical means of
achieving goals and objectives. BMPs were developed for each Public Access and Facilities planning goal
listed below. The BMPs were developed from a range of sources: prior plans, stakeholder input,
research, and review of BMPs applied by leaders in the field of integrated resource planning.
Recreation/Access
PAF Goal 1: Provide opportunities for recreation/access via a habitat-compatible trail network to
enable wildlife observation and ensure that future generations develop an appreciation for wildlife,
natural habitats, wildlife-compatible recreational activities, and connections to the greater Palo Alto
area.
PAF BMP 1.1. Locate visitor-serving facilities in previously disturbed areas or areas of relatively low
resource value to minimize disturbance to higher value habitat areas. Avoid fragmentation of higher
value habitat areas when planning access.
PAF BMP 1.2. Coordinate with partners and adjoining landowners to create a consistent network of
recreational options. Ensure that recreation opportunities support the San Francisco Bay Trail and
San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan goals of providing access around the entire bay.
PAF BMP 1.3. Allow uses such as hiking and picnicking in areas that are attractive for such uses and
where such activities would not conflict with wildlife habitat.
PAF Goal 2: Provide appropriate facilities for visitors to the Baylands.
PAF BMP 2.1. Maintain existing facilities and trails.
PAF BMP 2.2. Assess facilities and trail use on an annual basis, and develop additional management
and monitoring guidelines as needed to maintain or enhance visitor-serving facilities.
PAF BMP 2.3. Locate facilities to allow for safe, effective, and efficient visitor use.
PAF BMP 2.4. Incorporate universal access standards.
PAF BMP 2.5. When planning to develop new facilities, consider the need for maintenance and
public safety personnel, equipment, communications, and emergency vehicle access.
PAB BMP 2.6. Improve recreation waste management to limit access of food waste by wildlife.
Former Los Altos Treatment Plant
PAF Goal 3: Identify alternatives for land uses at the former Los Altos Treatment Plant site.
PAF BMP 3.1. Obtain funding for the development of alternatives use concepts as part of a
comprehensive planning process.
PAF BMP 3.2. Assess the feasibility of potential land use alternatives.
PAF BMP 3.3. Conduct outreach with City staff, the public, and stakeholders to gather input and
buy-in for potential land uses for the site.
Palo Alto Airport
PAF Goal 4: Promote ecologically sensitive policies for areas at and near the Palo Alto
Airport.
118 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
PAF BMP 4.1. Explore the feasibility of low-impact wildlife control actions, including determining the
timing of vegetation management.
PAF BMP 4.2. Explore mutually beneficial opportunities with the airport.
PAF BMP 4.3. Coordinate with partners to identify funding sources for infrastructure protection
from climate change and sea level rise.
PAF BMP 4.4. Trails and public access near the airport should be maintained.
8.4 Public Engagement
Interpretive Messaging Plan
Multiple designs for interpretive messaging currently exist in the Baylands. Regional trails, such as the
Bay Trail, require their own sets of signage and messaging. This plan is intended to be used as a
reference guide when planning or proposing future interpretive messaging and signage. This plan
compiles and presents guidance that was developed as part of the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park
Concept Plan (City of Palo Alto 2015), the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Signage Plan
(City of Palo Alto 2017b), and the concepts for the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands and the
Byxbee Park Design Plan in this BCCP. This plan includes guidelines developed through the BCCP
stakeholder engagement process and identified in the opportunities and challenges analysis conducted
during development of the BCCP.
Existing Interpretive Messaging
Interpretive messaging in the Baylands includes messaging about management activities and natural,
cultural, and historical features of the preserve. The Design Guidelines for the Palo Alto Baylands Nature
Preserve (City of Palo Alto 2005) were aimed to create a unifying theme of style and messaging within
the Baylands; however, multiple designs exist for signage and panels (Figure 15).
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 119
Proposed Interpretive Messaging
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Signage Plan
The Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Signage Plan (City of Palo Alto 2017b) presents
guidance for signage and messaging over a 2-mile trail, from the Sailing Station to Cooley Landing,
including the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center deck and boardwalk, and two public art
interpretive elements. Proposed interpretive messages include historic, cultural, infrastructure, natural
history, conservation, and land-use information to appeal to different user groups including children,
adults, casual users, and daily visitors. The plan includes conceptual examples of messaging themes and
signs, guided by the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve
(City of Palo Alto 2005) and the Smithsonian Guidelines for Accessible Exhibition Design (Smithsonian
2019). Figure 16 shows the locations of existing and proposed interpretive messaging throughout the
Baylands.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concept Plan
The Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concept Plan (City of Palo Alto 2015) includes
concepts for park entry signage, park interpretive signs, trail marker signs, and park
regulation signs. The interpretive signs are intended to be used as a tool to educate
Figure 15. Examples of Existing Interpretive Panels at the Baylands.
120 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
visitors about historic features, management activities, and unique natural, cultural, and historic
features of the park. Instructional signage is recommended to denote sensitive wildlife areas, along the
edge of pathways near nesting habitat.
Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
Four interpretive signs are proposed for the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands at the junctions
of proposed and existing trails. Proposed signage would focus on wetland ecology and restoration and
could include information regarding the former use of the site as a ship-to-shore communications hub.
Recommendations and Best Management Practices
The following sections present recommendations and BMPs for interpretive messaging at the Baylands.
The intended audience for messaging as the Baylands includes casual and daily visitors, children, and
adults.
Messaging
Messaging should fit with current relevant science, and themes should focus on the Baylands’
natural processes, cultural history, and its future, including climate change and sea level rise.
Potential future messaging could include information related to proposed actions and projects at
the Baylands, including restoration at the former ITT Property, closing of the landfill and clay cap at
Byxbee Park, stormwater management through green stormwater infrastructure, or protection of
the RWQCP from sea level rise.
Messaging should be consistent, identifiable, understandable, and current, using cutting-edge
education and information methods.
Messaging opportunities should be discussed across multiple City departments and with all partners.
Future messaging should build on existing resources and use new tools to appeal to a broader
audience, such as alternatives to signage, including online messaging, educational apps, or a mobile
interpretive trail guide.
Messaging regarding natural resources could be reinforced through encouraging bio blitzes and
naturalist apps.
Graphic design of interpretive panels should follow the Design Guidelines for the Palo Alto Baylands
Nature Preserve (City of Palo Alto 2005).
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
SanFranciscoBay
M
a
y
f
i
e
ldSlough
M a t a d e r o C a nal
San
F
rancisq
uito
C
re
e
k
Dry Cre
ek
W
Bayshore
Rd
Middlefield
Rd
B ay R d
Louis
Rd
Oregon
Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulgas
Ave
Loma
Verde
Ave
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ActionPlan\Fig16_Existing_Proposed_Interpretive_Signage.mxd
FIGURE 16Existing and ProposedInterpretive Signage
#*Existing Interpretive Sign
#*Proposed Interpretive SignProject Boundary
0 0.5
Mile
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Aerial Imagery: Esri, 2018
122 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Best Management Practices
Signage should be appropriately spaced to avoid a “sign forest” and minimize obstacles for trailside
maintenance mowing.
Signage and art in previously disturbed areas or in areas of relatively low resource value should be
located to minimize disturbance to higher value habitat areas.
Signage that that can attract pest species or be hazardous or harmful to wildlife should be avoided.
Installation of signage near sensitive habitats during the bird breeding season should be avoided.
Existing signage throughout the Baylands should be replaced as the signs reach the end of their
useful lives.
Coordination should be conducted with USFWS for signage at the Faber-Laumeister Tract.
Technical guidance for potential future signage should follow National Park Service standards for
signage (NPS 2009). Multilingual, accessible signage should be developed to reflect visitor diversity
while explaining and describing the Baylands’ natural and cultural history and its future.
Panel Materials
The Design Guidelines for the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (City of Palo Alto 2005) include a
recommended style for interpretive panel frames and bases, made from redwood and plywood. Since
2005, such panels have been used throughout the Baylands and their maintenance has been difficult.
The wood components require a new coat of paint nearly every year, are easily vandalized, and are
difficult to repair or replace. Replacement materials are difficult to source, thus leading to different
styles of panel bases throughout the Baylands (Figure 15).
New or replacement panels, bases, and frames should follow National Park Service standards (NPS
2009), which are consistent with panels located in other parks in Palo Alto. This style of panel generally
is made of commercial-grade aluminum, is graffiti resistant, has low maintenance and repair needs, and
is easy to replace (Figure 15). This type of panel can be used for wayfinding, information, orientation,
and interpretive signage throughout the Baylands.
Partners
Potential partners for developing interpretive and educational messaging include the Lucy Evans
Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, Cooley Landing, Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge, RWQCP, BCDC, the
Bay Trail, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Grassroots Ecology, Palo Alto Airport, Palo Alto History
Museum, Palo Alto Historical Society, Palo Alto Amateur Radio Club, local universities, and
Environmental Volunteers. Partners could provide technical expertise and historical and ecological
information. Partners could also develop online messaging, educational apps, or mobile interpretive trail
guides.
Funding
Funding for interpretive messaging can come from City budgets or from private or in-kind donations,
particularly for online and mobile messaging. In addition, funding can come from stand-alone grants
from the California Department of Parks and Recreation, BCDC, and others. Funding also can be secured
as part of larger restoration or adaptation projects in the Baylands.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 123
8.5 Public Art
Public Art Master Plan
The public art plan builds on the City of Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2016a) and
advances BCCP Public Art Goal 1 (Include appropriate environmental art in the Baylands that builds on
Palo Alto’s Public Art Master Plan) by identifying potential themes and locations for temporary and
permanent public art in the Baylands. The plan is intended to be used as a guide when planning future
public art opportunities and includes guidance and BMPs for art in the Baylands.
Locations and themes for potential future art were identified through the BCCP stakeholder
engagement process; areas identified in the Opportunities Analysis report of the BCCP; Public Art at the
Baylands: An Overlay to the Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 2019 (Art Overlay;
Appendix B); the City of Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan; and the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature
Interpretive Center Signage Plan (City of Palo Alto 2017b).
The Public Art Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2016a) called for the Embarcadero Road corridor to have its
own art plan. Funding for public art along this corridor would likely come from a public art requirement
as part of commercial redevelopment. Instead of commissioning the installation of individual works of
public art on their property, developers may choose to pay the equivalent amount to the Public Art
Fund. These in-lieu funds may be pooled from several projects to fund public artworks managed by Palo
Alto Public Art. These funds are separate from Open Space, Parks & Golf Division budgets. This public art
plan and the Art Overlay seek to incentivize developers to contribute to projects that seek to promote
the natural characteristics of the Baylands, emphasize ecological and environmental themes, and
minimize disturbances to natural areas of the Baylands.
Existing Art in the Baylands
Art is an important part of the Baylands, and 10 pieces currently are installed (Figure 17). Table 10
describes the types and locations of existing art in the Baylands, at Byxbee Park, the Palo Alto Municipal
Golf Course, and along Embarcadero Road, which is generally are considered to be a “gateway” to the
Baylands.
Table 10. Existing Art Installations in the Baylands
Piece Name
(year)
Artist(s) Name Location Art Type
Birdie
(2017)
Joyce Hsu Municipal Golf Course -Sculpture
-Permanent
Bliss in the Moment (2010) James Moore Flood Control Basin Trailhead (3633 E. Bayshore Road) -Sculpture -Permanent
Chevrons
(1991)
Peter Richards
Michael Oppenheimer
Byxbee Park -Sculpture
-Permanent
Currents (2014) Martin Webb RWQCP -Mural -Permanent
124 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Piece Name
(year)
Artist(s) Name Location Art Type
Foraging Island
(2018)
Mary O’Brien
Daniel McCormick
Byxbee Park -Remedial Sculpture
-Temporary
Kaikoo V
(1990)
Betty Gold Municipal Golf Course
(1875 Embarcadero Road)
-Sculpture
-Permanent
Pole Field
(1991)
Peter Richards
Michael Oppenheimer
Byxbee Park -Sculpture
-Permanent
Riding the Current
(2014)
Martin Webb Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant -Sculpture
-Permanent
Streaming
(2009)
Ceevah Sobel 2027 E. Bayshore Road Pump Station -Sculpture
-Permanent
Windwave
(1991)
Peter Richards
Michael Oppenheimer
Byxbee Park -Sculpture
-Permanent
Source: City of Palo Alto 2016a; data compiled by AECOM in 2018
James Moore
Bliss in the Moment, 2010
Peter Richards and Michael Oppenheimer
Windwave, 1991
Daniel McCormick and Mary O’Brien
Foraging Island, 2018
Ceevah Sobel
Streaming, 1991
Martin Web
Riding the Currents, 2014
Joyce Hsu
Birdie, 2017
Betty Gold
Kaikoo V, 1990
Martin Webb
Currents, 2014
Peter Richards and Michael Oppenheimer
Chervons, 1991
Peter Richards and Michael Oppenheimer
Pole Field, 1991
San
Francisco
Bay
M
a
y
f
i
e
ld
Slou
gh
M a t a d e r o C a n al
MtnViewSlough
D r y C re
ek
S
t
e r li n g
C a n a l
San
Francisquit
oCreek
W
B
a
y
shore
R
d
E m b a r c a d e r o R d
Lo
u
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
Exp
y
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Pu
l
g
a
s
A
v
e
101
AECOM Oakland CA 12/10/2018 USERcaitlin.jensen PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ActionPlan\Fig2_Art_Installations_Base.mxd
Existing Art Installations
Permanently Installed Public Art
Proposed Public Art
Project Boundary
DRAFT
0 0.5
Mile
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Bliss in the Moment, Kaikoo V, Pole Field,and Streaming images: Camera Club
Aerial Imagery: Esri, 2018
FIGURE 17
126 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Baylands Art Overlay
The Art Overlay, developed by Mary O’Brien and Daniel McCormick, provides recommendations for
themes and identifies appropriate sites for public art that are ecologically and/or educationally
beneficial, and that minimize disturbance to natural areas in the Baylands. The Art Overlay identifies
opportunities for ecological, environmental, and social practice art and provides guidance on how the
Baylands can become an area for artworks, performances, and events that complement conservation
efforts at the Baylands. Recommendations from the Art Overlay are presented in the following sections.
Appendix B provides the full Art Overlay.
Potential Future Art in the Baylands
Locations and Types of Potential Future Art in the Baylands
Table 11 shows locations for and types of potential future art in the Baylands. This includes locations
and types of art identified in the Art Overlay, the Public Art Master Plan, the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature
Interpretive Center Plan, and the Opportunities Analysis section of the BCCP, and developed through the
stakeholder engagement process. Figure 18 shows locations for potential future art and artworks in the
Baylands. The entire Embarcadero Road corridor has been identified previously in the Public Art Master
Plan as a potential location for public art integration and art-related activities. Art and art-related
activities east of Embarcadero Way should blend with or enhance the natural landscape, be sensitive to
existing wildlife habitats and corridors, and consider the environment and ecology of the Baylands.
Guidelines and BMPs for Potential Future Art in the Baylands
Public art in the Baylands should enhance and blend with the natural landscape and environmental
messaging of parks and open space, and should promote environmental stewardship and
sustainability.
Artwork and art-related activities should minimize disturbance to higher value habitat areas.
Artwork and art-related activities that may attract pest species or be hazardous or harmful to
wildlife should be avoided and should not include materials that can potentially be hazardous, or
that can create roosting (perching) habitat for predator species. Upward lighting and performing
arts that amplify sound should be avoided.
Community members are engaged and volunteerism is high in the Baylands, and they should be
leveraged to participate in creating and viewing artistic displays, and participating in art-related
activities.
Coordination with USFWS should occur for artwork and art-related activities at the Faber-
Laumeister Tract.
Art-related activities and installation of artworks should be avoided during the bird breeding season,
near sensitive habitats, or near critical wildlife corridors.
Action Plan 127
Table 11. Locations for and Types of Potential Future Public Art in the Baylands
Location
Type
Permanent Temporary Performing Art 3D (i.e., sculpture) 2D (i.e., mural) Educational Experiential/ Interactive Environmental Ecological Social Practice
Adobe Creek Bridge X X X X X X X
Friendship Bridge Project X X X X X X X
Byxbee Park X X X X X X X X
Embarcadero Road
Corridor (U.S. Highway
101 to Embarcadero Way)
X X X X X X X
Regional Water Quality
Control Plant X X X X X X X X X
Developed Areas (i.e.,
trails, benches) X X X X X X X X X X
Ranger Station Picnic
Area X X X X X X X X X X
Roads and Road Shoulders X X X X X X X X X X
Observation Decks X X X X X X X X X X
Parking Lots X X X X X X X X X X
Entrances to the Baylands
(vehicle, bike, pedestrian) X X X X X X X X X
Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station and Parking Lot X X X X X X X X X
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center and Boardwalk X X X X X X X
Cooley Landing X X X X X X X X
Environmental Volunteers
EcoCenter X X X X X X
Sources: City of Palo Alto 2016a, 2017b; data compiled by AECOM in 2018
SanFranciscoBay
M
a
y
f
i
e
ldSlou
gh
M a t a d e r o C a nal
S
a
n
Francisquit
o
C
r
e
e
k
G
e
n
g
R
d
MtnViewSlough
Dry Cre
ek
Adobe Creek Bridge
Byxbee ParkRegionalWater QualityControl Plant
Vehicle Entranceto Baylands
EnvironmentalVolunteersEcoCenter
Ranger Station Picnic Area
Sailing Station
Lucy Evans Nature Centerand Boardwalk
FriendshipBridge Project
Cooley Landing
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
O B rin eL n
L a u r a L n EmbarcaderoWa yFaber Pl
Driveway
Embarcadero Way
Em
barcadero Rd
W
Bayshore
Rd
Middlefield
Rd
B ay R d
Louis
Rd
Oregon
Expy
Colorado Ave
Lo ma
Verde
Ave
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ActionPlan\Fig18_Potential_Art_Installations.mxd
FIGURE 18Locations for Potential FuturePublic Art
Parking LotObservation DeckRoadsPotential Public Art LocationProject Boundary
0 0.5
Mile
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Bliss in the Moment, Kaikoo V, Pole Field,andStreaming images: Camera ClubAerial Imagery: Esri, 2018
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 129
8.6 Operations and Management
Weed Management Plan
Habitat conversion and nonnative invasive plant species are among the leading causes of native
biodiversity loss (Vitousek et al. 1996). Nonnative invasive plant species spread quickly, displace native
plants, prevent native plant growth, and create monocultures. The change in native biodiversity affects
the structure, quality, and quantity of wildlife habitat, and sometimes hydrology. The weed
management plan achieves BCCP NRM Goals 1, 2, and 3, and Operations and Management Goal 3
(Reduce the extent of invasive species in the Baylands) by identifying and prioritizing weeds for
management to protect existing habitats, enhancing degraded habitats, and promoting native species
biodiversity.
The plan includes a list of weed species, including native and nonnative invasive species, known to be
present in the Baylands, prioritized for management based on their threats to habitat and wildlife. The
plan includes a prioritization methodology based on based the ecological threat of the species. The
prioritization methodology should be applied periodically as conditions change and new weeds are
discovered in the Baylands. This weed management plan provides descriptions of actions, timing,
implementing parties, potential partners, and potential funding sources for weed management. The
plan also provides technical guidance and recommendations for weed management and pest
prevention.
Weed Management Goals
Reduce existing weed infestations that degrade habitat and habitat functions that support wildlife.
Prevent new weed infestations.
Treat incipient weed infestations.
Monitor weed infestations to track long-term effectiveness and adapt management actions.
Existing Weed Species
Table 12 lists weed species known to occur, and requiring management in the Baylands, organized by
vegetation communities/habitat types and location. Weed species in the Baylands include nonnative
invasive species, and species that are native in origin but grow in a way that is of concern to the specific
site. Such species include a monotypic stand of Phragmites australis in the Flood Control Basin, and
coyote brush in Byxbee Park, where concern exists that the deep taproot can compromise the safety of
the clay landfill cap. Coyote brush is not considered a species of concern in other parts of the Baylands.
Management Priorities
This section describes a methodology for prioritizing species for management that should be applied
periodically to reevaluate management priorities. Table 12 shows the results of applying the
methodology for known nonnative invasive species and nuisance species that are native in the Baylands,
to produce a prioritized management list.
Prioritization Methodology
Key considerations for weed management priorities are based on the ecological threat of the species,
the combined impact of multiple species in an area, and the management priority given to the
management area in the conservation and restoration plan. The ecological threat of the
species is evaluated using California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) inventory rankings,
local and regional knowledge, and severity of the population (Cal-IPC 2016). Thus, a
species may not have the same priority in all management areas.
130 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
Priority should be given to new weed species that arrive at the Baylands, because new small
populations, or incipient populations, are easier to eradicate to prevent a larger problem. Priority also
may be warranted for any weed population that is, or becomes, a large monotypic stand that excludes
native species or alters the hydrology of the system.
First-Priority Key Considerations:
Species that pose the greatest ecological threat to the habitat they inhabit, including those with a
high Cal-IPC ranking.
Species that are located near vector conduits, such as trails.
Species for which management is feasible without large-scale habitat alterations, or large-scale use
of herbicide.
Second-Priority Key Considerations:
Species that pose a lower ecological threat to the habitat, including those with a lower Cal-IPC
ranking, those having a smaller population with a higher ranking, or species in a habitat that
naturally limits the spread through resource or microsite limitation (e.g., a species that thrives in
wetland conditions, growing in an upland habitat).
Third-Priority Key Considerations:
Species with a low severity ranking from Cal-IPC and located in areas that also have a lower priority
for conservation actions.
Species that are very difficult to manage because of the complexity of their growth habitats.
The weed management prioritization methodology is in alignment with the conservation and restoration
plan area priorities, meaning that the priority levels of the conservation and restoration areas have been
taken into consideration when assigning the weed management priority.
Management Priority List
Table 12 shows the results of applying the methodology described in the previous section, based on
current Baylands data compiled from field visits and City and stakeholder input. Table 12 shows the
priority of each species per management area, and Figures 19a, 19b, and 19c show the weed
management priorities by season and management area, to provide a usable tool for weed
management staff. This priority list is a baseline assessment and should be reevaluated regularly.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 131
Table 12. Priority Rating and Locations of Weeds
Species Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating
Mixed Tidal Salt
Marsh Nonnative Annual Grassland Muted Salt
Marsh Riparian Brackish
Wetland
Trail
System
Faber-
Laumeister
Tract
Lagoon
Shoreline
Inner Harbor
Southwest
Shoreline
Byxbee
Park Flood Basin Adobe
Creek
San
Francisquito
Creek
Unnamed
Slough
Acacia spp. acacia - 3
Arundo donax giant reed High 1
Baccharis pilularis* coyote brush - 1
Brassica spp. wild mustard Limited–
Moderate
1 3
Carpobrotus chilensis sea fig; ice plant Moderate 1 2
Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle High 1
Cirsium vulgare,
Carduus
pycnocephalus
thistles Moderate 1 3
Cortaderia sellanoa
(or C. jubata)
pampas grass;
jubata grass
High 1
Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort Moderate 1 2 1
Eucalyptus spp. eucalyptus Limited–
Moderate
3 3
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass Moderate 2 1
Foeniculum vulgare fennel High 1 2
Genista monspessulana French broom High 1
Lepidium latifolium perennial
pepperweed
High 1 2 2 2 2
Malva spp. mallow - 3
Phragmites
australis*
common reed - 3
Salsola tragus Russian thistle Limited 2 1 3 3
Spartina alterniflora smooth cordgrass High 2 2
*Indicates species that are native in origin but growing in a way that is of concern to the specific site.
Sources: Anderson, pers. comm., 2018; Calflora 2016; Cal-IPC 2016; data compiled by AECOM in 2018.
SanFranciscoBay
M
a
y
f
i
e
ldSlough
M a t a d e r o C a nal
San Francisquito Creek Trail(fennel, perennial pepperweed)
Adobe Creek Loop Trail(fennel, pampas grass)
San
F
rancisq
uito
C
re
e
k
Dry Cre
ek
Unnamed Slough(perennial pepperweed)
Palo Alto FloodControl Basin(common reed)
Byxbee Park(perennial pepperweed)
Lagoon Area(fennel, spartina)
Lower San Francisquito Creek(perennial pepperweed)
Adobe Creek(giant reed)
Faber-Laumeister Tract(perennial pepperweed)
E
Bayshore Rd
E m b a r c a d ero
R d
Middlefield
Rd
B ay R d
Louis
Rd
Oregon
Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulgas
Ave
Loma
Verde
Ave
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ActionPlan\Fig19a_SWM_Winter.mxd
FIGURE 19aSeasonal Weed Management Map(Winter)
Weed Management ImportanceHighMediumLow
0 0.5
Mile
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Aerial Imagery: Esri, 2018
San Francisquito Creek Trail(thistles, wild mustard, mallow)
Adobe Creek Loop Trails(wild mustard, sea fig/ice plant)
San
Francisq
uito
C
r
eek
M a t a d e r o C a nal
M
a
yf
i
e
ldSlou
gh
Dry Cre
ek
Inner Harbor SW Shoreline(wild mustard, thistles)
Unnamed Slough(perennial pepperweed)
Palo Alto Flood Control Basin(Russian thistle, common reed)
Byxbee Park(coyote bush, Italian rye grass, French broom,perennial pepperweed, Russian thistle)
Lower San Francisquito Creek(perennial pepperweed, Russian thistle)
Adobe Creek(acacia)
Faber-Laumeister Tract(perennial pepperweed, sea fig/ice plant, Russian thistle)
E
Bayshore Rd
Middlefield
Rd
W
Bayshore
Rd
E m b a r c a d ero
Rd
B a y R d
Louis
Rd
Oregon
Expy
Colorado Ave
Loma
Verde
Ave
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ActionPlan\Fig19b_SWM_Spring.mxd
Weed Management ImportanceHighMediumLow
0 0.5
Mile
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Aerial Imagery: Esri, 2018
FIGURE 19bSeasonal Weed Management Map(Spring)
SanFranciscoBay
San Francisquito Creek Trail(stinkwort)
SanFranciscoBay
San
F
rancisq
uito
C
r
ee
k
M a t a d e r o C a na l
Dry Creek
M
ay
f
i
eldSlough
Inner Harbor SW Shoreline(stinkwort)
Byxbee Park(yellow starthistle, stinkwort)
Adobe Creek Loop Trail(stinkwort)
Lower San Francisquito Creek(Eucalyptus)
Adobe Creek(Eucalyptus)
E
Bayshore Rd
Middlefield
Rd
W
Bayshore
Rd
E m b a r c a d ero
Rd
B a y R d
Louis
Rd
Oregon
Expy
Colorado Ave
Pulga
s
Ave
Loma
Verde
Ave
101
AECOM Oakland CA 3/7/2019 USER Ryan.Haines PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\Baylands_Comprehensive_Conservation_Plan\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\ActionPlan\Fig19c_SWM_Summer.mxd
Weed Management ImportanceHighMediumLow
0 0.5
Mile
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Aerial Imagery: Esri, 2018
FIGURE 19cSeasonal Weed Management Map(Summer)
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 135
Management Recommendations
This section includes recommendations for weed management methods and BMPs. Recommendations
include methods used to manage these species and the recommended timing of management actions.
Weed Management Best Management Practices
Weed management BMPs are established to reduce impacts on wildlife, reduce the unintentional
spread of propagules and pathogens, and increase management effectiveness in the long term.
Preconstruction surveying for nesting birds and sensitive species should be conducted before
implementing weed management actions.
Weeds should not be disturbed, pulled, dug up, or managed when they are fruiting or seeding.
If management occurs when plants are flowering, fruiting, or seeding, the inflorescence should be
cut off first and bagged before pulling up, digging up, weed-whacking, or mowing, to prevent seed
dispersal.
Weeds should be treated when they are close to maturity (just before flowering), which will be
more efficient, in general.
Local knowledge of weeds and habitat conditions should be used to maximize weed management
efforts.
Management of large trees should occur until an alternative native tree of equivalent ecological
function is planted.
Locations of removed weeds should be planted with native species, appropriate for the intended
habitat type, that provide a similar ecological function, and are chosen by applying climate-smart
restoration principles.
Coordination with USFWS should occur for weed management in the Faber-Laumeister Tract.
Populations of most plants will need more than one treatment in a season. Each managed
population should be retreated to kill re-sprouts and new germinants.
Perennials should be removed when the soil is wet.
Equipment should be cleaned thoroughly and disinfected when moving from one area to another, to
prevent the spread of weeds and soil pathogens.
Multiyear plans should be developed for species that may require repeated management actions.
Methods
Nonchemical methods include mechanical and cultural methodologies. Chemicals/herbicides can be
used to control any species if the City of Palo Alto approves their use and they are applied in accordance
with application guidelines. In some cases, such as Spartina alterniflora, Lepidium latifolia, and
Phragmites australis, chemical treatment is the only effective method, and thus chemical use should be
considered for large populations of those species. Biological management methods are not discussed or
presented as a recommendation. Table 13 details recommended timing for management actions and
methods for each known weed species.
The cut-and-cover technique is recommended for woody species. The woody stem/trunk should be cut
just above of the ground, and then the stump should be covered securely with black plastic,
to block light and prevent the stump from sprouting. Solarization and tarping techniques
are similar in theory and generally are used on herbaceous species. Clear plastic should
be pinned to the ground over the weed, and the clear plastic will trap the heat,
136 Action Plan and Best Management Practices
creating temperatures that kill the plant and seeds in the soil. In some parts of the San Francisco Bay
Area, temperatures and sunlight are not intense enough to raise temperatures to lethal levels, in which
case black plastic should be used, to increase temperatures and block light.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 137
Table 13. Weed Management Methods and Treatment Window
Scientific Name Common Name Life Form Treatment
Window
Pulling by Hand or
with Hand Tools
Removal with
Motorized Equipment Flooding Mowing Tilling Cut and
Cover
Solarization or
Black Plastic
Acacia spp. acacia perennial spring X
Arundo donax giant reed perennial winter X X
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush perennial spring X
Brassica spp. wild mustard – spring X
Carpobrotus chilensis sea fig; ice plant perennial spring X X X
Centaurea solstitialis1 yellow starthistle annual summer X X
Cirsium vulgare, Carduus
pycnocephalus thistles biennial/
annual spring X X
Cortaderia sellanoa (or
C. jubata)
pampas grass; jubata
grass perennial winter
Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort annual summer X X
Eucalyptus spp. eucalyptus perennial summer X X
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass annual spring X X
Foeniculum vulgare2 fennel perennial winter X X
Genista monspessulana French broom perennial spring X
Lepidium latifolium3 perennial pepperweed perennial winter/spring X
Malva spp. mallow – spring X
Phragmites australis common reed perennial winter/spring X X X
Salsola tragus1 Russian thistle annual spring X X
Spartina alterniflora4 smooth cordgrass perennial winter X X
1. Repeat removal multiple times during one season. Leave no stem if pulling.
2. Hand chopping or slashing is more effective than pulling.
3. Mechanical methods should be coupled with chemical use to be effective; using alone may make the infestation worse by spreading root segments.
4. Hand pulling and cut and cover is effective only on small populations. Chemical treatment should be considered for large or satellite populations.
Sources: Consortium of California Herbaria 2016; Anderson, pers. comm., 2018; DiTomaso et al. 2013; data compiled by AECOM in 2018.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 138
Monitoring Program
Existing habitats should be monitored to detect problems as they arise, and to evaluate habitat
conditions and the effectiveness of weed management actions, including any unintended consequences
resulting from disturbance from management actions. A repeatable monitoring methodology should be
established to provide results that can be compared between years. Monitoring should occur annually
and can be conducted by Rangers or Ranger-trained volunteers, or provided by technical partners such
as Save the Bay, Grassroots Ecology, Environmental Volunteers, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society,
CNPS, and academic institutions. A database of monitoring results should be maintained for use in
determining the effectiveness of actions, and the locations and timing of management actions
implemented each year. Weed monitoring recommendations include the following:
Cal-IPC’s weed list should be checked annually for revisions.
Weed species should be mapped annually, documenting approximate population density or size for
comparison between years.
Nonweed species that establish in the areas where weeds were managed should be documented.
Surveying should be done seasonally for new species establishment in the Baylands.
The prioritization list should be revised by applying prioritization methodology regularly.
Implementing Parties
Volunteers
Ranger-led volunteer efforts can implement weed management actions, including pulling and digging up
weeds and monitoring. Partner organizations that can provide volunteers include Save the Bay,
Environmental Volunteers, the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, CNPS, and the Santa
Clara Valley Audubon Society. Private volunteer groups may come from the Boy Scouts, companies,
church groups, community service groups, or artists and artist-in-residence projects.
Rangers
Rangers can implement weed management actions, including pulling, digging up, and mowing weeds,
and monitoring habitat. Rangers also should lead volunteers in these actions. Recordkeeping of weed
management actions, habitat conditions, and monitoring data should be completed by Rangers.
City of Palo Alto
The City of Palo Alto, particularly the Open Space, Parks & Golf Division, should lead planning, securing
of funding, and feasibility/technical studies for management of Spartina alterniflora and Phragmites
australis, which will require coordination with other City departments, including the RWQCP, and with
agencies including SFCJPA and SCVWD. The City also should lead larger efforts, such as those to control
Arundo donax, which may require the use of heavy equipment or vegetation management crews.
Partners
Technical expertise and leadership can be provided by partners such as Save the Bay, Grassroots
Ecology, Environmental Volunteers, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, CNPS, Point Blue, SFEI, and
academic institutions. Volunteer efforts from these organizations should be leveraged to implement
weed management and climate-smart native plantings.
Action Plan and Best Management Practices 139
Funding
Funding for weed management can come from multiple sources, including annual City maintenance
budgets, the City’s special projects budget, grants, and direct in-kind donations, or as part of larger
enhancement or restoration projects. Direct in-kind donations from private organizations also can be
leveraged to achieve weed management goals.
Operations and Management Best Management Practices
BMPs are practices, guidelines, methods, or techniques that are effective and practical means of
achieving goals and objectives. BMPs were developed for each Operations and Management planning
goal listed below. The BMPs were developed from a range of sources: prior plans, stakeholder input,
research, and review of BMPs applied by leaders in the field of integrated resource planning.
Management, Maintenance, and Staffing
OM Goal 1: Holistically manage the Baylands to strike the appropriate balance between recreation
and natural resource protection, and ensure that existing and proposed activities are compatible with
the ecological and physical constraints.
OM BMP 1.1. Assess habitat compatibility for proposed plans and projects. Ensure that projects are
sited in low-impact areas, and that the project design is sensitive to natural resources.
OM BMP 1.2. Develop an operations and maintenance plan using sustainable maintenance
practices, including inspection and monitoring logs. The plan should also address regular and
emergency maintenance and associated budgets.
OM BMP 1.3. Ensure that goals, standards, and design intent are understood by staff, volunteers,
partners, and contractors/consultants.
Planning/Projects
OM Goal 2: Strategically phase projects within the Baylands to minimize disturbance to wildlife and
visitor use.
BMP OM 2.1. Ensure that plans and projects comply with all regulations and that environmental
due diligence has been conducted before beginning a project. Obtain necessary permits and
implement all permit conditions.
BMP OM 2.2. Identify proposed projects and coordinate project schedules among project
proponents.
BMP OM 2.3. Identify opportunities to incorporate green stormwater infrastructure and low impact
development principles in plans and projects.
Design Plan for Byxbee Park 140
Design Plan for Byxbee Park
9.1 Overview
The 137-acre former City landfill was closed, capped, dedicated as parkland, and opened to the public in
phases as the landfill’s refuse disposal capacity was reached. Final landfill closure and cap construction
was completed, and Byxbee Park opened to the public in 2015. This Byxbee Park Design Plan provides
guidance for improving and managing habitat, and includes park improvements including habitat
expansion, trails, benches, signage, and parking.
This Byxbee Park Design Plan achieves Key Goal 1 of the BCCP (Chapter 5): “Develop a design and
management plan for Byxbee Park that builds upon the 2015 Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts,
which includes guidance for the completion of interpretive signage, incorporates policies for appropriate
management of wildlife and native habitats, contains plans for trail connections to the former ITT
Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands, and completes plans for parking at Byxbee Park.” This plan is intended
to be used as a guide when finalizing park features and elements, including a final parking plan. It also
clarifies plans for trail connections and loops within the park, plans for expanded habitats, long-term
maintenance, habitat management, and opportunities to include burrowing owl habitat.
Proposed elements of the design plan were developed from interviews with City staff and stakeholders,
research, and site visits. As discussed in Chapter 2, interim plans for Byxbee Park were developed in
2015 to complete the conversion of the closed Palo Alto Landfill to a park. As part of the landfill closure,
the City is required by law to monitor the landfill for potential hazards such as landfill gas, leachate, and
settling. This Byxbee Park Design Plan and BCCP build upon the concepts proposed in the Byxbee Park
Hills Interim Park Concept Plan. The Byxbee Park Design Plan proposes specific physical improvements at
the park. This BCCP and the associated environmental analysis address long-term maintenance and
habitat management of the site as part of a holistic management approach for the greater Baylands
area.
The City anticipates proposal and adoption of the Byxbee Park Design Plan through a Park Improvement
Ordinance process, which requires a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and
Council approval. Council previously approved funding for this project in its approved infrastructure plan
from park impact fees in fiscal year 2020.
9.2 Site History
Byxbee Park is located on the site of a former landfill that operated from the 1930s until 2011, when
operations ceased. The landfill closure and conversion to parkland began in 1990 and was conducted in
four phases—Phases I, IIA, IIB, and IIC—starting from the northwest end of the park and proceeding
southeast. Each phase was completed and made available for park use while construction continued in
other unfinished segments, which were closed to the public. For 30 years, the City is mandated to
monitor hazards associated with former landfills including refuse settlement and release of landfill gas
and leachate, using a system of groundwater, leachate, and gas monitoring wells. Post-closure activities
are regulated by state agencies including the California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle) and its local enforcement agency (Santa Clara County), the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Design Plan for Byxbee Park 141
The original plan for Byxbee Park was developed by Hargreaves and Associates in 1991, which
envisioned a pastoral park after landfill closure (City of Palo Alto 2008). In 2015, the City adopted the
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts (City of Palo Alto 2015), which included guidance on habitat
management, management of burrowing owl habitat, trails, benches, interpretive signage, and other
park amenities. Some parts of the plan, including parking, were not finalized.
9.3 Existing Conditions
Byxbee Park is a hilly part of the Baylands near their outer border with San Francisco Bay. It is vegetated
by annual grasslands and includes many trails that connect the park to other parts of the Baylands, and
to Shoreline Park in Mountain View. The park is typically used for walking, hiking, biking, wildlife
viewing, and dog-walking.
Byxbee Park has several public art installations, and has been identified as a site for potential future
public art (City of Palo Alto 2016a). Both interpretive and wayfinding signage is provided in the park.
Benches are present throughout the park, at the tops of hills, and along perimeter trails. Vegetated
islands were installed in Byxbee Park in 2016 and are irrigated from a 2,000-gallon water tank, using
reclaimed water from the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The main purpose of management and maintenance activities in Byxbee Park is to guard public safety,
enhance recreational opportunities in the area, protect the landfill cap, and minimize impacts on air and
water quality from potential landfill gas and leachate. Key management activities include importing soil
and regrading areas of excessive settlement to avoid water ponding and seepage that could damage the
clay cap. Imported soil is to be added to an approximately 10-acre area each year in portions of the park
that have settled and need to be brought back to grade. Other maintenance activities include inspection
of monitoring wells, sumps, and monitoring equipment, and upkeep of vegetation and recreational
amenities. As a condition of the permits required for landfill closure, ground squirrel abatement is
implemented in Byxbee Park to protect the clay cap layer that seals the buried refuse and contains the
methane within the sealed area.
Because of the phased closure of the landfill, there are two soil profiles in Byxbee Park: a minimum 4-
foot-thick layer of fine-grained soil in Phase IIC, and soils a minimum of 4 feet thick comprising a
vegetative soil layer, a compacted clay layer, and a compacted soil foundation layer in Phases I, IIA, and
IIB.
9.4 Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative
In 2015 the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve, Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative (City of
Palo Alto 2015) was developed to guide management and improvement of park habitats, management
of burrowing owls, and development of a trail system that would allow safe public access without
affecting wildlife. This Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts was developed with measures intended
to enable the closed landfill to meet all regulatory requirements. Many components of the plan were
implemented and constructed, including vegetated islands, swales, benches, the compass rose, and
pedestals for signage.
The Palo Alto Baylands Preserve, Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative includes a
management plan for the western burrowing owl (City of Palo Alto 2015). This plan
identifies three areas that can be designed to enhance burrowing owl nesting habitat.
The plan calls for nesting habitat that includes artificial burrows seeded with grasses.
142 Design Plan for Byxbee Park
However, because this plan requires burrowing into the landfill cap, the City will only be able to
construct these burrowing owl areas if it receives permission from all regulatory agencies, including
CalRecycle. Such approval has not yet been forthcoming. The City will continue to seek permission from
CalRecycle to construct the burrowing owl habitat areas.
9.5 Conceptual Plan Design Elements
The conceptual design for Byxbee Park incorporates feedback from park users, interviews with staff,
multiple site tours, and a thorough review of existing conditions reports and previous designs for the
park, and from a design charrette with the Stakeholder Advisory Group in December 2017. These
planning sessions provided insight into the complexity of the site and the diversity of stakeholder ideas
and perspectives. Input was incorporated into conceptual design that was provided to the City and
stakeholders for additional review and feedback.
When developing the Byxbee Park conceptual plan, both City staff and stakeholders expressed the
necessity for a balance between public use, ecological integrity, and efficient use of park staff time. The
following specific objectives guided design decisions during the engagement process:
Enhance ecological diversity of native habitat.
Avoid impacts on existing ecological corridors and habitat.
Improve circulation and wayfinding within the park.
Limit concepts that increase park maintenance to alleviate unnecessary park staff maintenance
tasks.
Add necessary amenities to improve the park user experience.
Increase the park’s capacity by creating additional parking without affecting natural resources and
valuable habitat in the park.
Capitalize on design elements that have proven successful in the past.
Incorporate lessons learned.
The conceptual plan (Figure 20) maintains the delicate balance between public access and the park’s
natural areas with clear trail loops, additional regular and backless benches, parking lot modifications
capacity, and additional interpretive and wayfinding signage. Streamlined irrigation measures and
naturalistic management zones are proposed to reduce the number of maintenance tasks and ensure an
ecosystem that will work in harmony with existing site conditions. Additionally, areas identified for
burrowing owl nesting habitat were retained.
Loop Trails
Navigating the existing 150-acre park is generally a challenge for both returning visitors and newcomers
because of the size of the area and the homogeneous nature of the existing vegetation. City staff and
stakeholders asked that the number of trails be reduced. Many of the original park trails have been
eliminated to simplify the landscape and reduce human impacts on ecological systems. The remaining
trails are the minimum number needed for staff to reach key maintenance areas in the park.
Legend:
ManageMent Zone - CoastaL Prairie
ManageMent Zone - tidaL Marsh
ManageMent Zone - traiL buffer
PaLo aLto
bayLands
byxbee Park
ManageMent Zone - CoastaL sCrub
Vegetated isLand & exPansion
ProPosed & existing benChes with
View direCtion
PoLe fieLd LooP, .75Mi
Vista LooP, 1.5 Mi
renZeL Marsh LooP, 1.4 Mi
reMnant sLough LooP, 0.7 Mi
existing adobe Creek traiL
ProPosed & existing interPretatiVe
sign
ProPosed & existing Current
traiL Marker
existing drinking fountain
existing foraging isLand
existing defibriLLator
ProPosed baCkLess benChes
existing bridge benCh seating
PotentiaL borrowing owL habitat
enhanCed VegetatiVe CoVer for
eCoLogiCaL Corridor
roCk swaLe
ConCePt
existing bike Parking
Hydrological Connection with the San Francisco Bay
Parking Lot
Emily Renzel Wetlands
Regional Water Quality Control
Plant
Emba
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
.
Mayfi
e
l
d
S
l
o
u
g
h
Hydrological
Connection with Matadero Creek
Group Meeting Area
Pole Field
Chevron
WindWave
Observation Decks
Hydrological Connection with Renzel Wetlands
Byxbee Park
Hills
Enhanced Vegetative Cover for Ecological Corridor
Mayfield Slough
Remnant
144 Design Plan for Byxbee Park
The four proposed loop trails provide a hiking experience that highlights the various vistas, outdoor
artwork, and native ecology. They connect to the larger Baylands Preserve and the Adobe Creek Trail.
Additionally, the loop trails pass through high and low elevations of Byxbee Park, thus providing a tour
of several distinct management zones for native plant communities, along with diverse views of the park
and South Bay landscapes, both close up and far away.
Pole Field Loop
The Pole Field Loop Trail begins at the expanded main parking lot at Byxbee Park, making a 0.75-mile
loop at the northeast end of the park. Visitors gain approximately 40 feet in elevation while passing two
of the park’s original art installations, Chevrons and Pole Field. The Pole Field Loop passes through the
Coastal Prairie and Trail Buffer management zones and connects to the Renzel Marsh Loop and the
existing Adobe Creek Trail.
Renzel Marsh Loop
The Renzel Marsh Loop also begins at the Byxbee Park parking lot, where visitors can choose to head
either east into the Byxbee Park hills or west toward the Emily Renzel Wetlands. The 1.4-mile loop
traverses the park’s highest and lowest elevations, providing views of both the Byxbee Park hills and the
Emily Renzel Wetlands, and connects to all of the proposed loop trails. The Renzel Marsh Loop is located
primarily within the proposed Coastal Scrub Management Zone, providing visitors with a unique view of
this shrubby plant community that is now rare in the lowlands of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Vista Loop
The Vista Loop begins at the art installation Windwave, which offers a 360-degree view of the
surrounding area including Mayfield Slough, the Flood Control Basin, and the Emily Renzel Wetlands.
The 1.5-mile loop traverses the highest point of the park with minimal elevation change, and passes
through all vegetation management zones. Directional signs along the trail direct visitors to the group
meeting area, where they can gather and rest.
Remnant Slough Trail
The Remnant Slough Trail is the shortest loop, at 0.7 mile. It travels along the upland edge of the marsh,
maintaining the same elevation throughout. In addition to providing views of the Remnant Slough Basin,
this trail provides views of the Flood Control Basin, Matadero Creek, and Mayfield Slough.
Benches
The northeast end of Byxbee Park has several lookout areas where benches and observation decks
provide opportunities for rest and reflection. In contrast, the newly completed area at the park’s west
end lacks observation points despite great views and places of respite along the trails. Eight additional
benches are proposed in this area at points with exceptional vistas, with opportunities for wildlife
viewing, to provide visitors with a convenient rest area after they complete a steep climb. One
additional bench is proposed for the eastern edge of the park to capture views of the park’s south end.
Bench aesthetics should align with the naturalistic settings. In a number of cases, vegetated islands with
berms are placed around benches to protect users against the wind.
Park benches are intentionally absent from areas that the stakeholders have identified as
ecological corridors: the Renzel Marsh Loop between Byxbee Park and the former ITT
Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands, and between Byxbee Park and the RWQCP.
Design Plan for Byxbee Park 145
Stakeholders have expressed concern that placing benches in these areas would promote prolonged
human presence, thus potentially distressing wildlife that use these corridors.
The park staff has reported a buildup of guano on existing benches from birds perching on the backs of
benches. To alleviate this issue, a small number of backless benches is proposed at various ridge
locations to both prevent avian perching and allow for the 360-degree view.
Parking
Figure 21 depicts the proposed expanded parking plan for Byxbee Park. To accommodate current and
future traffic needs at the park, the proposed concept expands the total parking area to 68 stalls:
three Americans with Disabilities Act–accessible stalls (one of which is van parking), three motorcycle
stalls, 10 compact vehicle stalls, one bus stall, and 54 standard stalls. Parking is divided into a large main
lot and a smaller overflow lot. In the main parking area, circulation is a one-way loop that
accommodates vehicle sizes up to a Type C school bus. The overflow parking lot provides parking spaces
for compact and standard vehicles and motorcycles.
Bioretention areas in and adjacent to the parking area provide space for shade trees and vegetation to
slow, capture, and filter stormwater runoff, and to reduce the potential for concentrated runoff flows
during storms that could cause erosion and gullying. The gentle slope of the parking area allows water to
sheet flow into these bioretention areas instead of directly into San Francisco Bay. The downstream
edges of the paved parking areas are designed without curbs so that rainwater runoff can sheet flow
into the bioretention areas along their entire length without concentrated flows.
Signage
Signs proposed in Byxbee Park consist of interpretive signage and trail markers. All panels, bases, and
frames should follow National Park Service standards (NPS 2009).
Trail Markers
To enhance wayfinding at Byxbee Park, additional trail markers are proposed at five key locations in the
park where multiple trails or paths converge. Each sign indicates the visitor’s current location relative to
paths, trail loops, and major nodes including the parking lot, the group meeting area, and the Emily
Renzel Wetlands.
Interpretive Signage
Two new interpretive signs are proposed for Byxbee Park: one at the south end of the park nearest to
the Tidal Marsh Management Zone, and the other at the park’s highest point, at the border between the
Coastal Prairie and Coastal Scrub management zones. Themes for these panels include the development
of anthropogenic soil horizons, plant communities growing on them, and the wildlife dependent on the
habitats created by the corresponding management zones. Information regarding current seasonal park
management activities can also be posted at these locations, providing details about management
activities necessary to establish and maintain these natural management zones, and suggestions on how
visitors could contribute to their preservation and upkeep.
Drought tolerant native tree
CompaCt parking
no parking/aCCessible
parking sign
one way CirCulation in
main parking area
parking lot area where stormwater
runoff is DireCteD to bioretention
anD vegetateD areas
bioretention areas
pathway
existing utility pole
two way CirCulation
with DeaD enD Drive aisle
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Xref ..\..\..\Desktop\Drawing2.dwg
VA
N
BUS
STOP
palo alto baylanDs
byxbee park
parking area
ConCept
1
68 parking stalls
51 stanDarD, 2 stanDarD aDa, 1 van aCCess aDa,
10 CompaCt, 3 motorCyCle, 1 bus
7
2
5
3
5
42
49
54
50
e
m
b
a
r
C
a
D
e
r
o
r
D.
F
F
F
F
FFF
F
F
F
wheel stop
F
1
5
55
64
F
reloCateD pearson anD Dehlinger benChes
147 Design Plan for Byxbee Park
Deferred Amenities
The design process focused heavily on feedback from stakeholders and the City. Because of a lack of
consensus and/or feasibility, not every idea is included in the final conceptual plan. However, the
unincorporated suggestions are included below so they can provide input for future discussions
regarding the park. The City can either note lessons learned or can move forward with these ideas if
constraints are eliminated.
Many visitors use Byxbee Park for exercise. Stakeholders expressed interest in expanding opportunities
for exercise by adding a staircase to provide a challenging cardiovascular activity. However, several
commenters expressed concern that if the staircase were installed, the ongoing and substantial landfill
settling may damage it, thus rendering it an inaccessible liability. The park staff is currently determining
whether there are areas of the park where future settling will be minimal.
A conceptual shade structure was proposed for the site. Staff members requested that the shade
structure be located close to the parking area to provide accessibility and avoid affecting other areas of
the park. Conceptual shade structures over benches were also proposed. However, a majority of
stakeholders and staff members disapproved of shade structures, either because of general preference
or out of concern about potential resting spots for predatory birds. Therefore, shade structures were
not included in the plan.
There was a discussion about repurposing one or two of the most interesting antennae that are
earmarked for removal from the former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands. A potential location for the
structures was on the northwest hill where the four trails converge. However, this idea was rejected
because of concern that the antennae could provide a perching opportunity for raptors in an area where
burrowing owl habitat may be present. Repurposing the existing antennae poles as nesting sites on the
former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands was also dismissed, for the same reason.
The current number of trails at Byxbee Park is the minimum needed to maintain the basic functions of
the former landfill. However, stakeholders have requested fewer trails in the park to simplify circulation.
The City and the Stakeholder Advisory Group discussed closing off two trails and marking them as
“maintenance only.” However, they agreed that if the trails are present, they should be publicly
accessible.
Vegetated Islands
Expansion
The vegetated islands, installed in 2016, are proposed for expansion and irrigation with recycled water
that would come directly from a point of connection at the RWQCP. The proposed islands are
strategically placed to provide wind protection, a reoccurring theme expressed by stakeholders and park
users. Evergreen plant species that provide some height and consistent cover would be added to the
proposed vegetated island palette. As the management zones become established, these vegetated
islands would blend into the plant community and potentially act as a future seed source.
Irrigation
The vegetated islands are currently irrigated using water that is held in multiple water tanks
within the park. The water tanks must be filled multiple times every month, which has proven
to substantially increase the workload of park maintenance staff. Recycled water from the
148 Design Plan for Byxbee Park
adjacent RWQCP would be used to irrigate the expanded islands, allowing maintenance personnel to
focus other important activities.
Currently, the recycled water main provides 90 pounds per square inch of pressure at the RWQCP’s
point of connection. At this pressure, irrigation water would be delivered at approximately 40–50
pounds per square inch at the top of the hills in Byxbee Park, which would be sufficient to operate most
sprinklers and drip emitters in the park. Irrigation water would regain pressure where the irrigation lines
run downhill.
During review of the RWQCP in the 2017 Annual Recycled Water Report (City of Palo Alto 2018), it was
noted that the critical qualities of the recycled/reclaimed water for vegetation (total dissolved
solids/salts, sodium adsorption ratio, boron and chloride content, and pH) are within acceptable limits;
however, sodium levels are elevated. For this reason, plants selected for Byxbee Park management
zones are typically adapted to salt spray and higher soil salinity. Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia),
saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis), and Catalina cherry (Q. durata) are examples of salt tolerant species that
can also provide wind protection. Deeper soils are typically preferred by taller vegetation. Without deep
soil, the root system cannot sufficiently stabilize larger plants. At Byxbee Park, taller vegetation is limited
to the Coastal Scrub Management Zone because of the deep soils in that area. Additionally, larger plants
cannot be planted in areas with a shallowly covered clay cap, because their roots could penetrate
through the cap into the landfill.
Management of Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats
Burrowing Owl Habitat
No park amenities are proposed for the three areas identified in the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park
Concepts for potential enhancement of burrowing owl nesting habitat, to ensure that these proposed
habitat areas are considered in any future proposed design elements to the park.
Soils
Before becoming a landfill, the footprint of what is now called Byxbee Park was primarily a low-lying
floodplain. Today, Byxbee Park is a highly engineered landscape with biotic conditions that are
influenced by anthropogenic design. Despite the underlying complexity, attributes such as the soil, local
morphology, aspect, and slope can create conditions that mimic ecological communities and provide a
solid base for a regenerating ecological system.
According to the Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan (City of Palo Alto 2013), the phased
closure of the landfill created two very different soil profiles, each resulting from the closure cover
system used. Phases I, IIA, and IIB have the minimum prescriptive standard cover required. This cover
consists of a 1-foot-thick vegetative soil cover atop a 1-foot-thick compacted clay layer with a 2-foot-
thick compacted soil foundation layer. Because of shortages of reliable and cost-effective regional
borrow sources for clay, the Phase IIC design, which addressed the most recent and last area to be
capped in Byxbee Park, uses an evapotranspirative soil cover consisting of a minimum 4-foot-thick layer
of fine-grained soil.
The Coastal Prairie community has a similar soil profile to that of the closure cover system
used in Phases I, IIA, and IIB of the Byxbee Park landfill. The Coastal Prairie has typically
shallow soils with a hard clay layer or bedrock underneath. This is similar to the 1-foot-
Design Plan for Byxbee Park 149
thick soil cover layer installed over the compacted clay cap of the closure cover system used in that area.
If these areas are irrigated, they will rely on recycled water, which is high in sodium. The soils of the
Coastal Prairie are typically also high in sodium. The characteristic plants of this plant community can
similarly thrive in this saline environment.
Phase IIC has an entirely different soil type and profile and therefore can support a different plant
community. The deep, fine-grained, and fairly uniform soil layer of the evapotranspirative cover allows
for the preservation of water. The Coastal Scrub community is typically composed of drought tolerant
native shrubs that thrive in the mild climate of the San Francisco Bay Area. Unlike the species of the
Coastal Prairie, plants in this community typically have deeper rooting systems; however, in fine soils
because of lack of aeration, the roots do not penetrate much beyond 2 feet into the soil (Harrison et al.
1971; Bakker 1972). This can be a safeguard against any harm to the closure cover system in this area.
Mowing and Vegetation Management Plan
Mowing and vegetation management of Byxbee Park shall follow the guidelines set forth Appendix D:
Byxbee Park Mowing and Vegetation Management Plan (City of Palo Alto 2020), which was developed
by the City to identify regular vegetation management activities that will be performed by the Open
Space and Environmental Services Divisions. The plan acknowledges and attempts to balance required
post-closure landfill management activities with open space and wildlife habitat and park aesthetics and
recreation. The plan provides details locations and frequency of vegetation management activities.
Management Zones
Coastal scrub, coastal terrace prairie/coastal foothill grasslands, and tidal marsh are the best herbaceous
native plant analogue communities for Byxbee Park’s topography, hydrology, and climate. The trail
buffer habitat is a mixture of the coastal grassland and scrub habitats. These salt-adapted plant
communities provide an excellent blueprint for a successful native landscape that will provide high-
quality native habitat for a diversity of wildlife such as burrowing owl, resident and migratory songbirds,
raptors, and sensitive species including the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. Table 14 summarizes
typical restoration and management activities required to establish these zones and keep them in a
healthy condition. Additional site-specific input regarding soil texture, nutrient availability, compaction,
irrigation availability, and other data will be needed to develop a set of detailed landscape construction
plans and specifications for each proposed zone.
150 Design Plan for Byxbee Park
Table 14. Restoration and Management Activities by Management Zone
Activity Tidal Marsh Trail Buffer Coastal Prairie Coastal Scrub
Design -Begin at least 2 years
before
implementation.
-Incorporate native
nitrogen fixers in the
plant palette, such as
Spanish clover and tule pea.
-Rely primarily on plugs and diverse seed; minimize use of container plants more than 1 gallon.
-Begin 1–2 years before
implementation.
-Analyze soils for texture
and nutrients.
-Incorporate native
nitrogen fixers in the
plant palette. -Rely primarily on
irrigated container plants for quick effect.
-Begin 1–2 years before
implementation.
-Analyze soils for texture
and nutrients.
-Incorporate native
nitrogen fixers in the
plant palette. -Rely primarily on diverse
seed; no container plants necessary.
-Begin 1–2 years before
implementation.
-Analyze soils for texture
and nutrients.
-Incorporate native
nitrogen fixers in the
plant palette. -Rely primarily on
diverse seed; minimize use of container plants.
Plant Material
Procurement
-Contract for plant
materials more than
1 growing season
ahead.
-Collect seed from
existing native areas
and/or use pest-free,
disease-free, and
weed-free, deep
container plants
sourced from the San
Francisco Bay Area.
-Contract for plant
materials more than
1 growing season ahead.
-Collect seed from
existing native areas
and/or use pest-free,
disease-free, and weed-
free, deep container
plants sourced from the
San Francisco Bay Area.
-Contract for plant
materials more than
1 growing season ahead.
-Collect seed from
existing native areas
and/or use pest-free,
disease-free, and weed-
free, deep container
plants sourced from the
San Francisco Bay Area.
-Contract for plant
materials more than 1
growing season ahead.
-Collect seed from
existing native areas
and/or use pest-free,
disease-free, and weed-
free, deep container
plants sourced from the
San Francisco Bay Area.
Protection of Existing Native
Vegetation
-Identify and avoid areas dominated by
natives.
-Identify and avoid areas dominated by natives. -Identify and avoid areas dominated by natives (if
any).
-Identify and avoid areas with native shrubs;
avoid ripping/tilling within 5 feet of shrubs
or the tree canopy.
Weed Removal -Limited along
vegetated edges.
-Extensive in proposed
planting area, by pre-
germ/till and/or
solarization; weed
manually in native-
dominated areas.
-Extensive in entire
planted area, by pre-
germ/till and/or
solarization.
-Extensive in entire
planted area, by pre-
germ/till and/or
solarization; manual
weeding around natives.
Irrigation
Installation
None. -Extend existing irrigation
system, if feasible given
existing piping diameter/
controller.
-Irrigate only if summer
dormancy is not
desirable.
-Select dominant grasses
accordingly.
-Irrigate temporarily to
greatly benefit the
establishment of
vegetation.
Design Plan for Byxbee Park 151
Activity Tidal Marsh Trail Buffer Coastal Prairie Coastal Scrub
Soil Preparation -Preserve or restore
dendritic channels;
grade with close
attention to vertical
datum.
-Decompact by 6-inch-
deep tilling only in areas
with more than 80%
relative compaction.
-Decompact by 6-inch-
deep tilling only in areas
with more than 80%
relative compaction.
-Consider soil imprinting
for flat and gently sloping
areas.
-Decompact by 12–18
inches in areas with
more than 80% relative
compaction.
-Consider soil imprinting
for flat and gently
sloping areas.
Amendment of
Soil
None. -Amend soil with slow-
release fertilizers only if
strongly recommended by
soil testing laboratory for
“native vegetation”;
otherwise avoid.
-Use soil mycorrhizal
inoculants.
-Amend soil with slow-
release fertilizers only if
strongly recommended
by soil testing laboratory
for “native vegetation”;
otherwise avoid.
-Use soil mycorrhizal
inoculants.
-Amend soil with slow-
release fertilizers only if
strongly recommended
by soil testing laboratory
for “native vegetation”;
otherwise avoid.
-Use soil mycorrhizal
inoculants.
Seeding -Disperse with bellygrinders or hydroseeder and prevent loss caused by tidal action using erosion fabric.
-Disperse with bellygrinders or hydroseeder.
-Disperse with bellygrinders or hydroseeder. -Plant 25–100 pure live seeds per square foot with a smaller proportion of large seeded
competitive grasses.
-Disperse with bellygrinders or hydroseeder. -After grass establishment, place shrub seeds in a shallow depression created
during imprinting.
Planting -Install plugs through
biodegradable erosion
fabric.
-Install container plants in
areas where a quick effect
is desired.
None. -Install container shrubs
and small trees to create
a local microclimate/
habitat.
Mulching None. -Place 4-inch-deep mulch
around shrubs and
herbaceous perennials.
None. -Place 4- to 6-inch-deep
mulch around shrubs
and small trees.
-Place small amounts of
soil and litter from
undisturbed native areas
around roots where
mycorrhizae are absent.
Establishment
of Irrigation
None. -Drip irrigate. -Overhead irrigate daily
for 30 days after seeding,
then reduce based on
evapotranspiration (Et0)
and vegetation type.
-Temporarily overhead
irrigate the first year or
two to establish grasses,
then drip irrigate shrubs.
Establishment
Weeding
-Remove invasive
exotics as soon as they
are recognized.
-Prevent weeds from
shading native
vegetation.
-Do not wait for flower
or seed.
-Remove invasive exotics
as soon as they are
recognized.
-Prevent weeds from
shading native
vegetation.
-Do not wait for flower or
seed.
-Remove invasive exotics
as soon as they are
recognized.
-Prevent weeds from
shading native
vegetation.
-Do not wait for flower or
seed.
-Mow early and high (late
March) to control
invasive annual grasses.
-Remove invasive
exotics as soon as they
are recognized.
-Prevent weeds from
shading native
vegetation.
-Do not wait for flower
or seed.
152 Design Plan for Byxbee Park
Activity Tidal Marsh Trail Buffer Coastal Prairie Coastal Scrub
Long-Term
Maintenance
-Pay primary attention
to removal of invasive
exotic vegetation and
revegetation of areas
with poor
establishment.
-Remove invasive exotic
vegetation, trim dead
plant parts, replenish
mulch, inspect the
irrigation system, and test
soil salinity if recycled
water is in use.
-Remove invasive exotic
vegetation, mow grass
depending on species
and desired look,
maintain the irrigation
system, and test soil
salinity if recycled water is in use.
-Remove invasive exotic
vegetation, mow grass
depending on species
and desired look, and
apply water sufficient to
wet the soil profile to a
depth below the rooting zone, wetting to
progressively greater depths at extending intervals.
Typical Plant
Species
-Salt grass, alkali heath,
pickleweed, cordgrass,
saltbush, and
gumplant.
-Species are relative to
ecological community
surrounding trail.
-California oatgrass, red
fescue, seashore
bentgrass, tufted
hairgrass, California
meadow sedge, blue-
eyed grass, gumplant,
suncups, phacelia,
yarrow, pacific aster, bee
plant, soap plant.
-Coyote brush, California
yerba santa, California
sagebrush, black sage,
yellow bush lupine,
blue-eyed grass, Douglas
iris.
Design Plan for Byxbee Park 153
Tidal Marsh
Tidal marsh is a wetland community of the diurnally flooded zone between the land and the sea. Tidal
marshes are highly dynamic, productive ecosystems that experience many overlapping cycles, including
diurnal and semi-diurnal tides, large temperature fluctuations, spring neap tides, seasonal vegetation
growth and decay, and runoff from upland areas. Tidal marshes provide habitat for numerous wildlife
species, including special-status species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail.
Vegetation growing in this zone is fully adapted to saline and anoxic soil conditions, resulting in a very
restrictive growing environment and low plant species diversity.
Coastal Prairie
California coastal prairie is a mesic coastal grassland, a mosaic of cool-season, native perennial grasses
mixed with a rich assemblage of native perennial wildflowers. Coastal prairie in California supports the
highest plant diversity of any grassland in the U.S. It is an appropriate community for the shallow soil
areas of the eastern part of Byxbee Park. The coastal foothill grassland plant community intergrades
with the coastal terrace prairie throughout central coastal California and is also a cool-season grassland
adapted to California’s Mediterranean climate. This plant community is more suitable for sloped areas
with deeper soils because of improved drainage. At Byxbee Park, this is an area where the shallow soil-
covered clay cap transitions into the deep soil cap.
Coastal Scrub
Coastal scrub is typically found near the ocean along Northern California's coastline with the
San Francisco Bay as the transition from the northern coastal scrub to the southern sage coastal scrub.
This is an assemblage of low-growing, drought and salt tolerant, often aromatic shrubs with a perennial
herb/subshrub understory, adapted to the Mediterranean climate of California’s coastal lowlands. It is a
rich plant community fitting for the conditions at Byxbee Park.
Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands 154
Concepts for the
Former ITT Property/
Emily Renzel Wetlands
10.1 Overview
The 36.5-acre former ITT Property in the Emily Renzel Wetlands was acquired by the City in 2016 and
was dedicated as parkland. Four potential use scenarios were developed for this key area of the BCCP.
Based on a list of common objectives and key design elements, as well as interviews with staff,
stakeholders, research and site visits, many of the stakeholders preferred concept plan elements that
would integrate the former ITT property with the Emily Renzel wetlands and the rest of the Baylands by
restoring hydrological connections and salt marsh habitat, trails, and furnishing. However, this BCCP
does not identify a preferred concept plan or propose specific physical improvements to the former ITT
Property at this time. Further discussion and analysis of the buildings and the proposed improvement to
hydrological connections is warranted prior to implementation of any of the concept plans. Any
proposed physical improvements to this property would be processed as part of a Parks Improvement
Ordinance, which requires a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Council
approval. Any proposed changes to the hydrological connection would likely require further
coordination and regulatory approval from applicable agencies (e.g., the USACE, RWQCB, USFWS,
and/or the CDFW).
10.2 Setting
Site History
An antenna field was originally part of a 200-acre marshland area that was purchased and built into a
radio telegraph transmitting station to serve as the hub of Pacific Coast ship-to-shore communications.
The 200 acres were bought by ITT in 1930 and were recognized as an integral part of the Baylands
rehabilitation plan in the 1970s. The City purchased 154 acres in 1977 and dedicated the property as
parkland in 1982, excluding the 36.5-acre easement that remained in use by ITT (City of Palo Alto
2016b).
As of April 2019, one building, an access road, and antennae are present on the former ITT Property.
The Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008) recommends removing the antenna
field and replacing it with marshland, with the goal of unifying the property with the rest of the
Baylands.
Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands 155
Ecological Significance
The area surrounding the former ITT Property is partially restored, muted salt marsh. In 1992, the City
constructed and began operating the Emily Renzel Wetlands, a 15-acre freshwater pond and 12-acre
restored salt marsh. The Emily Renzel Wetlands currently has muted salt marsh habitat that is
hydrologically connected to the inner harbor through pipes, and its freshwater pond is fed by tertiary
treated wastewater from the RWQCP. Treated effluent flows through the pond to the marsh outlet,
where the flow is discharged into Matadero Creek. Matadero Creek flows to the Flood Control Basin,
which is connected hydrologically to south San Francisco Bay. Salt water flows through the marsh and is
discharged into Matadero Creek.
Historical Significance
In July 2018, an AECOM architectural historian completed a historic survey update, a reevaluation of the
property’s historical significance, and an assessment of its historic integrity (AECOM 2018). Key findings
from the reevaluation state that the former Federal Telegraph Company Marsh Station property (2601
East Bayshore Road) is significant under National Register of Historic Places/California Register of
Historical Resources (NRHP/CRHR) criteria A/1, B/2, and C/3, but that it does not retain sufficient
historic integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, and the property
no longer physically conveys its historic significance. Therefore, the station property is recommended to
not be eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR. The City’s Planning and Community Environment
Department and Historic Resources Board may have differing views regarding the historic significance of
the station property.
10.3 Potential Future Uses
The following sections achieve BCCP KEY Goal 2. These sections describe potential future uses of the
former ITT site/Renzel Wetlands by identifying existing habitats, identifying options and feasibility for
locations of trail and hydrological connections, and describes potential re-use options of the building
and antennae on the site.
Development of Design Concept Scenarios
To achieve Key Goal 4 design concept scenarios were developed for the potential future uses of the
former ITT Property. The concept scenarios were developed from a list of common objectives and key
design elements which were based on interviews with staff and stakeholders, research, and site visits.
The key objective of the design concepts was to integrate the former ITT Property with the Emily Renzel
Wetlands and the rest of the Baylands. The design concept scenarios were circulated to City staff
members, the project’s Web site, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Stakeholder Advisory
Group for review and feedback. The four design concept scenarios remain on file with the City.
All four design concept scenarios for the former ITT Property emphasized the site’s historical and
ecological significance; however, the essential elements of the scenarios varied, as did the methods
used to achieve balance between the site’s historical and ecological elements. Each concept scenario
used a different theme to depict a spectrum of ideas and preferences expressed by City staff and
stakeholders. For instance, every concept scenario prioritized salt marsh restoration; however, the
restoration areas and levels of public site access varied. Similarly, the freshwater pond footprint was
presented with options to remain the same or to expand.
To achieve Key Objective 2.6 design options for the Radio Station building ranged from
repurposing the building into a museum to removing the building and preserving its
156 Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
memory with an interpretive sign at the site. The design concept scenarios that would retain the Radio
Station building presented public-access options with and without vehicular access, and with potential
pedestrian access to the Radio Station building, or with pedestrian trail continuing through the center of
the site and connecting to Byxbee Park.
Three of the four concept scenarios included a continuous pedestrian trail around the periphery of the
site, connecting it to Byxbee Park. Public access to the freshwater pond and its maintenance varied by
option. Based on stakeholders’ and City staff members’ overwhelming preference, and to protect
sensitive habitats and wildlife, the concept scenarios excluded dogs from trails in the center of the site,
but not from the peripheral trail. The number and placement of site amenities, including overlooks and
gathering areas with interpretive signage, also varied by option.
At the time the four design concept scenarios were presented, the Stakeholder Advisory Group had
chosen two antennae to potentially remain on-site. The concept scenarios presented options to either
retain the two antennae or remove all antennae.
During review of the concept scenarios, the most debated key elements were expanding the footprint of
the freshwater pond into the salt marsh, removing or enhancing the Marsh Station building, retaining
and placing antennae, and adding trails in the site’s center that would have the potential to affect
existing habitats and wildlife.
Design Concepts and Elements
Feedback and input from City staff members, the Stakeholder Advisory Group, and the Parks and
Recreation Commission as described above, revealed popular design concepts and elements which are
shown in Figure 23 and described below. This section presents some of these desired potential elements
as concepts only, and further discussion and analysis of the included elements and recommended
physical improvements is warranted prior to implementation of any of the concept plan elements. Any
proposed physical improvements to this property would be processed as part of a Parks Improvement
Ordinance, which requires a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Council
approval. Any proposed changes to the hydrological connection would likely require further
coordination and regulatory approval from applicable agencies.
Hydrologic Connection
Most of the Emily Renzel Wetlands could be enhanced by improved tidal flows. Some parts of the
wetlands could be restored as tidal wetlands become established in the locations of existing uplands.
This process could involve decompacting soil in previously developed or otherwise affected areas, such
as the site of the Radio Station building, parking area, and access road footprint; removing invasive
weeds; excavating the dendritic channels of the historic tidal marsh; and restoring functional hydrologic
connections between San Francisco Bay and the marsh. During any earthwork on-site, sensitive areas
such as wetlands should be delineated with fencing to restrict access, and impacts should be avoided to
the maximum extent feasible. Figure 22 shows key locations where hydrologic connections could occur.
Specifics for these improvements are not yet known and are discussed further only to provide overview
of potential options:
an enhanced tidal flow through the current pipe connection between San Francisco Bay
(from a point just north of Embarcadero Road) and the northwest corner of the Emily
Renzel Wetlands;
Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands 157
a connection to the Mayfield Slough remnant, with discharge to Matadero Creek; and
through a south side levee, providing a direct connection to Matadero Creek.
Further hydrologic modeling and evaluations are needed to determine feasibility, understand potential
ecological impacts, determine the feasibility of daylighting piped areas, and understand how projected
sea level rise could affect the restored hydrology.
Access and Trails
Visitor circulation, potential amenities, and interpretive signage have been placed carefully on the
periphery of the site, to minimize potential impacts on sensitive habitats and wildlife. The proposed ITT
Trail, to be accessed from East Bayshore Road, could be in the same footprint as the access road to the
former ITT Property, extending approximately 750 feet and ending at a seating area that would overlook
the restored tidal marsh. An interpretive panel near this area could describe the technological
achievements made at the Marsh Station.
The potential freshwater pond and Marsh Trail could be accessed via the freshwater pond maintenance
road. Visitors would have a unique vantage point, with the freshwater pond on one side and the tidal
marsh on the other. An interpretive panel in this area could describe the engineered freshwater wetland
system and the tidal marsh ecosystem. A connection at the south end of the trail could lead to an
existing parking area and the Adobe Creek Trail. Dogs and horses would be prohibited from entering the
marsh, with signage placed at both ends of the freshwater pond and Marsh Trail.
The proposed North Trail could connect the existing Renzel Trail to Byxbee Park, providing continuous
access to the northern end of the site. Impacts on the existing wetlands could be minimized by a grade
separation between the trail and the marsh, potentially with a berm or retaining wall. t. A small segment
of the trail might be constructed as a boardwalk as a last resort, should encroachment into the wetlands
or on neighboring properties be unavoidable. Directional, informational, and interpretive signage could
be placed at the junctions of the proposed and existing trails. The overlook on the western end of the
North Trail would provide a vantage point for the entire Emily Renzel Wetlands, and interpretive signage
at this location could focus on wetland ecology and restoration. Bioretention areas and green
stormwater infrastructure should be considered alongside trails.
Buildings and Antennae
Based on input from stakeholders and the Parks and Recreation Commission and on recommendations
from the historic resource evaluation, a popular design concept involves removing some or all buildings
and antennae at the site, including the Radio Station building, and restoring the tidal marsh in place. It
should be noted that the City’s Planning and Development Services Division and Historic Resources
Board may have alternative use concepts for the Radio Station buildings and antennae. Therefore,
further discussion and analysis of the buildings and their potential for reuse is warranted prior to
implementation of any of the concept plans, in accordance with Key Objective 2.3. Any proposed
physical improvements to this property would be processed as part of a Parks Improvement Ordinance,
which requires a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Council approval.
Cost
A cost narrative and estimate have been prepared for these popular design concept
elements, with options for low, medium, and high costs for potential project amenities,
design elements, and activities. This cost narrative includes potential site furnishings,
158 Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
annual maintenance costs, potential salt marsh restoration, and accompanying options for restoration
of tidal hydrology connections and other items. Appendix C includes a detailed cost narrative.
Potential trail connection from
levee trail to freshwater pond
and marsh trail
ProPosed north trail/ retain.
wall
legend:
ProPosed Pedestrian trail on
existing maintenance road
ProPosed itt trail on existing
maintenance road
existing multi-use trail
Baylands Boundary
Freshwater Pond and marsh
(current FootPrint)
Potential restoration areas
restored hydrology areas
existing Primary and secondary
dendritic channels
ProPosed Primary and second-
ary dendritic channels
itt Building, road and Fence
removed - area is regraded
and restored to tidal marsh
hydrological connection
all antennae removed
interPretive sign, existing and
ProPosed
overlook and gathering area,
existing and ProPosed
ProPosed mutt mitt station
ProPosed Bench
ProPosed inFormational sign
ProPosed directional sign
ProPosed ‘dogs ProhiBited’ sign
ProPosed recycling/trash can
500
ProPosed culvert
ProPosed Bridge From levee
trail to Freshwater Pond and
marsh trail
North Trail
ITT Trail
Freshwater Pond & M
ar
s
h
T
r
a
il
Palo alto Baylands
renzel wetlands & Former itt area
PrereFFed concePt
i i
i
i
i
ii
i
i
Remnant
Marsh
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i
i
i
i
i
ii
i
Byxbee Park
Hills
Regional Water Quality Control Plant
F
a
b
e
r
P
l
.
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Matadero Creek
Freshwater
Pond
& Marsh
Flood Control
Basin
Renzel
T
r
a
i
l
Ad
o
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
Restored Emily
Renzel Wetlands
i
i
i
i
ProPosed north trail/ retain.
wall
legend:
ProPosed Pedestrian trail on
existing maintenance road
ProPosed itt trail on existing
maintenance road
existing multi-use trail
Baylands Boundary
Freshwater Pond and marsh
(current FootPrint)
Potential restoration areas
restored hydrology areas
existing Primary and secondary
dendritic channels
ProPosed Primary and second-
ary dendritic channels
itt Building, road and Fence
removed - area is regraded
and restored to tidal marsh
hydrological connection
all antennae removed
interPretive sign, existing and
ProPosed
overlook and gathering area,
existing and ProPosed
ProPosed mutt mitt station
ProPosed Bench
ProPosed inFormational sign
ProPosed directional sign
ProPosed ‘dogs ProhiBited’ sign
ProPosed recycling/trash can
500
ProPosed culvert
ProPosed Bridge From levee
trail to Freshwater Pond and
marsh trail
North Trail
ITT Trail
Freshwater Pond & M
ar
s
h
T
r
a
il
Palo alto Baylands renzel wetlands & Former itt area
PrereFFed concePt
i i
i
i
i
ii
i
i
Remnant
Marsh
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i
i
i
i
i
ii
i
Byxbee Park Hills
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Fabe
r
P
l
.
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Matadero Creek
Freshwater
Pond
& Marsh
Flood Control
Basin
Renzel
T
r
a
i
l
Ad
o
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
Restored Emily
Renzel Wetlands
i
i
i
i
Existing hydrological connection
Potential hydrological
connection
Potential Bench
Potential Design Concept Elements
ITT building, road and fence
optional potential reuse
Potential hydrological
connection
ProPosed north trail/ retain.
wall
legend:
ProPosed Pedestrian trail on
existing maintenance road
ProPosed itt trail on existing
maintenance road
existing multi-use trail
Baylands Boundary
Freshwater Pond and marsh
(current FootPrint)
Potential restoration areas
restored hydrology areas
existing Primary and secondary
dendritic channels
ProPosed Primary and second-
ary dendritic channels
itt Building, road and Fence
removed - area is regraded
and restored to tidal marsh
hydrological connection
all antennae removed
interPretive sign, existing and
ProPosed
overlook and gathering area,
existing and ProPosed
ProPosed mutt mitt station
ProPosed Bench
ProPosed inFormational sign
ProPosed directional sign
ProPosed ‘dogs ProhiBited’ sign
ProPosed recycling/trash can
500
ProPosed culvert
ProPosed Bridge From levee
trail to Freshwater Pond and
marsh trail
North Trail
ITT Trail
Freshwater Pond & M
ar
s
h
T
r
ail
Palo alto Baylands
renzel wetlands & Former itt area
PrereFFed concePt
i i
i
i
i
ii
i
i
Remnant
Marsh
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i
i
i
i
i
ii
i
Byxbee Park
Hills
Regional Water Quality Control Plant
F
a
b
e
r
P
l
.
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Matadero Creek
Freshwater Pond
& Marsh
Flood Control
Basin
Renzel
T
r
a
i
l
Ad
o
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
Restored Emily
Renzel Wetlands
i
i
i
i
ProPosed north trail/ retain.
wall
legend:
ProPosed Pedestrian trail on
existing maintenance road
ProPosed itt trail on existing
maintenance road
existing multi-use trail
Baylands Boundary
Freshwater Pond and marsh
(current FootPrint)
Potential restoration areas
restored hydrology areas
existing Primary and secondary
dendritic channels
ProPosed Primary and second-
ary dendritic channels
itt Building, road and Fence
removed - area is regraded
and restored to tidal marsh
hydrological connection
all antennae removed
interPretive sign, existing and
ProPosed
overlook and gathering area,
existing and ProPosed
ProPosed mutt mitt station
ProPosed Bench
ProPosed inFormational sign
ProPosed directional sign
ProPosed ‘dogs ProhiBited’ sign
ProPosed recycling/trash can
500
ProPosed culvert
ProPosed Bridge From levee
trail to Freshwater Pond and
marsh trail
North Trail
ITT Trail
Freshwater Pond & M
ar
s
h
T
r
a
il
Palo alto Baylands renzel wetlands & Former itt area
PrereFFed concePt
i i
i
i
i
ii
i
i
Remnant
Marsh
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i
i
i
i
i
ii
i
Byxbee Park
Hills
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Faber
P
l
.
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Matadero Creek
Freshwater
Pond
& Marsh
Flood Control
Basin
Renzel
T
r
a
i
l
Ad
o
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
Restored Emily
Renzel Wetlands
i
i
i
i
Antennae - optional potential reuse
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
.
Existing mutt mitt station
Proposed north trail
Proposed pedestrian trail on
existing maintenance road
Proposed ITT trail on existing
maintenance road
Existing multi-use trail
Baylands boundary
Freshwater pond and marsh
(current footprint)
Potential restoration areas
Restored hydrological areas
Existing primary and secondary
dendritic channels
Proposed primary and secondary
dendritic channels
Interpretive sign, existing and
proposed
Overlook and gathering area,
existing and proposed
Proposed informational sign
Proposed directional sign
Proposed ‘dogs prohibited sign
Proposed recycling/trash/
compost
Legend:
160 Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
This page intentionally left blank
References 161
References
Ackerly, D., A. Jones, M. Stacey, and B. Riordan. 2018. San Francisco Bay Area Summary Report.
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: CCCA4-SUM-2018-005.
Berkeley: University of California. Available:
http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/regions/docs/20180827-SanFranciscoBayArea.pdf.
AECOM. 2016 (February). San Francisco Bay Tidal Datums and Extreme Tides Study. Final Report.
Available:
http://www.r9map.org/Documents/SFBay_Tidal%20Datums_Extreme_Tides_Study.FINAL05.2.16.pd
f.
———. 2018. City of Palo Alto Historic Survey Update for the former Federal Telegraph Company Marsh
Station Property. Sacramento, CA.
Anderson, Daren. Division Manager, Open Space, Parks & Golf, Palo Alto, CA. July 20, 2017—personal
communication with Diana Edwards of AECOM regarding Baylands management.
———. October 17, 2018—personal communication with Diana Edwards of AECOM regarding Baylands
weeds.
Bakker, E. 1972. An Island Called California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
BCDC. See San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Bicknell, Richard. Supervising Baylands Ranger. Open Space, Parks & Golf, Palo Alto, CA. July 20, 2017—
personal communication with Diana Edwards of AECOM regarding Baylands management.
Cal-IPC. See California Invasive Plant Council.
Calflora. 2016. The Calflora Database. Information on California Plants for Education, Research, and
Conservation. Available: http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed February 26, 2016.
California Invasive Plant Council. 2016. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Available:
http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/. Accessed February 26, 2016.
California Ocean Protection Council. 2018. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance, 2018 Update.
Adopted March 14, 2018. Available:
http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-
A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf.
City of Mountain View. 2012a (October). 2012 Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan. Public Works
and Community Services Departments. Mountain View, CA.
———. 2012b (December). Shoreline Regional Park Community Sea Level Rise Study. Final Draft.
Prepared by ESA PWA with AMEC, HDR, SCI, and H. T. Harvey. San Francisco, CA.
City of Palo Alto. 2005 (June). Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for the Palo Alto
Baylands Nature Preserve. Palo Alto, CA.
162 Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
———. 2007. City of Palo Alto Open Space District Regulations. Palo Alto, CA. Available:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9472. Accessed January 2, 2019.
———. 2008 (October 6). Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan. Fourth edition. Department of Planning and
Community Environment. Palo Alto, CA.
———. 2013 (September). Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan. Palo Alto, CA. Prepared by
the City of Palo Alto Landfill and Golder Associates Inc.
———. 2015 (May). Palo Alto Baylands Preserve, Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative.
Public Services Department, Open Space Division, and Public Works Department. Palo Alto, CA.
———. 2016a (May 12). City of Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan. Revised Draft. Created in cooperation
with Barbara Goldstein & Associates with Gail M. Goldman Associates. Palo Alto, CA.
———. 2016b (August 23). Baylands ITT Transmitter Site—Transmittal of June 27, 2016, Council Staff
Report and Next Steps. Palo Alto, CA.
———. 2017a (August). Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. Final.
Palo Alto, CA.
———. 2017b (June). Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Signage Plan. Palo Alto, CA.
———. 2018 (January). Water Reclamation—2017 Annual Report per Regional Board Order No. 93-160.
Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Palo Alto, CA.
———. 2019 (December) Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project Preliminary Design Report. Palo Alto,
CA.
CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.
Consortium of California Herbaria. 2016. Consortium of California Herbaria Data. Available:
ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium. Accessed February 26, 2016.
County of Santa Clara. 2015 (August). Silicon Valley 2.0 Climate Adaptation Guidebook. Office of
Sustainability and Climate Action. Available:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/osp/Documents/SV2/1_150803_Final%20Guidebook_W_Appendices.
pdf
DiTomaso, J. M., G. B. Kyser, S. R. Oneto, R. G. Wilson, S. B. Orloff, L. W. Anderson, S. D. Wright, J. A.
Roncoroni, T. L. Miller, T. S. Prather, C. Ransom, K. G. Beck, C. Duncan, J. A. Wilson, and J. J. Mann.
2013. Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States. Weed Research and Information
Center, University of California.
Eddleman, W. R., and C. J. Conway. 1998. Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris). In The Birds of North America,
No. 340, ed. A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia, PA.
Evens, J. G., and G. W. Page. 1986. Predation on Black Rails during High Tides in Salt
Marshes. Condor 88: 107–109.
Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands 163
Foin, T. C., E. J. Garcia, R. E. Gill, S. D. Culberson, and J. N. Collins. 1997. Recovery Strategies for the
California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) in the Heavily-Urbanized San Francisco
Estuarine Ecosystem. Landscape and Urban Planning 38(3–4):229–243.
Goals Project. 2015. The Baylands and Climate Change: What We Can Do. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat
Goals Science Update 2015, prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals
Project. Oakland: California State Coastal Conservancy.
Griggs, G., J. Árvai, D. Cayan, R. DeConto, J. Fox, H. A. Fricker, R. E. Kopp, C. Tebaldi, and E. A. Whiteman.
2017 (April). Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science. California Ocean
Protection Council Science Advisory Team Working Group.
Harding, E. K., D. F. Doak, and J. D. Albertson. 2001. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Predator Control: The
Nonnative Red Fox as a Case Study. Conservation Biology 15(4):1114–1122.
Harrison, A., E. Small, and H. Mooney. 1971. Drought Relationships and Distribution of Two
Mediterranean Climate Californian Plant Communities. Ecology 52:869–875.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Bali, Indonesia.
IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2018. Sea Level Trends. Available:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends.
National Park Service. 2009 (October). Wayside Exhibits: A Guide to Developing Outdoor Interpretive
Exhibits. Harpers Ferry Center. Available: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/hfc/upload/
Wayside-Guide-First-Edition.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2019.
NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NPS. See National Park Service.
OEI. See Olofson Environmental, Inc.
Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2016. California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary
Invasive Spartina Project 2016.
Olson, Jessie. Nursery Manager. Save the Bay, Oakland, CA. August 16, 2017—personal phone
communication with Diana Edwards and Petra Unger at AECOM regarding Save the Bay operations
at the Baylands.
OPC. See California Ocean Protection Council.
Orr, M., C. Crooks, and P. Williams. 2003 (October). Will Restored Tidal Marshes Be Sustainable? In
Issues in San Francisco Estuary Tidal Wetlands Restoration, ed. L. R. Brown, San Francisco
Estuary and Watershed Science 1(1), Article 5.
Point Blue. See Point Blue Conservation Science.
164 Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands
Point Blue Conservation Science. 2011. State of the Birds Report, 2011. Prepared by Point Blue
Conservation Science and the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, Petaluma, CA.
———. 2018. Tools & Guidance: Overview. Available: https://www.pointblue.org/tools-and-guidance/.
Accessed December 1, 2018.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2018a. Adapting to Rising Tides Bay
Area. Prepared by Carey Batha. Available:
http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/cm/2018/0104ARTBayAreaPre.pdf?_sm_au_=iVVQ2JN6n4t2Q5LM.
———. 2018b. Adapting to Rising Tides: About Us. Available:
http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/about/?_sm_au_=iVVQ2JN6n4t2Q5LM.
———. 2018c. Adapting to Rising Tides: Get Involved with Adaptation. Available:
http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/adaptation-around-the-region/.
San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2016 (June). San Francisquito Creek Baylands: Landscape Change Metrics
Analysis. San Francisco Estuary Institute & Aquatic Science Center.
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. 2015 (May). Draft Preliminary Alternatives Report (SAFER
Bay Project). Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., ESA, and H. T. Harvey. Menlo Park, CA.
———. 2019 (October). Public Draft Feasibility Report Strategy to Advance Flood Protection (SAFER Bay
Project). Ecosystems and Recreation along San Francisco Bay. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.,
ESA PWA, and H. T. Harvey. East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, CA.
———. 2022 (April) Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SAFER Bay Project).
Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., ESA PWA, and H. T. Harvey. East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, CA
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2016 (July). Palo Alto Flood Basin Hydrology. Prepared by Schaaf &
Wheeler.
———. 2018. 2019–2023 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Chapter 3: Flood Protection Capital
Improvements.
SCVWD. See Santa Clara Valley Water District.
SFCJPA. See San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority.
SFEI. See San Francisco Estuary Institute.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali (eds.). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked
Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation
Concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA, and
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Smithsonian. 2019. Smithsonian Guidelines for Accessible Exhibition Design. Smithsonian
Accessibility Program, Washington, DC. Available:
https://www.si.edu/Accessibility/SGAED. Accessed January 2, 2019.
Concepts for Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands 165
Thalmayer, I. M., T. Gardali, J. Wood, N. E. Seavy, L. Giambastiani, and J. J. Parodi. 2016. User Guide:
Marsh-Upland Transition Zone Climate-Smart Restoration Tool. Point Blue Conservation Science
Available: http://www.pointblue.org/restorationtools. Accessed February 12, 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central
California. Sacramento, CA.
———. 2013b. California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus): 5-Year Review Summary and
Evaluation. Sacramento, CA.
USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Veloz, S., M. Fitzgibbon, D. Stralberg, S. Michaile, D. Jongsomjit, D. Moody, N. Nur, L. Salas, J. Wood, M.
Elrod, and G. Ballard. 2014. Future San Francisco Bay Tidal Marshes: A Climate-Smart Planning Tool.
[Web application.] Petaluma, CA. Available: http://www.pointblue.org/sfbayslr.
Vitousek, P. M., C. M. D’Antonio, L. L. Loope, and R. Westbrooks. 1996. Biological Invasions as Global
Environmental Change. American Scientist 84:468–478.
APPENDIX A. PUBLIC AND
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
SUMMARY
Key Themes from the Oct 18th Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 1
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Key Themes from the Oct 18, 2017 Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Overarching themes that emerged from input collected at the first stakeholder advisory committee
meeting include the need to balance recreation, education, and access at the Baylands with natural
resources.
Recreation
Stakeholders would like to see continued opportunities for recreation at the Baylands. People use and
like the trail system to access areas for wildlife observation and other recreational activities.
Stakeholders would like to restrict human access to natural and open space areas through an
appropriate trail network. Many commenters noted that they would like to limit parking areas to
existing paved or gravel areas. Others noted that they would like to see improved access to aquatic
resources.
Natural Resources
Stakeholders would like to see comprehensive management of the natural resources at the Baylands.
This includes preserving, restoring, and enhancing ecosystem functions and habitats and reducing the
extent of non-native and invasive species with non-chemical control methods. Commenters would like
to see natural resources, native habitat, and open space prioritized in the BCCP.
Ecosystem Function
Restoring, protecting, and enhancing ecosystems and associated functions, particularly in marshes, were
identified as a very important goal for the BCCP. Riparian areas along freshwater creeks were also
identified as potential target areas for restoration and habitat enhancement.
Many stakeholders would like to see the former ITT property restored and some would like to see tidal
action restored to the site. People also would like to to see the duck pond restored to a more natural
state. Other opportunities that were identified for restoration include reconnecting Adobe Creek
hydraulically to the Charleston Slough and the bay. Stakeholders noted that they would like to promote
native species and habitats throughout the Baylands.
Wildlife
Wildlife corridors, and complex, and healthy wildlife habitat at the Baylands are important for
stakeholders. Migratory bird overwintering habitat and nesting habitat were both mentioned. Many
people noted that dogs are disruptive to wildlife and they would like to see stronger leash laws and
more enforcement. Multiple stakeholders would like to see an end to ground squirrel control at Byxbee
Park, noting that this may increase the presence of burrowing owls.
Sea Level Rise/Climate Change
Sea level rise adaptation and resilience to climate change is a major concern for stakeholders.
Many people said that planning for sea level rise should be an important goal for the BCCP.
Others noted that the BCCP should coordinate with other planning efforts within the City of
Palo Alto and regionally. Horizontal levees, using effluent from the WWTP, could be one
Key Themes from the Oct 18th Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 2
strategy for sea level rise adaptation at the Baylands
Community/Organization Partnerships
Stakeholders said that partnerships with organizations such as Save the Bay, Environmental Volunteers,
and other community and environmental education groups are important for public engagement
opportunities at the Baylands. Many people noted that the education facilities within the Baylands
including the Eco-center, the Lucy Evans Nature Center, and the Save the Bay nursery were important
for education programs within the Baylands.
Stakeholder/Community Involvement
Stakeholder, community, and public involvement should be included in the BCCP planning process.
Many people suggested well-advertised, transparent community meetings where input is collected as an
important priority for the BCCP. Respondents noted that a website, or a way to engage with the
planning process online, would be a good way to gather input and engage the community in the
planning process.
Byxbee
Stakeholders would like to see a trail connect to the former ITT property. Many people would like to see
the interpretive signage and the trail system at Byxbee completed, however with fewer trails and better
connections for those trails. The plan for Byxbee Park should encourage native plants and habitats,
especially in transition zones. Many people noted that they would like to see an end to squirrel control
to promote burrowing owl presence.
Former ITT Property/Renzel Wetlands
Many stakeholders said that they would like to see the building at former ITT property removed, and the
surrounding landscape restored. People would also like a trail connection to Byxbee. Some people want
to restore the property and minimize public access and trails to the site. Others noted that trails and
recreation should be promoted at the site. An interpretive center at the site was also suggested.
Projects
Many stakeholders noted that projects within the Baylands should be limited, including limiting parking
areas, reducing the amount and type of projects associated with facilities within the Baylands such as
the Airport and the WWTP. People noted that timing of projects is important and should be sequenced
to minimize disturbance.
Former Los Altos Treatment Plant
Many stakeholders noted that they would like to see areas of the former Los Altos Treatment Plant
restored and dedicated as parkland.
Public Art
Incorporation of public art, and coordination with the Public Art Master Plan was identified as an
opportunity for the BCCP.
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Key Themes from the December 5, 2017
Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
The December 5, 2017 community/stakeholder advisory committee meeting focused on Byxbee Park
and the Renzel Wetlands/former ITT Property.
Hydrologic Connectivity
Stakeholders would like to see more natural hydrologic connectivity to the Renzel Wetlands and the
marsh remnant south of Byxbee Park.
Trails
Stakeholder would like to retain or reduce the number of trails at Byxbee Park. Stakeholders would like
a trail atop the levee that circles the freshwater pond in the Renzel Wetland. Some commenters noted
that they would like to see trail connections to the Embarcardero Way and to the pedestrian bridge over
Hwy 101. Others noted that trails should be sensitive to existing habitat patches and wildlife corridors.
Wildlife
Stakeholders would like to see additional habitat for burrowing owl at Byxbee Park. Commenters noted
the importance of ground squirrels to burrowing owl habitat. One commenter was concerned regarding
impacts to fox habitat from expansion and maintenance of the freshwater pond in the Renzel Wetlands.
It was suggested that the fence at the former ITT property remain in place to restrict human access, and
thus increase wildlife habitat. It was suggested that the planning team obtain a copy of the San
Francisco Wildlife Refuge November/December 2017 regarding burrowing owls and ground squirrels.
Parking
Stakeholders noted that they would like no new parking at the former ITT property. Commenters said
that the parking lots at Byxbee Park should be striped to allow more capacity.
Benches
Stakeholder would like more benches at Byxbee Park.
10-Acres
Stakeholder would like the 10 acres (Measure E site) at Byxbee Park, currently set-aside for a compost
facility, to be re-dedicated as parkland as soon as it is possible (2021).
Key Themes from the Dec 5, 2017 Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 1
Potentially Historic Buildings
Stakeholders would like to the potentially historic buildings at the former ITT property removed. Some
suggested that parts of the building/artifacts from the building could be repurposed elsewhere in Palo
Alto in a historic display, or as part of a new airport terminal.
Habitat Enhancement/Restoration
Stakeholders would like to retain and restore habitat in the Renzel Wetlands/former ITT property and
suggested looking at historical landscapes and maps. Some stakeholders suggested the addition of
willow groves/sausals. Commenters would like see trails that do not bisect habitat, but occur along the
edges of habitat. Some commenters would like to see an expansion of the vegetative islands in Byxbee
Park. One commenter suggested that the Baylands do a land swap with the Airport as an opportunity to
restore more marshland near San Francisquito Creek.
Planning
It was suggested that the BCCP process coordinate and collaborate with other projects in the area such
at the JPA SAFER project.
Sea Level Rise/Climate Change
Stakeholders noted that sea level rise and climate change should be accounted for in the BCCP.
Terminology
It was suggested that the terms “active recreation” and “development” be changed during the planning
process. Following this suggestion “active recreation” has been changed to “recreation” and
“development” has been changed to “projects” in prior workshop themes summary and project
materials.
Key Themes from the Dec 5, 2017 Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 2
Themes from Feb 15, 2018 Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Key Themes from the February 15, 2018
Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
The February 15, 2018 community/stakeholder advisory committee meeting focused on refining and
developing a vision, goals, and objectives for the BCCP.
Recreation
Some feedback received said that the existing trail networks were sufficient. Some stakeholders
mentioned viewing platforms and opportunities should be placed near existing developed areas such as
the airport, roads, and parking lots. One stakeholder mentioned that recreation should be re-named to
‘access’.
Art
Stakeholders suggested that art at the Baylands should be ecologically beneficial, blend in with the
environment, and placed near existing developed areas such as the airport, roads, and parking lots and
not block view of natural areas. Some stakeholders said that they would like as little art as possible or
even no additional art to be placed in the Baylands. A few commenters suggested that some art be
shown in buildings that already exist within the Baylands, such as the airport terminal or the Evans
nature center.
Sea Level Rise
Stakeholders would like to encourage the pilot of a ‘horizontal levee’ and other innovative sea level rise
adaptation measures. Stakeholders would like to see the marshes used as protection from sea level rise,
and would also like to see critical infrastructure protected such as the airport, the RWQCP, and East Palo
Alto. They would like the BCCP to coordinate with regional planning efforts and projects such as
SFJCJPA/SAFER Bay and Resilient by Design. It was suggested that some areas be allowed to flood.
Another stakeholder noted that efforts should be made to identify appropriate levees for raising. It was
also suggested that and effort be made to coordinate and identify sediment sources for raising marsh
elevations.
Natural Resources
Feedback received mentioned that efforts should be made to identify degraded and healthy habitats.
Stakeholders would like to see the Baylands managed for biodiversity and noted that not all non-native
species are damaging to habitats. Habitat function restoration and enhancement should be a priority.
Some would like to see more riparian habitat established where possible as well as protection of other
habitat and wildlife corridors. A few people noted that they would like to see and ecologically healthy
Duck Pond, one person would like to see the Duck Pond filled in. Some said that efforts should be made
to see if a land swap with the airport would be feasible, so that the Baylands got land that could become
Themes from Feb 15, 2018 Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
contiguous habitat and the airport could get land that would be helpful for airport operations. Some
would like to see burrowing owl habitat added as at Byxbee in areas where fill is being added to the clay
cap. One person suggested that partnerships with rangers would be helpful in identifying priorities.
Airport
It was noted that the airport would like to do a land swap with the Baylands. Stakeholders said that the
airport is a critical community resource that requires protection. Some would like to see appropriate
wildlife management around the airport.
LATP
Stakeholders would like to see the buildings at the LATP removed and the site enhanced and restored to
healthy habitat or would like to see it become a recreation area.
Byxbee
Stakeholders would like to see weeds and invasive species controlled so that they do not impact
surrounding natural areas. Some would like to see efforts made to understand why social trails at
Byxbee have persisted. Some would like to see the walking trails and the biking trails separated. Many
people noted that they would like to see an expansion of the habitat islands.
Organization Partnerships
Stakeholders would like to see continued partnerships with organizations that get people out into the
Baylands that foster preservation and restoration such as Save the Bay, Grassroots Ecology,
Environmental Volunteers, Ranger walks, and Audubon bird walks. One noted that it would be great to
see a gathering place or amphitheater to get groups to the Baylands.
Management/Projects
Stakeholders would like to see close coordination of the BCCP with the state land use plan, airport, FAA,
and other projects like SAFER Bay and South Bay Salt Ponds. Stakeholders would like to see the Baylands
managed to protect, restore, and preserve natural resources. One stakeholder would like to see the
topic changed from ‘Management’ to ‘Preservation’.
ITT
Stakeholders would like to see the pond lead repaired at the ITT site. Some would like to see the
building removed, some would like to see it stay with a trail connection, and others would like to see it
moved closer to Bayshore. Many stakeholders would like to see the upland habitat restored and
enhanced and would like to see a trail connection from Byxbee. Many would like to have a trail around
the outside of the property in order to preserve a contiguous patch in the interior.
Summary of Baylands User Survey Responses
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Summary of the Baylands User Survey Responses
Administered by Baylands Rangers, April & May 2018
In April and May 2018 Baylands Rangers administered a six question survey questionnaire to Baylands
visitors. The purpose of the survey was to provide additional input to development of the Baylands
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, beyond the feedback received during focused stakeholder meetings.
Approximately 73 people completed the survey, including a mix of adults and youth. The following
summarized the responses received by all participants to each of the six questions.
Question 1: What issues do you think the BCCP should be focused on in the
coming years? Tell us your top 3 priorities.
The majority of respondents said that the BCCP should focus on habitat/natural resources and
recreation/access; the next most important issues include environmental education, park amenities, and
sea level rise. Other responses included public art, parking, Byxbee Park, holistic management, and the
former ITT property/Renzel wetlands.
Question 2: What features of the Baylands do you like most or use most?
The majority of respondents like or use the trails for walking, hiking, or biking. Many people said they
also enjoy birdwatching and other wildlife observation opportunities. The sailing station parking lot is
utilized by many different types of users including ham radio operators, kayakers/canoers, and a drum
circle. Multiple respondents use and like the nature center and boardwalk. Some people said that they
like to picnic, walk their dogs, or play at the Baylands Athletic Center. Multiple people said that they use
and like the amenities such as restrooms, parking lots, drinking fountains/water stations, and benches.
Question 3: Which areas of the Baylands have potential for improvements? What
would these improvements look like? (i.e., trails, benches, habitats, etc.)
Baylands users would like to see improvements to existing amenities such as better restrooms and trash
cans particularly near the ranger station, more benches, more drinking fountains/water stations, shade
structures, soccer fields, campground, and a fishing pier. Many respondents said that they would like to
see improved trail surfaces, trails with connections to East Palo Alto and Mountain View, more trail
access for dogs, and an improved Adobe Creek Trail for bikes. People would like easier launch access
during low tide at the sailing station in addition to a hose to clean watercraft, more ties on the dock, and
a place to rent kayaks/canoes. Many respondents said that they would like to see improved habitat at
the Baylands including preserving existing wildlife habitat areas, and also a reduction in invasive species,
and better vegetation control. A few respondents noted that safety and security could be improved
through the addition of blue light emergency phones, defibrillators, or more park personnel. Other
respondents mentioned that they would like to see the environmental education opportunities at the
Baylands expanded through extended opening hours of the Lucy Evan Nature Center and the
Summary of Baylands User Survey Responses
Environmental Volunteers Ecocenter. One person would like to see an area for an outdoor classroom.
Multiple people wanted to see the Geng Road parking lot improved.
Question 4: How often do you visit the Baylands? (i.e., daily, weekly, monthly,
etc.) What do you do here? (i.e., paint, hike, run, windsurf, fish, kayak, birdwatch)
The majority of respondents said that they visit the Baylands weekly. Many people visit at least once a
month. A few people visit two to five times a year, and a smaller number of people visit only
occasionally or rarely. Three respondents said that they visit more than once per week.
Question 5: Do you have any additional suggestions for managing the Baylands,
or ideas for what it should look like in the future?
Suggestions and opinions for the future of the Baylands were varied. Some people want more trails,
more open space protection, and more ranger programming. Others wanted to see paved parking lots,
shade structures, more picnic tables, more signage, and more restrooms. At the former ITT site, some
people want to see the historic buildings restored and open for use, while others want to see the
building removed and the area restored to natural habitat. Many respondents suggested more
environmental education opportunities including tours, crafts, guided wildlife observation tours, and
nature walks. Vegetation control and landscaping were mentioned by multiple respondents. Other
suggestions included extended hours on full moon nights in summer, more park personnel, and
additional soccer fields.
Question 6: What is your biggest concern with regards to the Baylands?
There were multiple concerns noted regarding the Baylands. The greatest concerns were pollution
within the Baylands, urban expansion/development, and preservation of open space/habitat. Other
concerns include sea level rise, public access, and parking.
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Summary of Feedback for the Concept Designs for the ITT Building Footprint and
the Freshwater Pond & Marsh and Emily Renzel Wetland
Support for Options 1 and 4
The majority of stakeholders expressed support for a combination of concept designs reflected in
Options 1 and 4. These include the following:
1. Complete Habitat Restoration: Many stakeholders prioritized the restoration of the freshwater
pond and marsh, and the Emily Renzel wetland habitat to the full extent possible with the
removal of the ITT building, antennas and other related structures and the restoration of the ITT
footprint to wetland/marsh habitat. Additional considerations expressed by stakeholders for
the ITT footprint included providing upland refugia for salt marsh harvest mouse within the
footprint and salvaging wood materials from the ITT building during removal.
2. Hydrological Connectivity: A few stakeholders commented on the importance of hydrological
connectivity from the Emily Renzel wetlands to the remnant marsh and flood basin, including
adding dendritic pattern drainage to the expanded footprint of the freshwater pond and marsh
feature, and managing tidal flow to preserve the features of the saltwater marshes for
mitigation requirements. Other stakeholders supported maintaining the current footprint of the
freshwater marsh and pond.
3. Proposed Pedestrian Trails: The majority of stakeholders indicated support for the proposed
pedestrian trail (yellow-dotted path) along the northern perimeter of the Emily Renzel wetlands.
A concern was expressed regarding the impact to a historical wildlife corridor between the
wetlands and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
Feedback received on the proposed pedestrian trails (purple-dotted path) included concerns
about the potential impacts to the interior marsh and wetland habitat. Specifically, some
stakeholders expressed a preference to eliminate the proposed pedestrian trail along the
existing maintenance road (maintenance access only) and to change the placement of, or
removal of the overlook platforms and interpretative signage within these areas to preserve the
integrity of the habitat. There was one suggestion for this proposed trail to operate seasonally
to reduce disturbance in the area. Overall, there was mixed opinion on whether to provide a
pedestrian trail and viewing platforms (overlooks) along the perimeter of the freshwater pond
and marsh.
Support for Retaining the ITT Building (Option 3)
A small number of stakeholders were in favor of retaining the existing ITT building, antennas, and other
related infrastructure for historic preservation and interpretive purposes. A suggestion for interpretive
design of this area included opening one wall of the ITT building for interior viewing by the public,
installation of sculptures with historical relevance to the area (i.e Silicon Valley themed), and signage
providing information on the historical significance of the ITT equipment. The cost for renovating the
ITT building for historical preservation and public access purposes was brought into consideration by
stakeholders supporting this option.
Other Considerations
Comments received by stakeholders related to concept designs which were not reflected in Options 1
through 4 included the following:
1. Proposal for the restoration of the Duck Pond to salt marsh habitat;
2. Establishing a connecting Baylands perimeter trail away from East Bayshore Road and
potentially around the perimeter of Egret Pond;
3. Suggested plantings along Bayshore which may be equivalent to plantings along Mayfield Creek.
Themes from November 29, 2018 Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Key Themes from the November 29, 2018
Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
The November 29, 2018 community/stakeholder advisory committee meeting focused on the Draft
Action Plan and the Draft Byxbee Park Design Plan, and included minor updates the Final ITT Design
Concept.
Draft Action Plan
Habitat Preservation, Enhancement, and Restoration Plan
Some stakeholders said that the plan should be retitled to include the term ‘conservation’. A few
commenters noted that existing wildlife, wildlife corridors, biodiversity, and migratory species habitat
should be identified and prioritized as an initial step in the evaluation process. One person said that
preservation of existing intact habitats should be prioritized. One commenter noted that habitat
creation should be considered as an action as part of the plan, separate from restoration. Some
stakeholders felt there was too much emphasis on weeds.
One commenter would like the plan to include a discussion about who could best implement the
recommended actions. The commenter also suggested that the plan discuss the level of effort and
budget required for each action so funding could be sought through grants or other means.
A stakeholder noted that restoration of hydrology is critical and should be considered a high priority.
One stakeholder noted that the hydraulics within the Palo Alto Flood Control Basin should be
understood better before implementing restoration actions. Another person noted that they would like
to see daylighting of the hydrological connection from the inner harbor to the Renzel Wetlands.
Weed Management Plan
Some stakeholders would like to ensure that surveys for Burrowing Owl and nesting birds are done prior
to weed management activities during nesting season. Other stakeholders noted that the weed
management plan should be sensitive to existing wildlife/wildlife corridors, nesting time, and occupied
habitats.
Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan
Stakeholders noted that the plan should include a prioritized list of actions (i.e. protection, relocation)
for vulnerable assets.
Themes from November 29, 2018 Community/Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Draft Byxbee Park Design Plan
Habitat
Some feedback received was that the Burrowing Owl Plan from the 2015 Interim Byxbee Plan should be
overlaid onto the Draft Byxbee Design Plan to ensure that proposed changes would not impede
potential future implementation of the Burrowing Owl Plan. There were inquiries about how
reconnecting salt water to the remnant marsh would affect existing habitats. One commenter noted
that shrub cover for species along the Adobe Creek Trails should be increased.
Parking Lot
Stakeholders strongly preferred parking lot concept 2 with 45 degree parking and one-way circulation.
Trails
Some stakeholders wanted more seating/benches to be available along the trail between the west side
of Byxbee and the former ITT site/Renzel Wetland. Other stakeholders wanted the trails and all seating
removed from this area over concerns that wildlife could be disturbed by human presence. One person
wanted to know if it was feasible to add stairs for an exercise loop. People general liked the number and
distances of the proposed trail loops. A number of people did not see the value in having ‘maintenance
only’ trails on Byxbee; they commended that if the trails will not be removed, they should still be
accessible to visitors.
Benches
It was noted that windbreaks near benches would be appreciated. People general liked the number and
locations of proposed benches with the exception of those along the southern service road. One
commenter noted that they did not like gravel around benches.
Signage
Stakeholders said that they would like a map or signage indicating where dogs are allowed for all of the
Baylands, including Byxbee. Some stakeholders said that wayfinding in Byxbee Park can be difficult and
solutions to facilitate this would be appreciated.
Final ITT Concepts
One stakeholder noted that antennae at the former ITT site should remain and could be used for nesting
platforms for egrets and other birds. One commenter noted that there should be a trail connection from
the Matadero Creek Parking area to the Freshwater Pond & Marsh Trail. One stakeholder noted that
property lines along the north trail should be researched and a bridge could be considered if
encroachment is an issue.
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Summary of Public and Stakeholder Feedback to the
Draft Action Plan (January 2019)
Stakeholder and public input is an important aspect of the planning process for the BCCP. Below is a
summary of feedback received. Appropriate comments were incorporated in the Final Action Plan,
however some feedback received was not included because it was out of scope of the Baylands
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or beyond the level of detail appropriate for the Action Plan.
Additionally, some comments were not incorporated into the Action Plan as they were counter to
majority of stakeholder opinion, or contradictory to City policies.
General Comments
Many stakeholders noted that the Action Plan was well done, carefully crafted, and substantial, and
many appreciated the level of detail. One person noted that the Action Plan was a good summary of City
and community priorities and stakeholder discussions. One commenter would like the plan to include
more details, particularly around who is responsible for implementing actions, level of effort
descriptions, and annual and ongoing budget required for each action, and specific actions to secure
funding. One commenter would like a description of how the Action Plan furthers the Park Master Plan
and Baylands Master Plan Policies. Some felt that the Action Plan did not prioritize habitats protection
and restoration enough over trails, art, and parking. Another commenter said that there was too much
prioritization on habitat, and that climate change and sea level rise should be prioritized. A few
stakeholders noted that any actions in the Faber Laumeister Tract require coordination with USFWS.
Habitat Conservation and Restoration Plan
Prioritization Methodology
One commenter felt that the Action Plan prioritized salt marshes too much over upland habitats. One
stakeholder would like to see prioritization key considerations explicitly include language regarding
existing wildlife habitat. One commenter would like to see actions that include protecting species from
human activities and establishing habitat for sensitive species. One stakeholder would like feasibility and
technical studies to be conducted to understand how hydrologic connection would impact the Mayfield
Slough Remnant. One commenter would like to see areas of recent disturbance prioritized for
restoration. A few stakeholders noted that local knowledge should be utilized when applying the
prioritization methodology. One commenter would like surveys to be conducted to understand the
spread and threat of weed species to existing habitats.
Climate-Smart Native Planting
Some commenters felt that the term “climate-smart native planting” was too broad, and were
concerned that habitat conversion would result. One commenter wanted the Action Plan to include
specific native species plant palates for each habitat type. Numerous stakeholders noted that installing
climate-smart native species was a good strategy, and commented that it is a good idea to select species
that are locally native, and will also persist under future climate conditions. One commenter noted that
weed management should always be accompanied by planting of native species with similar ecological
function. One commenter would like a plan that includes proposed habitat structure and target food
webs.
Duck Pond Former Rookery
A few commenters would like plant trees at the site of the former rookery near the duck pond and that
the site should be augmented with other species such as willows. Another commenter noted that this
area likely does not have enough of a freshwater source to support native species and that the salinity
of the soil will increase due to sea level rise. The commenter felt that establishing trees in areas with
freshwater source made more sense. One commenter would like a study to be done to understand why
the rookery moved locations.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Plan Adaptation Plan
One commenter was concerned that there were too many first priority actions. Another commenter
thought that habitat and wildlife should be higher priority.
Interpretive Messaging Plan
A few commenters felt that there were too many proposed signs, that a few well-done and well-
constructed signs would provide more value than many signs made of materials that weather quickly.
Another commented noted that other interpretive tools such as apps and bio blitzes should be utilized.
One commenter cautioned about the time and money required for upkeep of signage. One stakeholder
would like to know the intended audience for interpretive signage. One commenter would like to see
signs near the Faber Laumeister Tract limited, as signs can be used as perches for predators that may
prey upon sensitive species like the Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse.
Public Art Plan
A few stakeholders said that an Art Overlay and Public Art Plan should not be part of a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and that funding for art should not come at the expense of natural resource
management. One commenter noted that public art should not encroach or disrupt habitats and
wildlife, and should not introduce light or noise. One commenter noted that art at the Faber Laumeister
Tract or Friendship Bridge should be coordinated with USFWS.
Weed Management Plan
One commenter noted that weed management should always be accompanied by planting of native
species with similar ecological function, particularly trees and dense vegetation. A few stakeholders
noted that coyote brush is a native species and should only be managed in Byxbee Park where there is
indication that the safety of the landfill cap may be compromised. One commenter noted that weed
management should be done in phases as to reduce impacts to wildlife. One commenter noted that
some highly invasive species, including fennel, support insects and should be managed on a limited
scale.
Additional Comments Received, but Out of Scope of the Action Plan.
Many commenters provided feedback or requests that were out of scope, or beyond the level of detail,
of the Action Plan including:
Protocols for coordination and communication among City Departments
Directions for sequencing time and scope of projects and activities
Map of staging areas for construction
A plan to reduce light pollution, prevent bird strikes, and reduce feral cat populations in the
Baylands
A Wildlife Movement Linkages Plan
Tree Protection and Irrigation Plan
Planting plan habitat for the San Francisco Common Yellowthroat
Butterfly Larval and Nectar Plant List
Maintenance Guide for vegetation
Native planting palettes
Study on the effects of current pathogens, such as Phytopthera, on native marsh plants.
Annual stakeholder meeting and progress report
Identification of specific working groups within the City of Palo Alto to lead implementation of
recommended actions
Define actions to attract and keep interested partners.
Define actions to secure funding
Protocols for resolution of conflicts
Annual budgets for proposed actions
APPENDIX B. ART OVERLAY
Public Art at the Baylands
An Overlay to the
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 2019
Daniel McCormick & Mary O’Brien, 2018 Artists-in-Residence, City of Palo Alto
Created with Palo Alto Public Art Program, Elise DeMarzo, Director; Palo Alto Open Space, Parks & Golf,
Daren Anderson, Division Manager; and AECOM, Sacramento, CA
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 2
INTRODUCTION
This public art overlay to the Palo Alto Baylands Natural Preserve (Baylands) Comprehensive Conserva-
tion Plan (BCCP), 2019, has been created in accordance with the City of Palo Alto (City) Public Art Master Plan
(PAMP) 2016 and in concert with the Palo Alto Public Art (PAPA) Program. The BCCP is a framework for manag-
ing the Baylands during the next 15 years and beyond. The PAMP cited the Embarcadero Road corridor as
needing its own art plan. This recommendation recognizes the significant transition from the corridor’s commer-
cial activities to the Baylands and is fueled by the knowledge that several commercial properties in the corridor
have plans to redevelop and will have a public art requirement. In lieu of commissioning individual works of
public art to be installed on-site, developers may choose to pay the equivalent amount to the Public Art Fund.
These in-lieu funds may be pooled from several projects to fund public artworks managed by the PAPA Pro-
gram.
Based on strategic recommendations by PAPA Program staff and PAMP consultants, this report outlines
public art themes and sites in the Baylands and the Embarcadero Road corridor as potential targets for the
pooled funds. The recommendations seek to incentivize developers to contribute to projects more in keeping
with the Baylands’ character, emphasizing ecological and/or educational themes that minimize disturbances
to natural areas of the Baylands.i
No specific artworks are proposed in this document. The renderings and suggested sites shown are
meant to illustrate public art themes and site considerations. Future ecological, environmental, and social prac-
tice art at the Baylands will be vetted through an artist selection process, proposal, and review.
Finally, this report imagines how the Baylands could become a setting for artworks, performances, and
events that complement the area’s ongoing conservation and sustainability efforts.
Concept drawing: Ecological, environmental, and social practice opportunities on Embarcadero Road, looking south. (No actual proposed artworks are
represented.)
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 3
A HISTORY OF ADAPTATIONS
The Baylands is approximately 2,000 acres of var-
ied environments, purposes, and uses. Nature, recrea-
tion, and reclamation merge against a backdrop of
commercial corridors and U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101).
Much of the area that is now the Baylands was
altered in the 20th century. The marshes, which previ-
ously extended west to nearly the U.S. 101 freeway,
were filled; the land became farms, a landfill, a yacht
harbor, and the site of a pioneering marine radio oper-
ation.
Byxbee Park, surrounded by a restored land-
scape of freshwater and salt water marshes, was once
a landfill. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(RWQCP) releases treated water into the Baylands and
monitors and captures the leachate and methane
piped off Byxbee Park. Fifteen miles of multi-use trails
connect to the shorelines of Mountain View and East
Palo Alto.
Home to both native and nonnative flora and
fauna, the Baylands shoreline is dense with native
cordgrass and pickleweed. The endangered salt marsh
harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail live here. Burrowing
owls and grey fox have been seen in the Baylands.
The restored Environmental Volunteers headquar-
ters, originally built in 1941 in the shape of a ship, and
the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center
(Lucy Evans Center) provide educational and environ-
mental outreach for children and adults. An artist-in-
1862 Allardt map of the Palo Alto Baylands
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 4
Public art at the Baylands dates to 1990: Chevrons, Richards &
Oppenheimer.
residence based at either location would be compati-
ble with the goals of these organizations and the Bay-
lands at large.
In 1990, the artist team of Peter Richards and Mi-
chael Oppenheimer created several environmental
works in Byxbee Park. Three of these works—Pole Field,
Chevrons, and Wind Wave—are still in place at the
Baylands. Other existing public art at the Baylands in-
cludes Foraging Island by Daniel McCormick and Mary
O’Brien in Byxbee Park, Birdie by Joyce Hsu and Kai-
kooV by Betty Gold on Embarcadero Road, Currents
and Riding the Currents, by Martin Webb at the
RWQCP, and Streaming by Ceevah Sobel and Bliss in
the Moment by James Moore, on East Bayshore Road.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community members are engaged, and volun-
teerism is high at the Baylands. A 2018 survey of visitors
to the Baylandsii confirmed that a diverse community
enjoys the Baylands. Respondents highly valued the
park’s natural communities and environments.
In 2018, the PAPA Program commissioned
San Francisco Bay Area artist team Daniel McCormick
and Mary O’Brien as artists-in-residence at the Bay-
lands. Sixty-nine community volunteers, ranging in age
from 6 to 90, donated a total of 189 hours to help the
artists create the wildlife-friendly Foraging Island in
Byxbee Park. Feedback from volunteers recognized art
in the Baylands as a viable means of informing the pub-
Foraging Island, by Daniel McCormick and Mary O’Brien, in
Byxbee Park. This ephemeral sculpture was designed to help
reestablish habitat for burrowing owls, white-tailed kites, and
a variety of hawks.
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 5
lic on ecological practices and other topics relevant to
the Baylands.
Several informed groups and site experts were in-
volved, including a stakeholder group consisting of ar-
ea residents and experts as diverse as the many inter-
ests this public space serves.
An energized and capable volunteer base from
local organizations such as Save the Bay (with a native
plant nursery at the Baylands), Environmental Volun-
teers, and Grassroots Ecology, as well as neighbors and
individuals from nearby businesses, also assisted the art-
ists.
The community input the artists received through
this installation directly informed the final overlay to the
BCCP.
Volunteers working with artists on Foraging Island
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 6
Sections of Byxbee Park are regularly regraded
SITE CONSIDERATIONS
Various conditions affect the development of art
at the Baylands, including an emphasis on maintaining
a natural environment. “Palo Alto residents value the
natural environment more than almost any other char-
acteristic of their city.”iii
Artists work closely with City departments and
stakeholders throughout the planning process. Art in-
stallations at the Baylands are developed with careful
consideration of several factors: various ecotones, wild-
life communities, natural environments, and human us-
es. Other considerations include bird migration and
nesting seasons, and the ecological needs of the salt
marsh harvest mouse.
Artists working in the Baylands coordinate their
plans closely with City departments that interact with
the Baylands, including the PAPA Program, Palo Alto
Open Space, Parks & Golf, and Palo Alto Public Works.
City staff members provide logistical support for pro-
jects involving community volunteers. All art interactions
are reviewed by the PAPA Program staff and key
members of other City departments and commissions.
Best management practices are developed for
the goals outlined in the BCCP and the PAMP, including
the recommendation to use “art to promote environ-
mental stewardship and sustainability.”iv Information is
available from the City regarding the processes that
keep the Baylands sustainable and other research top-
ics.
Map Provided by Palo Alto Parks and Recrea-
tion:
Suggested areas for Foraging Island (white)
Artist’s installation site (orange)
Burrowing owl sightings (green arrows)
Eliminated sites—regrading (red)
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 7
PUBLIC ART THEMES AT THE BAYLANDS
Public art in Palo Alto reflects the city’s “people,
diverse neighborhoods, the innovative and global
character of its businesses and academic institutions,
and the beauty of its natural environments.”v
The Baylands is well suited for work from artists
who explore and promote local sustainability practices.
Its many environments are appropriate for both tempo-
rary and permanent ecological, environmental, and
social practice art that is suitable for developed, isolat-
ed, and semi-wild spaces. Successful projects will reveal
the natural, recreational, and civic processes at the
Baylands.
Along the more commercial Embarcadero Road
corridor, suggested pedestrian-oriented works or de-
signs are meant to promote engagement with visitors
and give a hint of the naturalized aspects of the Bay-
lands beyond.
ECOLOGICAL ART
Ecological art works with the sustainable pro-
cesses present at the Baylands. These opportunities in-
clude:
• habitat enhancement projects,
• permaculture and xeriscape landscaping,
• endangered species protection,
• invasive species control projects,
• trail and creek erosion remediation,
• climate visualizations,
Suggested sites for temporary and permanent art in the Baylands:
Ecological (green) Environmental (red) Social Practice (orange)
Embarcadero Rd. Embarcadero Rd. Embarcadero Rd.
Lucy Evans Center Sailing Station lot Sailing Station lot
Byxbee Hills Lucy Evans Center E-Volunteers
SF Bay Trail SF Bay Trail Lucy Evans Center
ITT Trails RWQCP SF Bay Trail
Household Haz Waste Byxbee Park Trails/ Duck Pond
Station Overlooks
RWQCP Entrance & E. Bayshore
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 8
•responses to sea level rise including -horizontal
levees and native oyster reefs,
•earthworks,
•educational outreach projects, and
• inquiries into the processes at the RWCQP and
Household Hazardous Waste Station.
POTENTIAL SITES FOR ECOLOGICAL ART
Sites that could be used for ecological art in-
clude:
•vegetated islands, rock swales, creeks, and
drainage systems in Byxbee Park;
•newly regraded portions of the Byxbee Park hills;
•areas adjacent to trails at the ITT parcel and the
San Francisco Bay Trail;
•areas adjacent to the Environmental Volunteers
building;
•the deck and boardwalk at the Lucy Evans
Center; and
•the perimeters of the RWCQP and the Household
Hazardous Waste Station.
ECOLOGICAL ART ALONG EMBARCADERO ROAD
Ecological art can also help bring focus to the
Baylands’ entrance, add visual continuity to the com-
mercial and pedestrian uses, and become a gateway
to the park.
Ecological and
environmental art
in the green
space
Road bend is
first visual of
Baylands
entrance
Baylands
entrance
Ground works and ecological interven-
tions unify existing elements on Embar-
cadero Road through artist-designed
bioswales, labyrinths, cooling stations,
seating, and viewing spots. (No actual
proposed artworks are represented)
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 9
Embarcadero Road offers possibilities for green
infrastructure projects and creation of a transition from
the commercial corridor to the Baylands entrance.
These opportunities include:
• a multi-objective green wall and earthworks,
•green open spaces and pathways, and
•alcoves and small cooling stations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ART
Environmental artworks use durable materials
and help to inspire, inform, and educate visitors
regarding the natural and mechanical processes of the
Baylands. Temporary or permanent sculptures can
symbolize, interpret, and document the processes and
uses of the Baylands. These opportunities include:
• traffic calming designs for crosswalks on Em-
barcadero Road and the bike/pedestrian en-
tries;
• bike racks and benches;
• listening stations, audio tours, and closed-
circuit radio broadcasts;
• viewing stations and wayfinding sculptures that
connect view corridors and help visitors travel
through the Baylands;
• earthworks that serve as an informal amphi-
theater, stage, and outdoor classroom at the
Sailing Station parking lot;
• works reflecting natural and human processes,
such as bird migration and nesting activities,
changes to landforms, histories of human uses,
Embarcadero Road
Embarcadero Road curves to the south before the Baylands
entrance. Identifiers for the Baylands are not visible until visitors
reach the curve.
Baylands
entrance
Commercial District
Low undulating horizontal elements, such as earthworks and a
low wall, work with the existing vertical elements (trees, lights,
transmission towers) and lend focus to the Baylands entrance.
(No actual proposed artworks are represented)
)
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 10
sea level rise, and changes in San Francisco
Bay and local creeks;
• interpretive and educational sculptures, or
sound art experiences in kiosks, along roadway
shoulders, and at the Baylands entrance;
• sculptures made available on a revolving ba-
sis;
• expressions of visual patterns, such as Morse
code, marine flags, tidal actions, Byxbee Park
pipelines, rock drainage swales, and electric
transmission towers; and
• inquiries into wastewater treatment and moni-
toring systems at the RWQCP.
POTENTIAL SITES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ART
Sites that could be used for environmental art in-
clude:
•the Lucy Evans Center;
•Byxbee Park trails, overlooks, and bench areas;
•areas near habitat islands, rock swales, and
creeks;
•the parking island at the Sailing Station;
•land bordering the RWQCP;
•marsh shores and Environmental Volunteers
property;
•the Baylands’ main entrance; and
•bike and pedestrian entrances.
Artist designed crosswalks, bike paths and entry reflective
patterns, concepts and sustainability goals of Baylands.
(No actual proposed artworks are represented)
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 11
Embarcadero Road green spaces become settings for temporary art experiences, ecological installations, environmental art,
and moveable performances. (No actual proposed artworks are represented.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ART ALONG EMBARCADERO ROAD
Environmental art can contribute to the “gate-
way” effect along Embarcadero Road and draw visi-
tors toward the entrance. These opportunities include:
•traffic calming solutions at pedestrian crosswalks,
•temporary performance spaces, and
•environmental sculptures.
Embarcadero Road
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 12
The Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center
has facilities that an artist-in-residence could incor-
porate into community outreach projects.
SOCIAL PRACTICE ART
Art that relies on human interactions and social
discourse with the community is appropriate in several
places at the Baylands. For visual artists, performers,
and poets/writers who conduct research and create
interpretive, educational, and cultural works, these
opportunities include:
•conceptualizations of the history, current-day
monitoring processes, use patterns, and evolu-
tion of Baylands ecology;
•documentations of human use, sustainability
efforts, and adjustments to Baylands ecology;
•audio and augmented reality interpretations;
•community cultural celebrations, events, and
moveable performances;
•moonlight festivals;
•human-powered vehicle/vessel celebrations;
•street paintings (chalk art);
•night sky viewing events; and
•art that focuses on wind, tides, and sea levels.
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 13
POTENTIAL SITES FOR ART INTERACTION AND ENGAGEMENT
Sites that could be used for environmental art in-
clude:
• the parking lot island at the Sailing Station;
• the Lucy Evans Center and Environmental Vol-
unteers property;
• trails, overlooks, and benches;
• the San Francisco Bay Trail and connections
(bridges and bike/pedestrian entries); and
• the duck pond and picnic areas.
SOCIAL PRACTICE ART ALONG EMBARCADERO ROAD
Embarcadero Road bridges several cultural as-
pects of the Baylands of interest to social practice art-
ists, including:
•the new and historic sites,
•the built and natural environments,
•the physical gateway to the park, and
•ecological interventions.
CONCLUSION
The Baylands offer a great diversity of locations
where artwork may be appropriate: naturalized areas,
recreational and municipal facilities, open space areas
along Embarcadero Road, and other previously devel-
oped areas.
The parking lot island and the Sailing Station
become sites for social practice art and
celebrations. (No actual proposed artworks
are represented)
Sailing Station—
celebrations on water
Parking Island—
performance and
gathering space
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 14
REFERENCES
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts, Oasis Associates, 2015
Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Landscape Plan and Narrative, Oasis Associates, 2015
Byxbee Park Master Plan, Hargreaves Associates, 1989
California Historical Society, californiahistoricalsociety.org
City of Palo Alto, Historic Preservation, cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/historic_preservation/
history_of_palo_alto.asp
City of Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan, 2017
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, AECOM, 2019
Palo Alto Historical Association, pahistory.org
Palo Alto History.org, paloaltohistory.org
Picture This: California Perspectives of American History, Oakland Museum of California
San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report, 50-Year Conservation Plan, California State Coastal Conserv-
ancy and Ocean Protection Council, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service and Restoration Center, San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2010
California Department of Parks and Recreation
BCCP Public Art Overlay 2019 15
ENDNOTES
i Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) Vision, Goals, and Objectives, June 2018.
ii Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 2018, Summary of Baylands User Survey Responses Administered
by Baylands Rangers, April and May 2018.
iii Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan, 2016, page 13.
iv Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan, 2016, page 26.
v Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan, 2016, Vision Statement, page 2.
APPENDIX C. FORMER ITT PROPERTY
A-2 Appendix A. Former ITT Property
Cost Comparison
Table 1. Comparative Cost Estimates for Potential Restoration of and Improvements to the Emily Renzel Wetlands
# Description Amt. Unit Unit Price Item Total Price
Low Medium High Low Medium High
Site Amenities
1 North Trail 1,630 LF $20.00 $35.00 $100.00 $32,600.00 $57,050.00 $163,000.00
2 North Trail Retaining Wall 300 LF $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $6,000.00 $7,500.00 $9,000.00
3 North Trail Boardwalk 4,908 SF $50.00 $70.00 $150.00 $245,400.00 $343,560.00 $736,200.00
4 North Trail Overlook 1,200 SF $4.00 $7.50 $12.00 $4,800.00 $9,000.00 $14,400.00
5 North Trail Overlook Shade Structure 1 LS $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $40,000.00
6 Southwest Pedestrian Bridge 1 LS $13,000.00 $39,000.00 $64,000.00 $13,000.00 $39,000.00 $64,000.00
7 Benches 3 EA $700.00 $850.00 $1,300.00 $2,100.00 $3,900.00 $5,700.00
8 Recycling/Trash/Compost Container 2 EA $600.00 $1,500.00 $1,800.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $3,600.00
9 Interpretive Signage 3 EA $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00
10 Directional/Informational Signage 4 EA $500.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $20,000.00
11 Horse/Bicycle Barrier Gates 2 EA $700.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,400.00 $2,000.00 $2,400.00
12 “No Dogs” Signs 2 EA $300.00 $500.00 $700.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 $1,400.00
13 Misc. concrete (e.g., footings) 50 CF $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $500.00 $750.00 $1,000.00
Subtotal: $324,400.00 $499,560.00 $1,065,500.00
Subtotal with 50% Contingency: $486,600.00 $749,340.00 $1,598,250.00
Annual Maintenance
14 Maintenance of Site Amenities 1 AC $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00
15 Weekly Trash/Recyclables Removal 2 EA $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00
16 Renzel Wetlands Invasives Removal 68 AC $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,000.00 $102000 $170,000.00 $272,000.00
17 Signage Replacement/Repair 1 EA $500.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00
18 Tree and Shrub Trimming 0.30 MI $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $150.00 $300.00 $450.00
19 Gate Maintenance 2 EA $200.00 $400.00 $800.00 $400.00 $800.00 $1,600.00
20 Walking Trail Maintenance 1.25 MI $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,250.00 $2,500.00 $3,750.00
21 Graffiti Removal (4 times per year) 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,400.00 $1,600.00 $1,200.00 $1,400.00 $1,600.00
Subtotal: $107,200.00 $179,200.00 $286,100.00
Subtotal with 50% Contingency: $160,800.00 $268,800.00 $429,150.00
Restoration
22 Salt Marsh Restoration 27 AC $80,000.00 $130,000.00 $180,000.00 $2,160,000.00 $3,510,000.00 $4,860,000.00
23 Primary Dendritic Channel Restoration 3,013 LF $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $105,455.00 $105,455.00 $105,455.00
24 Secondary Channel Restoration 4,177 LF $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $50,124.00 $50,124.00 $50,124.00
25 Salt Marsh Hydrology Restoration 1 LS $300,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $300,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00
Subtotal: $2,615,579.00 $4,665,579.00 $11,015,579.00
Subtotal with 50% Contingency: $3,923,368.50 $6,998,368.50 $16,523,368.50
Acronyms: AC=Acre; CF=Cubic Foot; EA=Each; LF=Lineal Foot; LS=Lump Sum; MI=Mile; SF=Square Foot
Source: Compiled by AECOM 2018
Appendix A. Former ITT Property A-3
Cost Narrative
Site Amenities
Feedback and input from City staff members, the Stakeholder Advisory Group, and the Parks and
Recreation Commission revealed popular design concept elements. This section presents costs options
for potential elements of a design concept only, and further discussion and analysis of the proposed
elements and physical improvements warranted prior to implementation of any of the concept plan
elements. Any proposed physical improvements to this property would be processed as part of a Parks
Improvement Ordinance, which requires a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission
and Council approval. Any proposed changes to the hydrological connection would likely require further
coordination and regulatory approval from applicable agencies. To maintain consistency throughout the
park, all additions can incorporate existing methods and materials used in the Baylands.
North Trail
This proposed potential trail option would extend from the southern end of Faber Place, where it would
tie into the existing Renzel Trail, and to Embarcadero Way along the property line and salt marsh
boundary. Costs for the potential North Trail have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: A 5-foot-wide walking trail would be created by mixing a 3-inch-thick layer of
native soil with stabilizer and placing it over compacted subgrade and a layer of landscape fabric.
This cost option assumes that only pedestrians would be permitted to use the walking trail.
Medium-cost option: A 7-foot-wide walking trail consisting of a 4-inch-thick layer of decomposed
granite would be installed over compacted native soil, landscape fabric, and metal mesh.
High-end option: A 10-foot-wide trail, similar to the Renzel Trail to the west, consisting of a 4-inch-
thick layer of asphalt concrete would be installed over a layer of compacted aggregate and
geotextile fabric.
Construction for any of the three options would include a light to medium grading and vegetation
clearing. Existing trees and shrubs are primarily ornamental, and most would only need to be trimmed.
A cost range has also been developed to account for unknown soil conditions and the presence of
obstructions. The low end of this range would involve working in soil that is easily compacted and only
lightly vegetated, while the high end would involve working in soil with rocks and/or dense vegetation.
All three cost options could achieve the degree of stability and firmness required for compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both the medium-cost option and the high-end option assume that
the trail would be used by bicycles and maintenance vehicles.
Boardwalk
A portion of the North Trail may have to be completely elevated to minimize wetland impacts and avoid
encroachment on neighboring properties. Costs for a potential North Trail Boardwalk have been
developed for three options:
A-4 Appendix A. Former ITT Property
Low-end option: An 8-foot-wide elevated boardwalk would be created, with cast-in-place shallow
concrete footings, fiberglass stringers, fiberglass guardrails, and plastic wood decking.
Medium-cost option: An 8-foot-wide elevated boardwalk would be created, with drilled concrete
caissons, fiberglass stringers, fiberglass guardrails, and textured, high-density polyethylene decking.
High-end option: An 8-foot-wide elevated boardwalk would be created, with drilled fiberglass
pilings, fiberglass stringers, fiberglass guardrails, and fiberglass decking.
All of these cost options include labor and material costs. All options assume that the boardwalk would
be necessary for only some portions of the trail.
North Trail Retaining Wall
If access to neighboring properties is granted, a small segment of the North Trail could be elevated to
minimize wetland impacts. Costs for the North Trail retaining wall have been developed for three
options:
Low-end option: A small retaining wall, less than 30 inches high, consisting of several layers of
salvaged concrete from the Marsh Station building would be set in the slope. Redwood logs would
be anchored along the edge, to create a natural curb and provide fall protection. This option
assumes demolition of the Marsh Station building and the availability of free segments of concrete
slab, suitable for construction of a retaining wall.
Medium-cost option: A small retaining wall, less than 30 inches high, consisting of natural rock set
on the slope with 4-foot by 6-foot redwood timbers anchored along the edge, would create a
protective curb. Guardrails would not be required because the retaining wall would not exceed 30
inches in height.
High-end option: A reinforced concrete retaining wall and integral curb would be created.
North Trail Overlook
Costs for the potential North Trail Overlook have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: An overlook would be created on leveled existing grade, composed of a 3-inch-
thick layer of existing soil mixed with a soil stabilizer, installed over landscape fabric. The steep edge
of the viewing platform would be bordered with a redwood log curb and anchored in place, and
would serve as both a seating area and a protective barrier.
Medium-cost option: An overlook would be created on leveled existing grade, constructed from a
4-inch-thick layer of decomposed granite, installed over compacted soil, landscape fabric, and wire
mesh. This cost would include a 4-foot by 6-foot redwood timber curb, attached to the ground along
the sloping edge of the viewing platform.
High-end option: An overlook would be created, composed of pervious concrete, set over a base
layer of crushed aggregate and geotextile, and with an integral concrete curb.
These cost options assume that the overlook would measure 30 feet by 20 feet, and that the overlook
would be constructed on grade, above and outside any wetlands. All options would achieve the degree
of stability and firmness required for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Appendix A. Former ITT Property A-5
North Trail Overlook Shade Structure
Costs for the potential North Trail Overlook shade structure have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: A polyethylene shade sail would be fastened to three 15-foot-high by 12-inch-
diameter wood posts, with a three-corner aluminum pulley system.
Medium-cost option: A wood timber or metal slatted pergola would provide partial shade.
High-end option: A wood timber or metal A-frame shade structure with a shingle or metal roof
would provide full shade.
The low-end cost option assumes that the shade sail would provide shade for 75 percent (450 square
feet) of the overlook platform. Both the medium-cost option and the high-end cost option assume that
the shade structure would provide shade for the entire viewing platform (600 square feet).
Southeastern Pedestrian Footbridge
Costs for the potential southeastern pedestrian footbridge have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: A 25-foot-long, 10-foot-wide timber glulam bridge would be installed, with glulam
decking, 42-inch timber guardrails, and concrete abutments.
Medium-cost option: A 25-foot-long, 10-foot-wide prefabricated lightweight fiberglass-reinforced
plastic (FRP) footbridge would be installed, with high-density polyethylene decking, 42-inch FRP
guardrails, and concrete abutments.
High-end option: A 25-foot-long, 10-foot-wide prefabricated lightweight FRP truss footbridge would
be installed. The cost would include FRP decking with antiskid coating, 42-inch FRP guardrails, and
concrete abutments.
These cost options include all necessary labor and hardware for construction, such as galvanized steel
deck screws, anchor clips, and other materials. Final costs assume that the site would be accessible by
ground vehicles and other construction equipment, and that assembly of the prefabricated footbridge
could be completed within 2 weeks after footbridge delivery.
Benches
Benches could be stationed at various locations around the site. Costs shown are based on the costs of
existing benches used in the Baylands:
Low-end option: Pilot Rock bench, Indonesian Balau wood (6 feet)
Medium-cost option: Pilot Rock bench, Indonesian Balau wood (8 feet)
High-end option: Pilot Rock bench, Indonesian Balau wood (8 feet) with concrete pad in front and
on the sides of the bench (to accommodate Americans with Disabilities Act access and prevent
rutting of soil and puddling)
The concrete footings to which the benches would be attached are included under “Miscellaneous
Concrete”.
Recycling/Trash/Compost
Costs have been developed for three potential trash and recycling receptacle options:
A-6 Appendix A. Former ITT Property
Low-end option: A wood or recycled plastic receptacle would be set with two 32-gallon plastic bin
inserts for trash and recycling.
Medium-cost option: Bearsaver zinc coatedtrash,recycling and compost receptacle
High-end option: A fiber-reinforced concrete trash can and recycling bin would be set with two
32-gallon plastic bin inserts for trash and recycling or a waste center with reinforced aggregate finish
and three 45-gallon plastic inserts for trash, recycling, and compost.
The cost of a concrete base is included under “Miscellaneous Concrete”.
Interpretive Signage
Interpretive signs could be installed throughout the area. Potential locations could include one at the
overlook, one at the end of the road leading to the former ITT Property, and one near the freshwater
pond. Costs for this signage have been developed from existing signage within the Baylands so that
signage is consistent; therefore, a single price for signage exists for all options. Panel design is not
included in the pricing.
Baylands Signage Pricing: KVO Industries Inc. 41-inch by 31½-inch by 1/8-inch grade high-pressure
laminate sign and 41-inch by 31½-inch by 24½-inch National Park Service–style cantilever aluminum
frames.
The costs of this signage include the post, sign panel, hardware, and installation. However, they do not
include the signpost footing, which is included under “Miscellaneous Concrete”.
Directional/Informational Signage
Directional signs could be placed throughout the area. Potential locations include at the end of
Embarcadero Way, at the overlook area, and at the intersection of the Renzel Trail and Marsh Station
Road. In addition, one informational sign could be placed at the end of Faber Place in the overlook area.
Costs for directional/informational signage have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: Trail and safety signs, based on a U.S. Forest Service Level III sign (approximately
40–50 inches tall), would be posted, and would consist of plywood or fiberglass on a wood or metal
post.
Medium-cost option: U.S. Forest Service Level II signs (approximately 48–60 inches tall) would be
posted and would consist of reflectorized wood, aluminum, or fiberglass signs on metal or wood
posts.
High-end option: U.S. Forest Service Level I signs would be posted. Level I signs are large and allow
more information at special attraction sites. They typically have a more substantial, durable base,
made from rock or brick.
Mutt Mitt Station
Costs for the Mutt Mitt Station have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: An aluminum pet waste disposal station would be installed and would include a
pet waste bag dispenser, an informational sign with instructions for waste disposal, and an
aluminum mounting station. The cost for this option assumes that the pet waste station
would be placed next to the trash receptacles on-site.
Appendix A. Former ITT Property A-7
Medium-cost option: A plastic, rectangular pet waste disposal station would be installed, with a
waste receptacle capable of holding a 10-gallon plastic insert, a dispenser for disposable pet waste
bags, and painted informational signage with instructions for waste disposal.
High-end option: A coated steel pet waste disposal station would be installed and would include a
receptacle for pet waste capable of holding a 10-gallon plastic insert, a dispenser for disposable pet
waste bags, and a small informational sign with instructions for waste disposal.
The concrete footing to which the pet waste station would be mounted is included under
“Miscellaneous Concrete” below.
“No Dogs” Signs
As requested by the stakeholders, these signs would be placed at both ends of the freshwater pond and
Marsh Trail to prevent off-leash or barking dogs from disturbing salt marsh wildlife.
Miscellaneous Concrete
This cost includes construction of up to fifty concrete footings for the site amenities described above.
Annual Maintenance Costs
Maintenance of Site Amenities
This cost is for cleaning site amenities and tightening hardware, only in the limited area of public access
(not in salt marsh habitat). Calculations are based on the actual area that would have site amenities,
estimated to total 1 acre. Major repairs are not included.
Removal of Trash and Recyclables
This cost is to empty trash/recycling bins that would be located around the site, and to properly dispose
of trash on a weekly basis. This estimate does not include cleanup of illegal dumping and homeless
camps. This cost assumes that two 32-gallon trash bins and two 32-gallon recycling bins would be
emptied each week (throughout the year). The price for trash removal is based on the City of Palo Alto’s
commercial refuse collection rates.
Removal of Invasive Vegetation in the Emily Renzel Wetlands
Costs for removing invasive vegetation in the Emily Renzel Wetlands have been developed for three
options:
Low-end option: Minimal removal of easy-to-eradicate invasive species, using limited equipment
Medium-cost option: Higher density removal of invasive species, requiring specialized equipment
(weed wrenches)
High-end option: High-density removal of invasive species, requiring specialized equipment (tilling
with bobcat)
This cost is per acre and assumes that about 50 percent of the 135-acre Emily Renzel Wetlands and
remnant marsh (68 acres) contain invasive vegetation. This cost could vary greatly and would be
contingent on the amount and type of invasive species being removed and the removal method.
Signage Replacement/Repair
A-8 Appendix A. Former ITT Property
This cost is for maintenance and repair of existing signs. The cost range is a function of sign type, size,
quality, and location.
Tree and Shrub Trimming
This maintenance cost is for limited pruning of trees, shrubs, and volunteer vegetation near the trails as
needed. This cost may vary widely depending on the amount of vegetation.
Gate Maintenance
This estimated maintenance cost can vary greatly based on gate type. The maintenance would consist of
painting, lubricating, and resetting or straightening gates, and repairing broken or damaged gate
components.
Walking Trail Maintenance
This cost includes weed control (on trail shoulders), debris removal, minor erosion control (filling
potholes and erosional rills), and minor repairs to other trail-related elements.
Graffiti Removal
The minimum service charge for graffiti removal is $200 (operator and truck fee). A charge of $2 per
square foot would also be incurred. Graffiti removal costs have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: Removal of 50 square feet of graffiti during each visit, for a total of $300 per visit
or $1,200 annually
Medium-cost option: Removal of 65 square feet of graffiti during each visit, for a total of $350 per
visit or $1,400 annually
High-end option: Removal of 80 square feet of graffiti during each visit, for a total of $400 per visit
or $1,600 annually
Salt Marsh Restoration Costs
Salt Marsh Restoration
Costs for potential salt marsh restoration have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: Ripping compacted soil or tilling heavily weed-infested soil after pre-germination,
removing invasive vegetation, and replanting and reseeding 27 acres of the site (as shown in the
final conceptual plan), assuming that the density of invasive vegetation would be minimal
Medium-cost option: Ripping soil, removing invasive vegetation, and reseeding 27 acres of the site,
assuming that a high quantity of invasive species would be present, and that restoration could be
achieved with minimal wetland disturbance
High-end option: Ripping soil, removing invasive vegetation and species, and replanting and
reseeding 27 acres of the site, assuming that numerous invasive species would be present, and that
restoration would require specialized equipment
Overall, these three options present a range of potential restoration costs and assume that typical
approaches could be used to rip soil, remove invasive vegetation, and reseed at the site. The
three options also assume that approximately 27 acres would have to be restored, and that
such restoration would not affect the existing areas of salt marsh. The restoration costs do
Appendix A. Former ITT Property A-9
not account for culverts or restoration of historic dendritic channels and hydrology.
Restoration of the Primary Dendritic Channel
This cost is for trenching/clearing an 8-foot-wide by 4-foot-deep salt water channel. This cost does not
include restoration of compacted areas after channel construction, which is discussed under “Salt Marsh
Restoration” above.
Restoration of the Secondary Dendritic Channel
This cost is for trenching a smaller, 4-foot-wide by 2-foot-deep salt water channel. This cost does not
include restoration of compacted areas after channel construction, which is discussed under “Salt Marsh
Restoration” above.
Restoration of Salt Marsh Hydrology
Costs for potential restoration of salt marsh hydrology have been developed for three options:
Low-end option: Three 6-foot-wide concrete culverts would connect the main Emily Renzel
Wetlands channel to Matadero Creek/Mayfield Slough, with three 6-foot-diameter underground
culverts installed beneath the levee road. This cost is conceptual and assumes (without detailed
hydrologic modeling) that the culverts would be a sufficient means of conveying water to provide
natural hydrology to the Emily Renzel Wetlands. It also is based on the assumption that the invert
elevations would be feasible to provide tidal inflow and outflow at the point of connection.
Medium-cost option: This option would replace the approximately 900-foot-long pipe currently
connecting the site’s northeastern corner to San Francisco Bay with a new pipe measuring 10 feet in
diameter. Setting the new pipe at a lower elevation would improve tidal hydrology in the entire salt
marsh at the former ITT Property. This option would also involve adding two 4-foot-diameter
culverts that would connect isolated segments of the salt marsh in the northwestern portion of the
site, separated from the main marsh by the Renzel Trail. The conceptual estimate assumes that a 10-
foot-wide pipe connection would be sufficient to restore natural hydrology in the marsh, and that
the elevation at the point of connection would enable natural tidal inflow and outflow.
High-end option: Daylighting would occur for approximately 900 feet of pipe that currently connects
the former ITT Property and the salt marsh in the northeastern corner of the Emily Renzel Wetlands.
The cost includes removing the current culvert, excavating a wider trapezoidal channel, providing
erosion protection for the bank and bottom of the channel, installing two prefabricated concrete
bridges, and completing ecological restoration of the daylighted channel. This cost option also
includes adding two 4-foot-diameter culverts that would connect isolated segments of the salt
marsh in the northwestern portion of the site, separated from the main marsh by the Renzel Trail.
City of Palo Alto Historic Survey Update for
the former Federal Telegraph Company
Marsh Station Property
This page intentionally left blank
Page 1 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523A (9/2013) * Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
This form builds upon previous recordation and evaluation of this property in 2001 that was conducted for the City of Palo Alto Historic Survey Update by Corbett and Bradley of the consulting firm Dames & Moore (see attached).
P1. Other Identifier: International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (ITT) Building; Federal Telegraph Company Marsh Station,
Federal Telegraph Company Palo Alto Station; Federal Telegraph Company San Francisco Station
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara
and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Palo Alto, CA Date 1991 T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; Mount Diablo B.M.
*c. Address 2601 East Bayshore Road City Palo Alto Zip 94301
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 008-04-001. The buildings and structures are accessed via a driveway leading
eastward from East Bayshore Road northeast of US Highway 101. A series of locked gates restricts public access to the site.
*P3a. Description: This Update form records and re-evaluates the former Federal Telegraph Company Marsh Station property located within the City of Palo Alto’s Baylands Nature Preserve. In July 2018, the property consisted of a one-story station building constructed in
phases between 1921 and 1932, a single-story engineering office/warehouse built between 1948 and 1956, and the original 1921 concrete and granite base for the no longer extant 626-foot-tall steel transmission tower (Photograph 1). These three buildings and structures are enclosed within chain link fence on approximately 3.5 acres within the larger 53-acre parcel (see Site Map on page 20).
The one-story station building has a rectangular plan and sits on a tall concrete foundation that is indicative of a high water table around the base of the building. The building is approximately 42.5’ by 170’ and is orientated north-south. The building is constructed of hollow
clay tile and the exterior is clad with cement plaster. The building has a low-sloped wood gable roof truss system with geometric parapets on the north and south gable ends, which give the appearance of a restrained Art Deco design. The east and west sides have three wide shed roof overhanging eaves with exposed decorative rafter tails between two wall parapets and the gable end parapets. Fenestration on
the east and west sides of the building is characterized by inset windows with transoms that have been boarded over and wire metal security panels installed. As viewed from the interior, the windows are paired four-over-four double-hung wood windows with transoms within wide wood window surrounds. The primary entrance of the station building is centrally located on the north side and is accessed via
a set of concrete stairs with metal pipe railings. The entrance is comprised of a set of wood double doors with a large transom window, flanked by two shorter four-over-four wood double-hung windows and two larger paired four-over-four double-hung wood windows with transoms (Photograph 2). The south end has a similar composition but lacks the concrete stairs (see Photograph 1). Both the north and
south parapets also have louvered vents near the top of the parapet wall (See Continuation Sheet).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP11. Engineering structure; HP9. Public utility building
P5a. Photographs:
Photograph 1: Marsh Station at left, engineering office/warehouse at right, modern antenna on 1921 base at center, camera facing northwest, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Historic Prehistoric Both 1921-1935 / Corbett 2001; Hohen 2003
*P8. Recorded by: Chandra Miller, AECOM, 2020 L Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
*P9. Date Recorded: July 17, 2018 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: None.
Page 2 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
Photograph 2: Northwest corner of Marsh Station with primary entrance on north side of 1921 building segment, camera facing southeast, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
The north entrance leads into a small foyer with entrances to two offices on the east and west sides and the central control room to the south (Photograph 3). The west office has acoustic tiles affixed to the walls and ceiling (Photograph 4), and the east office includes a staircase that leads to attic storage and double doors that lead to a machine shop room (Photographs 5 and 6).
Photograph 3: View from Marsh Station’s north foyer into central control room with small offices areas flanking foyer, camera facing south, July 17, 2018.
Page 3 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
Photograph 4: West office as viewed from foyer in 1921 building section, camera facing west, July 17, 2018 (AECOM)
Photograph 5: Interior view of east office with staircase to attic storage, double doors at center lead to machine shop room, camera
facing south, July 17, 2018.
Page 4 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
Photograph 6: Interior view of attic storage room, camera facing east, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
The machine shop room includes a wooden work bench along the east wall (Photograph 7). The west wall features four-over-four double-
hung wood windows with four-light transoms, and the east wall facing the control room has groups of tall, stacked, nine-over nine wood windows with six-light transoms and divided by wide mullions. A door in the east wall leads to the central control room (Photograph 8).
Photograph 7: Interior view of 1921 section of the station with machine shop located east off the central control room, double doors lead to a small office room with a staircase leading to storage area, camera facing northeast, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Page 5 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
The central control room is largely characterized by stacked nine- and 12-light windows with four-, six-, and eight-light transoms and divided
by wide mullions. Wide wood bracing ties the walls and supporting posts along the east and west sides. Some window groups have been removed to install equipment (Photograph 8). Two doors on the south wall lead to the center of the building. Non-historic metal framing for modern communication equipment has been installed outside of the south wall of the control room (Photograph 9).
Photograph 8: Interior view of control room in 1921 section of station, machine shop at left, camera facing southeast, removed windows for equipment at center July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Photograph 9: Non-historic metal framing for removed communications equipment located south outside of central control room, camera facing north, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Page 6 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
Flanking the control room are corridors along the east and west sides that housed equipment (Photograph 10). The south two-thirds of the
station’s interior, which is characterized by an open span floor plan with metal post supports, was constructed in 1928 and 1932 to accommodate additional equipment. A metal track system below the ceiling used to move equipment is still extant (Photographs 11 and 12).
Photograph 10: Interior view of west side corridor outside central control room from 1921 building section looking south towards 1928 and 1932 additions. Original transoms of 1921 window group at far rightwith have remnant original wiring, camera facing south, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Photograph 11: Interior view of 1928 and 1932 additions looking south, replaced and upgraded communication equipment housed within. Metal track system mounted along interior ceiling still extant, camera facing south, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Page 7 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
Water intrusion throughout has damaged the interior ceiling and wall surfaces original finishes and materials (Photograph 12). The south
interior wall of the station building, which was constructed in 1932, has areas where the cement plaster has deteriorated and exposed the hollow clay tile wall construction (Photograph 13).
Photograph 12: Detail view of metal roof supports, metal track system, and damaged ceiling. Lights are not original, camera facing north, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Photograph 13: Hollow clay tile wall construction exposed under cement plaster, located on interior south wall of 1932 addition, camera facing south, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Page 8 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
The engineering office/warehouse is perpendicular to the station and sited northeast of the northeast corner of the station (see Site Map on page 20). The single-story, rectangular plan building measures 30’ by 84’ and is set at grade (Photograph 14). The exterior is clad with
stucco and the gable roof has fascia boards on the east and west gable ends and open eaves along the north and south sides. The west side has three evenly spaced boarded over square window openings. The south side has two boarded over doorways and three square window
openings. The east end of the south side has two modern overhead roll up metal doors. One of these entrances has a sloped concrete ramp. The east side has one centrally located square window opening (Photograph 15). The northeast corners have metal louvers at the lower third of the wall. The north side has three square window openings. Windows at the east end of the north wall have been infilled. The exterior
stucco appears to be a later alteration to the building based on the depth of the window and door openings and lack of frames.
Photograph 14: Southwest corner of engineering office/warehouse with 1921 antenna base at left,
camera facing northeast, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Photograph 15: Engineering office/warehouse northeast corner, windows at east end of north wall have been infilled, camera facing southwest, July 17, 2018 (AECOM)
Page 9 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
The original 1921 concrete and granite base for the no longer extant 626-foot steel transmission tower is located at the west end of the Engineering Office/warehouse (Photograph 16). The concrete base measures 6’ deep by 16’ square. The four granite blocks, which served
as the footings for the original 626-foot tall antenna are on top of the concrete base and measure 1.5’ tall by 3’ wide by 3’ long. A much shorter, metal lattice tower supported by guyed wires and capped with a rounded top was installed in the center of the concrete base sometime after the original antenna was removed in 1960. The southwest granite block has “1921” carved on its south face (Photograph 17). Within the chain link fenced area of the building cluster, several of the original concrete anchorages used for the 1921 antenna are still present (Photograph 18 and Plate 1). All other towers and poles formerly within the chain link fenced area have been cleared from the site. Outside of the fenced perimeter are various age wood and metal poles of various heights scattered throughout (Photograph 19).
Photograph 16: Original 1921 concrete and granite antenna base with replacment shorter, modern tower, camera facing northeast, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Photograph 17: Granite block on concrete base of antenna carved with 1921 built date, camera facing north, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Page 10 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
Photograph 18: Concrete anchorage for 1921 antenna located southeast from station building, camera facing south, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
Plate 1: 1921 Marsh Station antenna anchorage (Pacific Radio News 1921a).
Page 11 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
P3a. Description and P5a. Photographs (continued):
Photograph 19: Remnant wood and metal poles of various ages and heights located outside chain link fence, camera facing south, July 17, 2018 (AECOM).
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations):
The first phase of construction was in 1921 when the north portion of the Marsh Station was built along with a water tank, outdoor
condensers, and the 626-foot-tall steel transmission tower. The second phase in 1928 doubled sized the station with an addition on the south side. The third addition on southern end of station was constructed in 1932. The water tank and condensers were removed sometime between 1948 and 1956. A single-story rectangular plan building constructed perpendicular to the northeast corner of station was constructed
between 1931 and 1939 and is no longer extant. The 626-foot-tall steel transmission tower was removed in 1960 (concrete and granite base still extant).
The engineering office/warehouse was built between 1948 and 1956. Two overhead modern roll up metal garage doors at the east end were added at an unknown date. The exterior stucco cladding appears to be a later alteration based on the depth of the window and door openings and lack of frames. The windows on the north side of the building have been infilled.
*B10. Significance:
This update form was prepared to record the existing conditions of the former Federal Telegraph Company Marsh Station property, re-evaluate the property’s historical significance, and assess its historic integrity. When the property was initially recorded in 2001, it
consisted of five buildings centered within the fenced area and several antennae arrays. As of July 2018, only two buildings remain extant. The following historic context builds upon and supplements the historical context provided in the previous DPR 523 form (Corbett 2001, see attached). Additional sources of information were reviewed for this update including several collections on file at the History San Jose
Research Library that were not available in 2001.
Historic Context
Beginning in 1910, the Federal Telegraph Company constructed and operated stations along the west coast to provide an inter-city
communication system between the principal cities of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego for commercial telegraph purposes and to provide wireless service for ships at sea. The transmitter equipment used at the stations was developed and manufactured by the company, which was based in Palo Alto. In 1912, the Federal Telegraph Company built a larger station in San
Francisco and also completed a station in Honolulu as the company sought to develop long range overseas transmission technology (Perham Collection on Federal Telegraph Company 2003). Using its newly constructed Honolulu Station, Federal Telegraph demonstrated the capabilities of their Poulsen arc system to relay messages over 4,500 nautical miles for the United States Navy, and subsequently
secured a Navy contract in 1913 to develop a string of high powered Naval radio stations on the east coast to the Canal Zone. Federal
Page 12 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Telegraph also held contracts to provide arcs for dozens of Army posts throughout the United States and hundreds of Shipping Board Liberty Ships (Electrical Review 1921; Adams 2017:9-11, 17-18).
When the United States officially entered World War I in April 1917, the west coast Federal Telegraph Company stations were requisitioned for use by the Navy as part of the nationwide control of all railroads, telephone, and radio as wartime necessities (Adams 2017:13). In May 1918, the Navy purchased most of Federal Telegraph’s real property holdings including the San Francisco, Los Angeles,
and San Diego stations1, the American rights to nearly 40 technology patents and patents pending held by Federal Telegraph, and other intellectual property of the company for $1.6 million. This purchase was an attempt to block Federal Telegraph’s rival, American Marconi, which had the British Navy as a client, from obtaining key intellectual property and strategic radio stations. The United States sought a
monopoly and worldwide dominance of radio communication technology to rival Britain’s dominance in cable communication technology. Between 1918 and 1921, the Navy attempted to have one of Federal Telegraph’s arcs reverse engineered to potentially expand manufacturing of the arc on the east coast; however, they were unsuccessful (Adams 2017: 5, 22-23, 26-27).
In order to continue commercial services for newspapers and other clients during the war, the Federal Telegraph Company leased land wire telegraph circuits from the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company (Moody's Manual of Railroads and Corporation Securities
1900:1507; Harold F. Elliott Papers 2003). After the war, the Navy returned the stations to Federal Telegraph; however, equipment within the stations purchased by the government during the war was either removed and sent to military installations or altered for military purposes, and Federal Telegraph was not able to resume the use of their west coast inter-city telegraph system immediately after the war. Federal Telegraph quickly enacted plans to build four new West Coast radio stations to return to commercial radio transmission. The first two stations were built in the first half of 1921 in Hillsboro, Oregon (Portland) and Palo Alto (Marsh Station), California (San Francisco) (Morning Oregonian 1920). When originally constructed in 1921, Marsh Station was the most powerful of the West Coast stations as it
could receive and send out more messages at once with additional equipment installed at the site. It was the first station in the world with the capability to communicate with four different stations at one time (Pacific Radio News 1921c).
The boost in capital from the Navy purchase in 1918 and the reacquisition of its patents in March 1921 provided a second wind for the
company; however, the arc technology that Federal Telegraph specialized in since 1913 was on the way out and the vacuum tube was on the rise for lower power and smaller unit applications (Adams 2017: 27). Within the intellectual property that the Navy returned were patents that included a navigation device that improved maritime safety. Federal Telegraph hired Frederick A. Kolster, who developed and
patented that technology in 1921 and began developing the first commercial radio direction finder, also called a radio compass. At the time, this development was seen as a major advancement in nautical technology and one of most important inventions since the magnetic compass (Electrical Communication 1946:396). With Kolster on board with the company, the 1920s saw the Federal Telegraph Company
change gears from manufacturing high-power arc transmission systems to focus on long range radio transmission systems for commercial use. In 1927, Federal Telegraph became the exclusive manufacturer and supplier of equipment for the Mackay Radio and Telegraph Company’s operating system, which was used by the Postal Telegraphic Commercial Cables Group. Mackay’s contract with the Postal Telegraphic Commercial Cables Group required providing a competitive land and ocean communication service. In 1928 it appears Kolster, who was now lead engineer at Federal Telegraph, utilized the Marsh Station in Palo Alto as part of a series of experiments with directional antennas using short waves to transmit from Palo Alto to Seattle (710 miles) and Palo Alto to Honolulu (over 2,000 miles). The
Marsh Station likely was expanded in 1928 during this experimentation phase to house additional equipment for transmissions to Honolulu and the Philippines (Adams 2017:28-29; Corbett 2001).
As a result of the 1928 experiments, Federal Telegraph was able to refine a point-to-point short wave radio network using vacuum tubes and transmitters of the company’s own design and manufactured them exclusively for Mackay. That same year, Federal Telegraph sold their West Coast properties, including the series of ship-to-shore stations built in 1921 and 1922 of which Marsh Station was a part, to
Mackay. Federal Telegraphy subsequently became purely a manufacturing and engineering company engaged in the design and supply of the electrical equipment exclusively for Mackay to fulfill its land and ocean radio service contract with the Postal Telegraphic Commercial Cables Group (Electrical Communication 1946:400-401). Mackay was purchased by International Telephone and Telegraph
Corporation (ITT) in 1930 and ITT became a parent company of both Mackay and Federal Telegraph. In 1931, the manufacturing and research operations of Federal Telegraph were relocated from Palo Alto to Newark, New Jersey, thus ending the physical presence of the Federal Telegraph Company in Palo Alto (Adam 2017: 28-29).
Physical Development of the Marsh Station
The Marsh Station and the Hillsboro, Oregon stations were both built in 1921 and were identical in design and transmitting capacity with a range of 5,000 to 7,000 miles depending upon conditions. The tower designs were exactly the same with 626-foot-tall towers with
horizontal cross sections of 6’ by 6’ on four vertical steel columns of riveted angle braces and braced with steel struts. Each of the four columns rested upon a granite block measuring 1.5’ tall by 3’ wide by 3’ long that were set on a concrete base measuring 6’ deep x 16’ square (see Plate 2) (Electrical Review 1921). The station building at Hillsboro measured 40’ by 60’, was of clay tile construction, and
1 The San Diego station was built during World War I for the Navy and was designed by the Bureau of Yards and Docks (National Park Service 1994).
Page 13 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*B10. Significance:
finished with cement plaster on the interior and exterior. The interior was divided into six compartments including an operating room, arc
and machinery room, two helix rooms, machine shop, and office and lavatory. Based on early photographs of the Marsh Station site and trade publications from the time, the design, materials, and layout are assumed to have been the same at the Marsh Station (Electrical Review 1921; Fred M. Hoehn Papers 2003-42; Pacific Radio News 1921b). Plans for the Clearwater Station (Los Angeles station) were a slightly modified design from the Hillsboro and Marsh stations (Plate 3), but it appears Federal Telegraph developed a standard design for its West Coast stations (Pacific Radio News 1921a:132; Harold F. Elliott Papers 2003).
Plate 2: Granite base and block foundation for Hillsboro 626-foot radio tower (Electrical Review 1921).
Plate 3: Clearwater Station exterior elevations, May 1921. The design was a slight deviation from Palo Alto Marsh Station and
Hillsboro, Oregon designs (Harold F. Elliott Papers 2003, Box 20, Folder 3).
Page 14 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*B10. Significance:
The same water circulating system for cooling the arcs was developed for the Hillsboro, Marsh, and Clearwater stations (Pacific Radio News 1921a:134) (see Plate 4). None of this original cooling system is extant on the Marsh Station property and neither the Hillsboro or
Clearwater station are extant (UCSB various years).
The Marsh Station was expanded in response to evolutions in telecommunications technology. The original station is the northern third of
the building at the north end, the 1928 expansion is the middle, and the 1932 addition is the southern third (Fred M. Hoehn Papers 2003-42). The 1928 section was likely added to accommodate Kolster’s experiments, which required additional equipment. In 1932, the Marsh Station was enlarged again to house four high-powered vacuum tube transmitters to communicate with a station in Shanghai, China.
These vacuum tube transmitters replaced the earlier Poulsen arc converters manufactured by Federal Telegraph that less than twenty years earlier had been the most advanced wireless technology at the time (Adams 2017:28-29; Corbett 2001). As wireless communication technology evolved, the equipment housed in the station was removed and upgraded. Based on review of historic photographs and site
inspection, it does not appear that any of the original equipment that was installed by Federal Telegraph in the interior of the station is still extant. See Plates 5 and 6 for comparison views of the property with notes on various alterations to the site (Pacific Radio News 1921a; Hohen 2003-42).
ITT continued to operate the Marsh Station until 1990. During that time, in the early 1970s the station property was rezoned as agriculture-conservation as part of the City of Palo Alto’s (City) long-term vision to restore the area back to salt marsh habitat through dike removal and tidal inundation. The City acquired 152 acres in 1977 from ITT with ITT retaining an exclusive easement to use and occupy 36.5 acres
for the operation of a “Public Coast Station” (Marsh Station). The following year, the surrounding area outside of the ITT easement was rezoned to Public Facility-Design Control and was dedicated as parkland in 1982. KFS World Communications acquired the ITT station easement in 1990, and was later succeeded by Globe Wireless. In 2014, Globe Wireless purchased property in Rio Vista, California, to relocate its operation and approached the City to sell all rights and interests of the Marsh Station. The City Council approved the purchase in 2016. At the time of the sale, the station site consisted of the station building, the engineering office/warehouse, a machine shop
measuring 24’ by 72’, a 24’ by 24’ garage building, two utility buildings measuring 12’ by 16’ and 8.75’ x 11.75’, and 22 antenna poles including wood poles with copper wire and a 60’ metal tower. The machine shop, garage, utility buildings, and wood poles were cleared from the site in 2017 (City of Palo Alto 2017; Google Earth 2018). Today, the station, engineering office/warehouse, the 1921 antenna
base, and some concrete anchorages are extant on the site within the smaller fenced area, and remnant wood and metal poles are scattered throughout the remainder of the legal parcel boundaries.
Other sites located in the city that are associated with Federal Telegraph are no longer extant. The original 1909 headquarters, laboratory,
and manufacturing plant at 913 Emerson Street have been demolished and the site was listed as a California Historical Landmark No. 836 Pioneer Electronics Research Library in 1969. The second facility used between 1916 and 1931 between Alma Street and El Camino Real near the original headquarters is also no longer extant (OHP 2018; History San Jose 2018).
Plate 4: 1921 view of water tower with pump
house water cooling system and outdoor high voltage condensers sited east of station. These auxiliary structures are no longer extant (Source: Pacific Radio News 1921a:133)
Page 15 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*B10. Significance:
Plate 5: Aerial view of evolution of Marsh Station site from 1930 to
2018 (Source: UCSB various years,
Google Earth 2018).
Plate 6: Comparison view of Marsh Station over time. Notes added by AECOM (Source: Fred M. Hoehn Papers
2003-42).
Page 16 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*B10. Significance:
2001 Evaluation
In August 2001, Michael Corbett of Dames & Moore recorded the property at 2601 Easy Bayshore Road as part of the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update; however, the site was not accessible at the time of recordation and the site and building descriptions were developed from a distance. Corbett noted in the evaluation of the property that additional work should be conducted including a close inspection of the
buildings and the equipment inside them, as well as additional research. Nevertheless, Corbett found that the property appeared eligible for the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) under criterion A at the national level of significance as the best surviving remnant of the once extensive presence of the Federal Telegraph Company in Palo Alto, which served as its early headquarters. The period of
significance proposed by Corbett was 1921 to at least 1951; which is an arbitrary end date that corresponded with fifty years prior to the recordation date.
This re-evaluation assessed other potential periods of significance for the property in which to evaluate historic integrity. Corbett noted that the removal of the 626-foot-tall tower in 1960 resulted in a serious loss of historic integrity for the facility, but that it retained integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association at that time. Since recordation in 2001, the station property has
undergone additional changes including the removal of the machine shop, garage, two utility buildings, and various poles and antennae. (Corbett 2001: 5). This re-evaluation also assesses whether the changes to the property have resulted in additional loss of historic integrity.
2018 Re-Evaluation
NRHP A/CRHR 1
Under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1, the Marsh Station is significant as a surviving representative example of the Federal
Telegraph Company research and manufacturing presence in Palo Alto, which is significant on the national level for achievements in long range wireless technology. The Marsh Station appears to be the only building remaining in Palo Alto directly associated with Federal Telegraph when the company was located there from 1909 to 1931. The Marsh Station was built in 1921 over a decade after the company
headquarters was established in Palo Alto in 1909 and after the company’s success refining long range transmissions; however, the Marsh Station is representative of the continued wireless technological advancements made after the First World War by Federal Telegraph. When originally constructed in 1921, Marsh Station was the most powerful within Federal Telegraph’s West Coast station
system and was the first station in the world with the capability to communicate with four different stations at one time (Pacific Radio News 1921c). Before the sale of the station to Mackay Radio and Telegraph Company, the station was expanded in 1928 to house additional equipment for transmissions to Honolulu and the Philippines and for experimentation of new short-wave technology that was the
predecessor to microwave technology (Adams 2017:28-29; Corbett 2005). The proposed period of significance is 1921 to 1931, when the station was built by the Federal Telegraph Company to 1931 when the station was sold to Mackay Radio and Telegraph Company,
subsumed by ITT, and the Federal Telegraph research and manufacturing was moved to New Jersey.
NRHP B/CRHR 2
Under NRHP Criterion B and CRHR Criterion 2, the Marsh Station is significant for its direct association with the lives of persons important to history. It is unclear from the historic record if Federal Telegraph’s head engineer Frederick A. Kolster did in fact test his short-wave system at the Marsh Station site or at the research and manufacturing site in the city. However, the location of the Marsh Station and its powerful transmission equipment may have been the site of Kolster’s experiments that lead to the development of modern microwave
technology. As such, the Marsh Station appears to be directly associated with Kolster’s work on this revolutionary wireless technology, that was important to the advancement of the technology worldwide.
NRHP C/CRHR 3
The Marsh Station, constructed between 1921 and 1932, appears significant under NRHP Criterion C as the last surviving station within Federal Telegraph’s West Coast system developed in 1920 and 1921 and the last surviving remnant of Federal Telegraph Company within Palo Alto. The Hillsboro and Clearwater stations, which used the same design, are no longer extant and the San Diego station
within the four station system as designed and built by the Bureau of Yards and Docks. The Federal Telegraphy company used a standard design for these West Coast stations that included stations with geometric stepped parapets in a restrained Art Deco style, tall window groups, smooth cement plaster exteriors, 626-foot-tall steel towers on a concrete and granite base, and water cooling system, creating a
uniform style for their stations after World War I.
NRHP D/CRHR 4
Under NRHP Criterion D or CRHR Criterion 4, the Marsh Station property does not appear to be significant as a source (or likely source)
of important information regarding history. It does not appear to have any likelihood of yielding important information about historic construction materials or technologies.
Page 17 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*B10. Significance:
Integrity
In addition to meeting one or more of the NRHP/CRHR criteria, a property must also retain a significant amount of its historic integrity to be considered eligible for listing. Historic integrity is made up of seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These aspects are addressed below with respect to the proposed period of significance of 1921 to 1931.
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event took place. The location of the Marsh Station has remained the same and has not been moved since construction. The integrity of location remains intact.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, and style of a property. The design of the Marsh Station property
from its potential period of significance of 1921 to 1931 has been negatively impacted through the removal of the 626-foot-tall tower, exterior water cooling system, and the original Poulsen arc technology that was installed within the station and resulted in the station’s significance as the most powerful within Federal Telegraph’s West Coast station system and the first station in the world with the capability to communicate with four different stations at one time. The removal of the transmission equipment and the ancillary machinery to operate the technology has resulted is severe loss of integrity of design to the 1921 to 1931 appearance. Other changes include the enlargement
of the station in 1932, which increased the size of the building by one-third, and the construction of the Engineering Office/warehouse in the 1940s.
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. The setting of the station has been negatively affected through the removal of the
various antennae and other exterior equipment that was associated with the communication system utilized on the site. As illustrated in historic photographs, the 626-foot-tall tower on the flat marsh area was a strong visual presence in the area, more so than the station building itself. Without this strong vertical, visual landmark that represented the technological significance of the Marsh Station, the
property has severely diminished setting to the 1921 to 1931 potential period of significance.
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form a historic property. The removal of the original 626-foot-tall steel tower in 1960 and its replacement with a short
modern tower is a severe loss of materials. In addition, the external water cooling system for the station, the original transmission equipment housed within the station, and wood poles that were scattered throughout the site are no longer extant, resulting in diminished integrity of materials.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. The Marsh Station remains recognizable as a restrained Art Deco style radio station from the 1920s. The southern addition built in 1932 was sympathetic to the existing design and materials of the 1921 and 1928 segments, thus retaining integrity of workmanship. The
workmanship of the original steel tower, which was an engineering feat of its own at 626 feet tall with a concrete and granite base, and a series of concrete anchorages was severely impacted through the removal of the tower in 1960.
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. When taken in total, the feeling of the
Marsh Station from its proposed period of significance of 1921 to 1931 has been diminished through loss of integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Because the many original elements of
the Marsh Station have been removed, the station as a whole is no longer representative of the Federal Telegraph Company in Palo Alto from 1909 to 1931, or as an example of the series of West Coast stations developed by Federal Telegraph between 1921 to 1922. The
station has diminished integrity of association
In conclusion, although the former Federal Telegraph Company Marsh Station property at 2601 East Bayshore Road is significant under NRHP/CRHR criteria A/1, B/2, and C/3, it does not retain sufficient historic integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or
association, and no longer physically conveys its historic significance. Therefore the station property is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR.
Page 18 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
B12. References:
Adams, Stephen, 2017. “Arc of Empire: The Federal Telegraph Company, the U.S. Navy, and the Beginnings of Silicon Valley.” Business History Review 91(2). June: 329-59.
City of Palo Alto, 2017. City Council Staff Report, ID# 8078, Adoption of a Park Ordinance, June 5. Available at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58003. Accessed July 20, 2018.
Corbett, Michael, 2001. 2601 Bayshore Road, DPR 523 form. Prepared for Palo Alto Historic Survey Update.
Electrical Communication, 1946. “Federal Telephone and Radio Corporation, A Historical Review: 1909-1946. Vol. 23: 377-405.
Electrical Review, 1921. “Federal Telegraph Co. Builds New Wireless Station.” Vol. 78, No. 24: 953-954.
Fred M. Hohen Photographs, 2003. Collection 2003-42 (unprocessed). On file at History San Jose Research Library, San Jose, California.
Google Earth, 2018. “2601 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, California.” Various years 1948-2018. Accessed July 20, 2018.
Harold F. Elliott Papers, 2003. Collection 2003-36. On file at History San Jose Research Library, San Jose, California.
History San Jose, 2018. “Federal at Home in Palo Alto.” Available at: http://perhamcollection.historysanjose.org/federal-at-home-in-palo-
alto/. Accessed July 20, 2018.
Moody's Manual of Railroads and Corporation Securities, 1900. New York: Moody Manual Company.
Morning Oregonian, 1920. “Radio Station Site Is Near Hillsboro.” September 21:14.
National Park Service, 1994. “HAER No. CA-154, Chollas Heights Naval Radio Transmitting Facility (Chollas Heights Navy Radio Station).” Prepared by Kathleen Crawford. Available at: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ca/ca1900/ca1935/data/ ca1935data.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2018.
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2018. “Pioneer Electronics Research Laboratory, California Historical Resources.” Available at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/Detail/836. Accessed July 20, 2018.
Perham Collection on Federal Telegraph Company, 2003-37. History San Jose Research Library, San Jose, California.
Pacific Radio News, 1921a. “The New Federal Arc Station at Palo Alto.” November, Vol. 3, No. 4: 132-134, 136.
Pacific Radio News, 1921b. “New Stations of the Federal Tel. Co.” February, Vol. 2, No. 7: 212.
Pacific Radio News, 1921c. “Palo Alto Wireless $175,000 Plant is Ready for Action.” May, Vol. 2, No. 10: 331.
San Pedro Daily News, 1921. “A Powerful Wireless Plant Erected on Pacific Coast.” May 12: 6.
Santa Clara County, 2017. Santa Clara County Interactive Map. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/gis/giswelcome/. Accessed July 20, 2018.
UC Santa Barbara Historic Aerial Photograph Collection, various years .Available at: http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ Accessed July 20, 2018. 1930. Flight C-1025, frame Z-149.
1939. Flight CIV-5750, frame 285-67. 1941. Flight C-6660, frame 382. 1956. Flight CIV-1956, frame PR-32. 1965. Flight CAS-65-130, frame 4-136, 1968. Flight CAS-2310, frame 1-64.
1980. Flight GS-VEZR, frame 1-110.
*B14. Evaluator: Chandra Miller, AECOM *Date of Evaluation: July 2018
Page 19 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Sketch Map:
Sketch Map of former Federal Telegraph Company Marsh Station in Assessor Parcel 008-04-001 (Source: Santa Clara County 2017)
Page 20 of 20 *Resource Name or # 2601 East Bayshore Road Continuation Update
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Site Map:
Site Map of former Federal Telegraph Company Marsh Station building cluster. Marsh Station, Engineering Office/warehouse, and antenna base extant. Other buildings and exterior equipment removed 2017. Notes added by AECOM (Source: Santa Clara County 2017)
Introduction 1
Appendix D. Byxbee Park
Mowing and Vegetation
Management Plan
Byxbee Park Mowing and Vegetation Management Plan
City of Palo Alto, Environmental Services and Openspace Divisions, July 2020
I. Plan Purpose and Introduction
The purpose of this plan is to identify and guidelines for areas of needed vegetation management at
Byxbee Park, which is the site of the closed Palo Alto Landfill, and to identify the management activities
that will be performed by the Openspace (OS) and Environmental Services (ESD) divisions.
The Palo Alto Landfill is a Class III disposal site with a permitted landfill footprint of approximately 137
acres, of which approximately 126 acres was used for refuse disposal operations. The landfill was closed
in phases and converted to park land (Byxbee Park). Refuse operations ceased in 2011 and the final
capping and closure occurred in 2016 in accordance with requirements set forth in Title 27 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR). In 2016 the landfill site was fully opened as park land. The landfill
post‐closure regulatory requirements are protective of human health and the environment in
perpetuity, with a statutory minimum of 30 years from the closure date.
This plan acknowledges and attempts to balance 1) Required post‐closure landfill management
activities, 2) Open space and wildlife habitat, and 3) Park aesthetics and recreation.
Landfill management and regulatory compliance
The City is committed to ensuring that the landfill is closed and maintained in a manner that protects
public health, safety and the environment as required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Subtitle D, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations.
The landfill is under regulatory oversight from the following state and local agencies: the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health,
CalRecycle, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Vegetation management is required for the City to conduct required inspection and maintenance
activities which ensure the integrity of landfill cover materials, site drainage, site grading and the landfill
gas and leachate control systems, and for fire prevention. Maintenance activities are required by law to
be protective of groundwater and nearby surface waters from contaminants in landfill leachate and
stormwater, and protective of air quality by capturing and controlling the landfill gas, which is comprised
of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. These activities include but are not limited to:
o Landfill cover materials
Identify cracks, erosion or other potential damage to the landfill cap
Conduct site‐wide ground surveys to detect leaking methane gas
Perform rodent abatement to control the ground squirrel population and
minimize damage to the cap due to burrowing activity
o Site drainage and stormwater management
Maintaining site drainage features such as the perimeter v‐ditch, the rock
swales, and drop inlets
Minimize erosion and potential of “daylighting” of landfilled materials
Ensure no ponding or flooding; rainwater infiltration into the landfill mass
generates landfill leachate
o Site grading
Check and repair differential settlement of ground surface
Conduct grade checks in the field or by aerial flyover
o Site control systems
Access, maintain and monitor the underground piping and aboveground
components of the landfill gas collection system and leachate collection system
o Fire prevention
Fuel reduction for aboveground fire prevention
Open space / wildlife habitat
Byxbee Park is an artificial upland habitat located within the Palo Alto Baylands nature preserve. As land
developments have increasingly encroached on wild spaces on the peninsula, Byxbee Park provides
crucial habitat for coastal wildlife, including birds, mammals, reptiles and insects. This plan recognizes
the value of Byxbee Park as open space and includes guidelines that minimize impacts to wildlife and
their nesting and foraging areas.
Park aesthetics and recreation
This plan offers brief guidance on the maintenance of park features such as trails, historical and
contemporary art features, and other park features such as the vegetated ‘islands’ and compass rose
group gathering area.
II. General specifications for vegetation management:
1. Coyote Brush and other woody plants:
Coyote Brush and other vegetation whose roots exceed one foot in depth must be removed on
an ongoing basis in all areas where the clay landfill cap may be damaged by tap roots (Phase I,
Phase IIA and Phase IIB, see Figure 5). In Phase IIC , where the landfill was capped using a 4‐
foot thick evapo‐transpirative soil layer and where roots will not damage the landfill cap, coyote
brush will be left in place whenever possible. This task will be done as part of the annual
mowing.
Rare and endangered plant species that have been identified in the park (ex. the Hall’s Bush
Mallow) will be left in place whenever possible so long as those plants do not constitute a threat
to the landfill cap. Plants will be marked prior to mowing and avoided by a reasonable distance.
Best efforts will be taken to transplant rare or endangered species to an appropriate location if
it is determined they must be removed.
2. Bird Nesting Season:
Bird Nesting Season is from February 14th through August 31st. Mowing activities within this
period will be limited to as‐needed mowing at high priority areas that occupy narrow swaths of
area (along the perimeter V‐ditch, along trails, around well‐vaults).
Mowing of larger swaths on the top of the landfill will be conducted outside of bird nesting
season with some rare exceptions, detailed in the Top of Byxbee section, below.
3. Burrowing Owl Habitat:
Byxbee Park is burrowing owl habitat. There may be no mowing within 250 feet of a
burrowing owl nest burrow. Nest burrows will be clearly marked by City staff.
4. Artistic Features (OS/ESD):
Historic site art features named Chevrons, Pole Field and Wind Waves, and contemporary
art named Habitat Island will not undergo regular vegetation maintenance for aesthetics
as they are site‐specific art features that are designed as part of the larger landscape.
Mowing within approximately 50 feet of these areas will be avoided unless deemed
necessary for landfill cap or control system repair, or for periodic maintenance of art such
as graffiti removal. Where appropriate, weed whipping or hand removal of weedy
vegetation will be used in lieu of a mower.
5. Other Park Features (OS):
Areas around contemporary park features such as the Compass Rose group gathering area
and landscaped Vegetated Islands will be maintained to include the removal of existing
weeds and other tall vegetation by hand and/or weed‐whipping of the surrounding areas
to keep a neat appearance.
III. Routine maintenance mowing/vegetation management:
Trails (OS)
All formal trails on Byxbee Park are dual‐purpose: they serve as maintenance roads for the landfill
post‐closure vehicles, as well as recreational trails for park visitors (hiking, biking, dog walking).
Frequency: As‐needed
Maintenance Specs:
Vegetation from the edge of the trail tread of the pathways out to a width of 5’ will be
mowed to a height of 6” to 8” to maintain unobstructed pathways for park visitors and
maintenance vehicles.
Vegetation from the tread of formal trails will be removed to maintain safe, unobstructed
pathways for park visitors by mowing.
In rare situations, where manual techniques are not effective, herbicide may be used
(only in compliance with the City’s Integrated Pest Management policy and with prior
written permission from the Supervising Ranger).
V‐ditch (ESD)
The V‐ditch is a concrete drainage feature that circles the park near the levee roads. The V‐ditch
shall be maintained by mowing along either side as specified below. Vegetation shall be mowed
to a height of 4” to 6”.
Frequency: 3x/year Jan/Feb, late June, September/ October. Additional mowing as needed
during heavy growth years
Maintenance Specs:
On the upper slope side of the v‐ditch, mow 6’ to 8’ uphill from the ditch.
On the down slope side, mow from the v‐ditch to the road.
Inside the v‐ditch, pull and remove all vegetation.
Blow all vegetation from interior of v‐ditch.
Haul away all pulled vegetation.
Purpose of mowing: Site drainage and stormwater management
Figure 1. V‐Ditch drainage feature
Landfill control system vaults and monitoring points wellheads (ESD)
Frequency: 3x/year or as‐needed
Location: Around all vault boxes and well heads (landfill gas wells, leachate wells, piezometers, valve
boxes, groundwater monitoring wells, gas probes) including a path from the maintenance road to the
field point, if far from maintenance road. Additional mowing as well as trenching may be required to
address any gas line failures on an as‐needed basis.
Best efforts will be made to clear around the vaults before nesting season to minimize needed upkeep in
the spring and summer.
Reason for mowing: Access to site control systems and monitoring wells
RWQCP/Flare Station and Landfill Maintenance Area (ESD)
Frequency: As‐needed, year round
Maintenance Specs: Weed‐whipping and hand‐pulling around native plantings, mowing to a height of 6”
to 10”.
Location: Area outside of RWQCP/Flare Station gate; plants screening landfill maintenance area
Reason: Weed control
IV. Annual mowing
Slope mowing (ESD)
Frequency: One section per year shall be mowed each fall (blue, green, orange).
Maintenance Specs: The slopes will be mowed from the levee road to the midpoint of the slope, to a
height of 6” to 10”
Purpose of mowing: Fuel reduction for fire risk, inspection of the landfill cover materials, perform site
grade checks, reduce annual weedy bio‐mass, remove plants with root systems greater than a foot in
depth (i.e., coyote brush, mustard, Russian thistle) and provide sunlight to emerging perennial natives.
Figure 2. Slope mowing areas (Blue, Green, Orange)
Top of Byxbee Mowing (ESD)
Frequency: Regular mowing will be phased during non‐nesting season to reduce impacts to wildlife.
Orange and blue areas shown in Figures 3 and 4 encompass approximately 30% of the landfill area and
will be alternately mowed prior to February 14th and after August 31st. There are several exceptions
where landfill activities will necessitate mowing the top area of the landfill within nesting season, which
are listed below.
Maintenance Specs: Vegetation will be mowed to a height of 6” to 10”.
Purpose for mowing: Inspection of the landfill cover materials, inspection of site grading, fuel reduction
for fire risk, reduce annual weedy bio‐mass, remove plants with root systems greater than a foot in
depth (i.e., coyote brush, mustard, Russian thistle) and provide sunlight to emerging perennial natives.
Exceptions: Scenarios where top‐of‐Byxbee mowing may occur outside of the above frequency / timing
are listed below. In scenarios necessitating large‐area mowing within bird nesting season, the City will
obtain the services of a qualified wildlife biologist to identify active nests in the proposed mowing area.
Active nests will be marked and avoided to the maximum extent possible.
1) Prior to Aerial Flyovers
Large‐area mowing shall occur prior to required aerial topographic surveys, or aerial flyovers, which
occur once every three to five years. Dense vegetation obscures the land surface and does not allow
remote sensing equipment to “see” true landfill topography.
2) Wet winter scenario
During years with high rainfall and a particularly wet winter, it may become infeasible to mobilize
mowing equipment prior to February 14th without damaging landfill cover materials. If regular
mowing is not possible due to rainfall, the scheduled spring mowing (shown in blue in Figure 3) may
be scheduled later into the spring.
3) Grade repair or fill activities
To the extent feasible, grade repair will occur in the September/October timeframe to avoid the wet
season and bird nesting season. However, urgent or mandated repair work may be required outside
of this timeframe.
Spring mowing
Figure 3. Spring mowing areas (mowed prior to Feb. 14)
Fall mowing
Figure 4. Fall mowing areas (Mowed after August 31st)
Fig. 5 Byxbee Park landfill closure areas
Phase I, Phase IIA, Phase IIB: Clay cap (shrubs with root systems penetrating cap materials must be
removed)
Phase IIC: Evapo‐transpirative cap (shrubs may remain in place)
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: TOM KAPUSHINSKI DEPARTMENT: PWD, RWQCP DATE: May 24, 2022 COMMISSION MEETING
SUBJECT: ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM (AWPS) PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss the landscape aspects associated with the new AWPS Project to be located within the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) property, along Embarcadero Road leading into the Baylands.
BACKGROUND The AWPS is a new capital project at the RWQCP. The system will provide further treatment of the WQCP’s recycled water to improve the water quality for increased use irrigation in parks,
and at the Baylands Golf Links. In addition, it is envisioned that the improved water quality will
also attract more industrial / commercial users and help to offset the use of potable water. The RWQCP currently provides tertiary‐treated recycled water to permitted users in its service area. The RWQCP, in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City of
Mountain View, evaluated needed process additions to improve the quality of this water,
particularly the level of salts (measured as total dissolved solids), in a Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study recommended a treatment system consisting of micro‐ or ultrafiltration followed by reverse osmosis for dissolved salt reduction in the recycled water.
The AWPS is an advanced membrane treatment system sized to provide an initial product flow
of 1.125 million gallons per day (MGD), expandable to 2.25 MGD. The system consists of a semi-open canopy structure to house the equipment, a chemical area, and a large storage tank. The walking path and landscaping along Embarcadero Road will require being re-designed at the conclusion of the construction.
DISCUSSION The Landscape Architect on the project is Siegfried Engineering. This firm is very familiar with the Baylands Design Guide and the supplemental Public Art at the Baylands An Overlay to the
Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP), from 2019. Siegfried was the
Landscape Architect on the RWQCP’s Landscape Project from 2013, which incorporated many BCCP elements into the landscape design including the entrance to the Baylands along Embarcadero Road and Harbor Road.
2
The landscape design for this project will incorporate as much of the BCCP design
considerations as possible into the design. The landscape elements will focus on the walking path
modifications, retaining / sound wall, and planting of new trees and shrubs between the RWQCP property line and Embarcadero Road after the AWPS is constructed. Design elements of the landscape and architectural features of the canopy structure will be such to screen the new facility and also have it blend into the surrounding environment as much as possible.
The project is currently at the 60% design stage, with design expected to be completed in late 2022. Financing for the project is currently being arranged by a low-interest State Revolving Fund loan and potential grant funding. It is hoped that the project will proceed to construction in CY2023. Construction is anticipated to take 18 months.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 60% Design Landscape Drawings
Attachment B: 60% Design Landscape Renderings
TAXI
WAY
30
12
12
REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL
PLANTP
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
PALO
ALTO
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN
FRANCICSO
BAY
SAN
PABLO
BAY
OAKLAND
BERKELEY
HAYWARD
SAN JOSE
RICHMOND
VALLEJO
80
101
101
101
580
580
280
280
80
84
37
92
PROJECT
LOCATION1
17
17
680
17
17
1
1
PALO ALTO
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY AIRPORT
PALO ALTO
MUNCIPAL
GOLF COURSE
E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
METER STATION (SEE PM FOR ACCRSS)
S A N SA N TO N I O R OA D
C O L O R A D O A V E N U E
L
O
UIS
R
O
A
D
O R E G O N
A V E N U E
BV Project Number:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED BY:
City of Palo Alto
BLACK & VEATCH
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
LOCATION MAP
NO SCALE
408520
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADVANCED WATER
PURIFICATION SYSTEM
APRIL 2022
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
Attachment A
ICV
UN
K
EL
UNK
EL
EL
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
142
138
164
165
163
166
144143
140
399152(410)
153(409)
139
154
137
7025
157
155-158
159
162156
160
340
388
341(463)
337
7027
145
146
151(407)141(408)
150(405)
357356
355(400)
354(403)353352351
350
358
359
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
1
0
0
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
&
T
R
E
E
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
P
L
A
N
I
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
6
:
5
8
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
TREE TO BE REMOVED (TREE SURVEY DATA TABLE)
TREE TO BE REMOVED DURING THIS PROJECT BY CONTRACTOR DUE TO
CONFLICTS WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS, CONDITION, OR HEALTH.
REFER TO TREE SURVEY DATA TABLE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN WITH TREE SURVEY IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER
-SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR SITE DEMOLITION, NOTES AND DESCRIPTIONS.
1.EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CARE
SHOULD BE TAKEN WHEN GRADING OCCURS WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF THE TREE.
2.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY CITY IMMEDIATELY IF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR
QUESTIONS REGARDING TREE PROTECTION OCCUR AT TIME CONSTRUCTION.
3.ALL WORK WITHIN THE EXISTING TREE ROOT ZONES SHALL BE DONE USING ALL
POSSIBLE CARE TO AVOID INJURY TO ROOTS.
4.NO ROOTS LARGER THAN 2" SHALL BE CUT WITHOUT APPROVAL. CONTACT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND UNIVERSITY PROJECT MANAGER IF PLANT MATERIAL
PLACEMENT IS IN CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ROOTS.
5.ROOT BARRIER,TO BE INSTALLED WHEN TREE IS WITHIN 5' OF SIDEWALKS,
ROADWAYS, BUILDING OR CURBS.
TREE NOTES LEGEND
·SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR SITE DEMOLITION NOTES.
·EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
SITE DEMOLITION NOTES 10'20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
40'0'
L-00-100
LANDSCAPE DEMOLITION
& TREE INVENTORY PLAN
I
1.DBH (DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT), THE DIAMETER OF A TREE MEASURED AT
4.5 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL ON THE HIGH SIDE OF THE TREE, UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED. TREES WITH MULTIPLE DBH'S REPRESENT MULTI-TRUNK
TREES, WITH EACH SEPARATE TRUNK MEASURE INDIVIDUALLY.
2.MEASURE AT THE LARGEST DIAMETER OF THE DRIPLINE OF A TREE.
3.GENERAL HEALTH OF THE TREE INCLUDING ROOT COLLAR, TRUNK, LIMBS,
FOLIAGE, STRUCTURE, AND GENERAL VIGOR.
1.TREES WERE ORIGINALLY MAPPED WITH A GPS UNIT ON 1/18/2011 BY
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES (ESA).
2.SUPPLEMENTAL INVENTORY DATA AND REMOVAL PROVIDED BY PALO ALTO
STAFF (URBAN FORESTRY) JANUARY 2019.
3.ADDITIONAL TREE MAPPING DATA FOR TREES 400-465 MAPPED ON 5/6/2017 BY
WRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS.
4.ALL TREES AND TAGS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINAL SUBMITTAL AND
CONSTRUCTION.
TREE MAPPING DATA
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
EXISTING SHRUBS/VEGETATION TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED
DURING CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING SHRUBS/VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET L-00-101
SEE CIVIL SHEETS FOR
EXISTING PATHWAY DEMOLITION
EXISTING
TANK
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
EDGE OF EXISTING
EASEMENT
VL
T
UT
L
UT
L
VL
T
VL
T
TV
COM
A
ICV
U
N
K
C
O
M
WM
ICV
EL
UNK
EL
EL
EL
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
7014
177
178
7019
7020
7017
7015
7016
180
191197
194
7024
142
176
174
175
129 128
131
127130
7026119
336
335
333
133
334134
135
138
167
161
164
165
163
166
144143
137
7025
157
155-158
159
162156
160
173
172
170
171
168
169
7027
145
146
7018
181
182
198
7021
7022
195
193
192
190
186
189
188
187
2853
185
184
183
126
125
123
120
122 121
113 112
116 115
132
506
507
508
117
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
1
0
1
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
&
T
R
E
E
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
P
L
A
N
I
I
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
7
:
0
5
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
10'20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
40'0'
L-00-101
LANDSCAPE DEMOLITION
& TREE INVENTORY PLAN
II
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET L-00-100
EDGE OF EXISTING
EASEMENT
SEE SHEET L-00-100 FOR TREE
INVENTORY LEGEND AND NOTES
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
NEW PUMPING
TANK
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
UN
K
EL
UNK
EL
EL
151(407)141(408)
150(405)
357356
355(400)
354(403)353352351
350
358
359
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
1
0
2
T
R
E
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
I
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
7
:
1
3
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
TREE PROTECTION NOTES:
1.BEFORE WORKING IN REGULATED TREE AREAS, CONTACT THE CITY AND
PROJECT MANAGER.
2.REMOVAL OF A CITY OWNED TREE (I.E. RIGHT-OF-WAY) URBAN FORESTRY
SECTION REQUIREMENTS (6450-496-5953;
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp) :
a. TREE REMOVAL POSTING.
EACH TREE TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE VISIBLY POSTED WITH A
COMPLETED TREE REMOVAL NOTICE FORM (8.5"x11", SEALED IN
PROTECTIVE PLASTIC) NO LESS THAN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF POSTING.
b. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
A COMPLETED AND APPROVED APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT
STREET WORK (INCLUDING REMOVALS) ISSUED BY THE URBAN
FORESTRY SECTION MUST BE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE.
L-00-102
TREE PROTECTION PLAN I
10'20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
40'0'
LEGEND
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND RECEIVE
TREE PROTECTION PER CITY STANDARDS.
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET L-00-103
EXISTING
TANK
NEW EQUIPMENT
CANOPY NEW AWPS
NEW
RO PERMEATE
TANK
EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
TREE PROTECTION ZONE
FENCING PER DETAIL
605 ON SHEET L-00-104 (T-1)
NEW ASPHALT
PATH SECTION
NEW CHAINLINK
FENCE
NEW PRECAST
CONCRETE WALL
EXISTING LIGHT
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
EXISTING
CHAINLINK FENCE
EDGE OF EXISTING
EASEMENT
VL
T
UT
L
UT
L
VL
T
VL
T
TV
COM
WM
ICV
EL
UNK
EL
EL
EL
198
7021
7022
195
193
192
190
186
189
188
187
185
184 125
123 122 121
113 112
116 115
506
507
508
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
1
0
3
T
R
E
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
I
I
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
7
:
2
1
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
L-00-103
TREE PROTECTION PLAN II
10'20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
40'0'
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET L-00-102
NEW
CHAINLINK FENCE
NEW TRANSFORMER
EXISTING LIGHT
NEW SWITCH GEAR
NEW PRECAST
CONCRETE WALL
TREE PROTECTION ZONE
FENCING PER DETAIL 605 ON SHEET
L-00-104 (T-1)
EXISTING
CHAINLINK FENCE
NEW PUMPING
TANK
NEW EQUIPMENT
CANOPY
NEW
ELECTRICAL
BLDG
NEW AWPS
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
SEE SHEET L-00-102 FOR TREE
PROTECTION PLAN LEGEND & NOTES
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
EDGE OF EXISTING
EASEMENT
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
1
0
4
S
P
E
C
I
A
L
T
R
E
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
7
:
2
8
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
L-00-104
SPECIAL TREE
PROTECTION
INSTRUCTION SHEET
UN
K
EL
UNK
EL
EL
VL
TUT
L
UT
L
VL
T
VL
T
TV
COM
UNK
EL
WM
ICV EL
UNK
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
MEDIUM TREES 2
24" box trees. Low / medium water use trees. Locations throughout site
along pathway.
Drip bubbler irrigation.
.
Melaleuca linariifolia / Flaxleaf Paperbark
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' / Drake Lacebark Elm
NARROW TREES 6
36" box trees. Low/medium water use trees. Perimeter areas requiring
narrow, upright growth and screening.
Drip bubbler irrigation.
.
Brachychiton populneus / Kurrajong
Calocedrus decurrens / Incense Cedar
Eucalyptus nicholii / Nichol's Willow-leafed Peppermint
Ginkgo biloba / Maidenhair Tree
Rhamnus frangula 'Columnaris' / Alder Buckthorn
SCREEN TREES 7
24" box trees. Low / medium water use trees. Locations along wall and
fenceline adjacent to existing business for screening.
Drip bubbler irrigation.
.
Acacia cultriformis / Knife Acacia
Arbutus unedo / Strawberry Tree
Eucalyptus globulus 'Compacta' / Dwarf Blue Gum
Laurus x 'Saratoga' / Saratoga Hybrid Laurel
Myrica californica 'Buxifolia' / Pacific Wax Myrtle
CONIFER TREES 3
36" box trees. Low / medium water use trees. Locations throughout site
along pathway for vertical height and screening.
Drip bubbler irrigation.
.
Calocedrus decurrens / Incense Cedar
Casuarina equisetifolia / Ironwood
Pinus canariensis / Canary Island Pine
LARGE SHRUBS 24
15 gallon shrubs.
Drought tolerant, low water-use plants.
Large shrubs (4`-10` high) within site areas along fence and wall.
Drip irrigation.
.
Acacia longifolia / Golden Wattle
Atriplex lentiformis / Big Saltbush
Callistemon citrinus / Lemon Bottlebrush Multi-trunk
Ceanothus x 'Concha' / Concha Wild Lilac
Eriogonum giganteum / St. Catherine's Lace
Escallonia rubra / Red Escallonia
Heteromeles arbutifolia / Toyon
Rhamnus alaternus / Italian Buckthorn
Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' / California Coffeeberry
Ribes viburnifolium / Evergreen Currant
MEDIUM SHRUBS 43
5 gallon shrubs.
Drought tolerant, low water-use plants.
Shrubs (2`-4` high) throughout project site along both sides of pathway for
screening and separation from the roadway.
Drip irrigation.
.
Abelia x grandiflora / Glossy Abelia
Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' / Pigeon Point Coyote Brush
Berberis aquifolium 'Compacta' / Compact Oregon Grape
Callistemon viminalis 'Little John' / Little John Weeping Bottlebrush
Cotoneaster microphyllus / Rockspray Cotoneaster
Epilobium canum / California Fuchsia
Myrtus communis 'Compacta' / Dwarf Common Myrtle
Pittosporum tobira 'Compactum' / Compact Japanese Pittosporum
Rosa californica / California Wild Rose
Salvia greggii / Autumn Sage
Teucrium fruticans 'Azureum' / Azure Bush Germander
SMALL SHRUBS 73
1 gallon shrubs.
Drought tolerant, low water-use plants.
Accent shrubs (1`-2` high) within project site along pathway for accent
and low for safe visibility.
Drip irrigation.
.
Erigeron karvinskianus / Santa Barbara Daisy
Grindelia stricta platyphylla / Spreading Grindelia
Hesperaloe parviflora 'Perpa' TM / Brakelights Red Yucca
Penstemon heterophyllus 'Margarita BOP' / Margarita BOP Penstemon
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES 41
5 gallon shrubs.
Drought tolerant, low water-use plants.
Accent grasses (1`-3` high) within project site
Drip irrigation.
.
Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' / Blonde Ambition Blue Grama
Deschampsia cespitosa / Tufted Hair Grass
Elymus glaucus / Blue Wildrye
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' / Canyon Prince Giant Wild Rye
Muhlenbergia capillaris 'Lenca' / Regal Mist Pink Muhly Grass
MEDIUM GROUNDCOVER 1,408 sf
1 gallon plants.
Drought tolerant, low water-use plants and grasses.
18"-30" high. Groundcovers used in the background of low groundcover
areas within project site and along roadway for safe separation. Spacing
varies between 36" and 60" on center.
Drip irrigation.
.
Artemisia californica 'Montara' / Montara California Sagebrush
Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks' / Twin Peaks Coyote Brush
Ceanothus maritimus 'Valley Violet' / Valley Violet Maritime Ceanothus
Rosmarinus officinalis 'Irene' TM / Irene Trailing Rosemary
Stipa pulchra / Purple Needle Grass
LOW GROUNDCOVER 3,267 sf
1 gallon plants.
Drought tolerant, low water-use plants and grasses.
6"-18" high. Groundcovers used in the foreground of plant massing areas
within project site, providing open, clear safe visibility along the path.
Spacing varies between 24" and 60" on center.
Drip irrigation.
.
Agrostis pallens / Thingrass
Arctostaphylos x 'Emerald Carpet' / Emerald Carpet Manzanita
Epilobium canum latifolium 'Everett's Choice' / Everett's California Fuchsia
Eriogonum grande rubescens / Red Buckwheat
Myoporum x 'Putah Creek' / Putah Creek Myoprorum
Salvia x 'Bee's Bliss' / Bee's Bliss Sage
BARK MULCH 22,209 sf
Natural bark mulch. 3" thick layer minimum. Landscape areas within the
project site to receive city provided recycled natural bark mulch.
Stabilizing edges of pavement, areas of traffic and activity as well as
disturbed open space areas along the perimeter fence and wall.
-
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
2
0
0
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
I
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
8
:
0
3
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
10'20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
40'0'
EXISTING SHRUBS TO REMAIN
L-00-200
PLANTING PLAN I
PLANTING LEGEND
116 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
BARK MULCH EXHIBIT
SCALE: 1"=60'
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET L-00-201
EXISTING
TANK
NEW EQUIPMENT
CANOPY
NEW AWPS
NEW
RO PERMEATE
TANK
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
NEW ASPHALT
PATH SECTION
NEW CHAINLINK
FENCE
NEW PRECAST
CONCRETE WALL
EXISTING LIGHT
EXISTING
CHAINLINK FENCE
PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF
24" AWAY FROM EDGE OF PATHWAY TO
ALLOW FOR NATURAL GROWTH HABITS
AND MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE, TYPICAL.
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
DESIGN INTENT
1.COMBINE PERIMETER WALL AND FENCING WITH PLANT MATERIAL
TO PROVIDE BAYLANDS PRESERVATION SCREENING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RWQCP FACILITY.
2.REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS.
3.FOLLOW CPTED PRINCIPLES IN DESIGN FOR SAFETY AND
SECURITY THROUGH PATHWAY COORIDOR AREA.
4.PROVIDE A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR AND REFUGIA FOR THE PROJECT
SITE AT EMBARCADERO ROAD ALONG THE PERIMETER FENCE
AND WALL.
EDGE OF EXISTING
EASEMENT
VL
T
UT
L
UT
L
VL
T
VL
T
TV
COM
WM
ICV
EL
UNK
EL
EL
EL
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
2
0
1
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
I
I
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
8
:
1
2
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
10'20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
40'0'L-00-201
PLANTING PLAN II
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET L-00-200
NEW
CHAINLINK FENCE
NEW TRANSFORMER
EXISTING LIGHT
NEW SWITCH GEAR
NEW PRECAST
CONCRETE WALL
EXISTING
CHAINLINK FENCE
NEW PUMPING
TANK
NEW EQUIPMENT
CANOPYNEW
ELECTRICAL
BLDG
NEW AWPS
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
SEE SHEET L-00-200 FOR PLANTING
LEGEND AND NOTES
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
EDGE OF EXISTING
EASEMENT
VL
T
UT
L
UT
L
VL
T
VL
T
TV
COM
UN
K
EL
WM
ICV
EL
UNK
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
GV
QC
QC
QC
QC
QC
GV
GV
1B
2B
3B
4B
5B
34B
6B
7B
FSMV
C
33B
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
3
0
1
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
I
N
L
I
N
E
P
L
A
N
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
8
:
3
0
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
LEGEND
15'60'
SCALE: 1"=30'
30'0'L-00-301
IRRIGATION MAINLINE
PLAN
Existing Main Line
Existing quick coupling valve
Existing Gate Valve
Existing master valve
Existing flow sensor
MV
FS
New mainline
3" SCH 40 NP
Existing Controller BC
xx
QC
GV
LEGEND
1.CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING SLEEVE PIPE SIZE
AND QUANTITIES BASED ON FINAL ROUTING OF MAINLINE, LATERALS
AND WIRING.
PIPE SLEEVE: PVC SCHEDULE 40
TYPICAL PIPE SLEEVE FOR IRRIGATION PIPE TWICE THE DIAMETER
OF THE PIPE SLEEVE
DESIGN TYPICALS
MAINLINE (8" SLEEVE")
CONTROLLER WIRE (2" SLEEVE)
LATERALS (2" SLEEVE)
EXTEND SLEEVES 24" BEYOND EDGES OF PAVING OR
CONSTRUCTION.
2.MULTIPLE SLEEVES MAY BE INSTALLED TO ISOLATE MAINLINE AND
LATERAL PIPING.
New Schedule 40 Sleeve
Existing Irrigation Valve
Station #
xx Proposed Irrigation Valve
Station #EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
NEW CHAINLINK
FENCE
REALIGNMENT
OF MAINLINE
NEW ASPHALT
PATH SECTION
EXISTING LIGHT
NEW PRECAST
CONCRETE WALL
EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
NEW TRANSFORMER
NEW SWITCH
GEAR
NEW CHAINLINK
FENCE
EXISTING CHAINLINK
FENCE
EXISTING CHAINLINK
FENCE
EXISTING
TANK
NEW PUMPING
TANK
NEW AWPSNEW EQUIPMENT
CANOPY
NEW
RO PERMEATE
TANK
NEW
ELECTRICAL
BLDG
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
UN
K
EL
UNK
EL
EL
C
QC
QC
QC
GV
GV
%
1"
%
1"
%
1"
4%
1"
4%
1"
FSMV
SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY
Rain Bird RWS-M-B-C-P w/ RWS-SOCK 1401
Mini Root Watering System with 4" diameter x 18" long with locking grate,
semi-rigid mesh tube. 1402 0.5 GPM bubbler. 2 per tree, typical.
36
SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY
Area to Receive Drip Emitters
Rain Bird PCT
Pressure Compensating Threaded Low-Flow Bubblers. Offered in 5 GPH, 7
GPH, and 10 GPH models, with 1/2" FPT threaded inlet. Light Brown = 5
GPH, Violet = 7 GPH, and Green = 10 GPH.
15,045 s.f.
SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY
Rain Bird PEB-PRS-D-NP-HAN
1", 1-1/2", 2" Plastic Industrial Valves. Low Flow Operating Capability, Globe
Configuration. With Pressure Regulator Module, and Purple Flow Handle for
Non-Potable Water Use.
1
Irrigation Lateral Line: PVC Class 315 SDR 13.5 926.5 l.f.
Irrigation Mainline: PVC Class 315 SDR 13.5 (3")
Proposed non-potable irrigation mainline
- Connection to W-4
- Recycled water
42.2 l.f.
Pipe Sleeve: PVC Schedule 40
Typical pipe sleeve for irrigation pipe. Min. size 2x diameter of pipe being
sleeved. Extend sleeves 24" beyond edges of paving or construction.
9.3 l.f.
1401 1402
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
3
0
2
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
I
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
8
:
4
0
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
IRRIGATION LEGEND
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT AND PIPING IS
DIAGRAMMATIC FOR GRAPHICAL CLARITY.I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE MODEL
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND
APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN
THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLANS.
ROBERT J. NORBUTAS, JR., RLA 5595
10'20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
40'0'
TREE LOCATION (PROPOSED)
Layout reference of proposed trees. See sheet L-00-200 and L-00-201.
TREE LOCATION (EXISTING)
Layout reference of existing trees. Tree protection in place during
construction.
L-00-302
IRRIGATION PLAN I
Existing Irrigation Valve
Existing Lateral Line
Existing Main Line
Existing Quick Coupling Valve
Existing Gate Valve
Existing Master Valve
Existing Flow Sensor
MV
FS
QC
GV
Existing Controller BC
Existing 1402 Mini Tree Bubbler
NON-POTABLE IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT
RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS REQUIRED.
NON-POTABLE PRODUCTS, TAGS AND VALVE BOXES SHALL BE INSTALLED.
LANDSCAPE SUMMARY
TOTAL IRRIGATED AREA 16,630 SF
MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA)199,974 GALLON/YR
ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU)164,588 GALLON/YR
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET L-00-303
EXISTING
TANK
NEW EQUIPMENT
CANOPY NEW AWPS
NEW
RO PERMEATE
TANK
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
NEW ASPHALT
PATH SECTION
NEW CHAINLINK
FENCE
EXISTING
CHAINLINK FENCE
NEW PRECAST
CONCRETE WALL
SEE SHEET L-00-304 FOR IRRIGATION
CALCULATIONS & NOTES
EDGE OF EXISTING
EASEMENT
VL
T
UT
L
UT
L
VL
T
VL
T
TV
COM
U
N
K
WM
ICV
EL
UNK
EL
EL
EL
GV
QC
QC
QC
%
1"
4%
1"
2%
1"
1%
1"
%
1"
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
LANDSCAPE
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
L
-
0
0
-
3
0
3
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
I
I
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
8
:
5
0
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT AND PIPING IS
DIAGRAMMATIC FOR GRAPHICAL CLARITY.I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE MODEL
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND
APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN
THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLANS.
ROBERT J. NORBUTAS, JR., RLA 5595
10'20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
40'0'L-00-303
IRRIGATION PLAN II
NON-POTABLE IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT
RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS REQUIRED.
NON-POTABLE PRODUCTS, TAGS AND VALVE BOXES SHALL BE INSTALLED.
LANDSCAPE SUMMARY
TOTAL IRRIGATED AREA 16,630 SF
MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA)199,974 GALLON/YR
ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU)164,588 GALLON/YR
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET L-00-302
NEW
CHAINLINK FENCE
NEW TRANSFORMER
NEW SWITCH GEAR
NEW PRECAST
CONCRETE WALL
EXISTING
CHAINLINK FENCE
NEW PUMPING
TANK
NEW EQUIPMENT
CANOPYNEW
ELECTRICAL
BLDG
NEW AWPS
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
SEE SHEET L-00-302 FOR IRRIGATION
LEGEND, L-00-304 FOR IRRIGATION
CALCULATIONS & NOTES
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
EDGE OF EXISTING
EASEMENT
VL
T
UT
L
UT
L
VL
T
VL
T
TV
COM
A
ICV
U
N
K
CO
M
UNK
EL
WM
ICV
EL
UNK
EL
EL
EL
EL
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
ICV
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
A
-
0
0
-
0
0
1
S
I
T
E
&
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
P
L
A
N
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
6
:
3
7
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
ARCHITECTURE
15'60'
SCALE: 1"=30'
30'0'
PERSPECTIVE ILLUSTRATIONS
PRE ENGINEERED OPEN AIR BUILDING
112' L x 66' W
PURLIN SUPPORTS, STANDING SEAM ROOF.
SITE FEATURES LEGEND
DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER / MODEL COLOR / FINISH DETAIL
1 VARCO PRUDEN OR EQUAL ROOF- COOL COLONIAL
RED
PURLINS-COOL ZINC
GRAY
A-00-002
2
REFERENCE
ELECTRICAL BUILDING
80' L x 20' W
PREFABRICATED UNIT.
E-HOUSE OR EQUAL ANSI 70 GREY
#5049
A-00-002
3 RO PERMEATE TANK
GLASS-LINED BOLTED STEEL TANK
CST INDUSTRIES OR EQUAL FOREST GREEN SEE CIVIL PLANS
4 CHAINLINK SECURITY FENCE
8' HIGH
GALVANIZED STEEL CHAINLINK FABRIC.
MANUFACTURER OR EQUAL GALVANIZED
STEEL
SEE CIVIL PLANS
5 CONCRETE SOUNDWALL
10' HIGH, EXTERIOR SIDE.
PRECAST CONCRETE WALL.
PRECAST CONCRETE PILASTERS/PANELS
EXTERIOR SURFACE-FORMLINER WOOD PLANK TEXTURE.
HORIZONTAL BOARDS STAGGERED PATTERN.
FITZGERALD FORMLINERS
OR EQUAL
#16020
ROUGH SAWN PLANK
SOLOMON ARTESIAN
WATER BASED STAIN
SAND BANK AS-1200
BURLAP AS-100
MAGNET AS-2100
BRICKFORM UREMAX
ANTIGRAFFITI SEALER
SEE CIVIL PLANS
FOR FILE LOCATIONS,
SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
FOR WALL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
6 ASPHALT PEDESTRIAN PATH
5' WIDE ASPHALT PEDESTRIAN PATH.
WOOD HEADERBOARD.
N/A N/A SEE CIVIL PLANS
7 EDUCATIONAL INTERPRETIVE SIGN
ALL WEATHER EDUCATIONAL BOARD.
DESIGNED AND FURNISHED BY RWQCP.
N/A N/A FUTURE BY OWNER.
REFERENCE ONLY.
8 LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS
TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING AREAS.
3" LAYER OF RECYCLED BARK MULCH.
DRIP IRRIGATION, PER PLANT.
N/A N/A L-00-200
A-00-001
SITE & ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES PLAN
MATERIALS / COLORS
CONCRETE FORMLINER CONCRETE STAIN
BUILDING ROOF COLOR
COOL COLONIAL RED
RO PERMEATE TANK COLOR
FOREST GREEN
ELECTRICAL BUILDING COLOR
ANSI 70 GRAY #5049
PURLIN COLOR
COOL ZINC GRAY
EXISTING
TANK
NEW PUMPING
TANK
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
8
8
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
AND BE PROTECTED
DURING CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING ASPHALT
PEDESTRIAN PATH
EXISTING
CHAINLINK FENCE
EXISTING
CHAINLINK FENCE
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
AND BE PROTECTED
DURING CONSTRUCTION
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGNED:
DETAILED:
DATE:
REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE
OF
PROJECT NO.:
Walnut Creek, California
Black & Veatch Corporation
D1
1
0
0
0
FI
L
E
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RWQCP ADVANCED
WATER PURIFICATION
SYSTEM
408520 (SEI 20087)
####
RJN
NC
RJN
RJN
AWPS
F:
\
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
R
W
Q
C
P
A
D
V
A
N
C
E
D
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
\
P
L
A
N
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
\
2
0
0
8
7
-
A
-
0
0
-
0
0
2
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
&
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
D
W
G
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
2
1
:
5
6
:
5
1
P
M
60% SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
04/2022
04/22 60% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
43211/20(SCALE BAR IS 4" AT FULL SCALE)
ARCHITECTURE
PERSPECTIVE ILLUSTRATION
KEY NOTES
PRE-ENGINEERED/OPEN AIR BUILDING
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND
PROVIDED BY THE METAL BUILDING MANUFACTURER:
PRIMARY FRAMES
PURLINS
ROOF BANDING
ROOF PANELS
GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS
1
2
3
RIBBED ROOF PANELS
STANDING SEAM ROOF
MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER / MODEL COLOR / FINISH
A VARCO PRUDEN OR EQUAL
SSR
THERMALCLAD
COOL COLONIAL
RED
B
REFERENCE
PURLINS THERMALCLAD
COOL ZINC GRAY
C ROOF DOWNSPOUTS
BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1"=20'-0"3
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=20'-0"1
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1"=20'-0"2
BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1"=20'-0"4 ELECTRICAL BUILDING
SCALE: 1"=20'-0"5 A-00-002
ARCHITECTURAL
SECTIONS & ELEVATIONS
1
D ROOF GUTTERS
VARCO PRUDEN OR EQUAL
VARCO PRUDEN OR EQUAL
VARCO PRUDEN OR EQUAL
THERMALCLAD
COOL ZINC GRAY
THERMALCLAD
COOL ZINC GRAY
E ELECTRICAL BUILDING E-HOUSE ANSI 70 GRAY
#5049
BUILDING PAD
SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR FOUNDATION AND
DETAILS SHEETS
PRE-FABRICATED ELECTRICAL BUILDING
SEE CIVIL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
25
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
1
2 2
2
12
28
'
-
5
"
28
'
-
5
"
28
'
-
5
"
28
'
-
5
"
36'-0"36'-0"
EQUIPMENT YARD1
4
-
3
-
5
-
3
1
21'-0"
81
'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
3'-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
3
4
-
NEW SWITCH
GEAR
CONCRETE
PAD
STAIRS AND
LANDING
STAIRS AND
LANDING
STAIRS AND
LANDING
Attachment B