Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-12-16 Parks & Recreation Commission Agenda Packet
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Special Meeting Tuesday, December 16, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 7:00 PM Commissioner Bing Wei Remote Call In Teleconference Location: Flat 1, 25 Hornton Street London, W8 7NR, United Kingdom Parks and Recreation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Community-Services/Other- Services/Commissions/Parks-and-Recreation-Commission. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/join) Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900-6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. 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@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Commission and available for inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Multiple individuals who wish to speak on the same item may designate a spokesperson. Spokespersons must be representing five or more verified individuals who are present either in person or via zoom. Spokespeople will be allowed up to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the presiding officer. Speaking time may be reduced if the presiding officer reduces the speaking time for individual speakers. General public comment will be heard for 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. Speaking time may be reduced by the Chair to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to ParkRec.commission@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt 1 Special Meeting December 16, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas to the participation of the public. 2 Special Meeting December 16, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) 1.Council Liaison Report – 5 minutes 2.Department Report – 20 minutes BUSINESS ITEMS 3.Discussion of Partnering Norms for Commission/Staff Effectiveness – 30 Minutes 4.QUASI-JUDICIAL. Park Improvement Ordinance for 2100 Geng Road Development Tree Removals in Baylands Athletic Center – 45 minutes 5.Annual Aquatics Performance Update by Team Sheeper, Inc. – 45 minutes COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) 6.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates (Discussion) – 15 minutes ADJOURNMENT 3 Special Meeting December 16, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas OTHER INFORMATION The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. Written public comments may be submitted in advance and will be provided to the Commission and availible for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. A.Public Comments 4 Special Meeting December 16, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas 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@PaloAlto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦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. ◦You may 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. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. 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 Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the 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 Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1-669-900-6833 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@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 5 Special Meeting December 16, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report From: City Manager Meeting Date: December 16, 2025 Report #: 2512-5657 TITLE Discussion of Partnering Norms for Commission/Staff Effectiveness RECOMMENDATION Discuss and provide feedback on Partnering Normal for Commission/Staff Effectiveness BACKGROUND On a citywide basis, the Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCC) Handbook1 provides comprehensive guidance for the operation of the City’s BCC’s. City departments that provide staff to BCC’s periodically discuss opportunities to enhance effectiveness in providing support to the work and BCC‘s, and one recently identified area for exploration is establishment of norms for interactions between BCC’s and staff. In addition to addressing issues of importance to the Palo Alto community, BCC’s provide an important role in staff development as well as potentially in the development of community volunteers. As such it is important that the city provide all participants an environment that is welcoming and conducive to professional and personal development, while also effectively and efficiently conducting the work entrusted to each body. On an ongoing basis, staff works with individual commissioners on concerns with staff interactions as they arise. This report and discussion represents an effort to proactively address issues before they become concerns, for the benefit of all. Staff hopes to discuss this topic citywide, with all BCC’s. This was discussed the Human Relations Commission on October 16, 20252. Parks and Recreation Commission is the second of discussion. ANALYSIS 1 City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/city- clerk/board-and-commission-handbook.pdf 2 Human Relations Commission, October 16, 2025; Agenda Item #2; SR #2510-5292 3 Packet Pg. 6 Recognizing the broad range of topic areas and procedures involved with the City’s advisory bodies, staff is not recommending that a uniform set of norms be established. At the same time, in order to facilitate a starting point for each discussion it may be useful to provide an initial draft of topic areas for discussion. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT ATTACHMENTS 3 Packet Pg. 7 Partnering Norms for Commission/Staff Effectiveness* City staff values our relationships with Board/Commission/Committee (BCC) members, and effective collaboration between BCC members and staff is integral to providing quality services to the Palo Alto community. This sheet highlights a few key points that can help guide our work together. 1. Understand the Commission’s Scope – Follow the Commission’s enabling Ordinance or Resolution. If new topics of interest arise within the scope of the Commission, the Commission or staff should request Council/staff review (primarily through the Commission’s annual workplan) before assuming an expanded role. 2. Be Clear on the Commission’s Advisory Role – Most Commissions make recommendations to the City Council or staff, not standalone decisions. City staff implement policy and manage operations, with input from the Commission as a body (rather than individual commissioners). Commissions do not direct staff nor oversee City functions and resources. 3. Support Professional and Respectful Conduct and Communication – Commissioners should maintain unbiased civility and professionalism at all times, with staff as well as with fellow commissioners. Disagreements are fine; disrespect is not. 4. Respect Everyone’s Time – Staff should provide clear and concise reports and presentations to Commissions, and manage agendas to make effective use of Commissioners’ time. Commissioners and staff should be aligned on requests for information or follow-up, understanding that staff may have competing priorities. 5. Engagement through Staff Presentations – Recognizing the structured nature of public meetings and to avoid the potential awkwardness of interruptions, staff presentations should provide a brief overview of the topic and key issues on which Commission action is sought, then inviting questions for more detail. Commissioners should hold questions until completion of presentations. During subsequent discussions, all will respect others’ ability to express their thoughts without interruption. 6. Maintain Transparency and Legal Compliance – All should follow the Brown Act as well as complete all required training and disclosures. 7. Provide Feedback on Staff Work Privately – Feedback is important to staff development, and Commission meetings can have either a positive or negative effect on staff attraction and retention. Concerns with staff work or performance should only be shared privately with the staff liaison, department director, or the City Manager. Commissioners do not supervise or evaluate staff performance. 8. Uphold the City’s Values and Public Trust – Commissions serve as a bridge between the community and the City and help to uphold the City’s mission, vision, and values in all communications and interactions between Commissioners, with the public, and with staff. 3 Packet Pg. 8 *This is intended as a brief and simple reference. Much of this information is provided in the Palo Alto City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook. 3 Packet Pg. 9 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2025 Report #: 2512-5612 TITLE Park Improvement Ordinance for 2100 Geng Road Development Tree Removals in Baylands Athletic Center RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) recommend that City Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) at Baylands Athletic Center for the Tree Removals associated with the 2100 Geng Road development project. BACKGROUND The City is processing a Site and Design, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map application at 2100-2400 Geng Road to replace four existing office buildings with 145 for sale townhome units with thirteen percent of the units (19 units) deed restricted to serve low income households. This adjacent development is also being proposed in accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) (also known as Builder’s Remedy) and qualifies for additional protections as a “builder’s remedy project,” under AB 1893. The proposal includes modifications to the private property to build the 145 townhomes, modifications to landscaping abutting the shared property line between 2100-2400 Geng Road and the Baylands Athletic Center with the potential to remove 45 trees on City property. ANALYSIS Due to 2100-2400 Geng Road’s location in a flood zone, the proposed 145 townhome unit development will need to raise the site to meet floodplain requirements. A retaining wall would be proposed on private property along the shared property line with heights ranging from 2 feet tall up to approximately 6 feet tall near the PG&E easement where existing elevations are low. This will require trees on that parcel and adjacent to the parcel on the City property to be removed. The Revised Preliminary Arborist Report prepared by HortScience and Bartlett Consulting in August 2025 (Exhibit A of the Park Improvement Ordinance) identifies the removal of 52 off-site trees are identified for removal, 45 of which are protected and located on City property at the 4 Packet Pg. 10 Baylands Athletic Center. According to the arborist thirty-one (31) of the City Trees are in “poor” condition and can be expected to decline regardless of management. The remaining fourteen (14) are in “fair” condition and require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter lifespans than those in good health. All the forty-five (45) trees are mature blue gums. As a species, blue gums are intolerant of root impacts and unlikely to respond well to drastic site changes such as the proposed retaining wall and grade change. 1 identified as Private Lands. Accordingly, the project is subject to Site and Design review and scheduled for the December 10, 2025, Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan Policy 1 for Private Lands. As part of that application’s review, the 1 4th Edition of the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan, https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning- amp-development-services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/baylands-master-plan.pdf 4 Packet Pg. 11 development project includes extensive tree planting, especially along the perimeter of the property. permits are secured, on-site construction is expected to take place in Fall 2026 (8-10 months). Softball/Baseball Fields (surfacing and fencing) Turf areas (decompaction, seeding, fertilization details to be provided by the City to the developer) Park pathways FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The City will not incur costs for the construction of this Project. Post-construction operations and maintenance costs are expected to be the same as those projected for existing conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 4 Packet Pg. 12 The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. An Initial Study (IS) Checklist to determine consistency with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2014052101) certified in 2017 (“2017 EIR”) for the City of Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan was prepared for the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183, the IS Checklist found that the Project is consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning with any project related effects substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies or standards. The IS Checklist was published on December 3, 2025. ATTACHMENT Attachment A: Draft Park Improvement Ordinance 4 Packet Pg. 13 NOT YET APPROVED 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of Authorizing Work in the Baylands Related to the Adjacent Development at 2100-2400 Geng Road (24-PLN-00356) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Strada Investment Group, on behalf of San Francisco No. 69 LLC (collectively, the “Applicant”), has proposed a housing development project located at 2100–2400 Geng Road that would redevelop an existing approximately 11-acre site currently improved with office buildings and surface parking lots with approximately 145 multifamily townhome units, including 19 below-market-rate units, and community open spaces, as more detailed in City Planning Permit Application 24-PLN-00356 (the “Project”); B. CEQA review on the Project (including the plan in this ordinance) has been conducted and is exempt under CEQA regulation 15183; C. The Project site is located adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center (“BAC”), a City- owned public recreation facility within the City’s Baylands open space, which is dedicated parkland under PAMC section 22.08.020 et seq; D. Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor; E. To comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the City of Palo Alto’s floodplain management requirements pursuant to Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), the Project site must be elevated by importing soil ranging from approximately one (1) to six (6) feet in depth across the site; F. An Arborist Report prepared for the Project by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, dated August 2025 (Attached as Exhibit A) identifies approximately forty-five (45) non-native Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) trees located on the southern edge of the Baylands Athletic Center adjacent to the Project site (the “City Trees”) that may be impacted by Project-related grading and construction activity; G. According to the Arborist Report, thirty-one (31) of the City Trees are in “poor” condition and fourteen (14) are in “fair” condition; H. The exact number of City Trees that will be impacted by Project construction cannot be determined until final grading plans are prepared and implemented; and I. The City and the Applicant desire to establish a mutually acceptable monitoring and replacement plan to address potential impacts to City Trees during Project construction, consistent with the goals of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 8.10) and the City’s Urban Forestry Guidelines. 4 Packet Pg. 14 NOT YET APPROVED 2 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the following Plan under Article VIII (Parks) of the City Charter and PAMC section 22.08.005 for the removal of certain City Trees in the Baylands under the following provisions: 1. Updated Arborist Report Prior to Grading Permit In connection with submittal of Project grading permit application(s) involving work along the shared boundary with the Baylands Athletic Center, the Applicant shall submit to the City’s Urban Forestry Section (“Urban Forestry”) an updated arborist report prepared by a certified arborist identifying any City Trees located on the Baylands Athletic Center property that must be removed to facilitate grading or site access. Upon application to and review by Urban Forestry, Urban Forestry shall issue a Tree Removal Permit under PAMC section 8.04.040 for those City Trees identified where the Tree Protection Zone is so impacted that the tree will be prone to become unstable or unlikely to survive and otherwise in compliance with the requirements in PAMC Ch. 8.04. The scope of Urban Forestry’s review shall be limited to making this determination. Applicant shall be responsible for removal of the City Tree(s) to be removed. Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry at least 14 calendar days in advance of any scheduled tree removals. 2. Monitoring and Reporting of Remaining Trees During grading activities, the Applicant shall retain a licensed arborist to be present for any excavation work within the Tree Protection Zones of any City Tree. During active grading work, the arborist shall conduct monthly inspections of the remaining City Trees. Upon completion of grading, the arborist shall conduct quarterly inspections of the remaining City Trees for the duration of Project construction. The purpose of such inspections shall be to assess City Tree health and identify any City Trees that either (a) pose an imminent hazard to public health or safety, or (b) are unlikely to survive as a result of grading impacts. For City Trees that pose an imminent hazard to public health or safety, Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry (including its on-call staff if after hours) and shall remove the tree after receiving a Tree Removal Permit or other City authorization, including over-the-phone approval for emergency issues. For any City Tree that is unlikely to survive as a result of grading impacts, Applicant shall remove any such City Tree following application and issuance of a Tree Removal Permit by Urban Forestry. Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry at least 14 calendar days in advance of any such tree removal. 3. Tree Replacement Contribution Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, the Applicant shall remit to the City payment for replacement of the City Trees (the “Tree Replacement Contribution”). The Tree Replacement Contribution shall be calculated based on the canopy width of the City Trees that were removed using Table 3-1 of the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Technical Manual. The canopy width of the City Trees shall be based on the canopy width as measured in the Arborist Report described in Recital E. The Tree Replacement Contribution shall be $1,250 per each 24” box tree required. Urban Forestry Section and Parks Golf and Open Space shall use these funds to plant and establish replacement trees on the BAC property. 4 Packet Pg. 15 NOT YET APPROVED 3 SECTION 3. Other Requirements. This ordinance serves as approval for the Plan described above for the purposes of compliance with Article VIII of the City Charter and PAMC 22.08.005. This ordinance does not fulfill any other requirement as may be required by law, including but not limited to: encroachment permits, grading permits, building permits, and tree removal permits. This ordinance does not waive compliance with such requirements and Applicant remains responsible for compliance. SECTION 4. CEQA. CEQA review on the Project (including the plan in this ordinance) has been conducted and is exempt under CEQA regulation 15183 SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day after adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager 4 Packet Pg. 16 NOT YET APPROVED 4 ____________________________ Director, Community Services ____________________________ Director, Planning & Development Services 4 Packet Pg. 17 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Preliminary Arborist Report 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA PREPARED FOR: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson 2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 350 San Ramon, CA 94583 PREPARED BY: HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 2550 Ninth Street, Suite #112 Berkeley, CA 94710 April 2025 Revised August 2025 4 Packet Pg. 18 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Preliminary Arborist Report 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA Table of Contents Page Introduction and Overview 1 Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 2 Palo Alto Tree Protection Requirements 6 Palo Alto Tree Replacement 6 Suitability for Preservation 7 Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 9 Estimate of Value 10 List of Tables Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 2 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 8 Exhibits Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Map Preliminary Tree Disposition and Estimate of Value 4 Packet Pg. 19 Preliminary Arborist Report 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA Introduction and Overview Carlson, Barbee & Gibson is preparing plans to redevelop property at 2100 – 2400 Geng Road in Palo Alto. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co.) was asked to prepare a Preliminary Arborist Report for the project site for submission to the City of Palo Alto. Plans depict proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of townhomes with associated service roads and parking. In August 2025, plans were altered to eliminate off- site work at the neighboring City Park. The subject report was revised based on the new plans. This report provides the following information: 1. An assessment of tree health, structure, and suitability for preservation. 2. An estimate of the value of each tree. 3. A preliminary assessment of the impacts of constructing the proposed project and recommendations for action. Assessment Methods Trees were assessed on October 22 and 23, 2024. Additional trees were evaluated on November 19, 2024, following discussions with the project team. Trees with a trunk diameter of 4 inches or greater located in or overhanging the project area were included in the assessment. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the tree species; 2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54 inches above grade; 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5: 5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig, and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 0 - Tree is dead. 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘good’ category. Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas. 4 Packet Pg. 20 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 2 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Description of Trees Two hundred and seventy (270) trees were assessed, representing 26 species (Table 1). Blue gum was the most common species with 49 trees, followed by river she-oak with 43, and coast redwood with 33. While species like coast live oak and coast redwood are native to the Palo Alto area, none of the assessed trees appeared to be indigenous to the site. Trees were distributed throughout the entire site, with many lining the property boundaries and others grouped together in landscaped areas next to buildings. Overall, 53 trees were in good condition, 162 were in fair condition, and 55 were in poor condition (Table 1). Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment Form and approximate locations are shown on the Tree Assessment Map (see Exhibits). Table 1: Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 2100 – 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total Poor (1-2) Fair (3) Good (4-5) Blackwood acacia Acacia melanox lon 2 4 6 12 Japanese maple Acer palmatum - 3 1 4 African fern-pine Afrocarpus falcatus - 2 - 2 Black alder Alnus glutinosa - 1 - 1 European white birch Betula pendula - 6 - 6 River she-oak Casuarina cunninghamiana 7 29 7 43 Western redbud Cercis occidentalis - - 1 1 River red um Eucal ptus camaldulensis 2 6 8 16 Blue um Eucal ptus globulus 33 15 1 49 Raywood ash Fraxinus angustifolia 'Ra wood' 6 7 - 13 Ever reen ash Fraxinus uhde - 1 - 1 Gink o Ginkgo biloba - 1 - 1 Silk oak Grevillea robusta - 5 - 5 Chinese flame tree Koelreuteria bipinnata - - 1 1 Gloss prive Ligustrum lucidum 4 2 - 6 Sweet um Liquidambar st raciflua 1 20 2 23 Southern ma nolia Magnolia grandiflora - - 2 2 Crabapple Malus s lvestris - 8 1 9 Ma ten Ma tenus boaria - 1 - 1 Canar Island date palm Phoenix canariensis - - 2 2 Cherr Prunus sp. - - 2 2 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - 6 3 9 Holl oak Quercus ilex - 2 - 2 Yellow willow Salix lasiandra - 1 - 1 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - 22 11 33 4 Packet Pg. 21 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 3 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total Poor (1-2) Fair (3) Good (4-5) Water um Tristaniopsis laurina - 20 5 25 Total 55 162 53 270 Of the 43 river she-oaks, seven were in good condition, 29 were in fair condition, and seven were in poor condition. Condition was largely related to available growing space and tree structure. Most trees grew close together in small groups. She-oaks in good condition had good structure and vigor. Those in fair condition had moderately undesireable structural features such as a low live crown ratio and/or a phototropic lean. Those in poor condition had more considerable structural deficiencies like old topping cuts. Development stage varied from young to mature, indicated by diameters measuring between 6 – 25 inches. Eleven (11) redwoods were in good condition and 22 were in fair condition. Development stage was mostly semi- mature with diameters measuring between 17 – 35 inches. Redwoods in fair condition often exhibited signs of drought stress like twig dieback and browning foliage. Those in good condition had greener, fuller crowns (Photo 2). Photo 1: River she-oaks #200 – 202 (left – right) competed for space in a small planter. Each was in good condition. Photo 2: Coast redwoods #116 – 122 (left – right) were in good condition with dense reen folia e. 4 Packet Pg. 22 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 4 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Forty-nine (49) blue gums were assessed. Forty-eight (48) were off-site and had branches that extended into the subject property by up to 40 feet. Trunks were near the property line (Photo 3). Blue gum #24 was located on the subject property. Of all blue gums, 33 were in poor condition, 15 were in fair condition, and #23 was in good condition. Trunks were usually not accessible behind the fence, and diameters were estimated to be up to 56 inches. Twenty (20) water gums were in fair conditon and five were in good condition. Condition was informed by growing space availability, with those in fair condition being heavily suppressed by nearby buildings. Those in good condition had more space to develop good branching structure. Trees were semi-mature to mature in development, indicated by diameters between 7 – 15 inches. Twenty-three (23) sweetgums were assessed. Most (20 trees) were in fair condition, often suppressed by nearby buildings and having structural deficiencies like codominant trunks. Sweetgums #63 and 131 were in good condition, while #81 was in poor condition. All were semi- mature in development with diameters ranging between 10 – 19 inches. Eight of the 16 river red gums were in good condition, six were fair, and #212 and 213 were poor. Multiple stems arose from a single point on most trees at a height of between 12 – 20 feet. Trees in good condition were more vigorous than trees in fair condition, and had fewer negative features such as improper heading cuts or sapsucker damage. Poor condition river red gums had very low vigor and/or branch dieback and epicormic sprouting. Diameters ranged from 12 – 43 inches, representing semi-mature to mature development stages. The 13 Raywood ash trees were either in fair (7 trees) or poor (6 trees) condition. Multiple upright stems arose from a single point on all trees (Photo 4). Condition varied with overall vigor. Fair condition trees had denser foliage than those in poor condition. Diameters measured between 11 – 21 inches. Photo 3: Trunks of off-site blue gums were often close to the property line fence. Photo 4: Raywood ash trees #101 – 105 (left – right, foreground) had many narrow branch attachments at a single point on the trunk. 4 Packet Pg. 23 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 5 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Twelve (12) blackwood acacias were assessed. Six were in good condition, four were fair, and #160 and 234 were poor. Diameters measured between 9 – 32 inches. Acacia #25 was located on the neighboring property, with branches extending approximately 7 feet into the project area. Eight crabapples were in fair condition while #13 was in good condition. Fair condition crabapples were often suppressed. All had multiple attachments at a single point on the trunk. Diameters measured between 5 – 10 inches. Nine coast live oaks were in fair (6 trees) or good (#219 – 221) condition. Five oaks were (#219 – 221, 227, and 228) located off-site, and had branches extending into the subject property by up to approximately 15 feet. Trunks measured between up to 19 inches. Six European white birch were in fair condition. Thin foliage was concentrated at the top of each tree. Development stage was young, represented by diameters between 6 – 10 inches. Six glossy privets were in fair (#232 and 251) or poor (#214, 229, 246, and 247) condition. Condition varied with differences in overall vigor. Multiple stems arose from the base of most trees, measuring between 4 – 8 inches. Privet #229 was off-site. The remaining 14 species were represented by 5 trees or fewer: Five silk oaks were in fair condition. Four were semi-mature in development with trunks between 7 – 15 inches. Silk oak #223 was mature in development with a 32-inch diameter. Japanese maple #34 was in good condition while #147, 148, and 154 were fair. Individual stems measured between 4 – 6 inches. Each was located at the foot of a nearby building, resulitng in asymmetric crown profiles (Photo 5). African fern-pines #143 and 144 were in fair condition. Diameters measured 16 and 13 inches. Southern magnolias #217 and 218 measured 19 and 12 inches in diameter, respectively. Both were in good condition. Canary Island date palms #22 and 252 were in good condition. Palm #22 was off-site, with fronds extending into the subject property by approximately 13 feet. Eight (8) feet of brown trunk was below the lowest living frond. Palm #252 was taller with approximately 18 feet of brown trunk. Cherries #68 and 74 were in good condition. Trunks below 7 and 10 inches, respectively. Multiple small stems arose from an apparent graft at 4 feet on both trees. Photo 5: Japanese maple #34 was suppressed and one-sided due to the nearb buildin . 4 Packet Pg. 24 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 6 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Holly oaks #42 and 43 were off-site and had branches extending into the subject property by approximately 14 and 9 feet, respectively. Both were in fair conditon and suppressed. Trunks were estimated at 7 (#42) and 6 (#43) inches in diameter. Black alder #50 was in fair condition. The 7-inch diameter trunk leaned to the west. Western redbud #3 was in good condition. Codominant trunks arose from 3 feet to create a rounded crown. The trunk measured 7 inches below the attachment. Evergreen ash #51 had a very narrowly attached codominant trunks with a seam from the base to 3 feet. Individual diameters measured 11 and 10 inches. Overall condition was fair. Ginkgo #222 was in fair condition, having a one-sided crown to the east. The trunk was 15 inches in diameter. Chinese flame tree #124 had an 11-inch diameter trunk. Multiple stems arose from wide attachments at approximately 10 feet and the canopy was slightly thin. Overall condition was fair. Mayten #95 was in fair condition. It had an 11-inch diameter trunk. Yellow willow #44 as off-site, and had branches that reached approximately 15 feet into the subject property. Codominant trunks emerged from the base with estimated diameters of 20 and 12 inches. Palo Alto Tree Protection Requirements City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.10 (Trees & Landscape Preservation and Management), describes Protected trees as certain native species with a minimum trunk diameter of either 11.5 or 18 inches, and all other species with a minimum diameter of 15 inches. Species with high water use, invasive properties, or undesirable fruit are excluded. Of the trees assessed, species that meet exclusion requirements are black alder, European white birch, blackwood acacia, blue gum, Canary Island date palm, evergreen ash, river red gum, and yellow willow. All street trees and other public trees are also considered Protected, regardless of species. One hundred and thirty-eight (138) trees meet the criteria for Protected status: eighty-seven (87) are large enough to be considered protected mature trees; 48 blue gums appear to be on City property at Baylands Athletic Center, making them public trees; two trees (#7 and 20) are street trees. Protected trees are regulated by the City of Palo Alto and cannot be removed without a permit. Replacement tree plantings will be required for the removal of any Protected trees. Protected status of each tree is provided in the Tree Assessment Form (see exhibits). 4 Packet Pg. 25 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 7 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Suitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability, and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health present a low risk of damage or injury if they fail. We must be concerned, however, about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure, and death should be allowed to continue. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than non- vigorous trees are. For example, many blue gums were in poor condition. These trees would not tolerate construction impacts as well as those in fair condition. Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are more likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For example, coast redwood and river she-oak are tolerant of root severance and general construction impacts. Sweetgum is moderately tolerant. Blue gum is intolerant. Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. Most trees in this assessment were semi- mature or mature in development stage. Invasiveness Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (https://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. Palo Alto is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Blackwood acacia, blue gum, Canary Island date palm, and glossy privet have limited invasive potential. Mayten is on the watch list. Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2, following page). 4 Packet Pg. 26 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 8 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation. 2100 – 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto High Trees in good health and with structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Six trees had high suitability for preservation: Canary Island date palms #22 and 252, coast live oak #219, river red gum #216, and river she-oaks #200 and 201. Moderate Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter lifespans than those in the “high” category. One hundred and twenty-three (123) trees had moderate suitability for preservation: black alder #50, nine blackwood acacias, blue gum #23, cherries #68 and 74, Chinese flame tree #124, four coast live oaks, 23 coast redwoods, nine crabapples, evergreen ash #51, ginkgo #222, holly oaks #42 and 43, Japanese maple #34, mayten #95, 11 river red gums, 19 river she- oaks, silk oaks #223 and 230, southern magnolias #217 and 218, eight sweetgums, 24 water gums, and western redbud #3. Low Trees in poor health or with significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. One hundred and forty-one (141) trees had low suitability for preservation: African fern-pines #143 and 144, blackwood acacias #19, 160, and 234, 48 blue gums, four coast live oaks, 10 coast redwoods, six European white birch, six glossy privets, Japanese maples #147, 148, and 154, 13 Raywood ash, four river red gums, 22 river she-oaks, silk oaks #231, 233, and 235, 15 sweetgums, water gum #139, and yellow willow #44. We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. Retention of trees with moderate or low suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes and the use nature of the site. 4 Packet Pg. 27 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 9 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Evaluations of Impacts and Recommendations Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities with the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Impacts from construction were estimated using a conceptual site plan (Geng Road Site, Dahlin Group and CBG, dated 7/25/25), a Tree Disposition Plan (The Guzzardo Partnership, dated 8/26/2025) and conversations with the project team (to date 8/28/2025). Plans are preliminary in nature. As such, this evaluation of impacts must be considered preliminary. The site plan depicted locations of new townhomes and associated access roads. All existing structures will be demolished. Improvements would fill the entire site, property line to property line. A storm line is proposed off-site along the edge of the Baylands Athletic Center. No opportunities for tree preservation exist within the property. Off-site trees adjacent to the project area will be impacted by the proposed construction including root severance and crown pruning. Impacts may be severe. First, demolition of existing infrastructure and landscape may damage trees. Second, grading, excavation, and other construction activities will injure trees, both directly by mechanical injury and indirectly by altering drainage. Most notably, a retaining wall is proposed at the property line on the north side of the site near a row of large, mature blue gums. Finally, existing branches may encroach into the site, requiring significant pruning. The Project proposes to remove 207 existing trees within the project site and two street trees (209 total tree removals). The grade over the entire site will be raised, and no trees can be preserved within the boundaries. Of these, 83 trees are considered Protected trees by the City of Palo Alto and will require replacement (see Preliminary Tree Disposition and Estimate of Value table in the Exhibits). Forty-five (45) trees were near the property boundary of Baylands Athletic Center and identified for potential preservation due to the installation of a retaining wall at the property line. All were mature blue gums, and unlikely to respond well to drastic site changes such as the proposed retaining wall and grade change. As a species, blue gums are intolerant of root impacts. The retaining wall is proposed immediately adjacent to the stand of trees at the property line. I expect impacts to be severe, and some trees may sustain impacts that exceed their tolerances. Until excavation begins or an exploratory trench is dug to expose roots, impacts must be considered preliminary. Disposition may change depending on expected impacts if preservation is not expected to be successful. I recommend reevaluating as designs develop. Palm #22, blue gums #23 and 253, and blackwood acacia #25 were also located off-site at Baylands Athletic Center. Near these trees, no retaining wall will be installed. I expect impacts to be negligible for palm #22 and moderate for trees #23, 25, and 253. These four trees are identified for preservation. The remaining 12 trees on private property bordering the site are also identified for potential preservation. Impacts may be severe, depending on the required root severance during installation of retaining walls and clearance pruning. Disposition may change depending on expected impacts if preservation is not expected to be successful. I recommend reevaluating as designs develop. The Project’s tree removal requirements are a result of coastal flooding issues. The Project site’s elevation is currently between 6 and 10 feet above sea level. The site lies in a FEMA flood zone of AE-11, meaning that the site could flood up to 11 feet above sea level in a severe storm or high tide event. To mitigate this, the entire site must be raised to a minimum of 11 feet above sea level by importing 1 – 6 feet of additional soil across the site. 4 Packet Pg. 28 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page10 The Project site is zoned for multifamily housing, with a portion of the site designated in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element as a housing inventory site. Redevelopment of the project site for these uses is not possible without the entire site grade being raised. Consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.050 (d)(1), there is no feasible way to retain the protected trees without reducing the otherwise-permissible buildable area by more than twenty-five percent. Based on the Project sponsor’s analysis, there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for retention of these protected trees in connection with redevelopment of the site for housing. The Project will fully mitigate the protected tree removals with a robust replacement tree planting plan, prioritizing native species, climate-adaptive drought tolerant species (in alignment with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030 (b)(2), and 8.10.050 (d)(3)(ii)), and species that provide high quality habitat for birds and other wildlife. Because the plans are preliminary, there may be opportunities to reduce tree impacts. The ability to preserve trees on this site and along the edges of the property depends on 1) selecting trees with moderate or good suitability for preservation and 2) establishing a tree protection zone large enough to sustain tree health and stability. All plans should include surveyed tree trunk locations so that impacts can be accurately assessed, and adequate tree protection measures can be determined. Once a design alternative is selected, impacts to trees should be revisited. Estimate of Value To estimate the reproduction cost of each tree, I used the cost approach, reproduction method, trunk formula technique, as described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition (International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta GA, 2018). In addition, I referred to Species Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a publication of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. When estimating reproduction cost, the trunk formula technique considers four factors: size, condition, functional limitations, and external limitations. Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54 inches above grade. Condition reflects tree health and structural integrity. Functional limitations reflect constraints to tree development based on the site and species. For example, the off-site blue gums along the north edge of the property were crowded together, and competed for available growing space. Trees in this row were depreciated for the limited growing area and proximity to the property boundary. I did not note any external limitations. Based on the information gathered, I estimated the reproduction cost for individual trees to range from $250 to $26,950, totaling $943,838 for all trees. The estimated value of trees identified for removal was $791,784 ($411,250 Protected). The estimated value of trees identified for potential preservation was $142,045 ($134,300 Protected). The estimated value of trees identified for preservation was $9,605 (all Protected). Values per tree are depicted in the Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value exhibit (see exhibits). HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 4 Packet Pg. 29 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 11 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Palo Alto Tree Replacement Tree replacement mitigation is required for Protected tree removals. Replacement quantities are based on the average canopy spread of the removed tree. Two options are presented in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual for Replacement Trees or Alternative Trees (Figure 1). Individual assignments for replacement trees are described in the Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value exhibit (see exhibits). The project’s landscape architect will use these ratios to inform the replacement planting plan. Figure 1: Replacement tree matrix. Sourced from Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. 4 Packet Pg. 30 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 12 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines Trees on adjacent properties may be impacted by construction activities. The key to tree preservation is to minimize adverse impacts near trees to be retained. The following are recommendations for design and construction phases that will assist in successful tree preservation. 1. Reevaluate tree disposition as project plans progress. 2. The Tree Protection Zone shall be the project property line. The project’s security fence will serve as the tree protection fencing. 3. Off-site trees may require pruning to provide vertical clearance for construction. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 standards as well as the Best Management Practices -- Tree Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture. 4. On-site trees to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of off-site trees to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by construction contractors. The qualified arborist should remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the trees and understory to remain. 5. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 6. Enlist the project arborist monitor excavation for the footing of the retaining wall along the north edge of the property. Once roots are exposed, recommendations can be made on management decisions. Overall dispositions may change depending on the size and number of roots encountered. 7. Enlist the project arborist to monitor off-site trees identified for potential preservation on a monthly basis throughout the construction timeline to monitor any changes in condition. 8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 9. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. 10. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests. If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Ryan Suttle, Consulting Arborist & Urban Forester ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, Utility Specialist No. WE-12647BU ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #813 ASCA Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualified 4 Packet Pg. 31 Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road Revised August 2025 Page 13 HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Exhibits Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Map Preliminary Tree Disposition and Estimate of Value 4 Packet Pg. 32 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments 1 River she-oak 18 Yes 4 Moderate 10,15,12,10 Codominant trunks arise from 10’; high crown; suppressed south. 2 River she-oak 19 Yes 4 Moderate 12,8,15,10 Codominant trunks arise from 12&14’; narrow suppressed crown. 3 Western redbud 7 No 4 Moderate 6,6,6,6 Codominant trunks arise from 3’; round crown. 4 Crabapple 5 No 3 Moderate 7,2,6,7 Suppressed west; no lower branching; swollen base. 5 Crabapple 8 No 3 Moderate 5,8,7,5 Codominant trunks arise from 4’; high crown; suppressed south. 6 Crabapple 8 No 3 Moderate 10,8,5,7 Multiple trunks arise from 5’; high crown; suppressed north. 7 River she-oak 24 Yes; Street Tree 4 Moderate 17,17,17,17 Street tree; codominant trunks arise from high in crown; topping cuts throughout crown. 8 Crabapple 7 No 3 Moderate 5,8,7,3 Multiple trunks arise from 5’; no lower branches. 9 Crabapple 8 No 3 Moderate 13,7,8,10 Multiple trunks arise from 5’; no lower branches. 10 Crabapple 7 No 3 Moderate 7,4,6,6 Multiple trunks arise from 6’; no lower branches; messy structure. 11 Crabapple 7 No 3 Moderate 7,7,7,7 Wide multiple trunks arise from 4’; 8”x2” basal decay cavity. 12 Crabapple 7 No 3 Moderate 7,3,5,9 Heavily suppressed north; trunk bends north at 2’. 13 Crabapple 10 No 4 Moderate 14,10,10,8 Multiple trunks arise from 5’; no lower branches; swollen base. 14 River she-oak 11 No 3 Moderate 12,10,12,12 Codominant trunks arise from 14’; narrow thin crown. 15 River she-oak 18 Yes 3 Moderate 10,12,14,11 Codominant trunks arise from 14’; narrow thin crown; southern trunk leans south. 16 River she-oak 18 Yes 3 Moderate 7,9,12,12 High narrow crown bows south high in crown; suppressed south. 17 River she-oak 19 Yes 4 Moderate 18,15,18,18 Codominant trunks arise from high in crown; topping cuts throughout crown. 18 Blackwood acacia 25 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 22,22,22,22 Exposed surface roots; single upright trunk. 19 Blackwood acacia 20 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Low 10,8,12,12 Codominant trunks arise from 7’; crown weight is southern. 20 River she-oak 18 Yes; Street Tree 3 Low 16,14,12,15 Street tree; straight upright crown; dead and dying branches throughout crown. Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 4 Packet Pg. 33 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 21 Blackwood acacia 18 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Straight upright trunk; some decay on lowest branch (4”); good form. 22 Canary Island date palm 40 Yes; on City property 4 High 10,10,10,10 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over property by 13’; 8’ wood feet of brown trunk; heavily suppressed under blue gum. 23 Blue gum 42 Yes; on City property 4 Moderate 30,25,40,20 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over property by 40’; high crown; heading cuts throughout. 24 Blue gum 26 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Low 20,5,9,24 S-shape in trunk @ 20’; sap sucker evidence on upper crown. 25 Blackwood acacia 12 Yes; on City property 4 Moderate 8,8,7,8 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over site by 7’; straight upright crown; good form and condition. 26 Water gum 8 No 3 Moderate 8,5,7,8 Pruned for light clearance; good young tree. 27 Water gum 7 No 3 Moderate 8,8,8,8 In median planter; round crown; good form. 28 Water gum 8 No 4 Moderate 8,8,8,8 In median planter; round crown; good form. 29 Water gum 9 No 4 Moderate 9,9,9,9 In median planter; round crown; good form. 30 Water gum 9 No 4 Moderate 11,11,11,11 In median planter; round crown; good form. 31 Water gum 9 No 4 Moderate 10,10,10,10 In median planter; round crown; good form. 32 Blackwood acacia 12 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 5,10,10,10 Narrow codominant trunks arise from 8’; slight lean east. 33 Blackwood acacia 18 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Moderate 14,14,14,14 Multiple trunks arise from 10’; thin crown. 34 Japanese maple 7,6 Yes 4 Moderate 14,5,5,14 Codominant trunks arise from 1’; heavily suppressed under the building; dead twigs. 35 Coast redwood 18 Yes 3 Low 12,12,12,12 In raised planter; twig dieback; brown leaves. 36 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 Low 10,10,10,10 In raised planter; twig dieback; brown leaves. 37 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 Low 10,10,10,10 In raised planter; twig dieback; brown leaves. 38 River red gum 32 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Moderate 20,16,10,20 Trunk bows north; high crown; good growth. 39 River red gum 31 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 21,21,21,25 Trunk bows north; high crown; good growth. 40 River red gum 20 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 11,6,11,8 Codominant trunks arise from 12’; leans west. 4 Packet Pg. 34 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 41 River red gum 23 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 14,14,14,14 Multiple trunks arise from 12’; vase shape crown. 42 Holly oak 7 No 3 Moderate 14,6,2,6 Off-site extends over property by 14’; suppressed. 43 Holly oak 6 No 3 Moderate 9,5,2,5 Off-site extends over property by 9’; suppressed. 44 Yellow willow 20,12 No; high water use 3 Low 15,15,10,15 Off-site extends over property by 15’, Codominant trunks lean over property, suppressed. 45 River red gum 35 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 23,29,18,20 In parking island; leans over property; high crown; good growth. 46 River red gum 32 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 18,18,18,18 In parking island; multiple trunks arise from 10’; high crown; good growth. 47 River red gum 12 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 10,10,10,10 Codominant trunks arise from base&12’ wester trunk removed. 48 River she-oak 24 Yes 3 Low 13,13,15,12 Off-site; Codominant trunks; extends over property 13’. 49 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Moderate 12,8,8,10 Off-site extends over property by 12’; thin; leans north over property. 50 Black alder 7 No; high water use 3 Moderate 9,9,9,9 Trunk leans west suppressing trees on west side. 51 Evergreen ash 11,10 No; fruit per Palo Alto website 3 Moderate 10,12,15,15 Codominant trunks are fussed from base to 3’; suppressed west. 52 Raywood ash 16 Yes 3 Low 16,16,16,16 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold. 53 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Low 12,12,12,12 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold. 54 Raywood ash 13 No 3 Low 11,11,11,11 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold. 55 Raywood ash 18 Yes 2 Low 15,15,15,15 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold. 56 Raywood ash 14 No 2 Low 12,11,11,6 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold; history of branch failure; decay. 57 Raywood ash 18 Yes 2 Low 16,16,15,13 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold. 4 Packet Pg. 35 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 58 Raywood ash 16 Yes 3 Low 15,15,15,15 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold. 59 Raywood ash 16 Yes 3 Low 15,15,15,15 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; thin; sun-scold. 60 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Low 16,15,15,15 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; thin; sun-scold. 61 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Low 11,12,12,13 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; thin; sun-scold. 62 Sweetgum 14 No 3 Low 12,4,12,12 High crown suppressed by building. 63 Sweetgum 16 Yes 4 Moderate 18,15,18,18 Multiple trunks arise from 15’; seams in attachments. 64 Sweetgum 14 No 3 Low 9,5,12,9 High crown suppressed by building. 65 Coast redwood 30 Yes 3 Low 20,20,20,20 Heavily suppressed by building on east; high crown. 66 Coast redwood 29 Yes 3 Low 13,13,13,13 Heavily suppressed by building on east; high crown. 67 Coast redwood 31 Yes 3 Low 17,17,17,17 Heavily suppressed by building on east; high crown. 68 Cherry 7 No 4 Moderate 5,5,5,5 Grafted at 4’; multiple trunks arise from 4’; healthy crown. 69 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Low 20,15,2,15 High crown suppressed by building. 70 Sweetgum 11 No 3 Low 11,10,11,8 Sinuous trunk; suppressed north. 71 Sweetgum 13 No 3 Low 10,12,12,12 Upright trunk; twig dieback. 72 Sweetgum 13 No 3 Low 12,12,8,11 Codominant trunks arise from 12’; no lower branches. 73 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Low 20,15,2,15 High crown suppressed by building. 74 Cherry 10 No 4 Moderate 5,5,9,9 Grafted at 4’; multiple trunks arise from 4’; healthy crown; growth on west side. 75 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 Low 14,14,14,14 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 76 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 Low 12,12,12,12 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 77 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Low 11,11,11,11 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 78 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Low 13,13,13,13 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 79 Coast redwood 32 Yes 4 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 80 Coast redwood 28 Yes 3 Moderate 13,13,13,13 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 81 Sweetgum 10 No 2 Low 10,8,8,7 High crown; decay on trunk; poor and condition form. 82 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 Moderate 12,12,12,12 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown; suppressed on southeast. 4 Packet Pg. 36 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 83 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 Moderate 8,8,8,8 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown; suppressed on west. 84 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 Moderate 13,13,13,13 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown; suppressed on north. 85 Coast redwood 28 Yes 3 Moderate 14,14,14,14 Typical from; suppressed by building. 86 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 Moderate 13,13,13,13 Typical from; suppressed by building. 87 European white birch 7 No; high water use 3 Low 6,6,6,6 Upright thin crown; twig dieback in upper crown. 88 Coast redwood 32 Yes 4 Moderate 16,16,16,16 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown. 89 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 Moderate 13,13,13,13 Typical from; high crown. 90 Coast redwood 28 Yes 3 Moderate 14,14,14,14 Typical from; high crown. 91 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 Moderate 12,12,12,12 Typical from; high crown; in tight cluster; suppressed by building. 92 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 Moderate 12,12,12,12 Typical from; high crown; in tight cluster. 93 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Typical from; high crown; in tight cluster. 94 Coast redwood 31 Yes 3 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Typical from; high crown; in tight cluster. 95 Mayten 11 No 3 Moderate 15,16,10,6 Multiple trunks arise from 6’; suppressed east; moderate form. 96 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 12,13,8,5 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 97 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 9,11,9,0 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 98 Water gum 9 No 3 Moderate 9,10,9,0 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 99 Water gum 10 No 3 Moderate 0,9,9,0 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 100 Raywood ash 18 Yes 2 Low 10,8,8,8 Multiple trunks arise from but headed back 12’; thin. 101 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 0,11,14,14 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 102 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 4,12,14,14 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 103 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 7,10,13,13 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 104 Water gum 10 No 3 Moderate 7,0,14,11 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 105 Water gum 9 No 3 Moderate 0,13,12,11 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 106 Raywood ash 23 Yes 2 Low 17,17,17,17 Multiple trunks arise from 12’; headed back; thin. 107 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Low 11,12,14,11 High crown suppressed by building. 108 Sweetgum 11 No 3 Low 11,10,10,13 In planter; multiple trunks with cavity at attachment point. 109 Sweetgum 13 No 3 Low 12,0,10,14 High crown suppressed by building. 4 Packet Pg. 37 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 110 Sweetgum 16 Yes 3 Low 12,12,0,12 High crown suppressed by building; thin. 111 Coast redwood 34 Yes 4 Moderate 17,17,17,17 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed by building. 112 Coast redwood 35 Yes 4 Moderate 18,18,18,18 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed by building; good leaf color. 113 Sweetgum 14 No 3 Low 7,7,7,7 Straight upright trunk; thin. 114 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Low 9,8,14,9 Multiple trunks; thin. 115 Sweetgum 11 No 3 Low 14,14,0,14 Wide codominant trunks arise from 12’; thin. 116 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color. 117 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 Moderate 12,12,12,12 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color. 118 Coast redwood 30 Yes 4 Moderate 14,14,14,14 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color. 119 Coast redwood 31 Yes 4 Moderate 14,14,14,14 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color. 120 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color. 121 Coast redwood 27 Yes 4 Moderate 16,16,16,16 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color. 122 Coast redwood 35 Yes 4 Moderate 18,18,18,18 Typical from; good crown and structure; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color. 123 Raywood ash 21 Yes 2 Low 9,12,15,15 Multiple trunks headed back; thin; wide attachments. 124 Chinese flame tree 11 No 4 Moderate 14,14,17,17 Multiple trunks arise from 10’; wide attachments; somewhat thin. 125 River she-oak 18 Yes 3 Moderate 10,12,12,10 High narrow crown; history of branch failure. 126 Blackwood acacia 15 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Good upright form; base is flat on both the west and east sides. 127 River she-oak 19 Yes 3 Moderate 7,7,12,10 Codominant trunks arise from 12’&14’; thin; suppressed west. 128 River she-oak 14 No 3 Moderate 9,14,9,9 High narrow crown; codominant trunks high in crown. 129 River she-oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate 9,9,9,9 High narrow crown; bleeding at base. 4 Packet Pg. 38 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 130 Blackwood acacia 26 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 17,17,17,17 Codominant trunks arise from 17’; high crown. 131 Sweetgum 19 Yes 4 Moderate 16,16,16,16 High crown suppressed by building. 132 Sweetgum 19 Yes 3 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Codominant trunks; thin; no lower foliage; Sa sucker evidence. 133 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Moderate 11,12,8,6 Codominant trunks; messy crown. 134 Sweetgum 15 Yes 3 Moderate 19,15,0,15 Codominant trunks; messy crown. 135 Sweetgum 17 Yes 3 Moderate 9,11,11,11 Corrected bow on trunk; high crown; thin. 136 Sweetgum 10 No 3 Moderate 13,12,8,12 Upright trunk thin crown. 137 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Moderate 16,12,12,12 Crooked trunk; thin; one-sided east. 138 Water gum 12 No 3 Moderate 14,9,8,11 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 139 Water gum 12 No 3 Low 18,5,5,11 Heavily suppressed by building; thin. 140 Water gum 12 No 3 Moderate 10,8,0,10 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 141 Water gum 13 No 3 Moderate 9,9,5,12 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 142 Water gum 12 No 3 Moderate 17,3,0,12 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; codominant trunk; gurdling root. 143 African fern-pine 16 Yes 3 Low 15,16,16,0 Leans east away from building; thin; gurdling root; healthy leaves. 144 African fern-pine 13 No 3 Low 10,10,10,10 In planter; wide attachment; good growth. 145 European white birch 8 No; high water use 3 Low 5,5,5,5 High narrow crown; thin. 146 European white birch 10 No; high water use 3 Low 8,8,8,8 Crook at 2’; high narrow crown; thin. 147 Japanese maple 6 No 3 Low 8,0,11,12 Suppressed under building; bows away from structure. 148 Japanese maple 7 No 3 Low 0,0,10,10 Suppressed under building on two sides; bows away from structure. 149 Blackwood acacia 29 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Moderate 9,19,28,15 Leans and bows west away from other trees; multiple trunks arise from 13’; somewhat thin. 150 River she-oak 22 Yes 3 Moderate 9,9,12,6 Multiple trunks arise from 11’; thin; high narrow crown. 151 River she-oak 25 Yes 3 Moderate 11,6,12,12 Multiple trunks arise from 10’; thin; high narrow crown. 152 River she-oak 20 Yes 3 Moderate 8,8,10,8 Codominant trunks arise from 8’; thin; high narrow crown. 4 Packet Pg. 39 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 153 European white birch 7 No; high water use 3 Low 5,5,5,5 High narrow crown; thin. 154 Japanese maple 6,4 Yes 3 Low 0,0,10,12 Suppressed under building on two sides; bows away from structure. 155 European white birch 6 No; high water use 3 Low 2,2,6,5 High narrow crown; heavily suppressed; thin. 156 European white birch 10 No; high water use 3 Low 4,4,8,5 High narrow crown; heavily suppressed; thin. 157 River she-oak 19 Yes 3 Moderate 6,6,10,10 Multiple trunks arise from high in crown; bleeding on trunk at 2’; thin; high narrow crown. 158 River she-oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate 6,6,10,10 Single upright trunk; high narrow crown. 159 River she-oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate 9,9,12,7 Codominant trunks arise from 10’; thin; high narrow crown. 160 Blackwood acacia 9 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 2 Low 5,7,7,6 Bows south; dead top; thin. 161 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City property 2 Low 40,10,10,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 7’; messy form. 162 Blue gum 38 Yes; on City property 2 Low 30,15,15,30 Off-site tagged on fence; can not see trunk; extends over property by 16’; messy form; pruned away from property. 163 Blue gum 36 Yes; on City property 2 Low 25,20,10,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 7’; messy form; pruned away from property. 164 Blue gum 38 Yes; on City property 2 Low 10,6,5,15 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property. 165 Blue gum 36 Yes; on City property 3 Low 35,30,20,25 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property. 166 Blue gum 40 Yes; on City property 3 Low 40,50,25,35 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 16’; messy form; pruned away from property. 167 Blue gum 56 Yes; on City property 3 Low 40,35,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property; leans heavily away from property. 168 Blue gum 40 Yes; on City property 3 Low 40,25,15,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property. 169 Blue gum 28,26 Yes; on City property 3 Low 40,10,15,10 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 9’; messy form; pruned away from property. 4 Packet Pg. 40 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 170 Blue gum 38 Yes; on City property 3 Low 30,35,15,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 7’; messy form; pruned away from property. 171 Blue gum 21 Yes; on City property 2 Low 15,10,5,1 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 2’; messy form; pruned away from property. 172 Blue gum 19 Yes; on City property 2 Low 15,10,10,10 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property. 173 Blue gum 19 Yes; on City property 2 Low 35,20,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 7’; messy form; pruned away from property. 174 Blue gum 42 Yes; on City property 2 Low 40,55,10,10 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 7’; messy form; pruned away from property. 175 Blue gum 53 Yes; on City property 2 Low 40,40,10,15 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; doesn’t extend over property, roots are lifting parking lot pavement; pruned and leans away from property. 176 Blue gum 48 Yes; on City property 2 Low 25,20,25,30 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property. 177 Blue gum 42 Yes; on City property 2 Low 35,15,15,30 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 4’; messy form; pruned away from property. 178 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City property 2 Low 20,15,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property; base at fence line. 179 Blue gum 36 Yes; on City property 2 Low 30,10,15,15 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 9’; messy form; pruned away from property. 180 Blue gum 17 Yes; on City property 2 Low 5,5,8,4 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 4’; messy form; pruned away from property. 181 Blue gum 46 Yes; on City property 3 Low 35,45,15,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property. 182 Blue gum 42 Yes; on City property 3 Low 30,15,10,25 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 4’; messy form; pruned away from property. 183 Blue gum 16,10,5 Yes; on City property 2 Low 30,10,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 6’; messy form; pruned away from property. 184 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City property 2 Low 25,10,10,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 6’; messy form; pruned away from property. 4 Packet Pg. 41 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 185 Blue gum 26 Yes; on City property 2 Low 35,25,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property. 186 Blue gum 28 Yes; on City property 2 Low 15,20,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 9’; messy form; pruned away from property. 187 Blue gum 52 Yes; on City property 3 Low 40,35,20,45 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property. 188 Blue gum 26 Yes; on City property 2 Low 5,10,5,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 5’; messy form; pruned away from property. 189 River she-oak 10 No 3 Low 6,6,6,6 Codominant trunks arise from 8’; high narrow crown. 190 River she-oak 6 No 2 Low 0,6,8,5 Codominant trunks arise from 8’; branch is horizontal turning at 6”; high narrow crown. 191 River she-oak 10 No 2 Low 5,5,9,6 Single upright trunk; high narrow crown. 192 River she-oak 12 No 3 Low 0,8,12,7 Single upright trunk; high narrow crown. 193 River she-oak 7 No 2 Low 5,5,5,5 No tag; single upright trunk; topped; yellow jacket nest at base; high narrow crown. 194 River she-oak 8 No 2 Low 0,6,8,3 Single upright trunk; high narrow crown. 195 River she-oak 7 No 2 Low 0,7,7,0 Single upright trunk; topped; yellow jacket nest at base; high narrow crown. 196 Blue gum 30 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 2 Low 20,20,30,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 9’; dieback; pruned away from property. 197 River red gum 26 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Moderate 12,15,20,20 Wide codominant attachment @ 12’;some included bark; good growth. 198 River red gum 39 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Low 16,10,20,20 Wide multiple trunks arise from 20’; branches over property topped. 199 River red gum 30 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Moderate 16,18,20,16 Wide multiple trunks arise from 15&17’; sap sucker evidence; branches over property topped. 200 River she-oak 15 Yes 4 High 10,10,10,10 Single upright trunk; good form; good growth. 201 River she-oak 23 Yes 4 High 17,17,17,17 Codominant upright trunks; good form; good growth. 202 River she-oak 12 No 4 Moderate 6,6,8,8 Codominant upright trunks arise from 12&14’; branches topped; good growth. 203 Water gum 15 Yes 4 Moderate 8,5,12,19 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; codominant trunks. 4 Packet Pg. 42 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 204 Water gum 15 Yes 3 Moderate 14,0,15,16 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; thin. 205 Water gum 10 No 3 Moderate 10,0,10,8 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; thin; multiple trunks arise from 8’. 206 Water gum 10 No 3 Moderate 14,0,12,10 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; thin; codominant and multiple trunks. 207 Water gum 9 No 3 Moderate 12,0,10,8 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; thin; codominant trunks. 208 River red gum 40 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 Moderate 24,24,26,24 Wide multiple trunks arise from 12&15’; good growth and condition. 209 Blackwood acacia 32 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Moderate 20,22,18,20 Wide multiple trunks arise from 8’; thin; in small planter. 210 River red gum 22 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Moderate 13,14,15,18 Narrow codominant trunks arise from 10’; sap sucker evidence in upper crown decay on southern branch. 211 River red gum 38 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Low 12,15,20,15 Trunk bow over neighbor property; topped in places; thin. 212 River red gum 32 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 2 Low 26,26,26,26 Narrow codominant trunks arise from 20’; thin; a lot of dead and dying branches. 213 River red gum 26 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 2 Low 26,24,26,28 Wide multiple trunks arise from 12’; thin; only growth is epicormic. 214 Glossy privet 8,6,4 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 1 Low 8,4,5,6 Growing in fence; multiple trunks arise from base; thin; ivy. 215 Coast live oak 18 Yes 3 Low 23,22,20,22 Growing at property fence line; suppressed; high crown. 216 River red gum 43 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 High 40,35,35,35 Codominant trunks arise from high in crown; good form and growth; oak under crown. 217 Southern magnolia 19 Yes 4 Moderate 24,22,24,24 Multiple trunks arise from 4’; good form and growth; round crown. 218 Southern magnolia 12 No 4 Moderate 17,17,16,18 Multiple trunks arise from 4’; good form and growth; round crown. 219 Coast live oak 16 Yes 5 High 10,21,8,10 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over the property by 15’. 220 Coast live oak 11 Yes 4 Moderate 8,17,15,10 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over the property by 8’. 221 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 Moderate 6,11,15,15 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over the property by 4’. 222 Ginkgo 15 Yes 3 Moderate 18,12,18,18 Straight upright crown; one-sided east. 4 Packet Pg. 43 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 223 Silk oak 32 Yes 3 Moderate 18,18,20,18 Multiple trunks arise from 5’; high crown. 224 River she-oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Straight upright trunk; leans slightly east; minimal lateral branching. 225 River she-oak 6 No 3 Low 12,12,5,12 Codominant trunks arise from 14’; leans slightly east; minimal lateral branching. 226 River she-oak 12 No 2 Low 4,4,4,4 Single topped trunk; no branches. 227 Coast live oak 7 No 3 Low 6,0,4,5 Off-site tagged on fence; trunk embedded in property line fence; doesn’t extend over property. 228 Coast live oak 15 Yes 3 Low 4,4,15,7 Off-site tagged on fence; bows south; doesn’t extend over property. 229 Glossy privet 7,6,5,4,4, 4,4 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 1 Low 8,8,8,8 Off-site; growing in fence; multiple trunks arise from base; thin; ivy. 230 Silk oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate 8,8,8,8 Single upright trunk; narrow high crown. 231 Silk oak 12 No 3 Low 6,6,6,6 Crook in single upright trunk at 2’; narrow high crown. 232 Glossy privet 6 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Low 10,10,0,0 Sucker growth throughout crown; suppressed. 233 Silk oak 7 No 3 Low 6,6,6,6 High narrow crown. 234 Blackwood acacia 17 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 2 Low 17,13,0,0 Leans heavily north; growth only at top. 235 Silk oak 13 No 3 Low 10,10,10,10 High narrow crown; suppressed. 236 River she-oak 21 Yes 3 Low 18,22,25,20 Codominant trunks arise from high in crown; leans slightly south; suppressing other trees. 237 River she-oak 17 Yes 3 Low 5,5,12,10 Codominant trunks arise from high in crown; trunk engulfed in ivy; somewhat suppressed. 238 River she-oak 14 No 3 Low 5,5,10,8 Codominant trunks arise from high in crown; in row of other trees; somewhat suppressed. 239 River she-oak 13 No 3 Low 6,4,8,5 Straight upright trunk; in row of other trees; somewhat suppressed. 240 River she-oak 10 No 3 Low 6,5,8,8 Straight upright trunk; in row of other trees; topped; somewhat suppressed. 241 River she-oak 19 Yes 3 Low 10,8,15,10 Straight upright trunk; in row of other trees; somewhat suppressed. 4 Packet Pg. 44 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 242 Coast live oak 7 No 3 Low 12,7,12,8 Codominant trunks arise from base; suppressed north. 243 Coast live oak 19 Yes 3 Moderate 15,10,18,15 Upright trunk; healthy but suppressed. 244 River she-oak 19 Yes 3 Low 0,0,18,0 Leaning heavily west; animal borrowing at base; heavily one sided south. 245 River she-oak 24 Yes 3 Low 18,18,18,18 Straight upright trunk; in row of other trees; somewhat suppressed. 246 Glossy privet 9,8,7 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 2 Low 11,11,11,11 Multiple trunks; twig and branch dieback. 247 Glossy privet 6,5,4 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 2 Low 8,8,8,8 Multiple trunks; twig and branch dieback; suppressed. 248 River she-oak 25 Yes 3 Low 15,0,10,15 Straight upright trunk; suppressed north. 249 River she-oak 22 Yes 3 Low 14,14,16,14 Straight upright trunk; high narrow crown. 250 River she-oak 18 Yes 2 Low 0,15,15,10 Straight upright trunk; high narrow crown; upper crown complete enfolded in other trees. 251 Glossy privet 8,8 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 3 Low 19,19,0,10 Codominant trunks; heavily suppressed north. 252 Canary Island date palm 34 No; invasive, Cal-IPC 4 High 14,14,14,14 18’ wood feet typical form. 253 Blue gum 13 Yes; on City property 2 Low 5,8,5,4 Off-site; tag on fence; branches S 5’ over fence; very narrow codominant at 5’; narrow crown; poor structure. 254 Blue gum 18 Yes; on City property 2 Low 15,10,4,10 Off-site; heading cuts at property fence; repeatedly topped. 255 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City property 3 Low 30,35,10,10 Off-site; tag on fence; multiple attachments at 15 feet; one-sided N; branch tips over fence by 5’ to S. 256 Blue gum 20 Yes; on City property 3 Low 15,15,4,6 Off-side; tag on fence; one-sided N; narrow intermediate tree. 257 Blue gum 14 Yes; on City property 3 Low 15,10,3,5 Off-side; tag on fence; one-sided N; narrow suppressed tree. 258 Blue gum 8,6,6,6,5, 5 Yes; on City property 2 Low 6,5,6,7 Off-side; tag on fence; small stems from narrow attachment at base. 259 Blue gum 10 Yes; on City property 2 Low 6,3,3,3 Off-side; tag on fence; suppressed and leans E. 4 Packet Pg. 45 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Canopy Spread (N,E,S,W) (ft.) Comments Tree Assessment 2100 -2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA November 2024 260 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City property 2 Low 6,3,3,3 Off-side; tag on fence; suppressed and leans N away from fence. 261 Blue gum 22 Yes; on City property 2 Low 20,20,5,5 Off-side; tag on fence; suppressed and leans N away from fence to baseball field; N most in group. 262 Blue gum 16 Yes; on City property 2 Low 6,30,5,0 Off-side; tag on fence; suppressed and heavy Bow E away from fence to baseball field; middle of group. 263 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City property 2 Low 15,5,5,0 Off-side; tag on fence; suppressed and heavy Bow N away from fence to baseball field. 264 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City property 2 Low 10,5,3,5 Off-side; tag on fence; suppressed and heavy Bow N away from fence to baseball field; mechanical damage at base S. 265 Blue gum 26,10 Yes; on City property 2 Low 35,15,10,10 Off-side; tag on fence; narrow intermediate tree. 266 Blue gum 10,8,6,6,5 Yes; on City property 2 Low 10,10,6,10 Off-side; tag on fence; stump resprout; suppressed. 267 Blue gum 35,4,4,4 Yes; on City property 2 Low 30,30,10,15 Off-side; tag on fence; set back from fence; branch tips reach fence to S. 268 Blue gum 20 Yes; on City property 2 Low 10,10,10,8 Off-side; tag on fence; set back from fence; ivy engulfed; suppressed. 269 Blue gum 30 Yes; on City property 3 Low 30,30,10,5 Off-side; tag on fence; set back from fence; ivy engulfed; sweep E. 270 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City property 3 Low 25,5,5,10 Off-side; tag on fence; set back from fence; ivy engulfed; suppressed. 4 Packet Pg. 46 Tree Assessment Map 2100 –2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson San Ramon, CA Revised November 2024 No Scale Notes: Base map provided by: Dahlin Numbered tree locations are approximate. 2550 Ninth Street, Suite 112 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone 925.484.0211 Fax 925.484.0596 1 2 3 7 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 61 60 59 58 57 56 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 81 80 79 78 77 76 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 175 174 173 170 171 172 167 168 169 200 201 202 189 187 176 177 178 179 185 186 180 181 182 183 184 188 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 244 245 238 239 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 260 261 265 264 263 264 266 267 270 269 268 262 259 258 4 Packet Pg. 47 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) 1 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,750.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 2 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 7,500.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 3 Western redbud 7 No Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Crabapple 5 No Remove Within development footprint 750.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 5 Crabapple 8 No Remove Within development footprint 1,650.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 6 Crabapple 8 No Remove Within development footprint 1,650.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 7 River she-oak 24 Yes; street tree Remove Frontage being demolished and 6,850.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 8 Crabapple 7 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 9 Crabapple 8 No Remove Within development footprint 1,650.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 10 Crabapple 7 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 11 Crabapple 7 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 12 Crabapple 7 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 13 Crabapple 10 No Remove Within development footprint 3,350.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 14 River she-oak 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,950.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 15 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,900.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 16 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,900.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 17 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 7,500.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 18 Blackwood acacia 25 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 12,850.00$ 44 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 4 Packet Pg. 48 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 19 Blackwood acacia 20 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 5,150.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 20 River she-oak 18 Yes; street tree Remove Frontage being demolished and 2,900.00$ 29 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 21 Blackwood acacia 18 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,750.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 22 Canary Island date palm 40 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 3,704.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 23 Blue gum 42 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 4,300.00$ 58 Two 24-inch box & two 36-inch box + two 48-inch box Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards 24 Blue gum 26 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 4,650.00$ 29 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 25 Blackwood acacia 12 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,050.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 26 Water gum 8 No Remove Within development footprint 1,400.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 27 Water gum 7 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 28 Water gum 8 No Remove Within development footprint 2,200.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 29 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 2,750.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 30 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 2,750.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 31 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 2,750.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 32 Blackwood acacia 12 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 1,850.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 33 Blackwood acacia 18 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 3,550.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 34 Japanese maple 7,6 Yes Remove Within development footprint 1,450.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 35 Coast redwood 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 1,800.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 36 Coast redwood 20 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,200.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 49 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 37 Coast redwood 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 38 River red gum 32 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,550.00$ 33 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 39 River red gum 31 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 8,550.00$ 44 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 40 River red gum 20 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 3,650.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 41 River red gum 23 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 4,800.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 42 Holly oak 7 No Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 900.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 43 Holly oak 6 No Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 700.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 44 Yellow willow 20,12 No; high water use Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 3,800.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 45 River red gum 35 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 10,850.00$ 45 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 46 River red gum 32 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 9,100.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 47 River red gum 12 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 1,450.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 48 River she-oak 24 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 2,600.00$ 27 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 49 Coast live oak 13 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 900.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 50 Black alder 7 No; high water use Remove Within development footprint 700.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 51 Evergreen ash 11,10 No; messy fruit Remove Within development footprint 2,050.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 52 Raywood ash 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,800.00$ 32 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 53 Raywood ash 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 54 Raywood ash 13 No Remove Within development footprint 2,550.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 55 Raywood ash 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 56 Raywood ash 14 No Remove Within development footprint 1,850.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 57 Raywood ash 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 58 Raywood ash 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 50 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 59 Raywood ash 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 60 Raywood ash 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 31 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 61 Raywood ash 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 62 Sweetgum 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 63 Sweetgum 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,500.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 64 Sweetgum 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 65 Coast redwood 30 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,650.00$ 40 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 66 Coast redwood 29 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,350.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 67 Coast redwood 31 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,950.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 68 Cherry 7 No Remove Within development footprint 1,250.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 69 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 70 Sweetgum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 71 Sweetgum 13 No Remove Within development footprint 3,750.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 72 Sweetgum 13 No Remove Within development footprint 3,750.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 73 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 74 Cherry 10 No Remove Within development footprint 2,300.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 75 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,800.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 76 Coast redwood 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,200.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 77 Coast redwood 17 No Remove Within development footprint 2,600.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 78 Coast redwood 17 No Remove Within development footprint 2,600.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 79 Coast redwood 32 Yes Remove Within development footprint 12,050.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 80 Coast redwood 28 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,700.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 81 Sweetgum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 850.00$ 17 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 51 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 82 Coast redwood 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,350.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 83 Coast redwood 21 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,850.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 84 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,800.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 85 Coast redwood 28 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,100.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 86 Coast redwood 27 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,800.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 87 European white birch 7 No; high water use Remove Within development footprint 500.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 88 Coast redwood 32 Yes Remove Within development footprint 12,050.00$ 32 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 89 Coast redwood 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,300.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 90 Coast redwood 28 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,100.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 91 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,550.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 92 Coast redwood 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,300.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 93 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,550.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 94 Coast redwood 31 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,950.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 95 Mayten 11 No Remove Within development footprint 2,450.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 96 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,100.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 97 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,100.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 98 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 800.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 99 Water gum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 9 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 100 Raywood ash 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 17 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 101 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,100.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 102 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,100.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 103 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,100.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 52 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 104 Water gum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 105 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 800.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 106 Raywood ash 23 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,650.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 107 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 108 Sweetgum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 109 Sweetgum 13 No Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 110 Sweetgum 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 111 Coast redwood 34 Yes Remove Within development footprint 8,250.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 112 Coast redwood 35 Yes Remove Within development footprint 8,700.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 113 Sweetgum 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,950.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 114 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 2,200.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 115 Sweetgum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 116 Coast redwood 29 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,050.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 117 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,900.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 118 Coast redwood 30 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,450.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 119 Coast redwood 31 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,850.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 120 Coast redwood 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 7,450.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 121 Coast redwood 27 Yes Remove Within development footprint 8,650.00$ 32 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 122 Coast redwood 35 Yes Remove Within development footprint 14,400.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 123 Raywood ash 21 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,900.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 124 Chinese flame tree 11 No Remove Within development footprint 2,650.00$ 31 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 125 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,550.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 126 Blackwood acacia 15 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 3,450.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 127 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,950.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 53 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 128 River she-oak 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 129 River she-oak 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,850.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 130 Blackwood acacia 26 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,050.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 131 Sweetgum 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,500.00$ 32 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 132 Sweetgum 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,000.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 133 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 134 Sweetgum 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,550.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 135 Sweetgum 17 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,250.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 136 Sweetgum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 1,250.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 137 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 138 Water gum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 139 Water gum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 140 Water gum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 141 Water gum 13 No Remove Within development footprint 1,450.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 142 Water gum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 143 African fern-pine 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 144 African fern-pine 13 No Remove Within development footprint 3,150.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 145 European white birch 8 No; high water use Remove Within development footprint 600.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 146 European white birch 10 No; high water use Remove Within development footprint 800.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 147 Japanese maple 6 No Remove Within development footprint 350.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 54 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 148 Japanese maple 7 No Remove Within development footprint 350.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 149 Blackwood acacia 29 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 10,650.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 150 River she-oak 22 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,200.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 151 River she-oak 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 7,950.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 152 River she-oak 20 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,150.00$ 17 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 153 European white birch 7 No; high water use Remove Within development footprint 500.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 154 Japanese maple 6,4 Yes Remove Within development footprint 400.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 155 European white birch 6 No; high water use Remove Within development footprint 400.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 156 European white birch 10 No; high water use Remove Within development footprint 800.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 157 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,700.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 158 River she-oak 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,350.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 159 River she-oak 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,000.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 160 Blackwood acacia 9 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 500.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 161 Blue gum 25 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,450.00$ 40 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 162 Blue gum 38 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 3,050.00$ 45 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 163 Blue gum 36 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 2,750.00$ 38 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 164 Blue gum 38 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 3,050.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 165 Blue gum 36 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 4,500.00$ 55 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 55 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 166 Blue gum 40 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 5,500.00$ 75 Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards 167 Blue gum 56 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 10,550.00$ 45 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 168 Blue gum 40 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 5,500.00$ 43 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 169 Blue gum 28,26 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 5,050.00$ 38 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 170 Blue gum 38 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 5,000.00$ 50 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 171 Blue gum 21 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,100.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 172 Blue gum 19 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 900.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 173 Blue gum 19 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 900.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 174 Blue gum 42 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 3,700.00$ 58 Two 24-inch box & two 36-inch box + two 48-inch box Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards 175 Blue gum 53 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 5,750.00$ 53 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 176 Blue gum 48 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 4,750.00$ 50 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 177 Blue gum 42 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 3,700.00$ 48 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 56 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 178 Blue gum 25 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,450.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 179 Blue gum 36 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 2,750.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 180 Blue gum 17 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 750.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 181 Blue gum 46 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 7,200.00$ 58 Two 24-inch box & two 36-inch box + two 48-inch box Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards 182 Blue gum 42 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 6,050.00$ 40 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 183 Blue gum 16,10,5 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 900.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 184 Blue gum 25 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,450.00$ 33 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 185 Blue gum 26 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,550.00$ 38 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 186 Blue gum 28 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,750.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 187 Blue gum 52 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 9,150.00$ 70 Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards 188 Blue gum 26 Yes; City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,550.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 189 River she-oak 10 No Remove Within development footprint 1,450.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 190 River she-oak 6 No Remove Within development footprint 450.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 191 River she-oak 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 192 River she-oak 12 No Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 57 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 193 River she-oak 7 No Remove Within development footprint 550.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 194 River she-oak 8 No Remove Within development footprint 700.00$ 9 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 195 River she-oak 7 No Remove Within development footprint 550.00$ 7 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 196 Blue gum 30 No; invasive Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 2,000.00$ 45 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 197 River red gum 26 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 7,200.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 198 River red gum 39 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 15,900.00$ 33 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 199 River red gum 30 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 9,500.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 200 River she-oak 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,100.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 201 River she-oak 23 Yes Remove Within development footprint 9,400.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 202 River she-oak 12 No Remove Within development footprint 2,700.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 203 Water gum 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,550.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 204 Water gum 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 205 Water gum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 206 Water gum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 207 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 800.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 208 River red gum 40 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 23,350.00$ 49 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 209 Blackwood acacia 32 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,550.00$ 40 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 210 River red gum 22 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 5,200.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 211 River red gum 38 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 15,100.00$ 31 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 212 River red gum 32 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,550.00$ 52 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 213 River red gum 26 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 4,400.00$ 52 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 58 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 214 Glossy privet 8,6,4 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 300.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 215 Coast live oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 1,550.00$ 44 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 216 River red gum 43 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 26,950.00$ 73 Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards Replace the tree with a combination of both tree canopy and tree value standards 217 Southern magnolia 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,450.00$ 47 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 218 Southern magnolia 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,850.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 219 Coast live oak 16 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 3,050.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 220 Coast live oak 11 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 1,250.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 221 Coast live oak 15 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 2,150.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 222 Ginkgo 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,350.00$ 33 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 223 Silk oak 32 Yes Remove Within development footprint 21,750.00$ 37 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 224 River she-oak 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,000.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 225 River she-oak 6 No Remove Within development footprint 650.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 226 River she-oak 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,250.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 227 Coast live oak 7 No Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 500.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 228 Coast live oak 15 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 1,600.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 229 Glossy privet 7,6,5,4,4,4,4 No; invasive Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 250.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 230 Silk oak 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,150.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 231 Silk oak 12 No Remove Within development footprint 2,700.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 232 Glossy privet 6 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 400.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 59 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 233 Silk oak 7 No Remove Within development footprint 700.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 234 Blackwood acacia 17 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 235 Silk oak 13 No Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 236 River she-oak 21 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,750.00$ 43 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 237 River she-oak 17 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,200.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 238 River she-oak 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 239 River she-oak 13 No Remove Within development footprint 1,950.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 240 River she-oak 10 No Remove Within development footprint 1,250.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 241 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,950.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 242 Coast live oak 7 No Remove Within development footprint 700.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 243 Coast live oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,200.00$ 29 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 244 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,950.00$ 9 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 245 River she-oak 24 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,150.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 246 Glossy privet 9,8,7 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 750.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 247 Glossy privet 6,5,4 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 450.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 248 River she-oak 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,650.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 249 River she-oak 22 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,200.00$ 29 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 250 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 600.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 251 Glossy privet 8,8 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 1,000.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 252 Canary Island date palm 34 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 8,334.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 253 Blue gum 13 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 550.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 60 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 254 Blue gum 18 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 850.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 255 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 2,250.00$ 43 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 256 Blue gum 20 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,500.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 257 Blue gum 14 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 850.00$ 17 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 258 Blue gum 8,6,6,6,5,5 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 400.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 259 Blue gum 10 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 400.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 260 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 500.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 261 Blue gum 22 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,150.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 262 Blue gum 16 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 700.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 263 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 500.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 264 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 500.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 265 Blue gum 26,10 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,750.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 266 Blue gum 10,8,6,6,5 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 550.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 267 Blue gum 35,4,4,4 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 2,650.00$ 43 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box 268 Blue gum 20 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 1,000.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 269 Blue gum 30 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 3,200.00$ 38 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 4 Packet Pg. 61 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree Disposition Notes Estimated Value Canopy (Avg. Diameter, ft.) Replacement Trees (24-inch box) Alternative Trees (36-inch box) Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value 2100 - 2400 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA April 2025 270 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City property Remove Off-site; edge of development, s 2,250.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box Total 943,838$ 4 Packet Pg. 62 GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GA S GA S GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH WGA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCLE W/H TR A S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCLE W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCLE W/H TR A S H GRE E N RE C Y C L E W/H TRASH GR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TRASH GRE E N RE C Y C L E W/H TRA S H GR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCLE W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASHGR E E N RE C Y C L E W/H TRASHGRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TR A S H GR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCL E W/H TRA S H GREEN RECYCL E W/H TRA S H GREEN RECYCL E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCL E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TR A S H GR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TR A S H GREEN RECYCLE W/H TR A S H GREEN RECYCLE W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TRAS H GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREE N RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREE N RECY C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREE N RECY C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREE N RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRAS H GREE N RECY C L E W/HTRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREE N RECY C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GREE N RECYC L E W/HTRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GREE N RECY C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H 67 LYO FLO 24" BOX 5 CER FLO 24" BOX 5 ARB UNE 24" BOX 5 CAS CUN 24" BOX 6 HET ARB 24" BOX 35 GEI PAR 24" BOX 4 QUE LOB 24" BOX 3 PRU ILI 24" BOX 3 PRU ILI 24" BOX 4 ARB MEN 24" BOX 8 GIN BIL 24" BOX 5 GAR ELL 24" BOX 6 GAR ELL 24" BOX 9 ERI JAP 24" BOX 3 ARB MEN 24" BOX 4 GIN BIL 24" BOX 13 GIN BIL 24" BOX 22 ARB UNE 24" BOX 3 ARB UNE 24" BOX 11 TRI LAU 24" BOX 12 CER OCC 24" BOX 48 POD GRA 24" BOX 5 CER OCC 24" BOX 11 POD GRA 24" BOX 3 LAG NAT 24" BOX 27 CER OCC 24" BOX 11 LAG NAT 24" BOX 4 CER OCC 24" BOX 6 ACE CIR 24" BOX 6 ACE CIR 24" BOX 6 ARB UNE 24" BOX 15 CER OCC 24" BOX 1 QUE AGR 24" BOX 4 CER OCC 24" BOX 4 ERI JAP 24" BOX 36 POD GRA 24" BOX 14 ERI JAP 24" BOX 3 CIT MEY 24" BOX 11 CER OCC 24" BOX 4 CER OCC 24" BOX 3 CER OCC 24" BOX Treatment Type: Silva Cell. Treatment Area Name: UTS-1. See Civil Drawings. 6 ARB MEN 24" BOX 3 QUE AGR 24" BOX 2 QUE LOB 24" BOX 3 CER OCC 24" BOX 1 PRU ILI 24" BOX 15 GAR ELL 24" BOX 9 GAR ELL 24 " BOX 6 QUE AGR 24" BOX 10 GIN BIL 24" BOX 8 GAR ELL 24" BOX 6 CER OCC 24" BOX 4 GAR ELL 24" BOX 1 QUE AGR 24" BOX 3 PRU ILI 24" BOX 1 QUE AGR 24" BOX 3 QUE LOB 24" BOX 18 PLA RAC 24" BOX 20 LOP CON 24" BOX 7 GAR ELL 24" BOX 5 ARB UNE 24" BOX 10 GIN BIL 24" BOX 3 ERI JAP 24" BOX 1 QUE LOB 24" BOX 8 PRU ILI 24" BOX 4 PRU ILI 24" BOX 6 ARB UNE 24" BOX 5 PRU ILI 24" BOX 3 TRI LAU 24" BOX Treatment Type: Bioretention. Treatment Area Name: BR 3. See Civil Drawings. Treatment Type: Bioretention. Treatment Area Name: BR 2. See Civil Drawings. Treatment Type: Bioretention. Treatment Area Name: BR 4. See Civil Drawings. Existing Trees to Remain, Typ. Existing Trees to Remain, Typ. Existing Trees to Remain, Typ. Existing Trees to Remain, Typ 3 AES CAL 24 " BOX 2 GAR ELL 24" BOX 3 CER OCC 24" BOX 8 QUE AGR 24" BOX 3 PRU ILI 24" BOX 1 QUE AGR 24" BOX 0' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" 25'50'100' THE INC. Guzzardo Partnership, Landscape Architects Land Planners Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115 San Francisco, CA 94111 www.tgp-inc.com11-24-2025 PLANTING PLAN L 2.1 4 Packet Pg. 63 GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GA S GA S GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OH WGA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCLE W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCLE W/H TR A S H GR E E N RE C Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GR E E N RE C Y C L E W/H TR A S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TRASH GR E E N RE C Y C L E W/H TRA S H GR E E N RE C Y C L E W/H TRAS H GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GREE N RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCLE W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASHGR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASHGR E E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GR E E N RE C Y C L E W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GREEN RECYCL E W/H TRA S H GREEN RECYCL E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYCL E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TR A S H GR E E N RE C Y C L E W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TRA S H GREEN RECYCLE W/H TRA S H GREEN RECYCLE W/H TRASH GREENRECYCLE W/H TRAS H GREE N RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECY C L E W/H TRAS H GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREE N RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/HTRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECY C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GREEN RECYC L E W/H TRAS H GREEN RECY C L E W/HTRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GREEN RECY C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GREE N RECYC L E W/HTRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GREE N RECYC L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRAS H GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRASH GRE E N REC Y C L E W/H TRA S H GRE E N REC Y C L E UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H UP W/H Tree Protection Fence, Per Arborist Tree Protection Fence, Per Arborist Tree Protection Fence, Per Arborist Tree Protection Fence, Per Arborist Tree Protection Fence, Per Arborist 1 2 3 5 4 6 789 10 1113 12 14 1516 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4041 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 68 66 6971 70 81 73 7275 74 76 77 80 78 79 82 83 84 85 86 8788 89 90 95 94 93 91 92 96 97 98 99100 102 101 103 104 105 106 107 110109 108 111 112 116 118 117 120 119 121 122 123 124 115 114 113 131 132 133 125 126 127 128 129130 144 134 136 135 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 151 150 152 149 157 158 159 153 154 155 156 145 146 147 148 161 165 164 163 162 166 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 207 203 206 205 204 200 201 202 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 218 217 248 247 246 252 251 250 249 245 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 243 242 244 231 230 229 227 223 226 225224 222219 220 221 160 253 254 255 256257 260 264 263265 266 267270268269 262 261 258 259 228 208 199 198 197 195 193 189 190191 192 196 194 0' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" 25'50'100' THE INC. Guzzardo Partnership, Landscape Architects Land Planners Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115 San Francisco, CA 94111 www.tgp-inc.com11-24-2025 TREE DISPOSITION PLAN L 6.1 TREE DISPOSITION TABLE AND LEGEND KEY REMAIN 0 NON-PROTECTED TREE 0 PROTECTED TREE REMOVE 81 135 ON-SITE TREES QTY.KEY QTY. KEY 46 NON-PROTECTED TREE 6 PROTECTED TREE 2 0 OFF-SITE TREES QTY.KEY QTY. KEY 46 NON-PROTECTED TREE 6 PROTECTED TREE 83 135 TOTALS QTY.KEY QTY. TREE REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS TOTAL PROPOSED 24" BOX TREE 648 CANOPY SPREAD SIZE OF EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED 4'-9' 10'-27' 28'-39' REPLACE- MENT TREES (2) 24" BOX (3) 24" BOX (4) 24" BOX ALTER- NATIVE TREES (1) 36" BOX (2) 36" BOX (2) 48" BOX 44 35 # OF EXISTING PROTECTED TREES BEING REMOVED TOTAL REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT AT 24" BOX 2 132 140 TOTAL REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT AT 36" BOX - - - PROPOSED TREES ANALYSIS * Approximate ratio of new trees to trees removed - 3:1 40'-55'(6) 24" BOX (2) 36" BOX 3 18 - 56'-60'(2) 24" BOX +0 0 0 60'+(15) 24" BOX +0 0 - (2) 48" BOX + Replace the tree with a combination of both Tree Canopy and Tree Value Standards (2) 36" BOX (2) 48" BOX TOTALS 648 TOTAL PROPOSED TREES TOTAL REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT AT 48" BOX - - - - 0 - TOTAL 83 292 0 0 1 CANOPY SPREAD SIZE OF EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED 4'-9' 10'-27' REPLACE- MENT TREES (2) 24" BOX (3) 24" BOX (4) 24" BOX ALTER- NATIVE TREES (1) 36" BOX (2) 36" BOX (2) 48" BOX (6) 24" BOX (2) 36" BOX (2) 24" BOX + 60'+(15) 24" BOX + (2) 48" BOX (2) 36" BOX (2) 48" BOX TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AT 24" BOX 2 132 140 - - - 648 18 - - -- TOTAL PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AT 36" BOX TOTAL PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AT 48" BOX - - - - - -- TOTAL PROPOSED 24" BOX IN-LIEU - - - - - - - - - *Note: The ratio of 24" box trees per each 60' plus canopy is not from the CPA Tree Technical Manual. **Note: The required 48" box replacements have been added to the 36" total using a 1:1.5 ratio + Note: The proposed 36" box trees have been assigned to each canopy class using the associated ratio. NOTE: All existing tree information is referenced from the Arborist Report dated August 2025, prepared by HORT Science Bartlett Consulting, (925) 484-0211. NOTE: Existing trees to remain may be impacted during construction. See Arborist Report for more information. PROPOSED TREES 356EXTRA --- 44 35 # OF EXISTING PROTECTED TREES BEING REMOVED 3 0 0 1 83 28'-39' 40'-55' 56'-60' 4 Packet Pg. 64 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report From: Community Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2025 Report #: 2512-5658 TITLE Annual Aquatics Performance Update by Team Sheeper, Inc. RECOMMENDATION Receive the 2025 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Aquatics Report BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto owns the Rinconada Pool, which has been operated by the third-party service provider Team Sheeper, Inc. since 2018. This contract encompasses both the facility's operations and programming. Aquatics programming at the Rinconada Pool includes a wide range of activities such as lap swim, open/recreational swim, youth swim teams, swim lessons, youth camps, masters swim, lane rentals for community swim teams and groups, and pool parties. These programs are supported by qualified swim instructors and certified lifeguards to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for all participants. Team Sheeper, Inc. is responsible for operating and delivering high-quality aquatics programs, managing program registration, providing responsive customer service, adapting programs to community needs and demands, and setting user fees comparable to those of aquatics facilities in other nearby communities. On October 21, 2024, the City of Palo Alto approved a five-year extension to Contract No. C1917305 with Team Sheeper, Inc., extending the contract term from December 31, 2024, to December 31, 2029. A key requirement of the amended contract includes the submission of an annual report and presentation by Team Sheeper, Inc. to the Parks and Recreation Commission. ANALYSIS Calendar year 2025 represented a period of overall operational stability for the Palo Alto Swim and Sport facility, despite a notable decline in summer camp participation. This reduction in enrollment was not isolated to Swim and Sport, as similar decreases were observed at the City’s 5 Packet Pg. 65 two other summer camp locations. Given this broader trend, staff believes that external economic factors likely influenced participation, particularly as summer camps represent one of the largest single point-in-time expenses for many families utilizing aquatic programs. ATTACHMENTS 5 Packet Pg. 66 2025 Annual Aquatic Report December, 2025 Presented by Team Sheeper Inc./Palo Alto Swim and Sport Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission 5 Packet Pg. 67 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Overall Survey Results ................................................................................................................................... 3 Timeline .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Program Hours .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Profile of 2025 Lap Swim Population at Rinconada Pool .............................................................................. 5 Profile of 2025 Open Swim Population at Rinconada Pool ........................................................................... 6 Profile of 2025 Palo Alto Masters Member at Rinconada Pool ..................................................................... 6 Survey Responses ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Lap Swim Survey Responses ................................................................................................................... 7 Open Swim Survey Responses ................................................................................................................ 8 Swim School Survey Responses .............................................................................................................. 8 Palo Alto Masters Survey Responses ...................................................................................................... 9 2022-2025 Comparison ............................................................................................................................... 10 Lap Swim: Resident & Non-Resident Percentages ................................................................................ 10 Lap Swim: General & Senior Percentages ............................................................................................. 10 Lap Swim: Member & Drop-In Percentages ......................................................................................... 11 Lap Swim Visits ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Lap Swim Members .............................................................................................................................. 12 Lap Swim Visits: Member & Drop-In .................................................................................................... 12 Facility Visits ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Open Swim Visits .................................................................................................................................. 14 Swim Lessons ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Camp Lessons ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Total Lessons ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Lifeguard Certification Visits ................................................................................................................. 16 Lap Swim Fees ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Lap Swim Membership Pricing ............................................................................................................. 17 Average Membership Lap Swim Fees Per Swim ................................................................................... 17 Lap Swim Drop-In Pricing ...................................................................................................................... 17 Local Pool Comparisons .............................................................................................................................. 18 Employee Data ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Palo Alto Revenue and Revenue Share ....................................................................................................... 22 Risk Management ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey Results……………………………………………………….……………….Survey 1-90 1 5 Packet Pg. 68 Introduction 2025 completes Palo Alto Swim and Sport’s 8 years of full time aquatic service to the City of Palo Alto and its community members. Along with the 2 years where we exclusively provided swim lesson instruction to Palo Altans, we are proud of our 10 year partnership anniversary. Some of the 2025 highlights were fueled by last year ’s patron requests: ● Increase in lap swim evening hours during the summer (10% more time, 77 vs 85 hours/week) ● Increase in the length of the swim lesson season (50% more time, 22 vs 33 weeks) ● Increase in the length of open swim/family recreation season (112% more time, 16 vs.34 weeks) Some of the 2025 highlights were from our desire to maintain our commitment to serve the community: ● Introduction of a water exercise program attracting new market segments to the aquatic center ● Sustaining user fees (no increases in 3 years) ● Increase in scholarship youth swim lessons (average of 250 per year to 878 scholarship lessons provided) Palo Alto Swim and Sport ’s aim is to continue being the leader in providing premium, affordable and accessible aquatics services to the entire spectrum of aquatic users. 2 5 Packet Pg. 69 Overall Survey Results Timeline September 2 - First email survey sent to community members September 2 – 9 - Survey posted on website under banner September 2 – 30 - Community survey button featured on homepage of website as well as the Pool Schedule and What’s Happening page September 9 - Second email with survey sent to community members In an effort to increase the volume of feedback from pool users than we received in previous years, we chose to send out the survey following our summer season when we had the most people engaged with the aquatic services. This year ’s outcome did not align with the initiative to increase responses. Results 2022 2023 2024 2025 Survey Respondents 196 183 180 149 Sent to 2473 2378 2500 4019 % Responded 8% 8% 7% 4% How did the respondents hear about Palo Alto Swim and Sport, top 3 responses. 1. Long time resident 2. Word of Mouth 3. Website/Google 3 5 Packet Pg. 70 Program Hours Program 2022 2023 2024 2025 Summer Non- Summer Summer Non- Summer Summer Non- Summer Summer Non- Summer Lap Swim 77 68.5 77 68.5 77 68.5 85 68.5 Open Swim 42 0 42 10 42 10 62 10 Swim School 15 0 20 0 22.75 0 25 16.5 Palo Alto Masters 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 PASA 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 17.5 23.5 Camps 35 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 Water Exercise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Lifeguard Certifications 0 0 14 14 21 21 23 23 Additional fall open swim hours at 20.5 hours/week through October 31st. Summer evenings Lap Swim extended until 7pm Monday through Thursday. Water Exercise classes began November 3rd. Lifeguard Certification courses on select weeks. 4 5 Packet Pg. 71 Profile of 2025 Lap Swim Population at Rinconada Pool Members are patrons with monthly memberships/Drop-Ins are patrons that pay per entry This data is compiled from our annual patron usage numbers 5 5 Packet Pg. 72 Profile of 2025 Open Swim Population at Rinconada Pool Members are patrons who purchased the Summer Open Swim Family Pass Drop-Ins are patrons that pay per entry Profile of 2025 Palo Alto Masters Member at Rinconada Pool 6 5 Packet Pg. 73 Survey Responses Lap Swim Survey Responses 148 Lap Swim Survey Respondents Top 5 requests from lap swimmers in order to have a better experience: 1. Extend Hours-more evening and weekend hours 2. More accurate (live updates) and updated schedules 3. Consistent Water temperatures 4. Consistent lane availability and less conflicts with PASA and Masters 5. Improved maintenance to reduce downtime related to maintenance issues. 7 5 Packet Pg. 74 Open Swim Survey Responses 48 respondents Top 3 things the respondents requested to improve the open swim experience 1. Extend the daily hours and lengthen the season that open swim is offered 2. Increase shade and seating opportunities to make the experience more comfortable 3. Improve the safety wristband system to make it more efficient. Swim School Survey Responses 30 Respondents The top 3 things that respondents would like to improve the overall swim lesson experience. 1. Increase availability of classes, because the classes fill up quickly 2. Ensure of skill level alignment so student progress is not stalled by others students 3. Improve Instructor consistency and quality of communication 8 5 Packet Pg. 75 Palo Alto Masters Survey Responses 1 0 Respondents Reasons for team participation: 1. Health and fitness 2. Improve stroke technique 9 5 Packet Pg. 76 2022-2025 Comparison Lap Swim: Resident & Non-Resident Percentages Lap Swim: General & Senior Percentages 10 5 Packet Pg. 77 Lap Swim: Member & Drop-In Percentages Members are patrons with monthly memberships Drop-Ins are patrons that pay per entry Lap Swim Visits Note: Facility closed for 9 weeks in 2023 for resurfacing 11 5 Packet Pg. 78 Lap Swim Members Lap Swim Visits: Member & Drop-In 12 5 Packet Pg. 79 Facility Visits Facility Visits: 2022 2023 2024 2025 Lap-Member Visits 34,575 22,217 25,672 23,627 Lap- Drop-Ins 11,588 8,257 9,992 9,819 Open Member Visits __ 1,346 3,238 3,951 Open Drop-Ins 19,893 20,481 24,333 24,482 Masters Visits 5,291 3,248 3,937 1,983 Camp Visits 3,580 3,755 3,313 2,440 Swim Lessons 1,431 4,937 4,937 7,546 Lifeguard Certifications 34 186 514 364 Water Exercise __ __ __ 22 TOTAL 76,392 64,427 75,936 74,234 Highlights: 1. Increase in open swim summer family pass usage 2. Increase in swim lessons 3. Lifeguard certifications remained elevated during warm months (moved the colder months classes to Menlo Park to optimize indoor space that Palo Alto does not have) 4. Introduction of water exercise program 13 5 Packet Pg. 80 Note: ● Facility closed for 9 weeks in 2023 for resurfacing ● The 2024 Camp model decreased so we could provide more community swim lessons, therefore camp visits decreased. Open Swim Visits 14 5 Packet Pg. 81 Swim Lessons *Camp lessons not included Note: Investment into (shared) Head of Swim School increased lessons in 2022 and we will continue this trend. Camp Lessons Note: Swim Camp structure changed from 3 half day camps both with swim lessons to one full day camp. 15 5 Packet Pg. 82 Total Lessons Total lessons includes camp and community swim lessons Note: With the change of the camp structure, more lessons were offered in the summer afternoons. Lifeguard Certification Visits *Full certification courses are 3 days long and are counted as 3 visits. Recertification courses are 1 day and counted as 1 visit. 146 lifeguards were certified in 2025. 16 5 Packet Pg. 83 Lap Swim Fees Lap Swim Membership Pricing Prices have remained constant since January 15, 2023. Note: Resident Senior Pricing decreased from $54/month to $52/month (as of Jan 15th, 2023) Average Membership Lap Swim Fees Per Swim Average swims per member per month: 8.7 Lap Swim Drop-In Pricing 17 5 Packet Pg. 84 Local Pool Comparisons Lap Swim information gathered from municipal pools along the greater peninsula region of the San Francisco Bay Area. Municipal Pool Lap Swim Hrs/Week Lane Space Drop In Fees Punch Pass Fees Monthly Fees Sunnyvale 19 6 $10 R/$12 NR San Jose 27 8 $6 Campbell 31.5 8 $8 $80 S. San Francisco 40 6 $6.50 R/$9 NR $75 R/$95 NR Burlingame 43 20 $9 $77/month Santa Clara 46 6 $11 $70 R/$90 NR for 10 swims Mountain View 49.5 8 $6 R/$7 NR $99 for 25 swims San Bruno 59.5 6 $10 Palo Alto 68.5 14 $9 R/$10 NR $65 R/$72 NR Santa Cruz 81.5 9 $8 $72 for 10 swims Menlo Park 93 17 $9 R/$12 NR $64 R/$86 NR 18 5 Packet Pg. 85 19 5 Packet Pg. 86 Chart displays resident pricing at lowest cost. Membership (based on the average of 8.7 swims per month), punch pass pricing, or drop-in pricing if no other pricing is available. 20 5 Packet Pg. 87 Employee Data 2022 2023 2024 2025 Camp Counselors 22 25 27 25 Camp Managers 3 5 3 (shared) 2 (1 shared) Lifeguards 36 58 (shared) 68 (many shared) 88 (51 shared) Lifeguard Managers 3 14 (9 shared) Customer Service 6 13 14 25 (21 shared) Customer Service Managers 2 (shared) 2 (shared) 2 (shared) 2 (shared) Swim Instructors 2 32 (shared) 34 (many shared) 46 (24 shared) Swim Instructor Directors & Managers 1 (shared) 2 (shared) 5 (4 shared) Facility Directors 2 2 1.5 1 Masters Coach 2 2 3 4 Operations Director 2 (shared) 1 (shared) 0 0 Safety Director 1 (shared) 1 (shared) CFO/HR 1 (shared) 1 (shared) 1 (shared) 1 (shared) CEO 1 (shared) 1 (shared) 1 (shared) 1 (shared) Total 78 143 160.5 215 (6 shared) (96 shared) (112 shared) (115 shared) Shared employees are employees who work both at the Palo Alto and Menlo Park sites. 21 5 Packet Pg. 88 Palo Alto Revenue and Revenue Share For Period January 1 through October 31 Revenue share is based off of annual revenues currently 1% Jan - Oct '22 Jan-Oct '23 Jan-Oct '24 Jan-Oct '25 Camps 272,988 305,527 403,578 350,507 Laps DI 92,079 67,560 82,496 84,718 Lessons 43,874 60,889 148,117 192,717 Memberships 283,322 185,874 207,962 211,741 Open Swim 134,407 143,963 191,712 201,561 Clinics 0 0 45,300 44,765 Total Fees 826,670 763,813 1,079,165 1,086,009 Rentals 119,697 97,342 178,580 177,064 Total Income 946,367 861,155 1,257,745 1,263,073 Revenue Share 9,464 8,612 25,155 12,631 Notes: The “Clinics” line item is the result of moving our lifeguard certification courses to Palo Alto. 22 5 Packet Pg. 89 Risk Management Emergency Action Procedures (EAP) The Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is a protocol that describes the roles and responsibilities of the staff during an emergency. EAPs are a very important aspect of lifeguarding because by designating roles prior to emergencies, lifeguards can rescue and treat victims more quickly and effectively. This can only be achieved when the EAP is known by all and practiced with regularity. Emergencies are not all the same, it follows that the response to a passive drowning victim in the water would differ from that of a stroke victim on land. While there will be areas of crossover from one plan to the next, it is important that you are aware of each plan and when to activate them. Palo Alto Swim and Sport has three main EAPs: Water Based Emergency, Land Based Emergency, and Environmental Emergency. Water-Based Emergency Reacting to water-based emergencies is the main reason lifeguarding exists as a profession. Three common examples of water-based emergencies include: distressed swimmers, drowning victims and nonfatal submersion victims. Injuries and sudden illness can occur either in or out of the water. When incidents occur in water then you have a water-based emergency. Common examples of injuries and sudden illness may include: head, neck or back injuries, severe bleeding, wounds, fractures, dislocations; heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures and strokes, temperature-related emergencies such as cramps, heat exhaustion, heat stroke and hypothermia. Water based emergencies require at least two guards to extricate the victim from the water, meaning that those lifeguards cannot perform patron surveillance. To speed rescue and prevent collateral damage the pool must be empty of patrons, or in the process of being evacuated, while extricating a victim. Because of these reasons the pool will remain closed until the emergency is over and all lifeguards can return to duty. EAP – Water-Based Emergency 1. The primary rescuer performs 3 short, loud whistle blasts and yells “WATER EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL”. All guards on deck respond by echoing the 3 whistle blasts and yelling “WATER EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL” 2. The secondary rescuer tells the front desk and informs them as to the nature of the emergency and if they need to call 911- if that has been determined yet. 3. Primary rescuer performs rescue and calls for backboard if needed. 4. Secondary rescuer gathers equipment such as the AED, Oxygen, and backboard and then assists with rescue. 5. Other guards will take on the role first of assisting with treatment by obtaining equipment (oxygen, AED, BVM, etc.) and communicating with front desk to ensure 911 has been called; and second by assisting with crowd control – pool evacuation, keeping walkways clear and directing EMS personnel to the appropriate location. 23 5 Packet Pg. 90 6. Primary and secondary rescuers should stabilize and treat victim until EMT’s arrive. Treatment should always be performed by the person with the highest level of training. This means that after water extrication a different lifeguard may take over treatment. Lifeguards will only stop treatment once EMS personnel take over treatment. **Pool will remain closed until emergency is over and all lifeguards can return to duty** Land-Based Emergency Land based emergencies are another type of emergency that lifeguards must be able to react to. As stated above, injuries and sudden illness can occur either in or out of the water. Common examples of injuries and sudden illness include: head, neck or back injuries, severe bleeding, wounds, fractures, dislocations, heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures and strokes, temperature- related emergencies such as cramps, heat exhaustion, heat stroke and hypothermia. All of these examples are land-based emergencies, provided of course that they take place on land. Unlike water-based emergencies, the pool may be able to stay open during a land-based emergency. This is because treatment of the victim may only require one guard. The following conditions would require shutting down the facility to allow for enough room to treat the victim and to prevent secondary injuries due to normal facility operation: head, neck or back injuries, heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures, and strokes. EAP – Land-Based Emergency 1. Primary rescuer communicates via radio that someone has been injured and calls for a secondary Lifeguard to come out to cover the primary rescuer ’s pool, or to assess the victim. 2. Primary rescuer then assesses the victim to determine if 911 needs to be called. If 911 needs to be called, perform 3 short, loud whistle blasts and shout “LAND EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL” All guards on deck respond by echoing the 3 whistle blasts and shouting “LAND EMERGENCY CLEAR THE POOL”. 3. Secondary rescuer communicates to the front desk to call 911, including a short explanation such as “we have an unconscious adult male, approximately 30 years of age...” then proceed with appropriate assistance. 4. Secondary rescuer will gather equipment, such as, AED and first aid kit, and assists with the rescue. 5. Other Lifeguards will take on the role of assisting with treatment by obtaining equipment (AED, first aid kit, etc.) and communicating with the front desk to ensure 911 has been called; and by assisting with crowd control – pool evacuation, keeping walkways clear and directing EMS personnel to the appropriate location. 6. Primary and secondary rescuers stabilize and treat the victim until EMS arrives. Treatment for the victim should always be performed by the person with the highest level of training. This means that after the assessment or starting of treatment, a different Lifeguard may take over treatment. Lifeguards will only stop treatment once EMS personnel take over treatment. 24 5 Packet Pg. 91 **Pool will remain closed until emergency is over and all lifeguards can return to duty** Land EAP Call 911 if: ● Victim is unconscious, loses consciousness, or has an altered state of consciousness. ● Victim has any difficulty breathing or shortness of breath. ● Victim has severe bleeding, severe burns or is vomiting due to heat stroke or excess water ingestion. ● Victim has a head, neck, or back injury. ● Victim has possible broken bones, excessive swelling, or deformity. ● You suspect a cardiac emergency (heart attack) or cerebral attack (stroke). If CPR is being administered. ● If a lifeguard is treating a victim outside of the facility. The primary rescuer does a primary assessment of the victim to determine if 911 needs to be called. If 911 does not need to be called, they begin the secondary assessment of the victim. When in doubt about whether to call 911, ask your supervisor for help. If your supervisor is not present, then tell the patron you believe that 911 should be notified. If a patron refuses 911 assistance, the patron must sign a refusal of care form. If the victim is a minor, then all efforts should be made to locate their parent or guardian. Land-Based Emergency (non-911) Not all land-based emergencies require 911 to be called. This decision to close the pool should be made by the Lifeguard who is watching the pool, considering the bather load and the programs in the water at the time. If the Lifeguard feels uncomfortable with their bather load, or feels that patron safety is compromised, close the pool. Primary rescuer communicates via radio to the other Lifeguards that someone has been injured, and calls for a secondary Lifeguard. The secondary Lifeguard can by 1. Covering the primary rescuer ’s pool or to assess the victim. 2. Gather equipment such as the first aid kit. 3. Communicate with the front desk to call the parent/guardian if needed. The victim should be moved to the first aid station if injuries allow movement. The primary rescuer then treats the victim according to their injuries. Once treatment is complete the victim is released. If the victim is a minor they are released to their parent/guardian. ** It is always important to remember that a victim’s condition can always deteriorate. Primary rescuers must constantly reassess and be prepared to call 911 if the victim's condition worsens.** Environmental Emergency Environmental emergencies happen when the surrounding environment poses a risk of injury to staff and patrons. Severe weather and natural disasters are an example of environmental emergencies. Severe weather and natural disasters can involve violent winds, thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, 25 5 Packet Pg. 92 earthquakes, mudslides, and flash floods. In addition, certain emergencies may result from a specific facility problem, such as a fire or chemical spill. Communication is of utmost importance. Lifeguards should be communicating with supervisors, front desk, and other staff during an environmental emergency. It is also important to communicate the nature of the emergency to the patrons; however, stopping to answer questions is rarely possible during an emergency. The first two steps for these EAPs are the same; the latter steps are determined by the nature of the environmental emergency. EAP – Fire 1. Lifeguards observe an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as: thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. Lifeguard performs one, loud and long whistle blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All Lifeguards on deck respond by echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” 2. Establish communication with the front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the emergency while clearing the pool. 3. Each lifeguard clears his or her own pool and directs patrons to the closest emergency exit. Lifeguards must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any personal belongings due to risk of injury. Lifeguards must make sure all patrons exit through the closest exit, and that patrons do not crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons have exited, Lifeguards must check in with a supervisor. After the supervisor is aware of the deck being cleared, Lifeguards exit through the emergency exit closest to them. 4. Supervisors and other staff will be responsible for clearing the building and bathrooms. In the absence of supervisors, the highest-ranking Lifeguard will clear the building and bathrooms. After patrons have exited the pool deck through the emergency exits the building must be cleared. Clear the break room and office first, then the bathrooms. Move into the bathroom and check each stall, while stating loudly, “Everyone out of the building there is a fire!” Once the bathrooms are clear, lock the door and exit through the main entrance. If anyone is in the building, they should exit through the closest exit that is not blocked by fire. 5. Patrons and staff then wait for the fire department to give the “all clear.” EAP - Earthquake 1. Lifeguards observe an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. The lifeguard performs one, loud and long whistle blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All guards on deck respond by echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” 2. Establish communication with the front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the emergency while clearing the pool. 3. During an earthquake pool water can violently slosh over the edges. Lifeguards should quickly get patrons out of the pool and away from edges of the pool. 26 5 Packet Pg. 93 4. Each lifeguard clears his or her pool and directs patrons to the closest emergency exit. Lifeguards must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any personal belongings due to risk of injury. Lifeguards must make sure all patrons exit through the closest exit, and that patrons do not crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons have exited, guards must check in with a supervisor. After the supervisor is aware of the deck being cleared, Lifeguards exit through the emergency exit closest to them. 5. Lifeguards must keep in contact with a supervisor. If no supervisors are working at the time of the earthquake, Lifeguards must wait for about five minutes after all shaking has stopped then sweep the building for injured staff and patrons. If injuries are found, call 911 if warranted, or if unsure about how to treat victims. If any small fires are discovered use fire extinguishers to put them out and/or call 911. Leave the building as soon as the sweep is complete, do not stay in the building longer than necessary. 6. Emergency personnel or official media broadcasts (radio, TV, internet) will inform the patrons and staff when it is safe to re-enter buildings and obtain their possessions. Chemical Spill Chemical spills are a very rare but serious emergency. While there are many chemicals utilized for the proper functioning of a pool, there is only one chemical that would cause an emergency related spill, Hydrochloric Acid (Muriatic Acid). It is stored in a tank, in a room, near the front of the building. If a spill were to take place it may happen during the filling of the tank or due to material failure of the storage tank. EAP - Chemical Spill 1. Lifeguards observe an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as: thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. Lifeguard performs one, loud and long whistle blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All guards on deck respond by echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” 2. Establish communication with the front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the emergency while clearing the pool. Beware of the fumes and do not let the liquid touch you or any patrons. Tell the front desk to call 911 and immediately direct all patrons to exit the facility through the closest exit away from the spill. 3. Each Lifeguard clears his or her own pool and directs patrons to the closest exit away from the spill. Lifeguards must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any personal belongings due to risk of injury. Lifeguards must make sure all patrons exit through the closest exit, and that patrons do not crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons have exited, Lifeguards must check in with the supervisor via radios. Ensure 911 has been notified of the spill. After the supervisor is aware of the deck being cleared, Lifeguards then exit through the closest emergency exit that is away from the spill. 4. Supervisors and other staff will be responsible for clearing the building and bathrooms. In the absence of supervisors, the highest ranking Lifeguard will clear the building and bathrooms. After patrons have exited the pool deck the building must be cleared. Clear the bathrooms first, 27 5 Packet Pg. 94 and then move to the rest of the building. Move into the bathroom and check each stall, while saying loudly,” Everyone out of the building there is a chemical spill!” If anyone is in the bathrooms, they must exit through the exits on the pool deck. Once the bathroom is clear, lock the doors. After bathrooms are cleared and locked, clear the rest of the building, starting with the front office and the break room. If anyone is in the building, they should exit through the exits on the pool deck. 5. A safe evacuation site that is uphill, upwind, and upstream from the spill should be chosen to congregate and wait for emergency personnel to arrive. 6. Patrons and staff then wait for emergency personnel to respond to the spill and give the “all clear.” If the chemical smell becomes strong enough to be painful to eyes and lungs, the Lifeguards must move everyone farther away from the spill. Pool Closure There are many reasons why the pool may be closed due to non-medical emergencies. The most common issues are biohazards, mechanical issues, and weather conditions. Biohazard Procedure If a biohazard happens, you must take immediate and swift action. Biohazards range from fecal incidents to large volumes of blood contamination. Once aware of the situation, immediately blow your whistle and shout, “Clear the Pool Please!” In the event of solid fecal matter, vomit, or a large volume of blood, notify the front desk of pool closure and provide an estimated time of reopening. The chlorine level must be at 2 parts per million (ppm) or higher and the pool closed for 30 minutes to properly decontaminate the area. The pool is normally kept at a higher level than 2 ppm. If the chlorine levels are under 2 ppm then refer to the chemical dosing chart to determine how much chlorine to add. Once the pool is evacuated obtain the following items: 1. The proper amount of chlorine from the wet chemical storage area 2. A five-gallon bucket 3. A disposable scoop 4. A pool net pole 5. PPE Put on PPE and proceed to scoop the contaminant out of the pool using the net, being careful not to break up or spread the contaminant. Detach the net from the pole and place it and its contents into the five-gallon bucket. Add the chlorine to the affected area. Using the disposable scoop, transfer the contaminant and the scoop into the toilet and flush it away. Fill the five-gallon bucket 3⁄4 full of a chlorine/water solution (one part chlorine for every nine parts water) Allow the net to soak in the solution for 20 minutes for proper disinfection before returning it to the pole 28 5 Packet Pg. 95 Once clean, dispose of the PPE in its own bag, tie the bag off and then place the bag in the garbage receptacle. When this last step has been completed, obtain and complete a “pool closure form”. Please note that if a traumatic injury occurs and lifeguard staff need to dispose of a large volume of blood or blood soaked items these will be disposed of in a biohazard bag, tied off, and management will contact a biohazard disposal company to properly dispose of this material. Loss of Water Circulation If the water is not circulating through the system then it is not passing through the filters and the chemicals needed to sanitize and balance the water are not reaching the pool. Without this essential process it is not safe to have bathers in the water. If a pool has lost circulation, it is most commonly due to an issue with the circulation pump. To determine if a pump is on or off look at the breaker panel; if the light is off then the pump is off. First notify your supervisor, and then clear the affected pool. If no supervisor is present, first clear the affected pool and then call individuals on the Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further instructions. Pool Chemistry Issues pH Levels: pH levels that are out of prescribed ranges have the potential to cause injury or illness to those in the water. If the pH is lower than 7.2 or higher than 7.8, notify your supervisor or call individuals on the Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further instructions. A pH level that is out of the prescribed range may require the pool to be cleared. Chlorine: It is imperative to ensure that the pool has the proper level of chlorine. If the chlorine levels are below 1 ppm or above 10 ppm then notify your supervisor or call individuals on the Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further instructions. With this issue the pool may need to be cleared. Hazardous Weather Lightning, thunder, hail, and tornado watches or warnings are all possible reasons for pool closure due to weather. However, the most common of these are thunder and lightning. If you hear thunder or see lightning, then the pool must be closed, and the deck must be cleared. The deck and pool must remain closed for 30 minutes after each instance of thunder or lightning. For example, a lightning strike occurs and the pool is closed for 30 minutes. If after 25 minutes passes and you see lightning again, the clock would reset and another 30 minute counter would start. Everyone must wait 30 minutes from the last lightning strike before reentering the water. Air Quality Facility and Program Closure Protocol Due to the common occurrence of wildfires in the Northern California region, Team Sheeper Inc has implemented our own Air Quality Facility and Program Closure Protocol. The data in which we will use to implement our company protocol comes from the website PurpleAir.com as it displays a more accurate and current air quality reading. 29 5 Packet Pg. 96 The primary colors you should be aware of when the air quality starts to become hazardous are: Orange (Unhealthy for sensitive groups) – With an air quality index between 101-150, Red (Unhealthy) – With an air quality index between 151-200. Please check PurpleAir.com and add our zip code “94303” as well as set the ‘conversion’ to “AQandU” to get a more current reading for our location. The AQandU conversion is the closest to what the EPA calculates. Orange Protocol ● It ’s OK to be active outside, especially for SHORT ACTIVITIES such as recess and physical education. For LONGER ACTIVITIES such as athletic practice, take more breaks and do less intense activities. ● All long-duration, high-intensity activity groups, including Swim School will be canceled when air quality reaches 130. ● Open Swim and Lap Swimming will be the only programs operational between the air quality of 130-150 Red Protocol ● The Rinconada Aquatic Facility will be CLOSED and all staff sent home when air quality reaches 150. 30 5 Packet Pg. 97 Summary 2025 was a stable year for the Palo Alto Swim and Sport’s operation despite a drastic reduction in summer camp participants. The reduction in summer camp participation was also experienced at the 2 other summer camp sites that we manage, leading us to speculate that larger economic forces were at play when the cost of camp services are the highest point-in-time dollar outlay for our aquatic users. The increase in youth group swim lessons, and family open recreation users due to longer seasons balanced out the summer camp decreases. Moving into 2026 we are relying on our operational efficiencies and our individual program growth to maintain the prices of the user fees. We are excited to introduce early bird registration discounts for our summer youth camps with the desire to stimulate the market back to baseline. We are also excited that we are starting our youth group swim lessons in January and will offer swim lessons through the entire year for the first time ever in Palo Alto. Along with the increase in swim lessons we plan to offer increased family open recreation swim opportunities, which are often coupled with lessons. The reason we are able to expand aquatic services to this degree, points back to our concerted commitment to certify and train the backbone of the aquatic community which are lifeguards and swim instructors, without which most aquatic activities would not be possible.. 31 5 Packet Pg. 98 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 1 / 90 12.08%18 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 4.70%7 12.08%18 31.54%47 39.60%59 Q1 How did you hear about us? Answered: 149 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 149 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 Long-time resident of Palo Alto 10/5/2025 11:19 AM 2 pool is locat ed acros s the street from us 9/18/2025 2:02 PM 3 I live nearby 9/18/2025 12:08 PM 4 Previous c us tomer 9/18/2025 8:54 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Googl e sear ch Posters and flyer s in t he l obby Googl e advertisements Facebook Enjoy Catal og City of Pal o Al to Website Wor d of mouth Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Google search Posters and fly ers in the lobby Google advertisement s Facebook Enjoy Cat alog City of Palo Alto Webs ite Word of mouth Other (please s pecify) 5 Packet Pg. 99 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 2 / 90 5 My hus band 9/16/2025 11:33 AM 6 search on maps app 9/14/2025 2:20 PM 7 Long Time Res ident 9/14/2025 10:34 AM 8 swimming at this pool since liv ed here 9/13/2025 4:49 PM 9 My child swam PASA 9/12/2025 4:40 PM 10 Neighborhood 9/11/2025 7:47 PM 11 Liv e in the neighborhood 9/10/2025 11:24 AM 12 I'm a neighbor 9/9/2025 8:41 PM 13 Liv e in neighborhood, been swimming at Rinc 40+ years 9/9/2025 2:23 PM 14 Been swimming here for 40 yrs 9/9/2025 2:07 PM 15 been swimming at rinconada for 33 years 9/9/2025 1:36 PM 16 long time swimmer at Burgess 9/9/2025 1:20 PM 17 walked past on my way to work at the art cent er 9/9/2025 1:08 PM 18 long time res ident 9/9/2025 12:52 PM 19 Long-time Rinc onada s wimmer 9/9/2025 12:20 PM 20 Existing cust omer 9/9/2025 11:46 AM 21 I swim at Rinconada 9/9/2025 11:41 AM 22 live in the neighborhood 9/9/2025 11:37 AM 23 long time Rinconada user 9/8/2025 11:37 AM 24 Nearly 60 yrs PALO alt o resident , and word of mout h 9/6/2025 8:02 PM 25 Rinconada pool us er sinc e 1963 9/4/2025 1:19 PM 26 Client for 26 y ears 9/4/2025 10:50 AM 27 I been with Master so long, I do not remember 9/3/2025 4:57 PM 28 Menlo Masters / Palo Alto Mast ers 9/3/2025 3:06 PM 29 I am a swimmer 9/3/2025 12:58 PM 30 Previous c us tomer 9/3/2025 11:28 AM 31 Rinconada pool is in my neighborhood 9/3/2025 5:29 AM 32 Long time resident 9/3/2025 12:12 AM 33 I’ve been swimming there for over 20 years 9/2/2025 7:02 PM 34 Email s urv ey 9/2/2025 5:39 PM 35 Liv e nearby 9/2/2025 4:14 PM 36 Been swimming at Rinconada off and on for 35 years 9/2/2025 3:16 PM 37 Longtime res ident and member 9/2/2025 2:40 PM 38 I’ve been swimming here since I was a little child 9/2/2025 2:05 PM 39 I used t o s wim here ov er a decade ago 9/2/2025 1:59 PM 40 Previous y ear customer 9/2/2025 1:00 PM 41 Grew up here 9/2/2025 12:48 PM 42 Been using pool for 25 years.9/2/2025 12:41 PM 5 Packet Pg. 100 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 3 / 90 43 i knew about it 9/2/2025 12:37 PM 44 I have been swimming at Rinconada for 48 years.9/2/2025 11:59 AM 45 Hav e been swimming here for 50 y ears.9/2/2025 11:46 AM 46 I live across the st reet 9/2/2025 11:30 AM 47 Swimming here s ince the early 60s 9/2/2025 11:29 AM 48 Walked by the s wimming pool.9/2/2025 11:17 AM 49 I've been us ing Rinconada Pool since before PASS got involv ed 9/2/2025 10:53 AM 50 I have swum at Rinc onada for 50 y ears 9/2/2025 10:46 AM 51 Res ident near Rinconada Park 9/2/2025 10:24 AM 52 Email 9/2/2025 10:23 AM 53 Liv ing in PA 9/2/2025 10:06 AM 54 I swam at PASC growing up 9/2/2025 10:00 AM 55 Long time member 9/2/2025 9:47 AM 56 User 9/2/2025 9:39 AM 57 Liv e nearby 9/2/2025 9:39 AM 58 I Hav e been a reglar at the pool f or years 9/2/2025 9:38 AM 59 Neighborhood walk 9/2/2025 9:37 AM 5 Packet Pg. 101 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 4 / 90 54.36%81 34.23%51 10.74%16 0.67%1 0.00%0 Q2 Overall, how satisfied are you with our Lifeguards? Answered: 149 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 149 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 They are all very profess ional and I feel s afe.9/18/2025 12:08 PM 2 Staff members are friendly 9/16/2025 11:33 AM 3 I underst and they get regular training (my daughter was a lifeguard). Rec ently, a lifeguard managed an issue with teen boys hanging out in lap lanes caus ing me to bump into them several times. I was grateful. 9/12/2025 4:40 PM 4 Very s atisfied with almos t all, dissatisfied wit h one female t hat has held ex tended conversat ions with s omeone in the pool while guard was on duty. 9/11/2025 7:47 PM 5 They are good at their jobs, and while I know t hey need to keep an authorit ative demeanor, sometimes they can come off really harsh, es pecially since they are dealing with little k ids. 9/10/2025 11:24 AM 6 when I s wim I see them and t hey are always profes s ional 9/9/2025 8:41 PM 7 friendly & helpful (eg locating appropriate lane to s hare for lap swim)9/9/2025 12:25 PM 8 always friendly and helpful 9/9/2025 11:55 AM 9 It would be nice to hav e more lifeguards so the waterslide is available 9/9/2025 11:40 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 102 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 5 / 90 10 Jerome is terrific.9/9/2025 11:37 AM 11 There are rarely enough lifeguards to open the frog s lide or diving boards . Lifeguards seemed too bus y and inconvenienced to give my boy s a swim test. 9/4/2025 9:29 PM 12 Lifeguards are pleasant,helpful when asked and paying bett er attention to swimmers.9/4/2025 1:19 PM 13 Some lifeguards nev er say hello even when I s ay hello.9/4/2025 10:50 AM 14 Last y ear I f ound them not partic ularly nic e with k ids - this year I did not have a c hance to attend with k ids 9/3/2025 12:58 PM 15 Play pool lifeguards c ould have been a bit more attentiv e to hors eplay; more div ing board hours would be nic e 9/3/2025 11:28 AM 16 Maintain good lif eguards s k ills. Mos tly focused when on duty.9/2/2025 6:48 PM 17 Attentive and ready 9/2/2025 3:59 PM 18 Somet imes, they do seem a lit tle distrac ted but it didn't necessarily worry me.9/2/2025 1:59 PM 19 Des k t eam great. Nice, deal with everyone respectfully.9/2/2025 12:41 PM 20 Lifeguards seem c ompetent. I haven’t had direct int erac tion with them.9/2/2025 11:46 AM 21 Bes t if lifeguards don’t use cell phone when on watch 9/2/2025 11:30 AM 22 Yesterday afternoon s eemed lik e there was no lifeguard overlook ing lap pool.9/2/2025 11:17 AM 23 They don’t take c harge of the dec k and inform the public well 9/2/2025 9:39 AM 5 Packet Pg. 103 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 6 / 90 54.36%81 34.23%51 8.05%12 3.36%5 0.00%0 Q3 Overall, how satisfied are you with our level of communication at Palo Alto Swim & Sport? Answered: 149 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 149 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 I think you communic ate all the details needed for me to know whether the pool is ready for me to swim 9/18/2025 12:08 PM 2 Of the t hree times that I hav e c hec ked the schedule to plan my visit, not only was the schedule totally inac c urate to what was going on when I arrived, but t he lifeguard on duty didn’t have into about s c heduling when ask ed. 9/11/2025 7:47 PM 3 I feel that t here are a lot of c orrections s ent out aft er scheduling emails . It’s confusing to keep track of the schedule 9/10/2025 11:01 AM 4 I receiv e notic es and the webs it e and my account interfac e work s well 9/9/2025 8:41 PM 5 One ex c eption is that communication needs to be more clear and frequent around repair issues that cause pool c losure 9/9/2025 2:23 PM 6 the sc hedules do not reflec t the ac tual us e of the pool. t he s c hedules are in my experienc e accurate 9/9/2025 1:08 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 104 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 7 / 90 7 appreciate mail updates on schedule changes and pool c losures 9/9/2025 12:52 PM 8 I appreciate t he emails of pool clos ures .9/9/2025 11:59 AM 9 There was new classes added, but we did not hear about it unt il they were full. We were though on all the waitlis ts for the other c lasses . That mak es little s ense to me. 9/9/2025 11:40 AM 10 I am k ept posted on what's happening.9/9/2025 11:37 AM 11 Really appreciate t he level of communication during the rec ent pump is s ues 9/4/2025 3:29 PM 12 It has been v ery helpful to be kept inf ormed of pool clos ures , projected time for repairs , and updates when the unanticipated oc c urs. Pool temperature info als o esp helpful when below 78! 9/4/2025 1:19 PM 13 The desk people are fantas tic 9/4/2025 10:50 AM 14 expect for the clos ures due to the pump failure 9/3/2025 4:57 PM 15 When the pool brok e in the middle of the summer, I called to c hec k and I was told it was fixed only to discov er when I arriv ed that it was not 9/3/2025 12:58 PM 16 I have not received any communication (except for this s urv ey reques t)9/2/2025 7:54 PM 17 Good at s ending out notices f or pool c losures or schedule changes .9/2/2025 6:48 PM 18 Quick and accurate 9/2/2025 3:59 PM 19 Mes sages are s ent regularly and whenever issues arise 9/2/2025 11:46 AM 20 Communic ation c ould been better during t he equipment failures 9/2/2025 11:29 AM 21 Please c heck ID at front desk for disc ount. I am palo alto res ident. No one request to see ID to see the address for dis count . everyone said all lives in palo alt o to get discount. we are pay tax for city t o fun facility and not getting any disc ount when ev ery one lies about it and offic e don't c heck it at all. thank you for your c ons iderat ion. 9/2/2025 10:15 AM 22 The updates on v arious pool is sues has been so helpful 9/2/2025 10:14 AM 23 Ov erall, it has improved. Important thing is that the people who wis h to have it c an get brief tex t mes sage or email announc ements of scheduled pool c losures coming up in t he next f ew days, or announc ements of pool c los ures for a problem, suc h as heater failure. 9/2/2025 9:47 AM 5 Packet Pg. 105 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 8 / 90 38.26%57 40.94%61 15.44%23 5.37%8 0.00%0 Q4 Overall, how satisfied are you with our online presence and website experience? Answered: 149 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 149 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 pls make it eas ier to find the s c hedule!9/14/2025 2:20 PM 2 I appreciate t he email updates and being able to chec k s c hedules on the website.9/12/2025 4:40 PM 3 Schedule is often inaccurate 9/11/2025 7:47 PM 4 The spreadsheet of the s c hedule is too small, and t he navigation s y s tem on the website is not easy to use 9/10/2025 11:01 AM 5 updating my c redit card rec ently was a bit c onfus ing 9/9/2025 1:36 PM 6 schedule problems 9/9/2025 1:08 PM 7 during periods of malfunc tion (eg heater) webs ite often prov ides water temperat ure 9/9/2025 12:25 PM 8 I want to be able to pause my memebership myself on the website easily. I couldn't do it and had to go to the desk. 9/6/2025 5:47 PM 9 The webs it e is not very s mooth, it just looks old 9/5/2025 8:56 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 106 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 9 / 90 10 It is easier to s ee the changing s c hedules and recently,t o inf orm a friend wanting privat e adult swim les sons. 9/4/2025 1:19 PM 11 It c an be a lit tle dif ficult to f ind t he inf ormation about the masters s wim 9/2/2025 8:27 PM 12 Eas y t o nav igate 9/2/2025 6:48 PM 13 The interfac e looks old fashioned, and the s earc h for s wimming lessons is not v ery user- friendly (c onfus ing and cons umes a lot of time) 9/2/2025 6:20 PM 14 easy to nav igat e 9/2/2025 3:59 PM 15 the sc hedule on line and in emails didn't always match.9/2/2025 3:11 PM 16 Mos tly good c ommunicat ion 9/2/2025 11:46 AM 17 Eas y t o nav igate, mos tly intuitive, and there is always a human who c an help when I mak e a mist ake. 9/2/2025 10:14 AM 18 The webs it e c ould use some s erious improvement!9/2/2025 9:35 AM 5 Packet Pg. 107 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 10 / 90 66.44%99 27.52%41 4.03%6 2.01%3 0.00%0 Q5 Overall, how satisfied are you with the front desk customer service? Answered: 149 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 149 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 Very friendly and always welc oming.10/5/2025 11:19 AM 2 Always friendly and makes me happy 9/18/2025 12:08 PM 3 Friendly 9/12/2025 4:40 PM 4 Friendly and c ourteous 9/11/2025 7:47 PM 5 They're great!!9/9/2025 8:41 PM 6 Frontdes k is normally empty, once in a while I can see someone in there to talk to.9/9/2025 12:57 PM 7 appreciate the quick member scan 9/9/2025 12:52 PM 8 Ashley has been partic ularly friendly. Hav e not seen her for a while bec aus e I have been erratic ally attending. 9/9/2025 12:25 PM 9 I appreciate t hat the pers on at the front desk remembers my name.9/9/2025 11:55 AM 10 Always helpful 9/9/2025 11:40 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 108 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 11 / 90 11 friendly and welcoming 9/9/2025 11:37 AM 12 Very nice, almost alway s cheerful. Love Jerome, he’s awesome!9/6/2025 8:02 PM 13 Line sometimes seems to move s lowly becaus e there's only one person working at the des k when t here are more people s it ting in the bac k who s eem like t hey c ould help out. 9/4/2025 9:29 PM 14 Always friendly and helpful!9/4/2025 3:29 PM 15 Friendly, welcoming s taff!!9/4/2025 1:19 PM 16 very friendly and good to talk to 9/3/2025 4:57 PM 17 very good!9/3/2025 12:49 PM 18 They are all very friendly!9/2/2025 7:54 PM 19 Friendly and c ustomer foc us ed.9/2/2025 6:48 PM 20 The staff is always kind, profes s ional and highly helpf ul, but the c omputer they use is v ery slow and c auses delay s . 9/2/2025 6:20 PM 21 Knowledgable and friendly 9/2/2025 3:59 PM 22 The pers on at desk is 95% of time awes ome.9/2/2025 12:41 PM 23 Everyone is competent, f riendly and respec tf ul.9/2/2025 11:46 AM 24 So friendly 9/2/2025 11:30 AM 25 Always friendly 9/2/2025 11:29 AM 26 Cheerf ul and effec tiv e.9/2/2025 10:14 AM 27 Again, letting c us tomers k now that lap s wim is almos t over before they pay or c hec k in would be good 9/2/2025 9:39 AM 5 Packet Pg. 109 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 12 / 90 42.28%63 44.97%67 9.40%14 3.36%5 0.00%0 Q6 Overall, how satisfied are you with our water quality consistency in the pools? Answered: 149 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 149 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 It s eemed lik e it took a long time to repair the pool when the heater was not working properly.10/5/2025 11:19 AM 2 Every now and then water temp.colder than expec ted, 80 degrees .9/11/2025 7:47 PM 3 There's been a lot of moments t his summer where t he pool temps dropped and it was in maintenance f or a while making planning a weekly swim s c hedule very difficult. 9/10/2025 9:34 AM 4 can see s ome debris at the bott om 9/9/2025 9:59 PM 5 clean and well maintained thank y ou!9/9/2025 8:41 PM 6 Too many mail func tions 9/9/2025 12:00 PM 7 Somet imes a litt le too c ool 9/9/2025 11:55 AM 8 seems fine 9/9/2025 11:37 AM 9 Every time I go to rinconada I s ee s tuff f loating in the lap pool. It makes me wonder if the filtration s ystem is work ing well enough. 9/5/2025 5:20 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 110 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 13 / 90 10 Lap pool is fine but play pool is very s alty.9/4/2025 9:29 PM 11 Ov erall the water qualit y is quite good! I'v e noted that the water seems a little hars her t han the rengstrof f pool. 9/4/2025 3:29 PM 12 Water quality alway s appears t op notc h!9/4/2025 1:19 PM 13 Too cold during swim lessons when it ’s not hot out side 9/2/2025 9:26 PM 14 Do you mak e the pool warmer in the winter?9/2/2025 7:54 PM 15 Clear water, cons tant temperatures , minimal c hlorine smell 9/2/2025 6:48 PM 16 My kids had s tomach aches a few times aft er vis iting the pool. The water in the play pool doesn't always look very clean, espec ially on Sunday s 9/2/2025 6:20 PM 17 Summer can be cloudy 9/2/2025 5:39 PM 18 The pool could be a bit warmer in the wint er months 9/2/2025 12:35 PM 19 Pool water is great .9/2/2025 11:46 AM 20 Blue tiles have started to fade on the bottom of the pool near the walls.9/2/2025 11:17 AM 21 I really enjoy t he pool when the sprinklers are NOT on. Onc e they go on, it is diffic ult to even see where my child is and it is extremely unpleas ant. Perhaps t hey c ould be on les s frequently ? 9/2/2025 10:27 AM 22 I lov e the pool (lap swimming).9/2/2025 10:14 AM 23 A bit c loudy and the blue lines are disappearing from sedement 9/2/2025 9:39 AM 5 Packet Pg. 111 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 14 / 90 54.36%81 38.93%58 3.36%5 3.36%5 0.00%0 Q7 Overall, how satisfied are you with deck and general cleanliness of the facility outside? Answered: 149 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 149 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 There c ould be more chairs , tables and such. Als o there is mud/dus t all around the firs t set of tables. It would be great to have this walk ing area around these tables cov ered. 9/9/2025 11:40 AM 2 considering the traffic and kids c amp, they do a good job.9/9/2025 11:37 AM 3 There's occas ional random detritus (e.g. band aids or leav es ) at the bottom of t he pool 9/4/2025 3:29 PM 4 Dec k &pool bott om kept muc h c leaner than when City operated the pool.9/4/2025 1:19 PM 5 The pool bott om needs c leaning- hard to see lines 9/2/2025 7:02 PM 6 Clean and well maintained 9/2/2025 6:48 PM 7 Res troom/shower needs c lose managing to ensure c leanlines s during c hilds pool hours. Please note children’s s houldBe accompanied in s howers. I’v e enc ountered more than one inc ident of kids playing in the showers unatt ended And was ting water 9/2/2025 5:39 PM 8 Looks good all the t ime 9/2/2025 11:46 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 112 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 15 / 90 9 It gets a little mess y in the summer w/ s o much use, but fine enough.9/2/2025 10:14 AM 10 The overflow drains bac k up a lot from dus t and debris 9/2/2025 9:39 AM 5 Packet Pg. 113 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 16 / 90 26.17%39 42.95%64 20.13%30 8.72%13 2.01%3 Q8 Overall, how satisfied are you with locker rooms and showers in terms of cleanliness, amenities and space? Answered: 149 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 149 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 It would be nice to hav e soap and shampoo t here.10/5/2025 11:19 AM 2 I wish Lap Swimming hours were open later in t he ev ening 9/14/2025 10:34 AM 3 Pretty clean given the traffic . Would be amazing to have privat e s howers s omeday but understand that is a c onstruction project. 9/12/2025 4:40 PM 4 Grab bars need to be installed. Falls are the number one reas on for Emergenc y Department vis its . People of all ages fall, especially in a public s hower where s omeone may hav e unintentionally left soap, s hampoo, condit ioner on the shower f loor. I t’s an ac c ident that we should do our best to help prevent . Showers s hould be safer t han they are. 9/11/2025 7:47 PM 5 The men's shower temperature feels too hot . Can it be adjus ted 9/9/2025 9:59 PM 6 It's very func tional 9/9/2025 8:41 PM 7 Bathrooms need help during summer camp, kids, families. Not enough toilets, as children and families c hange in the s talls, s o lapswim c an't us e toilets , 9/9/2025 3:55 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 114 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 17 / 90 8 I would like more privacy in the showers and more t ime on the water timers 9/9/2025 1:08 PM 9 My kids would k now better about this , as they are the ones that us e the showers and loc k ers .9/9/2025 12:57 PM 10 really good most of the time. Sometimes after bus y family day s it's a bit disheveled but never dis gus ting. 9/9/2025 12:25 PM 11 I wish the bathrooms felt cleaner and t hat t here c ould be may be s ome f amily lockers.9/9/2025 12:08 PM 12 I rarely if ev er use the s howers at Rinconada bec aus e they 're crummy.9/9/2025 11:41 AM 13 The showers and bathrooms get prett y nas ty at the end of the day, it's a little difficult to find a clean s pac e es pecially wit h babies and toddlers going ev erywhere. 9/9/2025 11:40 AM 14 Women’s bat hrooms are not clean enough or need to be c leaned more frequent ly. Also concerns of t he s lippery floor are also need to be addressed. 9/9/2025 11:40 AM 15 I don't use them 9/9/2025 11:37 AM 16 Somet imes mes sy, but typically that’s when it ’s getting a lot of use. Lov e it when there are lots of f amilies having fun 9/6/2025 8:02 PM 17 I don't use the locker room.9/5/2025 5:20 PM 18 The floor and s talls get messy during open swim on weekends . Otherwise during lap swim on week day s it's great. 9/4/2025 3:29 PM 19 Rec ognizing the expanded s ummer us age, it is likely not poss ible to k eep mos tly hair,s ometimes other random items removed from drains but it's better. 9/4/2025 1:19 PM 20 You could add integrated hair driers at the mirror.9/4/2025 10:50 AM 21 floor is too wet to change, more priv ac y needed, k ids with dis abilities need priv ac y to change and there's no priv ate areas. Could there be inexpensive c urtains put up in the large c hanging area? 9/2/2025 9:07 PM 22 Hav ing to push t he button each minute is somewhat of a drag, but I understand why.9/2/2025 7:54 PM 23 Clean and well maintained; not damp; s pacious ; conv enient hooks and s helv ing 9/2/2025 6:48 PM 24 The toilet seats I. The bathroom were frequently dirty and the f loors are soak ed 9/2/2025 6:25 PM 25 Some of t he lockers are broken. Sometimes boys over 7 yo are present in the women's changing room with their moms. The toilets' f loor is constant ly wet and muddy. The toilets are usually unclean. Ovee all, the lockers room and showers are v ery uninviting. 9/2/2025 6:20 PM 26 Satis factory c leanlines s ev erywhere, but locker room amenities are abysmal.9/2/2025 2:40 PM 27 The floor in lock er room/bat hroom stalls gets f ilthy really easily. I f only washed once a day, I might s uggest twice or three times a day es pecially on day s t hat are kid-heav y wit h s wimmers . 9/2/2025 1:59 PM 28 The doors need push plates of stainless and more f requent cleaning.9/2/2025 12:41 PM 29 The showers need t o be hott er 9/2/2025 12:35 PM 30 No complaint s 9/2/2025 11:46 AM 31 Don’t use 9/2/2025 11:30 AM 32 Clean and well lit 9/2/2025 11:29 AM 33 You might have already fixed this, but the s howers were too hot ; if y ou haven't already done so, lower their t emperature by a couple degrees. 9/2/2025 10:53 AM 34 When the numbers are up it is mes sier, but the equipment works and it is clean enough for me.9/2/2025 10:14 AM 35 The floors were re-tiled sev eral y ears ago, and s lippery tiles were installed. This was incredibly stupid. They did the s ame stupid thing down at Santa Clara s wim center about 20 y ears ago. The floors are st ill fairly slippery, even with the anti-s lip mats that have been ins talled. This is a liabilit y issue. The Suitmat e s pinner is a great asset. The one at Burgess Pool s hould be fixed. It is inexc us able to hav e the suit made at Burgess not work ing. 9/2/2025 9:47 AM 5 Packet Pg. 115 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 18 / 90 75.68%112 24.32%36 Q9 I participated in Lap Swim at Rinconada Pool in 2025. Answered: 148 Sk ipped: 1 TOTAL 148 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 5 Packet Pg. 116 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 19 / 90 45.45%50 54.55%60 Q10 What is your age? Answered: 110 Sk ipped: 39 TOTAL 110 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 18-59 year s ol d 60 years or ol der ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 18-59 y ears old 60 y ears or older 5 Packet Pg. 117 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 20 / 90 83.64%92 16.36%18 Q11 Are you a Palo Alto Resident or Non-Resident? Answered: 110 Sk ipped: 39 TOTAL 110 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Resident Non-Resident ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Resident Non-Res ident 5 Packet Pg. 118 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 21 / 90 40.91%45 41.82%46 17.27%19 Q12 How many times a week do you lap swim at Rinconada Pool? Answered: 110 Sk ipped: 39 TOTAL 110 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 3 or more times per week 1-3 times per w eek Less than 1 t ime per week ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 3 or more times per week 1-3 t imes per week Less than 1 t ime per week 5 Packet Pg. 119 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 22 / 90 30.56%33 44.44%48 7.41%8 14.81%16 2.78%3 Q13 Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount of time Palo Alto Swim & Sport features Lap Swim at Rinconada Pool? Answered: 108 Sk ipped: 41 TOTAL 108 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 120 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 23 / 90 45.37%49 47.22%51 3.70%4 2.78%3 0.93%1 Q14 Overall, how satisfied are you with your Lap Swimming experience? Answered: 108 Sk ipped: 41 TOTAL 108 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 121 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 24 / 90 52.83%56 41.51%44 4.72%5 0.94%1 0.00%0 Q15 How would you describe the safety measures in place when you are participating in Lap Swim at Rinconada? Answered: 106 Sk ipped: 43 TOTAL 106 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extremely safe V ery safe Moderately safe Slightly unsafe Not at al l safe ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s afe Very s afe Moderately s afe Slightly uns afe Not at all s afe 5 Packet Pg. 122 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 25 / 90 82.24%88 4.67%5 13.08%14 Q16 Do you feel the drop in price and monthly membership rates are reasonably priced? Answered: 107 Sk ipped: 42 TOTAL 107 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 I have not noticed a price drop unless it has been reduc ed from $9 9/14/2025 10:37 AM 2 Drop in price? Pool has had s everal is s ues this y ear, with heater and filter. I don’t know of any reimburs ement for the day s it needed to be c losed. 9/11/2025 8:25 PM 3 Could alway s be c heaper 9/9/2025 10:03 PM 4 Oddly, I was not aware of the drop in price. Usually I am v ery impressed by communic ations from the st aff. I *AM* aware that the Menlo Park facility inc reas ed mos t prices. May be that news cons umed all my att ention. I'v e been distrac ted by pers onal is s ues, s o perhaps that is how I mis s ed this information. Ins pired by this question, I look ed at the paloaltomswim.com webs ite and confirmed the non-resident senior rate is s till $61, which is what I've been paying for a while now. So, I am confused by this quest ion!. 9/9/2025 1:31 PM 5 Drop in price exces s ive; monthly members hip is reasonable 9/2/2025 6:53 PM 6 Drop in is a little high 9/2/2025 4:15 PM 7 Would like more open hours for price 9/2/2025 3:51 PM 8 I am unaware of any recent pric e c hange 9/2/2025 2:42 PM 9 The prices haven’t dropped f or resident seniors as f ar as a k now.9/2/2025 12:06 PM 10 Just barely reas onable. They'v e quadrupled sinc e y our company took ov er. Don't raise them again. 9/2/2025 10:55 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Other (please s pecify) 5 Packet Pg. 123 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 26 / 90 11 For s omeone who s wims on most day s , as I do, the prices are reasonable. For people who swim only once or twic e a week , and go away on business or vac ation for interv als, the price dis c ourages membership and utiliz ation. 9/2/2025 10:19 AM 12 More pricey t han other cities 9/2/2025 10:09 AM 13 They’re t oo c heap 9/2/2025 10:02 AM 14 A bit high compared to monthly full gy m memberships with pool but we like to t ry and continue to support this c ommunity pool 9/2/2025 9:52 AM 5 Packet Pg. 124 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 27 / 90 Q17 What can we do to improve your Lap Swim experience? Answered: 63 Sk ipped: 86 #RESPONSES DATE 1 More time for lap swimming. It would be nic e if a few lanes were als o open for others, when the school s tudents are us ing the pool, and if the pool would be open lat er (similar to the Burges s hours). 10/5/2025 11:22 AM 2 Stay open later in the day unt il 8 pm es pecially week days after s wim s chool 9/14/2025 10:37 AM 3 Keep t he pool cons istently less t han 81 degrees es p. in t he warmer months .9/13/2025 4:51 PM 4 I’m satis fied 9/12/2025 4:41 PM 5 Keep schedule updated and accurate. Water at least 81 degrees. Lif eguard training early morning or later afternoon instead of mid morning, early afternoon. Lane was clos ed one day las t week f or private swimming lessons , not on pool s chedule. 9/11/2025 8:25 PM 6 Only thing I can sugges t for an improv ement is the information about the s c hedule.9/10/2025 11:02 AM 7 Mak e Lap Swim open in the evenings til 7pm s ometimes 9/10/2025 9:35 AM 8 More lane and time slot 9/10/2025 1:49 AM 9 Mak e the showers les s hot. Possible t o make signage to figure out when s omeone is about to leav e 9/9/2025 10:03 PM 10 Keep up the good work thank you!9/9/2025 8:42 PM 11 Less conf lic t with PASA, inc luding when some PASA swimmers tak e lap pool lanes during non-prac tice times 9/9/2025 7:26 PM 12 Summertime bathroom availabilit y during c amp/play pool hours c an be improv ed, as well as wet s lippery floors near bathrooms. 9/9/2025 3:58 PM 13 Always a pleas ure t o s wim at Riconada 9/9/2025 2:50 PM 14 I’m a very s atisfied pool us er. The only exception is the need for more clear, transparent and frequent updates on repair is sues. 9/9/2025 2:25 PM 15 Please mak e the published schedules more ac c urate. Have the lap lanes open a bit lat er a few times a week. 9/9/2025 1:10 PM 16 in the s ummer, it would be nice to evening lap swim. some of us need to av oid high UV times 9/9/2025 12:54 PM 17 Turn down the water temperature!!!!9/9/2025 12:20 PM 18 keep up the good work and at titude 9/9/2025 11:56 AM 19 Please reduc e the number of downtime.9/9/2025 11:48 AM 20 Hav e f ewer lanes f or Mast ers Swim 9/9/2025 11:42 AM 21 I'd lik e to be able to swim weekend mornings .9/9/2025 11:38 AM 22 I'll ac k nowledge that this is a c hallenge to deal with and may not be solv able. This Summer it seems there was a big inc reas e in k ids fak e lap swimming in order to play in a the lanes. When the pool is c rowded this was an is s ue. SOME kids were actually lap swimming but more I believ e would jus t do a lap for appearances and then just play 9/8/2025 11:40 AM 23 Adult swim lessons 9/7/2025 6:14 AM 24 Well, the late aft ernoon and ev ening swims last month were amaz ing. Totally wish for some after work s wims 9/6/2025 8:03 PM 25 Hav ing after-work hours where we can lap s wim during the week would be great too, instead of 9/6/2025 5:49 PM 5 Packet Pg. 125 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 28 / 90 being PASA-only. 26 Not s o ex pensiv e 9/6/2025 12:24 PM 27 I would lov e to have a lane to myself, of course. But it's a good thing that so many people want to swim. 9/5/2025 5:22 PM 28 Later hours! (Ev ening)9/4/2025 3:30 PM 29 Ov erall, it has been ex c eptional. The Kids Camps were v ery well integrated and it was very helpful to use lanes 8-10 until t he Lifeguard c lass es ac tually needed to be in the water. 9/4/2025 1:24 PM 30 lov ed the evening hours when that worked with PASA's s c hedule 9/4/2025 11:55 AM 31 Thank you!9/4/2025 10:51 AM 32 Evening hours would be helpful 9/4/2025 8:35 AM 33 I work during t he day and I c annot s wim in the public pool of my town after 4pm. Or my children c annot swim after s c hool if they are not part of a s wim team. What are y ou doing to address this? 9/3/2025 1:01 PM 34 Big as k here: Have the website indicate how many lanes are c urrent ly open. Mus t be updat ed cont inuous ly to be useful. 9/3/2025 5:31 AM 35 When it 's busy, it is hard to get in a lane with 1-2 other people. (Some s ay they won't s hare), so it would be nic e if t he lifeguard/person working helped fac ilit ate the s haring of lanes 9/2/2025 7:55 PM 36 Offer later hours and more open lanes for lap swimming. Evening dedic ated lap s wimming without mas ters sharing would be a great c ommunit y s ervice. Later weekend hours for dedic ated lap s wimming as well. 9/2/2025 6:53 PM 37 Add hours for lap swim.9/2/2025 6:22 PM 38 It’s great !9/2/2025 5:41 PM 39 Keep t he pool water c lean - keep s hower room c lean 9/2/2025 5:40 PM 40 keep it as it is 9/2/2025 3:59 PM 41 Ov erall it's great! I'm very grateful as my home city of San Carlos does not have a pool.9/2/2025 3:17 PM 42 Improve the maintenance and repair of the pool mechanical s y s tems. The number of day s clos ed bec ause of pump and heating system failures in the pas t year was unacceptable. 9/2/2025 2:42 PM 43 Summers are tough but I wouldn't expec t y ou to limit k id usage during their s c hool vac ations. It just is what it is. 9/2/2025 2:00 PM 44 Pool needs more than two lanes open at night oct-nov. then in spring. Giv ing it all to PASA is unfair. I swam f or 10-15 years after work t here just fine. Now PASA TOOK IT ALL. two crappy shallow lanes get over crowded. You need s ome night s wimmming for lap pool people. 9/2/2025 12:49 PM 45 People who are not in t he mas ters program s wim on sunday as if they are in mas ters, one guy has very poor etiquette and jumps in the lane when you are swimming without properly notif ying you t hat he will be sharing the lane, he almost jumped on me when i was doing a f lip turn 9/2/2025 12:45 PM 46 More hours in the ev ening to enable people not t o s wim in full sun 9/2/2025 12:34 PM 47 later s wim hours would be helpful given t hat the s un / UV is s o high right now 9/2/2025 12:19 PM 48 Build a newer lock er room and add family changing/shower rooms !9/2/2025 12:06 PM 49 I think it’s great mos t of t he time.9/2/2025 11:47 AM 50 YOU SHOULD RESERVE ADDITIONAL TIME AND ENTRY FOR PALO ALTO RESIDENTS. YOU OPEN YOUR ENROLLEMENT TO THE PUBLI C, that is unfair to the residents of Palo Alto 9/2/2025 11:37 AM 51 Just s ometimes dis appointed when it closes down a lot for repair then followed by events lik e PASA 9/2/2025 11:24 AM 52 I was ex tremely happy to s ee that the large digit al cloc k s were replaced in April. Look s lik e the 9/2/2025 11:18 AM 5 Packet Pg. 126 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 29 / 90 blue tiles (lane markings) at the bottom of the pool hav e started t o fade near the walls . 53 Lap swim hour s hould go until 5pm or later vs ending at 4pm 9/2/2025 10:55 AM 54 Burgess and Rinconada should be run more like a business, t o encourage utilization, and overall profits for the contractor. 1. Lap s wim evening hours . 2. Cros s us age between Burgess and Rinc onada. This would allow evening hours at one or the other fac ilit y. If someone is a member at one or the other, a s mall surc harge c ould be applied to us e t he other fac ilit y. 3. I do not know what the barrier is to Cross membership. As it is now, when one facility is closed for heat er problems , use at the other fac ility is allowed, s o it cannot be a s trict liabilit y issue. Whatev er prevents Cross us e and Cros s membership, with a little creat ive Collaboration, t hese barriers could be ov erc ome. 5. There are c learly some time slots when it is unprofitable to operate t he pool, and other time s lots when the pool is over utiliz ed. You could s ell reduc ed rate memberships for the under utilized time s lots, and t his may increase the membership for price-sensitive users . 5. I am very s un s ensitiv e, and so having ev ening hours would be valuable to me. 6. Hav ing s uffic ient membership and utiliz ation, of c ours e, is key to pay for Staffing. if lap swim were open at either Burgess or Rinconada, but not both, this would prov ide the servic e of having more open hours during the day, without increasing y our staffing c os t. This s hould als o make the monthly memberships more appealing, and probably increase your overall revenues . 9/2/2025 10:19 AM 55 Lap swim t imes after work hours 9/2/2025 10:17 AM 56 can you Please as k s taff to c heck ID for addres s to get dis count .9/2/2025 10:16 AM 57 Shade cov er over a few lanes for the benefit of senior citizens 9/2/2025 10:14 AM 58 Evening lap pool hours would be great! I go to office early in the morning. I would live to us e the lap pool af ter work 9/2/2025 10:10 AM 59 Get the Mast ers out of the pool on time! They are alway s allowed to run over, sometimes there are some master swimmers still in the pool 30 minutes after their time has ended 9/2/2025 10:09 AM 60 Should be more expensive, open up lanes at Jordan and charge a premium for lap swim there during the hours of the swim team. I built a financial model (guards , pool cos t, insurance) and you would s till make money. 9/2/2025 10:02 AM 61 Keep it open one hour longer or evening s wims 9/2/2025 9:52 AM 62 Keep up the good work 9/2/2025 9:48 AM 63 Add more open lap s wim in t he mornings 6-8am and and evenings (5-7pm) reduce the club/mast er swim or mov e to afternoon. 9/2/2025 9:41 AM 5 Packet Pg. 127 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 30 / 90 33.10%48 66.90%97 Q18 In 2025, I participated in Open Swim at Rinconada. Answered: 145 Sk ipped: 4 TOTAL 145 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 5 Packet Pg. 128 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 31 / 90 29.17%14 70.83%34 Q19 In 2025, did you purchase the Summer Open Swim Family Pass? Answered: 48 Sk ipped: 101 TOTAL 48 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 5 Packet Pg. 129 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 32 / 90 0.00%0 28.57%4 35.71%5 14.29%2 21.43%3 Q20 How often did you visit the pool per week? Answered: 14 Sk ipped: 135 TOTAL 14 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 0-1 Days 1-2 Days 2-3 Days 3-4 Days 4+ Days ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 0-1 Day s 1-2 Day s 2-3 Day s 3-4 Day s 4+ Days 5 Packet Pg. 130 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 33 / 90 7.14%1 64.29%9 14.29%2 14.29%2 0.00%0 Q21 Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount of time Palo Alto Swim & Sport features Open Swim at Rinconada Pool? Answered: 14 Sk ipped: 135 TOTAL 14 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 131 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 34 / 90 35.71%5 35.71%5 28.57%4 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q22 Overall, how satisfied are you with your Open Swim Family Pass experience? Answered: 14 Sk ipped: 135 TOTAL 14 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 132 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 35 / 90 50.00%7 42.86%6 0.00%0 7.14%1 0.00%0 Q23 How would you describe the safety measures in place when you are participating in Open Swim at Rinconada? Answered: 14 Sk ipped: 135 TOTAL 14 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extremely safe V ery safe Moderately safe Slightly unsafe Not at al l safe ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s afe Very s afe Moderately s afe Slightly uns afe Not at all s afe 5 Packet Pg. 133 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 36 / 90 84.62%11 0.00%0 15.38%2 Q24 Do you feel the family pass rates are reasonably priced? Answered: 13 Sk ipped: 136 TOTAL 13 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 you should reserved more spac e f or residents 9/2/2025 11:39 AM 2 Slightly high 9/2/2025 9:54 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Other (please s pecify) 5 Packet Pg. 134 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 37 / 90 53.85%7 0.00%0 38.46%5 7.69%1 Q25 Would you purchase the pass again if it was available in 2026? Answered: 13 Sk ipped: 136 TOTAL 13 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 Wit h pool breakage we were not given a way to swim laps at other pools 9/2/2025 9:54 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No M aybe Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No May be Other (please s pecify) 5 Packet Pg. 135 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 38 / 90 Q26 Considering your Open Swim experience at Palo Alto Swim & Sport, how likely are you to recommend us to a friend? (0 is not at all likely, 10 is extremely likely) Answered: 14 Sk ipped: 135 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 0 (not at al l l ikel y) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (ext r emel y likely) 5 Packet Pg. 136 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 39 / 90 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 7.14%1 14.29%2 14.29%2 7.14%1 7.14%1 0.00%0 50.00%7 TOTAL 14 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 0 (not at all lik ely) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (extremely likely ) 5 Packet Pg. 137 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 40 / 90 Q27 What can we do to improve your Open Swim experience? Answered: 7 Skipped: 142 #RESPONSES DATE 1 I underst and the importance of the wristband system, however, it s eems to be really was teful and not eco f riendly. I’m finding wris tbands throughout Rinc onada Park. Maybe of fer silicone wris tbands t o family pass holders, have them sign an agreement to use the correc t color bands on family members, if c aught swapping they can be fined? May be k eep a rost er of k ids who have t aken the swim test s o they don’t have t o take it every time in order to rec eive the green wrist band. 9/10/2025 12:53 PM 2 Open earlier on Saturday s and Sundays. 11:30am for family swim is v ery late. Opening at 9am both day s would be great. There were times we would hav e to wait or arrive and then it would be at capac ity, so have to wait outside with 3 k ids under 6 who are eager to get int o the pool. 9/9/2025 12:09 PM 3 The wris t band does not seem very effic ient , the lifeguards never c heck them and mos t people don't have them on, leaves them in the changing rooms, in their bags or on the ground. Maybe a s tamp could work better? 9/9/2025 11:47 AM 4 More div ing board hours !9/3/2025 11:30 AM 5 It would be nice to know when the camps are at the pool- s o t hat we c an av oid that time.9/2/2025 3:12 PM 6 you need to offer res idents more benefits.9/2/2025 11:39 AM 7 Didn’t us e pass as much bc of pool break s and didn’t giv e us a way t o us e other pools t o s wim laps ev en though it was part of the pass benefits 9/2/2025 9:54 AM 5 Packet Pg. 138 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 41 / 90 29.55%13 45.45%20 13.64%6 9.09%4 2.27%1 Q28 Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount of time Palo Alto Swim & Sport features Open Swim at Rinconada Pool? Answered: 44 Sk ipped: 105 TOTAL 44 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 139 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 42 / 90 40.91%18 40.91%18 9.09%4 9.09%4 0.00%0 Q29 Overall, how satisfied are you with your Open Swim experience? Answered: 44 Sk ipped: 105 TOTAL 44 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 140 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 43 / 90 51.16%22 44.19%19 4.65%2 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q30 How would you describe the safety measures in place when you are participating in Open Swim at Rinconada? Answered: 43 Sk ipped: 106 TOTAL 43 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extremely safe V ery safe Moderately safe Slightly unsafe Not at al l safe ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s afe Very s afe Moderately s afe Slightly uns afe Not at all s afe 5 Packet Pg. 141 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 44 / 90 69.05%29 4.76%2 26.19%11 Q31 Do you feel the drop in price and family pass rates are reasonably priced? Answered: 42 Sk ipped: 107 TOTAL 42 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 not applic able to me 9/9/2025 1:12 PM 2 It depends what is inc luded 9/9/2025 11:47 AM 3 The rate for res idenc e s hould be lower and nonresidence rate could be higher to prioritiz e t he purpose to serve the community 9/9/2025 11:45 AM 4 Did not use drop in 9/3/2025 11:30 AM 5 Na 9/2/2025 5:42 PM 6 Not s ure (didn't sign up this year)9/2/2025 3:52 PM 7 Hope t here are dis c ounted rat es for need 9/2/2025 2:21 PM 8 Reas onable f or t he local s tandard - but for many families (mine) feels v ery expens ive.9/2/2025 1:02 PM 9 Baby pool with grandparents watc hing expens ive!9/2/2025 11:32 AM 10 Slightly high 9/2/2025 9:54 AM 11 Family pass rates are reasonable; drop-in pric es are steep.9/2/2025 9:37 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Other (please s pecify) 5 Packet Pg. 142 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 45 / 90 Q32 Considering your Open Swim experience at Palo Alto Swim & Sport, how likely are you to recommend us to a friend? (0 is not at all likely, 10 is extremely likely) Answered: 43 Sk ipped: 106 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 0 (not at al l l ikel y) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (ext r emel y likely) 5 Packet Pg. 143 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 46 / 90 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 4.65%2 4.65%2 4.65%2 9.30%4 4.65%2 16.28%7 2.33%1 53.49%23 TOTAL 43 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 0 (not at all lik ely) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (extremely likely ) 5 Packet Pg. 144 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 47 / 90 Q33 What can we do to improve your Open Swim experience? Answered: 16 Sk ipped: 133 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Would be great if more hours/week ends c ould be extended into September, may be ev en Oc tober if it stays warm. We love the pool, the team is great. 9/18/2025 8:56 AM 2 accurate sc hedules open later at night a few days a week for working folk s 9/9/2025 1:12 PM 3 Expand y our hours and ov erall calendar. Be open on week ends into early October.9/9/2025 12:00 PM 4 Inc reas e the lifeguards during the busy time, for example during the week ends and s ummer break 9/9/2025 11:45 AM 5 Ens ure enough staffing to open the diving boards and frog slide. Our k ids were dis appointed on mult iple v isits that t hese features were c los ed. Please als o increase the hours for open swim. The kids love to play in the pool in the summer! 9/4/2025 9:32 PM 6 clearly mark and enforce the open s wim vs lap swim lanes for the benefit of both populations 9/4/2025 11:56 AM 7 Kiddie pool was clos ed for maintenance in peak summer. Also no plac e to sit in the shade and gras s is VERY limit ed and muddy. Ov erall not a relax ing day by the community pool unless you are in the water all the time. 9/3/2025 12:04 AM 8 More customer f riendly, more vis ibly av ailable staff, more s ignage. More shade and seating.9/2/2025 9:09 PM 9 keep it as it is 9/2/2025 4:00 PM 10 Longer s eason for kids (it gets hot end of April to Oc t), also after sc hool open hours (3pm-5pm Mon - Fri) 9/2/2025 3:52 PM 11 the summer open s wim hours were great ! Wis h there were more day s for open s wim in t he fall 9/2/2025 12:22 PM 12 I would like to see more suns hades in the c hildren's play pool area 9/2/2025 10:41 AM 13 More poolside seating and s hade 9/2/2025 10:33 AM 14 Please decrease the amount of sprink ler time. Feels like a s afety hazard because can barely see through t hem and can't see my c hild s wimming. 9/2/2025 10:28 AM 15 Providing more shade wit h umbrellas or c anopies would be nic e, esp on really hot days.9/2/2025 10:26 AM 16 Mos t important t hing t hat you can do is t o hav e more swim les son availability!! I t is horrible and is a s ignificant public need! 9/2/2025 9:37 AM 5 Packet Pg. 145 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 48 / 90 21.13%30 78.87%112 Q34 My child participated in Swim School at Rinconada in 2025. Answered: 142 Sk ipped: 7 TOTAL 142 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 5 Packet Pg. 146 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 49 / 90 28.57%8 53.57%15 32.14%9 25.00%7 17.86%5 Q35 Which Swim School Program did your child participate in? (Select all that apply) Answered: 28 Sk ipped: 121 Total Respondents : 28 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Level 1: Little Kids Level 1: Big Kids Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Level 1: Lit tle Kids Level 1: Big Kids Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 5 Packet Pg. 147 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 50 / 90 39.29%11 35.71%10 10.71%3 10.71%3 3.57%1 Q36 Overall, how satisfied are you with the scheduled times offered for Swim Lessons at Rinconada? Answered: 28 Sk ipped: 121 TOTAL 28 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 148 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 51 / 90 46.43%13 39.29%11 3.57%1 3.57%1 7.14%2 Q37 How satisfied were you with your swim instructor? Answered: 28 Sk ipped: 121 TOTAL 28 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 149 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 52 / 90 59.26%16 33.33%9 7.41%2 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q38 How would you describe the safety measures in place when you/your child are participating in Swim Lessons at Rinconada? Answered: 27 Sk ipped: 122 TOTAL 27 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extremely safe V ery safe Moderately safe Slightly unsafe Not at al l safe ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s afe Very s afe Moderately s afe Slightly uns afe Not at all s afe 5 Packet Pg. 150 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 53 / 90 75.00%21 17.86%5 7.14%2 Q39 Do you feel the group Swim Lesson price is reasonable? Answered: 28 Sk ipped: 121 TOTAL 28 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 The answer is yes , and actually, my k id is part of the PASA club, not s ure if this s urv ey is s till relevant. 9/9/2025 1:05 PM 2 expens ive for 30-minutes 9/9/2025 12:11 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Other (please s pecify) 5 Packet Pg. 151 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 54 / 90 57.14%16 42.86%12 Q40 Are you aware of our Scholarship Opportunities provided by Beyond Barriers Athletic Foundation (BBAF)? Answered: 28 Sk ipped: 121 TOTAL 28 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 Happy to read t his 9/2/2025 2:24 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 5 Packet Pg. 152 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 55 / 90 42.86%12 32.14%9 10.71%3 10.71%3 3.57%1 Q41 Overall, how satisfied are you with your family's Swim Lesson experience? Answered: 28 Sk ipped: 121 TOTAL 28 #ADDITIONAL COMMENTS DATE 1 We love the swim c las s es ...but sugges t making sure that all k ids tak ing the lessons are actually at the level they are supposed to be for the c lass. There were a few k ids each t ime that were not at the right level and then it s lowed down the c lass for the k ids that were. 9/18/2025 8:59 AM 2 More times would be great! I t was hard to get a time.9/10/2025 11:30 AM 3 We only have 1 k id in t he PASA c lub. And pretty muc h my survey is about this c lub 9/9/2025 1:05 PM 4 The ins tructors are never the s ame from one sess ion to t he next, they s eem very new to teac hing, don't really know how to handle k ids and how to assess kids s k ills. We have done the same clas s 4 t imes, and ev ery time it's t he s ame, I don't see the learning f rom this. Starting to feel like it is a waste of time, and my child will not learn to s wim with these less ons . 9/9/2025 11:51 AM 5 Would be great if there were a way to regis ter for less ons all summer and know that k ids would progres s thru levels rat her t han signing up for one level all summer and hav e t o resc hedule if/when the c hild’s lev el c hanges. 9/3/2025 11:33 AM 6 Teacher Maddy was amaz ing! We cannot say enough good things about having her as a s wim 9/2/2025 6:31 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied 5 Packet Pg. 153 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 56 / 90 ins tructor. She was so good with our daughter. She pushed her in all the right ways, while mak ing the whole c lass fun and playful. 7 In level 2 I felt that the infrast ruc ture c ould communic ate more ex plic itly with t he k ids.9/2/2025 6:29 PM 8 My child participated in Saturday s wim less on through the summer so there was n't as much consis tenc y as there would hav e been for a week s es sion. It s eemed dif ficult for my child t o progres s through s kills becaus e teachers would hold him up what seemed lik e more than he needed so muc h of the time. Obviously I'd want support when needed but he was n't as k ed to do v ery much for a lot of the rotations back and fort h. 9/2/2025 10:34 AM 9 The ins tructor was not paying much at tention. She would instruct the kids to swim down to the other side with a s pec ific st rok e, get dist rac ted, and then kids would wait at the other end for several minutes unt il s he finally turned around and notic ed that they were jus t waiting there. She would slowly move down t o that end, give them ins tructions, and the process would repeat. There were only 2 s tudents in this group les s on, yet they actually swam or did v ery little bec aus e of this constant waiting for the instructor to pay attention to them. Given the price of eac h lesson, this c ombinat ion of poor ins truct ion and high pric e made t his experience very off -putt ing. Although Rinc onada is muc h c loser, we moved to taking lessons at Burgess after this . 9/2/2025 9:50 AM 10 Availability of s wim les sons is ext remely poor - please add clas s es!!9/2/2025 9:38 AM 5 Packet Pg. 154 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 57 / 90 Q42 Considering your swim lesson experience at Palo Alto Swim & Sport, how likely are you to recommend us to a friend? (0 is not at all likely, 10 is extremely likely) Answered: 28 Sk ipped: 121 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 0 (not at al l l ikel y) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (ext r emel y likely) 5 Packet Pg. 155 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 58 / 90 3.57%1 3.57%1 3.57%1 0.00%0 3.57%1 3.57%1 3.57%1 0.00%0 17.86%5 14.29%4 46.43%13 TOTAL 28 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 0 (not at all lik ely) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (extremely likely ) 5 Packet Pg. 156 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 59 / 90 Q43 What can we do to improve your Swim School experience? Answered: 9 Skipped: 140 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Again, suggest making s ure that all k ids t aking the less ons are act ually at the level they are suppos ed to be for that c lass that t hey s igned up f or. There were a few kids eac h time that were not at the right level and then it s lowed down the c lass for the k ids that were. Thanks! 9/18/2025 8:59 AM 2 The coach of group age 11-12 PASA needs to improv e his s c heduling for accuracy and avoid las t minut e update when he already k nows in adv ance what needs to be changed, but he almost alway s waits until late night before to send out the updates for next day. And he should als o respect the parent 's time as well, it's of ten enough that parents have to wait ex tra 15-20 mins almost ev ery day. 9/9/2025 1:05 PM 3 If the ins tructors c an k eep a record of the students who signup for c ouple sec tions during the summer program would be helpful t o k eep track of t he s tudents’ progress 9/9/2025 12:29 PM 4 Longer s wim les s ons (45) and may be including swim pas s at dis c ount rate for swim lesson families. 9/9/2025 12:11 PM 5 More asses s ments and opportunit ies t o learn with experienc ed inst ruc tors.9/9/2025 11:51 AM 6 Offer more spots for les s ons. They fill up too quickly. Heat the pool when it’s cold outs ide.9/2/2025 9:28 PM 7 We would love to have continued lessons and would have been interest ed in paying for priv ate swim les sons, but the times f or t he fall are very inc onvenient for our family. If clas s es/private les s ons were earlier in the evening (4:30ish) on the week day s 9/2/2025 6:31 PM 8 Please s ee my comments abov e.9/2/2025 9:50 AM 9 Add more classes (#1 by far) and inc reas e ins tructor pay to attrac t st rong c andidates!9/2/2025 9:38 AM 5 Packet Pg. 157 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 60 / 90 4.23%6 95.77%136 Q44 In 2025, my child participated in Camp Rinconada? Answered: 142 Sk ipped: 7 TOTAL 142 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 5 Packet Pg. 158 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 61 / 90 16.67%1 66.67%4 0.00%0 33.33%2 0.00%0 16.67%1 Q45 How did you hear about Camp Rinconada? Answered: 6 Skipped: 143 Total Respondents : 6 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Palo Alto Sw im and Sport Adver tisemen... Palo Al to Sw im & Sport New sletter City of Pal o Al to Website Enjoy Catal og Goo gle Sear ch Word of Mouth ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Palo Alto Swim and Sport Adv ert isement - Signs, City Summer program, etc Palo Alto Swim & Sport Newslett er City of Palo Alto Webs ite Enjoy Cat alog Google Search Word of Mouth 5 Packet Pg. 159 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 62 / 90 83.33%5 33.33%2 0.00%0 16.67%1 Q46 Which Camp/Camps did your child participate in this Summer? Answered: 6 Skipped: 143 Total Respondents : 6 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Camp Rinconada Sw im Camp Rinconada Junior Sw im Jr. Lifeguard Chall enge Camp Rinconada After-Car e Camp ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Camp Rinc onada Swim Camp Rinc onada Junior Swim Jr. Lif eguard Challenge Camp Rinc onada After-Care Camp 5 Packet Pg. 160 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 63 / 90 33.33%2 50.00%3 16.67%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q47 Overall, how satisfied are you with the scheduled times offered for Camp Rinconada? Answered: 6 Skipped: 143 TOTAL 6 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 161 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 64 / 90 33.33%2 33.33%2 33.33%2 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q48 How would you describe the safety measures in place when your child participated in Camp at Rinconada? Answered: 6 Skipped: 143 TOTAL 6 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extremely safe V ery safe Moderately safe Slightly unsafe Not at al l safe ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s afe Very s afe Moderately s afe Slightly uns afe Not at all s afe 5 Packet Pg. 162 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 65 / 90 33.33%2 50.00%3 16.67%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q49 Overall, how satisfied are you with the Camp Counselors at Camp Rinconada? Answered: 6 Skipped: 143 TOTAL 6 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 163 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 66 / 90 33.33%2 16.67%1 50.00%3 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q50 How likely are you to register for Camps next year? Answered: 6 Skipped: 143 TOTAL 6 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y Likel y V er y Likely Moderatel y Likel y Slightly Likel y Not At Al l Likely ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely Likely Very Likely Moderately Likely Slightly Lik ely Not At All Likely 5 Packet Pg. 164 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 67 / 90 40.00%2 40.00%2 20.00%1 Q51 Do you feel Camp Rinconada's pricing is reasonable? Answered: 5 Skipped: 144 TOTAL 5 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 it is a little on the pric ey side.9/2/2025 1:24 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Other (please s pecify) 5 Packet Pg. 165 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 68 / 90 Q52 Considering your experience with Camp Rinconada, how likely are you to recommend Camp Rinconada to a friend? (0 is not at all likely, 10 is extremely likely) Answered: 6 Skipped: 143 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Not at all likely (0) (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Extr emel y Likely (10) 5 Packet Pg. 166 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 69 / 90 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 16.67%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 50.00%3 16.67%1 0.00%0 16.67%1 TOTAL 6 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Not at all lik ely (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Extremely Likely (10) 5 Packet Pg. 167 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 70 / 90 Q53 What can we do to improve your Camp Rinconada experience? Answered: 1 Skipped: 148 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Older k ids are mix ed during free s wim with younger ones . There were s ome is s ues.9/3/2025 12:06 AM 5 Packet Pg. 168 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 71 / 90 7.04%10 92.96%132 Q54 I am currently a member of the Palo Alto Masters Swim Team. Answered: 142 Sk ipped: 7 TOTAL 142 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 5 Packet Pg. 169 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 72 / 90 70.00%7 30.00%3 Q55 What is your age? Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 TOTAL 10 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 18-59 year s ol d 60 years or ol der ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 18-59 y ears old 60 y ears or older 5 Packet Pg. 170 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 73 / 90 60.00%6 40.00%4 Q56 Are you a Resident or Non-Resident of the city of Palo Alto? Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 TOTAL 10 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Resident Non-Resident ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Resident Non-Res ident 5 Packet Pg. 171 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 74 / 90 50.00%5 30.00%3 20.00%2 Q57 How many times a week do you swim with Palo Alto Masters? Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 TOTAL 10 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 3 or more times per week 1-3 times per w eek Less than 1 t ime per week ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 3 or more times per week 1-3 t imes per week Less than 1 t ime per week 5 Packet Pg. 172 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 75 / 90 50.00%5 40.00%4 10.00%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q58 Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount of time Palo Alto Swim & Sport features Masters workouts at Rinconada Pool? Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 TOTAL 10 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 173 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 76 / 90 100.00%10 60.00%6 20.00%2 40.00%4 20.00%2 Q59 My primary goals for swimming with Palo Alto Masters are.... (select all that apply) Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 Total Respondents : 10 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Health and fit ness Improve swimming technique Compete in Master s sw im meet s Compete in open water/advent ... Compete in triathlons ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Health and f itness Improve swimming technique Compet e in Mas ters swim meets Compet e in open water/adv enture rac es Compet e in triathlons 5 Packet Pg. 174 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 77 / 90 80.00%8 20.00%2 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q60 How would you describe the safety measures in place while you are participating in Masters workouts at Rinconada? Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 TOTAL 10 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extremely safe V ery safe Moderately safe Slightly unsafe Not at al l safe ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s afe Very s afe Moderately s afe Slightly uns afe Not at all s afe 5 Packet Pg. 175 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 78 / 90 100.00%10 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q61 Do you feel the monthly membership price is reasonable? Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 TOTAL 10 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE There are no res ponses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No Other (please s pecify) 5 Packet Pg. 176 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 79 / 90 80.00%8 20.00%2 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q62 Overall, how satisfied are you with your Palo Alto Masters experience? Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 TOTAL 10 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 177 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 80 / 90 Q63 Considering your experience with Palo Alto Masters, how likely are you to recommend Palo Alto Swim & Sport to a friend? (0 is not at all likely, 10 is extremely likely) Answered: 10 Sk ipped: 139 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% 0 (not at al l l ikel y) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (ext r emel y likely) 5 Packet Pg. 178 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 81 / 90 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 10.00%1 90.00%9 TOTAL 10 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 0 (not at all lik ely) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (extremely likely ) 5 Packet Pg. 179 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 82 / 90 Q64 What can we do to improve your Palo Alto Masters experience? Answered: 5 Skipped: 144 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Keep t he c oaching s taff in place.9/3/2025 4:59 PM 2 It would be really cool to have Friday Noon practic es 9/3/2025 9:02 AM 3 Just in is great 9/2/2025 5:43 PM 4 mak e s ure people who swim mast ers are actually masters members 9/2/2025 12:47 PM 5 Evening prac tices twic e a week would be a great option. Thanks!9/2/2025 12:46 PM 5 Packet Pg. 180 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 83 / 90 2.82%4 97.18%138 Q65 I am currently a member of the PASA Swim Group. Answered: 142 Sk ipped: 7 TOTAL 142 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 5 Packet Pg. 181 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 84 / 90 0.00%0 75.00%3 0.00%0 0.00%0 25.00%1 Q66 Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount of time PASA reserves at Rinconada Pool for practice? Answered: 4 Skipped: 145 TOTAL 4 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 182 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 85 / 90 75.00%3 25.00%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q67 How would you describe the safety measures in place while you are participating in PASA workouts at Rinconada? Answered: 4 Skipped: 145 TOTAL 4 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extremely safe V ery safe Moderately safe Slightly unsafe Not at al l safe ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s afe Very s afe Moderately s afe Slightly uns afe Not at all s afe 5 Packet Pg. 183 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 86 / 90 25.00%1 25.00%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 50.00%2 Q68 Overall, how satisfied are you with the consistency of our pools' water quality? Answered: 4 Skipped: 145 TOTAL 4 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 the heater problems in the wint er are troubling 9/2/2025 12:37 PM 2 Other than what I hav e stated - obviously the pool heater pump is s ue this y ear was big 9/2/2025 9:42 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied (Please tel l us mor e about your... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied (Pleas e tell us more about your experienc e) 5 Packet Pg. 184 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 87 / 90 50.00%2 25.00%1 25.00%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q69 Overall, how satisfied are you with the general cleanliness of the pool deck and outside facilities? Answered: 4 Skipped: 145 TOTAL 4 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE There are no res ponses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied (Please tel l us mor e about your... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied (Pleas e tell us more about your experienc e) 5 Packet Pg. 185 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 88 / 90 25.00%1 50.00%2 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 25.00%1 Q70 Overall, how satisfied are you with the locker rooms and showers in terms of cleanliness, amenities and space? Answered: 4 Skipped: 145 TOTAL 4 #(PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE)DATE 1 We don’t us e the loc k errooms 9/2/2025 9:42 AM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Extr emel y satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Extr emely dissatisfied (Please tel l us mor e about your... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Extremely s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied or dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Extremely diss atis fied (Pleas e tell us more about your experienc e) 5 Packet Pg. 186 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 89 / 90 75.00%3 25.00%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q71 Overall, how satisfied are you with your PASA experience? Answered: 4 Skipped: 145 TOTAL 4 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Very satisfied Sat isfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Very s atisfied Satis fied Neither satisfied nor dissatis fied Dis s atisf ied Very dissatis fied 5 Packet Pg. 187 Palo Alto Swim & Sport Annual Survey (2025) 90 / 90 Q72 Additional comments/suggestions Answered: 0 Skipped: 149 #RESPONSES DATE There are no res ponses. 5 Packet Pg. 188 1 Vidal, Eric From:Don Cecil <don.cecil@mcbayarea.com> Sent:Thursday, December 11, 2025 7:04 AM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Robustelli, Sarah; Armer, Jennifer; Switzer, Steven Subject:Virtual Briefing: Item 4, 2100 Geng Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Good morning Chair Freeman and Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission, On behalf of the developer team working on the residential project application at 2100 Geng Road, I would like to offer a virtual briefing to any member of the Commission who might have background questions about the proposed project in advance of next week’s December 16, 2025 PRC meeting. If you are interested, please let me know a couple times that would work for you during the time blocks below: • Tomorrow, December 12th anytime after 12pm • Anytime on Monday, December 15th Thank you, Don Don Cecil don.cecil@mcbayarea.com (415) 999-3262 - mobile A Packet Pg. 189 2 Vidal, Eric From:Postmaster <postmaster@paloalto.gov> Sent:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 12:19 PM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:You have new held messages To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Logo You have new held messages You can release all of your held messages and permit or block future emails from the senders, or manage messages individually. Release all Permit all Block all You can also mana e held messa es in our Personal Portal. Spam Policy oel.westhealthcare@gmail.com RE: NASTT Leads 2025-12-09 10:18 Release Permit Block Release all Permit all Block all To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. © 2019 Mimecast Services Limited. A Packet Pg. 190 3 Vidal, Eric From:Postmaster <postmaster@paloalto.gov> Sent:Monday, December 8, 2025 12:18 PM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:You have new held messages To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Logo You have new held messages You can release all of your held messages and permit or block future emails from the senders, or manage messages individually. Release all Permit all Block all You can also mana e held messa es in our Personal Portal. Spam Policy oel.westhealthcare@gmail.com NASTT Leads 2025-12-08 07:56 Release Permit Block Release all Permit all Block all To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. © 2019 Mimecast Services Limited. A Packet Pg. 191 4 Vidal, Eric From:Ribeiro, Mark Sent:Monday, December 8, 2025 8:29 AM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Robustelli, Sarah; Heistein, Ben Subject:RE: Safety Concern at Mitchell Park – Threatening Behavior Incident Thanks, Eric. Sounds like PD was already notified. At this point, I’m not sure what else can be done since PAPD is aware of the situation and took down the incident. Adding Ben to this e-mail for his awareness. -Mark (Please note and update your records of the City’s change in website URL and staff e-mail below.) MARK RIBEIRO Community Services Manager |Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 496-6910 | mark.ribeiro@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 2:34 PM To: Robustelli, Sarah <Sarah.Robustelli@paloalto.gov>; Ribeiro, Mark <Mark.Ribeiro@paloalto.gov> Subject: FW: Safety Concern at Mitchell Park – Threatening Behavior Incident Hey Mark and Sarah, Forwarding you guys an email that come through the PRC inbox. Mitchell Park inbox was also CC’d. Eric Vidal Coordinator Rec Prog | Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 496-6962 | Parks@paloalto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov A Packet Pg. 192 5 From: Peter Lin <linpeterusc@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 1:04 PM To: ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov>; papc.information@gmail.com; Mitchell Park Community Center <mpcc@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Safety Concern at Mitchell Park – Threatening Behavior Incident CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I’m writing to document a safety issue that occurred at Mitchell Park near the Library/Community Center, pickleball and tennis courts. I want to make the City aware in case it affects future patrols or facility oversight. Date & Time: Thursday, Dec. 4th, 2025, approximate i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast CGBANNERINDICATOR Hello, I’m writing to document a safety issue that occurred at Mitchell Park near the Library/Community Center, pickleball and tennis courts. I want to make the City aware in case it affects future patrols or facility oversight. Date & Time: Thursday, Dec. 4th, 2025, approximately 10:05 PM Location: Walkway between the pickleball courts, tennis courts, and Mitchell Park Community Center Incident Summary: After the court lights turned off at around 10:01 PM, I walked toward the Community Center parking area. A man came out of the dark tennis court area and followed me from about 20 feet behind. He yelled to get my attention and then said: “Let me follow you to your car so I know which one it is so I can scratch it.” He continued walking behind me even after I clarified I wasn’t the person he thought I was. I told him I would call the police, and he replied “Go ahead” before walking away into the dark corner of the parking lot. A Packet Pg. 193 6 Description of the individual: • Male, early to mid-20s • Approx. 5’8”, average build • Appeared South Asian • Short dark hair with short bangs • Spoke with an accent • Wearing a light gray jacket I’m submitting this so the City is aware of a threatening interaction taking place on park grounds at night. Please let me know if you need any additional details. Attached is a screenshot of a Facebook post my friend posted on the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. This post described what happened at 9:45PM on pickleball Court 3 and Court 4, and what led to the verbal threat made by this person at 10:05PM. I had provided details of this encounter with Officer Mendoza of PAPD. There is a PAPD Incident Number: 25-339-0035. A Packet Pg. 194 7 Thank you, Peter A Packet Pg. 195 8 Vidal, Eric From:Ryan Chou <ryanchou111@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 6, 2025 6:23 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Workshop Hosting Opportunity: Palo Alto YAC CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hi! Hope you’re doing well. My name is Ryan Chou, and I’m a member of the San Mateo County Youth Commission, an advisory board to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. I also serve as Chair of the Youth Education Committee and the communications officer of the commission. We're reaching out to see if your organization would be interested in leading a workshop for our winter event, Civic Café. The goal of Civic Café is to help young people learn how to make a difference in their local area, specifically through providing: • Tools for youth to participate in local government (through workshops). • Opportunities to network with youth organizations (through workshops). • Inspirational guidance and advice (through a keynote speaker). As you can see, workshops are a key part of the event. We're amazed by all of the work that the Palo Alto YAC is performing, and we'd love to spotlight the lessons you all have learned at our event. If you are interested, further details and the sign-up form can be found here. Feel free to reply if you have questions or would like to set up a meeting to discuss further :) Civic Café will take place on January 31st from 11am to 2:30pm at 501 Winslow St, Redwood City, CA 94063. Hope to see you there! Thank you for your time and consideration! Best, Ryan Chou San Mateo County Youth Commission Civic Café Event Planning Team https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/youth-commission A Packet Pg. 196 9 Vidal, Eric From:Mitchell Park Community Center Sent:Friday, December 5, 2025 2:35 PM To:Peter Lin; ParkRec Commission; papc.information@gmail.com; Mitchell Park Community Center Subject:RE: Safety Concern at Mitchell Park – Threatening Behavior Incident Hi Peter, Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We are glad no harm was caused to anyone or any vehicles and we will forward this email to CSD management for them to review further. Should you ever feel unsafe for any reason, in any of our parks please contact the Palo Alto Police Department immediately and they will be able to assist you. Best, Andrew Mitchell Park Community Center 3700 Middlefield Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Community Services Department (650) 329-2400 | MPCC@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Peter Lin <linpeterusc@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 1:04 PM To: ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov>; papc.information@gmail.com; Mitchell Park Community Center <mpcc@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Safety Concern at Mitchell Park – Threatening Behavior Incident CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I’m writing to document a safety issue that occurred at Mitchell Park near the Library/Community Center, pickleball and tennis courts. I want to make the City aware in case it affects future patrols or facility oversight. Date & Time: Thursday, Dec. 4th, 2025, approximate i This message needs your attention • No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. • This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast CGBANNERINDICATOR Hello, A Packet Pg. 197 10 I’m writing to document a safety issue that occurred at Mitchell Park near the Library/Community Center, pickleball and tennis courts. I want to make the City aware in case it affects future patrols or facility oversight. Date & Time: Thursday, Dec. 4th, 2025, approximately 10:05 PM Location: Walkway between the pickleball courts, tennis courts, and Mitchell Park Community Center Incident Summary: After the court lights turned off at around 10:01 PM, I walked toward the Community Center parking area. A man came out of the dark tennis court area and followed me from about 20 feet behind. He yelled to get my attention and then said: “Let me follow you to your car so I know which one it is so I can scratch it.” He continued walking behind me even after I clarified I wasn’t the person he thought I was. I told him I would call the police, and he replied “Go ahead” before walking away into the dark corner of the parking lot. Description of the individual: • Male, early to mid-20s • Approx. 5’8”, average build • Appeared South Asian • Short dark hair with short bangs • Spoke with an accent • Wearing a light gray jacket I’m submitting this so the City is aware of a threatening interaction taking place on park grounds at night. Please let me know if you need any additional details. Attached is a screenshot of a Facebook post my friend posted on the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. This post described what happened at 9:45PM on pickleball Court 3 and Court 4, and A Packet Pg. 198 11 what led to the verbal threat made by this person at 10:05PM. I had provided details of this encounter with Officer Mendoza of PAPD. There is a PAPD Incident Number: 25-339-0035. Thank you, Peter A Packet Pg. 199 12 Vidal, Eric From:Peter Lin <linpeterusc@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 5, 2025 1:04 PM To:ParkRec Commission; papc.information@gmail.com; Mitchell Park Community Center Subject:Safety Concern at Mitchell Park – Threatening Behavior Incident CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hello, I’m writing to document a safety issue that occurred at Mitchell Park near the Library/Community Center, pickleball and tennis courts. I want to make the City aware in case it affects future patrols or facility oversight. Date & Time: Thursday, Dec. 4th, 2025, approximately 10:05 PM Location: Walkway between the pickleball courts, tennis courts, and Mitchell Park Community Center Incident Summary: After the court lights turned off at around 10:01 PM, I walked toward the Community Center parking area. A man came out of the dark tennis court area and followed me from about 20 feet behind. He yelled to get my attention and then said: “Let me follow you to your car so I know which one it is so I can scratch it.” He continued walking behind me even after I clarified I wasn’t the person he thought I was. I told him I would call the police, and he replied “Go ahead” before walking away into the dark corner of the parking lot. A Packet Pg. 200 13 Description of the individual: • Male, early to mid-20s • Approx. 5’8”, average build • Appeared South Asian • Short dark hair with short bangs • Spoke with an accent • Wearing a light gray jacket I’m submitting this so the City is aware of a threatening interaction taking place on park grounds at night. Please let me know if you need any additional details. Attached is a screenshot of a Facebook post my friend posted on the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. This post described what happened at 9:45PM on pickleball Court 3 and Court 4, and what led to the verbal threat made by this person at 10:05PM. I had provided details of this encounter with Officer Mendoza of PAPD. There is a PAPD Incident Number: 25-339-0035. A Packet Pg. 201 14 Thank you, Peter A Packet Pg. 202 15 Vidal, Eric From:Office of Supervisor Otto Lee <supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org> Sent:Wednesday, December 3, 2025 9:19 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Mark your calendars! Upcoming D3 events CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Dear Friends and Neighbors, We have a number of upcoming D3 sponsored/hosted events to keep track of. Here's what to add to your calendar! Anonymous un Buy Bac Saturday, December 6th | 9 AM - 2 PM SJPD Substation, 6087 Great Oaks Pkwy, San Jose To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Wor or a orn a Bay rea W nter Jo Fa r Monday, December 8 | 10 AM - 2 PM County Clerk Recorder's Office, 110 W Tasman Drive, San Jose To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Human R g ts Day Wednesday, Dec. 10 | 11 AM - 2 PM County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose RSVP here A Packet Pg. 203 16 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. As always, please feel free to contact our office anytime via email at Supervisor.Lee@bos.sccgov.org or visit us online at SupervisorLee.org. Otto Lee Board President Santa Clara County Supervisor, District 3 70 West Hedding 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 299-5030 Email Supervisor Lee District 3 Website To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InFacebook To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InInstagram To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InYouTube Unsubscribe from future updates To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee signature image A Packet Pg. 204 17 Vidal, Eric From:Linda Henigin <linda@brail.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:05 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; ParkRec Commission Subject:Support for housing on Geng Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hello Palo Alto PTC, First, thank you for your service to Palo Alto. I appreciate the long hours you put in to keep our town vibrant and healthy. My name is Linda Henigin, and I live in the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, right across 101 from the proposed development on Geng Road. I am fully in support of the homes proposed for 2100 Geng Road, and I hope you will be, too. I want to see us build housing of different types and sizes, at lower price points, so that more people in our community can afford to buy a home. I also want us to add multi-family housing to this neighborhood because we desperately need more young children here. Our local elementary school, Duveneck, has had to lose a teacher every year for the past few years. Our enrollment has been dropping from our full capacity of 4 classes per grade down to two classes per grade. We're on track to shrink by half, and risk being closed altogether. We need the young kids who often move into townhouse developments in order to save our school. I hope the PTC will vote to move this project forward as quickly as possible. Thank you, --Linda Henigin, Edgewood Drive A Packet Pg. 205 18 Vidal, Eric From:Postmaster <postmaster@paloalto.gov> Sent:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:04 PM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:You have new held messages To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Logo You have new held messages You can release all of your held messages and permit or block future emails from the senders, or manage messages individually. Release all Permit all Block all You can also mana e held messa es in our Personal Portal. Spam Policy dylan@smartassistanthub.com VA Services 2025-12-02 12:01 Release Permit Block Release all Permit all Block all To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. © 2019 Mimecast Services Limited. A Packet Pg. 206 19 Vidal, Eric From:Adam Schwartz <adamdschwartz@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:35 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission Subject:Please support new homes at 2100 Geng Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Greetings to the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee: I'm Adam Schwartz and I live in Palo Alto in University South. I write to urge you to please support the new homes proposed for 2100 Geng Road. Our wonderful community's biggest problem is the shortage of new homes for all kinds of people at all price points. The solution must include building new homes. I'd like to see 145 new townhomes (including 19 affordable) at 2100 Geng Road. I hope the PTC will vote to move this project forward as quickly as possible. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community. Sincerely, Adam Schwartz 523 Channing Ave. A Packet Pg. 207 20 Vidal, Eric From:Andrea Allais <allais.andrea@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 29, 2025 10:47 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Re: Loud HVAC system at Heritage Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thanks. It has not been running for the past two weeks, so it may not be on if you visit now On Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 3:19 PM ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Andrea, Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concern regarding the HVAC noise near the Heritage Park playground. The Parks and Recreation Commission has not received information about this issue previously. I will forward your comment to our City Facilities team so they can review the situation and determine whether any adjustments or mitigation measures are needed. We appreciate you bringing this to our attention, and we will follow up once Facilities has had an opportunity to assess the equipment. Sarah A Packet Pg. 208 21 SARAH ROBUSTELLI Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 617-3518 | Sarah.Robustelli@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Andrea Allais <allais.andrea@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2025 7:45 AM To: ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Loud HVAC system at Heritage Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Park and Recreation Commission, After renovations at the Roth building, a new HVAC system has started operating next to the playground at Heritage Park. It is very loud, and degrading the whole park. Does the commission know about this issue? Is it considered a problem? Thank you for any information you can provide, A Packet Pg. 209 22 Best Regards Andrea Allais A Packet Pg. 210 23 Vidal, Eric From:Office of Supervisor Otto Lee <supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org> Sent:Friday, November 28, 2025 10:35 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Mark your calendars! Upcoming D3 events CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Dear Friends and Neighbors, We have a number of upcoming D3 sponsored/hosted events to keep track of. Here's what to add to your calendar! Anonymous un Buy Bac Saturday, December 6th | 9 AM - 2 PM SJPD Substation, 6087 Great Oaks Pkwy, San Jose To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Wor or a orn a Bay rea W nter Jo Fa r Monday, December 8 | 10 AM - 2 PM County Clerk Recorder's Office, 110 W Tasman Drive, San Jose To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Human R g ts Day Wednesday, Dec. 10 | 11 AM - 2 PM County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. A Packet Pg. 211 24 As always, please feel free to contact our office anytime via email at Supervisor.Lee@bos.sccgov.org or visit us online at SupervisorLee.org. Otto Lee Board President Santa Clara County Supervisor, District 3 70 West Hedding 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 299-5030 Email Supervisor Lee District 3 Website To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InFacebook To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InInstagram To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InYouTube Unsubscribe from future updates To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee signature image A Packet Pg. 212 25 Vidal, Eric From:ParkRec Commission Sent:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 5:12 PM To:Robert Hall; ParkRec Commission Subject:RE: Public comment, Item 5, First Tee Hi Robert, Thank you for your comment and for sharing your perspective on future improvements to the Baylands practice facilities. Item 5 on tonight’s agenda focuses specifically on the First Tee short-term facility use agreement. Broader decisions related to capital improvements—such as the replacement of the current turf surface, natural grass alternatives, environmental considerations, and project sequencing are not before the Commission at this time. Those discussions will occur as part of the Second Deck Feasibility Study and will return to the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to any project moving forward. Your comments regarding synthetic turf, natural grass options, environmental stewardship, and alignment with First Tee’s mission have been documented and will be considered when the Commission reviews the Second Deck Study and associated capital project planning. Thank you again for your engagement. Sarah SARAH ROBUSTELLI Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 617-3518 | Sarah.Robustelli@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Robert Hall <bilgepump100@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 3:21 PM To: ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Public comment, Item 5, First Tee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. A Packet Pg. 213 26 Good evening Commissioners,Item 5 speaks to an exciting moment for the City and for First Tee. As the staff report notes, First Tee plans to fundraise for capital improvements to the Youth Practice Area—including completing a natura-turf youth area—in exchange for lon -term use i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast CGBANNERINDICATOR Good evening Commissioners, Item 5 speaks to an exciting moment for the City and for First Tee. As the staff report notes, First Tee plans to fundraise for capital improvements to the Youth Practice Area—including completing a natural- turf youth area—in exchange for long-term use of the site. This is an excellent direction, and I want to highlight why it is also an essential environmental correction. The artificial turf currently in the Baylands practice facilities is nearing the end of its life, and—as we now know from extensive research—aging artificial turf sheds microplastics into stormwater, soil, and surrounding habitat. At Baylands Golf Links, that runoff flows directly toward the Bay and the adjacent wildlife preserve, some of the most sensitive ecological land in the region. Continuing to use synthetic turf in this location contradicts our sustainability commitments and poses unnecessary risk to the very habitats we strive to protect. Fortunately, Palo Alto has a perfect opportunity right now to fix this legacy issue. The FY 2026 Capital Improvement Program already includes the approved Golf Course Net and Artificial Turf Replacement Project. As you coordinate the project with the Second Deck Feasibility Study and the ongoing discussions with First Tee, I urge you to ensure that the “replacement” is a replacement in the truest sense: retiring plastic surfacing and installing natural grass. Natural turf aligns perfectly with First Tee’s mission of youth development, accessibility, and long-term stewardship. It avoids microplastic pollution, improves stormwater filtration, supports soil health, and provides a safer, cooler surface for young golfers. It also supports the environmental values Palo Alto is known for—values that have made the Baylands a model for conservation. As you move toward recommending a long-term agreement with First Tee and sequencing capital projects, please make the transition to natural grass a clear and explicit part of the plan. This is our chance to correct a past mistake, protect the Baylands, and give First Tee a facility worthy of its mission. Thank you for your time and for your careful stewardship of this unique landscape. Bob Hall 94117 A Packet Pg. 214 27 Vidal, Eric From:ParkRec Commission Sent:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 4:10 PM To:Susan Hinton; ParkRec Commission Subject:RE: Public Comment, 11/25/2025, Agenda item #5 — First Tee Update Hi Susan, Thank you for your public comment and for sharing your thoughts regarding the Baylands Golf Links driving range. At this time, the driving range surface replacement is currently on hold pending the completion of the Second Deck Study. Any future decisions related to surface type, lighting, or other range improvements will first come to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and discussion as part of that study. Your comments regarding natural grass, material disposal, and lighting have been noted and will be included for consideration when the Second Deck Study and Golf Course Net and Turf Replacement returns to the Commission. Thank you again for your engagement. Sarah SARAH ROBUSTELLI Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 617-3518 | Sarah.Robustelli@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Susan Hinton <suewalt@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:34 PM To: ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Public Comment, 11/25/2025, Agenda item #5 — First Tee Update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94031 Email: ParkRec.commission@paloalto.gov Subject: November 25, 2025 Public Comment for Agenda item #5 — First Tee Update [Replacing plastic grass on the Baylands Driving Range] Dear Parks and Recreation A Packet Pg. 215 28 i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast CGBANNERINDICATOR Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94031 Email: ParkRec.commission@paloalto.gov Subject: November 25, 2025 Public Comment for Agenda item #5 — First Tee Update [Replacing plastic grass on the Baylands Driving Range] Dear Parks and Recreation Commission Chair Nellis Freeman and Commissioners: The long-overdue, 20-year replacement of the Baylands Golf Links driving range’s plastic turf presents an ideal opportunity for the City of Palo Alto to transition from plastic material to natural grass. This change should not be considered controversial as: 1. Natural-grass driving ranges are already common in the region, including at dual-deck facilities. Examples include Mariners Point Golf Course & Driving Range in Foster City (two levels), the Burlingame Golf Center, Metropolitan Golf Links in Oakland, and Crystal Springs Golf Course in Burlingame, where even local wildlife, such as deer, comfortably use the grounds. 2. Natural grass already covers the remainder of Baylands Golf Links, making the driving range the only major exception. In addition, I respectfully request that the City require full tracking and documentation of the disposal of the worn plastic turf as part of the upcoming contract. Understanding where this material ultimately goes is an important environmental accountability step. Finally, although Agenda Item 5 of the Staff Report does not mention lighting, I urge the Commission to ensure that nighttime lighting is not included in the contract. The Baylands is a sensitive ecological area, particularly for birds and other wildlife, and lighting would further disrupt this habitat. Thank you for your consideration of these environmentally responsible improvements to the Baylands Golf Links. Sincerely, Susan Hinton Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee A Packet Pg. 216 29 Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollution-prevention A Packet Pg. 217 30 Vidal, Eric From:ParkRec Commission Sent:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 3:19 PM To:Andrea Allais; ParkRec Commission Subject:RE: Loud HVAC system at Heritage Park Hi Andrea, Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concern regarding the HVAC noise near the Heritage Park playground. The Parks and Recreation Commission has not received information about this issue previously. I will forward your comment to our City Facilities team so they can review the situation and determine whether any adjustments or mitigation measures are needed. We appreciate you bringing this to our attention, and we will follow up once Facilities has had an opportunity to assess the equipment. Sarah SARAH ROBUSTELLI Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 617-3518 | Sarah.Robustelli@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Andrea Allais <allais.andrea@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2025 7:45 AM To: ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Loud HVAC system at Heritage Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Park and Recreation Commission,After renovations at the Roth building, a new HVAC system has started operating next to the playground at Heritage Park. It is very loud, and degrading the whole park. Does the commission know about this issue? Is it considered a problem?Thank i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. A Packet Pg. 218 31 • This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast CGBANNERINDICATOR Dear Park and Recreation Commission, After renovations at the Roth building, a new HVAC system has started operating next to the playground at Heritage Park. It is very loud, and degrading the whole park. Does the commission know about this issue? Is it considered a problem? Thank you for any information you can provide, Best Regards Andrea Allais A Packet Pg. 219 32 Vidal, Eric From:ann rothblatt <avrothblatt@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 12:14 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; ParkRec Commission Subject:[INSERT SUBJECT HERE] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Be cau ous of opening a achments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto PTC, my name is Ann Rothbla and I live in south Palo Alto. Please support the homes proposed for 2100 Geng Road. I want to create more ownership op ons in our community, including affordable homeownership. We are s ll enjoying the home we purchased in 1977 for $103,000, and wish other deserving people could have the same opportunity. I hope the PTC will vote to move this project forward as quickly as possible. Thank you for suppor ng more homes in our community, Ann and Don Rothbla A Packet Pg. 220 33 Vidal, Eric From:Susan Hinton <suewalt@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, November 24, 2025 4:34 PM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Public Comment, 11/25/2025, Agenda item #5 — First Tee Update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94031 Email: ParkRec.commission@paloalto.gov Subject: November 25, 2025 Public Comment for Agenda item #5 — First Tee Update [Replacing plastic grass on the Baylands Driving Range] Dear Parks and Recreation Commission Chair Nellis Freeman and Commissioners: The long-overdue, 20-year replacement of the Baylands Golf Links driving range’s plastic turf presents an ideal opportunity for the City of Palo Alto to transition from plastic material to natural grass. This change should not be considered controversial as: 1. Natural-grass driving ranges are already common in the region, including at dual-deck facilities. Examples include Mariners Point Golf Course & Driving Range in Foster City (two levels), the Burlingame Golf Center, Metropolitan Golf Links in Oakland, and Crystal Springs Golf Course in Burlingame, where even local wildlife, such as deer, comfortably use the grounds. 2. Natural grass already covers the remainder of Baylands Golf Links, making the driving range the only major exception. In addition, I respectfully request that the City require full tracking and documentation of the disposal of the worn plastic turf as part of the upcoming contract. Understanding where this material ultimately goes is an important environmental accountability step. Finally, although Agenda Item 5 of the Staff Report does not mention lighting, I urge the Commission to ensure that nighttime lighting is not included in the contract. The Baylands is a sensitive ecological area, particularly for birds and other wildlife, and lighting would further disrupt this habitat. A Packet Pg. 221 34 Thank you for your consideration of these environmentally responsible improvements to the Baylands Golf Links. Sincerely, Susan Hinton Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollution-prevention A Packet Pg. 222 35 Vidal, Eric From:Robert Hall <bilgepump100@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, November 24, 2025 3:21 PM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Public comment, Item 5, First Tee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Good evening Commissioners, Item 5 speaks to an exciting moment for the City and for First Tee. As the staff report notes, First Tee plans to fundraise for capital improvements to the Youth Practice Area—including completing a natural- turf youth area—in exchange for long-term use of the site. This is an excellent direction, and I want to highlight why it is also an essential environmental correction. The artificial turf currently in the Baylands practice facilities is nearing the end of its life, and—as we now know from extensive research—aging artificial turf sheds microplastics into stormwater, soil, and surrounding habitat. At Baylands Golf Links, that runoff flows directly toward the Bay and the adjacent wildlife preserve, some of the most sensitive ecological land in the region. Continuing to use synthetic turf in this location contradicts our sustainability commitments and poses unnecessary risk to the very habitats we strive to protect. Fortunately, Palo Alto has a perfect opportunity right now to fix this legacy issue. The FY 2026 Capital Improvement Program already includes the approved Golf Course Net and Artificial Turf Replacement Project. As you coordinate the project with the Second Deck Feasibility Study and the ongoing discussions with First Tee, I urge you to ensure that the “replacement” is a replacement in the truest sense: retiring plastic surfacing and installing natural grass. Natural turf aligns perfectly with First Tee’s mission of youth development, accessibility, and long-term stewardship. It avoids microplastic pollution, improves stormwater filtration, supports soil health, and provides a safer, cooler surface for young golfers. It also supports the environmental values Palo Alto is known for—values that have made the Baylands a model for conservation. As you move toward recommending a long-term agreement with First Tee and sequencing capital projects, please make the transition to natural grass a clear and explicit part of the plan. This is our chance to correct a past mistake, protect the Baylands, and give First Tee a facility worthy of its mission. A Packet Pg. 223 36 Thank you for your time and for your careful stewardship of this unique landscape. Bob Hall 94117 A Packet Pg. 224 37 Vidal, Eric From:Office of Supervisor Otto Lee <supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org> Sent:Friday, November 21, 2025 4:35 PM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Media Advisory: County of Santa Clara Displays “Angels of Ukraine” Memorial To Honor Memory of Ukrainian Children Killed In War CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee banner image IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION November 21, 2025 Contact: Grace Stetson, Director of Communications - 669-309-3219 | grace.stetson@bos.sccgov.org Iryna Anpilogova, UNWLA Branch 107 President | branch107@unwla.org County of Santa Clara Displays “Angels of Ukraine” Memorial To Honor Memory of Ukrainian Children Killed In War SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA – Earlier this week, the County of Santa Clara in partnership with the Ukrainian National Women’s League of America (UNWLA) Branch 107 brought the internationally recognized memorial installation ‘Angels of Ukraine’ for display at the County Government Center in San Jose. The installation honors Ukrainian children killed in Russian attacks, and invites the community to reflect the human cost of the ongoing war. “The County stands in strong solidarity with Ukraine and our local Ukrainian American families, as we hope for an end to this barbaric war and lasting peace for Ukraine,” said Board President Otto Lee. “We thank UNWLA Branch 107 for bringing this display to the County, so we can call for peace and justice.” A Packet Pg. 225 38 Visitors are invited to light small electric candles placed beside the display, a quiet gesture of remembrance and solidarity with those affected by the war. The installation is available for viewing Monday - Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM until the end of November on the First Floor of the County Government Center outside of the Isaac Newton Senter Auditorium, 70 W. Hedding St., San José, CA 95110. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Created by artist Natasha Mitso with Svitlana Peshterianu and other volunteers, each hand- crocheted angel represents one child killed in the conflict since 2022. The exhibit also features a poster listing all the cities the installation has traveled to so far, tracking the number of children killed as that number continues to grow and the memorial travels to new locations. These numbers are a stark reminder of the relentless violence and the innocent lives lost every day. Thus far, the memorial has traveled to Slovakia, Cyprus, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Malta, and the United Kingdom, uniting communities in remembrance, empathy, and solidarity. “Our intention in bringing this exhibit to San Jose is to inform the community, to show the real cost of the war, and to reveal the pain Ukrainians are enduring every day,” said Iryna Anpilogova, President of UNWLA Branch 107. “The growing numbers displayed with the Angels are a horrifying testament to the scale of this aggression from the Kremlin. We want everyone who visits to understand the enormity of the loss and to remember these lives that ended too soon.” In early 2022, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution standing in solidarity with Ukraine to condemn this war, and have remained steadfast in support of the local Ukrainian community. Additionally, the County has a Ukraine Citizen Diplomacy Sister Commission that has hosted several delegations from Ukraine and serves as an extension of our community’s support for Ukraine sovereignty. ABOUT UNWLA The Ukrainian National Women’s League of America (UNWLA), established in 1925, promotes educational, cultural, charitable, and humanitarian initiatives supporting Ukrainians worldwide. Branch 107 serves both the Ukrainian and local communities through cultural events, educational initiatives, advocacy, and humanitarian support, as well as through volunteer service and charitable efforts in the local community. A Packet Pg. 226 39 ### Supervisor Otto Lee serves District 3 on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors which represents Sunnyvale, Milpitas, and the northern neighborhoods of San José including Alviso and Berryessa. Supervisor Lee also serves as the President of the Board of Supervisors. He is an intellectual property attorney, Retired U.S. Navy Commander, former Sunnyvale Mayor & Councilmember, and father. Supervisor Lee lives in Sunnyvale with his wife and three daughters. He was elected to represent District 3 in November 2020, and re-elected in 2024. Additional information is available online at SupervisorLee.org or contact us anytime at Supervisor.Lee@bos.sccgov.org. Sincerely, Otto Lee Board President Santa Clara County Supervisor, District 3 70 West Hedding 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 299-5030 Email Supervisor Lee District 3 Website To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InFacebook To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InInstagram To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InYouTube Unsubscribe from future updates To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee signature image A Packet Pg. 227 40 Vidal, Eric From:Jenny Lewis <jenlewis@outdoor-fit.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 9:48 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Unveiling the MOVE fitness park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Outdoor-Fit The MOVE Fitness Park Northern Ontario fitness park breaks ground thanks to private funding, a strong vision, and a collaborative public-private partnership. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.MOVE Fitness Park To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.MOVE Outdoor Fitness Park testimonial Watch Testimonial The MOVE Fitness Park is open in the Town of Huntsville (Ontario, Canada). This was a true community collaboration brought to life through a partnership between the Town of Huntsville, the TriMuskoka Triathlon Club, and Outdoor- A Packet Pg. 228 41 Fit. Together, we've created Huntsville’s first-ever outdoor fitness park, designed to inspire movement, wellness, and connection. Fitness Park Features • Customized equipment to match the client's vision for the space • Static and dynamic stations to create a space where all ages and fitness levels can engage in a personalized workout • Includes ADA-height equipment and layout supports accessibility • Supports 10 users • Over 60 exercises available Download Project Showcase To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.2-Nov-19-2025-12-30-10-6220-AM To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.1-Nov-19-2025-12-31-40-1459-AM To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.OFIcon-RGBWhite Outdoor-Fit Exercise Systems Inc., 95 Simmonds Drive, Dartmouth, NS B3B 1N7, 1-877-760-6337 Unsubscribe Manage preferences A Packet Pg. 229