Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 168-06TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:MARCH 20, 2006 CMR: 168:06 SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY - REPORT TO COUNCIL IN RESPONSE TO COLLEAGUES MEMO ON GOLF COURSE REDESIGN OPTIONS TO INCLUDE SPORTS FIELDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION. REPORT IN BRIEF This preliminary feasibility study provides important information about adding playing fields at the golf course. The information will be useful in helping the City participate more effectively in exploring possible multi-use recreation/flood control options in the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Study now underway. Several of the flood control options that will be evaluated in the study include modifications to the golf course; flood control solutions incorporating multi- use flood control/recreation facilities will be considered. If a feasible multi-use option is identified, public funds may be available to help offset the cost of a golf course or other recreation facilities that also serve a flood control purpose. The preliminary design studies indicate that there may be room to add up to two playing fields while retaining the existing championship golf course*. However, the costs resulting from the need to reconfigure as many as eight golf holes reduce the desirability of this option. The golf course site does not appear to be large enough to accommodate several playing fields as well as a public regulation/championship golf course, due to the special requirements of a public golf course. The golf course site would be large enough to accommodate a new, smaller non- championship golf course or golf practice facility as well as several sports playing fields. These types of golf facilities provide a different golfing experience and serve a different market segment than the existing championship golf course. The marketability of a smaller non- championship golf course and/or golf practice facility on the Palo Alto golf course site and the level of community support for such a change is unknown. The cost of a new smaller golf course/golf practice facility with 4 or 5 sports playing fields is estimated to be over eighteen million dollars. Private development scenarios that would pay all or most of the cost of a new smaller golf course and sports playing fields were not formally evaluated, but input was solicited from golf course developers and other real estate developers. *Championship course is used to describe a course with a length greater than 6000 yards from the forward (white) tees and a par between 70 - 72. It does not imply that the course would likely hold major championship tournaments CMR:168:06 Page 1 of 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive and file this report. 2) Participate in locating funding for the golf course/recreation component of the flood control project if the San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority/Army Corps of Engineers flood control study identifies feasible multiuse flood control/recreation options. BACKGROUND Responding to a March 7, 2005 memorandum from City Council members Butch, Kleinberg and Kishimoto, the City Council directed staff to conduct a preliminary feasibility review of possible redesign of the 18-hole championship municipal golf course with the goal of freeing up substantial acreage for sports fields. The objectives to be achieved by such a redesign are: creation of 20-40 acres of new playing field space; improvement of the golfing experience and provision of additional golfing amenities; expansion and enhancement of the natural habitat; and helping to address San Francisquito Creek flood control needs. The Council was also interested in determining whether these changes could facilitate redevelopment of nearby private properties, and identifying possible private funding strategies that could help cover the costs of the golf course redesign and construction of playing fields. See attached City Council memorandum, Golf Course redesign and Playing Fields Creation, dated March 7, 2005 (Attachment A). DISCUSSION Assessment process A working group consisting of City staff from the Public Works, Community Services, Planning, and Administrative Services Departments, as well as a representative from the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and consultants from the land use planning firm, Ken Kay Associates (K_KA), reviewed City Council direction and comments from the public on this topic and the status of the flood control project; identified key issues to be explored; and developed a framework for examining the potential for locating playing fields on the golf course. For special golf course design expertise, the team included a golf course architect provided pro bono to the City by the golf course design firm, Robert Trent Jones II (RTJII). Through research and site visits to the Palo Alto municipal golf course and a number of other local golf courses, staff assembled information about size and other characteristics typical of different types of golf courses, including public and private regulation/championship courses and non-regulation courses and golf practice facilities. According to the US Golf Association, the average total land area for 18 hole golf facilities is 150 to 200 acres, making the Palo Alto golf course at 169.8 acres a little less than average size. In general, golf courses that are built on fewer acres are either private clubs, such as the Olympic Club, Sharon Heights and Los Altos Hills, that typically play about one-third to one-half as many rounds per year as Palo Alto and other municipal courses, or they are non-regulation courses, such as Poplar Creek, Sunnyvale and Los Lagos, that do not have the par or yardage of a "championship" course. See Attachment B for more information about comparative sizes of different types of golf courses, and Attachment C for the size of current facilities at the Palo Alto municipal golf course. The "championship" designation does not mean that golf championships are played on a course but rather indicates that the course meets the minimum accepted standards of a full size golf CMR: 168:06 Page 2 of 10 course. According to the RTJII representing architect advising the working group, while the standard is somewhat ambiguous there is general consensus that a regulation/championship course will be a minimum par 70 and have a minimum length of 6000 yards from the forward white tees. The Palo Alto golf course is par 72 and 6200 yards, the length having been slightly reduced during the most recent renovation completed in 1999. Par and yardage influence a golfer’s decision to play a course and the fee he/she is willing to pay. A non-championship course provides a different golfing experience and serves a different market segment than a regulation/championship course. Based on the City Council memorandum, the following five goals were identified to guide development of schematic alternatives for adding sports fields to the golf course: ¯Provide from one to five sports fields. ¯Maintain viability of the 18 hole regulation/championship golf course. ¯Provide sufficient parking. ¯Preserve and maintain opportunities for flood control solutions. ¯Protect existing wetlands located on or near the golf course, including incorporating wetlands into the playing area. Several staff/consultant work sessions culminated in an all-day workshop at the golf course on September 14, 2005, attended by working group staff members, the KKA consultants, the RTJII golf course architect and two members of the City’s Golf Advisory Committee. Members of the Golf Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission were invited to attend. Prior to the workshop, KKA staff developed exhibits illustrating possible locations for one to five sports fields on the golf course site. In all options, the sports fields are located in the south and west part of the golf course to minimize impacts on the course, take advantage of unused space and make efficient use of nearby parking areas. See attached layout diagrams A, B, C, and D showing the conceptual location of playing fields on an aerial map of the golf course and the Baylands Athletic Center (Attachment D). Evaluation of Four Alternative Sports Field Layouts The purpose of the workshop was to assess the impact to the golf course as increasing numbers of sports fields are added, in terms of the number of golf holes that would require modification or complete redesign; as well as possible impacts to the regulation/championship status of the golf course; playability; and possible impacts on economic viability, operations and safety. The golf course architect described to the working group the key principles of golf course design and other factors to be considered in redesigning the golf course in response to the addition of sports fields. In addition to the rules of golf and the need to design for an interesting, challenging and enjoyable golf game, the following influencing factors were identified by the golf course architect: ¯There is a "domino effect" when any part of the golf course is displaced. Change to one hole can ripple through several other holes, increasing the risk that yardage and par of the course will be affected by the change. ¯Differences between public and private golf courses translate into additional space requirements for public courses. The principal difference is that public courses typically have two or three times the volume of play compared to private clubs. Public courses CMR:168:06 Page 3 of 10 must be designed to accommodate 80,000 to 90,000 rounds per year while avoiding crowding and delay. Also, more people are on the course at the same time, and players have a wider range of skill levels, both of which increase risk; however, the general public has a lower tolerance for risk than would be the case at a private club. The continually changing technology of golf clubs and golf balls requires greater distances between players to provide an acceptable level of safety. On a fiat site with no significant high vertical elements such as groves of mature trees, the safety buffer between fairways, green and tees is provided by distance. Due to salt water intrusion in the Baylands area, establishment of large stands of mature trees for buffering would be difficult to achieve, and redesign of the existing course would result in removal of many of the existing trees. ¯Golf is incompatible with close adjacency to most other uses due to the risk of bystanders being struck by golf balls. Golf customers knowingly assume that risk when they enter the golf course, but users of adjacent sites do not assume that risk. The risk can be managed through design by providing distance or physical barriers. ¯The wetlands areas located throughout the golf course are a design constraint. While the wetland areas could be incorporated into the course design, the need to design around them will restrict design choices. Following is a description of the four schematic layouts developed and studied in the workshop, including the number of sports fields added, the number of golf holes impacted, and how additional parking is provided under each option: Layout A. One soccer field is provided in the southwest comer of the golf course. This requires the redesign of four holes on the golf course. Existing paved areas are restriped to provide 50 additional parking spaces at the Baylands Athletic Center parking lot and along one side of Geng Road. Layout B. Two soccer fields are located in the southwest comer of the golf course. One of the fields would displace the existing lake. Eight golf holes would have to be redesigned and reconstructed. In addition to the 50 parking spaces added at the existing Athletic Center parking lot and along Geng Road, a new parking lot with 50 spaces is constructed on the golf course. Layout C. Two soccer fields and one baseball diamond are added in the southwest comer of the golf course and along Embarcadero Road. Ten holes on the golf course would have to be redesigned and reconstructed. In addition to the parking provided in the two previous options, Embarcadero Road would be restriped to provide 32 curbside parking spaces along the north side of the street, and a second new parking lot with 25 spaces would be constructed on the golf course, providing a total of 157 new spaces. Layout D. Four soccer fields and one baseball diamond are added in the southwest comer of the golf course and along Embarcadero Road. This would impact all 18 holes, requiting a complete redesign and reconstruction of the entire golf course. Parking would be provided as in Option C, plus 25 additional spaces constructed on the golf course for a total of 182 new parking spaces. CMR:168:06 Page 4 of 10 Layout Sports Added FOUR SCHEMATIC LAYOUTS STUDIED Fields Golf Holes Impacted New Parking Provided New pavingRestripe existing paving 5O 50 82 82 Total new spaces A 1 4 0 50 B 2 8 50 100 C 3 10 75 157 D 4 or5 Entire Course 100 182 Results of the Analysis of Four Alternative Sports Field Layouts The results of the design exercise indicate that if the golf course is to remain a public 18 hole championship golf course serving current or similar user groups, there is limited space that could be dedicated for active recreation uses without compromising the playability, economic viability, and safety of the golf course. See the attached letter from RTJII dated February 28, 2006 for a more detailed description of its analysis and conclusions (Attachment E). Layout A: One sports field could be added to the existing 18 hole course while retaining the championship status; at least four golf holes would need to be redesigned and reconstructed. Layouts B and C: Adding two or three sports field to the existing golf course would require redesign / reconstruction of a large part of the golf course and may not maintain 18 hole regulation category par and course distance. More detailed design study would be required to determine the precise impact of these changes on the championship status of the golf course. Layout D: Adding 4 or 5 sports fields and the additional required parking would require a total redesign and reconstruction of the golf course. While this provides an opportunity to design a completely different course, the area available for the new golf course would be significantly smaller than the existing course. The area may not be sufficient to provide the regulation length and par of a championship course and also meet the special requirements of a public golf course: accommodate a high volume of play and a wide range of skill levels while minimizing risk of injury from errant golf balls. The addition of four or more playing fields presents a decision point between maintaining championship par and yardage or adding playing fields. The golf course par and yardage could be reduced to provide a smaller non-championship golf course that would meet the volume and safety standards of a public golf course and also provide space for additional playing fields. IMPACT OF SPORTS FIELDS ON CHAMPIONSHIP STATUS OF GOLF COURSE Layout A B and C D Sports Fields Added 1 2 or3 4or5 Impact on championship status of Golf Course Unchanged May be Compromised Unlikely to provide an 18 hole championship golf course serving the golfing public without compromising playability and safety CMR:168:06 Page 5 of 10 Costs and Financial Feasibilty of the Four Golf Course/Sports Field Alternatives The cost of adding sports fields to the golf course would include the cost of designing and reconstructing the impacted portions of the golf course, the cost of constructing the sports fields and any related parking improvements, golf tenant contract changes (revenue reductions) or buyout of existing leases and contracts, and lost revenue for a period during and following construction when it may take several years to regain the existing customer base. During construction some players will go elsewhere and some may not return when the construction is completed, resulting in lost revenue. The number of golf rounds played at the course is still down from the previous golf course renovation completed in 1999. ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES (millions) Layout A B C D Revised Revenue $2.0 $1.3 $0.7 $0.01 Costs Golf Course $3.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 Redesign Sports Fields $1.5 $3.0 $4.5 $7.5 ($1.5 million/field) Continuing $2.6 $1.5 $1.5 $0.5 Operating Costs Tenant Contract $10 $10 $10 Pay Off (High Estimate) Total Financial - $5.t million - $19.2 million - $23.3 million -$28.0 million Impact Total Assuming -$3.6 million -$16.2 million -$18.8 million -$20.5 million Donated Sports Field Construction Included in the above costs is the City’s Golf Course Corporation’s obligation to pay debt service on the outstanding golf course bonds, about $560,000 annually, which will continue regardless of changes that may be made to the golf course. Certificates of Participation were issued in 1998 with the understanding that the debt would be paid from golf course revenues. Reduction or elimination of revenues during reconstruction of the golf course would shift some or all of this cost to the General Fund. Deciding to fund any of the alternatives would have a significant impact on the City’s budget. The City’s ability to fund current service levels and other priorities would be significantly impacted. Potential Flood Control Solutions In October, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) initiated a feasibility study for a potential flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration project on San Francisquito Creek. The study is expected to take five to seven years and will identify and analyze potential options to reduce flooding along the creek. The study products will include a preferred flood control project alternative, an environmental CMR:168:06 Page 6 of 10 impact report prepared in conformance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a cost/benefit analysis that will determine whether future federal funding is warranted for the project. Some of the flood control options that the study will evaluate include modifications to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course while others do not. The preferred San Francisquito Creek flood control option identified in the study may be one on the following list or a combination of one or more of the listed options: ¯Upstream storage reservoir ¯Series of upstream storm water detention basins ¯Parallel bypass channel or pipeline to convey excess flood flows ¯Downstream overflow basin ¯Channel widening ¯Construction of higher levees or floodwalls ¯Bridge modifications Implementation of the bypass channel, overflow basin, and to a lesser extent the channel widening options will require a redesign of at least a portion of the golf course. This introduces the possibility of investigating the potential for a flood control solution incorporating a multi-use flood control/ recreation facility. Public funds may be available to help offset the cost of multiuse recreation facilities, and the City should participate in identifying funding sources if a multiuse flood control option appears feasible. The information gained in this golf course preliminary feasibility study has helped position the City to participate more effectively in exploring a golf/recreation component in a possible multi-use flood control facility. For additional information about possible flood control project impacts on the golf course see Attachment F, Public Works Department memorandum. Private Financing Strategies The City Council memorandum directed staff to consider possible private financing strategies that could help cover the costs of designing and constructing a new golf course and playing fields, and also whether changes to the golf course could encourage redevelopment of nearby private properties. Private commercial or residential development scenarios that would contribute substantially to the cost of redesigning and constructing a new golf course and playing fields do not appear promising at this time. City staff spoke with several golf course developers and with representatives of the owners of the Harbor office park about factors influencing possible golf course/commercial/residential development options. There was consensus among the experts consulted that the Baylands is not a good location for developing a resort hotel with golf course. Residential development was described as potentially feasible only with substantial City involvement that would eliminate the upfront cost and risk for the developer, requiring the City to conduct all development studies and environmental review and provide the developer with a "ready to build" site, and at a scale involving several hundred units on 30 to 50 acres of land. Airport noise and the costs associated with meeting flood zone requirements were also considered impediments to residential development in the Baylands. There is some evidence that the current golf course or an improved golf course may support existing and new private development in the Baylands. The Harbor office complex markets the location amenities of the CMR:168:06 Page 7 of l0 Baylands, airport and golf course; however, while some of its tenants use these facilities, they do not consider them to be a really big draw. The owners of Ming’s restaurant are now exploring the feasibility of converting the property they own at the comer of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road from a restaurant to a hotel; they have indicated that the presence of the Palo Alto golf course is seen as an asset, particularly for business visitors. VillaSport Athletic Club and Spa, a health club developer, has expressed an interest in exploring the possibility of leasing land on the golf course to construct a private, family-oriented, full service health club. While usually a private membership club, Villasport is willing to provide for some use of the health club by the public. VillaSport constructs and retains ownership of its facilities and manages the facilities. If the City were to develop a new profit-making golf course, Villasport would pay the City for the right to operate the golf course. These payments to the City, which could be substantive, to lease land for the health club and for the right to operate the golf course could be used to help offset the cost of a new golf course. During preliminary discussions with VillaSport, some of the issues that have been identified that would need to be resolved are use of dedicated parkland, access by the general public, and policy implications of the size of the typical Villasport facility - an 85,000 square feet building with a height of 38 feet located on 8 acres, and related parking and traffic issues. While some golf course developers could be interested in developing a new 18 hole championship golf course on the Palo Alto golf course property, as discussed previously there does not appear to be room on the site for both a public 18 hole championship golf course as well as several playing fields. According to the golf course developers and golf course designers who talked with staff, a golf course developer would want the site as unconstrained as possible. Golf course designer Gary Linn described a scenario that might accommodate both a championship golf course and several sports fields if all constraints were removed from the site by eliminating a major portion of the Bay Trail that runs along the golf course so that the golf holes could be raised and extended out to the levies, and eliminating the wetlands on the golf course and mitigating them on or off site. These changes are possible, but they would involve substantial environmental challenges and increased costs. Some golf course developers also may be interested in developing a smaller non-championship golf course and/or golf practice facilities, such as a nine hole golf course and double deck driving range, and providing sports playing fields, as these facilities can be very profitable. However, some of the golf experts who spoke with staff stated that they believe the market for golf practice facilities is saturated in this area. RESOURCE IMPACT No additional costs are associated with the recommended actions. If the City Council were to pursue other options that are discussed in the report, costs would be incurred, and these are discussed in the report on page 6. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommended actions do not represent any change to City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. Studies for possible future actions which are CMR:168:06 Page 8 of 10 not approved, adopted or funded do not require preparation of an EIR or negative declaration. Environmental review will be required for any future project on the golf course. All of the options discussed in this report would result in a more intense use of the site than the existing golf course use. Some of the environmental issues that would need to be addressed for a future project include the following: Special status species. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the 1994 Golf Course Master Plan found that at that time suitable habitat existed on the golf course to support at least eight special status species, several of which were thought likely to be using the site. Wetlands and riparian habitat. The 1994 MND identified jurisdictional wetlands in eleven locations on the golf course, totaling 2.51 acres. These wetland areas are required to be protected, or mitigated on or off site if they are removed. While some of the wetland areas were of low habitat value, several were considered potential habitat for special status species. The riparian area of San Francisquito Creek is adjacent to the golf course on the north and west. Artificial night lighting. Artificial night light in the vicinity of natural areas, particularly coastal environments, is considered a potentially significant environmental impact because of its detrimental affect on basic biological and ecological systems. See Attachment G for the article, "Degraded Darkness", Conservation in Practice, Spring 2004, and additional reference sources on this topic). Parking and traffic. Some potential future changes to the golf course would require construction of additional paved parking areas and would result in increased traffic. The intersection at Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road currently operates with PM level of service D. ¯Aesthetics. Construction of buildings and tall fences could impact views and the visual character of the Baylands. Flooding and seismic risk. The golf course elevation is approximately at sea level with site elevations varying from -4.4 feet in drainage channels to + 7.5 feet at the tops of several greens. The one hundred year (1%) high tide event is 8 feet above sea level. The golf course site has high susceptibility for earthquake liquefaction and ground shaking. Consistency with relevant plans and policies. Some of the concepts discussed in this report could present possible conflicts with adopted land use and environmental policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands Master Plan. CMR: 168:06 Page 9 of 10 PREPARED BY: VIRGINIA WaARHEIT Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: "~S Tt~VE E~SLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~SON Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: City Council memorandum, March 7, 2005 Size Comparison of different types of golf courses with photos Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course: Size by subarea Golf Course/Sports Field Schematic Layouts A, B, C, and D and Impact/Benefit Assessment Table Letter from Robert Trent Jones II Public Works Department memorandum Artificial Night Light Reference Sources Parks and Recreation Commission Palo Alto Golf Course Advisory Committee Patrycja Bossak, San Francisco Bay Trails Robert Trent Jones II Gary Linn Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Walter Altholz, VillaSport Timothy Cahill,UBS Realty Investors LLC CMR: 168:06 Page 10 of 10 Attachment A OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: City Council Mayor Burch, Vice Mayor Kleinberg and Council Member Kishimoto March 7, 2005 SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE REDESIGN and PLAYING FIELDS CREATION "The citizens of Palo Alto are suffering from a serious lack of field space to conduct recreational activities .... [A]ny solution must include...securing additional space." - From the Sub- committee Fields Advisory Report, presented to and adopted by the Parks and Recreation Commission on December 14, 2004. The quest to find adequate playing fields for our community’s growing demand has been championed in recent years by our Parks and Recreation Commission, by recreational sports groups serving our community’s youth, and through the efforts of the City and Stanford University to partner in the creation of a new Mayfield playing field. These efforts have focused the Council and the community on the critical shortage of recreational field space, the scarcity of available public land and the overwhelming expense of purchasing appropriately sized and located private land. As a result of reviewing the east Embarcadero area of the Baylands during our Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU), a significant opportunity to address this problem has been identified through the possible reconfiguration of our current golf course complex. Experts on golf course architecture state a championship 18-hole golf course can be created on far less acreage than the 180 acres currently being used at the Palo Alto Golf Course. In fact, a better golfing experience could be created at this site using140 to 160 acres, thereby freeing up 20 to 40 acres that could be redesigned as recreational and playing fields contiguous to the existing fields on Geng Road. It should be emphasized that all of the 180 acres of dedicated parkland would remain as parkland, but be better utilized to help meet the increasing needs of our community for playing fields. Redesign of the golf course could afford both direct and complementary benefits, including but not necessarily limited to: 1. leveraging an existing but underutilized City resource through creation of 20-40 acres of new playing field space without the expenditure of City funds to buy new acreage; 2. improvement of the recreational golfing experience through a remodeled golf course with additional golfing amenities (e.g., 9 hole executive course, expanded practice area) to bring it up to modern playing standards and more closely targeted to changing market conditions; 3. an environmentally planned course that includes expansion and enhancement of the natural habitat; and 4. helping to address San Francisquito Creek flood control needs. Such a redesign of the park acreage may lead to other indirect benefits as well. For example, a successful course improvement and new field space may facilitate positive changes to adjacent private lands across Embarcadero Road from the course, where aging office buildings and light commercial uses now exist. Additionally, new fields would help to reduce the current overuse and congestion around neighborhood parks and schools for organized sports. Overall this project could address numerous Comprehensive Plan and community goals, as well as being in compliance with and helping fulfill the objectives of the Baylands Master Plan. Several strategies for financing these improvements have been successfully used for municipal golf course redesign, including some that exist outside of City resources. These funding methods would be explored as part of the project evaluation. We have before us an unusual and timely opportunity for a creative re-evaluation of the best use of this valuable community asset that would maintain its park character and enhance the ecological and recreational assets of our Baylands, while leveraging its resources to better serve our community’s modern needs and lifestyles. It is appropriate that we initiate this evaluation in as timely a manner as possible to not miss the planning and funding opportunities that may not exist in the future. Not only is there currently a critical shortage of field space, but also such an evaluation should be done concurrently with the ZOU to be most effective. In addition, the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) may consider some of this acreage for dual use as a floodplain and it is important that this plan be coordinated with any such efforts. Being cognizant of limited staff resources, it is our recommendation that staff should follow a staged review process, beginning with a preliminary feasibility study to be reviewed by Council. If the preliminary review demonstrates a promising level of feasibility, Council may then direct staff to develop a more detailed plan and timeline for further evaluation and implementation strategies, and engage the Parks and Recreation Commission in reviewing the recommendations. We therefore ask our colleagues to join us in supporting our recommendation that staff be directed to conduct a preliminary feasibility review of this proposal, including an emphasis on private financing strategies, and return to Council with its initial evaluation within the next three to four months. Size Comparison of Different Types of Golf Courses Attachment B Municipal 18 hole regulation/championship* golf courses. According to the US Golf Association, the total land area for 18-hole championship golf courses averages about 150 to 200 acres. Palo Alto’s Municipal Golf Course is approximately 169.8 acres, just under the middle of the average size range. Other examples of municipal 18-hole championship golf courses are the Shoreline Golf Links at Mt. View located on 182 acres, and Harding Park golf course in San Francisco located on approximately 200 acres, not including the "Fleming Nine" short course at Harding Park that occupies an additional 29 acres. Private club 18 hole championship golf courses. The sizes of private golf club courses vary widely, with some courses located on only about one hundred acres. However, private golf courses typically play only about one-third to one-half as many rounds per year as municipal golf courses, playing 30,000 to 40,000 rounds annually compared to 80,000 to 90,000 rounds at municipal golf courses. Examples of such private golf courses include the local Palo Alto Hills, Sharon Heights, and Los Altos Hills golf courses, and the Olympic Club golf course in San Francisco. Municipal non-championship* 18 hole courses. Examples of this type of course include the Los Lagos golf course in San Jose, located on 110 acres with an additional 75 acres of natural area, and Poplar Creek golf course in San Mateo located on 105 acres. According to the Poplar Creek website, this course has nearly one thousand mature trees lining the fairways, which helps provide buffering on a tight site. These two courses are approximately 5000 yards long from the forward tees, and have a par of 68 and 69, respectively. The Sunnyvale Golf Course is located on 145 acres and has a length of 5300 yards from the forward tees and par 70. (See attached photos of Poplar Creek golf course.) Privately owned "resort style" 18 hole championship course open to the public. Coyote Creek golf course in San Jose is an example of this type of golf course, offering amenities similar to a private club, but open to the public on a "pay to play" basis. Located on approximately 240 acres, this course includes two 18 hole championship courses that each play approximately 45,000 rounds annually. (See attached photos of Coyote Creek golf course.) "Executive" length 18 hole golf course. An example of this type of course is the current proposal for an executive golf course to be located in Bayfront Park in Menlo Park. The 18 hole golf course would have a length of 3575 yards and par 62, and together with a driving range, clubhouse and maintenance building would occupy approximately 75 acres. 9 hole golf course and practice facilities. Practice facilities are complementary to 18 hole golf courses. In addition to providing a practice venue, they are more oriented to juniors, seniors, and families. An example of this type facility, the Mariner’s Point Golf Center in Foster City, includes a nine-hole golf course 1150 yards long and par 27, practice areas, and a double deck driving range located on approximately 24 acres. Similar facilities are located in Burlingame, Fremont, and San Bruno. (See attached photos of Mariners Point golf practice facility) * A championship golf course indicates a regulation full size 18-hole course with a minimum length of 6000 yards from the forward (white) tees, and par 70 - 72. The designation does not mean that golf championships are necessarily played on the course. Poplar Creek Golf Course, San Mateo Municipal non-championship 18-hole course, with grass practice area. Total area 105 acres: 83,000 rounds per year. Coyote Creek Golf Course, San Jose Resort-style golf course, privately owned, open to the public on a "pay to play" basis. Two 18 hole championship courses, with grass driving range. Total area about 240 acres; 45,000 rounds per course annually. Mariner’s Point Golf Practice Facility, Foster City Public nine hole golf course, practice area, and double deck driving range, located on 24 acres. Attachment C _~. ~ o ¯ II Attachment D 0 --0 w m RO B E RT TRENT JONES Golf Course Architects Attachment E Of the Earth, For the SpiritTM February 28, 2006 Steve Emslie, Director Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Emslie, Thank you for the opportunity to work with your team in evaluating the implications of adding sports fields to the Palo Alto Golf Course footprint. This office participated in the study process coordinated by Ken Kay Associates in response to City’s request to investigate if there was sufficient available land on the Palo Alto Golf Course site to develop sports fields for community use. Ken Kay Associates prepared exNbits illustrating possible !ocations for 1 through 5 sports fields on the golf course site. These options were presented at a workshop at the Palo Alto Golf Course where our role was to comment on the anticipated impact to the current golf course layout and educate the participants as to some of the essential principles of golf course design that guided our comments. Subsequently, Ken Kay Associates refined the exhibits based on input from the workshop and this office provided a final critique of the resultant four options. In addition, we were requested to provide a written evaluation of the four options and we are pleased to present that here. We have conducted our evaluation under the following assumptions: ca The golf course should serve the same user groups it currently serves ca The golf course should maintain its regulation or championship status ca The clubhouse needs to remain as is (except in Concept D where the entire golf course would be redesigned) ca The driving range must remain for economic reasons We identified to the workshop group and staff a number of issues that need to be considered when evaluating the sports field options presented in the four exhibits prepared by Ken Kay Associates. Those issues include: ¯Adjacency of two distinct user groups ¯Safety corridors ¯Layout / design of the golf course ¯Operations of a golf course ROBERT TRENT JONES 11, LLC main: 650-326-3833 . email: rtj2@rtj2.com ¯ web: www.rtj2.com 705 Forest Avenue ¯Palo Alto, California 94301 Steve Emslie February 28, 2006 Page 2 There are a number of factors to consider when placing "incompatible" uses adjacent to each other. Unfortunately, almost all other recreational uses are incompatible with golf, strictly for safety reasons. Golfers assume a certain risk when they step on a golf course. They know there is a potential to be hit by shots from other holes. People outside of the golf course do not know or assume those risks, and therefore larger safety corridors and buffers need to be established when additional uses adjacent to the course are contemplated. Providing this margin of safety is a somewhat moving target with the continually evolving technology of golf clubs and balls enabling longer and higher shots. High fences could be used to reduce risk but this may not be entirely effective and may not be consistent with the desired visual character of a high quality golf course. Another issue to consider is the layout of the golf course. Golf courses are designed specifically for the game of golf. A number of principles are used in laying out the golf course to ensure an interesting and pleasurable golfing experience. The layout of a course not only addresses the requirements of the game, and attempts to follow the lay of the land and respond to the unique physical character of the site, it also needs to match the operations of the golf course. For example, it is important on public facilities to have the 9tu and 10t~ holes near the clubhouse. To facilitate speed of play, an especially important for a municipal golf course, the 1 st and 10th holes are typically par 4’s. Also, designers try to avoid back-to-back par 3 holes. Sometimes the layout provides open spaces within the course that look like voids, but they are likely not utilized for a variety of reasons (wetlands, safety, aesthetics). When looking at placing other uses on the site, it would not be entirely accurate to say, for example, "we have 5 acres of open space within the course, so therefore we can safely add 5 acres of sports fields." In fact, the principles of golf design could require us to alter up to four holes just by eliminating a single existing green encompassing only 10,000 sq. ft., an area that is less than ¼ acre. Any reduction in land for the golf course has an exponential effect on any number of holes and amplifies the amount of work needed to be done to redesign the course. This becomes evident in our summary of impacts resulting from each of the four concept alternatives that were explored in this exercise. Following are our specific comments in respect to the four sports field options prepared by Ken Kay Associates as illustrated in their exhibits Layout A, B, C, and D attached to this report. Layout A presents 1 sports field in the Southwest portion of the golf course site. Each successive option adds at least one more sports field. Our comments address the anticipated impact to the course in terms of number of holes that will require complete redesign or modification as well as conceptual level concerns such as championship status, enhancing playability, consistency of course appearance, operations and safety issues. Layout A This concept adds one sports field to the Palo Alto Golf Course footprint. In order to accomplish this with minimum impact on the course, the field needs to be tucked in the Southwest corner of the property, eliminating the area around the 10t~ green and 11t~ tees. Adding the field in this location means the 10t~ hole would need to be shifted and redesigned. This shifting of the 10t~ hole requires that the 18tu hole, 11 tu hole, 3rd hole, Steve Emslie February 28, 2006 Page 3 and portions of the 12th hole and 1st hole would likely need to be redesigned. In any redesign effort, we would aim to create holes that would elevate the status of the golf course. Unfortunately, often times that leaves a situation where certain holes may look or feel different from the others, which is not desirable. That is where an overall refresher of the entire golf course should be considered as part of the project to maintain a level of continuity throughout the course. Layout B This concept aims to add two sports fields to the Palo Alto Golf Course footprint. Like Concept A, the fields would be incorporated in the Southwest coruer of the property in order to keep modifications to the golf course at a minimum. The two fields would eliminate the area around the 10th green and all ofthel 1~ hole (which plays over a pond). By eliminating these areas from the golf course, roughly half of the existing course would need to be redesigned to maintain the regulation or "championship" status of the course. Holes 2,3,4,10,11,12,17 and 18 would need to be redesigned, and portions of holes 1,5, and 13 would likely need to be modified. One important note with this change is that the golf course is likely to lose a fair amount of length and would likely be converted from a par 72 to a par 70. In addition, the golf course would likely lose width. That means the areas between holes for safety and buffer would likely be reduced significantly and many of the mature trees that provide buffering would need to be removed. Layout C This concept aims to incorporate three sports fields (two soccer, one baseball) to the footprint of the Palo Alto Golf Course. The location for these fields would be at the South end of the property. These fields would eliminate the area of the driving range. In order to find a new location for the driving range we would likely need to redesign about half or two-thirds of the existing golf course. Again, the reasons for these changes are guided by the principles of golf design and the operations of the golf course. For example, the driving range should be adjacent to the clubhouse and should face north if possible. As in the previous concept, the golf course is likely to lose a fair amount of length, would likely be converted from a par 72 to a par 70, would lose width putting the holes closer together, and many of the mature trees would be removed. Layout D This concept attempts to place five sports fields on the golf course property. By doing so, the entire golf course would need to eliminated and a new course built on the site. While a new course could produce a regulation or "championship," course, it would likely differ significantly from the existing course in ways that may not meet the needs of a municipal golf course. There would be less room between holes, no mature trees and perhaps a different clubhouse configuration in relation to the golf course.. The site that would be available for designing the new golf course would be unlikely to meet the needs and objectives of the current user groups. With the changing technology in golf, the golf course needs more room to be safe, not less. The new design would likely yield a course more suited for a private club or a course with players of a higher skill level. Steve Emslie February 28, 2006 Page 4 Conclusions Given the assumptions for this exercise as stated at the beginning of the letter, it is our opinion that any encroachment of sports fields on to the golf course risks jeopardizing the overall quality of the golf course and would likely create safety conflicts between two incompatible uses. In Concept A, addition of a single sports field, the impacts to the golf course are confined to a defined area and are more readily identifiable. Concepts B and C, adding two or three sports fields, would require a further level of design work to explore fully their impacts on the golf course. Since these two options require reworking large parts of the golf course, they offer the possibility of improving the golf course, but whether this could result in a regulation golf course suited to the current user group is unknown without further investigation. Concept D, adding five sports fields, seems unlikely to provide a regulation golf course that satisfies the special needs of a municipal golf course, such as a high volume of play, accommodating a wide range of skill levels, and a lower tolerance for risk. Should the City decide to pursue possible changes to the golf course, we recommend that a market feasibility analysis be conducted as part of the considerations and that a qualified golf course architect (member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects) be retained to assist the city in exploring the benefits and limitations of various design options. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City on this important community project. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Kind Regards, Robert Trent Jones II, LLC Jason Blasi Project Architect Attachment F Public Works Department Engineering Division MEMORANDUM Date:December 19, 2005 To:Virginia Warheit, Planning From:Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer (x2129) Subject:San Francisquito Creek flood control options As you know, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have recently initiated a feasibility study for a potential flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration project on San Francisquito Creek. This five-to-seven year study will identify and analyze potential options to reduce flooding along the creek. The study products will include a preferred flood control project alternative, an environmental impact report prepared in conformance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a cost/benefit analysis that will determine whether future federal funding is warranted for the project. The following is a summary of the flood control options that will likely be evaluated during the feasibility study. As noted in the descriptions provided below, some of the options include modifications to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, while others do not. The preferred San Francisquito Creek flood control option identified in the study may be one on the following list or a combination of one or more of the listed options: ¯Upstream storage reservoir ¯Series of upstream storm water detention basins ¯Parallel bypass channel or pipeline to convey excess flood flows ¯Downstream overflow basin 2 ¯Channel widening 3 ¯Construction of higher levees or floodwalls 4 ¯Bridge modifications Includes potential bypass channel through Golf Course Includes directing creek overflow onto Golf Course property Includes potential widening of the channel reach through Golf Course Includes raising levee or constructing floodwalls along Golf Course (relatively minor physical impact to Golf Course) San Francisquito Creek flood control options December 19, 2005 Page 2 Implementation of the bypass channel, overflow basin, and to a lesser extent the channel widening options will require a redesign of at least a portion of the Golf Course. It is important to note that if the preferred flood control plan includes use of the Golf Course property as an overflow basin to accommodate excess flood flows from San Francisquito Creek, then certain additional steps will need to be taken to make the plan effective. Namely, the following elements will need to be incorporated into the plan: ¯The Golf Course will need to be graded appropriately (including the potential need for a perimeter levee) to prevent the overflow waters from flooding adjacent streets and properties. ¯Buildings and other critical improvements within the Golf Course susceptible to flood damage will need to be located and elevated in order to be protected from inundation by the overflow waters. ¯A response plan and associated funding will need to be developed that identifies actions to be taken periodically to drain the overflow waters and restore damaged areas of the Golf Course following a flood event. If you have questions or need further information regarding San Francisquito Creek flood control options, please contact me at x2129. Attachment G EnvironmentalEffects of Artificial Night Light Reference Sources "Degraded Darkness", Ben Harder, Conservation In Practice, Spring 2004 Vol 5 no. 2, (attached). Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Catherine Rich and Travis Longcore, Island Press, 2005. "Ecological Light Pollution", Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2004; 2(4): 191 ~ 198. http://www.urbanwildlands.org/Resources/LongcoreRich2004.pdf UCLA Institute of the Environment, conference on Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, February, 2002. http ://www.urbanwildlands.org/ECANLPro~am.pdf Urban Wildlands Group, http ://www.urbanwildlands.org/proj ects.html California Wild, Magazine of the California Academy of Sciences. http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/2002 fall/storiesihorizons.html The International Dark Sky Association, Environmental Effects of Light. http ://www. darksky, org/links/enviro.html Conservation In Practice Degraded Darkness It’s tempting to assume that artificial light distresses only a few exquisitely sensitive species. But mounting evidence suggests that disappearing darkness undermines our best conservation efforts. On a pair of sweltering days one recent July, Sharon Wise and her husband Bryant Buchanan rigged strands of white Christmas lights from tree to tree in the wilderness of Virginia. No nativity scene was in evidence, no plastic reindeer, and certainly no snow. Any neighbors the couple might have impressed with their early display of yuletide spirit were in distant Utica, New York, where both biologists live and teach. But the redback salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) that hide all day beneath the leaf litter of Mountain Lake Biological Station certainly took note of the couple’s efforts. When the researchers and three of their students switched on the lights at sunset one evening, the nocturnal salamanders responded with the amphibian equivalent of pulling the covers over their heads. They waited an hour longer than usual to get up for breakfast. That delay concerns Wise. Under normal conditions, she knows, the salamanders emerge soon after nightfall and forage for just a few hours. But artificial illumination from buildings, road lights, and distant urban glow increasingly bathes organisms that, like Mountain Lake’s redbacks, have adapted to live in the dark. Does a later start for the salamanders mean fewer nightly meals and fewer calories? Does that cut into their fertility or increase their mortality? What does it mean for the insects that the salamanders eat and for the predators that, in turn, eat them? Wise doesn’t yet have answers. Nor do other researchers studying the incipient field of artificial light ecology have a full grasp on parallel questions about a broad range of organisms and ecosystems. Nevertheless, as these scientists begin to assemble an understanding of the ecological consequences of artificial light, they are recognizing numerous impacts. A few examples--sea turtles, for instance, and migratory birds--may be familiar. Most are not. Many of the effects of artificial light may resonate up and down food chains, dragging whole ecosystems into imbalance. And by modifying the playing field on which nocturnal organisms develop, interact, and reproduce, artificial light may sculpt not only their individual lives but also the biological evolution of their species. That, says Buchanan, "is the most overlooked of all of the potential ramifications of artificial light." As scientists grapple with artificial light’s effects, forward-thinking conservationists--and a handful of sympathetic developers and regulators--are working to integrate the infant discipline into their efforts to mitigate light’s unnatural ecological impacts. Natural darkness, once a given, has become an ecological resource of shrinking abundance. Everyone who has squinted into a street lamp or stared at lights visible through a window has experienced glare-- light that strikes the eye directly rather than hitting the object it’s intended to illuminate. Those who have also seen composite nighttime satellite photos of Earth recognize how effective humans have become at dispelling the dark. Thickly populated, industrialized regions of the globe appear so starkly illuminated in these images that it’s easy, for example, to discern the intricate outlines of the Great Lakes. Italian astronomer Pierantonio Cinzano has compiled the first world atlas of night sky brightness with satellite data and models of light propagation. It reveals that one-tenth of the world population, approximately 40 percent of the U.S. population, and one-sixth of the European Union population live where nighttime brightness is too intense for the human eye to use night vision. Not all light that goes up comes down, but a considerable amount of it does. Reflected off moisture and dust in the atmosphere, it creates a nighttime twilight known as sky glow. "I’ve been amazed at how far light will travel," says Chad Moore, a physical scientist with the National Park Service. Major cities can broadcast sky glow as far as 250 to 300 kilometers, perpetually illuminating a sector of the sky everywhere within that radius. "We’ve discovered a pollutant," Moore says, "and we’ve saturated our environment with it." When distant glow falls almost horizontally on hilly terrain, slopes that face the city can be bathed in light, whereas less-exposed hillsides retain nearly natural levels of darkness. That effectively fragments the habitat into areas that are more or less suitable for nocturnal species, depending solely on their orientation to the sky. Based at Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah, Moore has set out to inventory the night sky in as many U.S. national parks as possible and to establish baseline data that the government can use to monitor artificial light, just as it tracks other pollutants. Using a research-grade digital camera and a wide-angle lens, Moore and his colleagues take 360-degree snapshots of the night sky from vantage points within the nation’s natural treasures. So far, his team has surveyed about 20 national parks and monuments. At many of the sites, artificial illumination is comparable to at least the brightness of a crescent moon. That modest glow might not sound like much of a problem, but consider how little light it takes to produce biological effects. One lux, a unit of illumination, corresponds roughly to dim interior light or the halo of a street lamp. An unobscured full moon provides about 0.3 lux. In light measuring less than about 0.01 lux, says Utica College’s Buchanan, "you can see objects, but you would have trouble writing. You might not be able to tell the difference between an M&M and a deer pellet." Squirrel tree frogs (Hyla squirella), by contrast, can see well enough to navigate and forage at 0.0001 lux or less, and they avoid activity when illumination exceeds 0.001 lux. Other frog species favor even darker conditions. It’s tempting to assume that artificial light distresses only a few exquisitely sensitive species. But mounting evidence suggests that the disappearance of darkness can affect plants and animals in a variety of ecosystems. Snake populations are declining in the vicinity of developing parts of California, for example. And intriguingly, it seems that not all the blame lies with familiar culprits like new roads and neighborhoods. Nocturnal snake species are thinning out more rapidly than diurnal snake species, even in areas where development isn’t cutting directly into snake habitat. "There are certain areas in southern California," says biologist Robert Fisher of the U.S. Geological Survey, "that have what seems like suitable habitat for these nocturnal snakes. But they’re not there, even though their diurnal counterparts are." A few pioneering scientists have started down the long road toward understanding light pollution’s ecosystem-scale ramifications. Late on a summer’s night, you might spot Marianne Moore (no relation to Chad of the National Park Service) adrift in a rowboat on Boston’s Jamaica Pond. Hours after the sun’s last rays have faded, the Wellesley College limnologist and two of her colleagues put in and row out to the pond’s middle. While one researcher holds a light sensor aloft, another toils beneath a black shroud to keep the glow of a laptop screen from fouling their data collection. "Somebody told us we look like we’re transporting illegal aliens," chuckles Moore. She and her team have occasionally had to placate suspicious police officers or explain themselves to locals who jog on the lighted paths ringing the shore. In truth, the cruises are part of their study of how much nocturnal light penetrates the water’s surface at several lakes in New England. Moore suspects that artificial illumination alters aquatic ecosystems from the smallest organisms on up. The implications are far reaching and could ultimately link light pollution to water quality. Minute zooplankton lurk well below the surface during the day to avoid predators, then rise to graze on algae at night. But artificial light discourages them from venturing toward the surface. "If their grazing is inhibited effects will cascade up the food chain," Moore says. Algae populations could explode in response to reduced predation, and those blooms would deplete dissolved oxygen cdtical to fish, crowd out other photosyn-thesizers, and cast unwanted daytime shade on submerged aquatic vegetation that provides habitat for juvenile fish. When Moore and her colleagues experimentally blocked light from filtering into the depths, they found that some small taxa of zooplankton ascended two to three meters more than the organisms did under typical unnaturally bright conditions. Moore expects even stronger effects among larger kinds of zooplankton, some of which are known to avoid levels of illumination comparable to bright starlight. The intensity of artificial light shining on Jamaica Pond is considerably brighter than starlight, she has found, even on cloudless nights. When clouds roll in and reflect Boston’s glow downward onto the pond, light intensity can triple to almost two-thirds the luminosity of the full moon. Moore has an idea for testing whether light pollution has steered evolution in Jamaica Pond during the century that it has been bathed in artificial light at night. Certain zooplankton lay eggs that settle to the bottom and can remain viable in a suspended state for decades, creating an "egg bank" that stores in the sediments the genetic traits of successive generations. Moore envisions digging up eggs, determining when they were laid based on the age of adjacent sediment, hatching them, and then exposing the organisms to light to see whether their responses vary according to their age. "Invertebrates evolve very quickly, so it’s very reasonable to expect that they’ve responded to a history of artificial light," Moore says. By contrast, longer-lived organisms such as fish probably need more time to adapt. That inequality could add to stress on fish populations, she says. If the science relating to light pollution’s ecological impacts remains in its infancy, regulation to minimize its effects in sensitive areas has barely been conceived, says Sara Wan of the California Coastal Commission. Nevertheless, perceived ecological threats from light pollution have helped stop a smattering of incautious development initiatives. In 1999 the commission rejected an application to add dazzling ornamental floodlighting on the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles after hearing ecologists’ objections. One of the gravest concerns was that powerful beams of light would disorient and fatally attract migratory birds, says Catherine Rich, a cofounder of The Urban Wildlands Group who presented to the commission scientific data against the project. The data did not make an absolutely airtight case, but they raised substantial cause for concern, says Wan, who holds advanced degrees in both biology and electrical engineering. Developers subsequently modified the proposed lighting design to reduce the light emissions. The final plan is ecologically so much more sound than the original proposal, Rich says, that her conservation think tank endorses it. In Bangor, Maine, environmental activists successfully challenged a proposal to build a WaI-Mart Supercenter. In March 2003, the state’s Board of Environmental Protection ruled that development of the site, including lights shining over the parking lot, would pose unacceptable risks to neighboring wetlands. In Seattle, critics of a proposal to construct lighted sports fields at Sand Point Magnuson Park have made the impacts on wildlife and the night sky central to their opposition. Light pollution from the fields would shine onto adjacent wetlands and lakeshore. Most regulators, however, rarely hear conservationists object to development proposals on the basis of light pollution, Wan believes. Scientists and conservationists may not feel tempted to appear at public hearings without rock-solid cases, she says, but their frequent silence means some regulators remain wholly unaware of the issue. On another front, Michael Mesure of the Toronto-based nonprofit, Fatal Light Awareness Program, has been leading a campaign against light pollution in Toronto since 1996. The first time Mesure witnessed the aftermath of the phenomenon known as "tower kill," he could hardly believe his eyes. Even before he climbed out of his car, he could see in downtown Toronto’s pre-dawn gloom a bird carcass on the sidewalk. Others lay nearby. The migrating animals had been lured off course by lights on high-rise office buildings and had fatally collided with the structures. On some mornings since that day in 1988, Mesure and an army of volunteers have identified more than 1,000 birds that had perished in this way during the previous night. The Fatal Light Awareness Program targets tenants in downtown Toronto’s high-rises, and it advocates the use of window shades or blinds and directed task lighting at workstations, as well as switching off lights in unused areas at night. Over the past five years, a 17-percent reduction in the amount of light escaping from those buildings has noticeably reduced the volume of nocturnal tower kill, Mesure says. Even where steps have been taken to mitigate light pollution, organisms face the threat of ever-bigger, ever-brighter civilization. At the loggerhead turtle nesting grounds in Florida, says turtle researcher Michael Salmon of Florida Atlantic University, "the problem is fast becoming not the amount of light at the beach but rather sky glow from inland." Salmon argues that the growing threat to darkness must be attacked at its source--population centers. "Nothing covers that," he says, "except having a national policy that governs how lighting is used everywhere." That idea might sound more farfetched than it is. The Czech Republic’s parliament set an international precedent in 2002 when it passed the first national law to address light pollution, which requires shielding of public lights among other measures. At least 11 U.S. states and numerous towns and counties have also enacted laws or ordinances that regulate at least some aspects of light pollution. That sort of sky change would be welcome elsewhere. In upstate New York, Bryant Buchanan is gathering data on nocturnal illumination in one of his favorite scientific stomping grounds, Utica Marsh. Near a brightly lit roadway that cuts through the wetland, he pauses and holds up a sensor to measure light from each of the cardinal directions. Then, in the columns and rows of his field notebook, he records the data. Even without a flashlight, he has no trouble writing. Ben Harder covers the environment for Science News and has written in print or online for National Geographic, Science, and U.S. News & World Report. For More Information Miscellaneous papers on the ecological consequences of artificial night lighting can be downloaded from www.u rbanwildlands.or.q Pierantonio Cinzano’s maps of night sky bright-ness can be seen at http://dipastro.pd.astro.it/cinzano Copyright © Society for Conservation Biology 2005. Society for Conservation Biology > learn more about SCB Conservation In Practice is published by the Society for Conservation Biology