Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-23 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda PacketPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 23, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 7:00 PM   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 76, 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 General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. 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 to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER   IN PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda.   AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES   1.Approval of Minutes from April 28, 2026, and May 26, 2026 BUSINESS ITEMS   2.Recommend Adoption of a Park Dedication Ordinance to Dedicate a Portion of the Measure E site as Parkland. CEQA status – exempt under CEQA regulation 15601(b)(3) – 60 minutes – Staff Presentation 3.Study Session to Review Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links – 60 minutes – Staff Presentation CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) 4.Council Liaison Report – 5 minutes 5.Department Report – 20 minutes – Staff Presentation 6.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates (Discussion) – 15 minutes COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)   VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda.   ADJOURNMENT   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 available for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting.   A.Public Comments 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. Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report From: Community Services Department Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report #: 2606-6483 TITLE Approval of Minutes from April 28, 2026, and May 26, 2026 BACKGROUND Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission review and approve the minutes from regular meeting April 28, 2026, and May 26, 2026. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Attachment B: May 26,2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 5 of 394  1 MINUTES 2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 3 Regular meeting 4 April 28, 2026 5 In-Person & Virtual Conference 6 Palo Alto, California 7 8 Commissioners Present In-Person: Chair Nellis Freeman; Vice Chair Bing Wei; Commissioners 9 Vadim Axelrod, Amanda Brown, Yudy Deng (arrived 7:25 p.m.), 10 Shani Kleinhaus (arrived 7:35, left at 8:44 p.m.), and Roger 11 Smith 12 Commissioners Absent: None 13 Staff Present: Sarah Robustelli, Ben Heinstein, Adam Howard, Michael 14 Warner, Megha Bansal 15 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 16 Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 17 The clerk called the roll and announced a quorum. 18 PUBLIC COMMENT 19 1. Curt K. spoke about the potential conversion of tennis courts at Mitchell Park into pickleball 20 courts, noting that no one is against pickleball but some fear that Mitchell Park will become 21 mostly pickleball when it was designed as a multi-use facility for the community to engage in all 22 sorts of recreation. Curt K. stated that the expansion of 15 to 23 pickleball courts will make it the 23 center for pickleball, which is not bad in itself but limits other citizens of Palo Alto from using it 24 as a general recreation center. 25 2. Juanita Salisbury described how 10 years ago, with the City's permission and countless 26 volunteers, the Primrose Way Pollinator Garden was created. Since then, 6 more gardens have 27 been added and a habitat corridor along Embarcadero Road is being created. Juanita Salisbury 28 emphasized that this is part of a larger vision to transform Palo Alto into a city within a park by 29 bridging a gap between Baylands and Foothills Nature Preserves. Juanita Salisbury stated this 30 vision needs permanent expert stewardship in the form of a habitat manager position equipped 31 with dedicated staff and budget. Juanita Salisbury said this is the way to turn volunteer passion 32 into permanent green infrastructure and make Palo Alto the model for the rest of California. 33 3. Harriet S. has been organizing programs for the past 4 years for Magical Bridge, which was 34 founded 16 years ago to provide a place of sanctuary and joy for people with disabilities in a 35 corner of Mitchell Park. Harriet S. stated she did not imagine next door would become a regional 36 center for racket sports and noted that as pickleball has increased at Mitchell Park, there has 37 been a decrease in visitors to the playground. Harriet S. said it is difficult to park, much less park 38 close, which discourages disabled people from using the playground, and people with sensory 39 sensitivities can be triggered by the repetitive pop of the pickleball hitting the racket. Harriet S. 40 pointed out that the noise is such that when working with scouts on their disability sensitivity 41 merit badges last week, she could not hear their presentations at the community stage. 42 4. Mark Weiss stated he organizes a series of concerts at Lytton Plaza and events at Mitchell Park 43 and several indoor facilities. Mark Weiss noticed a change at Lytton Plaza, the installation of Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 6 of 394  44 new green metal tables and fixed seating, which obstruct where they normally set up the band 45 facing the fountain. At a recent event, they had to move the stage about 50 feet south and tilt it 46 back toward the fountain. Mark Weiss said he was not at the meeting when this was deliberated 47 and wondered if the benches could be moved 50 feet to the north. 48 5. Thomas shared that he recently retired and is getting back into tennis. Thomas noticed there are 49 only 4 active tennis courts left at Mitchell Park and voiced concerns about them being converted 50 into pickleball courts. Thomas asked that the tennis courts be retained because there are plenty 51 of pickleball courts and only 4 tennis courts. 52 6. Leslyn L. stated she plays tennis and pickleball regularly at Mitchell Park and that Mitchell Park's 53 unique waterspout feature for the kids was a big appeal when moving to Palo Alto. Leslyn L. 54 stated that park users who have been silent and need to be considered are families who use the 55 picnic tables, summer events and concerts, children who use the play structures and open 56 space, the Magical Playground, seniors doing tai chi and early morning walks, and residents who 57 want green open space for contemplation and quiet. Leslyn L. said the goal is for all groups to be 58 accommodated and the City needs to consider how to provide more pickleball courts while 59 ensuring the many other uses of the park are maintained. 60 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 61 None. 62 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 63 1. Approval of Minutes from February 24, 2026. 64 MOTION: Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve the Parks and 65 Recreation Commission meeting draft summary minutes of February 24, 2026. 66 MOTION CARRIED: 5-2 (Commissioners Kleinhaus and Deng absent) 67 2. Approval of Minutes from March 24, 2026. 68 MOTION: Commissioner Axelrod moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Parks and 69 Recreation Commission meeting draft summary minutes of March 24, 2026. 70 MOTION CARRIED: 4-2-1 (Commissioner Brown abstained, Commissioners Kleinhaus and Deng absent) 71 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 72 1. Department Report 73 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager for Open Space, Parks, and Golf, highlighted the Earth Day 74 Festival at the Art Center, which took place Sunday, April 19, and had about 400 attendees. 75 Ms. Robustelli announced upcoming events. May Fete will take place in Heritage Park on Saturday, 76 May 2, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the theme is "Not All Heroes Wear Capes". The 2026 Movie 77 Nights will be held at Mitchell Park athletic fields with seating starting at 7 p.m. and the movie 78 starting at sunset. The first movie is scheduled for May 5 and all the dates are available on the City 79 website. Twelve teams have signed up for the Chili Cookoff happening on July 4. Commissioners 80 have been invited to judge the competition. Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 7 of 394  81 Anyone who wants to sign up for Cubberley updates can do so at the project webpage, 82 paloalto.gov/cubberleyproject. 83 Palo Alto has been working with a native plant expert, Juanita Salisbury, who spoke during public 84 comments. She has developed a native planting palette that will support the City's ecological goals 85 and maintain clear visibility throughout the park. Community Services staff will have a team building 86 planting work party there next week. 87 Ms. Robustelli celebrated recent volunteer efforts in the City, including volunteers from Rivian 88 weeding at Eleanor Pardee Park Community Garden, prospective Eagle Scouts building raised beds 89 at Ventura Community Garden, and Kiwanis Club painting site amenities and building a split-rail 90 fence at Briones Park. 91 Recent Hopkins Park improvements include removal of overgrown vegetation and replacement of a 92 fence. The courts there will be resurfaced in upcoming months. 93 Ms. Robustelli provided an update on the Heritage Park site amenities project, including a new sign 94 and 3-sort receptacle being added in response to community feedback. 95 Chair Freeman thanked Ms. Robustelli for the presentation and opened the floor for commissioner 96 comments and questions. 97 Commissioner Smith noted there is a new gate at Heritage Park from the playground to the new 98 bathroom at the museum, which he stated is a wonderful addition for moms, children, and elders. 99 Vice Chair Wei expressed thanks for the presentation and great work. 100 Chair Freeman was glad to hear about the 12 teams for the Chili Cookoff and asked how many 101 teams participated last year and whether there is a cap for how many teams may sign up. 102 Ms. Robustelli confirmed that 10 teams participated last year, 20 is the maximum number of teams, 103 and the sign-up cutoff is 3 weeks before the competition in early June. 104 Chair Freeman applauded the volunteer teams who contributed to the community garden projects. 105 Chair Freeman stated he lives near Heritage Park and has noticed the improvements. Chair Freeman 106 said it is a very active park and the extension of it out to the museum is great. 107 To a question from Chair Freeman, Ms. Robustelli clarified there are no new updates on Cubberley 108 at this time and recommended signing up for email updates on the Cubberly project website. 109 Chair Freeman asked about the Movie Nights and Ms. Robustelli replied that this is the sixth year of 110 Palo Alto's Movie Nights and the first movie will be held on June 5. 111 Commissioner Brown highlighted the public comment about benches and tables and asked Ms. 112 Robustelli to speak to the process around improvements like that and how the community and parks 113 users are engaged for feedback. 114 Ms. Robustelli responded that the community engagement process is site-specific. If doing an in- 115 kind replacement, very little outreach is done because it is more of a maintenance-based item and 116 stays at the staff level. When it is a capital improvement project (CIP), there is a robust community 117 engagement process that involves stakeholder meetings, open public meetings, and updates to 118 commissions. For Lytton Plaza specifically, they worked with nearby buildings owners, the City Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 8 of 394  119 Manager's Office, and Recreation to make sure items were placed in ways conducive to 120 stakeholders. 121 Commissioner Axelrod shared that he had the pleasure of attending Earth Day. Commissioner 122 Axelrod noted there was heavy traffic when it closed down; it seemed like people wanted the event 123 to last longer and he wondered if that was possible. 124 Ms. Robustelli expressed thanks for the feedback and offered to bring it to the staff debrief the 125 following day. 126 3. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates 127 Commissioner Axelrod shared that the final version of the Cubberley Master Plan and CEQA will go 128 to Council on May 18. Poll Number 4 is completed but the results are not summarized and will be 129 available through staff on May 7. For Open Space, there is a presentation with Commissioner 130 Smith's daughter about the interpretive center. It is in the early stages but designs look good and 131 they are starting to move forward with fundraising and financing. 132 For Nature Connectivity, Vice Chair Wei shared that she and Commissioner Kleinhaus are looking 133 into the scope of it and will engage staff for discussion when ready. 134 Chair Freeman stated that for the park dedication at Ventura, they should be hearing back from 135 Planning this week on next steps. The Memorial Site Concept for Ventura was brought to the PRC at 136 their retreat and related public comments were received by email. 137 Chair Freeman added an update on wetlands work at the golf course. Remedial wetland work 138 completed last fall focused on test plots with a variety of plant species and now the City's ecologist 139 is evaluating how those test plots are performing. Based on those results and consistent with the 140 original plan, the City will be expanding planting in the additional wetland areas this fall. It will 141 continue to be monitored and adjusted as needed to ensure it meets the desired ecological 142 outcomes. 143 Chair Freeman shared that the City issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) for formal ongoing wetland 144 monitoring and reporting and a consultant has been selected. That monitoring is expected to begin 145 later this year, pending City approval of the contract, which is scheduled for May 4. 146 For Park Group updates, Chair Freeman said there have been several conversations regarding the 147 Skate Park Renovation Project and not much is happening with it but there should be more 148 information at the next PRC meeting. Chair Freeman said there is nothing new from Safe Routes. 149 Chair Freeman applauded Eric for the fine job he and community garden liaisons have been doing to 150 reduce the waitlist for various community gardens, which has gone from 100+ to 10 or less in some 151 areas. Chair Freeman shared that community garden policy updates are being reviewed internally by 152 Eric and staff, who will meet with community garden liaisons and then bring that to PRC for 153 approval. 154 BUSINESS ITEMS 155 4. Informational Update on the Foothills Nature Preserve Improvements Project (PE-21000) 156 Megha Bansal, Senior Project Manager, provided a slideshow presentation update on the Foothills 157 Improvement Project's background, outreach efforts, plan development, timeline, and next steps. 158 Foothills Nature Preserve opened to the general public in 2020 and significant increase in visitation Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 9 of 394  159 led to the need for improvements to pedestrian access, safety, and parking. At the PRC meeting in 160 October 2025, staff presented a reduced scope for the project, which PRC supported. PRC's 161 feedback was to add back the gravel parking lot across Boronda Lake, including accessible parking, 162 and further discuss parking and traffic control. Proposed improvements in this plan include 163 designated pedestrian pathways, asphalt curb and borders as safety barriers between pedestrian 164 and vehicular traffic, delineating and reconfiguring most existing parking, and removing the parallel 165 gravel parking at the entrance road and in the Boronda Lake area. In the Boronda Lake parking lot, 166 staff proposes converting 2 spaces to accessible parking and 2 other spaces into a turnaround zone. 167 The plan includes traffic control features such as crosswalks, speed humps, speed tables, and 168 signage to improve safety. A new dirt island with asphalt curb will be added at the south intersection 169 of Vista Hill to enforce 1-way traffic; this was chosen over the previously proposed tiger teeth spikes. 170 This plan will return to PRC in May for recommendation of Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) to 171 City Council. Final project documents and Council adoption will take place in summer 2026, with 172 bidding and construction to begin in Fall/Winter 2026. 173 Chair Freeman expressed thanks for the presentation and the materials provided and reminded the 174 Commission that this session is informational only and the project will return to PRC for a motion in 175 May. 176 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if this project would require retaining walls. 177 Ms. Bansal confirmed there are no retaining walls as part of this project. 178 Vice Chair Wei said this is one of her favorite parks in Palo Alto and asked if parking is the main 179 concern or challenge addressed by this project. 180 Mike Warner, Open Space Manager, responded that the park has enough parking for the amount of 181 vehicles allowed by ordinance, which is a cap of 250 based on previous formulas used by the City. 182 The Commission and City Council capped total visitation per day at 600. Current general parking is 183 about 292 spaces within the preserve. The plan removes 9 parallel parking stalls, which leaves about 184 40 parking spaces in excess of the vehicle cap of 250. 185 Vice Chair Wei replied that since parking is not the primary issue being addressed, the project must 186 be more focused on natural preservation. 187 Mr. Warner explained that the project's goals are multi-faceted: aesthetics of the park, fire fuel 188 reduction by reducing interaction between vehicles and vegetation, and making it an efficient and 189 easier-to-use space by correcting how parking is done. 190 Commissioner Axelrod stated this is an amazing park and one of Palo Alto's best and expressed 191 excitement for the project to move forward. Commissioner Axelrod asked what success looks like 192 for this project and how that will be measured. 193 Mr. Warner responded that on the park operation side, success means reduction in speed issues; 194 reduction in collisions between vehicles and wildlife, people, and objects in the park; and improving 195 pedestrian safety. 196 Ms. Bansal added that the pedestrian pathways will be made of quarry fines and existing asphalt 197 curbs and borders will be used as much as possible as a safety barrier between pedestrian and 198 vehicular traffic. 199 Chair Freeman asked what was removed from the original scope. Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 10 of 394  200 Ms. Bansal stated that the original plan presented in the October meeting was to have pedestrian 201 pathways all along the preserve road all the way to the interpretive center. Based on Council 202 direction in September of last year, the project scope reduced pedestrian pathways to the higher- 203 use areas of Boronda Lake and Vista Hill. The original plan's split-rail fencing and bus parking have 204 been eliminated. 205 Mr. Warner added that 1,200 feet of split-rail fencing was asked to be put in to protect the 206 grasslands to the southwest of Vista Hill but usage after the pandemic leveled out and increased 207 education and signs posted by staff persuaded most visitors to stay off the grassland and protect it. 208 The boulders along the road on that section also serve to encourage staying off the grassland. 209 Chair Freeman asked how confident staff are that the new layout will improve traffic flow, especially 210 on busy weekends. 211 Mr. Warner responded that the addition of the speed humps to slow traffic through the preserve 212 will protect wildlife and other users and improve the visual aesthetic when entering the park by 213 opening up the view of the lake. 214 Chair Freeman asked why Tiger Teeth are no longer planned. 215 Mr. Warner noted the Tiger Teeth suggestion came from someone who no longer works for the City. 216 They were discussed with Transportation and determined inappropriate for this location. The 217 consultant suggested adding the natural barrier of the dirt island to direct traffic and make it 218 difficult to drive the wrong direction down the one-way. 219 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked how often all parking spots are taken. 220 Mr. Warner responded that the last time the park reached full capacity was Christmas weekend in 221 2020 with a few times after that coming close. Easter Saturday 2026 had 215 vehicles. The $6 entry 222 fee has helped slow visitation. 223 Commissioner Kleinhaus opined there may be an oversupply of parking, which can be discussed 224 later. Commissioner Kleinhaus highlighted public questions that asked about the appearance of the 225 crossings, speed bumps, and signs, and asked whether they are designed for nature preserves or a 226 downtown area. 227 Ms. Bansal replied that the crosswalks and speed tables will follow standard City design per 228 discussions with Transportation. Some signs will be on wooden posts to help align their appearance 229 with the nature preserve. Excess asphalt in the Vista Hills area is being removed to maintain a 230 natural look. 231 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked for good visuals to be included in the next packet so commissioners 232 and the public can see what they safety features will look like and how many will be included. 233 Commissioner Kleinhaus expressed concerns that the nature preserve may start to look like an 234 urban street. Commissioner Kleinhaus pointed out that, while the project is called a minor 235 improvement and exempt from CEQA, it is not minor and should still follow CEQA best practices. 236 Ms. Bansal responded that the plan went through minor ARB/staff-level review and received 237 approval. 238 Commissioner Kleinhaus asserted that minor ARB review is not right for a nature preserve project 239 and recommended that CEQA standards and best practices should still be followed, such as Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 11 of 394  240 completing a bird nesting survey before doing construction. Commissioner Kleinhaus expressed a 241 need for more overall information and transparency related to mitigations. 242 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 243 1. Karen H. thanked the PRC for their work and expressed pride in the City's parks and nature 244 preserves. Karen H. serves on the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board but spoke as 245 an individual this evening. Karen H. commented that she is used to seeing proposal maps with N 246 for new and E for existing but this project's map does not have those marks, so it is unclear what 247 is new, existing, or reconfigured. Karen H. asserted that there is a real responsibility to maintain 248 the character of the preserves and noted that striping and urban signage and colors degrade the 249 experience. Karen H. recommended following the Yosemite Design Guidelines, a beautiful 250 document about roadways, designs, and compatibility in a natural setting. Regarding CEQA, 251 Karen H. expressed concern about the project being exempt because it is unclear if new parking 252 is going in disturbed or undisturbed areas. Karen H. noted roadways are narrow and curvy, so 253 human pathways require expanding the roadway into undisturbed areas and vegetation/habitat 254 and may require a retaining wall for steep areas around the lake. 255 2. Jon Foster, Palo Alto resident, thanked everyone for their work on this. Jon Foster 256 recommended retaining the parking near the entrance because it is the only place to park when 257 accessing the beginning of the trail that starts at the entrance gate. 258 Ms. Bansal clarified that the 10-minute parking at the entrance is not proposed for removal but the 259 parallel gravel parking is proposed for removal because of safety concerns. 260 Mr. Warner stated that the public speaker was addressing the parallel parking under the tree at the 261 entrance. Mr. Warner said removal of that parking is not only related to aesthetics but some parking 262 issues on weekends in that specific spot. Mr. Warner added that staff has discussed allowing parking 263 in the 10-minute zone on weekdays. 264 Commissioner Axelrod expressed excitement for accessible parking being added and wondered why 265 staff chose to remove parking at the lake level and add it to a more elevated parking area. 266 Mr. Warner said that additional parking further back is a more natural spot. Parallel parking along 267 the lake area has had parking issues in the last 5 years, especially on busy days and evenings 268 because the lake is popular. Vehicles encroach on the roadway, making it a narrow spot and making 269 it difficult for cyclists and vehicles to pass both ways. The current parking plan improves that and 270 makes it possible to see the lake versus a row of cars the whole way. It also aims to reduce vehicles 271 trying to park close to the rocks, which pierce vehicle oil tanks, which staff have to clean up. 272 Commissioner Axelrod encouraged staff to make sure a wheelchair can easily get from the new 273 accessible spots to the lake. 274 Vice Chair Wei recognized staff's efforts to balance the increased visitation since 2020 and the need 275 for safety. Vice Chair Wei echoed Commissioner Kleinhaus and public comments about the park's 276 identity as a preserve being first priority and its function as a park being secondary. Vice Chair Wei 277 stated the preserve-first framework is reflected in the plan. 278 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager for Open Space, Parks, and Golf, asked for clarity from the PRC, 279 noting that the gravel parking lot was not in the plan presented at the October meeting, the PRC 280 asked for it to be added back to the plan, and tonight's discussion is voicing concerns about too Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 12 of 394  281 much parking and disturbing natural areas. Ms. Robustelli clarified that the parking lot was originally 282 asphalt and was converted to gravel per PRC feedback. 283 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated the plan is much better than where it started and appreciated the 284 work that went into it. Commissioner Kleinhaus noted the initial visual of coming down into the 285 lower part of the preserve is a gravel parking lot, which is better than asphalt, but with the trail on 286 the other side, it becomes a large area that is not natural. Commissioner Kleinhaus stated the lot is 287 not the highest priority in terms of nature conservation but is a visual place and a lot of birds forage 288 there, so it is good to not touch it much. Commissioner Kleinhaus was unsure about changing the 289 whole visual feel of the park for the few days each year that are at capacity. Commissioner 290 Kleinhaus said gravel is better than asphalt but none is even better and suggested keeping that lot 291 for overflow use on high visitation days. In terms of curbs, Commissioner Kleinhaus felt it was better 292 for staff to use natural materials like tree trunks, logs, and rocks versus asphalt as much as possible. 293 Commissioner Kleinhaus was unsure why pedestrian and vehicle use need to be separated on this 294 road, noting that Ross Road has cars, bikes, and pedestrians all together. Commissioner Kleinhaus 295 asserted that the beauty of this park is critical and if improvements make it less beautiful, that is 296 important to consider. Commissioner Kleinhaus shared that several people reached out about 297 keeping the top parking lot open. Commissioner Kleinhaus was not sure that a path could be put by 298 the road without shrinking the road or building a retaining wall. 299 Ms. Bansal pointed out that the existing shoulder is planned for conversion to the pedestrian path. 300 In certain areas, the path may have to be reduced to 3 feet but it can be mostly maintained at 3 to 4 301 feet with a gap wherever there is a conflict with existing trees since no trees are being removed. 302 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked how paths can be protected from erosion without a retaining wall. 303 Ms. Bansal said there is enough space for a 3 to 4-foot trail and there will be no retaining wall. 304 Commissioner Deng noted the gravel parking lot across Boronda Lake and the pedestrian road and 305 asked what materials are used. 306 Ms. Bansal shared that the material used for all of the pedestrian pathways is quarry fines, which is 307 a byproduct of quarry operation. This material is installed at Arastradero Preserve and staff have no 308 concerns about it. It has better maintenance than DG pathways, which is why it was selected. 309 Vice Chair Wei hoped that the goal was to get more efficiency rather than adding more parking, 310 reconfiguring and formalizing spaces to eliminate ambiguity for visitors, improve flow, and clearly 311 designate parking areas. Vice Chair Wei supported removing parking configurations that create 312 safety issues and ecological damage and reclaiming existing space where informal parking has 313 expanded beyond intended limits. 314 Chair Freeman hoped for a continued balance of safety improvements while preserving the natural 315 character of the preserve and asked what PRC can do before this comes back. 316 Ms. Bansal asked PRC for clear direction on whether they want the gravel lot across Boronda Lake, 317 which was added back to the plan per PRC's direction in October. 318 Chair Freeman wanted to make sure there was room to park while not distracting from the park's 319 beauty. 320 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if it was possible for staff to have a grassy area instead of parking, 321 which could be used as overflow parking on peak days only. Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 13 of 394  322 Ben Heistein, Assistant Director of Open Space, explained that there is currently a lot of unofficial 323 parallel parking that is causing issues, so if they create an unofficial grassland area for parking, they 324 may run into the same level of safety issues being experienced now because it would be hard to 325 police and regulate. 326 Mr. Warner agreed with Mr. Heistein's statements and added that infrequent park visitors will not 327 understand that that area is overflow parking only and will want to park there all the time. Mr. 328 Warner expressed concerns that encouraging visitors to park on vegetation in one area can confuse 329 them about whether they can park on vegetation throughout the park. Mr. Warner stated he has 330 encountered visitors who think parking rules at other places like Mitchell Park should apply in the 331 preserve. Mr. Warner gave the example of occasional people sneaking a mini van between the 332 boulders to park on vegetation. 333 Commissioner Kleinhaus supported removing parking along the lake and wondered if more parking 334 is needed given the visitation is not as high as it was right after COVID. 335 Mr. Warner noted the visitation limit is decided by PRC and Council. The 600-person cap is based on 336 calculations around visitation for the last 20 to 30 years but the municipal code allows up to 1,000 337 visitors per day and the cap could change based on who is seated on PRC and Council. Mr. Warner 338 recalled the explosion in park visitation after COVID and asserted that things can change overnight, 339 so built-in contingency is a good thing but it must be done mindfully. 340 Chair Freeman asked if staff have enough feedback and information to create their ordinance for 341 approval at the next PRC meeting. 342 Ms. Robustelli stated guidance was still fuzzy on the gravel parking lot, which PRC recommended at 343 the October meeting but is now opposed by 2 commissioners. Ms. Robustelli asked for a better 344 sense of PRC's recommendation on the current plan and scope moving forward. 345 Chair Freeman recalled a lengthy discussion around the gravel parking at the October meeting and 346 expressed surprise that it has now become an issue. Chair Freeman stated a need for a consensus on 347 whether to keep or remove that parking. 348 Commissioner Smith spoke in favor of keeping the gravel parking lot and cautioned against some 349 parking being overflow on specific days only because it takes staff time to communicate and 350 enforce. 351 Commissioner Brown supported keeping the gravel parking lot to accommodate high-traffic days 352 and prevent damage to habitat and more work for the rangers. 353 Commissioner Deng agreed about keeping the gravel parking lot because it will make up for the 354 parallel parking being removed. 355 Chair Freeman noted that people parking where they want to has been an issue that rangers and 356 others have observed and keeping the gravel parking lot in the plan will help address that. Chair 357 Freeman noted it can always be re-evaluated in the future. 358 Commissioner Axelrod said that if there is sufficient parking without the gravel lot, it may be easier 359 to do work on the other parking and then see if more is needed. 360 5. Middle School Athletics Program: Future Management Model and Program Direction Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 14 of 394  361 Adam Howard, Community Services Department, provided a slide presentation update on the 362 Middle School Athletics (MSA) Program and requested feedback from PRC on the preferred 363 management model. 364 The City of Palo Alto took full responsibility for MSA in 2009/2010. In October 2024, the City Council 365 asked PRC to review the program and align it with universal student access and applicable state laws 366 and explore the feasibility of outsourcing program operations to local nonprofit organizations. Mr. 367 Howard provided an overview of the current MSA program, fees, offerings by season, related City 368 staffing, participation levels, compliance with state law, participation and expenses, and program 369 accessibility and capacity. 370 At the PRC meeting on July 22, 2025, alternative models that were discussed included a tiered fee 371 structure, nonprofit partnerships, and partial or full program management outsourcing. Staff and 372 the ad hoc committee sought solutions that do not increase registration costs or City subsidy and/or 373 do increase program capacity. Staff and the ad hoc recommended against a tiered fee structure and 374 the partial program management outsourcing because it raises the cost to remaining sports and 375 creates concerns around equitable experience from sport to sport. Staff and the ad hoc 376 recommended continuing to strengthen the partnership with the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation 377 (PARF) and completing a Request For Proposal (RFP) to fully vet the full program management 378 outsourcing option. 379 Chair Freeman thanked staff and the ad hoc committee for their efforts and asked whether the ad 380 hoc members had anything to add. 381 Commissioner Brown spoke for the ad hoc committee, noting this item was a request by Council in 382 the PRC's previous work plan. Commissioner Brown expressed appreciation for staff's work on it. 383 To a question from Vice Chair Wei, Mr. Howard clarified the MSA sports offerings are listed in the 384 fall Enjoy! catalog with all the registration dates listed but it is not listed each season. 385 Vice Chair Wei asked about tennis court maintenance and Mr. Howard confirmed the school 386 operates their tennis courts and fields and that does not impact the MSA because it is separate. 387 Commissioner Axelrod asked if total participation time per sport is roughly equal, which Mr. Howard 388 confirmed. 389 Commissioner Smith asked about the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation (PARF). 390 Mr. Howard explained that PARF is a nonprofit organization whose sole mission is to support the 391 Recreation division. They help support the Rec Department and supply funding for a lot of special 392 events to help continue or expand them. 393 To a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Howard clarified that PARF's $10,000 equals about 60 394 scholarships, which pay half the registration fee for 60 participants. 395 Commissioner Smith wondered what other similar funding might be available. 396 Mr. Howard believed other similar funds are out there and noted that PARF running Thursday night 397 events at Cal Ave and coming back to the forefront should help them gather more donations and 398 fundraise. 399 Commissioner Smith stated athletics are so important for getting kids off their devices, teaching 400 them how to compete, and having someone besides their parents telling them what to do. Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 15 of 394  401 Chair Freeman asked how staff is communicating the availability of sports fee scholarships. 402 Mr. Howard stated this is something new and they will advertise to bring it to the forefront. Mr. 403 Howard noted there is an information gap around which families cannot afford to participate even 404 with a 50 percent scholarship because they rarely reach out. Mr. Howard felt that adding the option 405 to apply for a scholarship covering 100 percent of the fee will help staff understand the level of need 406 in the community. 407 Chair Freeman noted there are 1,200 registrations with 60 waitlisted and asked whether that 408 number is trending up or remaining stable. 409 Mr. Howard replied that the waitlist number remains stable and MSA tries to keep it as small as 410 possible. If someone was invited to participate in another sport and turned that down, they are not 411 included in the waitlist number. 412 To a question from Chair Freeman, Mr. Howard explained that basketball and girls volleyball drive 413 the waitlist the most. They have to have the right amount of coaches and team sizes come into play 414 because of the limit to how many people can be on the court. There are also space limits because 415 basketball is a winter sport, so there are no options to put things outside because there would be 416 weather delays. 417 In response to a question by Chair Freeman, Mr. Howard clarified that staff recommends continuing 418 to investigate full outsourcing. Staff recommends against partial because if they outsource 1 or 2 419 sports, the remaining sports have to increase in cost to cover the fees. The only way to avoid this is 420 if all sports are able to be individually contracted out. Even if that is possible, the question is 421 whether all sports are getting equal attention from 8 different organizations and how to manage all 422 those contracts. Staff concludes that individual contracting out does more harm than good and 423 recommends fully investigating the potential for full outsourcing, though it is unclear whether the 424 right group can be found to manage it. 425 Chair Freeman commented that the previous RFP did not get much response and asked what staff 426 will change, whether the RFP itself or reaching out to other communities to find out what worked 427 for them. 428 Mr. Howard clarified that the first request was a Request For Information (RFI), which is more 429 informal and vague. Mr. Howard stated that some organizations perhaps did not want to provide 430 information or take the time to do it because it is informal. An RFP is more formal, will be very 431 specific to full contract management, and can go from an RFP to taking ownership of the program. 432 Mr. Howard said the results may not be different but they need to try and find out for sure. 433 To a question by Chair Freeman, Mr. Howard further explained that using the RFP to fully test the 434 market is the best solution. The City can weigh any RFPs submitted and can still choose to keep MSA 435 in house. 436 Commissioner Smith asked what time these sports activities take place. 437 Mr. Howard explained that the activities start within an hour of school getting out. Practice is 438 typically an hour, Monday through Friday. The game schedule fluctuates but some games go as late 439 as 7, though they try to avoid that as much as possible. 440 Commissioner Smith wondered if these activities are considered childcare assistance. Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 16 of 394  441 Mr. Howard thought MSA may act as childcare for some but stated that the importance of sports, 442 especially at middle school level, is that is provides one of the last opportunities where kids can 443 participate in a team sport where skill is not the main driver. Once at the high school level, skill 444 becomes a more prominent focus. 445 Commissioner Deng commented about the program's promotion via PAUSD and City email channels 446 and wondered if there is any on-site promotion or introductory session during the middle school 447 visit to make parents aware and help them plan their kids' afterschool programs in advance. 448 Mr. Howard stated it is easier to reach seventh and eights graders. The incoming sixth graders are 449 hardest to reach, so they are working with elementary schools to see if they can send out MSA 450 information to incoming sixth graders at the end of fifth grade. 451 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 452 1. Tom Haxton stated he came prepared to argue for the RFP and was happy to hear about the 453 adjustments and recommendation for the RFP. Tom Haxton shared that he founded the Palo 454 Alto Middle School Athletics Community Organization (PAMSACO), which is a nonprofit whose 455 advocacy led to the City Council vote. Tom Haxton highlighted the motivation for evaluating 456 partnering with nonprofits was to increase the level of service for middle school sports. Tom 457 Haxton started off as a volunteer coach for cross country and track and field at JLS Middle 458 School and found the student experience is determined by the quality of coach, which can vary. 459 Tom Haxton stated the biggest thing to do to improve the program is to support the coaches 460 more and pay more to be reasonable compensation for time in the Bay Area. Tom Haxton noted 461 most of the registration fee goes to administrative overhead, not the coaches, and encouraged 462 staff to put the RFP out there as soon as possible. 463 2. DC, parent to a seventh grader at JLS, thanked the PRC for their service and time. DC shared that 464 he and his wife did a lot of sports growing up and stated that middle school is a crucial time to 465 learn a new sport. DC highlighted nonprofits in Palo Alto and noted the experience with middle 466 school sports has been poor by comparison because there is no organization or consistency 467 among the sports. Sometimes they lack able coaches or there are too many participants for the 468 coaches to manage. DC shared that in flag football, a coach was unable to stop unregistered 469 players and complaints to the City about it received no response. DC noted he sent written 470 comments earlier and hoped his eighth grader would have a better experience next year. 471 Vice Chair Wei stated MSA is doing great work and hoped they can get more funding, perhaps from 472 corporations in Palo Alto. 473 Commissioner Brown asked if the staff who administer the MSA program are 100 percent dedicated 474 to MSA or if they perform other functions. Commissioner Brown wondered if contracting out MSA 475 entirely would eliminate these positions and remove that administrative overhead. 476 Mr. Howard confirmed that MSA staff perform other functions, including adult sports, summer 477 camp contracts, and special events. Should MSA be contracted out, there would be a discussion 478 around whether full-time positions could be kept. 479 Commissioner Brown emphasized the importance of remembering that those employee positions 480 would not be entirely eliminated because they are not 100 percent dedicated to MSA. Eliminating 481 them means service impacts to the department while not eliminating them means less cost savings 482 related to outsourcing the program. Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 17 of 394  483 Commissioner Brown highlighted that they are looking at MSA not only to address the service and 484 improve the quality of the experience but also to make it more equitable in terms of access and 485 address changing needs. The research done showed the in-house delivery service model offers the 486 most flexibility in terms of being responsive to new sports being requested, though that could be 487 baked into a contract in some way. Since this conversation started, some considerations like 488 increasing the subsidy became less realistic given the reality of the current budget conditions. 489 Commissioner Brown expressed support for the staff recommendation. Commissioner Brown noted 490 it is very low cost and low effort to fully vet the outsourcing option and it will get the PRC the 491 answers it needs moving forward. 492 Commissioner Axelrod advocated for reconsidering partial program management across all sports 493 because it would enable them to find vendors who are best-of-breed and have a mission and 494 passion about each individual sport rather than looking for an umbrella organization. Commissioner 495 Axelrod stated it is hard to find a group that loves and offers great programs for the full range of 496 sports. Commissioner Axelrod recommended RFPs for individual and/or groups of sports. 497 Commissioner Freeman stated the goal is to grow and refine the MSA program and some of the 498 biggest constraints are facilities, staffing, and funding. Commissioner Freeman asked what processes 499 have been tried to address constraints, such as advertising and raising awareness. 500 Mr. Howard stated that websites like Indeed are used to increase the number of coaches available. 501 There are difficulties finding people available from 3 to 6, Monday through Friday, and it is not a 502 large chunk of time or pay. Mr. Howard stated they continue to reach out and use the current 503 coaches to promote to other people. Mr. Howard noted the economy and number of people looking 504 for work plays a role. Mr. Howard shared that high school students get out a little later, so the 505 schedule has been adjusted to allow them to coach because that is a good pull. It is about as much 506 communication as possible and being flexible with scheduling based on coach availability. 507 Commissioner Freeman recalled that when his kids were younger and in sports, the City had 508 programs for coaching and referee workshops. 509 Mr. Howard responded that the City is trying to find a coach certification program to offer through 510 the Enjoy! catalog, which could increase the potential coach pool. 511 Vice Chair Wei stated that is a great idea and asked if there are any resources from Stanford 512 students or their sports department. 513 Mr. Howard shared that they advertise the need for coaches through Stanford Athletics and other 514 junior colleges in the area, anything to promote to anyone available and interested in coaching. 515 Commissioner Smith asked if coach pay is competitive to neighboring towns. 516 Mr. Howard stated coach pay is competitive to neighboring cities but not private clubs because they 517 are able to pay more. Palo Alto pays coaches a range depending on coach level, starting at $20.91 518 per hour for Rec 1. 519 Commissioner Brown moved to accept the staff recommendation of an RFP contracting out the full 520 program. 521 Chair Freeman moved an addition that staff should return to the PRC with a comparative analysis 522 between the final decision, seconded by Commissioner Deng. Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 18 of 394  523 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Commissioner Axelrod moved adding an RFP for partial program management 524 across all sports in addition to the staff's recommendation of an RFP for full program management, 525 seconded by Commissioner Smith. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-3-1 (Brown, Deng, Freeman no, Kleinhaus absent) MOTION: Commissioner Brown moved to accept the staff recommendation of an RFP for the full 533 program, seconded by Commissioner Deng. MOTION PASSED: 5-1-1 (Axelrod no, Kleinhaus absent) 6. Review and Confirm the Revised Parks and Recreation Commission Fiscal Year 2027 Work 537 Plan PUBLIC COMMENT: Dan Garblik spoke on behalf of Rinconada Park parents and community members 560 who are proposing a small, nonprofit-operated café at Rinconada Park. Dan Garblik stated that Palo Alto 561 has an approved model for this, Ada's Café, which has successfully served Mitchell Park for years. The 562 same is wanted for Rinconada Park, which has a lot of foot traffic but no food or beverage options 563 within a 25-minute walk. The café would be operated by the nonprofit and local high school students, 564 giving them real entrepreneurial and leadership experience in their community. Supporters of the café Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 19 of 394  565 have a full presentation ready, are talking with City Planning, and are looking for guidance on the path 566 forward, specifically about the official park design process and how the proposal would fit into it. COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA 568 ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Item 1 April 28, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 20 of 394  1 MINUTES 2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 3 Regular meeting 4 May 26, 2026 5 In-Person & Virtual Conference 6 Palo Alto, California 7 8 Commissioners Present in Person:Chair Nellis Freeman, Vice Chair Bing Wei; Commissioners Yudy Deng, 9 Shani Kleinhaus, Vadim Axelrod, Amanda Brown, and Roger Smith 10 Commissioners Present Virtually:None 11 Commissioners Absent:None 12 Others Present:Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims 13 Staff Present: Ben Heistein, Adam Howard, Sarah Robustelli 14 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 15 Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 16 The roll was called and there was quorum. 17 PUBLIC COMMENT 18 Chair Freeman opened public comment for non-agenda items. 19 Daniel G. (in person) provided public comment not related to an agenda item and shared his views. 20 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 21 None 22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23 Chair Freeman asked for a motion to approve minutes from April 28, 2026. A motion was made 24 to approve the minutes and the motion was seconded. 25 No minutes were in the packet from last month and Chair Freeman struck the item. 26 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 27 1. Council Liaison Report 28 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, council liaison to the PRC, thanked everyone for their service. 29 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims reported there was a recent vote to move forward with a ballot 30 measure for sales tax to support Cubberley land acquisition and redevelopment of that parcel. She 31 stated Council has 5 confirmed community partners in the effort. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims 32 noted Council will vote on ballot language on June 8, 2026. Secondly, she reported Palo Alto is 33 sponsoring an event for Pride on June 7, 2026, in King Plaza. There will be remarks and entertainment 34 as well as organizations present. There are a number of sponsors for the event. The Palo Alto Police Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 21 of 394  35 Department has created a Pride patch to wear in June. Thirdly, 156 California has a builder’s remedy 36 project. The Council Ad Hoc Committee negotiated with the developer to bring the height of the 3 37 towers down. There are 2 projects in El Camino in the Fish Market area. Both are 7 stories and will 38 welcome people with different income levels to Palo Alto. Fourth, a recent vote was made not to close 39 Churchill Avenue as the presence of track monitors are preventing loss of life. Creation of quiet zones 40 is in progress. Closure would have resulted in putting cars in the way of kids on their way to school. 41 Lastly, the Finance Department and staff are working to close the budget deficit. The budget is 42 expected to be approved as the fiscal year draws to a close. 43 2. Department Report 44 Sarah Robustelli, Community Services Division Manager, recapped the May Fete Parade and 45 Community Fair. The theme was “Not All Heroes Wear Capes.” There were about 750 participants in 46 the parade and over 1,500 attendees at the fair. The fair has grown since last year with new booths. 47 Upcoming special events include Inaugural Thursday Live Event on May 28 with a ribbon cutting. The 48 6th Annual Summer Family Movie Night series will begin at Mitchell Park Athletic Community Center 49 Fields with the first movie on June 5. The Fourth of July Chili Cookoff and Summer Festival is drawing 50 more teams than last year. Cash prizes will be awarded. Commissioners have been invited to attend 51 Bryant Street Community Center Grand Opening on June 3, celebrating opening of Downtown Teen 52 Center, previewing upcoming classes and programs, and highlighting the new Downtown Home for 53 La Comida, Senior Lunch Program. Ms. Robustelli echoed Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ comments 54 regarding City Council’s recent action. 55 Ben Heistein, Assistant Director of Open Space Parks and Golf, provided updates on the sluice gate 56 repair status. Mr. Heistein stated the Tide Gate Structure is critical for flood control and is managed 57 by Valley Water. The sluice gate has a 2-way feature to either let water in or keep it out. The Flood 58 Basin is 600 acres and houses the sluice gate. In addition to the Bay, the Flood Basin receives flow 59 from 3 main creeks and stormwater runoff sources. Mr. Heistein reported the Emily Renzel Ponds and 60 Salt Marsh were created in 1992, which pump water into Matadero Creek before reaching the Flood 61 Basin. He provided a history of the sluice gate from 1975 to 2025, which included mitigation for 62 extending the Palo Alto Landfill, now Byxbee Park. A man-made tidal marsh habitat was later created. 63 Valley Water began planning a Tide Gate replacement project in 2018 that would include a new sluice 64 gate. Neither the motorized nor manual operation of the sluice gate has worked since around 2020. 65 The Tide Gate Replacement Project was deferred until 2060 with a focus to extend the service life of 66 the Tide Gate. Dry inspection confirmed no leakage from the sluice gate. Mr. Heistein updated the 67 Commission regarding a permanent application submitted to clean the sluice gate, remove marine 68 buildup, and assess underwater conditions, noting the importance of wet versus dry inspection. The 69 purpose is to extend the life of the system so it is operable until the Shoreline II Project happens in 70 2060. Valley Water’s project will resume in September to repair 6 flappers. Mr. Heistein stated the 71 City’s next steps include evaluating water level trends in the Basin. He reported the possibility of Emily 72 Renzel Ponds and Salt Marsh supporting the sluice gate function should be looked into. 73 Mr. Heistein noted irrigation budget cuts for 2027. An agronomist will help construct the Natural Grass 74 Pilot at Greer Park. The draft proposal will be reviewed and will affect maintenance of fields at Greer 75 Park. Two fields will be closed in October for renovation to improve drainage and playability. On April Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 22 of 394  76 28, staff from Parks Maintenance, Watershed Protection Team, and Open Space participated in GSI 77 certification training. There was both classroom training and a field practicum. 78 Ms. Robustelli reported the CSD was invited to a spring native planting at Bowden Park with a second 79 planting planned for the fall. She thanked Juanita Salisbury for providing the planting plan. Ms. 80 Robustelli showed upgrades made at Ramos Park and thanked Public Works. She thanked the San 81 Francisco Recreation and Parks Commission for the recent visit at the Vault Museum at McLaren 82 Lodge. 83 Chair Freeman invited commissioners to ask questions to the staff. 84 Commissioner Kleinhaus appreciated clarification that reduction in irrigation is not limited to foothills. 85 She recommended plantings to enhance the monarch butterfly habitat. Regarding the sluice gate, 86 Commissioner Kleinhaus questioned whether corrosion could increase flood risk. Mr. Heistein 87 responded the seals were confirmed to be intact but the underwater inspection will look deeper to 88 verify and expose the structure of the sluice gate. When closed, there is no flood risk. Commissioner 89 Kleinhaus inquired if there is a change in the vegetation in the Flood Basin. Mr. Heistein reported no 90 current studies of plant communities in the Flood Basin as the focus is on repairing the sluice gate. He 91 agreed with the need to evaluate and noted Valley Water did analyze a limited area. Mr. Heistein 92 stated obstruction to flapper gates during storm events can impact plant communities. 93 Vice Chair Wei asked for the current status of the sluice gate. Mr. Heistein reiterated it has been stuck 94 in the closed position. The sluice gate was able to be manually operated at one time and he is looking 95 to restore that function until the motorized function can be restored. Vice Chair Wei asked if access 96 is expected to change when the work is resumed. According to Mr. Heistein, public access is not 97 expected to change for longer than a couple days. The Palo Alto Seismic Retrofit Project will impact 98 access for a few months. Vice Chair Wei asked for clarification regarding the budget cut. Mr. Heistein 99 stated municipal agencies will have to comply with AB 572 as of January 1, 2027, before private 100 landowners have to comply. He provided a definition of nonfunctional turf. 101 Commissioner Axelrod asked for clarification regarding Thursday Live. Adam Howard, Senior 102 Community Services Manager, stated there will be live music. Sometimes there will be an added 103 special feature such as a car show. Commissioner Axelrod asked Mr. Heistein if estimates and 104 scenarios regarding the outcomes of the Tide Gate Structure inspection will be made available. Mr. 105 Heistein believes there will be more insights after the inspection and emphasized the need to extend 106 the life of the sluice gate 20 to 40 years. He confirmed all elements will be inspected. 107 Commissioner Deng was honored to serve as a judge for the May Fete Parade and congratulated the 108 winners. She will be tabling at Palo Alto Pride on June 7. Commissioner Deng appreciates the progress 109 on the Natural Grass Pilot at Greer Park. 110 Chair Freeman hopes Live on California Avenue will be an ongoing event. He deferred discussion of 111 the soccer field closure to Ad Hoc but asked for clarification that the closure would be only 2 weeks. 112 Mr. Heistein replied he spoke with Reservation Staff on Mr. Howard’s team. There was previously 113 concern the entire park would be closed but he reiterated shutdown of only Fields 2 and 4 for 9 days 114 in October. Reservation staff is working to move groups to other fields if needed. Chair Freeman 115 applauded the Chili Cookoff. Ms. Robustelli stated sign-up is open for the 4th of July Chili Cookoff. Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 23 of 394  116 Vice Chair Wei appreciated the detailed report on the sluice gate and inquired if ecologic data is 117 available and if there are opportunities to improve habitat resilience while extending the service life 118 of the infrastructure. Mr. Heistein stated evaluating the health of the plant communities needs a 119 holistic approach, which would be a multi-agency effort. There are currently no plans to do that. The 120 focus is on ensuring the sluice gate is operable. Vice Chair Wei asked who is responsible for long-term 121 maintenance. Mr. Heistein stated Palo Alto is in charge of maintaining the sluice gate and Valley 122 Waters is responsible for the Tide Gate Structure and an easement. The Basin is a flood control facility. 123 Vice Chair Wei wondered if educational partnerships would be supported for marsh stewardship 124 climate resilience. 125 3. Ad Hoc Liaison Reports 126 Commissioner Axelrod commended Councilmember Lythcott-Haims for Cubberley updates. He noted 127 a need for getting the word out on a bike safety park in Ventura. 128 Commissioner Kleinhaus reported there has been a review of city policies and plans regarding nature 129 connectivity. 130 Commissioner Freeman asked Ms. Robustelli for an update on Palo Alto Community Child Care. Ms. 131 Robustelli replied she is working with internal departments, ensuring no carveouts are necessary 132 before having the land surveyed. Commissioner Freeman stated Measure E will be on the agenda in 133 June to which Ms. Robustelli concurred. 134 BUSINESS ITEMS 135 4. Pickleball Facility Usage and Expansion Evaluation – 75 Minutes – Staff Presentation 136 Commissioner Freeman thanked everyone for attending the meeting and requested a respectful 137 environment during the discussion. 138 Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager with the City of Palo Alto and the Recreation 139 Department, discussed the pickleball facility usage, expansion, and evaluation in Palo Alto. The 140 recommendation is to not increase inventory of the pickleball courts due to operational use, parking, 141 noise, and user conflict concerns. Mr. Howard provided background, noting a request to convert some 142 Mitchell Park tennis courts into pickleball courts. In 2018, pickleball was allowed on a limited basis. 143 Increased demand of pickleball led to design of new courts in 2019. Pickleball space officially opened 144 in 2020. Lights were eventually added. Mr. Howard noted the times of highest demand for pickleball 145 and tennis courts. Palo Alto High School courts are not city operated and there is no bathroom access 146 during evenings or weekends. Peak parking times were noted to be during weekend mornings at 147 Mitchell Park. Mr. Howard stated additional demand would put parking at capacity. The Pickleball 148 Club has requested expansion in Mitchell Park, which would increase pickleball courts and reduce 149 tennis courts. Alternatives to expansion are also being looked at. Mr. Howard noted concerns of 150 additional noise in Mitchell Park that would come with expansion, affecting the playgrounds and 151 Community Center rental spaces. Pickleball is more social than tennis and creates more noise. There 152 is a higher demand for pickleball, leading to longer wait times. He noted the tennis community does 153 not want to lose lit tennis courts. Residents are concerned about overcrowding of Mitchell Park. Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 24 of 394  154 Mr. Howard highlighted ideas being looked into regarding pickleball expansion: dual striping of courts, 155 a resident permit system, lighting Cubberley courts, and a new location for dedicated pickleball use. 156 He listed pros and cons of each. The Baylands Athletic Center was considered as an alternate location. 157 Mr. Howard noted the largest concern is a housing development going in next door. 158 Chair Freeman appreciated Mr. Howard’s thorough report and allowed commissioners a chance to 159 ask questions. 160 Vice Chair Wei asked Mr. Howard about enforcement of fair access for resident priority use. Mr. 161 Howard replied there is no current software for digital check-ins and staff would be needed to check 162 permits. Vice Chair Wei wondered if other jurisdictions have a best practice as a comparison. Mr. 163 Howard said cities have followed Palo Alto’s lead on dual striping but conflicts cannot be avoided. 164 Commissioner Deng sought clarification on Attachment A for court counts. Mr. Howard explained the 165 spreadsheet. 166 Commissioner Axelrod wondered about solutions for parking locations and wanted to know the future 167 of the Cubberley lighting project. Mr. Howard stated Mitchell Park parking lots are owned by Palo 168 Alto. The Pickleball Club has looked at other lots. Lighting Cubberley courts is not seen as a tradeoff 169 but believed to be good for the tennis community also. 170 Chair Freeman received clarification from Mr. Howard as to how many courts are currently lit. Chair 171 Freeman asked if noise reduction could be considered at Baylands Athletic Center. Mr. Howard stated 172 the housing development and new pickleball space could be built with each other mind but there are 173 still concerns. 174 Public Comment: 175 1. Harriet S. shared public comment via video. 176 2. Kathy F. chose to share public comment via video. The computer froze and video was not shown. 177 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j4p4QmM6uIA 178 3. Hope C. thanked Mr. Howard for his report and the Commission for the opportunity to deliver 179 remarks. She appreciated the opportunity living near Mitchell Park provides and she utilizes the 180 tennis courts. 181 4. Joyce R. thanked the Council and Mr. Howard for his report. She previously was a board chair of 182 the Magical Bridge Foundation. She noted the people who attend Magical Bridge have special 183 needs and the video from Harriet S. showed how the noise from the pickleball courts prevents 184 conversation as it is in close proximity. 185 5. Yong G. believes converting tennis courts to pickleball courts is a shortcut that hurts the 186 community. It is difficult to organize a social match and he has to go to other courts and wait. 187 6. Nadya has children who play tennis. She approves of more tennis courts and pickleball courts and 188 believes more social sports are good for the community. Nadya wanted to share a solution used 189 in the Southern Philippines instead of repainting the lines but time expired. 190 7. Cheryl K. (Merlani H. stated Cheryl K. was the previous speaker.) 191 8. Merlani H. lives 3 minutes from Mitchell Park and supports keeping the tennis courts unchanged. 192 Parking and restroom capacity is already difficult. She believes expanding pickleball will cause 193 more congestion. Friendship and connection are built on the tennis court. Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 25 of 394  194 9. Kala M. began playing tennis 20 years ago and her kids also play. She utilizes the tennis courts at 195 Mitchell Park and opposes the proposal to convert the courts. 196 10. Tracy F. stated Tennis Courts 1 and 2 are used for instruction. If Courts 3 and 4 are taken away, 197 the public will not be able to play tennis. She is concerned about the long-time tennis players who 198 would no longer be able to use the courts. 199 11. David M. has been playing tennis for over 40 years. He stated tennis courts are a long-term 200 resource for many. Tennis has been an outlet for his daughter with special needs. He is concerned 201 of the effects on families like his if the courts are lost. Mr. M. believes popularity growth should 202 not be the only reason to make changes. He encouraged the Commission to consider the broader 203 community not in attendance. 204 12. Jett K. is a captain for a USTA adult league tennis team. She had requested preferred times and 205 all 3 were declined due to unavailability. She is concerned if 2 more courts are converted to 206 pickleball courts, it will be difficult to secure tennis courts and get more residents to play for the 207 team. 208 13. Olenka V. thanked Mr. Howard and the staff for the recommendation. She started the Magical 209 Bridge Playground and is not anti-pickleball but is about placement, noting concern for those 210 being displaced. It took 7 years to raise the money for the playground. The tennis courts were 211 quiet neighbors. She noted for those with autism, sensory sensitivities, PTSD, dementia, etc., the 212 high-pitched noise from pickleball causes distress, anxiety, and overwhelm. She stated families 213 have been leaving the playground. Some who utilize the playground are nonverbal and rely on 214 the playground and the park for safety and quiet. A member was almost hit by a car. Ms. V. 215 reiterated she is not anti-pickleball but is asking for equity and consideration and questioned why 216 some of the community’s most marginalized people have to inherit the noise situation. She asked 217 that Mitchell Park be restored to a place for every member of the community with consideration 218 to move the pickleball courts to a location with more space and parking. 219 14. Tom N. stated pickleball has 80 percent of the resources while tennis has 20 percent and asked 220 the Commission to reject the proposal. He believes this would not create a fair use of space for 221 everyone and that it is already difficult to get enough time to play tennis at Mitchell Park. 222 15. Ravi K. said Mitchell Park is a community resource and believes the character of the park will be 223 destroyed by increasing pickleball. He is concerned about the disruption for the children at the 224 Magical Bridge Playground and others who use the lawn and playground. He echoed the pressure 225 on parking. Mr. K. stated nearby citizens are afraid to speak publicly but are also affected. He 226 noted it is neighboring cities, not Palo Alto, which have a shortage of pickleball courts. 227 16. Frank L. did not provide comment. 228 17. Sifeng L. did not provide comment. 229 18. Khamh T. appreciates Palo Alto’s tennis courts. 230 19. Laurens V. stated his younger kids learned to play tennis on the Mitchell Park courts and believes 231 it is unfair to take the courts away from the Palo Alto community and those living nearby. His wife 232 plays pickleball and she is opposed to expanding the pickleball courts. 233 20. Wenxin H. is a USTA captain who plays tennis at Mitchell Park. He noted the multicultural, 234 multipurpose park. If courts are converted to pickleball, he states there will only be 4 courts for 235 all Palo Alto citizens. He is not against pickleball but it should be moved to another place because 236 it creates a lot of noise and impacts activities. Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 26 of 394  237 21. Ted F. plays both tennis and pickleball. Various age groups play tennis on the courts every day and 238 he stated it is their future. He addressed David Siegel, asking him to focus the energy and 239 persistence he has with the Pickleball Club on finding a solution that will not have a negative 240 impact. 241 22. Cliff C. is president of the Mountain View Pickleball Club. He stated they have 6 dual-striped courts 242 and 2 dedicated courts. The City is receiving a proposal for a private property public pickleball 243 facility. He noted other cities are trying to increase the supply of pickleball to relieve demand from 244 Mitchell Park. He stated there are no conflicts with the dual-striped courts and there is an 245 agreement with the tennis club on shared hours. He does support expansion of pickleball courts. 246 A member of the public voiced disagreement and Chair Freeman intervened. 247 23. Robert C. added to others’ comments that expansion of the pickleball courts will result in only 1 248 lit court for walk-on tennis because most courts are reserved for instruction or USTA matches. 249 24. Carina T. is a junior at Gunn High School and member of the Gunn High Pickleball Club. She 250 explained how pickleball is beneficial and the challenges at Mitchell Park. Ms. T. hopes Palo Alto 251 will be supportive of providing space for youth to play pickleball. 252 25. Max Z. is a sophomore at Palo Alto High School and president of the Paly Pickleball Club. He noted 253 that pickleball applies to all ages. As both a soccer and pickleball player, he stated advantages of 254 pickleball are playability and accessibility. The Paly Pickleball Club tripled in size in the course of a 255 month after its founding and continues to grow. Mr. Z. stated it grows 30 percent per year on 256 average, more than other clubs. He provided reasons youth are not often playing pickleball at 257 Mitchell Park and would like a designated place to play for those of the same age. He believes the 258 mental health of teens would be improved and that more space and youth-priority courts would 259 allow youth leagues and community events. He supports the proposed expansion at Mitchell Park. 260 26. Long N. asked the Commission to consider that children need a healthy, safe, peaceful, and no- 261 noise environment to learn. He provided ratios of city populations to pickleball courts. 262 27. David Siegel, president of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club, thanked the staff and Mr. Howard for 263 support of pickleball. He represents membership and others who utilize the courts. He asked 264 attendees who play pickleball to raise their hands. Mr. Siegel stated he has seen pickleball save 265 lives and urged people to consider the impact of pickleball since COVID-19, bringing people out of 266 isolation. He reported on June 14, there will be a youth event at Mitchell Park for the Gunn and 267 Paly Pickleball Clubs. The proposal includes 4 dedicated youth courts. He noted the Commission’s 268 understanding of youth mental health by the use of track monitors to deter suicide. Mr. Siegel 269 stated research shows pickleball reduces isolation and builds belonging among teens. He stated 270 the proposal is about reaching more people with the joy and benefits of pickleball and hosting 271 more community events. He believes pickleball supports people of all ages who are isolated. He 272 assured parking is being discussed and the Club may pay for sound barriers if feasible. The Club 273 has offered to fund lights at Cubberley to expand tennis availability after dark. He brought to 274 attention the lack of mentioning pickleball’s health benefits in Mr. Howard’s report and also spoke 275 about highlights from the report. He noted commercial courts have opened or will soon and 276 agrees the Baylands site is not realistic. He states the issue is not tennis versus pickleball but 277 pickleball versus loneliness, depression, and community. Traffic, parking, and noise were stated 278 to be legitimate concerns that Mr. Siegel takes seriously. He asked the Commission to weigh those 279 concerns against the goal of improving social and mental health of the residents. Mr. Siegel Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 27 of 394  280 concluded with his request for 2 out of 54 public tennis courts to be repurposed for 8 pickleball 281 courts. 282 28. Jack K. stated pickleball has helped him since his diagnosis of Parkinson disease. Due to long 283 waiting times at Mitchell Park, he and his wife have been playing at Rengstorff Park. Mr. K. quoted 284 a statement from the Parkinson’s Foundation noting pickleball is beneficial for people with 285 Parkinson disease and boosts mental health and emotional wellbeing. He empathized with those 286 who will not pick up the sport because of the crowds at Mitchell Park. 287 29. Henry R. is an officer with the Palo Alto Tennis Club. He stated he is not adversarial, thanked the 288 Commission, and appreciated the public comments. Mr. R. pointed out that converting 2 tennis 289 courts to pickleball will not solve a youth crisis. 290 30. Peter F. is a parent from the Challenger School near Mitchell Park. He stated playing tennis and 291 connecting with the community at Mitchell Park helped him recover from mental health issues. 292 He has respect for pickleball players but the sport is noisy and affects the students at the 293 Challenger School and people at Magical Bridge Playground. He requested the City to find a way 294 to both support recreation and protect the learning environment. 295 31. Vittorio F. pointed out the difference in the availability of tennis versus pickleball courts. He stated 296 tennis players will have to go to several courts to try and find a place to play while pickleball has 297 a bigger rotation with less of a likelihood of not being able to play. Taking Mitchell courts and lit 298 courts out, he noted there are only 4 courts. 299 32. Anne C. is an Olympian from 1960 who stated she believes in the value of sports for everyone. 300 She thanked everyone for the discussion. She appreciated the community and its facilities and 301 would like to see how everyone can work together to make changes. She is supportive of the 302 conversion of tennis courts to pickleball and of lighting courts at Cubberley to extend tennis 303 playing time into the evening. Ms. C. stated she would like to restart the Joint Commission Task 304 Force. 305 33. Jared P. stated he plays tennis and attended due to curiosity. He thought Mr. Howard’s 306 recommendation made sense because there are more pickleball players. He indicated if pickleball 307 takes over a couple courts, they will take over the whole park and does not understand why 308 pickleball does not go to another location. 309 34. Jenny L. thanked Mr. Howard for his report. She noted the main issue with pickleball is noise. She 310 stated Boise, Idaho, had converted tennis courts to pickleball and then had to reconvert due to 311 noise and has set a legal precedent. She voiced her concern for AchieveKids who is next door to 312 the proposed courts. 313 35. Minxia Z. spoke about noise complaints and indicated concerns have not been addressed. 314 36. Cash’s father reported a bond he has with his son over tennis. If the 4 courts at Mitchell Park 315 become 2, he believes it will be impossible to play and continue bonding. Cash spoke about the 316 importance of playing tennis at Mitchell Park with his father and friends and his concern of no 317 longer being able to play there. 318 37. Kathy F.’s video was played, noting the focus on Mitchell Park is because there are no nearby 319 residences to be disturbed by the noise. 320 38. Brian N. appeared via Zoom. As CEO of AbilityPath and Learning Links, he stated the pickleball 321 courts cause a challenge to an oasis created for individuals with developmental disabilities and 322 learning differences. He would like a solution that meets the needs of pickleball and tennis players Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 28 of 394  323 while protecting the oasis. He believes it would be a travesty to make Magical Bridge unusable 324 due to noise and hopes for a long-term solution elsewhere regarding the pickleball courts. 325 39. Karen H. appeared via Zoom and asked the Commission to consider the sensitivities of those with 326 developmental disabilities. She used an example of planting the right tree in the right place, 327 avoiding conflict, which she believes applies in this case. 328 40. Brian W. appeared via Zoom. He stated he believes Mitchell Park should be inclusive. He believes 329 pickleball is overpowering the other activities. Mr. W. pointed out sound features within Magical 330 Bridge Playground are no longer audible due to noise from the pickleball courts. He said he would 331 like the City to restrict pickleball to allow other activities to flourish. 332 Chair Freeman thanked all members of the public for providing feedback. He acknowledged this is a 333 difficult issue. One of his concerns is understanding the balance between the 2 sports. Chair Freeman 334 appreciated that Mr. Howard’s report included parking, noise, operational impacts, and user 335 experience. He noted hearing everyone’s perspective is of the most interest. He would like to see both 336 communities get together to come to a solution and reported that other cities are facing a similar 337 issue. 338 Commissioner Brown reported she has been working on the courts throughout the duration of her 339 time on the Commission. She stated the Park’s master plan says demand and capacity of major 340 recreational facilities should be evaluated every 5 years and that the staff has been doing this almost 341 annually. Commissioner Brown said space is a concern. She appreciates the mental health comments 342 and the desire to create opportunities for youth. She echoed Chair Freeman’s comments about finding 343 a balance. Chair Brown spoke about the principles of the Park’s master plan, which include balance 344 and flexibility. She supported the recommendation to pause the expansion of pickleball in Mitchell 345 Park and continue the effort of identifying future spaces, not only what is currently available but what 346 could be possible. Chair Brown stated she is not in favor of the reservation system. 347 Commissioner Deng expressed empathy for both sides as she has played tennis and pickleball. She 348 stated she would like to respect and support the staff recommendation. She is interested in creative 349 solutions and collaboration between both communities. 350 Vice Chair Wei echoed remarks from the Commission. She encouraged the Pickleball Club to partner 351 with staff on practical sound mitigation strategies and provided some examples. She noted the 352 importance of the Magical Bridge Playground. She supported looking for alternative spaces. 353 Commissioner Axelrod stated he has played both sports and utilizes Mitchell Park frequently. He 354 supported a long-term balance solution while addressing the conflicts at Mitchell Park. He would be 355 interested in looking into mitigations and lighting courts at Cubberley. 356 Commissioner Kleinhaus appreciated everyone’s opinions. She voiced her concern that the group 357 from AchieveKids, AbilityPath, and Magical Bridge were not involved in the conversation at first and 358 believes this is a failure. She noted new housing going in for people with developmental disabilities 359 and wondered if they would be able to use their outdoor space due to the noise. Either way, she 360 believes a solution for sound must be achieved, including looking into another space. Commissioner 361 Kleinhaus spoke about a similar situation in Mountain View. She stated noise also needs to be 362 considered with alternative locations. Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 29 of 394  363 Commissioner Smith apologized to the community for failure regarding Friends of the Palo Alto Parks 364 with regard to noise. He stated Monica is the mother of pickleball in Palo Alto and the mother of 365 Peninsula Pickleball. He believes everyone needs to work together on the sound and that it does not 366 make sense to put the courts in close proximity to a cafe and a playground. He supported the 367 Commission’s proposal. 368 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims acknowledged the challenge as a community and hoped for all to 369 treat each other with kindness and compassion in coming up with desired solutions. 370 MOTION A: Chair Freeman, seconded by Vice Chair Wei, recommended that the City Council move 371 forward with staff recommendation 372 (Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee recommend the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) support 373 the recommendation to not increase inventory of City of Palo Alto (City) pickleball courts, including 374 conversion of additional City tennis courts at Mitchell Park based on analysis of operational, parking, 375 noise, and user conflict concerns.) 376 Discussion ensued between commissioners and Chair Freeman to clarify the motions. 377 MOTION CARRIED: 7-0 378 MOTION B: Chair Freeman recommended forwarding to the City Council for review and approval. 379 Discussion ensued and it was determined there was no need for a second motion. 380 Commissioner Axelrod recommended a motion for staff to return with a plan incorporating the 381 parking and noise abatements at Mitchell that were discussed and lighting courts at Cubberley in 382 order to continue further discussions. It was determined a separate motion was not needed. 383 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 384 Ms. Robustelli spoke about future meeting agendas and noted that public comment on items not on 385 the agenda will be at the end of the meeting. June’s agenda includes a second deck study, Measure E 386 site, and Park Improvement Ordinance for Foothills Improvement Plan and Arastradero Creek 387 Pipeline. She stated there is too much on the agenda and one of the PIOs can be pushed to the July 388 meeting. 389 Chair Freeman was informed by the clerk that no additional speakers were on Zoom and adjourned 390 the meeting. 391 ADJOURNMENT 392 The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Item 1 May 26, 2026, Parks and Recreation Draft Summary Minutes Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 30 of 394  9 8 3 8 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report From: Public Works Department Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report #: 2604-6271 TITLE Recommend Adoption of a Park Dedication Ordinance to Dedicate a Portion of the Measure E site as Parkland. CEQA status – exempt under CEQA regulation 15601(b)(3). RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommend that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC): 1. Receive results of the wildlife corridor evaluation (Attachment A); and 2. Recommend City Council adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance (Attachment B) to dedicate 7.7 acres of the Measure E site at Byxbee Park as parkland. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In November 2011, Palo Alto voters approved Measure E, which removed an approximately 10- acre City-owned site adjacent to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and Byxbee Park from designated parkland to allow for consideration of uses supporting wastewater biosolids processing, resource recovery, and potentially a composting facility. Although the City Council later directed staff not to pursue a composting facility due to cost constraints, the site has remained undesignated as parkland pending further evaluation of long-term RWQCP biosolids management needs. This staff report presents the results of technical evaluations to inform the future use of the Measure E site, consistent with prior City Council direction to evaluate: (1) the need to preserve a portion of the site for potential RWQCP biosolids or related uses, and (2) the feasibility of a wildlife corridor connecting Renzel Marsh and Baylands Harbor Marsh. A Biosolids Facility Plan (BFP) Update, prepared by Carollo Engineers, found that maintaining flexibility for future biosolids management is important given evolving regulations, market uncertainty, and emerging contaminants such as Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The analysis indicates the approximately 2.4-acre flat, uncapped portion of the site may be needed for potential future RWQCP biosolids processing facilities. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 31 of 394  9 8 3 8 The wildlife corridor evaluation, conducted by Rincon Consultants, determined that while hydraulic connectivity enhancement may be technically feasible, a proposed wetland wildlife corridor at this location provides no or minimal ecological benefit. The evaluation found that alternative habitat enhancement strategies would likely provide greater value with fewer constraints. BACKGROUND 1 and subsequently voted 4-2 on October 25, 2022, to recommend that City Council dedicate the Measure E site as parkland.2 1 Parks and Recreation Commission, September 27, 2022; Agenda Item #4, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=39519&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 Parks and Recreation Commission, October 25, 2022; Agenda Item #5, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=39521&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 32 of 394  9 8 3 8 On April 3, 2023,5 City Council directed staff to return with additional analysis on the following: Whether the 2.4-acre portion of the Measure E site adjacent to the RWQCP’s southeast boundary should be preserved for a potential biosolids processing facility, consistent with Measure E’s ballot language for “environmental technology” uses; and The feasibility of supporting a wildlife corridor connecting Renzel Marsh to Baylands Harbor Marsh through the Measure E site. 6 The LRFP Update includes a Biosolids Facilities Plan (BFP) Update, which evaluates near-term and long-term biosolids management strategies and potential facility site options within the existing plant boundary, the 2.4-acre portion of the Measure E site, or offsite alternatives. This work continues to support the City Council’s 2026 Objective to advance recommendations for the RWQCP Biosolids Facility Plan and develop implementation strategies for future Council consideration.7 8 The analysis assessed existing site conditions, including habitat context, topography, existing above and underground utilities, and proximity to the RWQCP, to identify opportunities and constraints associated with providing connectivity between Renzel Marsh and Baylands Harbor Marsh. 5 City Council, April 3, 2023; Agenda Item #12; SR #2302-0942, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82279&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=ead8a87e -cd32-4330-b37d-fb135aef1549 6 City Council, June 10, 2024; Agenda Item #6; SR #2405-2993, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82887&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 7 City Council, March 9, 2026; Agenda Item #11; SR #2602-6021, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=86901&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=b3d9f921 -71cb-45e2-af60-887233fd7a3b- 8 City Council, December 12, 2022; Agenda Item #15; SR #14685, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82022&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=a0a03d36 -d40f-4c25-9497-2b132deb5e08 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 33 of 394  9 8 3 8 identification, preservation, and restoration of wildlife corridors as a key objective. On October 28, 2025, staff gave an update on BCCP13￿ On April 14, 2026, the City Council reviewed the PRC FY2027 Work Plan, which includes a goal (#2) to pursue and evaluate top priority potential sites and identify14. One of the priorities of the goal is to review and make recommendations regarding potential dedication of the Baylands Measure E Site (landfill slope portion). On April 28, 2026, the PRC FY2027 Work Plan was reviewed, updated, and confirmed.15 This work is also consistent with the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Master Plan which includes review of City-owned land for potential parkland development. ANALYSIS Biosolids Facility Plan (BFP) Update The City previously evaluated biosolids management and treatment alternatives through Biosolids Facility Plans completed in 2014 and 2019. The 2014 BFP evaluated alternatives to replace the aging multiple hearth furnaces (MHFs), which had reached the end of their useful life, and identified thermal hydrolysis with anaerobic digestion as the recommended approach. However, due to high capital costs and implementation complexity, the City did not proceed with that alternative. Instead, the RWQCP constructed and began operating the Sludge Dewatering and Truck Loadout Facility in 2019, allowing biosolids to be hauled off-site and processed at two different regional treatment facilities operated by Lystek International Limited (Lystek) in Solano County and Synagro-WWT, Inc. (Synagro) in the Central Valley. This approach allowed for decommissioning of the aging MHFs as outlined in the LRFP plan as well as eliminating the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from City facilities. The 2019 BFP Update￿ subsequently re-evaluated biosolids management strategies considering new regulatory drivers, facility upgrades, and evolving technologies, and recommended continuation of off-site hauling and processing while monitoring market conditions and regulatory changes. Since completion of the 2014 BFP and 2019 BFP Update, several key factors have continued to evolve, including implementation of new state regulations (e.g., SB 1383), ongoing changes to treatment processes at the RWQCP, continually evolving technologies, and uncertainty in biosolids markets and disposal options. As a result, the current BFP Update is intended to reassess biosolids management alternatives and identify a long-term, adaptable strategy for the RWQCP. 13 Parks and Recreation Commission, October 28, 2025; Agenda Item #7, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83947&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 14 City Council, April 6, 2026; Agenda Item #14; SR# 2512-5594, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=87059&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 15 Parks and Recreation Commission, April 28, 2026; Agenda Item #6, Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 34 of 394  9 8 3 8 Carollo Engineers evaluated a range of biosolids management and treatment alternatives. The analysis considered capital and lifecycle costs, environmental impacts, regulatory compliance, and implementation feasibility. The evaluation included potential facility siting options within the existing plant boundary, the 2.4-acre portion of the Measure E site, or offsite alternatives. Alternative 1 - Baseline Alternative: continue with current practice (hauling and off-site treatment at Synagro Central Valley Composting Facility and/or Lystek Solano County Facility); and Alternative 2 - Off-Site Partnership: hauling for potential off-site treatment at San Jose - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. Alternative 3: Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion; Alternative 4: Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion + Thermal Hydrolysis Process; Alternative 5: Thermal Belt Drying; and Alternative 6: Thermal Belt Drying Combined with Pyrolysis. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 35 of 394  9 8 3 8 the Measure E site for RWQCP use, consistent with Measure E’s ballot language for “environmental technology” uses. Open channel; and Wetland swale. Oversized multi-barrel box culvert; and Arc Span culvert. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 36 of 394  9 8 3 8 Implication for Measure E Site FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 37 of 394  9 8 3 8 associated with dedicating and potentially un-dedicating parkland in the future, which would once again require voter approval pursuant to Article VIII of the Palo Alto City Charter. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Project website (https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Regional- Water-Quality-Control-Plant/Capital-Improvement-Projects/Long-Range-Facility-Plan- Update); Uplift Local, a weekly e-Newsletter that include City news, updates, ways to engage, resources to connect and be well, and upcoming events and activities; and Sustainability News, an e-Newsletter featuring the latest sustainability and climate action initiatives in Palo Alto, as well as sustainability and climate news that affects Palo Alto. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 38 of 394  9 8 3 8 Attachment A: Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Attachment B: Ordinance Re-Dedicating a Portion of the Measure E site as Dedicated Parkland Attachment C: Measure E Site Map Attachment D: Biosolids Input Workshops - Meeting Minutes Attachment E: Biosolids Public Meeting - Meeting Minutes Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 39 of 394  Measure E Site Assessment Project Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental prepared for City of Palo Alto on behalf of Woodard & Curran, Inc. 95 Third Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, California 94103 prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 66 Franklin Street Draft Final Report - June 2026 Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 40 of 394  Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 41 of 394  Table of Contents Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation i Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Wetland Wildlife Corridor Project Description ......................................................................................... 3 3 Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment ............................................................................... 6 3.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Special Status Species ................................................................................................................ 12 3.5 Species Beneficial Use ................................................................................................................ 15 3.6 Ecological Assessment Conclusion ........................................................................................... 18 4 Hydraulic Connectivity and Excavation Assessment ............................................................................ 19 5 Site Constraints, Feasibility, and Regulatory Assessment .................................................................... 21 6 Alternative Beneficial Use ....................................................................................................................... 24 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 25 8 References ............................................................................................................................................... 26 Tables Table 1 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur ........................................................................ 12 Table 2 Special Status Wildlife Species Outcomes for Corridor Alternatives ...................................... 15 Table 3 Summary of Hydraulic Connectivity and Excavation Assessment .......................................... 20 Figures Figure 1 Project Overview............................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3 Soils ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4 Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types ....................................................................... 10 Figure 5 Proposed Project Site Constraints ............................................................................................. 23 Appendices Appendix A Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Appendix B Site Photographs Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 42 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project ii This page intentionally left blank. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 43 of 394  Executive Summary Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 1 Executive Summary This evaluation is intended to identify ecological benefits of establishing a wetland wildlife corridor at the Measure E site. The hydrological feasibility and ecological benefits for special status species are assessed for four potential alternatives. Considering the physical constraints of the site, hydraulic connectivity is feasible, however the potential benefits are restricted by the achievable channel width. Having to avoid or relocate existing landfill infrastructure within the site presents challenges for the design and construction of alternatives. Future studies are needed to determine the impact of tidal influence and climate on the hydraulic connectivity of the proposed wildlife corridor. The effectiveness of a wildlife corridor depends on its ability to support habitat quality, refuge, and biodiversity at a meaningful scale, particularly for species sensitive to edge effects and disturbance. The maximum potential width for the proposed wildlife corridor limits the diversity and functionality of the potential habitat corridor for wildlife. Future studies are needed to determine whether wildlife movement would improve and whether special status species would receive a measurable benefit from the study alternatives. Based on the site constraints and ecological considerations evaluated in this memorandum, targeted habitat enhancement opportunities may provide greater ecological benefit relative to the wetland corridor alternatives while minimizing disturbance to existing habitat areas. Potential opportunities could include habitat enhancement along the margins of Emily Renzel Wetlands or planting native species to support upland habitat and biodiversity. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 44 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 2 1 Project Background In 2011, Measure E was passed by The City of Palo Alto (City), de-designating approximately 10 acres of Byxbee Park for an energy/compost facility. With expiration of the Measure in 2021 and the site still undeveloped, the City Council’s Parks and Recreation Commission made it a priority in 2022 to review and make recommendations regarding potential alternative uses of the site or return it to parkland (Palo Alto, 2022). This technical memorandum has been prepared to support the Measure E Site Assessment (project) at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) in Palo Alto, California. The City is evaluating the potential for establishing a wetland wildlife corridor or alternative beneficial use at the Measure E Site. The Measure E Site consists of an approximately 10-acre parcel formerly associated with landfill operations and currently designated for environmental or community use. The landfill is no longer active but post-closure maintenance operations are ongoing. The goals of this project align with City Council direction to explore connectivity between the Emily Renzel Wetlands and the Baylands Harbor Marsh within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The project goals also align with the actions and restoration priorities outlined in USFWS’s Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California (USFWS, 2013) and Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Comprehensive Conservation Plan Draft (AECOM, 2022) and to restore tidal marsh habitat and provide wildlife corridors and linkages. This memorandum evaluates the potential ecological function, hydraulic connectivity, and implementation considerations associated with conceptual wetland wildlife corridor alternatives at the Measure E Site by assessing hydraulic connectivity, excavation limits, and ecological suitability. Ecological suitability is assessed by identifying special status species that occur in the vicinity of the project and could benefit from the proposed wetland corridor alternatives. The analysis considers ecological connectivity, engineering feasibility, and spatial constraints. Recognizing the physical and ecological considerations associated with a wetland wildlife corridor in this location, this memorandum also identifies and provides a high-level, qualitative feasibility and constraints analysis of potential alternative environmental beneficial uses for the Measure E Site. The concepts evaluated in this memorandum reflect the community’s interest in supporting wildlife movement, habitat connectivity, and environmental stewardship within the conceptual corridor site area. This evaluation was conducted to better understand how those goals may function within the existing physical and ecological constraints of the site. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 45 of 394  Wetland Wildlife Corridor Project Description Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 3 2 Wetland Wildlife Corridor Project Description The Measure E Site is located in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. The portion of the Measure E Site evaluated for its potential as a wetland wildlife corridor (proposed project site) is shown in yellow in Figure 1. The study area is defined as the conceptual corridor site plus a 150-foot buffer. The survey area extends beyond the area of the potential project to investigate how the ecological conditions of the surrounding area may influence the potential for special status species to occur. The RWQCP operates directly to the northwest of the conceptual corridor site. The Emily Renzel Wetlands are within the study area to the west of the conceptual corridor site. Palo Alto Baylands Marsh (part of Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve) is within the study area to the northeast of the conceptual corridor site. Mayfield Slough is within the study area and borders Byxbee Park to the south and west of the study area. Embarcadero Road is the main access road to the conceptual corridor site. The conceptual corridor site includes gravel service roads for access to the RWQCP, landfill post-closure maintenance facilities and storage yard. There is infrastructure in the conceptual corridor site associated with the landfill including a below ground 8” landfill gas line running from the landfill through the proposed excavation area to the flare within the RWQCP fence and two groundwater monitoring wells. The wildlife corridor project would involve expanding hydraulic connectivity between the Baylands Marsh to the Emily Renzel Wetlands. Hydraulic connection between these two wetland areas was first created via an underground pipeline back in 1992, as part of the Emily Renzel Marsh Enhancement Project. The underground pipeline is approximately 1,000 feet long, connecting the Bay intake structure to the salt marsh inlet. The maximum footprint of the corridor construction is limited to between the southern boundary of the 20-foot screening setback required for the RWQCP facility and the access road that runs east-west through the conceptual corridor site. The closed landfill boundary is beneath the access road and prohibits this area from being included in the wildlife corridor project. The potential corridor area is approximately 2.5 acres and the width ranges from approximately 90 feet to 150 feet. The length of the conceptual corridor site is approximately 860 feet extending from the west side of Embarcadero Road and into Emily Renzel Wetlands. Four alternatives were evaluated to achieve this enhanced connectivity: • Open channel • Wide wetland swale • Oversized multi-barrel box culvert • Arch span culvert Both the open channel and wide wetland swale alternatives include open-air, surface water connectivity whereas the oversized multi-barrel box culvert and arch span culvert alternatives offer entirely underground passage. The two “open-air” alternatives would still require construction of underground passages beneath Embarcadero Road and all alternatives would impact the new Horizontal Levee Pilot Project (Palo Alto, 2025). Eucalyptus trees that currently screen the water treatment plant from public view would remain in place to protect visual aesthetics. Conceptualized images of the potential alternative designs are shown in Exhibit 1. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 46 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 4 Exhibit 1 Wetland Wildlife Corridor Alternatives Open Channel (Narrow) Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 47 of 394  Wetland Wildlife Corridor Project Description Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 5 Figure 1 Project Overview Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 48 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 6 3 Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment This ecological suitability and species use assessment seeks to determine which special status species would potentially utilize and benefit from the proposed wetland corridor alternatives. The study area is assessed via a desktop literature and database review, a field survey to document current on-site conditions, and an analysis of the potential for special status species to occur in the study area and within the proposed wetland wildlife corridor. This section aims to determine what benefits, if any, the wildlife species with potential to occur at the site would receive from the proposed wetland wildlife corridor alternatives. 3.1 Literature Review Rincon conducted a literature review to identify special status wildlife with potential to occur in the study area. The literature review included an evaluation of current and historical aerial photographs of the site (Google Earth Pro 2025), regional and site‐specific topographic maps, and climatic data. Queries of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2025a), and CNPS online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2025) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding state and federally listed species, and other special status species, considered to have potential to occur within the Mountain View, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangle and one adjacent quadrangle (Palo Alto). A trust resources list of federally listed species with potential to occur within the study area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation system (IPaC; USFWS 2025a). The results of database queries and lists of special status species were reviewed by Rincon’s regional biological experts for accuracy and completeness. The final list of special status biological resources (species and sensitive natural communities) was evaluated based on documented occurrences within the two- quadrangle search area and biologists’ expert opinions on species known to occur in the region. A list of the species identified as having a moderate to high potential to occur is shown in Table 1. Additionally, the full list of special status species evaluated (including plants) is compiled in Appendix A. The literature review included a review of available biological databases and tools, including, but not limited to: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Information for Planning and Consultation (USFWS IPaC) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) online lists • NatureServe Explorer Pro • Calflora • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) • Biogeographical Information and Observation System (BIOS) Future consultation with CDFW may be conducted to gather insights on local restoration efforts for the target species and outcomes of similar projects to help align the corridor design with regional conservation goals and maximize ecosystem benefits. If needed, this memo will be updated after consultation with CDFW. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 49 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 7 3.2 Field Survey A field survey was conducted on November 18th, 2025, by Rincon Biologist Isaac Kreger, to document the current site conditions and map vegetation based on the classification system provided in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009). Vegetation communities or land cover types not described in A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition were classified using conventional naming practices (i.e., developed) or were defined by the dominant species. Photographs captured during the field survey, depicting the study area, are included in Appendix B. 3.3 Existing Conditions The conceptual corridor site is heavily impacted and modified by current mixed land use including recreation from visitors at Byxbee Park, maintained landscaping, and the activities of the RWQCP and landfill post-closure maintenance facilities. At the time of the survey active construction of the Horizontal Levee Pilot Project (Palo Alto, 2025) was taking place within the eastern portion of the study area. The adjacent project is planned for completion in 2026 and involves building a gently sloped levee with restored freshwater marsh, wet meadow, and riparian scrub habitats using treated wastewater as freshwater source. There were several additional active capital improvement projects associated with the Long Range Facilities Plan for the RWQCP (Palo Alto, 2012). These projects involved temporary impacts to a portion of the conceptual corridor site for staging equipment and materials. Watershed and Drainages The study area is located within the San Francisco Bay Estuaries-Frontal San Francisco Bay Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) sub-watershed (HUC No. 12-180500041001) (USGS 2025b). There is a 2-foot-wide ephemeral drainage that runs northeast to southwest through the Measure E Site shown in Figure 2. The ephemeral drainage conveys stormwater runoff from Embarcadero Road and potentially high tides. The drainage is less than one foot deep and does not have a defined bed and bank. The ephemeral drainage passes beneath Embarcadero Road via storm drain structures (18-in wide, concrete-lined pipe), through the eucalyptus grove and then under the access road on the south side of the treatment plant via a 1-foot-wide culvert (corrugated steel pipe). The ephemeral drainage terminates within the landscaped areas. There is an intake structure in Baylands Marsh that connects to Emily Renzel Wetlands via a buried 18” pipe. In 1992, the City constructed and began operating the Emily Renzel Wetlands, a 15-acre freshwater pond and 12-acre restored salt marsh. The Renzel Wetlands freshwater pond is also fed by tertiary treated wastewater discharged from the RWQCP approximately 0.5 mile south of the Measure E Site (AECOM, 2019b). There is a 6-in underground water main that runs along Embarcadero Road and crosses the conceptual corridor site. The intake and inlet structures as well as the buried 18-in pipe are shown in Figure 2. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 50 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 8 Figure 2 Hydrology Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 51 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 9 Soils According to the Web Soil Survey (USDA, NRCS 2025a), the study area includes one soil survey area: Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part (CA641). Three soil map units are present in the study area; Aquic Xerorthents (bay mud substratum 0 to 2 percent slopes), Novato clay (0 to 1 percent slopes), and Xerorthents (trash substratum, 9 to 15 percent slopes). Soils in the study area are shown in Figure 3. Aquic Xerorthents consist of mixed human-transported material over mixed silty and clay fluviomarine deposits (USDA, NRCS 2025a). In the study area, this soil unit occurs in the RWQCP and extends into Baylands Marsh. Novato clay series consists of very deep, very poorly drained clay soils that formed from alluvium deposited along the margin of bays. In the study area, this soil unit is tidally influenced in the Baylands Marsh and protected from tides in Emily Renzel Wetlands. Xerorthents consist of well drained, human-transported material, over clay loam soils. In the study area, this soil unit occurs in the upland areas of the landfill. Vegetation and Other Land Cover Vegetation classification was based on the classification system provided in California Natural Community List (CDFW, 2025b) and A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2) (Sawyer et al., 2009) but has been modified to reflect the existing site conditions. Figure 4 shows the location and aerial extent of vegetation communities and land cover types in the study area. The vegetation communities observed in the study areas include: • Eucalyptus groves • Pickleweed mats • Quailbrush scrub • Rose briar patches • Upland mustards • Wild oats and annual brome grassland • Landscaped • Disturbed/developed • Rock/swale General Wildlife Wildlife observed in the study area varies based on habitat type and availability. Pickleweed mats in the tidal marsh area provide habitat for species common to these xeric habitats such as mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), great egret (Ardea alba), snowy egret (Egretta thula) and Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) was the only reptile species observed but gopher snake is a likely inhabitant of the upland grassland areas. In the landscaped developed habitats, species observed/detected include Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Mammalian species observed include California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 52 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 10 Figure 3 Soils Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 53 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 11 Figure 4 Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 54 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 12 3.4 Special Status Species Assessments for the potential occurrence of special status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB and other databases, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the study area, previous reports for the study area, and the results of surveys of the study area. The potential for each special status species to occur in the study area was evaluated according to the following criteria: • No Potential. The site is outside the range of the species and/or habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime), and/or species would have been identifiable on the site if present (e.g., oak [Quercus sp.] trees). Species is not present in the vicinity of the site. • Low Potential. The site is within the species range and few of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, but the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species may occur in the region but is unlikely to be found on the site. • Moderate Potential. The site is within the species range and some of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species is known to occur in the regional vicinity and has a moderate probability of occurring on the site. • High Potential. The site is within the species range and most of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has been recently documented in the vicinity and has a high probability of being found on the site. • Present. Species was observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last five years). Based on the database search and literature review, one special status species was present (white-tailed kite), seven have a high potential to occur, and two have a moderate potential to occur. The rationale and habitat requirements for these species are shown below in Table 1. Table 1 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Invertebrates Bombus crotchii crotch's bumble bee None/SCE G2/S2 Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. High Potential There are CNDDB occurrences of this species as recently as March 2024 observed in Byxbee park and Baylands Nature Preserve less than 0.5 mile of the study area. Suitable floral resources are present in the study area including landscaped, upland mustards, and rose briar patches. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 55 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 13 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population FPT/None G4T1T2Q/S2 Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts located in wind- protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. Moderate Potential Eucalyptus trees in the study area have the potential for hosting as a winter roost site. Xerces Monarch map of overwintering sites shows that there is a site (3294) approximately 3 miles southwest of the study area (Xerces Society 2025). Reptiles Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle FPT/None G2/SNR SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6,000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying. Occurs in northern California, south along the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Coast Range down to Monterey and Kern Counties. High Potential Suitable aquatic habitat is present in the study area in the Emily Renzel Wetlands and CNDDB occurrences were documented as recent as 2022, approximately 1 mile south of the study area along Adobe Creek Loop Trail. Upland habitat is present in the study area but disturbance from RWQCP and recreational activity may limit dispersal. Birds Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None/None SSC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low- growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. High Potential There are known occurrences of nesting owls in the upland grasslands of Byxbee Park (AECOM, 2019). There is a CNDDB occurrence within the study area observed in 2008. Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None/None G5/S3S4 FP Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching. Present This species was observed foraging over Emily Renzel Wetlands in the study area during field survey. Geothlypis trichas sinuosa salt-marsh common yellowthroat None/None G5T3/S3 SSC Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and saltwater marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting. High Potential Suitable habitat for this species is present in Baylands Marsh. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5-miles from the study area including one in Baylands Marsh (< 0.5 miles) observed in 2004. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 56 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 14 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail None/ST G3T1/S2 FP Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that do not fluctuate during the year and dense vegetation for nesting habitat. Moderate Potential Suitable habitat for this species is present in Baylands Marsh and Emily Renzel. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles from the study area including one in Baylands Marsh (< 0.5 miles) observed in 2011. Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow None/None G5T2T3/S2 SSC Resident of salt marshes bordering south arm of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits Salicornia marshes; nests low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to escape high tides) and in Salicornia. High Potential Suitable habitat for this species is present in Baylands Marsh and Emily Renzel. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles from the study area including one in Baylands Marsh less than one miles north of the study area observed in 2004. Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California ridgway's rail FE/SE G3T1/S2 FP Salt water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Associated with abundant growths of pickleweed but feeds away from cover on invertebrates from mud-bottomed sloughs. High Potential Suitable pickleweed habitat is present in the study area in Emily Renzel Wetlands and Baylands Marsh. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles of the study area including one in 2018 less than 1 mile north of the study area near San Francisquito Creek. Mammals Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse FE/SE G1G2/S3 FP Only in the saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. Pickleweed is primary habitat but may occur in other marsh vegetation types and in adjacent upland areas. Does not burrow; builds loosely organized nests. Requires higher areas for flood escape. High Potential Suitable pickleweed habitat is present in the study area in Emily Renzel Wetlands and Baylands Marsh. A UC Davis research study observed salt-marsh harvest mice in both Baylands Marsh and Emily Renzel Wetlands (Statham 2024). There is one recent CNDDB occurrence 3.4 miles north of the study area observed in 2001. There are additional pre- 2000 occurrences observed within 5 miles of the study area. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 57 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 15 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Status (Federal/State) FE = Federal Endangered FT = Federal Threatened FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened FD = Federal Delisted FC = Federal Candidate SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SCE = State Candidate Endangered SCT = State Candidate Threatened SR = State Rare SD = State Delisted SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern FP = CDFW Fully Protected WL = CDFW Watch List Other Statuses G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank 3.5 Species Beneficial Use The purpose of this section is to identify wildlife species, particularly special status species, that would benefit from the potential future conditions of the wildlife corridor alternatives. The alternatives can be grouped into two functional categories: open-air (open channel and wide wetland swale) and underground (oversized multi-barrel box culvert and arch span culvert). The open channel and wide wetland swale alternatives involve the connection of wetlands adjacent to the conceptual corridor site via a surface water connection. The open channel would include a linear channel, an unconsolidated bottom with hydrophytic vegetation and moderately sloped banks. The wide wetland swale would include an unconsolidated bottom with gently sloped vegetated banks to allow for the channel to meander and pool, within the physical limitations of the site, as discussed above. The oversized multi-barrel box culvert and arch span culvert corridor alternatives involve the connection of the adjacent wetlands via covered tunnel(s) with natural unvegetated bottom. The benefits wildlife species receive from the potential future conditions of each of the four corridor alternatives are discussed below and summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Special Status Wildlife Species Outcomes for Corridor Alternatives Species Open channel Wide wetland swale Oversized multi- barrel box culvert Arch span culvert northwestern pond turtle Movement Movement Movement Movement burrowing owl None None None None white-tailed kite Forage Forage None None salt-marsh common yellowthroat None Forage None None California black rail None Forage None None Alameda song sparrow None Forage/Movement None None California’s ridgeway rail None Forage None None crotch’s bumblebee Loss of Habitat Loss of Habitat Loss of Habitat Loss of Habitat Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 58 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 16 Species Open channel Wide wetland swale Oversized multi- barrel box culvert Arch span culvert Monarch butterfly Loss of Habitat Loss of Habitat Loss of Habitat Loss of Habitat salt-marsh harvest mouse None Movement None None Northwestern Pond Turtle Northwestern pond turtles are the only species that would feasibly utilize all four of the alternatives. Northwestern pond turtles utilized a variety of habitats including rivers, creeks, small lakes, ponds, and marshes and can be found in brackish water (NatureServe, 2025). This species is also known to utilize human constructed and altered aquatic habitats such as constructed basins including sewage settling ponds (NatureServe, 2025). Northwestern pond turtles are the only special status wildlife species that would potentially utilize the underground alternatives. There is potential for this species to use underground passages although it is unclear if this species will utilize the tunnels considering the potential length to connect the two marshes is over 800 feet. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl is unlikely to benefit from any of the proposed alternatives. This species is known for utilizing open grasslands in more upland portions of Byxbee Park (CNDDB, 2025a). Disturbance from activities around the RWQCP limits the potential for this species to use the conceptual corridor site. This species avoids areas with tree cover for its breeding grounds (NatureServe, 2025) and is unlikely to use the conceptual corridor site due to the eucalyptus trees that will remain along the southern border of the RWQCP facility. White-Tailed Kite White-tailed kite would benefit from the open-air alternatives. This species was observed foraging in Emily Renzel Wetlands adjacent to the conceptual corridor site during the field survey. It is likely that white-tailed kite would use both open-air alternatives for foraging. The wide wetland swale would host small mammal, prey species such as black-tailed jackrabbits, squirrels, or gophers (NatureServe, 2025). The banks of the open channel alternative would likely provide basking habitat for western fence lizards, potential prey of white-tailed kite (Zeiner et al., 1990). Salt-marsh Common Yellowthroat Salt-marsh common yellowthroat would potentially benefit from foraging habitat provided by the wide wetland swale alternative. This species utilizes brackish and saline tidal marsh habitat with a high percentage cover of bulrushes (Bolboschoenus sp.), perennial pepperweed (Leipidium latifolium), and rushes (Juncus spp.) (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). This species is unlikely to utilize the open channel alternative due to the probable lack of vegetation cover that may result if this alternative were pursued. The underground corridor alternatives are not suitable for this species movement. Disturbance from ongoing RWQCP activities and public recreation may limit this species’ use of the conceptual corridor site. California Black Rail California black rail would potentially benefit from foraging habitat provided by the wide wetland swale alternative. Habitat for this species is positively associated with dense vegetation including pickleweed (Salicornia sp.), rushes, gumplant (Grindelia stricta), perennial pepperweed, bulrush, and cattails (Typha spp.) (Spautz, 2005). This species is unlikely to utilize the open channel alternative due to lack of vegetation cover. This species is unlikely to utilize the underground corridor alternatives. Disturbance from ongoing RWQCP activities and public recreation may limit this species’ use of the conceptual corridor site. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 59 of 394  Ecological Suitability and Species Use Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 17 Alameda Song Sparrow Alameda song sparrow would potentially benefit from foraging habitat provided by the wide wetland swale alternative. The wide wetland swale may also benefit this species’ movement between marshes. This species prefers tidal marsh habitat with adjacent upland shrub cover (NatureServe, 2025). Restoring tidal marsh habitat and dispersal corridors are identified management recommendations for conservation of this species (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). This species is unlikely to utilize the underground corridor alternatives or the open channel alternative due to lack of vegetation cover. California’s Ridgeway Rail California’s ridgeway rail would potentially benefit from foraging habitat provided by the wide wetland swale alternative. Restoration of tidal marsh habitat is identified as a conservation priority for this species (USFWS, 2013). A study conducted by Point Blue showed that this species’ abundance increased in marshes with transition zones (areas linking tidal marsh and upland habitats) that were relatively wide (greater than 80 feet) and that had vegetation up to 3.3 ft tall to reduce predation (Nur et al., 2018). Restoring tidal connectivity to Emily Renzel Wetlands would also benefit foraging habitat for this species by enhancing areas adjacent to the study area. If birds were to utilize the conceptual corridor site for movement between marshes, there would be a high risk of predation from domestic cats and raptors. California’s ridgeway rail is unlikely to utilize the open channel alternative due to lack of vegetation cover. This species is unlikely to utilize the underground corridor alternatives. Disturbance from ongoing RWQCP activities and public recreation may limit this species’ use of the conceptual corridor site. Crotch’s Bumblebee Crotch’s bumblebee is unlikely to benefit from the creation of any of the four evaluated wetland wildlife corridor alternatives. This species may currently utilize the conceptual corridor site in the landscaped area where irrigated, ornamental trees and shrubs provide abundant floral resources. Alteration of the current habitat would potentially reduce habitat for this species, negatively influencing their potential use of the conceptual corridor site. Monarch Butterfly Monarch butterfly is unlikely to benefit from the creation of any of the four evaluated wetland wildlife corridor alternatives. Eucalyptus trees that currently screen the water treatment plant from public view are potentially suitable overwintering habitat for monarch butterflies. Although trees that obstruct the public view would remain, the loss of some of the eucalyptus trees would reduce overwintering habitat, negatively influencing their potential use of the conceptual corridor site. Salt-marsh Harvest Mouse Salt-marsh harvest mouse has the potential to utilize the wide wetland swale alternative and is unlikely to utilize any of the other three wetland wildlife corridor alternatives. This species is unlikely to utilize strip- like, marsh corridors less than 164 feet (50 meters) wide per USFWS’s Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California (USFWS, 2013). This species has a small home range. A study of salt-marsh harvest mice in Solano County showed an average home range for 44 mice was approximately 0.5 acres (Bias and Morrison, 1999). This species prefers pickleweed mats (with 20 – 50 cm high and 60 percent cover) with adjacent upland areas for refuge during high tides (NatureServe, 2025). A study trapping salt-marsh harvest mice in the South San Francisco Bay demonstrated that mice also utilize mature brackish marsh dominated by bulrush and perennial pepperweed with a dense thatch layer in addition to salt-marsh habitat (Shellhammer et al., 2010). If sufficient vegetation cover is established, salt-marsh harvest mice could feasibly utilize the wide wetland swale alternative for movement. Movement through covered corridor alternatives is unlikely and utilization of covered features has not been documented for this species. In the open-air alternatives, particularly the open channel, feral and domesticated cats and raptors present a predation risk to salt-marsh harvest mice and limit their use Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 60 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 18 of the corridor (USFWS, 2013). Although the wide wetland swale alternative could potentially provide movement for salt marsh harvest mice, whether mice would utilize the corridor and benefit from the additional movement would require additional study. Non-Special Status Species Numerous non-special status species could potentially benefit from the wetland wildlife corridor alternatives. Grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) is an urban adapted species that has previously utilized the study area for a natal den (URS, 2012). This species currently receives some wildlife connection value in the site’s existing condition. Grey fox would potentially benefit from improved foraging habitat provided by the wide wetland swale alternative. Other native urbanized species such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), would likely utilize all four evaluated wildlife corridor alternatives for foraging and movement between marshes. Black tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) are currently abundant in the study area but conversion to the wetland wildlife corridor alternatives may reduce the shrub cover, negatively influencing their abundance in the conceptual corridor site. 3.6 Ecological Assessment Conclusion The conceptual corridor site and surrounding areas already provide habitat value and wildlife movement opportunities for several species currently utilizing the Baylands system. Existing upland vegetation and adjacent wetland habitats contribute to the ecological function of the site in its current condition. Biological surveys and surrounding habitat connectivity indicate that the site already contributes to localized wildlife movement and habitat utilization for common wildlife species and migratory birds. As discussed below, the analyses suggest that maintaining or enhancing existing ecological functions may provide a more effective and less disruptive environmental outcome than construction of a new engineered wetland corridor feature at this location. Although several special status species identified in Table 2 may receive some benefit from the wetland corridor alternatives, the reviewed alternatives may provide limited incremental wildlife connectivity benefits relative to existing conditions. The open-air alternatives may provide movement for northwestern pond turtles and Alameda song sparrows. The wide-wetland swale alternative may provide movement for salt-marsh harvest mice. The underground alternatives may primarily benefit movement for northwestern pond turtles and racoons. Foraging habitat may be increased for many of the species discussed above in Table 2. However, with the assumption that disturbance from adjacent recreational and industrial (RWQCP) land uses remains constant, wildlife utilization of the improved foraging habitat may remain limited. Habitat conversion associated with the corridor alternatives may also result in tradeoffs for species currently utilizing the conceptual corridor site. For example, implementation of a corridor alternative could reduce the potential for special status species such as crotch’s bumblebee and monarch butterfly to occur in the study area. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 61 of 394  Hydraulic Connectivity and Excavation Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 19 4 Hydraulic Connectivity and Excavation Assessment To implement a wetland corridor, the conceptual corridor site would require expanding the hydraulic connection, in the form of a channel, between the two habitats within the Palo Alto Baylands Marsh and Emily Renzel Wetlands. To determine the extent of excavation required to establish flowing hydraulic connectivity, the current ground elevation of the site was determined using topographic contours created from a 2019 LiDAR survey provided to Rincon by the City. As discussed below in greater detail, feasible parameters regarding the corridor’s potential bottom elevation, maximum slope, and width were estimated based on the constraints present at the conceptual corridor site. These constraints were informed by observations from Rincon field staff during November 2025 site visits, ground elevation contours, a USDA soil survey, and aerial photographs. Width is an important factor for the ecological success of a wetland corridor because greater width promotes meandering of the water channel, which slows the water for sediment retention, water filtration for improved quality, and moderation of floodwaters (Merenlender et al., 2025). Greater width would also allow for higher habitat quality and increased diversity for the open-air alternatives. A minimum wildlife corridor width of 100 feet (at top of bank) is recommended for plants, invertebrates, and aquatic species and a minimum width of about 200 feet (at top of bank) is recommended for birds and small mammals (Bentrup, 2008). The available corridor width within portions of the conceptual corridor site is substantially narrower than habitat widths commonly associated with functional wildlife movement corridors for many bird and mammal species, which may limit the long-term ecological functionality of the wetland corridor alternatives. Several physical factors constrain the feasible width of the corridor, including the RWQCP facility to the northwest and the landfill cap to the southeast of the site. To ensure that the facility and landfill cap are not impacted, 20-foot buffers were assumed for each of these constraints when determining the corridor width. With these constraints in place, the maximum corridor width feasible, from the top of channel bank ranged from approximately 75 to 130 feet, depending on the specific area along the corridor. Ultimately, the corridor width would have to be further reduced to cross under Embarcadero Road. As observed by Rincon’s geologist and confirmed by a USDA soil survey, soil in the conceptual corridor site is generally xerothents (fill or altered soil), and primarily a loamy clay within the project boundary (USDA, 2025). This soil can be unstable and is constrained by a maximum slope of up to 34 degrees to protect against mass wasting and reduce erosion (29 CFR 1926 Subpart P App B). To stay within this acceptable range, the minimum width of the potential channel bed would range from approximately 30 to 50 feet, depending on the specific area along the corridor. These dimensions result in a trapezoidal shape for the assumed channel cross-sectional geometry. Assuming the corridor channel would extend from the water line of the Baylands Marsh to the water line of the Emily Renzel Wetlands, the channel length would be approximately 1,080 feet (Figure 1). Water lines for Baylands Marsh and Emily Renzel Wetlands were estimated using 2024 aerial imagery and the 2019 ground surface elevation contours. The channel depth was assumed to be 2 feet below the water surface elevation in each habitat, or approximately 1 foot above and 3 feet below mean sea level (NAVD88) for the Baylands Marsh and the Emily Renzel Wetlands, respectively, to ensure hydraulic connection. As the water surface elevation of the Baylands Marsh is approximately 4 feet higher than the elevation of the Emily Renzel Wetlands, the potential channel would have a gradual slope and flow generally from northeast to southwest. Because the current ground surface varies and the potential channel bottom elevation slopes, channel depths are likewise variable but would be approximately 10 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) along most of its length with some sections varying from 3 ft bgs to 13 ft bgs, depending on the ground surface elevation. While these parameters for channel depth are anticipated to allow for continuous flow given current understanding of the site hydrology, additional Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 62 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 20 studies would be needed to ascertain the effect of tidal influence and climate on potential flow conditions. To advance the channel given the constraints and parameters discussed above, approximately 810,000 cubic feet of soil (almost the total volume of 10 Olympic-sized swimming pools) would need to be removed from the site. The current pipeline would also need to be removed in addition to the inlet structure in Habor Marsh. This amount was calculated by using a geographic information system to subtract the estimated ground surface elevation of the potential corridor from the estimated ground surface elevation of the current site and multiply by the surface area. Additionally, the current saltwater pipeline would need to be removed and an alternative inlet structure in harbor Marsh be developed to promote the hydraulic and ecological benefits of the wildlife corridor while maintaining flow control and flood protection. Table 3 summarizes the approximate value or range of values determined to be feasible for each parameter evaluated in this assessment. The feasible value/range for each parameter is applicable to all project alternatives, as it is based on constraints that are constant for any project proposed at the site (e.g., habitat requirements for focal species, setback requirements for the RWQCP, etc.). Developing engineered designs would be required for a more granular analysis that differentiates the feasible parameters of each alternative. Table 3 Summary of Hydraulic Connectivity and Excavation Assessment Parameter Feasible Value/Range Channel Length 1,080 feet Maximum Top of Channel Bank Width 75 to 130 feet Minimum Channel Bed Width 30 to 50 feet Maximum Channel Slope 34 degrees Channel Depth 3 to 13 ft bgs Minimum Channel Elevation 1 to 3 feet below mean sea level (NAVD88) Approximate Excavation Volume 810,000 cubic feet As this hydraulic connectivity and excavation assessment does not account for tidal influence, or water elevation changes due to climate, additional investigations may be needed before any excavation could occur. Prior to project implementation, Rincon recommends using bathometric survey data to support a better understanding of the hydrodynamics of the site, including tidal influence. Rincon also recommends investigating changes in water elevations in wet and dry years, to ensure hydrologic connection is possible even in times of drought, and modeling for the potential impacts of climate change, such as reduced precipitation and sea-level rise. While hydraulic connectivity is feasible given the constraints of the site, the potential benefits may be restricted by the achievable channel width, which limits the sinuosity or meander of the water flow. Additionally, the maximum potential width for the proposed wildlife corridor is below the recommended wetland wildlife corridor width for birds and small mammals, limiting the diversity and functionality of the potential habitat for wildlife. Finally, future studies are needed to determine the impact of tidal influence and climate on the hydraulic connectivity of the potential wildlife corridor. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 63 of 394  Site Constraints, Feasibility, and Regulatory Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 21 5 Site Constraints, Feasibility, and Regulatory Assessment The four evaluated wetland wildlife corridor alternatives have constraints that limit construction feasibility and ecological suitability. These constraints include: • Corridor width • Regulatory permitting • Landfill • Physical barriers • Cost The width of the potential corridor between the RWQCP and the landfill cap potentially limits wildlife usage due to edge effects. The conceptual corridor site is approximately 90 feet wide at its narrowest point near the southern entry to the RWQCP facility. A conceptual design of the proposed wetland corridor with a 30-foot-wide channel bed is shown as an example in Figure 5. Infrastructure that would need to be avoided, relocated or removed within the Project site include gas flare lines, treated water pipes, and hydrant, recycled water pipelines, stormwater drainage, and underground and above ground electricity and communication lines. The location of the existing infrastructure to be considered when designing the wetland corridor is shown in Figure 5. Eucalyptus trees along the southern border of the RWQCP are to remain in place to screen the plant from public view which further reduces the available corridor width. Nesting areas and high tide refugia in marshes are more abundant in larger, more complex tidal slough networks (USFWS, 2013). Species such as the California black rail prefer large marshes (~250 acres) that are closer to open water and away from urban areas (Spautz, 2005). Special status species with potential to occur (Table 1) will require protocol surveys to determine presence or absence. If special status species were determined to be present, additional regulatory permitting may be required prior to constructing any of the evaluated alternatives. If necessary, avoidance and mitigation measures will be implemented to offset impacts to species, including impacts to species’ habitat. Additional surveys and permitting processes would impact construction timeline and cost. Avoiding the landfill cap located on the opposite side of the northeast to southwest access road is a constraint of the potential project. Full avoidance of the landfill cap is feasible for all the evaluated alternatives; however, this limits the overall area available for restoration. While the conceptual corridor site has been constrained to the portion of the Measure E Site outside of the capped landfill, it is known that there are unrelated historic subsurface dumping areas within the RWQCP facility. During field surveys, a pit with exposed layers of debris was observed within the fenced RWQCP facility (which extends into the conceptual corridor site). The extent of the debris may extend into the conceptual corridor site, therefore all the proposed alternatives may have additional water quality and pollution concerns, and related costs. Embarcadero Road and the new horizontal levee are barriers for tidal connectivity on the northeast portion of the conceptual corridor site that present a challenge for all the evaluated alternatives. The corridor could feasibly pass underneath the road and levee via a culvert, similar to existing conditions. To maintain vehicle and foot traffic on the road and existing trail on the levee, bridges would need to be built to pass over the open channel or wide wetland swale alternatives. Additional bridges would be costly, require additional planning, and potentially expand the need for regulatory permitting. A separate study would need to investigate how the performance of the horizontal levee as a flood control device would be impacted the enhanced hydraulic connectivity. The estimated cost of developing the four evaluated wetland corridor alternatives is expected to be exorbitant compared to the alternative beneficial use options. Leaving the topology and land use of the Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 64 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 22 site as is and restoring upland habitat will require no additional cost to the public because restoration of areas temporarily disturbed by the Capital Improvement Projects are already included in existing construction contracts and funded. Restoration activities aimed at enhancing the edge of the Emily Renzel Wetland are expected to incur costs ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 for installation and maintenance over a 5-year program. The open channel wetland corridor and underground alternatives are expected to far exceed the costs of habitat restoration by orders of magnitude due to the initial required design, permitting, mitigation, and construction, and would have even greater required maintenance program costs. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 65 of 394  Site Constraints, Feasibility, and Regulatory Assessment Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 23 Figure 5 Conceptual Corridor Site Constraints Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 66 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 24 6 Alternative Beneficial Use In addition to the corridor concepts evaluated in this memorandum, other beneficial uses of the Measure E Site were considered, including habitat enhancement opportunities and expanding the RWQCP to include bio-solids processing. Due to the constraints discussed above, the construction of each of the four evaluated wetland wildlife corridor alternatives presents obstacles that may render the potential project challenging to implement while not achieving the minimum recommended design guidance for wetland corridors. The following section suggests alternative uses for the conceptual corridor site that may benefit special status species known or with potential to occur. Restoration objectives and methods would vary based on the species targeted for habitat enhancement. Restoration and enhancement of upland habitat could benefit special-status species such as Crotch’s bumblebee, burrowing owl, and other common species known to occur in the study area. A beneficial restoration project for Crotch’s bumblebee would include the removal of non-native vegetation communities such as upland mustards and quailbrush scrub. These would be replaced with native grasses, forbs, and shrubs to mimic a locally appropriate community such as coastal grassland, coyote brush scrub, or coastal sagescrub (Sawyer et al., 2009). Crotch’s bumblebee primarily forages on snapdragon (Antirrhinum sp.), Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and buckwheat (Eriogonumon) (Koch, 2012). Restoring native scrub and grassland habitat would benefit prey species for burrowing owl and white- tailed kite (NatureServe, 2025). Lizards and small mammal populations would benefit from increased native species abundance and diversity. If improving monarch butterfly overwintering habitat is a desired outcome of habitat enhancement, planting additional trees (eucalyptus or Monterey cypress) could benefit this goal. Additional trees planted in the conceptual corridor site, even non-native species, would decrease wind speeds and create a more favorable stand for monarch overwintering than the existing site conditions. Additional trees could also benefit nesting habitat for raptors. The upland mustard vegetation community on the edge of the Emily Renzel Wetlands on the southwest portion of the conceptual corridor site could be targeted for habitat enhancement. Pickleweed mats are a sensitive natural community (CDFW, 2025b) primarily composed of pickleweed and alkali heath (Frankenia salina). Along the edge of the marsh on the southwest side of the conceptual corridor site, perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) are invading an area that could potentially support additional pickleweed mats (Cal-IPC, 2025). Removal of the invasive species would provide higher quality habitat for transitioning between upland and wetland. This location could also be investigated for its potential to support California sea blite (Suaeda californica), a federally endangered evergreen shrub that inhabits margins of coastal salt marshes, or Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii), an annual herb that prefers clay soils and is ranked 1B.1 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2025). Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 67 of 394  Conclusion Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 25 7 Conclusion Based on the site constraints and ecological considerations evaluated in this memorandum, the evaluated corridor alternatives may provide limited incremental ecological benefit relative to existing site conditions and potential habitat enhancement opportunities. The conceptual corridor site already supports habitat functions and wildlife use, and targeted habitat enhancement opportunities may further support the environmental goals associated with Measure E while minimizing disturbance to existing habitat. The recommended approach prioritizes measurable ecological benefit, resilience, and community value, rather than solely the physical feasibility of a wetland wildlife corridor. While connecting the Emily Renzel Wetlands and the Baylands Marsh through the conceptual corridor site is hydrologically feasible with a 50-foot-wide wetland corridor, the corridor project would potentially be harmful to some special status species (Crotch’s bumblebee and monarch butterfly) and provide minimal benefit to others (northwestern pond turtle, California’s ridgeway rail, salt-marsh common yellowthroat, etc.). There are a variety of other beneficial uses that would have a lower cost to design, construct, permit, and maintain while enhancing the value already provided by the site and adjacent habitats. Potential alternative beneficial uses of the conceptual corridor site include but are not limited to restoring upland scrub habitat, planting trees for nesting birds, and restoring pickleweed mats in the fringes of the Emily Renzel Wetlands. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 68 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 26 8 References AECOM. 2019a. Palo Alto Baylands Byxbee Park Master Plan Final prepared for the City of Palo. _____. 2019b. Palo Alto Baylands Concepts for the Former ITT Property/Emily Renzel Wetlands Final. _____. 2022. Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Draft Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Asheville, NC: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 110 p. Bias, M. A., & Morrison, M. L. (1999). Movements and Home Range of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. The Southwestern Naturalist, 44(3), 348–353. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30055230 (accessed November 2025). Calflora. 2025. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education, and appreciation. Berkeley, CA. Updated online and accessed via: www.calflora.org. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline (accessed November 2025). _____. 2025a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V (accessed November 2025). _____. 2025b. California Natural Community List. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities (accessed November 2025). _____. 2025c. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database (accessed November 2025). _____. 2025e. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Available at: www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS (accessed November 2025). California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2025. The Cal-IPC Inventory. http://www.cal- ipc.org/plants/inventory/ (accessed November 2025). California Native Plant Society. 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7-08c-Interim 8-22-02. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed November 2025). Google Earth Pro. 2025. Version 7.3 (accessed November 2025). Koch, J., Strange, J.P., Williams, P. 2012. Bumble bees of the western United States. USDA Forest Service Research Notes. Publication No. FS-972. Available at https://www.xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/12-053_01_Western_BB_guide.pdf (accessed November 2025). Merenlender, A., Keeley, A., and Hilty, J. 2025. Habitat Connectivity and Ecological Corridors for Biodiversity Conservation. Encyclopedia of Ecology, 3rd Edition. 10.1016/B978-0-443-21964- 1.00028-8. NatureServe. 2025. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, available at https://explorer.natureserve.org/ (accessed November 2025). Nur, N., Wood, J. K., Elrod, M., Ball, D., and Thomas, D., 2018. Guiding Restoration of Upland Transition Zones to Benefit Tidal Marsh Wildlife. White Paper for Transition Zone Restoration Guidance, Point Blue Conservation Science. Available at https://www.pointblue.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/12/PointBlue_TBirds_WhitePaper_2018-11-14.pdf Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 69 of 394  References Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation 27 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 29 CFR 1926 Subpart P App B – Sloping and Benching. Palo Alto. 2025. Horizonal Levee Pilot Project Available at: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Regional-Water-Quality-Control- Plant/Capital-Improvement-Projects/Horizontal-Levee-Pilot-Project (Accessed December 2025) Palo Alto. 2012. Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/water-quality-control- plant/lrfp-final-report-08-2012.pdf Palo Alto. 2022. Parks and Recreation Commission 2022-2023 Workplan Overview. Available at: https://www.paloalto.gov/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions/Parks-and-Recreation-Commission Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Shellhammer, H., Duke, R., and Orland, M. C. (2010) Use Of Brackish Marshes In The South San Francisco Bay By Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. California Fish and Game 96(4): 256-259; 2010 Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1:163–166, 2008. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Spautz, H., N. Nur, D. Stralberg. 2005. California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) Distribution and Abundance in Relation to Habitat and Landscape Features in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. In: Ralph, C. John; Rich, Terrell D., editors 2005. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: p. 465- 468 Statham, M., 2024. Survey of the Endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Other Small Mammals at Palo Alto Baylands Nature Reserve and Byxbee Park. A report prepared by the Mammalian Ecology and Conservation Unit, University of California, Davis for City of Palo Alto. Not publicly available. United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2025a. Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed November 2025). _____. 2025b. Lists of Hydric Soils. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/ (accessed November 2025). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). _____. 2013. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California. Sacramento, CA. _____. 2025a. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac (accessed November 2025). _____. 2025b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical- habitat.html (accessed November 2025). _____. 2025c. National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ (accessed November 2025). Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 70 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project 28 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2025. The National Map. Available at: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/ (accessed November 2025). URS. 2012. Gray Fox at the City of Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Recommendations for protecting the gray fox at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Woodard & Curran. 2019. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Biosolids Facility Plan Update Final Draft. Available at: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/water- quality-control-plant/sludge-dewatering-building/finaldraft_palo_alto_bfp_update.pdf Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces Society). 2025. Western Monarch Overwintering Site Viewer. Available at: https://westernmonarchcount.org/map-of-overwintering-sites/ (accessed December 2025). Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces Society). 2012. Conserving Bumble Bees: Guidelines for Creating and Managing Habitat for America’s Declining Pollinators. 32pp. https://www.xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/12-028_01_XercesSoc_ConservingBumble- Bees-Guidelines_web.pdf (accessed December 2025). Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I- III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Adobe Stock Images − https://stock.adobe.com/images/reinforced-concrete-box-culverts-under-the-asphalt-road-box- culvert-is-a-structure-that-allows-water-to-flow-under-a-road-railroad-trail-or-similar-obstruction- from-one-side-to-the-other-side/250507127 − https://stock.adobe.com/images/bayland-park-in-california-showcasing-marshland-and- infrastructure-during-the-morning-hours/968586808 − https://stock.adobe.com/images/the-concrete-culvert-guiding-water-under-the-street-or- pathway/1785845295 − https://stock.adobe.com/images/irrigation-canal-between-agricultural-crops/142890886 Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 71 of 394  Appendix A Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 72 of 394  Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 73 of 394  Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation A-1 Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area on November 18, 2025 Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC1 Native or introduced2 Acacia melanoxylon blackwood acacia Limited Introduced Arctostaphylos sp. manzanita Native Artemisia californica California sagebrush Native Atriplex lentiformis big saltbush Native Avena barbata slender wild oat Moderate Introduced Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Native Bromus diandrus ripgut grass Moderate Introduced Bromus madritensis foxtail chess, Madrid brome Introduced Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate Introduced Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle High Introduced Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Moderate Introduced Convolvulus arvensis bindweed, orchard morning-glory Introduced Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Moderate Introduced Cyperus eragrostis Native Distichlis spicata salt grass Native Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort Moderate Introduced Echium candicans pride of madeira Limited Introduced Elymus condensatus giant wild-rye Native Elymus glaucus Native Epilobium ciliatum Native Eriogonum giganteum Santa Barbara island buckwheat Native Erodium cicutarium redstem filaree Limited Introduced Eucalyptus globulus blue gum Limited Introduced Eucalyptus sp. eucalyptus sp. Introduced Euphorbia serpens matted sandmat Introduced Festuca arundinacea tall fescue Moderate Introduced Foeniculum vulgare fennel Moderate Introduced Frangula californica coffee berry Native Frankenia salina alkali heath Native Geranium dissectum Limited Introduced Geranium molle Introduced Grindelia camporum gumweed Native Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tongue Limited Introduced Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Native Hirschfeldia incana short-pod mustard Moderate Introduced Hordeum marinum Mediterranean barley Moderate Introduced Hypochaeris glabra smooth cats-ear Limited Introduced Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed High Introduced Limonium perezi sea lavender Introduced Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Introduced Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 74 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project A-2 Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC1 Native or introduced2 Malva parviflora cheeseweed, little mallow Introduced Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup Moderate Introduced Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Moderate Introduced Plantago lanceolata English plantain Limited Introduced Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitfoot grass Limited Introduced Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum Jersey cudweed Introduced Pyrus sp. pear Introduced Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Native Raphanus sativus radish Limited Introduced Rhamnus alaternus italian buckhorn Watch Introduced Rosa californica california rose Native Rumex crispus curly dock Limited Introduced Salicornia pacifica Native Salsola tragus russian thistle, tumbleweed Limited Introduced Salvia leucantha Introduced Salvia microphylla Introduced Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry Native Schinus sp. pepper tree Introduced Senecio linearifolius linear-leaved australian fireweed Introduced Sonchus oleraceus common sow thistle Introduced Stipa milacea smilo grass Limited Introduced Stipa pulchra purple needle grass Native Taraxacum officinale common dandelion Introduced Trifolium sp. Undetermined Vicia sativa narrow-leaved vetch Introduced Notes: 1. Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council) Rating: Limited – ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level Moderate – substantial and apparent ecological impacts High – severe ecological impacts 2. Native status (Calflora 2025): Native – occurring naturally in California Introduced – not occurring naturally in California Undetermined – Individual(s) observed by the field were not identified to the species level and may be native or introduced Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 75 of 394  Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation A-3 Animal Species Observed Within the Study Area on November 18, 2025 Scientific Name Common Name Status Native or introduced Birds Anas platyrhynchos mallard Native Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Native Circus hudsonius northern harrier SSC Native Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite FP Native Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Introduced Larus spp. sea gulls Native Melozone crissalis California towhee Native Setophaga coronata yellow rumped warbler Native Zenaida macroura mourning dove Native Zonotrichia leucophrys white crowned sparrow Native Invertebrates Bombus vosnesenskii yellow faced bumblebee Native Mammals Felis catus domestic cat Introduced Lepus californicus black-tailed jack rabbit Native Megascapheus laticeps vole/pocket gopher Native Otospermophilus beecheyi ground squirrel Native Sciurus niger eastern fox squirrel Introduced Urocyon cinereoargenteus grey fox Native Nature Serve 2025 SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern FP = CDFW Fully Protected Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 76 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project A-4 Special Status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Proposed Project Site Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CRPR Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint FE/SE G1/S1 1B.1 Annual herb. Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. Serpentinite. Elevations: 165- 985ft. (50-300m.) Blooms Apr- Jun. No Potential No suitable soil is present in the study area. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion None/None G4G5T2/S2 1B.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Clay, Serpentinite (often), volcanic. Elevations: 170-1000ft. (52- 305m.) Blooms (Apr)May-Jun. No Potential No suitable soil is present in the study area. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck None/None G3/S3 1B.2 Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevations: 10-1640ft. (3- 500m.) Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential Potentially suitable habitat is present. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch None/None G2T1/S1 1B.2 Annual herb. Playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Alkaline. Elevations: 5-195ft. (1-60m.) Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential No suitable habitat is present in the study area. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant None/None G3T2/S2 1B.1 Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline soils, sometimes described as heavy white clay. Elevations: 0-755ft. (0-230m.) Blooms May- Oct(Nov). Moderate Potential Suitable habitat is present in the study area. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences observed within 2- miles of the study area observed in 2019. Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes salty bird's-beak None/None G4?T2/S2 1B.2 Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Marshes and swamps. Usually in coastal salt marsh with Salicornia, Distichlis, Jaumea, Spartina, etc. Elevations: 0- 35ft. (0-10m.) Blooms Jun-Oct. No Potential No suitable soil is present in the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 77 of 394  Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation A-5 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CRPR Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale fountain thistle FE/SE G2T1/S1 1B.1 Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland. Seeps, serpentinite. Elevations: 150- 575ft. (45-175m.) Blooms (Apr)May-Oct. No Potential No suitable soil is present in the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Collinsia corymbosa round-headed collinsia None/None G1/S1 1B.2 Annual herb. Coastal dunes. Elevations: 0-65ft. (0-20m.) Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential No suitable habitat is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia None/None G2/S2 1B.2 Annual herb. Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub. Serpentinite (sometimes). Elevations: 100- 900ft. (30-275m.) Blooms (Feb)Mar-May. No Potential No suitable soil is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood None/None G2/S2 1B.2 Perennial deciduous shrub. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland. On brushy slopes, mesic sites; mostly in mixed evergreen and foothill woodland communities. Elevations: 80- 1395ft. (25-425m.) Blooms Jan-Mar(Apr). No Potential No suitable habitat is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Hoover's button-celery None/None G5T1/S1 1B.1 Annual/perennial herb. Vernal pools. Alkaline depressions, vernal pools, roadside ditches and other wet places near the coast. Elevations: 10-150ft. (3- 45m.) Blooms (Jun)Jul(Aug). No Potential No suitable habitat is present. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Eryngium jepsonii Jepson's coyote-thistle None/None G2/S2 1B.2 Perennial herb. Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Clay. Elevations: 10-985ft. (3- 300m.) Blooms Apr-Aug. No Potential No suitable habitat is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 78 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project A-6 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CRPR Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None/None G2/S2 1B.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Often on serpentine; various soils reported though usually on clay, in grassland. Elevations: 10-1345ft. (3-410m.) Blooms Feb-Apr. No potential No suitable soil is present in the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax FT/ST G1/S1 1B.1 Annual herb. Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. In serpentine barrens and in serpentine grassland and chaparral. Elevations: 15- 1215ft. (5-370m.) Blooms Apr- Jul. No Potential No suitable soil is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow None/None GNRT2/S2 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland. Gravelly alluvium. 15-355m. Blooms Apr-Sep. No Potential No suitable habitat is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads None/None G3/S3 1B.2 Annual herb. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland. Grassy sites, in openings; sandy to rocky soils. Often seen on serpentine after burns, but may have only weak affinity to serpentine. Elevations: 330- 3935ft. (100-1200m.) Blooms (Feb)Mar-Jul. No Potential Study area is outside of the elevation range of this species. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower None/None G3T1Q/S1 1B.2 Annual herb. Chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Mesic sites. Elevations: 10-525ft. (3- 160m.) Blooms Mar-Jun. Low Potential Potentially suitable habitat is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead None/None G3/S3 1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb (emergent). Marshes and swamps. In standing or slow- moving freshwater ponds, marshes, and ditches. Elevations: 0-2135ft. (0-650m.) Blooms May-Oct(Nov). No Potential No suitable freshwater habitat is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 79 of 394  Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation A-7 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CRPR Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina northern slender pondweed None/None G5T5/S2S3 2B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb (aquatic). Marshes and swamps. Shallow, clear water of lakes and drainage channels. Elevations: 985- 7055ft. (300-2150m.) Blooms May-Jul. No Potential No suitable freshwater habitat is present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Suaeda californica California seablite FE/None G1/S1 1B.1 Perennial evergreen shrub. Marshes and swamps. Margins of coastal salt marshes. Elevations: 0-50ft. (0-15m.) Blooms Jul-Oct. Low Potential Potentially suitable habitat is present in the study area. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover FE/None G1/S1 1B.1 Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Sometimes on serpentine soil, open sunny sites, swales. Most recently cited on roadside and eroding cliff face. Elevations: 15- 1360ft. (5-415m.) Blooms Apr- Jun. No Potential No suitable habitat is present in the study area. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5- miles of the study area. Regional Vicinity refers to within a 1-quad search radius of site. Status (Federal/State) FE = Federal Endangered FT = Federal Threatened FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened FD = Federal Delisted FC = Federal Candidate SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SCE = State Candidate Endangered SCT = State Candidate Threatened SR = State Rare SD = State Delisted SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern FP = CDFW Fully Protected WL = CDFW Watch List CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank) 1A = Presumed extirpated in California, and rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere 2B= Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR Threat Code Extension .1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat) Other Statuses G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 80 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project A-8 Special Status Animal Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Proposed Project Site Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Invertebrates Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble bee None/SCE G2/S2 Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. High Potential There are CNDDB occurrences of this species as recently as March 2024 observed in Byxbee park and Baylands Nature Preserve less than 0.5-mile of the study area. Suitable floral resources are present in the study area including landscaped, upland mustards and rose briar patches. Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee None/SCE G3/S1 Once common and widespread, species has declined precipitously from central CA to southern B.C., perhaps from disease. No Potential This species is presumed to be locally extirpated. CNDDB occurrence is 2-miles northwest of the study area but was observed in 1974. Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population FPT/None G4T1T2Q/S2 Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts located in wind- protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. Moderate Potential Eucalyptus trees in the study area have the potential for hosting as a winter roost site. Xerces Monarch map of overwintering sites shows that there is a site (3294) approximately 3-miles southwest of the study area (Xerces Society 2025). Reptiles Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle FPT/None G2/SNR SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying. Occurs in northern California, south along the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Coast Range down to Monterey and Kern Counties. High Potential Suitable aquatic habitat is present in the study area in the CNDDB occurrences were documented as recent as 2022, approximately 1- mile south of the study area along Adobe creek loop trail. Upland habitat is present in the study area but disturbance from the treatment plant facilities and recreation may limit dispersal. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 81 of 394  Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation A-9 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake FE/SE G5T2Q/S2 FP Vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds and slow-moving streams in San Mateo County and extreme northern Santa Cruz County. Prefers dense cover and water depths of at least one foot. Upland areas near water are also very important. Low Potential The study area is within the known range of the species, however there are no recent CNDDB occurrences observed within 5-miles. There is no suitable habitat linking the study area with known occupied habitat. This species is unlikely to utilize the site due to disturbances from current land use. Amphibians Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 California tiger salamander - central California DPS FT/ST G3T3/S3 WL Lives in vacant or mammal- occupied burrows throughout most of the year; in grassland, savanna, or open woodland habitats. Need underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. No Potential There is no suitable aquatic habitat present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed in 5-miles of the study area. Aneides niger Santa Cruz black salamander None/None G3/S3 SSC Mixed deciduous and coniferous woodlands and coastal grasslands in San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara counties. Adults found under rocks, talus, and damp woody debris. No Potential There is no suitable habitat present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed in 5-miles of the study area. Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander None/None G2G3/S2S3 SSC Known from wet coastal forests near streams and seeps from Mendocino County south to Monterey County, and east to Napa County. Aquatic larvae found in cold, clear streams, occasionally in lakes and ponds. Adults known from wet forests under rocks and logs near streams and lakes. No Potential There is no suitable habitat present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed in 5-miles of the study area. Rana boylii pop. 4 foothill yellow- legged frog - central coast DPS FT/SE G3T2/S2 San Francisco Peninsula and Diablo Range south of San Francisco Bay Estuary, and south through the Santa Cruz and Gabilan Mountains east of the Salinas River in the southern inner Coast Ranges. Partly shaded shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg- laying and at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. No Potential There is no suitable habitat present. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed in 5-miles of the study area. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 82 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project A-10 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Rana draytonii California red- legged frog FT/None G2G3/S2S3 SSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat. Low Potential Emily Renzel Wetlands habitat within the study area is marginally suitable for this species although it is likely too salty. There are CNDDB occurrences within 5-miles observed near Stanford university in 2022 however, there is no suitable habitat connecting the known occupied habitat. Birds Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None/None SSC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts & scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. High Potential There are known occurrences of nesting owls in the upland grasslands of Byxbee Park (AECOM 2019). There is a CNDDB occurrence within the study area observed in 2008. Anarhynchus nivosus nivosus western snowy plover FT/None G3T3/S3 SSC Sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting. Low Potential There is no suitable nesting habitat present due to lack of sandy soil in the study area. High levels of disturbance from public and treatment facility limits the potential site use for this species. There is a CNDDB occurrence observed in 2002 less than a mile north of the study area in San Francisquito Creek. There is federally designated critical habitat 3 miles north of the study area. Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail None/None G4/S2 SSC Sierra Nevada in Mono County. Freshwater marshlands. Potential 5-miles of the study area are historical records (>100 years ago). An expanded CNDDB search showed observations 10-miles east of the study area from 2008. This species is elusive and is considered “extremely rare in California” (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite None/None G5/S3S4 FP Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for Present This species was observed foraging over Emily Renzel Wetlands in the Study Area during field survey. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 83 of 394  Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation A-11 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale dense-topped trees for nesting and perching. Geothlypis trichas sinuosa salt-marsh common yellowthroat None/None G5T3/S3 SSC Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and saltwater marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting. High Potential Suitable habitat for this species is present in Baylands Marsh. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5-miles from the study area including one in Baylands Marsh (< 0.5 miles) observed in 2004. Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle FD/SD G5/S3 FP Ocean shore, lake margins, and rivers for both nesting and wintering. Most nests within 1 mile of water. Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live tree with open branches, especially ponderosa pine. Roosts communally in winter. Low Potential Suitable foraging habitat for this species is present in Baylands Marsh and Emily Renzel. Suitable nesting habitat is not present in the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences observed in 5-miles of the study area. Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail None/ST G3T1/S2 FP Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that do not fluctuate during the year and dense vegetation for nesting habitat. High Potential Suitable habitat for this species is present in Baylands Marsh and Emily Renzel. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5-miles from the study area including one in Baylands Marsh (< 0.5 miles) observed in 2011. Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow None/None G5T2T3/S2 SSC Resident of salt marshes bordering south arm of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits Salicornia marshes; nests low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to escape high tides) and in Salicornia. High Potential Suitable habitat for this species is present in Baylands Marsh and Emily Renzel. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5-miles from the study area including one in Baylands Marsh less than one miles north of the study area observed in 2004. Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail FE/SE G3T1/S2 FP Salt water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Associated with abundant growths of pickleweed, but feeds away from cover on invertebrates from mud-bottomed sloughs. High Potential Suitable pickleweed habitat is present in the study area in Emily Renzel Wetlands and Baylands Marsh. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within 5-miles from the study area including one in 2018 less than a mile north of the study area near San Francisquito Creek. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 84 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project A-12 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Sternula antillarum browni California least tern FE/SE G4T2T3Q/S2 FP Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California. Colonial breeder on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates: sand beaches, alkali flats, landfills, or paved areas. Low Potential Suitable habitat is present in Emily Renzel Wetlands and Baylands Marsh however there are no CNDDB records observed within 5-miles of the study area. Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/None G4/S3 SSC Found in a variety of habitats including deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts in crevices of rock outcrops, caves, mine tunnels, buildings, bridges, and hollows of live and dead trees which must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. No Potential Suitable roosting habitat is not present. Study area is too disturbed from land use: recreation and treatment plant facilities operations. Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big- eared bat None/None G4/S2 SSC Occurs throughout California in a wide variety of habitats. Most common in mesic sites, typically coniferous or deciduous forests. Roosts in the open, hanging from walls &amp; ceilings in caves, lava tubes, bridges, and buildings. This species is extremely sensitive to human disturbance. No Potential Suitable roosting habitat is not present. Study area is too disturbed from land use: recreation and treatment plant facilities operations. Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat None/None G5T2T3/S2S3 SSC Typically found in forest habitats with moderate to dense understory. Can occur in chaparral, riparian woodlands, and coniferous forests, particularly redwood. Builds middens out of grasses, leaves, and woody debris. This subspecies is found only in the San Francisco Bay region. No Potential Suitable chaparral and woodland habitat are not present. Landscaped trees and eucalyptus forest is heavily disturbed by surrounding land use (recreation, water treatment, development) Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse FE/SE G1G2/S3 FP Only in the saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. Pickleweed is primary habitat, but may occur in other marsh vegetation types and in adjacent upland areas. Does not burrow; builds loosely organized nests. Requires higher areas for flood escape. High Potential Suitable pickleweed habitat is present in the study area in Emily Renzel Wetlands and Baylands Marsh. A UC Davis research study observed salt-marsh harvest mice in 2023 in both Baylands marsh and Emily Renzel Wetlands (Stathum 2024).There is one recent Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 85 of 394  Additional Tables and Special Status Species Evaluation Tables Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation A-13 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State ESA CDFW Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale miles north of the study area observed in 2001. There are additional pre-2000 occurrences observed within 5-miles of the study area. Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt-marsh wandering shrew None/None G5T1/S1 SSC Salt marshes of the south arm of San Francisco Bay. Medium high marsh 6-8 ft above sea level where abundant driftwood is scattered among Salicornia. Low Potential Suitable salt marsh habitat is present in the study area. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences within 5-miles of the study area. Taxidea taxus American badger None/None G5/S3 SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows. No Potential Marginally suitable grassland habitat is present with prey species present (small mammals). There are CNDDB occurrences observed in 2019 approximately 4-miles west of the study area (near Stanford campus). There is no habitat connectivity to the known occurrences. Regional Vicinity refers to within a 2-quad search, Palo Alto and Mountain View. Status (Federal/State) FE = Federal Endangered FT = Federal Threatened FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened FD = Federal Delisted FC = Federal Candidate SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SCE = State Candidate Endangered SCT = State Candidate Threatened SR = State Rare SD = State Delisted SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern FP = CDFW Fully Protected WL = CDFW Watch List CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank) 1A = Presumed extirpated in California, and rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere 2B= Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = Need more information (Review List) 4 = Limited Distribution (Watch List) CRPR Threat Code Extension .1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat) Other Statuses G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 86 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project A-14 This page intentionally left blank. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 87 of 394  Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 88 of 394  Appendix B Site Photographs Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 89 of 394  Site Photographs Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation B-1 Photo 1. Baylands Marsh, northeast portion of study area. Orange fence around Horizontal Levee Project Photo 2. Emily Renzel Marsh on southwest portion study area. 72 inch sewer wastewater main. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 90 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project B-2 Photo 3. Ephemeral drainage within landscaped vegetation. Photo 4. Culvert 3 and ephemeral drainage. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 91 of 394  Site Photographs Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation B-3 Photo 5. Ephemeral drainage within Eucalyptus groves. Photo 6. Salt Marsh Inlet/RWQCP Discharge pickleweed mats (left) upland mustards (right) Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 92 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project B-4 Photo 7. Measure E Site facing north. Staging area for Capital Improvement Projects on left. Photo 8. Quailbrush scrub vegetation facing west in conceptual corridor site. Staging area for Capital Improvement Projects on left. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 93 of 394  Site Photographs Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation B-5 Photo 9. Active Horizontal Levee Project in Baylands Marsh facing northwest. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 94 of 394  Woodard & Curran, Inc. Measure E Site Assessment Project B-6 This page intentionally left blank. Item 2 Attachment A Wetland Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Environmental Beneficial Use Evaluation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 95 of 394  NOT YET ADOPTED 1 162_20260615_ts24 Ordinance No. _ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Dedicating a Portion of the Area Commonly Known as the Measure E Site as Parkland The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Improvements. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and section 22.08.004 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code specify that land intended to be used for park purposes can be dedicated for such use by ordinance. (b) The Measure E site is approximately 10 acres in size. It is bordered by the City’s Byxbee Park, Emily Renzel Wetlands, and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. (c) The Measure E site was formerly part of Byxbee Park. The site was un-dedicated by a vote of the people on November 8, 2011 pursuant to the measure being placed on the ballot by Resolution 9195 (passed August 1, 2011). The terms of the ballot measure allow the site to be used only for a processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste and other organic materials. The measure allows the site to be re-dedicated after 10 years. No processing facility was ever built. (d) The City intends to re-dedicate a portion of the Measure E site through this ordinance. The specific area to be dedicated is as described in Exhibit A-31 to this Ordinance. The approximate area is 7.70 acres. (e) Upon adoption of this ordinance, the portion of the Measure E site shall become part of Byxbee Park. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby dedicates the specific portion of the Measure E site as described in Exhibit A-31 to this Ordinance pursuant to Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and section 22.08.004 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Section 22.08.450 is hereby added to Chapter 22.08 (Park dedications) to read as follows: 22.08.450 Addition to Byxbee Park (Portion of former Measure E Site) That certain parcel of land as delineated and described in Exhibit A-31, which is a portion of the area known as the Measure E site, is hereby reserved for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes. Item 2 Attachment B Ordinance Re-Dedicating a Portion of the Measure E site as Dedicated Parkland Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 96 of 394  NOT YET ADOPTED 2 162_20260615_ts24 SECTION 4. Exhibit A-31 of this ordinance shall be codified as Exhibit A-31 to the Exhibits for Title 22. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not a project within the meaning of CEQA. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Community Services Item 2 Attachment B Ordinance Re-Dedicating a Portion of the Measure E site as Dedicated Parkland Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 97 of 394  NOT YET ADOPTED 3 162_20260615_ts24 Exhibit A-31 Addition to Byxbee Park (Portion of Measure E Site) – Legal Description (see following pages) Item 2 Attachment B Ordinance Re-Dedicating a Portion of the Measure E site as Dedicated Parkland Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 98 of 394  "F:\20Projects\20087 Palo Alto RWQCP Advanced Treatment System\Working Documents\Survey Office\Legal Descriptions\2026 Project\Measure E Rededicated Area.docx" PAGE 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM ROBERT J. BAHR AND MAURICE R. LEDOYEN TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, RECORDED DECEMBER 21, 1959, IN BOOK 4642 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 490, SAID POINT LYING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF EMBARCADERO ROAD (86.00 FEET IN WIDTH), SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM GRACE ROSS SEALE TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, RECORDED JULY 11, 1933, IN BOOK 658 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 23 THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM GRACE ROSS SEALE SOUTH 45° 05' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 479.99 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM GRACE ROSS SEALE TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 1936, IN BOOK 764 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 51; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE LAST MENTIONED DEED SOUTH 22°32'30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 184.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM ALFRED SEALE AND GRACE ROSS SEALE TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, RECORDED OCTOBER 14, 1932, IN BOOK 623 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 572; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH, A DISTANCE OF 9.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 51°37'00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 179.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF EMBARCADERO WAY (50.00 FEET IN WIDTH); THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION SOUTH 38°23'00” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 713.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 623 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 572; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE EAST, A DISTANCE OF 110.36 FEET TO A POINT LYING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT PARKLAND EXCLUSION AS SAID EXCLUSION IS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A-2 OF SECTION 22.08.020 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE, SAID POINT ALSO BEARING EAST 415.54 FEET FROM A FOUR BY FOUR FENCE POST AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF SURVEY FILED WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER ON AUGUST 15, 1969 IN BOOK 258 AT PAGES 4 AND 5 OF SAID COUNTY RECORDS; PRE L I M I N A R Y Item 2 Attachment B Ordinance Re-Dedicating a Portion of the Measure E site as Dedicated Parkland Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 99 of 394  "F:\20Projects\20087 Palo Alto RWQCP Advanced Treatment System\Working Documents\Survey Office\Legal Descriptions\2026 Project\Measure E Rededicated Area.docx" PAGE 2 OF 2 THENCE SOUTH 37° 47' 30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 209.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42°36’55” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 28.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 12°23’20” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 34.05 FEET; THENCE NORTH 8°02’59” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 47.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43°30’20” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 120.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°45’20” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 139.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46°00’05” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 189.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°38’50” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 169.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42°40’51” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 517.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49°17’08” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 652.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54°17’43” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 180.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42°36’55” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 248.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 7.70 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF IS THE PLAT TITLED “EXHIBIT B.” THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS’ ACT. __________________________ KEVIN J. GENASCI, PLS 8660 JUNE 11, 2026 PRE L I M I N A R Y Item 2 Attachment B Ordinance Re-Dedicating a Portion of the Measure E site as Dedicated Parkland Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 100 of 394  S37°47'30"E 209.06' S42°36'55"E 28.12'N12°23'20"E 34.05' N8°02'59"E 47.90' N43°30'20"E 120.73' N47°45'20"E 139.57' N46°00'05"E 189.73' N44°38'50"E 169.97' 110.36' S38 ° 2 3 ' 0 0 " E 7 1 3 . 3 9 ' S51°37'00"W 179.07' S22°32'30"E 184.72' S45 ° 0 5 ' 0 0 " E 4 7 9 . 9 9 ' S0°00'00"W 9.60' N90°00'00"E 415.54' S42 ° 4 0 ' 5 1 " E 5 1 7 . 4 2 ' S49 ° 1 7 ' 0 8 " W 6 5 2 . 2 0 ' N54°17'43"W 180.61' N42°36'55"W 248.36' JOB NO. DRAWN DESIGN DATE 20087 KJG 05/18/2026 SHEET SCALE: 1 AS SHOWN OF:3 4 2 8 B r o o k s i d e R o a d , S t o c k t o n , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 2 1 9 2 0 9 -9 4 3 -2 0 2 1 w w w .s i e g f r i e d e n g .c o m F x : 2 0 9 -9 4 2 -0 2 1 4 CIVIL STRUCTURAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SURVEYING PLANNING ATHLETIC FACILITY DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL SRS 250' SCALE: 1"=250' 125'0' LEGEND: APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING S.C.C.R. SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS 1 EXHIBIT "B" EM B A R C A D E R O W A Y REDEDICATED AREA OF MEASURE "E" 7.70 AC± PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT P.O.C. (E. CORNER 4642 O.R. 490, S.C.C.R.) P.O.B. PRE L I M I N A R Y Item 2 Attachment B Ordinance Re-Dedicating a Portion of the Measure E site as Dedicated Parkland Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 101 of 394  479 . 9 7 ' 18 4 . 7 2 ' 9.60' 181. 3 8 ' 713 . 7 6 ' 110.47' 799. 2 8 ' 102 5 . 1 1 ' 633 . 7 2 ' 652 . 2 0 ' 180. 6 1 ' 276 . 4 8 ' 209 . 0 6 ' REVISIONS DateNo.Description Job No. Date Drawn by Proj Mgr SHEET: 5/20/2026 1OF: PROJECT SHEET TITLE PALO ALTO WQCP/MEASURE "E" EMBARCADERO RD, PALO ALTO, CA KJG SRS 20087 3428 Brookside Road Stockton,California 95219 209-943-2021 Fax: 209-942-0214 www.siegfriedeng.com CIVIL STRUCTURAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SURVEYING PLANNING ATHLETIC FACILITY DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL SITE PLAN 200' SCALE: 1"=200' 100'0' 1 EMB A R C A D E R O R D EM B A R C A D E R O W A Y CITY OF PALO ALTO WASTEWATER TREATMENT CITY OF PALO ALTO BYXBEE PARK/MEASURE "E" AREA LEGEND: APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER LINE FLAGGED IN FIELD SITE NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP DRAFTREGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT 2501 EMBARCADERO 1900 EMBARCADERO 2415 EMBARCADERO 2425 EMBARCADERO 33 33 (1) 2026.06.15 LABELS MODIFIED BY W&C FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES 1880 EMBARCADERO 2438 EMBARCADERO NOTE: STREET ADDRESSES ARE BASED UPON SANTA CLARA COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE RECORD MAP GIS (ACCESSED DIGITALLY ON 2026.06.11) ATTACHMENT C: MEASURE E SITE MAP Item 2Attachment C Measure E Site Map Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 102 of 394  Page | 1 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Biosolids Input Workshops Overview City of Palo Alto staff met with community members on May 20, 2025 and on July 1,2025 to discuss proposed alternatives to the City’s current biosolids processing at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP).  The May 20, 2025 in-person workshop was held in the Palo Alto Room at the Mitchell Park Community Center from 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM  The July 1, 2025 workshop was conducted virtually via Zoom from 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM Workshop Presenters Organization Name Title Meeting Date(s) City of Palo Alto Karin North Assistant Director, Public Works May 20 & July 1, 2025 Aaron Gilbert Plant Manager May 20 & July 1, 2025 Tina Pham Senior Engineer May 20 & July 1, 2025 Connie Li Project Engineer May 20 & July 1, 2025 Daniel Shih Intern July 1, 2025 only Woodard & Curran Greg Sands Program Manager May 20, 2025 only Carollo Engineers Christine Polo Principal Technologist – Biosolids May 20 & July 1, 2025 Rashi Gupta Wastewater Practice Director May 20 & July 1, 2025 City staff and consultants in attendance gave an overview of the RWQCP and its current biosolids management protocol. Additionally, they gave background on the on-going Biosolids Facility Plan Update and proposed alternative biosolids technologies that the City is evaluating, as well as the evaluation criteria being used to do so. To gather public input, participants were asked to respond to the question: “What should the Regional Water Quality Control Plant consider when evaluating biosolids technologies?” Participants submitted words or short phrases, which were aggregated into a word cloud. In the word cloud, more frequently submitted words appeared larger and more prominently, visually highlighting the community’s key concerns and priorities. The word clouds from both workshops are included in Appendix A. Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 103 of 394  Page | 2 Following the word cloud activity, participants joined facilitated small group discussions to provide more in-depth feedback on the City’s draft evaluation criteria. On May 20, small group discussions were led by Tina Pham and Aaron Gilbert; on July 1, they were led by Tina Pham and Karin North. For the in-person workshop on May 20, physical posters were displayed around the room for participants to review before the formal presentation began. These posters are included in Appendix C. The PowerPoint slides presented at both workshops were virtually identical and are included in Appendix B. Biosolids Evaluation Criteria: Combined Community Feedback Summary Notes from Workshops Including Small Group Discussions Sessions The following is a consolidated summary of public feedback received during both of the Biosolids Input Workshops, capturing comments from multiple small group sessions involving residents, city staff, and project consultants. The feedback reflects resident perspectives on the draft evaluation criteria and broader concerns surrounding land use, technology options, and environmental priorities: 1. Environmental Impacts Should Be More Heavily Weighted  There was a broad consensus that Environmental Impacts should carry greater weight in the evaluation criteria (currently 14%). Residents emphasized: o Protection of wetlands and habitat corridors o Minimization of trucking and vehicle emissions o Sea level rise vulnerability o Noise, odor, and air quality effects o Wildlife and ecological impacts, which are not currently broken out clearly in the evaluation framework 2. PFAS and Emerging Contaminants Need Explicit Attention  PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were frequently mentioned, with residents urging the city to: o Call out PFAS specifically under environmental criteria o Consider broader “contaminants of emerging concern”, including pharmaceuticals and other constituents like microplastics o Tie these to regulatory resilience, which should reflect potential future mandates 3. Footprint Constraints and Land Use Need Transparency  Residents asked for clarity on the use of the Measure E site, expressing concern over: o The loss of buffer between the park and the treatment facility o The original promise that unused land might be rededicated as park space  Clarification was later provided that only 2.3 acres of the Measure E site—adjacent to the existing plant—is being considered due to landfill constraints.  There was also support for evaluating nearby parcels, such as those on Embarcadero Way, for potential future facility expansion. 4. Community Impacts Are Undervalued Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 104 of 394  Page | 3  With only 6% weighting, community impacts were seen as underrepresented. Residents suggested increasing this weighting and emphasized: o Noise, aesthetics, traffic, and public perception o Considering not just negative impacts, but also community benefits, such as:  Class A biosolids providing more reuse options  Potential for local application of biosolids in nearby areas (if feasible) 5. Restructure or Refine the Criteria Categories  Residents noted that some criteria overlap or conflict, especially between environmental and community impacts, and recommended: o Merging or aligning adjacent categories o Creating clearer subcategories for air, wildlife, and noise impacts o Reconsidering whether “regulatory resilience” should be a scored criterion or simply a pass/fail gate o More balanced weights across criteria to better reflect the city's sustainability goals 6. Consider Regional Partnerships and Shared Infrastructure  There was interest in alternatives that include partnerships with nearby cities, such as San Jose or Redwood City. o These were seen as having cost and operational advantages o Several residents asked that the evaluation explicitly reflect the benefits of regional cooperation 7. Alternative Technologies and Resource Recovery  Some residents expressed interest in resource recovery opportunities, such as: o Capturing methane for biogas production o Using ammonia to produce fertilizers (though staff noted it may not be feasible at current concentrations)  Interest was also shown in the potential for local biosolids reuse, though city staff noted limited available land for local application. Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 105 of 394  Page | 4 Suggested Framework Adjustments Increase weight for environmental impacts Environmental Impacts explicitly Resilience impacts Community Impacts “Regulatory Resilience” Regulatory Resilience as a threshold requirement as a subcategory Environmental Impacts more clearly Footprint & Site Impacts flexibility & resource recovery O&M / Proven Tech Closing Remarks Residents expressed appreciation for the inclusive planning process and were encouraged to submit additional comments. Staff clarified that the current phase of work is focused on refining draft evaluation criteria and development of footprint sizing of the biosolids alternatives. It is anticipated that in the following months, the Biosolids Facility Plan Update will evolve further as liquid treatment upgrades recommendations are also further defined. City staff will incorporate public feedback into the evaluation framework and decision-making on biosolids technology selection. Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 106 of 394  Page | 5 Appendix A: Word Cloud Surveys May 20, 2025 Word Cloud July 1, 2025 Word Cloud Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 107 of 394  Page | 6 Appendix B: Presentation Slides from July 1, 2025 Workshop Attached below: Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 108 of 394  Biosolids Input Workshop Regional Water Quality Control Plant July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 109 of 394  2 Welcome & Introductions City of Palo Alto •Karin North, Assistant Director, Public Works •Aaron Gilbert, Plant Manager •Tina Pham, Senior Engineer •Connie Li, Project Engineer •Daniel Shih, Intern Carollo Engineers •Christine Polo, Principal Technologist - Biosolids •Rashi Gupta, Wastewater Practice Director Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 110 of 394  TITLE 40 FONT BOLD Subtitle 32 font July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Agenda •Welcome •Introduction to Regional Water Quality Control Plant •Current Biosolids Management •Overview of Biosolids Facility Plan Update •Biosolids Technologies and Alternatives (Carollo) •Community Input Activities – Group Polling Exercise •Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation Process •Community Input Activities – Small Group Exercise •Recap/Next Steps Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 111 of 394  Introduction to Regional Water Quality Control Plant July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 112 of 394  5 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 113 of 394  6 •Plant’s permitted dry weather capacity: 39 Millon Gallons Per Day (MGD) •Wet weather capacity: 80 MGD •2024 average dry season flow: 19 MGD (May – October) Regional Water Quality Control Plant Background Information Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 114 of 394  7 Project Status Cost (Mil) Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation Construction Completed 2024 $16.5 Secondary Treatment Upgrades Construction $193​.0 12 kV Loop Rehabilitation (Phase 1 + 2) Construction $13.5 Advanced Water Purification System Construction $59.9 Headworks Pre-Design ~$100 Outfall Pipe Construction and Rehabilitation Design ~$17.8 Joint Interceptor Sewer Rehab (Phase 1) Construction $8.9​ Ongoing Capital Improvement Program Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 115 of 394  8 Wastewater Treatment Process Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 116 of 394  Current Biosolids Management Regional Water Quality Control Plant July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 117 of 394  Current Solids Onsite Processes, Off-Site Hauling and Treatment Dewatered Biosolids (Sludge Cake) from Belt Filter Press Solids Become Compost/Fertilizer •Solids are removed from wastewater, thickened, blended to a uniform size and dewatered on a belt filter press •These “sludge cake” are emptied into cake storage bins for trucks to haul offsite for composting, or for thermal and chemical treatment •All biosolids are ultimately used as an agricultural soil amendment 10 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 118 of 394  Overview of Biosolids Facility Plan Update Regional Water Quality Control Plant July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 119 of 394  Biosolids Facility Plan Update – 30-Year Strategy 12 Purpose of Project: Evaluate long-term options for biosolids treatment, handling, and reuse and guide infrastructure investments through 2055 Past Studies: •2012 Long Range Facility Plan •2014 Biosolids Facility Plan •2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update Why It Matters: •Supports future upgrades to biosolids treatment •Ensures efficient, sustainable, and regulatory compliant operations •Aligns with the City’s infrastructure and environmental goals Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 120 of 394  Changes Since LRFP and BFP Updates 1.New Dewatering Facility and decommissioning of Incineration Facility since 2019 2.Increased off-site sludge hauling and treatment services cost 3.New and potential regulations 4.Further development of emerging technologies and availability of potential regional partnership opportunities 5.Nutrient Watershed Permit •Increased future waste activated sludge production after Secondary Treatment Upgrade implementation 6.Council asked staff to evaluate if part of Measure E site (former parkland) should be used for biosolids facilities 13 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 121 of 394  Potential Sites for Biosolids Treatment Alternatives 14 Embarcadero Road Solids Dewatering and Loadout Facility Embarcadero Way Gravity Thickeners Decommissioned Incinerator Building Portion of Measure E Site LEGEND: Existing Solids Processes Available Space for Potential Future Solids Processes Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 122 of 394  Biosolids Technologies and Alternatives Regional Water Quality Control Plant July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 123 of 394  All Biosolids Technologies Considered Biosolids Technology 0 Current Practice: Dewater and Haul Off-site 1 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD) 2 MAD with recuperative thickening 3 Thermophilic anaerobic digestion (TAD) 4 MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) 5 Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) 6 Thermochemical Hydrolysis (Lystek) 7 Thermal Drying - Belt 8 Thermal Drying – Rotary Drum 9 Thermal Drying - Electric 10 Greenhouse Solar Drying 11 Greenhouse Solar Drying with Supplemental Heating 12 Composting – Covered Aerated Static Pile 13 Composting – In-vessel 14 Drying + Pyrolysis 15 Drying + Gasification Reasons for Exclusion: •Insufficient space on-site •Operational complexity •Lack of proven technology or track record •Safety concerns for staff *Technology highlighted in green will be considered for detailed evaluation Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 124 of 394  1 Proposed On-site Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation 17 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD)MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) Thermochemical Hydrolysis Drying + Pyrolysis Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 125 of 394  Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD) 18 What is MAD? •Similar to our digestive systems, MAD uses natural microbes, in the absence of oxygen, to break down organic waste at moderate temperatures (~35°C). The result? Digester gas and Biosolids! Challenges Higher capital cost than current operation More complex to operate and maintain than current operation Produces ammonia-rich sidestream Does not remove PFASEngine Generators Class B Biosolids Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse Wastewater Solids Mesophilic Anaerobic Digesters Digester Gas Sidestream to RWQCP Influent Belt Filter Presses Benefits One of the most used processes to treat wastewater solids Relatively easy to operate and maintain Produces energy-rich digester gas and Class B biosolids Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 126 of 394  MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) 19 What’s different from MAD? •Before digestion, solids are broken down using Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP). THP “pressure-cooks” the solids, making them easier for microbes to digest – leading to more digester gas production. Challenges Higher capital cost than current operation Much more complex to operate and maintain than MAD Produces more ammonia-rich sidestream than MAD Potential safety concerns related to high temperature, pressure, and need for steam Does not remove PFAS Benefits Produces more digester gas Produces drier biosolids, reducing hauling costs Produces Class A biosolids, which can be used without restrictions Steam Boilers Class ABiosolids Pre-THP Screening and Dewatering Thermal Hydrolysis Process Post-Dewatering(Belt Filter Presses) Digester Gas Wastewater Solids Mesophilic Anaerobic Digesters Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse Steam Sidestream to RWQCP Influent Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 97 Packet Pg. 127 of 394  Thermochemical Hydrolysis 20 How does it work? •The process breaks down solids by using alkaline chemicals, steam, and fast mixing. This cracks open microbial cells, creating a liquid Class A Biosolids product certified in California as a fertilizer. Challenges Higher capital cost than current operation More complex to operate and maintain than current operation High chemical use and cost Produces a liquid product which increases hauling costs and truck traffic Few installations at WWTPs Does not remove PFAS Benefits Relatively easy to operate and maintain Small footprint Produces Class A biosolids, which can be used without restrictions Does not produce ammonia-rich sidestream LysteGro Thermochemical Hydrolysis Belt Filter Presses Wastewater Solids AlkalineChemical Steam Boilers Steam Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 98 Packet Pg. 128 of 394  Drying + Pyrolysis 21 How does it work? •Solids are first dried and then heated in a pyrolysis unit at 900-1,500°F with no oxygen. This converts the solids into biochar, a product similar to small bits of barbecue charcoal, that can be used in agriculture or other uses like concrete additive. Challenges Very few installations at WWTPs History of operational issues that impact reliability Highest capital cost High natural gas use Less nutrients in biochar relative to other biosolids products Some PFAS may end up in exhaust or condensate Benefits Drastically reduces the amount of product (biochar), resulting in minimal hauling costs and truck traffic Produces biochar and syngas Does not produce ammonia-rich sidestream May remove some PFAS from the biochar Biochar Belt Filter Presses Thermal Dryer Pyrolysis Natural Gas Wastewater Solids Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 99 Packet Pg. 129 of 394  Proposed Off-Site Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation 22 Base Alternative: Continue with Current Practice •Sludge hauling contract with Synagro WWT, Inc. •Offsite treatment at 2 regional treatment facilities: •Synagro Central Valley Composting Facility •Lystek Solano County Facility Alternative for Consideration: Biosolids Facility at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility •To be delivered via a Public-Private Partnership (P3), which may accept biosolids from regional agencies •Private partner to process biosolids into fertilizer product using commercially proven technology (to be determined) •May require additional treatment at RWQCP to meet minimum quality requirements Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 100 Packet Pg. 130 of 394  Community Input Activity Group Polling Exercise July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 101 Packet Pg. 131 of 394  Group Polling Exercise – Create a Word Cloud Together! 24 https://www.menti.com/al2ykmqdno1n 1.Scan the QR Code or go to www.menti.com •If applicable, enter the code: 5329 2058 2.Type in a word or short phrase to help us understand: “What should the Regional Water Quality Control Plant consider when evaluating biosolids technologies?” 4.SUBMIT! 5.Watch the word cloud grow in real time! Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 102 Packet Pg. 132 of 394  Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation Process Regional Water Quality Control Plant July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 103 Packet Pg. 133 of 394  Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation Process Preliminary Planning Population Projections Wastewater Modeling and Solids Projections Regulatory Review Site Spatial Analysis Alternatives Identification •Allows for identification of the most viable alternatives for detailed evaluation •4 on-site and 2 off- site alternatives identified Evaluation Criteria and Weights Determination •Evaluation Criteria Identification •Weight % to Be Established Based on Relative Importance Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives •Layout of Planned Capital Improvement Projects •Detailed Cost Estimates •Score Alternatives Based on Weighted Evaluation Criteria Recommended Alternative (s) •Partners, Palo Alto City Council, and Stakeholder Engagement •Planned implementation in the future We are here! 26 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 104 Packet Pg. 134 of 394  Evaluation Methodology - Example 27 Alternatives Example Criteria Proven Technology Performance O&M Complexity Community Impacts Alternative A 3 3 3 Alternative B 3 4 4 Alternative C 1 3 3 Alternative D 5 5 2 Example Weights Criteria Weight Proven Technology Performance 55% O&M Complexity 30% Community Impacts 15% Final Weighted Scores Alternatives Weighted Score Alternative A 3.00 Alternative B 3.45 Alternative C 1.90 Alternative D 4.55 **Example scoring – actual scoring of alternatives has not been performed yet. Example Final Weighted Score Calculation for Alternative C: Tech + O&M + Comm = 1*55% + 3*30% + 3*15% = 1.9 0.55 + 0.9 + 0.45 = 1.9 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 105 Packet Pg. 135 of 394  Review of Previous Evaluation Criteria 28 2012 Long Range Facility Plan: 1.Cost 2.Energy Use 3.GHG Emissions 2014 Biosolids Facility Plan Update: 1. Technical viability and reliability 2. Potential impacts on and benefits for the community and environment 3. Capital and O&M costs 4. Potential for revenue generation 5. Potential for other benefits and incentives 2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update: •Monetary (Costs) •Quantitative: 1.Net Energy Consumed 2.GHG Emissions 3.Onsite Facilities Footprint •Qualitative: 1.Beneficial Use of Biosolids 2.Risk/Technology Maturity 3.Level of O&M Complexity 4.Local Control 5.Community Impacts *Criteria in blue font were recommended for current evaluation Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 106 Packet Pg. 136 of 394  Staff Proposed Evaluation Criteria and Weights 29 Evaluation Criteria Description Weights (%) Financial 1) Net Present Value (NPV)Considers capital, lifecycle, and O&M costs 25 Non- Financial 2) Proven Technology Performance Technology maturity, track record, number of installations, vendor availability 11 3) Environmental Impacts GHG emissions, energy use, emerging contaminants, etc. 14 4) Footprint, Site impacts, and Constructability Area footprint, construction complexity, site disruption, etc. 9 5) Treatment Plant Process Impacts Effects on liquids process treatment due to return flows 11 6) Operations & Maintenance Impacts Ease of operation, maintenance effort, parts/vendor access, training requirements, etc. 14 7) Community Impacts Noise, odor, traffic, aesthetics, public acceptance, etc. 6 8) Regulatory Resilience Future flexibility to comply with upcoming regulations 10 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 107 Packet Pg. 137 of 394  Community Input Activity Small Group Exercise July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 108 Packet Pg. 138 of 394  Small Group Discussion Questions 1. Review and Discuss each of the eight evaluation criteria 2. Questions for Discussion: 1.Which is the most important criteria to you? 2.Is the relative weight percentage too high or too low? 3.Would the group like to change or modify any of the evaluation criteria? 31 The GROUP FACILITATOR will take notes and summarize the group’s feedback to share with the larger group during debrief Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 109 Packet Pg. 139 of 394  Recap/Next Steps Regional Water Quality Control Plant July 1, 2025 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 110 Packet Pg. 140 of 394  Potential Future Opportunities for Engagement •Climate Action & Sustainability Committee (Fall 2025) •Present short list of top biosolids processing technologies •Share preliminary results of evaluation of alternatives •City Council for Acceptance of Biosolids Facility Plan Update (2026) 33 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 111 Packet Pg. 141 of 394  www.paloalto.gov Connie Li, Ph.D., P.E. Project Engineer connie.li@paloalto.gov (650) 329-2238 Tina Pham, P.E. Senior Engineer tina.pham@paloalto.gov (650) 407-3024 34 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 112 Packet Pg. 142 of 394  Page | 7 Appendix C: Posters Presented at May 20, 2025 Workshop Attached below: Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 113 Packet Pg. 143 of 394  in association withB:\Deliverables\Client80(WCO)\PaloAlto\203295\plo0525-posters\Indd\80plo0525-six-posters-203295 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion Similar to what happens in our own digestive systems, anaerobic digestion is a process where natural microbes break down wastewater solids, producing an energy-rich gas called digester gas. To promote the growth of the right microbes, the digester tanks are heated to a moderate temperature (35°C or 95°F) and have no air or oxygen (i.e., they are anaerobic). Produces Class B Biosolids 1 Wastewater Solids are extracted from the wastewater at various stages of the wastewater treatment process. These need to be treated so they can be beneficially used. 2 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digesters are the core process for this alternative. They convert the wastewater solids into biosolids and digester gas. To promote the growth of the right microbes, the digester tanks are heated to a moderate temperature (35°C or 95°F) and have no air or oxygen (i.e., they are anaerobic). 3 Digester Gas is an energy-rich gas that can be used to make electricity and heat, or it can be cleaned and added to the natural gas supply. It typically contains about 60% methane. BENEFITS ƒOne of the most commonly used processes to treat solids from wastewater. ƒEasy to operate and maintain relative to other on-site alternatives. ƒProduces an energy-rich gas called digester gas that can be used to generate renewable electricity, cutting down on the RWQCP’s power costs. ƒProduces Class B Biosolids, a carbon and nutrient-rich agricultural amendment. CHALLENGES ƒHigher capital costs relative to current operation. ƒMore complex to operate and maintain relative to current operation. ƒProduces an ammonia-rich sidestream that may need additional treatment. Engine Generators Sidestream to RWQCP Influent Class B Biosolids O-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Use Wastewater Solids Mesophilic Anaerobic Belt Filter Presses Digester Gas 80plo0525rf6-203295-FlowDiagramPoster1.ai 4 3 2 6 7 8 5 4 Engine Generators are used to produce renewable electricity and heat. The electricity is used to reduce the RWQCP’s power costs, while the heat is used to heat the digesters. 5 The existing Belt Filter Presses are used to “dewater” or remove moisture from the biosolids. This reduces the hauling costs. 6 An ammonia-rich Sidestream is produced that may require additional treatment. 7 Biosolids are a carbon- and nutrient-rich product that can be applied at farms as an agricultural amendment. They provide numerous benefits including reducing the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers, boosting crop growth, improving water retention, and storing carbon in the soil. Unlike Class A Biosolids which are virtually free of pathogens, Class B Biosolids contain very low levels of pathogens so their land application is carefully managed through strict safety guidelines. Typically, Class B biosolids are applied to crops that are not for direct human consumption, like feed and fiber crops and rangelands. 8 For Off-site Hauling, the City would contract with a third party to haul biosolids to be safely used in farms, composted, or treated further to produce Class A biosolids. Process Flow Diagram 1 Anaerobic Digesters. Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 114 Packet Pg. 144 of 394  in association withB:\Deliverables\Client80(WCO)\PaloAlto\203295\plo0525-posters\Indd\80plo0525-six-posters-203295 Steam Boilers Steam Sidestream to RWQCP Influent Class A Biosolids O-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Use WastewaterSolids Mesophilic Anaerobic Digesters Pre-THP Screening and Dewatering Thermal Hydrolysis Process Post-Dewatering(Belt Filter Presses) Digester Gas 80plo0525rf7-203295-FlowDiagramPoster2.ai Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Thermal Hydrolysis Process Before digestion*, wastewater solids are broken down using Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP). THP “pressure-cooks” the solids, making them easier for anaerobic microbes to digest and increasing digester gas production. *For more details on the digestion step, see the “Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion” poster. Produces Class A Biosolids BENEFITS ƒProduces more of an energy-rich gas called digester gas that can be used to generate renewable electricity, cutting down on the RWQCP’s power costs. ƒImproves the ability to remove moisture from the biosolids, reducing hauling costs. ƒProduces Class A biosolids, a carbon and nutrient-rich agricultural amendment that can be used without restrictions. CHALLENGES ƒHigher capital costs relative to current operation. ƒSignificantly more complex to operate and maintain relative to Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion alone. ƒProduces more of an ammonia-rich sidestream that may need additional treatment. ƒPotential safety concerns related to operating temperatures, pressure, and need for steam. 1 Wastewater Solids are extracted from the wastewater at various stages of the wastewater treatment process. These need to be treated so they can be beneficially used. 2 Pre-THP Screening and Dewatering is used to screen and “dewater” or remove moisture from the solids. This reduces clogging of mechanical equipment and the size and cost of the downstream processes. 3 Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) is the core process of this alternative. Steam is injected to a pressurized tank raising the temperature to about 150°C or 300°F. This acts like a pressure cooker, breaking down the solids making them easier to digest, resulting in numerous benefits. 4 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digesters convert the wastewater solids into biosolids and digester gas. To promote the growth of the right microbes, the digester tanks are heated to a moderate temperature (35°C or 95°F) and have no air or oxygen (i.e., they are anaerobic).4 5 Digester Gas is an energy-rich gas that can be used to make electricity and heat, or it can be cleaned and added to the natural gas supply. It typically contains about 60% methane. THP increases digester gas production relative to Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion. 6 Steam Boilers produce steam needed for the THP. Digester gas can be used to as the fuel for these boilers. Excess digester gas can be used for electricity generation. 7 The existing Belt Filter Presses are used to “dewater” or remove moisture from the biosolids. This reduces the off-site hauling costs. By improving the ability to remove water from biosolids, THP reduces the weight of biosolids relative to Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion, resulting in even lower hauling costs. 8 An ammonia-rich Sidestream is produced that may require additional treatment. THP increases this ammonia “load” significantly compared to conventional Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion. 9 Biosolids are a carbon- and nutrient-rich product that can be used safely in farms as an agricultural amendment. They provide numerous benefits including reducing the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers, boosting crop growth, improving water retention, and storing carbon in the soil. THP produces Class A Biosolids, which are virtually free of pathogens and can be used without restrictions including in farms, parks, and even home gardens. 10 For Off-site Hauling, the City would contract with a third party to haul biosolids to be safely used in farms or landscaping. Process Flow Diagram 6 5 43 21 8 9 10 7 Thermal Hydrolysis Process System. Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 115 Packet Pg. 145 of 394  in association withB:\Deliverables\Client80(WCO)\PaloAlto\203295\plo0525-posters\Indd\80plo0525-six-posters-203295 LysteGro O-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Use Wastewater Solids Thermochemical Hydrolysis Belt Filter Presses Alkaline Chemical 80plo0525rf8-203295-FlowDiagramPoster3.ai Steam Boilers Steam Thermochemical Hydrolysis Thermochemical hydrolysis converts wastewater solids into a biosolids product that is safe to use in farms by using chemicals, steam, and fast mixing to break down the solids. Produces LysteGro, a Class A biosolids product certified as a fertilizer BENEFITS ƒEasy to operate and maintain relative to other on-site alternatives. ƒProduces Class A Biosolids, a carbon and nutrient-rich agricultural amendment that can be used without restrictions. ƒDoes not produce an ammonia-rich sidestream. ƒSmall footprint relative to other on-site alternatives. Process Flow Diagram CHALLENGES ƒHigher capital costs relative to current operation. ƒMore complex to operate and maintain relative to current operation. ƒHigh chemical use and cost. ƒProduces a liquid product which increases hauling costs and truck traffic and requires special farm equipment to inject into the soil. ƒFew installations at other wastewater treatment plants. 1 2 3 4 5 1 Wastewater Solids are extracted from the wastewater at various stages of the wastewater treatment process. These need to be treated so they can be beneficially used. 2 The existing Belt Filter Presses are used to “dewater” or remove moisture from the solids. This reduces the size and cost of the downstream processes. 3 Thermochemical Hydrolysis is the core process of this alternative. It breaks down the solids by using chemicals, steam and fast mixing in a tank. This raises the pH and raises the temperature to 75°C or 167°F. 4 Like other Biosolids products, LysteGro is a carbon- and nutrient-rich product that can be used safely in farms as an agricultural amendment. It provides numerous benefits including reducing the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers, boosting crop growth, improving water retention, and storing carbon in the soil. LysteGro qualifies as Class A Biosolids, virtually free of pathogens and can be used without restrictions including at farms if the farms have suitable equipment for injection into the soil. In addition, this product is certified as a fertilizer by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 5 For Off-site Hauling, the City would contract with a third party to haul biosolids to be safely used in farms, composted, or treated further to produce Class A biosolids. Since LysteGro has a higher water content relative to other biosolids products, it increases the hauling costs and must be injected into the soil rather than tilled like other, drier biosolids products. Thermochemical Hydrolysis System Reactor. Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 116 Packet Pg. 146 of 394  in association withB:\Deliverables\Client80(WCO)\PaloAlto\203295\plo0525-posters\Indd\80plo0525-six-posters-203295 Biochar O-site Hauling to Wastewater Solids Belt Filter Presses Thermal Dryer Pyrolysis 80plo0525rf9-203295-FlowDiagramPoster4.ai Natural Gas Thermal Drying and Pyrolysis Dewatered solids are dried and then heated in a pyrolysis unit at high temperature and in the absence of oxygen. This converts the wastewater solids into biochar, a product similar to barbecue charcoal that can be used in farms and for other higher-value uses. Produces Biochar BENEFITS ƒDrastically reduces the volume of biosolids product (biochar), resulting in minimal hauling costs and truck traffic. ƒProduces biochar, a carbon-rich agricultural amendment that can be used without restrictions, and syngas which can be used to partially fuel the process. ƒDoes not produce an ammonia-rich sidestream. ƒRecent research indicates pyrolysis may remove “forever chemicals” like some PFAS from the biochar. CHALLENGES ƒVery few operating installations at other wastewater treatment plants. ƒHistory of operational issues that impact process reliability. ƒHighest capital costs of the alternatives evaluated. ƒHigh natural gas use. ƒConcern about contaminants, including PFAS, in the exhaust and condensate discharges from the process. ƒReduced nutrient value in biochar compared to other biosolids products. Process Flow Diagram 1 Wastewater Solids are extracted from the wastewater at various stages of the wastewater treatment process. These need to be treated so they can be beneficially used. 2 The existing Belt Filter Presses are used to “dewater” or remove moisture from the solids. This reduces the size and cost of the downstream processes. 3 Thermal Drying uses natural gas and other heat sources to dry the solids. Energy from the pyrolysis process can be recovered to partially run the dryer, reducing the amount of natural gas needed. 4 Pyrolysis is the core process of this alternative. It operates at high temperatures (as high as 800°C or 1500°F) in the absence of oxygen, converting the dried solids into biochar and producing a hydrogen- rich syngas that can supplement the fuel needed for the process. Recent research indicates that at high operating temperatures, pyrolysis may remove “forever chemicals” such as some PFAS from the biochar product but the PFAS may be transformed and released in the exhaust or condensate streams. Research on the full fate of PFAS through this process is ongoing. 5 Biochar is a carbon-rich product similar to small bits of barbecue charcoal that can be used safely in farms as an agricultural amendment or for other purposes like concrete additives. It provides numerous benefits including reducing the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers, boosting crop growth, improving water retention, and storing carbon in the soil. Like Class A biosolids, biochar 1 2 3 4 65 is pathogen free and can be used without restrictions including in farms, parks, and even home gardens. While biochar has some nutritional content, it is less than other biosolids products so its synthetic fertilizer offset would be less as well. 6 For Off-site Hauling, the City would contract with a third party to haul biochar to be safely used in farms or for other purposes like concrete additives. This alternative drastically reduces the volume of product, resulting in minimal hauling costs and truck traffic. Dryers and Pyrolysis System. Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 117 Packet Pg. 147 of 394  in association withB:\Deliverables\Client80(WCO)\PaloAlto\203295\plo0525-posters\Indd\80plo0525-six-posters-203295 Compost LysteGroHauling to O -site Treatment Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Use Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Use Wastewater Solids Belt Filter Presses 80plo0525rf10-203295-FlowDiagramPoster5.ai O -site Thermochemical Hydrolysis Facility O -site Composting Facility Dewatering and Off-site Treatment (Current Operations) Solids are dewatered and hauled for treatment at two off-site facilities: a composting facility and a thermochemical hydrolysis facility. These facilities produce two biosolids products: compost and liquid fertilizer, both of which are beneficially used in farms. BENEFITS ƒMinimal future capital costs. ƒNo impact to current operations and maintenance. ƒMinimal use of additional space on-site. ƒDoes not increase ammonia-rich sidestream loads. CHALLENGES ƒRisk related to complete dependence on third parties for off-site treatment and beneficial use of biosolids and associated costs. ƒAnticipated higher off-site hauling, treatment, and beneficial use costs. ƒSolids produced and transported off the plant site have a lower level of treatment to reduce pathogens than other options. ƒRisk of potential future regulatory requirements further limiting solids management options. Process Flow Diagram 1 Wastewater Solids are extracted from the wastewater at various stages of the wastewater treatment process. These need to be treated so they can be beneficially used. 2 Belt Filter Presses are used to “dewater” or remove moisture from the biosolids. This reduces the off-site hauling costs. 3 For Off-site Hauling, the City contracts with a third party to haul biosolids to the two off-site treatment facilities to be safely used in farms, composted, or treated further to produce Class A biosolids. 4 At the Off-site Composting Facility, dewatered solids combined with yard waste or wood chips are converted by helpful microbes into compost. 5 At the Off-site Thermochemical Hydrolysis Facility, dewatered solids are broken down by using chemicals, steam and fast mixing in a tank. This raises the pH and raises the temperature to 75°C or 167°F. 6 Like other biosolids products, Compost is a carbon- and nutrient-rich product that can be used safely in farms as an agricultural amendment. It provides numerous benefits including reducing the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers, boosting crop growth, improving water retention, and storing carbon in the soil. Compost qualifies as Class A Biosolids, which are virtually free of pathogens and can be used without restrictions including in farms, parks, and even home gardens. 7 Like compost, LysteGro provides numerous agricultural benefits and qualifies as Class A Biosolids. In addition, this product is certified as a fertilizer by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Existing Belt Filter Press Dewatering and Truck Loadout Facility. Off-site solids hauling, treatment, and beneficial use costs are high and projected to increase further. The RWQCP site is severely space- constrained, with limited space available for potential future solids treatment facilities. 80plo0525rf5-aerial5.ai LEGEND: Existing Solids Processes Available Space for Potential Future Solids Processes N Solids Dewateringand Loadout Facility Gravity Thickeners Embarcadero Road Emb a r c a d e r o R o a d Embarcadero Way Measure E Site Decommissioned Incinerator Building 80plo0525rf11-203295-Graph-Poster5.ai $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 So l i d s H a u l i n g , T r e a t m e n t an d E n d - U s e C o s t s ( $ / F Y ) 1 2 4 3 5 7 6 Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 118 Packet Pg. 148 of 394  in association withB:\Deliverables\Client80(WCO)\PaloAlto\203295\plo0525-posters\Indd\80plo0525-six-posters-203295 The RWQCP’s Biosolids Planning History The City of Palo Alto is committed to finding sustainable and cost-effective solids/biosolids management solutions for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). For this reason, the City has conducted several rounds of evaluations in recent years. Biosolids Planning Timeline Biosolids Management Alternatives the City has Evaluated Alternatives Being Evaluated in Current Biosolids Facility Plan Update 2012 LONG-RANGE FACILITY PLAN ƒOn-site Alternatives: »Multiple hearth furnace incineration (MHF). »Fluidized bed incineration (FBI). »Plasma arc assisted oxidation. »Gasification. »Pyrolysis. »Anaerobic digestion. »Drying: pellets for fertilizer. »Drying: pellets for fuel. ƒRecommendation: »Retire existing incineration process as soon as new solids process can be implemented, and initiate a Biosolids Facility Plan. 2014 BIOSOLIDS FACILITY PLAN ƒOn-site Alternatives: »Mesophilic anaerobic digestion (MAD) with combined heat and power (CHP). »Temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) with CHP. »Thermal hydrolysis process (THP) with MAD and CHP. »Dewatering and landfill gas-fueled thermal drying. »Dewatering and thermal drying/gasification. ƒRecommendation: »Thermal hydrolysis process (THP) with MAD and CHP. 2019 BIOSOLIDS FACILITY PLAN UPDATE ƒOn-site Alternatives: »MAD with CHP. »Thermophilic anaerobic digestion (TAD) with CHP. »TPAD with CHP. »Low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis. »MAD with Class A Drying. »Drying and pyrolysis. »Gasification. ƒRecommendation: »Continue off-site hauling. Alternatives in blue font were recommended for detailed evaluation. *More information about these alternatives is provided in the other posters. ƒOn-site Alternatives*: »Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD). »MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP). »Thermochemical Hydrolysis. »Drying + Pyrolysis. ƒOff-site Alternatives: »Potential partnership with other Bay Area agencies for off-site management. Note: This alternative is speculative. One potential partnership the City is exploring would process solids from the RWQCP at the City of San Jose’s future Biosolids Public-Private Partnership Facility. 80plo0525rf12-203295-Timeline-Poster6.ai 2012 Long Range Facility Plan (LRFP) Recommended: 2015 Abandonment of Phase II Due to Increased Complexity and Capital Costs Discovered During Design 2019 Sludge Dewatering Building Built and Aging Incinerators Decommissioned April 2023 City Council Directed Staš to Determine if Measure E Site can be used to Process Biosolids June 2024 Commencement of LRFP Update Project, which includes Biosolids Facility Plan Update 2014 Biosolids Facility Plan Recommended: 2018 5-Year Contracts for Oš-site Biosolids Processing at Two Regional Treatment Facilities 2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update Recommended: Continued Oš-site Hauling February 2024 5-Year Contracts for Oš-site Biosolids Processing Renewed1) Construct a Phase I sludge dewatering and truck loadout facility 2) Decommission Aging Incinerators 3) Future Phase II design and construction of thermal hydrolysis process with mesophilic anaerobic digestion and digester gas-fueled combined heat and power 1) Retire the existing incineration process as soon as new solids process can be implemented 2) Initiate a Biosolids Facility Plan Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 119 Packet Pg. 149 of 394  Page | 8 Appendix D: Photos of May 20, 2025 Workshop Item 2 Attachment D Biosolids Input Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 120 Packet Pg. 150 of 394  Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Biosolids Facility Plan Update Recommended Alternatives Public Meeting Meeting Minutes Biosolids Facility Plan Update Recommended Alternatives Public Meeting Overview City of Palo Alto staff presented updates on the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Biosolids Facility Plan-Update Project (Plan) and held Q&A sessions with community member attendees on February 24, 2026. The meeting took place via Zoom from 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM. Representatives Organization Name Title City of Palo Alto Brad Eggleston Director, Public Works Aaron Gilbert Plant Manager Tina Pham Senior Engineer Connie Li Project Engineer Carollo Engineers (Consultant) Presentation Overview City staff presented an overview of the RWQCP site, treatment processes, current biosolids handling practices (dewatering, cake storage, and off-site hauling for composting or thermochemical hydrolysis processing), recent capital upgrades, and the 25-acre site’s constraints in accommodating projected future needs. They briefly reviewed the last two biosolids public workshops in 2025. Public input from the last workshops was incorporated into the plan, and adjustments were made to categorical weights in the evaluation matrix for biosolids handling alternatives. Consultants (Carollo) leading the biosolids processing evaluation efforts then presented the screening of ~15 technologies, and reasoning for narrowing the list down to six shortlisted alternatives carried forward for comprehensive evaluation: Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 121 Packet Pg. 151 of 394  Two off-site Alternatives: • Alternative 1 - Baseline Alternative: continue with current practice (hauling and off-site treatment at Synagro Central Valley Composting Facility and/or Lystek Solano County Facility); • Alternative 2 - Off-Site Partnership: hauling for potential off-site treatment at San Jose - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. Four Onsite Alternatives: • Alternative 3: Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD); • Alternative 4: MAD + thermal hydrolysis (THP/CAMB); • Alternative 5: Thermal Belt Drying; • Alternative 6: Drying + Pyrolysis. Evaluation results for site layouts, planning-level cost estimates (capital, operation & maintenance (O&M), and lifecycle costs), greenhouse gas emissions (BEAM model), and electricity usage were presented. The resulting scores based on the weighting matrix indicated the baseline option as the best practice, closely followed by the off-site partnership option. Among the four onsite alternatives, MAD scored the highest, ranking third overall. Findings from sensitivity analyses (changing weights for costs and environmental criteria) indicated the baseline option consistently ranking the highest among the six alternatives. City staff concluded the presentation by recommending reserving ~25% (2.4 of 10.1 acres) of the Measure E site adjacent to the plant for future biosolids facilities, with the rest of the Measure E site rededicated to parkland. As requested by City Council, staff are completing a separate Measure E wetland/wildlife corridor feasibility assessment (efforts led by Rincon and Woodard & Curran), the findings of which will be presented to Parks & Recreation Commission and Climate Action & Sustainability Committees. Biosolids Public Meeting Q&A Session A Q&A session was held immediately following the presentation, where City staff and Consultants addressed questions and comments from community member attendees. A summary of the session is given below. Q.1. Clarification of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis: Why does the pyrolysis option show net negative GHGs on the bar chart while it also has sizable positive emissions? Are those emissions mainly from the pyrolysis process? Are there pyrolysis variants that use less/no natural gas? Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 122 Packet Pg. 152 of 394  → The largest positive emissions source is natural gas used for the thermal dryer that precedes pyrolysis. Other emissions are minor. The large negatives (offset) come from carbon sequestration in biochar when applied to soil and fertilizer, along with reduced synthetic fertilizer production. Some alternatives (e.g., Bioforcetech/dryer at Silicon Valley Clean Water) aim to reduce fossil fuel use, but those units are capacity-limited and don’t reasonably scale for a facility the size of RWQCP. The staff can monitor advances, but current analysis used technologies that are proven at the needed scale. Q.2. Silicon Valley Clean Water pilot and scalability: Why is Silicon Valley Clean Water using bio- dryer/pyrolysis if it doesn’t scale? What lessons apply? → SV Clean Water provides a proving ground for multiple emerging technologies at a reduced scale. Their bio-dryer/pyrolysis installation has faced long development and operational challenges and only handles a small fraction (~17%) of that plant’s solids. Their pyrolysis units experienced reliability issues and required replacement or maintenance. The conclusion is drawn that, while the implementation of pyrolysis at SV is promising as a pilot, the technology has not been proven to be feasibly scalable RWQCP. Q.3. Sea level rise concerns: Given sea level rise risk for bay-front plants, why not move treatment uphill or develop satellite sites? → Sea level rise is a major element of Palo Alto’s long-range facility planning update (LRFP- U). Separate analyses and alternatives for sea level rise are underway as part of LRFP-U. Q.4. Measure E acreage, service road, and pipeline: Is the service road part of the 2.4 acres of usable Measure E? Could it be converted to buffer or wildlife corridor? → The evaluation assumed the service road to remain in place to serve landfill maintenance facilities and protect an existing pipeline that provides hydraulic connectivity between the Bay and the Renzel Marsh. Because of these operational needs, that portion was not treated as available for future biosolids facility or wildlife corridor development. Q.5. MAD construction timeline and composting/land application viability: How long does it take to build a MAD system? What if land application is banned before the onsite capacity is built? → MAD design-to-operation estimated 7-9 years. Composting currently requires stabilized (Class B) feedstock per California’s composting general order (2020). Composting now requires digestion ahead of composting and large footprints; hence, on-site composting was screened out. Most (~two-thirds) of RWQCP’s biosolids go to Synagro (a composting facility located in Dos Palos). If land application bans occur, the city would adopt interim strategies by continuing hauling to existing contractors and potentially accelerating onsite options. Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 123 Packet Pg. 153 of 394  Q.6. PFAS risk, valuation of carbon, and off-site partners vulnerability: What is the PFAS regulatory risk now and in the future? Did the financial analysis include carbon costs and offset benefits? How vulnerable are off-site partners to sea level rise? → PFAS: PFAS do not originate at the treatment plant - they enter through wastewater from residential, commercial, and limited industrial sources. Conventional wastewater treatment or biosolids processes were not designed to destroy PFAS. The City actively monitors PFAS levels in both wastewater and biosolids and participates in regional monitoring efforts, including studies conducted by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Some states (Michigan, New York, Wisconsin) have tiered PFAS limits on biosolids that impose varying restrictions on biosolids land application based on the concentrations of specific PFAS found within the biosolids. PFAS levels in our biosolids are below the most stringent limits adopted in these states. Currently, there are no federal or California regulatory limits for PFAS in wastewater or biosolids. Some technologies (e.g., pyrolysis) may reduce PFAS in solids but are costly, not proven at full scale, and may volatilize or create breakdown products; regulators are likely to adopt tiered approaches if California acts. → Carbon valuation: The financial net present value did not include monetized carbon costs or offsets because utility-scale carbon offsets for wastewater plants are uncommon and small; thus, no financial revenue from sequestration was assumed. However, greenhouse gas performance was explicitly included as a weighted evaluation criterion (about 17% weight), so environmental impacts informed the ranking even if not monetized. → Off-site partnership vulnerability and sea level rise: The off-site partnership analysis is hypothetical at this stage as the San Jose Public-Private Partnership (P3) project feasibility, technology, capacity, and product quality requirement is still unknown; no detailed sea level risk assessment was done for that option during Palo Alto’s Biosolids Facility Plan Update evaluation. However, sea level rise concerns would be well likely evaluated and addressed by City of San Jose during their planning of such big project. RWQCP’s current off-site contractors (e.g., Dos Palos, Fairfield) are inland and less exposed to immediate sea level impacts than shoreline facilities. If off-site partners are used, their resilience would need separate assessments. Q.7. Wildlife corridor comment: The plant may want to consider daylighting the pipe between Baylands and Renzel Marsh to create a vegetated/tidal connection and improve habitat connectivity rather than using the full Measure E site. Suggested Rincon be asked to analyze this option in their Measure E feasibility study. → Staff noted Rincon/Woodard & Curran are conducting the wildlife corridor analysis; recommendation recorded for inclusion in that work. Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 124 Packet Pg. 154 of 394  Q.8. Wildlife corridor comment: The wildlife corridor analyses shall distinguish between species that naturally occur in the Baylands habitat and species (e.g., foxes, raccoons, skunks) that are present as a result of human activities. Invasive predators could threaten two endangered species in the area (Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse). Species-specific needs shall be considered in wildlife corridor design to extend protections to endangered species. → City staff acknowledged the point and noted Rincon’s wildlife corridor feasibility study will consider multiple species and their habitat needs. Species-specific concerns will be taken into account as part of the analysis. Q.9. Measure E site usage comment: Given uncertainties, would it be preferable to rededicate Measure E to parkland now and let future voters decide if wastewater infrastructure is ever needed on that site? → Staff will follow Council direction to analyze feasibility and tradeoffs; securing land for future plant needs is prudent given long-term uncertainty. The decision will be informed by LRFP-Update and presented to Parks & Recreation Commission and to City Council. Q.10. Local beneficial use comment: Explore using Class A biosolids locally as mulch/soil amendment to save water and avoid hauling; earlier task force (2008-2009) recommended potential use of airport or other city-owned lands for facilities; consider purchasing nearby properties for long-term needs. → Compost/local beneficial use is desirable but constrained considering that Palo Alto is not heavily agriculturally based: current regulation and stabilization requirements (post- 2020 composting general order) state composting needs stabilized feedstock (digestion), which entails large footprints onsite; composting at the plant is impractical due to space, truck traffic, and potential odor impacts. Airport land was not included in the current analysis because it is regulated under separate federal and state aviation laws and has its own long-range planning process; the city may consider other property acquisition as part of LRFP-U if needed. Takeaways from Q&A • Federal/California PFAS regulation is an uncertain but monitored risk; local biosolids PFAS levels are lower than limits in some other states which adopted tiered PFAS limits on biosolids. At the moment, destruction technologies are costly and not yet proven at full scale. • Pyrolysis offers GHG sequestration benefits (biochar) but is capital- and energy-intensive; dryer natural gas use is a primary emission source. Scalable electric or low-fuel alternatives exist in pilots but are not yet proven at Palo Alto scale. RWQCP will continue Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 125 Packet Pg. 155 of 394  to track pyrolysis technology development should PFAS in biosolids be regulated in California. • Cost analyses strongly favor continuing baseline practice (existing hauling and off-site management for composting or thermal-chemical hydrolysis) in the near term; MAD is the leading on-site option if the city needs to internalize processing in the future. Sensitivity analyses showed baseline alternative remains robust unless off-site costs or regulations change significantly. • RWQCP will actively seek opportunities to establish offsite partnerships and add onsite biosolids facilities if needed. • Measure E site: staff recommended reserving a limited portion adjacent to the plant for future biosolids processing needs while pursuing wildlife corridor feasibility for the remainder; ultimate decisions will go to Parks & Recreation Commission and to City Council. This allows the plant to reserve space onsite for future liquid treatment facility expansion/upgrade, which is another important ongoing task as part of the LRFP-U. Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 126 Packet Pg. 156 of 394  Appendix A: Presentation slides from February 24, 2026 Biosolids Public Meeting Attached below. Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 127 Packet Pg. 157 of 394  Biosolids Public Meeting Regional Water Quality Control Plant February 24, 2026 www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 128 Packet Pg. 158 of 394  2 Welcome & Introductions City of Palo Alto •Brad Eggleston, Director, Public Works •Karin North, Assistant Director, Public Works •Aaron Gilbert, Plant Manager •Tina Pham, Senior Engineer; Connie Li, Project Engineer Carollo Engineers (Biosolids Facility Plan Update Consultant) •Rashi Gupta, Wastewater Practice Director •Christine Polo, Principal Technologist - Biosolids •John Almazan, Staff Engineer Woodard & Curran (Program Manager): Greg Sands Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 129 Packet Pg. 159 of 394  Recognition of Phil Bobel 3 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 130 Packet Pg. 160 of 394  TITLE 40 FONT BOLD Subtitle 32 font Agenda •Welcome •Introduction to Regional Water Quality Control Plant •Current Biosolids Management •Overview of Biosolids Facility Plan Update (BFPU) •Prior Biosolids Community Engagements for the BFPU •Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation and Recommendation •Recap/Next Steps •Q/A 4 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 131 Packet Pg. 161 of 394  Introduction to Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 132 Packet Pg. 162 of 394  Getting us situated PA AirportPA Golf Course Lower South Bay Byxbee Park PA Baylands Renzel Marsh PA RWQCP 6 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 133 Packet Pg. 163 of 394  RWQCP Partners and Service Area Agency 2025 Population (Estimates) Mountain View 92,000 Los Altos 36,000 Los Altos Hills 8,500 Stanford University 21,000 Palo Alto 72,000 East Palo Alto 29,500 TOTAL 259,000 •Plant’s permitted dry weather capacity: 39 Millon Gallons Per Day (MGD) •Wet weather capacity: 80 MGD •2023 - 2025 average dry season flow: 18 MGD (May – September) 7 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 134 Packet Pg. 164 of 394  8 Existing Wastewater Treatment Process Thermo-chemical hydrolysis Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 135 Packet Pg. 165 of 394  9 Project Status Cost (Mil) Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation Construction Completed 2024 $16.5 Joint Interceptor Sewer Rehab (Phase 1) Completed Early 2026 $8.9​ Secondary Treatment Upgrades Construction $193​.0 12 kV Loop Rehabilitation (Phase 1 + 2) Construction $13.5 Advanced Water Purification System (AWPS) Construction $59.9 New Headworks Facility Design ~$162 Outfall Pipe Construction and Rehabilitation Design ~$17.8 Ongoing Capital Improvement Program as part of Long Range Facilities Plan Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 136 Packet Pg. 166 of 394  Current Biosolids Management Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 137 Packet Pg. 167 of 394  Current Solids Onsite Processes, Off-Site Hauling and Treatment Since 2019 Dewatered Biosolids (Sludge Cake) from Belt Filter Press Solids Become Compost/Fertilizer •Solids are removed from wastewater, thickened, blended to a uniform size and dewatered on a belt filter press •The “sludge cake” is emptied into cake storage bins for trucks to haul offsite for composting, or for thermal and chemical treatment •All biosolids are ultimately used as an agricultural soil amendment 11 Thermo-chemical hydrolysis Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 138 Packet Pg. 168 of 394  Overview of Biosolids Facility Plan Update Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 139 Packet Pg. 169 of 394  Biosolids Facility Plan Update – 30-Year Strategy 13 Focus of key component of the Long Range Facilities Plan Update: Evaluate long-term options for biosolids treatment, handling, and reuse and guide infrastructure investments through 2055 Past Studies: •2012 Long Range Facility Plan •2014 Biosolids Facility Plan •2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update Why It Matters: •Supports future upgrades to biosolids treatment •Ensures efficient, sustainable, and regulatory compliant operations •Aligns with the City’s infrastructure and environmental goals Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 140 Packet Pg. 170 of 394  Potential Sites for Biosolids Treatment Alternatives 14 Embarcadero Road Solids Dewatering and Loadout Facility Embarcadero Way Gravity Thickeners Decommissioned Incinerator Building Portion of Measure E Site LEGEND: Existing Solids Processes Available Space for Potential Future Solids Processes Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 141 Packet Pg. 171 of 394  Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation Process Preliminary Planning •Population Projections •Wastewater Modeling and Solids Projections •Regulatory Review •Site Spatial Analysis Alternatives Screening •Allows for Identification of the Most Viable Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation •Screen down to 4 On- site and 2 Off-site Alternatives Evaluation Criteria and Weights Determination •Evaluation Criteria Identification •Weight % to Be Established Based on Relative Importance Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives •Layout of Planned Capital Improvement Projects •Cost Estimates •Score Alternatives Based on Weighted Evaluation Criteria •Sensitivity Analysis •Initial Recommendations Implementation of Recommended Alternative (s) •Partners, Palo Alto City Council, and Stakeholder Engagement •City Council Approval of Long Range Facilities Plan Update We are here! 15 Shared in 2025 Public Meetings Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 142 Packet Pg. 172 of 394  Prior Biosolids Community Engagements (2025) Prior Biosolids Public Meetings •May 20, 2025 (In-person, Mitchell Park Community Center) •July 1, 2025 (zoom meeting) Community Engagement Activities •Reviewed and discussed each of the 8 evaluation criteria •Which is the most important criteria to you? •Is the relative weight percentage too high or too low? •Would the group like to change or modify any of the evaluation criteria? Thank you! Community input was incorporated in final evaluation criteria. 16 Word Cloud: What should RWQCP consider when evaluating Biosolids Technologies? Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 143 Packet Pg. 173 of 394  Evaluation Methodology - Example 17 Alternatives Example Criteria Proven Technology Performance O&M Complexity Community Impacts Alternative A 3 3 3 Alternative B 3 4 4 Alternative C 1 3 3 Alternative D 5 5 2 Example Weights Criteria Weight Proven Technology Performance 55% O&M Complexity 30% Community Impacts 15% Final Weighted Scores Alternatives Weighted Score Alternative A 3.00 Alternative B 3.45 Alternative C 1.90 Alternative D 4.55 **Hypothetical Example scoring Example Final Weighted Score Calculation for Alternative C: Tech + O&M + Comm = 1*55% + 3*30% + 3*15% = 1.9 0.55 + 0.9 + 0.45 = 1.9 Survey to develop criteria weights Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 144 Packet Pg. 174 of 394  Staff Proposed Evaluation Criteria and Weights - Prior to 2025 Public Meetings 18 Evaluation Criteria Description Weights (%) Financial 1) Net Present Value (NPV)Considers capital, lifecycle, and O&M costs 25 Non- Financial 2) Proven Technology Performance Technology maturity, track record, number of installations, vendor availability 11 3) Environmental Impacts GHG emissions, energy use, emerging contaminants, etc. 14 4) Footprint, Site impacts, and Constructability Area footprint, construction complexity, site disruption, etc. 9 5) Treatment Plant Process Impacts Effects on liquids process treatment due to return flows 11 6) Operations & Maintenance Impacts Ease of operation, maintenance effort, parts/vendor access, training requirements, etc. 14 7) Community Impacts Noise, odor, traffic, aesthetics, public acceptance, etc. 6 8) Regulatory Resilience Future flexibility to comply with upcoming regulations 10 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 145 Packet Pg. 175 of 394  Evaluation Criteria Description Initial Weights Summary of Public Input Directional Change Numerical Based on Public Input Revised Factor Financial 1) Net Present Value (NPV) Considers capital, lifecycle, and O&M costs 25%Confirmed as a key criterion. Financial impacts were frequently identified as a top priority 0%25% Non- Financial 2) Proven Technology Performance Technology maturity, track record, number of installations, vendor availability 11% Some interest in proven technology and its long- major focus -1%10% 3) Global Environmental Impacts Quantified GHG emissions including resource recovery, energy use, emerging contaminants, etc. and biogas energy recovery, fuel and chemical use, hauling, and carbon sequestration and fertilizer offsets from beneficial use of biosolids 14%emphasis for environmental impacts 3%17% 4) Footprint, Site impacts, and Constructability Area footprint, construction complexity, site disruption, potential regional partnership, etc. (e.g. Measure E site) 9%regional partnerships, a final determination regarding the Measure E site -2%7% 5) Treatment Plant Process Impacts Effects on liquids process treatment due to return flows 11%Not a primary focus of community feedback -2%9% 6) Operations & Maintenance Impacts Ease of operation, maintenance effort, parts/vendor access, training requirements, etc.14%Not a primary focus of community feedback 0%14% 7) Local Community & Environmental Impacts Noise, odor, traffic, aesthetics, public acceptance, etc. wildlife & habitat 6%protecting local interests and local ecosystems 2%8% 8) Regulatory & Program Resilience Future Flexibility to comply with current and potential future upcoming regulations, including PFAS, SB 1383, EPA Part 503, etc. Considers market risk of continued production of raw cake and reliance on third party contractors. 10% Some concern raised regarding PFAS and future- proofing with general support for the importance of resiliency 0%10% Final Evaluation Criteria and Weights – Public Input Incorporated 19 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 146 Packet Pg. 176 of 394  BFPU Progress Since Last Public Meeting 20 •Biosolids Alternatives Screening Update •Biosolids Alternatives Development & Evaluation •Process Flow Diagrams & Site Layouts •Capital, O&M, and Life-cycle Costs •Evaluation Criteria Scores •Sensitivity Analysis & Initial Recommendations •Measure E recommendations •Next Steps Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 147 Packet Pg. 177 of 394  Recap of Biosolids Alternatives Screening Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 148 Packet Pg. 178 of 394  Biosolids Technology 0 Current Practice: Dewater and Haul Off-site 1 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD) 2 MAD with recuperative thickening 3 Thermophilic anaerobic digestion (TAD) 4 MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) 5 Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) 6 Thermo-Chemical Hydrolysis (Lystek) 7 Thermal Drying - Belt 8 Thermal Drying – Rotary Drum 9 Thermal Drying - Electric 10 Greenhouse Solar Drying 11 Greenhouse Solar Drying with Supplemental Heating 12 Composting – Covered Aerated Static Pile 13 Composting – In-vessel 14 Drying + Pyrolysis 15 Drying + Gasification Initial On-site Alternatives Screening – Identify 4 Onsite Alternatives 22 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 149 Packet Pg. 179 of 394  123 Initial On-site Alternatives Screening – Identify 4 Onsite Alternatives Evaluate 3 highest scoring onsite alternatives. Evaluate a PFAS removal alternative. Evaluate baseline. Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 150 Packet Pg. 180 of 394  1 Proposed On-site Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation - Initial 24 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD)MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) Thermo-Chemical Hydrolysis Drying + Pyrolysis Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 151 Packet Pg. 181 of 394  Issues with On-site Alternative: Thermochemical Hydrolysis 25 Screened out because: LysteGro Thermochemical Hydrolysis Belt Filter Presses Wastewater Solids AlkalineChemical Steam Boilers Steam Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse Not well proven for undigested solids Only 2 installations process 100% undigested solids. Risk of high greenhouse gas emissions Without anaerobic digestion, hydrolyzed sludge in 6-8 months storage would go anaerobic, producing methane. Added complexity with MAD With anaerobic digestion, complexity increases, negating a major reason this alternative was initially recommended. Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 152 Packet Pg. 182 of 394  1 Selection of New 4th Onsite Alternative 26 First tier Second tier Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 153 Packet Pg. 183 of 394  Selection of New 4th Onsite Alternative Biosolids Technology 0 Current Practice: Dewater and Haul Off-site 1 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD) 2 MAD with recuperative thickening 3 Thermophilic anaerobic digestion (TAD) 4 MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) 5 Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) 6 Thermo-Chemical Hydrolysis (Lystek) 7 Thermal Drying - Belt 8 Thermal Drying – Rotary Drum 9 Thermal Drying - Electric 10 Greenhouse Solar Drying 11 Greenhouse Solar Drying with Supplemental Heating 12 Composting – Covered Aerated Static Pile 13 Composting – In-vessel 14 Drying + Pyrolysis 15 Drying + Gasification Additional digestion alternative not recommended: •Digestion already well represented •Not necessarily Class A •Operational and process issues Drying alternative recommended: •Produces Class A •Significant volume and truck traffic reduction •Facilitates future PFAS treatment tech implementation when proven/needed 27 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 154 Packet Pg. 184 of 394  1 Proposed On-site Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation - Latest 28 Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD)MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) Thermal Belt Drying Drying + Pyrolysis Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 155 Packet Pg. 185 of 394  Off-Site Alternative 29 Baseline Alternative: Continue with Current Practice •Sludge hauling contract with Synagro WWT, Inc. •Offsite treatment at 2 regional treatment facilities: •Synagro Central Valley Composting Facility •Lystek Solano County Facility Alternative for Consideration: Biosolids Facility at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility •To be delivered via a Public-Private Partnership (P3), which may accept biosolids from regional agencies •Project feasibility, technology, capacity, and product quality requirements still unknown. Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 156 Packet Pg. 186 of 394  Six (6) Proposed Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation Alt 3 - MAD Alt 4 - MAD with THP Alt 5 - Thermal Drying Alt 6 - Drying + Pyrolysis++Alt 2 - Offsite Partnership (Hauling for off- site treatment at San Jose Regional Facility) 4 Onsite Alternatives Alt 1 - Baseline Alternative (Continued hauling for off-site treatment at Lystek/Synagro) MAD: Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion THP: Thermal Hydrolysis Process 30 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 157 Packet Pg. 187 of 394  Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 158 Packet Pg. 188 of 394  Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation Process Preliminary Planning •Population Projections •Wastewater Modeling and Solids Projections •Regulatory Review •Site Spatial Analysis Alternatives Screening •Allows for Identification of the Most Viable Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation •Screen down to 4 on- site and 2 off-site Alternatives Evaluation Criteria and Weights Determination •Evaluation Criteria Identification •Weight % Established based on Relative Importance Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives •Layout of Planned Capital Improvement Projects •Cost Estimates •Score Alternatives based on Weighted Evaluation Criteria •Sensitivity Analysis •Initial Recommendations Implementation of Recommended Alternative (s) •Partners, Palo Alto City Council, and Stakeholder Engagement •City Council Approval of Long Range Facilities Plan Update We are here! 32 Shared in 2025 Public Meetings Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 159 Packet Pg. 189 of 394  New Solids Facilities: 1.Digestion 2.Digested Sludge Storage Tank 3.Digested Sludge Transfer Pump Station 4.Digester Gas Conditioning 5.Cogeneration & Boiler Building 6.Flare 7.Sidestream Treatment Siting Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD - Alt 3) Onsite 1 1 1 5 2 3 7 4 6 33 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 160 Packet Pg. 190 of 394  Siting Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD - Alt 3) at Measure E 1 1 1 5 2 3 7 4 6 8 New Solids Facilities: 1.Digestion 2.Digested Sludge Storage Tank 3.Digested Sludge Transfer Pump Station 4.Digester Gas Conditioning 5.Cogeneration & Boiler Building 6.Flare 7.Sidestream Treatment 8.Intermediate Sludge Transfer Pump Station34 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 161 Packet Pg. 191 of 394  Siting Drying + Pyrolysis (Alt 6) Onsite 1 2 3 New Solids Facilities: 1.Cake Transfer Station 2.Thermal Belt Drying 3.Pyrolysis 35 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 162 Packet Pg. 192 of 394  Siting Drying + Pyrolysis (Alt 6) at Measure E 1 2 3 New Solids Facilities: 1.Cake Receiving Station 2.Thermal Belt Drying 3.Pyrolysis 36 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 163 Packet Pg. 193 of 394  Capital Costs Uncertainty bars represent the -50% to +100% accuracy range for planning level (Class 5) cost estimates. 37 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 164 Packet Pg. 194 of 394  O&M Costs 38 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 165 Packet Pg. 195 of 394  Life-Cycle Costs (shown as Net Present Value) 39 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 166 Packet Pg. 196 of 394  Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Offsets 40 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 167 Packet Pg. 197 of 394  Electricity Usage & Production (Solids Processes) 41 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 168 Packet Pg. 198 of 394  Evaluation Criteria Scores Baseline scored the highest, with Offsite Partnership a close second. Of the onsite alternatives, MAD scored the highest. 42 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 169 Packet Pg. 199 of 394  Sensitivity Analysis 43 Input modified Baseline Scenario Most impactful criteria weights (NPV, O&M Impacts, Env. Impacts, & Reg. Resilience) Baseline weights Alternatives sited at?Measure E THP + MAD 24/7 steam certified operator required? Yes Dried product management cost?$74/wet ton Biochar management cost?$0/wet ton Offsite Partnership offsite cake management cost?$139/wet ton Baseline offsite cake management cost?$139/wet ton; 4% per year Sensitivity Analysis Scenario(s) Conducted Weights doubled and halved Onsite No $0/wet ton $30/wet ton profit $50-200/wet ton $200-400/wet ton; 8% to 9% per year Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 170 Packet Pg. 200 of 394  Evaluation Criteria Description Revised Weighting Factor Financial 1) Net Present Value (NPV)Considers capital, lifecycle, and O&M costs 25% Non-Financial 2) Proven Technology Performance Technology maturity, track record, number of installations, vendor availability 10% 3) Global Environmental Impacts Quantified GHG emissions including resource recovery, energy use, and biogas energy recovery, fuel and chemical use, hauling, and carbon sequestration and fertilizer offsets from beneficial use of biosolids 17% 4) Footprint, Site impacts, and Constructability Area footprint, construction complexity, site disruption, potential regional partnership, etc. (e.g. Measure E site)7% 5) Treatment Plant Process Impacts Effects on liquids process treatment due to return flows 9% 6) Operations & Maintenance Impacts Ease of operation, maintenance effort, parts/vendor access, training requirements, etc.14% 7) Local Community & Environmental Impacts Noise, odor, traffic, aesthetics, public acceptance, wildlife & habitat 8% 8) Regulatory & Program Resilience Flexibility to comply with current and potential future regulations, including PFAS, SB 1383, EPA Part 503, etc. Considers market risk of continued production of raw cake and reliance on third party contractors. 10% Final Evaluation Criteria and Weights – Public Input Incorporated 44 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 171 Packet Pg. 201 of 394  Example Sensitivity Analysis – Changing Weights of Key Criteria 4.1 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.6 4.4 4.3 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.1 4.0 3.8 2.9 2.4 2.7 2.9 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Alt 1 -Baseline Alt 2 -Offsite Partnership (if available) Alt 3 -MAD Alt 4 -MAD + THP Alt 5 -Drying Alt 6 -Drying + Pyrolysis We i g h t e d S c o r e s Evaluation Criteria Scores (NPV Weight Doubled & Halved) Baseline Weights NPV Weight Doubled NPV Weight Halved 45 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 172 Packet Pg. 202 of 394  Example Sensitivity Analysis – Changing Weights of Key Criteria 4.1 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.6 3.6 3.5 2.7 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.4 4.2 3.1 2.6 2.9 2.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Alt 1 -Baseline Alt 2 -Offsite Partnership (if available) Alt 3 -MAD Alt 4 -MAD + THP Alt 5 -Drying Alt 6 -Drying + Pyrolysis We i g h t e d S c o r e s Evaluation Criteria Scores (Environmental Impacts Weight Doubled & Halved) Baseline Weights Env. Weight Doubled Env. Weight Halved 46 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 173 Packet Pg. 203 of 394  Hypothetical Siting Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD - Alt 3) at Measure E New Solids Facilities: 1.Digestion 2.Digested Sludge Storage Tank 3.Digested Sludge Transfer Pump Station 4.Digester Gas Conditioning 5.Boiler Building 6.Flare 7.Sidestream Treatment 8.Intermediate Sludge Transfer Pump Station 1 1 1 1 8 6 4 5 2 3 7 MAD (Alt 3): $259 M 47 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 174 Packet Pg. 204 of 394  Hypothetical Siting MAD (Alt 3) and Drying + Pyrolysis (Alt 6) New Solids Facilities: 1.Digestion 2.Digested Sludge Storage Tank 3.Digested Sludge Transfer Pump Station 4.Digester Gas Conditioning 5.Boiler Building 6.Flare 7.Sidestream Treatment 8.Intermediate Sludge Transfer Pump Station 9.Thermal Drying 10. Pyrolysis 1 1 1 1 8 6 4 5 2 3 7 9 10 MAD (Alt 3): $259 M Drying + Pyrolysis (Alt 6): $633 M 48 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 175 Packet Pg. 205 of 394  Future Liquids Treatment Additional Space Needs New Solids Facilities: 1.Digestion 2.Digested Sludge Storage Tank 3.Digested Sludge Transfer Pump Station 4.Digester Gas Conditioning 5.Boiler Building 6.Flare 7.Sidestream Treatment 8.Intermediate Sludge Transfer Pump Station 9.Thermal Drying 10. Pyrolysis 1 1 1 1 8 6 4 5 2 3 7 9 10 New Headworks Facility Secondary Clarifier Improvements and Potential Expansion Recycled Water Facilities Upgrade Sludge Pump Room Upgrade Tertiary Treatment Upgrades 49 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 176 Packet Pg. 206 of 394  Initial Recommendations Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 177 Packet Pg. 207 of 394  Initial Recommendations 51 Continue current operations Maximize future flexibility: •Reserve space on site for future liquid process facilities •If possible, retain ability to use portion of Measure E site for future solids facilities Track changes: •PFAS regs •Offsite partnership opportunities •Offsite market changes •Technology development Take action: •Establish Offsite Partnerships, as appropriate •Add onsite facilities, if needed Near-term Long-term Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 178 Packet Pg. 208 of 394  Measure E Initial Recommendations (for discussion) 52 Reserve portion of Measure E adjacent to RWQCP for potential future biosolids processes, especially if future PFAS regulations require onsite treatment. Remaining 7.7 acres can be rededicated to parkland. Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 179 Packet Pg. 209 of 394  Recap/Next Steps Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 180 Packet Pg. 210 of 394  Next Steps •Measure E Wetland Wildlife Corridor Evaluation (ongoing) •Climate Action & Sustainability Committee (Later in 2026) •Share results of evaluation and recommendation of alternatives •City Council for Acceptance of Biosolids Facility Plan Update (2026) 54 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 181 Packet Pg. 211 of 394  Q/A Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 182 Packet Pg. 212 of 394  www.paloalto.gov Connie Li, Ph.D., P.E. Project Engineer/LRFP-U Project Manager connie.li@paloalto.gov (650) 329-2238 Tina Pham, P.E. Senior Engineer tina.pham@paloalto.gov (650) 407-3024 56 Item 2 Attachment E Biosolids Public Workshops Meeting Minutes Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 183 Packet Pg. 213 of 394  Park Dedication Ordinance for Portion of Measure “E” Site Parks and Recreation Commission Presenters: Tina Pham (Palo Alto), Senior Engineer Travis Belt (Rincon), Natural Resources Director June 23, 2026 Paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 184 Packet Pg. 214 of 394  Staff recommend that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC): •Receive results of the wildlife corridor evaluation; and •Recommend City Council adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance to dedicate 7.7 acres of the Measure E site at Byxbee Park as parkland. 2 RECOMMENDATION Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 185 Packet Pg. 215 of 394  TITLE 40 FONT BOLD Subtitle 32 font •Measure E Background •Introduction to Regional Water Quality Control Plant •Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation •Wetland Wildlife Corridor Evaluation •Questions 3 AGENDA Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 186 Packet Pg. 216 of 394  PA AirportPA Golf Course Lower South Bay Byxbee Park PA Baylands Renzel Marsh PA RWQCP 4 RWQCP LOCATION AND SURROUNDINGS Office Park Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 187 Packet Pg. 217 of 394  Measure E Background www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 188 Packet Pg. 218 of 394  Objectives: •Provide a reliable, long- term organics solution •Enhance the beneficial use of organic materials •Reduce landfill disposal •Reduce greenhouse gas emissions •Allow the City to phase out the existing incinerator for Biosolids (incinerators now offline since 2019) 6 MEASURE “E” BACKGROUND Key Features: •Very specific approved uses: •Treatment of Wastewater Residuals, Food Scraps & Yard Trimmings •Treatment must be Biological or Equivalent •Measure E was written and advocated by Residents •Approved by 63 % of Voters in 2011 Locus Plan Detail Plan Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 189 Packet Pg. 219 of 394  7 Sep 2022 Discussion of Dedicating Measure E 10- Acre Site Oct 2021 Measure E 10 Years After Ballot Passed Jun 2026 Rincon’s Measure E Wildlife Wetland Corridor Feasibility Study Results Oct 2022 PRC Votes 4-2 to Recommend Dedication as Parkland Apr 2023 Council Directed Staff to Conduct Feasibility of Wildlife Corridor and Determine Whether 2.4-acre Portion of Measure E Should be Preserved for Potential Biosolids Processing FacilityCo u n c i l M e e t i n g PR C M e e t i n g s MEASURE “E” BACKGROUND Fall 2026 Biosolids Facility Plan and Park Dedication Ordinance presented to Council Jun 2024 Council Approved Initiation of LRFP-U including Biosolids Facility Plan update. We are here! Aug 2023 Council Directed Staff to Explore Purchase of Property Contiguous to RWQCP and Explore Funding Options for Purchase Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 190 Packet Pg. 220 of 394  Introduction to Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 191 Packet Pg. 221 of 394  RWQCP PARTNERS AND SERVICE AREA Agency 2025 Population (Estimates) Mountain View 92,000 Los Altos 36,000 Los Altos Hills 8,500 Stanford University 21,000 Palo Alto 72,000 East Palo Alto 29,500 TOTAL 259,000 •Plant’s permitted dry weather capacity: 39 Millon Gallons Per Day (MGD) •Wet weather capacity: 80 MGD •2023 - 2025 average dry season flow: 18 MGD (May – September) 9 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 192 Packet Pg. 222 of 394  10 Project Status Cost (Mil) Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation Completed 2024 $16.5 Joint Interceptor Sewer Rehab (Phase 1) Completed Early 2026 $12.6​ Secondary Treatment Upgrades Construction $193​.0 12 kV Loop Rehabilitation (Phase 1 + 2) Construction $15.0 Advanced Water Purification System (AWPS) Construction $59.9 Horizontal Levee Pilot Project Construction $3.0 New Headworks Facility Design ~$162 Outfall Pipe Construction and Rehabilitation Design ~$26.0 Gravity Thickeners Rehabilitation Project Design ~$10.0 ONGOING CAPITAL IMPROV PROGRAM AS PART OF 2012 LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN Total: $498 M Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 193 Packet Pg. 223 of 394  CURRENT SOLIDS ONSITE PROCESSES, OFF-SITE HAULING AND TREATMENT SINCE 2019 Dewatered Biosolids (Sludge Cake) from Belt Filter Press Solids Become Compost/Fertilizer •Solids are removed from wastewater, thickened, blended to a uniform size and dewatered on a belt filter press. •The “sludge cake” is emptied into cake storage bins for trucks to haul offsite for composting, or for thermal and chemical treatment. •All biosolids are ultimately used as an agricultural soil amendment. 11 Thermo-chemical hydrolysis Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 194 Packet Pg. 224 of 394  Biosolids Alternatives Evaluation Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 195 Packet Pg. 225 of 394  BIOSOLIDS FACILITY PLAN UPDATE 13 Focus of key component of the Long Range Facilities Plan Update: Evaluate long-term options for biosolids treatment, handling, and reuse and guide infrastructure investments. Past Studies: •2012 Long Range Facility Plan •2014 Biosolids Facility Plan •2019 Biosolids Facility Plan Update Why It Matters: •Supports future upgrades to biosolids treatment •Ensures efficient, sustainable, and regulatory compliant operations •Aligns with the City’s infrastructure and environmental goals Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 196 Packet Pg. 226 of 394  SIX (6) PROPOSED BIOSOLIDS ALTERNATIVES Alt 3 - MAD Alt 4 - MAD with THP Alt 5 - Thermal Drying Alt 6 - Drying + Pyrolysis++Alt 2 - Offsite Partnership (Hauling for off - site treatment at San Jose Regional Facility) 4 Onsite Alternatives Alt 1 - Baseline Alternative (Continued hauling for off -site treatment at Lystek /Synagro) MAD: Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion THP: Thermal Hydrolysis Process 14 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 197 Packet Pg. 227 of 394  POTENTIAL FUTURE LIQUIDS AND SOLIDS TREATMENT NEEDS New Solids Facilities: 1.Digestion 2.Digested Sludge Storage Tank 3.Digested Sludge Transfer Pump Station 4.Digester Gas Conditioning 5.Boiler Building 6.Flare 7.Sidestream Treatment 8.Intermediate Sludge Transfer Pump Station 9.Thermal Drying 10. Pyrolysis 1 1 1 1 8 6 4 5 2 3 7 9 10 New Headworks Facility Secondary Clarifier Improvements and Potential Expansion Recycled Water Facilities Upgrade Sludge Pump Room Upgrade Tertiary Treatment Upgrades Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 198 Packet Pg. 228 of 394  INITIAL BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 16 Continue current operations Maximize future flexibility: •Reserve space on site for future liquid process facilities •If possible, retain ability to use portion of Measure E site for future solids facilities Track changes: •PFAS regs •Offsite partnership opportunities •Offsite market changes •Technology development Take action: •Establish Offsite Partnerships, as appropriate •Add onsite facilities, if needed Near-term Long-term Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 199 Packet Pg. 229 of 394  MEASURE E INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS 17 Reserve portion of Measure E adjacent to RWQCP for potential future biosolids processes, especially if future PFAS regulations require onsite treatment. Remaining 7.7 acres can be rededicated to parkland. Potential Future Land Use`Approx. Area (acres) Portion of Measure E Area 2.40 Solids Processing Facilities 1.40 Perimeter Screening Area 0.30 Post-Closure Landfill Gravel Access Road 0.52 Other landscaped areas 0.18 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 200 Packet Pg. 230 of 394  Wetland Wildlife Corridor Evaluation Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 201 Packet Pg. 231 of 394  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19 Key Findings: •The site already functions as a habitat and supports wildlife movement. •Multiple wetland corridor concepts were evaluated. •Corridor construction would require substantial excavation, infrastructure avoidance, and long-term maintenance. •The potential corridor alternatives provide limited additional ecological benefit relative to existing conditions. •Targeted habitat enhancements may provide greater ecological benefit with less disturbance and lower cost. Bottom Line: Environmental benefits can likely be achieved more effectively by enhancing existing habitat than by constructing a wetland corridor. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 202 Packet Pg. 232 of 394  MEASURE E SITE PARAMETERS 20 Why We Studied This Site: •Community interest in wildlife connectivity •Potential ecological connection* between Emily Renzel Wetlands and Baylands Marsh •Evaluation of whether a wetland corridor would meaningfully improve ecological outcomes Byxbee ParkEmily Renzel Wetland Palo Alto Baylands Marsh Palo Alto Airport RWQCP Landfill Maintenance Facility Mayfield Slough * Hydraulic connectivity already exists Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 203 Packet Pg. 233 of 394  MEASURE E - WETLAND WILDLIFE CORRIDOR EVALUATION OVERVIEW 21 Consultant: Rincon Measure E Site: Portions of the Baylands Nature Preserve, the Emily Renzel Wetland, and the closed landfill; adjacent to the RWQCP. Task: Evaluate potential for establishing a wetland wildlife corridor or alternative beneficial environmental use at the Site. Wetland Corridor Options Considered: 1.Open-air options (e.g., open channel, wide wetland swale) 2.Underground options (e.g., oversized multi -barrel box culvert, arch span culvert) Scope Includes Literature Review of: •Special status wildlife with potential to occur in study area •Current and historical aerial photographs of site •Regional and site-specific topographic maps •Climatic data •Database search using CDFW and USFWS online tools Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 204 Packet Pg. 234 of 394  22 SITE OVERVIEW RWQCP Horizontal Levee Pilot Project Baylands Harbor Marsh Embarcadero Road Photo from field visit on 11/18/2025 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 205 Packet Pg. 235 of 394  EXISTING HABITAT VALUE 23 Key Findings: •Existing upland and wetland habitats support wildlife movement and habitat use. •Native and non-native vegetation provide foraging, nesting, and refuge opportunities. •White-tailed kite was observed during field surveys. •Targeted habitat enhancement could strengthen existing ecological function with less disturbance than corridor construction. Main Takeaway: The site already contributes to habitat within the Baylands system. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 206 Packet Pg. 236 of 394  ALTERNATIVE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 24 Benefits of Habitat Enhancement •Low impact construction •Low maintenance requirements •Inexpensive compared to constructing wetland habitat •Benefits species already using the site •Higher potential for ecological uplift •Does not limit future uses of the site if needed for critical infrastructure Beneficial Uses Considered: 1.Upland Habitat Enhancement of existing upland habitat corridor 2.Restoration of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat 3.Restoration of pickleweed mats Source: Las Pilitas Nursery Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 207 Packet Pg. 237 of 394  WETLAND WILDLIFE CORRIDOR EVALUATION STUDY SUMMARY 25 Field and Desktop Study •Species, species habitat, and vegetation identification •Hydrologic assessment Alternatives Development •Corridors Options o Alt. pipeline/ culvert options o Open-air options •Habitat enhancement opportunities Alternatives Evaluation •Hydrologic & Ecological benefits •Est. impact to special-status species •Physical feasibility/Site limitations Findings •Wetland wildlife corridor alternatives provide little to no benefit to special status species. •Unlikely that wildlife movement would benefit/ increase from corridor. •Certain species* would be adversely impacted. •Maintaining or enhancing** existing site would be lower cost and have greater ecological value. * Includes Crotch’s bumble bee, monarch, raptors . ** Examples: (1) Restoring upland scrub habitat (contracted and funded); (2) Planting trees for nesting birds; (3) restoring pickleweed mats. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 208 Packet Pg. 238 of 394  MEASURE E INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS 26 Reserve portion of Measure E adjacent to RWQCP for potential future biosolids processes, especially if future PFAS regulations require onsite treatment. Remaining 7.7 acres can be rededicated to parkland. Potential Future Land Use Approx. Area (acres) Portion of Measure E Area 2.40 Solids Processing Facilities 1.40 Perimeter Screening Area 0.30 Post-Closure Landfill Gravel Access Road 0.52 Other landscaped areas 0.18 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 209 Packet Pg. 239 of 394  TITLE 40 FONT BOLD Subtitle 32 font •Land intended to be used for park purposes can be dedicated for such use by Ordinance •City intends to re -dedicate 7.70 acres of the Measure E site •The 7.70-acre portion of the site shall become part of Byxbee Park •If adopted by City Council, the Ordinance will be effective 31 days after the date of adoption 27 PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 210 Packet Pg. 240 of 394  Staff recommend that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC): •Receive results of the wildlife corridor evaluation; and •Recommend City Council adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance to dedicate 7.7 acres of the Measure E site at Byxbee Park as parkland. 28 RECOMMENDATION Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 211 Packet Pg. 241 of 394  Tina Pham Senior Engineer tina.pham@paloalto.gov 650-838-2896 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 212 Packet Pg. 242 of 394  Questions Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 213 Packet Pg. 243 of 394  End of Slides Regional Water Quality Control Plant www.paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Presentation Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 214 Packet Pg. 244 of 394  Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report From: Community Services Department Meeting Date: June 23, 2026 Report #: 2606-6459 TITLE Study Session to Review Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links RECOMMENDATION Staff seeks the Parks and Recreation Commission’s (PRC) feedback on the financial feasibility update for driving range expansion at the City’s Baylands Golf Links. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Baylands Golf Links continues to perform well, with stable golf course operations and steady growth in driving range use and revenue. The existing 27-stall driving range reaches capacity during peak periods and needs future capital improvements, including replacement of aging netting and turf and increased net height. Staff reengaged the National Golf Foundation (NGF) to update its draft feasibility analysis for a second deck driving range expansion. NGF found market opportunity based on growth in golf participation, demand for technology-enhanced practice and social experiences, strong local demographics, and limited nearby competition. NGF’s concept includes an expanded range footprint, a new ground level and second deck, and higher nets and poles. Preliminary base project costs are estimated at $8.4 million to $9.1 million, with optional features adding $0.7 million to $1.0 million. NGF projects annual driving range revenue could increase from about $0.8 million currently to $1.7 million in Year 1 and $2.4 million by Year 10, with a simple payback period of about 13 to 22 years. Additional analysis would be needed before moving forward, including FAA review, parking study, environmental review, phasing, operational impacts, and funding strategies. This study session is intended to update the PRC and obtain feedback. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 245 of 394  BACKGROUND ANALYSIS Table # 1: Baylands Golf Links Financial Performance FY2019-FY2025 Fiscal Year Revenue in Millions Expenses in Millions Profit/(Loss) in Millions Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 246 of 394  2022 $5.3 $4.2 $1.1 2023 $5.0 $3.8 $1.2 2024 $5.0 $4.5 $0.5 2025 $5.4 $4.1 $1.3 In Fiscal Year 2019, the operating loss is associated with incurring two debt service payments which consisted of a final payment on prior debt and payment for new debt issued for course renovations. For Fiscal Year 2020 the operating loss is due to course closure upon the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and then restricted course play once the course reopened with single play only. In Fiscal Year 2025, player residency consisted of 22 percent from Palo Alto and 31 percent from elsewhere within Santa Clara County. Additionally, 30 percent were from San Mateo County and 6 percent from the City and County of San Francisco. The remaining 11 percent of players were from outside the region. Driving Range Performance The driving range serves golf patrons in various capacities for learning, practicing, and warming up. For those new to the game of golf, the range offers a lesson program and for players seeking to improve their skills the range is a regular practice site. Additionally, for golfers coming to the course to play a round, the range is used as a warm up site. Table #2 reflects revenue growth at the driving range after the golf course was renovated. Table #2: Driving Range Revenue FY2019 – FY2025 Fiscal Year Revenue 2019 $359,495 2020 $314,447 2021 $679,304 2022 $662,717 2023 $685,801 2024 $691,498 2025 $771,864 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 247 of 394  Fiscal Year 2019 reflects driving range revenue upon the golf course reopening after an 18-hole renovation and minor expansion of the driving range. Fiscal Year 2020 reflects fewer golf patrons using the driving range due to closure of the golf course upon the onset of the COVID- 19 pandemic. Since then, the range has performed consistently well. , included as Attachment A. Golf industry growth, Changing demographics and golf activities, Participation associated with on-course and off-course play, Leveraging technology for patrons seeking to improve their skills and those seeking entertainment with social experiences at driving ranges. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 248 of 394  income is a predictive factor in golf participation, the local population has 9.6% participation within 10 miles and 9% within a 30-minute drive time. Additionally, there are 5 times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf than there are nationally. Within 10 miles there are only five public golf courses with driving ranges. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 249 of 394  poles as the golf course facility is located adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport, and overall project funding and payment plan. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Table #3: Baylands GL Driving Range Project – Preliminary Cost Estimates Source: NGF feasibility study Base Items:Low Estimate High Estimate Estimated Prelim. Total Base Costs $8,444,000 $9,081,000 Optional Items:cost if incl. in initial construction) cost if incl. in initial construction) Total Estimated Optional Items Cost $688,000 $1,028,550 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 250 of 394  Operation Revenue (after expenses) as projected to be between $413,681 and $815,151 depending on sensitivity scenarios associated with different levels of utilization, fees charged, and range operation expenses. Commensurate with a new technology enhanced driving range would be an increase in fees charged for use of the driving range. NGF further provides a 10- year Cash Flow Pro Forma in Appendix F of their report. Scenario: Table #4 Sensitivity Analysis – Results Shown for Year 5 Source: NGF feasibility study Input Variable(s) Changed Gross Revenue Net Income Incrementa l Net Income Sensitivity Scenario 1: Average utilization rate is lowered to 33% Year 1 and 33% Year 2, stabilizing at 36% for years 3 through 10. Sensitivity Scenario 2: Average bucket revenue Year 1 is lowered by $1.50 to $15.50 (grows 2.5% annually through Year 10. Sensitivity Scenario 3: Both average utilization rates and average bucket revenue are adjusted as described in Scenario 1. Sensitivity Scenario 4: All input variables are the same as the Base (expected) case, except that driving range expenses are reduced from 35% of gross revenue to 30%. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 251 of 394  COMMISSION FEEDBACK AND POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS Receive feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) to inform and guide staff with information the PRC seeks, to identify gaps or additional considerations, and to refine the process. Obtain preliminary FAA feedback regarding possible second deck driving range net heights based on the ball trajectory and netting plan. Refine project assumptions incorporating PRC feedback. Evaluate preliminary project alternatives, phasing considerations, operational impacts, and potential funding strategies. Return to PRC with refined project details, options, and seek a recommendation to City Council Present to City Council for consideration and direction to whether or not to proceed with design, environmental review, and develop a funding plan. ATTACHMENTS Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 252 of 394  Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Prepared For: City of Palo Alto, CA Community Services Department 2277 University Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Prepared By: 501 N. Highway A1a Jupiter, FL 33477 (561) 744-6006 Updated June 2026 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 253 of 394  Table of Contents STUDY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 Baylands Golf Links - Recent Operating Results ................................................................................. 3 Market Analysis - Summary Findings .................................................................................................. 4 National Overview - NGF Outlook for 2026 and Potential Implications for Baylands ................................ 4 Local / Regional Market – Demographics and Golf Demand & Supply ...................................................... 5 Local Driving Range Market ................................................................................................................ 5 Site Viability for Improvements ............................................................................................................ 6 Market Opportunity Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 7 Positive Factors ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Potential Threats / Constraining Factors....................................................................................................... 8 NGF Market Opportunity Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 8 Preliminary Conceptual Program .......................................................................................................... 9 Range Structure Options Summary and Preliminary Cost Estimates ........................................................... 9 Lost Revenues During Construction ........................................................................................................... 10 Projected Financial Performance ........................................................................................................ 11 Cash Flow Results ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Sensitivity Scenarios .................................................................................................................................. 11 Summary Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 12 BAYLANDS GOLF LINKS OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 14 Baylands Golf Links Overview ........................................................................................................... 14 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Location and Access ................................................................................................................................... 15 Operating Structure / Management Agreement .......................................................................................... 15 Recent Operating Results ........................................................................................................................... 16 MARKET ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 17 National Golf Industry Overview ........................................................................................................ 17 Local/Regional Golf Market Analysis ................................................................................................ 22 Local Market Golf Supply and Demand Overview .................................................................................... 22 Competitive Public Golf Market ................................................................................................................ 25 “Technology / Entertainment” Driving Ranges .......................................................................................... 26 MARKET OPPORTUNITY CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 30 Positive Factors ................................................................................................................................... 30 Potential Threats / Constraining Factors ............................................................................................. 31 NGF Market Opportunity Conclusion ................................................................................................ 31 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM..................................................................................... 32 Preliminary Conceptual Program ........................................................................................................ 32 Netting ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 Standard Tee Stations / Bays ...................................................................................................................... 33 Technology (Instruction) Bays ................................................................................................................... 33 Entertainment Bays .................................................................................................................................... 34 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 254 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 1 Range Structure Program Options Summary ............................................................................................. 34 Preliminary Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................. 34 Lost Revenues During Construction ........................................................................................................... 36 Projected Financial Performance ........................................................................................................ 37 Grand Opening: .......................................................................................................................................... 38 PROJECTED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF EXPANDED BAYLANDS GOLF LINKS DRIVING RANGE ................................................................................................................................... 39 Basic Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 39 Utilization, Revenue and Expense Assumptions ................................................................................. 40 Activity Level and Revenue Inputs ............................................................................................................ 40 Operating Expenses .................................................................................................................................... 40 Estimated Future Performance (Year 1 – Year 10) ............................................................................. 41 Cash Flow Results ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Sensitivity Scenarios .................................................................................................................................. 41 Limiting Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 42 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A – Baylands Golf Links Recent Operating Results .......................................................... 44 Appendix B – National Rounds Played – YTD 2026 through April ................................................... 45 Appendix C – Local Demographic, Demand And Supply Data ......................................................... 48 Appendix D – Driving Range Summary – Regional Subset ............................................................... 51 Appendix E – Preliminary Concept Plan ............................................................................................ 52 Exhibit 1 – Site Plan & Netting Heights ..................................................................................................... 52 Exhibit 2 – Hitting Bay Section .................................................................................................................. 53 Exhibit 3 – Technology & Entertainment Bays .......................................................................................... 54 Appendix F – NGF Utilization Model and Projections ....................................................................... 55 Appendix G – Photo Appendix – Area driving Ranges and Technology Bay Examples ................... 57 Baylands Golf Links ................................................................................................................................... 57 Golf Club Moffett Field .............................................................................................................................. 58 Los Lagos Golf Course ............................................................................................................................... 59 Mariners Point Golf Center (Toptracer Range) .......................................................................................... 60 Mission Hills of Hayward (Toptracer Range) ............................................................................................ 61 Pruneridge Golf Club ................................................................................................................................. 62 Shoreline Golf Links .................................................................................................................................. 63 Poplar Creek and San Jose Muni ................................................................................................................ 63 Examples of Technology / Entertainment Bays ......................................................................................... 64 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 255 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 2 Study Overview In 2025, the City of Palo Alto, California (“City” retained National Golf Foundation Consulting (“NGF”) to update aspects of the September 2023 NGF report, Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links. The City is considering double-decking the driving range and adding a technology component to some or all stations. The City’s intent is to explore opportunities for generating incremental net revenues while also expanding opportunities for players to practice and improve their overall games through technology. NGF’s role was to provide feasibility analysis and input on a potential facility program based on the City’s stated parameters. This NGF update report comprises independent expert analysis and findings to provide the City with reasonable expectations of market acceptance, use levels, and incremental net operating income for the potential expanded, enhanced driving range at Baylands. The NGF scope of services comprised: ➢ Market analysis – Analysis of external factors, such as demographic and economic trends, that have the potential to affect demand for an enhanced range at Baylands Golf Links. The market analysis includes a review of the local competitive market for driving ranges, including those enhanced with technology. ➢ Site feasibility – The NGF team analyzed whether the site can accommodate the double-deck driving range from an engineering perspective. Previous analysis related to issues such as appropriate width and length of the range, required net height to capture balls and ensure safety, and overall footprint of the practice area. ➢ Basic conceptual program – NGF has updated the preliminary conceptual program for the driving range, including second deck and technology / entertainment bays, to include a second level roof cover. Updated cost estimates, expressed within a range (current dollars), are provided. ➢ Financial feasibility analysis: • Estimates for loss of business (i.e., net revenue) during construction period. • 10-Year Utilization Model for the driving range (technology plus entertainment bays) that will include use levels, revenues, expenses, and net cash flows. • Cash flow model sensitivity analysis of key input variables (e.g., utilization percentages, revenue per unit sold, expenses, etc.) ➢ Marketing recommendations – NGF provides recommendations for marketing the enhanced driving range at Baylands, including a ‘Grand Opening’. The 2025 updated NGF market study and financial feasibility analysis was managed by Ed Getherall, MBA, Director of Consulting. Brian Curtis Studio Design provided expertise on site feasibility and developed a preliminary program for the proposed driving range improvements. Consultant activities for this project update included, but were not limited to virtual meetings with City and Baylands staff; updates to competitive market data; and analysis of local /regional demographic, economic, and golf supply-demand data In May 2026, the City tasked NGF with updating several elements of the 2025 update. These elements comprise Baylands Golf Links financial performance, national golf industry trends, and local / regional demographic and golf demand and supply metrics, have been updated in the body of the report below. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 256 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 3 Executive Summary This section comprises NGF Consulting’s summary of key findings related to the feasibility analysis of expanding and enhancing the driving range at the City of Palo Alto’s premier 18-hole municipal golf facility, Baylands Golf Links. Findings and conclusions are based on the consulting team’s analysis conducted in the late spring and summer of 2023, with relevant sections updated in June/July 2025. Full detail, along with supporting narrative and exhibits, is found in the body of the report and appendices. BAYLANDS GOLF LINKS - RECENT OPERATING RESULTS The reinvented Baylands Golf Links at Palo Alto reopened in May 2018. The facility is positioned at significantly higher price points compared to the former Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and is among the highest-fee public golf courses in the regional market, with peak, public riding green fees as high $160 during peak demand times (dynamic / demand-based pricing). Discounts are available for Palo Alto and Bay Area residents. Following is a summary of recent operating results (see Appendix A) ➢ Rounds played peaked in FY21 at 63,352 and increased by a modest 1.3% in FY22 before falling by more than 12% - to 56,314 - in FY23, attributable largely to exceptionally poor weather and reduced capacity in the winter of 2023. Rounds rebounded by 5.7% in FY24, to 59,526, and marginally in FY25, reaching 60,001 rounds. The year-to-date pace through April 2026 shows just a very minimal negative variance from FY25. ➢ Average rate golf playing fee revenue per round at Baylands Golf Links reached $70.48 for FY25, continuing a growth trend that reflects the very high quality of the golf course and also the utilization of a demand-based pricing model. This average daily rate is consistent with the facility’s core customer being a higher-income, lower-handicap golfer. ➢ Baylands generated $5.45 million in total gross revenue in FY22 but declined by (7.1%) to $5.06 million in FY23 in the face of a poor weather year. Revenue grew modestly to $5.08 million in FY24. The FY25 fiscal year showed strong growth of just under 7%, with total gross revenue reaching $5.43 million. ➢ Driving range revenue totaled about $663,000 in FY22, increasing by 3.4%, to just under $686,000 in FY 23 and by 0.08% to $691,500 in FY24. Range revenue grew by a robust 11.6% in FY25, reaching nearly $772,000. Records through April 2026 show a positive 5% variance of 2025 year-to-date, meaning total range revenue should approach, or exceed, $800,000 for FY26. ➢ Both Golf Maintenance and Total Operating Expenses have been highly variable over the last several fiscal years. After decreasing by about $455,000, or 15.1%, in FY23, maintenance expense rose by more than $394,000, or 15.4%, in FY24. Total operating expense declined by $659,000 (17%) in FY23 before increasing by about $787,000 (24.4%) in FY24, largely due to ±$400,000 increases in both Allocated Charges and Golf Maintenance. ➢ As a result, Income from Operations has also fluctuated significantly. FY22 showed a decrease of 20%, or about $381,000, in the face of the large increase in expenses noted above. Despite the significant drop in total revenue in FY23, income from operations rose by nearly $274,000, or 17.5%, before plummeting by nearly $777,000 - 41.8% - in FY24 in the face of a 42.8% increase in total operating expenses. Much of this negative year-over-year variance was due to an increase in Allocated Charges of almost $409,000. With an 81% reduction in these allocated charges in FY25, net income from operations rebounded to $1.83 million. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 257 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 4 MARKET ANALYSIS - SUMMARY FINDINGS To assess the potential strength of the market opportunity for an improved and expanded driving range at Baylands Golf Links, NGF Consulting has analyzed the local and regional area market, local demand/supply, and area golf facility competition. The review includes NGF’s macro perspective of the U.S. golf industry. On a local/regional basis, we analyzed area demographic and economic factors, as well as golf supply and demand indicators and competitive factors that characterize the trade area for Baylands. Following are key takeaways from the national overview and local / regional market analysis: National Overview - NGF Outlook for 2026 and Potential Implications for Baylands Overall, today’s golf economy is broader, more inclusive and more resilient than at any time in the modern era, supported by a multi-channel ecosystem that introduces millions to the game while reinforcing the central role of the golf course as the industry’s front door. NGF’s summary outlook for the U.S. golf industry in 2026 (details on the national golf economy, including participation trends, are provided in the body of the report): • Solid indicators point to sustainability, but industry stakeholders must always keep a critical eye on analyzing what can be improved while the business is strong. • The game will continue to climb towards 50 million participants – with increases in off- course engagement not slowing. • Facility financial health is strong; while exciting new properties are opening, it is re- investment in existing properties having the bigger impact in improving the game. • Off-course participation (includes golf technology/entertainment venues at golf courses) and social media will continue to contribute to a demographic shift in “green-grass” participation (increased engagement with younger, female, and minority cohorts). • Golf’s brand is generally better than the on-course experience for many (especially beginners) The industry must find ways to stem the millions of “failed trials” each year due to the discomfort/intimidation/fear associated with the traditional golf environment. • We live in an experience-driven society and golf is proving experiential. Younger people think GOLF IS COOL! There is increasing positivity in GOLF’s brand. • The industry is leaning into technology, gaming and FUN, and that’s the most positive trend of all – and directly relevant to any future driving range enhancement project at Baylands. On balance, NGF believes that a continuation in the growth of beginning golfers, increased interest in “alternate” forms of golf (such as that proposed for the Baylands driving range) among other younger prospects, and the successful activation of the large cohort of “latent demand” will have a positive effect on golf facilities like Baylands, including new investment in modernizing the driving range. Ultimately, total spending on golf and club memberships will always be vulnerable to outside forces such as the economy, but the game remains popular and is fortunate to have a deep well of interested prospects. While the industry's momentum is undeniable, challenges remain. Despite welcoming over 16 million first timers during the Covid era, the net gain in on-course participants was less than one-fourth of that, highlighting persistent retention and conversion challenges. The key to sustaining golf's growth lies in ensuring positive experiences for newcomers while continuing to evolve the game's accessibility and appeal to broader audiences. Looking beyond 2026, the convergence of traditional golf with new forms of engagement like the technology/ entertainment range proposed for Baylands, coupled with the sport's improved cultural cachet, suggests golf’s new normal may have staying power. Golf's transformation from a traditional pastime to a dynamic, multi-faceted sport accessible through various channels positions it well for continued growth and relevance in the years ahead. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 258 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 5 Local / Regional Market – Demographics and Golf Demand & Supply ➢ Population: There are an estimated 244,500 people residing within 5 miles of Baylands GL in 2025, 902,000 within 10 miles, and about 3.44 million within a 30-minute drivetime, offering up a dense residential market from which to draw customers. The 10-mile trade area is projected to lose about 15,000 net residents by 2030. ➢ Median household incomes in the local markets are among the highest in the country but are mitigated by the high cost of living. The immediate 5-mile market shows MHI of about $195,000, or more than 2.3 times the corresponding national figure of $83,998. The 10-mile MHI is even more favorable at about $199,600, while the 30-minute drivetime market shows a MHI of about $171,700. Golf participation correlates strongly with higher income. Median ages in the subject markets are similar to the national median of 38.2 years. Income and age correlate positively with golf participation, except among the elderly. ➢ Golf Participation Rate: The golf participation rates in the 5-mile, 10-mile, and 30-minute drivetime submarkets are 10.9%, 9.6%, and 9%, all at or above the national participation rate of 8.8%, attributable to factors such as income and age profiles that are predictive of strong golf participation. ➢ Rounds played: The Bay Area is one of the most active golf markets in the U.S. For example, the 30-minute market shows estimated (self-reported + modeled) annual rounds played per 18 holes of ~ 53,400, or more than 70% higher than the national figure of 31,307. ➢ As with most areas of the country, the greater San Francisco Bay Area public golf market experienced a strong uptick in rounds played since golf courses reopened after the pandemic shutdowns in spring 2020. After a huge surge in 2021, elevated activity levels have been holding steady over the last ±5 years when we account for weather variations. South Bay facilities have participated in this trend and most, like Baylands, have also experienced these higher rounds in tandem with higher average rates. ➢ People who express an interest in playing golf but have not yet taken it up include former golfers (gave it up), and those who have never tried. The demographic profile of latent demand tends to be more female and younger than the overall population. NGF modeling suggests about 79,000 “very interested” non-golfers in the 10-mile market. Gaming and entertainment-oriented technology at golf facilities has proven to be effective at “activating” some of this latent demand. ➢ Golf Course Supply: There are 12 total golf facilities in the 10-mile trade area, including Baylands GL and 6 other public facilities. The 30-minute drivetime market is home to 43 facilities (25 public), totaling 729 holes. Both the 10-mile and 30-minute trade areas have nearly 5 times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf than does the overall U.S. LOCAL DRIVING RANGE MARKET The table in Appendix D provides summary descriptions for a representative subset of on-course driving ranges in Baylands’ primary trade area. Summary pricing and revenue information for these facilities is presented in the body of the report. NGF’s key takeaways on Baylands’ competitive driving range market: ➢ The 10-mile Baylands submarket has only five (5) public golf courses with driving ranges, totaling 101 tee stations, though there are several additional facilities between 10 and 15 miles away, including Pruneridge, Mariners Point, and San Jose Muni. The NGF facility database shows only one stand-alone range – San Bruno Golf Center (65 tees). The former Burlingame Golf Center was redeveloped as a Topgolf, opening with 108 bays in late 2024. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 259 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 6 ➢ We observe some very high-volume ranges reflecting an active and densely populated golf market. Among the competitive subset identified above, the best performers are Mariners Point (estimated $3.5 million annual range revenue), along with Pruneridge GC and San Jose Muni (each with estimated $2 million+). On a per-station basis, all except for Golf Club Moffett Field and Los Lagos GC exceed $20,000 per station, and four ranges are between $32,000 and $50,000 per tee (Baylands is on pace for about $28,700 per tee station in FY26). ➢ NGF utilized its GolfMAP program in 2023 to generate comparisons between Baylands Golf Links and some other high-performing driving ranges profiled for this study, including Dairy Creek Golf Course, a 9-hole facility owned by San Luis Obispo County (more below). The table below provides some key summary population and golfer-based metrics as they relate to driving range volume (from September 2023 report). NGF observations follow the table. Driving Range Metrics: 10-Mile Radius Baylands Golf Links Dairy Creek Golf Club Pruneridge Golf Club San Jose Muni. GC Mariners Point GC Totals Public Tee Stations 101 110 223 181 40 Annual Range Revenue $663,000 $1,200,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,200,000 Population - 10-Mile Radius 867,634 100,156 1,553,556 1,452,511 468,980 Golfers - 10-Mile Radius 75,678 7,751 127,340 114,486 43,319 Golfers per Public Tee Station 749 70 571 633 1,083 Population per Public Tee Station 8,590 911 6,967 8,025 11,725 ➢ For the measures of both total population per public tee station and golfers per public station, Baylands compares favorably to two $2 million revenue ranges – Pruneridge Golf Club and San Jose Muni. Mariners Point Golf Center, the highest-volume range observed at an estimated $3.5 million in annual revenue, is the strongest on these demand-supply metrics. ➢ The Baylands comparison to San Luis Obispo County’s Dairy Creek GC (profile in report) is instructive because the facility features both a grass driving range and a structure built in 2020 that comprises 10 “golf entertainment” bays featuring Toptracer Range technology. Before a temporary decrease in entertainment bay revenue due to losing their alcohol license in the 2023 period, the new structure plus the pre-existing driving range were generating about $1.2 million in revenue. In terms of the two key metrics we highlighted above, population and number of golfers per public tee station, Baylands’ 10-mile market is 9.4 times and 10.7 times more favorable, respectively, than the Dairy Creek market SITE VIABILITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS The NGF team’s review of the site for the proposed driving range improvements at Baylands Golf Links showed that the site is physically feasible to support the double-decking of the range, provided that the height of the netting is sufficient. We have made the following assumptions: ➢ There will not be any restrictions (e.g., Airport and/or FAA) regarding the necessary net heights and lighting for the driving range. Hours of operation for the range, with some exceptions, will be through 9 p.m. ➢ The City will utilize findings relating to netting heights from an updated trajectory study done by Tanner Consulting. ➢ Parking will be sufficient to accommodate increased activity at Baylands resulting from the expansion of the driving range. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 260 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 7 MARKET OPPORTUNITY CONCLUSIONS Below is a summary of NGF’s market opportunity conclusions regarding the potential double-decking of the existing driving range at Baylands Golf Links and the addition of modern instruction / entertainment- oriented ball tracking technology to each station. Positive Factors ➢ The submarkets around Baylands Golf Links have demographic profiles, including incomes among the highest in the nation, predictive of high golf participation. ➢ Baylands’ primary trade area and the overall regional market have very favorable per capita supply numbers for public golf courses. Both the 10-mile and 30-minute trade areas have ± 5 times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf than does the overall U.S. ➢ Positive demographics and the favorable demand-supply dynamic contribute to the Bay Area being one of the most active golf markets in the U.S. For example, the 30-minute market shows estimated (self-reported + modeled) annual rounds played per 18 holes of ~ 53,500, about 70% higher than the national figure of 31,307. ➢ Public golf courses in the regional market have proven records of high driving range revenues, including several that approach or surpass $2 million in annual revenue. Interviews with facility management indicate that Baylands could significantly expand its market share if the driving range had more capacity. ➢ The nearest competitors in terms of technology-enhanced driving ranges are Mariners Point Golf Center, 12 miles north in Foster City, and Mission Hills of Hayward, 12 miles east across the Bay. A high-quality technology range at the Palo Alto location should be a strong regional draw. ➢ Nationally, both on-course and off-course golf participation continue to surge. Total golf participation (those who play on- and off-course forms of the game) has climbed to 47.2 million in the U.S., a 5% gain versus 2023 and 57% growth over the past decade, up from about 30 million in 2014. The surge demonstrates the significant impact of off-course forms of the game, from golf entertainment venues like Topgolf to technologically enhanced driving ranges at golf courses. ➢ The industry has seen a rapid expansion and increase in popularity of golf technology/ entertainment options - both stand-alone (e.g., Topgolf, Drive Shack, PopStroke, etc.) and on- course. In 2022, for the first time, off-course golf participation surpassed on-course. Golf course operators are increasingly seeking to benefit from this trend through the addition of technology and entertainment, which are especially appealing to young adults. ➢ The “golfographics” of the customer base at Baylands are favorable, as the facility generally attracts low-handicap golfers with strong levels of discretionary income, many of whom want to improve their game. ➢ Ongoing NGF survey research indicates that interest in playing among non-golfing young adults is high, with more than 5 million saying they are “very interested” in taking up the game. NGF modeling estimates there are nearly 79,000 “very interested” non-golfers in the 10-mile market. Gaming and entertainment-oriented technology at golf facilities has proven to be effective at “activating” latent demand, which is especially strong among female and younger golfers. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 261 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 8 Potential Threats / Constraining Factors While the NGF finds considerable evidence to support strong demand and high revenue production from an expanded and improved driving range at Baylands Golf Links, as with any business, there are mitigating factors that could suppress demand and overall financial performance: ➢ Increased market competition in the primary trade area could result in lower market share for Baylands Golf Links. As discussed, owners adding technology to driving ranges is a strong emerging trend that NGF expects will continue. It is certainly possible that nearby Baylands competitors such as Shoreline Golf Links or Golf Club Moffett Field could enhance their driving ranges with technology. ➢ NGF did note that two secondary competitors to Baylands – the City of San Jose’s two 18- hole regulation golf courses, Los Lagos and San Jose Muni, added Toptracer Range under their new lessee, CourseCo. Additionally, the Topgolf Burlingame location opened in 2024. However, each of these facilities is located about 25 to 35 minutes away, depending on traffic conditions, and NGF does not believe the presence of the Topgolf or the addition of technology to the San Jose ranges would meaningfully affect demand for an enhanced range at the Palo Alto site. ➢ Regional economic recession or other economic factors could reduce discretionary spending (e.g., abnormally high and/or inflation). NGF research shows that previous recessions have negatively impacted the performance of public golf courses. ➢ “Retracement” from the ongoing surge in golf demand may occur at some point, especially among the younger age cohorts. ➢ The “golf entertainment” trend may begin to wane, potentially affecting utilization for any range technology / entertainment bays that may be introduced to the range program at Baylands in the future. NGF Market Opportunity Conclusion Baylands Golf Links has an active range with annual revenues that reached $772,000 in FY25 – a high- water mark since completion of the golf course renovation - despite capacity constraints (management conveyed to NGF that customers often must wait for a tee station during peak demand times). Based on our analysis and the proposed program for the enhanced double-deck driving range at Baylands Golf Links, NGF concludes that positive market factors and macro golf demand trends point to a strong opportunity for a technology-enhanced, double-deck driving range. We expect these factors to manifest in strong market impact and incremental net revenues for the expanded range, as we detail in the next section of the report. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 262 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 9 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM In the body of the report, we provide a preliminary conceptual program based on the objectives the City conveyed to NGF. We note that, as of this writing, it is uncertain what technology the City and its management partner will choose to incorporate in the driving range. In developing a preliminary conceptual program, the NGF team assumed a generic, modern technology component. The Baylands driving range currently has 27 tee stations, with some utilized during certain times by The First Tee of Silicon Valley. Under the NGF team’s preliminary program, the number would be increased to 34 total bays by adding three stations on the northeast corner and four stations on the south end (tented area currently used for instruction) main/lower level. The upper level would also have 34 bays, creating a new total of 68 hitting bays. (There is also room at the northeast corner for an optional expansion of an additional six (6) bays in the future). The structure would be located approximately 12 yards behind the existing bays; this gain in length should help to reduce the number of golf balls exiting the enclosure to the west. The NGF team’s preliminary conceptual program for the Baylands driving range provides flexibility through a phased plan approach, should the City decide to adopt this strategy. Appendix E. The base of the structure consists of the open-air main level and upper level with cover and back screen (each is optional). Within the limits of the structure, the individual standard bays could be converted into technology or entertainment bays should demand for these types of bays increase. The modular layout of the structure allows for the modification to the hitting bays in pairs. Overall, the modular layout of the structure allows for flexibility of internal program configurations as well as a phased construction plan. The different hitting bay types provide an opportunity for golfers of all levels, as well as non-golfers, to enjoy the facility. From the serious golfer trying to improve their game to the casual social outing, the double deck structure’s use expands beyond the typical use of a driving range. Range Structure Options Summary and Preliminary Cost Estimates The NGF team’s preliminary cost estimates for the conceptual plan presented are based on several inputs, including recent regional construction projects of similar type, as well as discussions with builders. Preliminary estimates are presented within a range, with variations depending on several factors, including the details of the final facility program. The costs assume that construction will be under prevailing wage and are in 2025 dollars. Details on further assumptions, items excluded from the estimates, etc. are found in the body of the report. As noted, the modular layout of the structure allows for flexibility of internal program configurations as well as a phased construction plan, with the following options for consideration by the City: Option 1: Includes the two levels of hitting bays but does not include a second-level roof structure. The NGF team’s construction cost estimate range for the range structure itself is $3.8 million to $4.3 million. Option 2: The inclusion of a metal roof during the initial construction is the most efficient option and adds an estimated $300,000 to $500,000, bringing the structure cost estimate range to $4.1 to $4.8 million. If the City decides to add the roof later as part of phased construction, the cost for the roof could be considerably higher, contingent on factors such as wage and other input cost inflation, how long the City waits to add the roof, etc. Option 3: Inclusion of a screen wall at the back of the upper hitting bays, if constructed initially, is $100,000 to $200,000, bringing the estimated cost range for the two levels, roof and screen wall to $4.2 million to $5.0 million. As with the roof cover, the cost to add the screen as a later phase could be considerably higher. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 263 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 10 Preliminary cost estimates are presented within a range, with variations depending on several factors, including the details of the final facility program. The costs assume that construction will be under prevailing wage and are in 2025 dollars. The NGF team’s preliminary conceptual plan for the double deck hitting structure at Baylands includes 34 hitting stations at each level for a total of 68 total hitting bays. The lower-level bays would be covered with the upper level remaining uncovered. Included within the 34 bays at the main level would be two (2) technology bays geared toward instruction. The total range structure building cost for the Option 1 base program is an estimated $3.8 to $4.3 million (2025 dollars). For Option 2, which includes the upper-level metal roof and overhead lights, the estimated cost range is $4.1 to $4.8 million, while Option 3 also includes the screen wall and is estimated to bring the total cost for the structure itself to $4.2 to $5 million. The other large-scale cost comprises tear-down of the existing driving range nets and poles, and construction of new nets and poles based on the specifications from the 2026 Tanner Consulting Trajectory Study done for the City and modified to reflect a two-deck structure. (The updated Trajectory Study resulted in a higher height, now approximately 170' in pole height and netting). The NGF team requested an update quote from Judge Netting, Inc. and it came back at $4.315 million, as reflected in the Preliminary Cost Estimate Summary Table below. As per previous NGF recommendation, the City retained Tanner Consulting to update its Trajectory Study in 2026 which resulted in a higher height, now approximately 170' in pole height and netting. Baylands GL Driving Range Project – Preliminary Cost Estimates Base Items: Low Estimate High Estimate New netting and poles (source: Judge Netting) $4,315,000 $4,315,000 Structure 3,800,000 4,300,000 New artificial turf (allowance) 86,000 118,000 Specialty / custom electrical 193,000 268,000 Misc. site improvements* (allowance) 50,000 80,000 Estimated Prelim. Total Base Costs $8,444,000 $9,081,000 *Items such as specialty lighting; landscaping modifications; cart path extensions/repair, new grass turf; removal of light poles, etc. Optional Items: Metal roof (cost if incl. in initial construction) $300,000 $500,000 Screen wall (cost if incl. in initial construction) 100,000 200,000 Concession/restroom building 280,000 320,000 Exterior patios (per 400 sf) 8,000 8,550 Total Estimated Optional Items Cost $688,000 $1,028,550 Lost Revenues During Construction During construction of the double-deck driving range, we anticipate that the existing range hitting mat locations could remain open. The new structure is planned to be built approximately 12 yards east of the existing driving range concrete pad. However, if overhead equipment such as cranes or concrete pump booms is needed, the northern and southern portions of the existing hitting area could each be closed on an alternate basis for approximately 15% of the time during construction. These partial hitting bay closures would require the hitting bays to be operated at 50% capacity for approximately 30% of the construction duration. The entire 27 bays could remain open for 70% of the construction time. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 264 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 11 The NGF team has assumed an 8 to 10-month construction project. Based on actual range revenue trends, including total FY25 gross range revenue of $771,864, or about $27,777 per station (27 tees). This equates to about $2,382 per station per month. Based on the assumption that half of the stations would be closed for about 30% of a 10-month construction duration, or the equivalent of three months, we come up with an effective reduction in capacity of 14 stations (just more than half, for purpose of conservatism) for 3 months, resulting in lost gross revenue during that time of about $100,000. Assuming a gross margin of 80%, that equates to a loss in net revenue of just over $80,000: Lost Revenue during Construction: 14 stations out of use x 3 months out use x $2,382 avg. mthly rev. per station = $100,044 est. gross revenue lost x 80% margin = $80,035 Lost Net Revenue PROJECTED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE NGF Consulting created a pro forma cash flow model for the first full ten years (cash flow statement is shown in Appendix F) of operation of a proposed enhanced and expanded driving range at Baylands Golf Links, based on the preliminary facility program developed by the NGF team and described in this report. Program elements, as well as assumptions and inputs utilized in crafting the pro forma model, are presented in the body of the report. Cash Flow Results The NGF Consulting preliminary cash flow projection shows that the expanded and enhanced Baylands Golf Links driving range – operating under the proposed program – will generate about $1.7 million in total gross operating revenue in the first full year of operation, growing to $2.1 million by Year 5, and nearly $2.4 million by Year 10. Based on a projected 65% gross margin, we project that the driving range will produce a net income of ±$1.1 million in Year 1, increasing to $1.36 million by Year 5. Using estimated net income of $600,000 (80% of $750K) for the existing Baylands range in FY25, and assuming this figure would grow 2.0% annually, we can calculate the projected incremental net revenues that would result from expanding the driving range and adding the technology feature. Incremental net revenue – representing profits over and above what the Baylands range is currently generating - is projected to be $515,000 in Year 1, growing to $710,500 by Year 5. Sensitivity Scenarios NGF has also modeled several sensitivity scenarios, each of which adjusts one or more key input variables from the Base Model. The scenarios are as follows, with all other input variables except for those noted remaining unchanged. A summary table of results for Year 5 follows below. • Sensitivity Scenario 1: Average utilization rate is lowered to 33% Year 1 and 33% Year 2, stabilizing at 36% for years 3 through 10. • Sensitivity Scenario 2: Average bucket revenue Year 1 is lowered by $1.50 to $15.50 (grows 2.5% annually through Year 10. • Sensitivity Scenario 3: Both average utilization rates and average bucket revenue are adjusted as described in Scenario 1. • Sensitivity Scenario 4: All input variables are the same as the Base (expected) case, except that driving range expenses are reduced from 35% of gross revenue to 30%. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 265 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 12 Sensitivity Analysis – Results Shown for Year 5 Scenario: Input Variable(s) Changed Gross Revenue Net Income Incremental Net Income Base (expected) $2,092,300 $1,359,995 $710,536 Sensitivity 1 Lower utilization rate $1,793,900 $1,166,035 $516,576 Sensitivity 2 Lower avg. bucket revenue $1,907,700 $1,240,005 $590,546 Sensitivity 3 Lower util. & lower bucket rev. $1,635,600 $1,063,140 $413,681 Sensitivity 4 Lower range exp./cost of sales $2,092,300 $1,464,610 $815,151 As the table illustrates, all the sensitivity scenarios reflect significant incremental net income over the existing driving range configuration at Baylands Golf Links, with incremental net income figures ranging from about $414,000 - if both lower utilization and lower average bucket revenue compared to the base scenario are realized – to $815,000 if the base assumptions are borne out, with the exception of a lower expense profile than anticipated. SUMMARY CONCLUSION NGF’s analysis has demonstrated a clear market opportunity for an improved and expanded driving range facility at Baylands Golf Links. The conclusions were based on factors such as: • Favorable Palo Alto / Bay Area market supply-demand dynamics. • Macro golf industry trends favorable for addition of technology and “golf entertainment” to existing golf courses. • Observed revenue results of other regional golf course-based driving ranges that have high capacity and/or technology amenities. • Demand appears to be underserved at Baylands, as customers often must wait for tee stations to become available. The City reports that Year-to-date revenue through May 2026 indicate the Baylands range is on a pace to reach a new high-water revenue mark of ~ $775,000 in FY26. NGF’s base financial model for the improved range at Baylands showed annual driving range net income of $1.18 million (average of years 4-6), equating to an estimated improvement of $587,000 over the current operation. We note that, to be conservative, we have not included incremental ancillary revenues that should result from expanding and enhancing the driving range, including instruction, club fitting, food & beverage, and merchandise. NGF is confident that the enhanced driving range at Baylands will produce substantial additional net income each year for the City. What we believe has a higher degree of uncertainty – especially given today’s inflationary environment and the uncertainty around when the actual project would be undertaken by the City – is estimating what the ultimate construction cost will be. So, while the return on investment (ROI) should be strong, the main risk variable is how many years it will take the City to recover the investment. We believe that the utilization and cash flow projections made in this report are realistic and achievable if the enhanced range comes to market as proposed. Equipping the driving range with the latest ball tracking technology aligns with trends in golf and will position Baylands Golf Links to draw new customer segments, including both golfers and non-golfers that do not currently patronize Baylands. Additional benefits of this project for the City of Palo Alto include the extra space afforded by moving the tee line footprint back, which partly mitigates the occurrence of balls being hit over the back netting. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 266 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 13 NGF has also noted some factors that could constrain the success of the project. These include the threat of increased competition (i.e., introduction of similar technology at nearby golf course competitors), which could reduce the projected utilization of the improved Baylands driving range. If the City decides to further explore the range improvement plan, NGF recommends initial next steps such as incorporating findings from the updated Tanner Consulting trajectory study completed in 2026, which resulted in a higher maximum, now approximately 170' in pole height and netting, getting cost quotes from Judge Netting (and others, if possible) based on any changes to the netting specifications, and, potentially, submitting an application to the FAA for the new maximum netting heights. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 267 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 14 Baylands Golf Links Overview Below we provide an overview of the City of Palo Alto’s premier municipal golf facility, Baylands Golf Links, including a brief history, operating structure, and summary of operating results since the reimagined facility reopened in May 2018. BAYLANDS GOLF LINKS OVERVIEW Overview The former Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was constructed and opened in the mid 1950’s. The golf course is owned by the City of Palo Alto as part of its Baylands Nature Preserve District, adjacent to the coastal land bordering Palo Alto along the San Francisco Bay. The San Francisquito Creek, a historic waterway, runs along the course and is a major flood conveyance stream. Renowned golf course architect Forrest Richardson led the reconfiguration of the original William F. Bell design. Construction began in mid-July 2016, with the removal of most of the non-native trees throughout the golf course. Tree removal was mitigated through the planting of 300 new native trees on the reconfigured course, along with the planting of two acres of native bay ecosystem habitat in Byxbee Park, as well as the protection and monitoring of 500 naturally occurring oak saplings in the Pearson Arastradero Preserve. The site was recontoured using soil from the large on-site stockpile, which created an undulating landscape and elevated scenic views of the Baylands and San Francisco Bay that enhanced the golf experience. The golf holes are separated by large natural areas planted with wetlands plant species that improve habitat for birds and wildlife and integrate the golf course into its Baylands setting. The re-designed golf course, now Baylands Golf Links at Palo Alto, features 55 acres of native Baylands vegetation and wetlands areas, a 40% reduction of managed turf areas, a 35% reduction of potable water use, an additional 10.5 acres for future recreational use, and 7.4 acres of land converted into in-stream marshland terrace habitat within an expanded San Francisquito Creek for increased flood protection. Since its reopening in May 2018, Baylands Golf Links has received numerous accolades. These include being named “5th best public golf course” in the San Francisco area by Yourbestgolfcourses.com, behind only such prestigious golf courses as Presidio, Half Moon Bay (Ocean), and TPC Harding Park. GolfWeek Magazine feted Baylands as one of the “Best Public Courses You Can Play” in California for 2019 (13th), 2020 (18th), and 2021 (19th). Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 268 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 15 Location and Access Baylands Golf Links, with an entrance at Embarcadero Road, has a favorable location in Palo Alto, with good access from major arterials such as US 101 / Bayshore Freeway and the Oregon Expressway. Google Earth image showing Baylands Golf Links, with Palo Alto Airport and Baylands Nature Preserve to the east, San Francisquito Creek to the west and north, and Embarcadero Rd. to the south. Surrounding land uses are a mix of residential an d commercial, with residential predominating to the west, northwest, and south. Operating Structure / Management Agreement Prior to its reopening, OB Sports won the competitive bid process to be the golf operator and to manage the facility on behalf of the City. OB Sports was subsequently acquired by Troon Golf, which is managing the facility under a three-year extension that expires June 30, 2027. The City pays Troon Golf an annual fee to manage golf operations and course maintenance. (Food & Beverage service, including the Baylands Café, is under a separate lease arrangement with Troon Golf). The City is responsible for all expenses and collects all revenues (subject to a revenue share above certain thresholds) associated with golf operations, including the pro shop. Golf facility operations are accounted for within the City’s General Fund. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 269 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 16 Recent Operating Results The reinvented Baylands Golf Links at Palo Alto reopened in May 2018. The facility is positioned at significantly higher price points compared to the former Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and is among the highest-fee public golf courses in the regional market, with peak, public riding green fees as high $160 during peak demand times (dynamic / demand-based pricing). Discounts are available for Palo Alto and Bay Area residents. Following is a summary of recent operating results (see Appendix A) ➢ Rounds played peaked in FY21 at 63,352 and increased by a modest 1.3% in FY22 before falling by more than 12% - to 56,314 - in FY23, attributable largely to exceptionally poor weather and reduced capacity in the winter of 2023. Rounds rebounded by 5.7% in FY24, to 59,526, and marginally in FY25, reaching 60,001 rounds. The year-to-date pace through April 2026 shows just a very minimal negative variance from FY25. ➢ Average rate golf playing fee revenue per round at Baylands Golf Links reached $70.48 for FY25, continuing a growth trend that reflects the very high quality of the golf course and also the utilization of a demand-based pricing model. This average daily rate is consistent with the facility’s core customer being a higher-income, lower-handicap golfer. ➢ Baylands generated $5.45 million in total gross revenue in FY22 but declined by (7.1%) to $5.06 million in FY23 in the face of a poor weather year. Revenue grew modestly to $5.08 million in FY24. The FY25 fiscal year showed strong growth of just under 7%, with total gross revenue reaching $5.43 million. ➢ Driving range revenue totaled about $663,000 in FY22, increasing by 3.4%, to just under $686,000 in FY 23 and by 0.08% to $691,500 in FY24. Range revenue grew by a robust 11.6% in FY25, reaching nearly $772,000. Records through April 2026 show a positive 5% variance of 2025 year-to-date, meaning total range revenue should approach, or exceed, $775,000 for FY26. ➢ Both Golf Maintenance and Total Operating Expenses have been highly variable over the last several fiscal years. After decreasing by about $455,000, or 15.1%, in FY23, maintenance expense rose by more than $394,000, or 15.4%, in FY24. Total operating expense declined by $659,000 (17%) in FY23 before increasing by about $787,000 (24.4%) in FY24, largely due to ±$400,000 increases in both Allocated Charges and Golf Maintenance. ➢ As a result, Income from Operations has also fluctuated significantly. FY22 showed a decrease of 20%, or about $381,000, in the face of the large increase in expenses noted above. Despite the significant drop in total revenue in FY23, income from operations rose by nearly $274,000, or 17.5%, before plummeting by nearly $777,000 - 41.8% - in FY24 in the face of a 42.8% increase in total operating expenses. Much of this negative year-over-year variance was due to an increase in Allocated Charges of almost $409,000. With an 81% reduction in these allocated charges in FY25, net income from operations rebounded to $1.83 million. ➢ Net Income after Debt Service was $1.19 million in FY22, improving by just less than $275,000, or 23%, in FY23. Net income after debt plummeted by $924,000 in FY24, a decline of 63%. Net income after debt was $1.3 million in FY25, an improvement of about $760,500, or 140%, over prior year. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 270 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 17 Market Analysis To assess the potential strength of the market opportunity for an improved and expanded driving range at Baylands Golf Links, NGF Consulting has analyzed the local and regional area market, local demand/supply, and area golf facility competition. The local market analysis follows a discussion of national golf industry trends and their implications for current and prospective golf operators. NATIONAL GOLF INDUSTRY OVERVIEW The U.S. golf industry is in an opportunistic and virtually unprecedented era. The elevated levels of participation, play and engagement NGF researchers have tracked over the past five years constitute what has emerged as a 'new normal' for the recreational game. The golf renaissance may have been jump- started by the pandemic, but the seeds of growth were already taking root through innovations in technology and accessibility, and through a cultural shift that was reimagining how golf could be experienced and shared. The numbers tell a compelling story of this transformation. The number of traditional, green grass golfers in the U.S. reached 29.1 million in 2025, the most since 2008. The net gain of about 1 million golfers in 2025follows the 1.5 million added in 2024, which was the largest single-year increase since 2000 when Tiger Woods, arguably at his peak, won the final three major titles of the year en route to the “Tiger Slam”, contributing to broader interest in the game. Overall, golf has had a net gain of 17 million participants over the past 10 years. There has been a net gain of 5.8 million on-course golfers over the past seven years, with 2025 marking the 8th straight year overall of green grass participation increases. As for the recreational game's most visible metric, play levels nationwide reached new heights again in 2025, with total rounds played at public, private and resort golf facilities across the U.S. at just under 550 million, marking the 6th consecutive year of over 500 million rounds. The participation gains have coincided with a remarkable evolution in how golf is perceived by the broader public. A decade ago, nearly 60% of Americans viewed golf through a negative lens – using words such as “boring,” “pretentious,” or “intimidating” to describe the game. Today, the sport enjoys unprecedented popularity and cultural relevance, driven by social media buzz, digital creators, innovative startups, and emerging brands that are reshaping golf's identity. Golf is riding a wave of positive momentum that’s framed by the favorable narrative surrounding the sport – not only being in vogue, but because of its evolution, diversifying participant base, increased engagement among players of all ages, and the celebration of its myriad social, physical and mental benefits. The surge demonstrates the significant impact of off-course forms of the game, from golf entertainment venues like Topgolf to indoor simulator facilities. Key Trends in Demand Participation - Golf participation is one of the core measures of golf’s vitality. There has been a net gain of 5.8 million on-course golfers over the past seven years, with 2025 marking the 8th straight year overall of green grass participation increases. Gains away from the golf course are more significant, with a 5% year-over-year jump and a remarkable 63% increase vs. 2019. In 2022, total off- course engagement (27.9 million) for the first time eclipsed those who play on the course. Overall, golf’s U.S. consumer base is now a record 48.1 million, with three distinct participant groups (on-course / off- course / both - see graphic below): Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 271 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 18 Rounds Played 2022-2026 – Overall play was down by 3.7% in 2022, largely attributable to poor weather in key markets. 2023 proved to be another strong one, with rounds up in the overall U.S. by 4.2%. Year-end 2024 figures from Golf Datatech showed that national rounds continue to increase in 2024, growing by 2.2% despite a 9.1% weather-related drop for the month of December. (Appendix B). For California, rounds were up by 2.5% in 2024, while the San Francisco/Oakland submarket saw a modest year-over-year gain of 0.2%. For 2025, national, state, and Bay Area rounds increased by 1.2%, 2.3%, and 6.2%, respectively. Year-to-date through April 2026, national rounds played are by 5.3% over 2025, while California and the Bay Area saw 0.6% and 2.5% increases, respectively. Baby Boomer Effect and Generation G (the “Golf Generation”) – As Baby Boomers age and retire over the next 15 years or so, we expect to see a measurable increase in total rounds played in the U.S. Boomers - born between 1946 and 1964 - are currently 61 to 80 years old, and about 10 million of them continue to retire each year. About 6 million of them are golfers; that’s approximately 1/4 of all golfers, and they currently play about 1/3 of all rounds. While not technically a generation, the 46-65 age cohort is the most vital group for the golf industry, accounting for the most golfers, rounds and spend in the industry – more than $9 billion in total annually. Generation G includes younger Boomers and older members of Generation X. Golf Course Supply With a decade and a half of net attrition in golf course supply, it’s understandable that this contraction has gotten a lot of attention. However, if examined objectively and with a longer view, it is clear golf is in a better place today than it was when the current ‘supply correction’ began in 2005. In recent years, rounds growth at U.S. golf facilities has decoupled from course supply. As rounds have surged to their highest levels in recent years, there are about 3,000 fewer courses today than there were two decades ago. The combination of more golfers and fewer courses has made for busy tee sheets (in some places), but a healthier industry. The NGF counted 72.7 18-hole equivalent golf course closures in 2025, the third straight year of fewer than 100 closures after 17 consecutive years over 100. Golf course closures remain a natural part of the industry’s business cycle and are influenced by local economic conditions, evolving customer Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 272 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 19 preferences, competition within saturated markets, rising property values and “higher and better use” opportunities, as well as normal ownership transitions and exit strategies. Since 2006, there has been a net decline of about 2,300 18-hole equivalent courses, or roughly 13% of total U.S. supply. But over the same period, there have been: • 600+ new 18-hole equivalent course openings. • 1,750+ reconstructions and/or major renovations. • 300+ course resurrections (instances where a facility is closed – seemingly for good – and then the property gets new life, often as an entirely new course). In addition to an improved supply/demand balance, the U.S. now has a higher-quality supply of courses that are, overall, in better shape than ever. Also, more than 1,100 off-course facilities, such as golf entertainment and simulator venues, have been added, providing inviting on-ramps for new participants. Other Measures of Health Other metrics to consider when measuring the health and trajectory of golf include: Supply-Demand Balance and Facility Health: Since 2006, more than 2,000 facilities have been methodically trimmed from the national inventory, contributing to a healthier long-term balance between supply and demand. At the same time, the landscape has shifted in recent years: play has reached record levels, on-course participation is at its highest point since before the Great Recession, and overall facility health has improved significantly. Operators are reinvesting in, and thus reinvigorating, existing assets. The number of closures has declined for five straight years, while new development and openings have inched upward - signs of renewed confidence and measured capital deployment. In considering whether current golf demand is more resilient, it’s important to note that the current golfer - to-course ratio in the U.S. sits 8% above the 2003 level. In NGF’s 2025 operator survey, almost 7 in 10 facilities indicated they are “at” or “near” desired play capacity — including about two-thirds of public courses and three-quarters of private clubs. In this context, capacity isn’t defined by a full tee sheet every day, but by how much additional play a facility can handle before it risks negative business effects - whether from staffing constraints, slower rounds, or course wear that detracts from conditions and customer satisfaction. New Course Development and Investment in Existing Facilities: Development activity is also trending upward - though at a more measured pace. At the start of 2026, NGF’s database team was tracking more than 140 new golf course projects under construction or in planning - the most since 2014. U.S. golf development in the past decade has seen a disproportionate concentration of high-end private clubs, destination-driven golf, and the continued emergence of Par-3 and other short-course offerings. Perhaps the clearest indicator of health on the supply side is the level of reinvestment occurring at existing facilities. In 2025, U.S. golf courses collectively continued to invest billions of dollars in significant “discretionary” capital improvements, enhancing everything from the golf course and clubhouse to infrastructure, technology, and amenities. These figures exclude essential or mandatory expenditures, such as replacing aging irrigation systems or cart fleets. Feedback from operators and management companies suggests that this investment is driven by the industry’s strong financial footing following several years of solid business performance. Overall facility financial health remains exceptionally robust by historical standards. In fact, roughly three times the proportion of public facilities now rate themselves in the top tier (8–10) on financial health compared to 2016. This sustained strength is a positive indicator for the broader industry, as financially healthy facilities are better positioned to reinvest. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 273 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 20 Increasing Diversity: A closer look at on-course participants (golfers) in 2025 shows a continuing trend towards diversification – spurred in some respect by the heightened interest and engagement generated by off-course forms of golf. • Minority participation: The demographic cohorts showing the most significant growth since the start of the pandemic include Youth (+58%), Black (+141%), Hispanic (+28%), and Female (+46%). • The total number of Female on-course golfers is now higher than at any time in history, having grown by 2.5 million since 2019. • These changes in part reflect golf's sustained appeal among newcomers, with more than three million Beginners taking up the on-course game each of the past five years. Perception of the Game: The participation gains have coincided with a remarkable evolution in how golf is perceived by the broader public. A decade ago, nearly 60% of Americans viewed golf through a negative lens – using words such as “boring,” “pretentious,” or “intimidating” to describe the game. Today, the sport enjoys unprecedented popularity and cultural relevance, driven by social media buzz, digital creators, innovative startups, and emerging brands that are reshaping golf's identity. This democratization of golf's voice, amplified through social media by athletes, celebrities, and everyday recreational players, has injected a "cool factor" that's attracting new audiences. Off-Course Participation: Driven primarily by the popularity and growth of Topgolf, a non-traditional form of golf entertainment, there were an estimated 27.9 million off-course participants (only those activities that involve hitting a ball with a golf club) in 2025, up by 5% from 2024 and by 63% since 2019. Off-course participation has eclipsed on-course in each of the past four years and more than doubled since 2014. Latent Demand: In 2025, the number of “non-golfers” who say they’re very interested in playing golf on a golf course exceeded 21 million. This measure, which NGF terms “latent demand,” reflects opportunity for the game. Golf’s challenge has been to convert more of that interest into positive experiences and committed, long-term participants. There’s no question increased access to less-intimidating and approachable forms of off-course golf has contributed to increased interest in taking up the traditional game. In recent years, NGF has also measured latent demand for entertainment golf, which serves as a proxy for overall off-course demand. The size of this prospect pool is especially notable – outsizing that for green grass by 33% (28 million vs. 21 million). Golf entertainment venues, such as that proposed for the Baylands Golf Links range, are conducive to “activating” these interested non-golfers. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 274 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 21 NGF Outlook for 2026 and Potential Implications for Baylands Overall, today’s golf economy is broader, more inclusive and more resilient than at any time in the modern era, supported by a multi-channel ecosystem that introduces millions to the game while reinforcing the central role of the golf course as the industry’s front door. NGF’s summary outlook for the U.S. golf industry in 2026: • Solid indicators point to sustainability, but industry stakeholders must always keep a critical eye on analyzing what can be improved while the business is strong. • The game will continue to climb towards 50 million participants – with increases in off- course engagement not slowing. • Facility financial health is strong; while exciting new properties are opening, it is re- investment in existing properties having the bigger impact in improving the game. • Off-course participation and social media will continue to contribute to a demographic shift in “green-grass” participation. • Golf’s brand is generally better than the on-course experience for many (especially beginners) The industry must find ways to stem the millions of “failed trials” each year due to the discomfort/intimidation/fear associated with the traditional golf environment. • We live in an experience-driven society and golf is proving experiential. Younger people think GOLF IS COOL! There is increasing positivity in GOLF’s brand. • The industry is leaning into technology, gaming and FUN, and that’s the most positive trend of all – and directly relevant to any future driving range enhancement project at Baylands. On balance, NGF believes that a continuation in the growth of beginning golfers, increased interest in “alternate” forms of golf (such as that proposed for the Baylands driving range) among other younger prospects, and the successful activation of the large cohort of “latent demand” will have a positive effect on golf facilities like Baylands, including new investment in modernizing the driving range. Ultimately, total spending on golf and club memberships will always be vulnerable to outside forces such as the economy, but the game remains popular and is fortunate to have a deep well of interested prospects. While the industry's momentum is undeniable, challenges remain. Despite welcoming over 16 million first timers during the Covid era, the net gain in on-course participants was less than one-fourth of that, highlighting persistent retention and conversion challenges. The key to sustaining golf's growth lies in ensuring positive experiences for newcomers while continuing to evolve the game's accessibility and appeal to broader audiences. Looking beyond 2026, the convergence of traditional golf with new forms of engagement like the technology/ entertainment range proposed for Baylands, coupled with the sport's improved cultural cachet, suggests golf’s new normal may have staying power. Golf's transformation from a traditional pastime to a dynamic, multi-faceted sport accessible through various channels positions it well for continued growth and relevance in the years ahead. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 275 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 22 LOCAL/REGIONAL GOLF MARKET ANALYSIS In this section we provide a summary overview of basic demographic measures, as well as golf supply and demand indicators, that have the potential to affect the performance of the proposed expanded driving range at Baylands Golf Links. For the purposes of this analysis, we have defined the primary trade area for an enhanced driving range at Baylands GL as a 30-minute drivetime from the site, given that Baylands is a highly regarded golf facility with “destination” appeal. However, we would expect most demand to come from proximate areas such as Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Redwood City, San Carlos, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Santa Clara, Cupertino, and northern stretches of San Jose. The facility is also likely to attract customers from cities across the Dumbarton Bridge, such as Fremont and Newark. Local Market Golf Supply and Demand Overview To assess potential market opportunities for the enhanced driving range, it is helpful to examine economic and demographic factors that have the potential to impact demand and fee tolerance. Below we provide a review of the area’s demographics, as well as key golf market demand and supply indicators, for the 5- mile, 10-mile, and 30-minute drivetime markets around Baylands, as well as Santa Clara County. This information derives from the NGF Demand Model (based on ongoing NGF golf participation research), NGF U.S. Golf Facility Database, and NGF Golf Market Analysis Platform (GolfMAP). Appendix C. Demographic Factors ➢ There are an estimated 244,500 people residing within 5 miles of Baylands GL in 2025, 902,000 within 10 miles, and about 3.44 million within a 30-minute drivetime, offering up a dense residential market from which to draw customers. The 10-mile trade area is projected to lose about 15,000 net residents by 2030. ➢ Median household incomes in the local markets are among the highest in the country but are mitigated by the high cost of living. The immediate 5-mile market shows MHI of about $195,000, or more than 2.3 times the corresponding national figure of $83,998. The 10-mile MHI is even more favorable at about $199,600, while the 30-minute drivetime market shows a MHI of about $171,700. Golf participation correlates strongly with higher income. ➢ Median ages in the subject markets are similar to the national median of 38.2 years. Income and age correlate positively with golf participation, except among the elderly. Market Data Comparisons 2025 Baylands Golf Links 5-Mile Radius 10-Mile Radius 30-Minute Drive-Time Santa Clara County Total U.S. Population 2025 Estimated 244,570 902,034 3,441,633 1,937,262 342,023,600 Population 2030 Projected 242,734 887,118 3,350,269 1,888,992 344,836,300 Med. HH Income (2025) $194,904 $199,636 $171,659 $170,479 $83,998 Median Age (2025) 37.9 38.7 39.0 37.2 38.2 Source: NGF Consulting, GBBIS, Applied Geographic Solutions. * Golf Participation and Rounds Index: Estimated number of golfing households / average rounds played in a particular geography compared to the national average golfing household (US index = 100). ➢ An estimated 241,100+ households, or 74%, of total households in Baylands’ 10-mile trade area have incomes of $100,000+ annually, compared to the national figure of 39.5%. About 48% show income of $200,000+, about 3.5 times higher than the U.S. benchmark of 13.3%. Higher income households obviously show more tolerance for higher green fees and range bucket fees, though higher incomes in this market are mitigated by a high cost of living, especially with respect to housing. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 276 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 23 Higher Income Households 5-Mile 10-Mile 30-Minute No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. of Households $100,000 or Higher Income 63,335 71.3% 241,118 74.0% 811,932 68.2% No. of Households $200,000 or Higher Income 40,555 47.9% 157,445 48.3% 475,876 40.0% Local / Regional Economic Factors ➢ Palo Alto is largely built out, with about 68,000 residents. Covering an area of 26 square miles in the heart of Silicon Valley, it is 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San Jose. The city’s central location makes it easy to access from all directions. Palo Alto is adjacent to Stanford University, one of the premier institutions of higher learning in the country. Recent surveys report that over 80% of residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher. ➢ Palo Alto is home to Nobel Prize winners, Silicon Valley CEOs, venture capital firms, Hewlett-Packard and one of the most renowned universities and medical centers in the world. The emergence of Stanford University in the 1970s as the nation's leading high-technology research center paved the way for hundreds of startup businesses with connections to Stanford professors and their inventions, ultimately branding Palo Alto as the birthplace of Silicon Valley and attracting engineers and others from all over the world. ➢ Palo Alto is headquarters to many industry leaders, such as Hewlett-Packard Inc. (HP Inc), VMware, Tesla, Ford Research and Innovation Center, PARC, IDEO, Skype, Amazon, and Palantir Technologies. It has also served as an incubator for several other high-tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Logitech, Intuit, Pinterest, Waze, Skype (Microsoft) and PayPal. These large employers, along with smaller businesses and other organizations such as civic groups, are strong candidates for tournaments, outings, and other organized group play at high-quality public golf courses such as Baylands. ➢ The San Francisco Bay Area enjoys a strong regional economy - including robust tourism and business travel – that has largely recovered from the pandemic. San Francisco has suffered (e.g., drop in tourism and business travel) from issues such as crime and other quality-of-life factors, the Palo Alto and Santa Clara County economies have been largely unaffected. ➢ Home values in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County overall are among the highest in the U.S. According to Redfin, In April 2025, the median home price in Palo Alto was $3.2 million, or 68% higher than the $1.9 million for Santa Clara County overall. ➢ Palo Alto and Santa Clara County have low unemployment rates. And while the Bay Area trend towards remote, hybrid or “flex” work has been detrimental to many businesses, it has proven to be a boon to golf courses, as many people can now schedule weekday rounds of golf or visits to the driving range. https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/16/tuesday-tee- times-how-the-pandemic-changed-when-we-play. ➢ Part of the demand for a driving range with good visibility comprises impulse play. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count in 2016 (City of Palo Alto latest available) is ±5,000 along East Bayshore Road south of Baylands, and about ±28,000 along Embarcadero Road just west of the golf course, tapering to ±6,000 near the Baylands entrance. If the City ends up expanding the Baylands range and adding technology, the presence of signage along key local roads and arterials will be important to maximize activity. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 277 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 24 Golf Demand ➢ Golf participation rate: The golf participation rates in the 5-mile, 10-mile, and 30-minute drivetime submarkets are 10.9%, 9.6%, and 9%, all at or above the national participation rate of 8.8%, attributable to factors such as income and age profiles that are predictive of strong golf participation. NGF’s proprietary Golf Demand Model indicates about 25,000 golfers within 5 miles of Baylands, 79,800 within 10 miles, and about 232,500 within a 30-minute drivetime of the facility. ➢ Rounds played: The Bay Area is one of the most active golf markets in the U.S. For example, the 30-minute market shows estimated (self-reported + modeled) annual rounds played per 18 holes of ~ 53,400, or more than 70% higher than the national figure of 31,307. Summary of Market Indicators 5-Mile Radius 10-Mile Radius 30-Minute Drivetime Santa Clara County. Golfers and Rounds Number of Golfing Households 16,706 55,591 187,163 109,652 Number of Golfers 24,998 82,941 293,400 171,053 Rounds Potential (resident golfers) 361,127 1,206,190 4,198,579 2,446,508 Avg. Course Rounds Played per 18 Holes 63,429 55,164 54,792 53,395 Golf Indices* Golf Participation Index 120 108 100 104 Golf Rounds Activity Index 121 109 100 103 *US = 100; Source: GBBIS and NGF Consulting. ➢ People who express an interest in playing golf but have not yet taken it up include former golfers (gave it up), and those who have never tried. The demographic profile of latent demand tends to be more female and younger than the overall population. Surveys show these golf-interested non-golfers cite several barriers to entry in golf, including the cost and social aspects (no one to play with). NGF modeling suggests about 78,600 “very interested” non- golfers in the 10-mile market. Gaming and entertainment-oriented technology at golf facilities has proven to be effective at “activating” some of this latent demand. Golf Facility Supply ➢ There are 12 total golf facilities in the 10-mile trade area, including Baylands GL and 6 other public facilities. The 30-minute drivetime market is home to 34 facilities (20 public), totaling 540 holes. ➢ The NGF golf facility database indicates no new golf facilities either in planning or under construction in the Palo Alto / Santa Clara County market. Recent public golf course closures in the regional market include: 18-hole Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club in Santa Clara (closed 2019), which had 36 range tee stations; 18-hole Skywest Golf Course in Hayward (19 tee stations, closed in 2021); Sunol Valley Golf Courses (36 holes, closed in 2016); and The Ranch Golf Club (18 holes, closed in 2019) in San Jose. ➢ Demand-Supply: Both the 10-mile and 30-minute trade areas have nearly 5 times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf than does the overall U.S. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 278 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 25 Competitive Public Golf Market As with most areas of the country, the greater San Francisco Bay Area public golf market experienced a strong uptick in rounds since golf courses reopened after the shutdowns in spring 2020. Most operators reported an increase in rounds played of 15% or more for 2021, while at the same time experiencing increased “pricing power”. Elevated activity levels have been holding steady over the last several years when we account for yearly weather variations. South Bay facilities have participated in this trend and most, like Baylands, have also experienced these rounds increases in tandem with higher average rates. Local Driving Range Market The table in Appendix D provides summary descriptions for a representative subset of on-course driving ranges in Baylands’ primary trade area. The table below summarizes pricing and revenue information for these facilities, followed by NGF’s key takeaways on Baylands Golf Links’s competitive market: Driving Range Summary – Competitive Subset Golf Facility Estimated 2024 Range Revenue # of Stations Revenue per Station Est. 2024 Rounds Played Range Revenue per Round Baylands Golf Links $691,500 27 $25,611 58,928 $11.73 Golf Club Moffett Field $335,000 15 $22,333 67,500 $4.96 Los Lagos Golf Course $675,000 44 $15,341 69,100 $9.77 Mariners Point Golf Center $3,500,000* 75 $46,667 n/a n/a Poplar Creek Golf Course $253,128 15 $16,875 80,636 $3.14 Pruneridge Golf Club $2,100,000 40 $52,500 n/a n/a San Jose Municipal G.C. $2,000,000 62 $32,258 92,000 $21.74 Santa Teresa Golf Club $1,000,000 40 $25,000 Reg. 18H: 85,000 Exec. 9H: 25,000 $9.09 Shoreline Golf Links $597,131 30 $19,904 80,319 $7.43 * NGF estimate based on information provided by market sources. ➢ The 10-mile Baylands submarket has only five (5) public golf courses with driving ranges, totaling 101 tee stations, though there are several additional facilities between 10 and 15 miles away, including Pruneridge, Mariners Point, and San Jose Muni. The NGF facility database shows only one stand-alone range – San Bruno Golf Center (65 tees). The former Burlingame Golf Center has been redeveloped as a Topgolf location, which opened in December 2024. ➢ We observe some very high-volume ranges reflecting an active and densely populated golf market. Among the competitive subset identified above, the best performers are Mariners Point (est. $3.5 million annual range revenue), along with Pruneridge GC and San Jose Muni Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 279 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 26 (each with estimated $2 million). On a per-station basis, all except for Golf Club Moffett Field and Los Lagos GC exceed $20,000 per station, and four ranges are between $32,000 and $50,000 per tee (Baylands was about $25,000 in FY24, rising to $28,588 in FY25). ➢ NGF utilized its GolfMAP program in 2023 to generate comparisons between Baylands Golf Links and some other high-performing driving ranges profiled for this study, including Dairy Creek Golf Course, a 9-hole facility owned by San Luis Obispo County (more below). The table below provides some key summary population and golfer-based metrics as they relate to driving range volume (from September 2023 report). NGF observations follow the table. Driving Range Metrics: 10-Mile Radius Baylands Golf Links Dairy Creek Golf Club Pruneridge Golf Club San Jose Muni. GC Mariners Point GC Totals Public Tee Stations 101 110 223 181 40 Annual Range Revenue $663,000 $1,200,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,200,000 Population - 10-Mile Radius 867,634 100,156 1,553,556 1,452,511 468,980 Golfers - 10-Mile Radius 75,678 7,751 127,340 114,486 43,319 Golfers per Public Tee Station 749 70 571 633 1,083 Population per Public Tee Station 8,590 911 6,967 8,025 11,725 ➢ For the measures of both total population per public tee station and golfers per public station, Baylands compares favorably to two $2 million revenue ranges – Pruneridge Golf Club and San Jose Muni. Mariners Point Golf Center, the highest-volume range observed at an estimated $3.5 million in annual revenue, is the strongest on these demand-supply metrics. ➢ The Baylands comparison to San Luis Obispo County’s Dairy Creek GC (profile below) is instructive because the facility features both a grass driving range and a structure built in 2020 that comprises 10 “golf entertainment” bays featuring Toptracer Range technology. Before a temporary decrease in entertainment bay revenue due to losing their alcohol license in the 2023 period, the new structure plus the pre-existing driving range were generating about $1.2 million in revenue. In terms of the two key metrics we highlighted above, population and number of golfers per public tee station, Baylands’ 10-mile market is 9.4 times and 10.7 times more favorable, respectively, than the Dairy Creek market. “Technology / Entertainment” Driving Ranges Technology and/or entertainment enhancements to existing on-course driving ranges are becoming very popular across the United States and elsewhere. This trend dovetails on the rapid increase in popularity of off-course venues such as Topgolf (one in San Jose and a new 108-bay facility the site of the former Burlingame Golf Center in December 2024), DriveShack, BigShots, and similar variations on the concept. The “golf entertainment” businesses combine high-tech driving ranges with a heavy dose of food & beverage and socializing, and their customer bases comprise 60% or more non-golfers. It has been common for decades for actively programmed golf facilities to feature game improvement /instruction-oriented technology such as launch monitors. However, over the last 5 years of so, it’s become much more common to also see technology that has an entertainment focus - ball tracking, interactive games/contests, virtual competitions, and the ability to play top simulated courses from around the world. In the Baylands regional market, NGF identified several high-volume driving ranges that feature technology as a key selling point: Mission Hills of Hayward – Owned and operated by the Hayward Area Recreation & Park District, this 9-hole executive golf course features a double-deck driving range that offers Toptracer Range technology on 11 of its 45 total tee stations. A District staff person told NGF that they are happy with the addition of the technology, though he admitted that they “haven’t yet maximized” the feature through pricing, programming, marketing, education, etc. Still, the return on investment has been positive, and the District Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 280 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 27 plans to raise bucket fees and begin more active programming and marketing, including Friday night closest to pin contests, adding music, etc. Use of the Toptracer bays is currently $10 per hour on top of the bucket fees. The range closes at 8 pm, which was cited as a revenue constraint. Access to food & beverage service for driving range customers is not optimal, with a walk of ~ 300’ to the golf course side where the concession is located. McInnis Park Golf Center – Located in San Rafael, the golf center is owned by Marin County and operated via a lease agreement by a private vendor. MPGC includes a 9-hole executive golf course and a 47-bay double-deck driving range equipped with Toptracer Range, as well as short game practice area, mini golf, batting cages, and full-service casual dining. The technology was added to the lower level in 2020 and to the second level a year later; 4 double bays are used for instruction. Upon installation of the technology, the lessee immediately doubled the price of the buckets, which now stand at $6 (22 balls), $11 (48), and $21 (98). The range is open from 7 am until 9 pm. Access to food & beverage service is very convenient, as the restaurant patio is directly behind the bays. The private lessee did not share revenue numbers but told NGF that gross revenue increased by about 35% and net revenue by 20% after adding the technology, not including the positive effects that were experienced with other revenue centers, including mini golf, ice cream (Slush by the Park), food & beverage, lessons, and merchandise sales. Ball tracking technology has also drawn a younger clientele to the property. The operator noted that a key to success and adoption of the technology is having high-quality balls and mats that are replaced frequently. Mariners Point Golf Center – This privately owned facility is in Foster City, along San Francisco Bay. MPGC comprises a 9-hole golf course and comprehensive teaching and practice facility that includes a 75-station double-deck driving range. The owners added Toptracer Range about five years ago; it is currently available at about 45 stalls, including 21 monitors on the uncovered second level. Mariners Point is fully lighted and features night golf, with 8:30 pm the latest tee time and 9 pm the latest time to purchase range balls. The driving range and the entire facility close at 11 pm. Cash bucket prices are $10 (40 balls), $16 (85), and $20 (140), with $1 discounts for Range Card holders. Management told NGF that they are “very happy” with what the technology has brought to the customers and to the bottom line. In 2023, the facility added 6 separate sections behind the bottom stalls (previously there was little room to maneuver behind them). The seating is a combination of 4-tops and tables and is intended primarily for use by those customers who are waiting for stalls so they can sit, relax, and order food and/or beverages. The owners also purchased a food trailer to service this area. 2023-24 improvements to Mariners Point technology driving range included addition of indoor seating and a food truck. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 281 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 28 Other Facilities - Outside the Bay Area, we profiled two other California driving range facilities that have benefitted significantly from adding technology: Haggin Oaks Golf Complex (owned by the City of Sacramento and operated by Morton Golf) features 36 regulation golf holes and 100 stalls on its double-sided driving range. The front of the range offers Toptracer Range on 52 stalls; the addition of the technology significantly increased range revenues on one of the highest volume golf course driving ranges in the U.S., as bucket prices were raised by $2 to $4, while utilization increased. The Haggin Oaks range, which has raised target greens, is aggressively programmed and marketed. It offers instruction, interactive games, contests, music, etc. It is served by The Hangout food truck. Due to excess demand, the lessee and the City are exploring expansion and enhancement of the range, including potential double-decking the structure. In fact, the facility website in early July 2025 noted: “We are currently not accepting reservations at this time, the driving range stalls are available on a first-come, first-served basis”. Further to the south is Dairy Creek Golf Club, owned and operated by San Luis Obispo County. The 9- hole regulation DCGC (46,000 rounds last year) has both a grass driving range and a new covered structure (all-in cost of about $1.2 million) that was branded Swing Time. It comprises 10 climate controlled “golf entertainment” bays featuring Toptracer Range technology. The range is usually open from 10 am until 10 pm. Management did not respond to repeated attempts by NGF to update us on what has happened operationally since September 2023, so much of the information in the profile below was in the original NGF study. Access to food & beverage service is very convenient (the restaurant is directly behind Swing Time, separated by a breezeway), though the previous vendor is no longer there and the property lost its alcohol license for a time. The website in early July 2025 noted a new “Australian hospitality partner pursuing permits for remodeling the clubhouse area”. In the interim, food & beverage is being served by the Brick and Mortar Catering Company. ➢ Swing Time is operated with an hourly rental pricing model, with fees $20 for Early Bird (10 am to 2 pm), $30 from 2p to 5 pm, and $50 5pm to 10 pm Prime Time. There is a maximum of four people per bay. Large group reservations and events (more than 12 persons/3 bays), which account for a significant percentage of revenue, can be booked in advance for a $10 per hour per bay preferred reservation charge. ➢ Swing Time opened in October 2020 and generated about $950,000 in bay rental revenue during its first 12 months of operation, according to the County’s Director of Golf Operations. Additionally, the food & beverage sales were very robust, resulting in increased rent to the County. The adjacent grass range had done about $115,000 in annual revenue prior to in years leading up to construction; in 2020 after opening, revenues on grass stalls more than doubled to about $240,000. ➢ There was a significant decrease in entertainment bay revenue due to the food & beverage vendor temporarily losing their alcohol license in February 2023, illustrating the importance of alcohol to the golf entertainment model. The overall gross margin on bay rentals was 65% to 70%, but was down to 45% to 50% without alcohol, with fewer large groups and a significantly diminished late crowd. ➢ Swing Time attracts a diverse customer base, including families, corporate / other group rentals, and young adults. The 10 am to 2 pm customer base comprises a lot of serious golfers seeking to improve their games; this period had about a 60% overall utilization rate. The 5 pm to closing time audience typically comprises young adults looking to socialize, reserved group play, and families. This period had an overall utilization rate of about 80%. The middle part of the day - 2 pm to 5 pm – is a mix of user groups and is the slowest demand period, with total utilization of only about 30%. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 282 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 29 ➢ Management estimated that the facility draws about 15% to 20% of its customers from outside SLO County. County and facility management actively cross-market between golf and Swing Time customers. For example, Swing Time customers may receive an offer of a free golf cart if used within 3 weeks, while golfers are offered a one-time discount of 25% to 30% off a bay rental. ➢ City staff reports that Swing Time has brought a fun, engaging atmosphere to Dairy Creek, and that the technology has become embraced by the golf course’s core customers. In hindsight, they would have added a second level to the structure and widened the bays by at least two feet. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 283 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 30 Market Opportunity Conclusions Below is a summary of NGF’s market opportunity conclusions regarding the potential double-decking of the existing driving range at Baylands Golf Links, including the addition of modern instruction / entertainment-oriented technology to each station. POSITIVE FACTORS ➢ The submarkets around Baylands Golf Links have demographic profiles, including incomes among the highest in the nation, predictive of high golf participation. ➢ Baylands’ primary trade area and the overall regional market have very favorable per capita supply numbers for public golf courses. Both the 10-mile and 30-minute trade areas have ± 5 times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf than does the overall U.S. ➢ Positive demographics and the favorable demand-supply dynamic contribute to the Bay Area being one of the most active golf markets in the U.S. For example, the 30-minute market shows estimated (self-reported + modeled) annual rounds played per 18 holes of ~ 53,500, about 70% higher than the national figure of 31,307. ➢ As documented previously, public golf courses in the regional market have proven records of high driving range revenues, including several that approach or surpass $2 million in annual revenue. Interviews with facility management indicate that Baylands could significantly expand its market share if the driving range had more capacity. ➢ Nationally, both on-course and off-course golf participation continue to surge. Total golf participation (those who play on- and off-course forms of the game) has climbed to 47.2 million in the U.S., a 5% gain versus 2023 and 57% growth over the past decade, up from about 30 million in 2014. The surge demonstrates the significant impact of off-course forms of the game, from golf entertainment venues like Topgolf to technologically enhanced driving ranges at golf courses. ➢ The industry has seen a rapid expansion and increase in popularity of golf technology/ entertainment options - both stand-alone (e.g., Topgolf, Drive Shack, PopStroke, etc.) and on- course. In 2022, for the first time, off-course golf participation surpassed on-course. Golf course operators are increasingly seeking to benefit from this trend through the addition of technology and entertainment, which are especially appealing to young adults. ➢ The Bay Area trend towards remote, hybrid or “flex” work has proven to be a boon to golf courses, as more people can schedule weekday rounds of golf or visits to the driving range. ➢ The nearest competitors in terms of technology-enhanced driving ranges are Mariners Point Golf Center, 12 miles north in Foster City, and Mission Hills of Hayward, 12 miles east across the Bay. A high-quality technology range at the Palo Alto location should be a strong regional draw. ➢ The “golfographics” of the customer base at Baylands are favorable, as the facility generally attracts low-handicap golfers with strong levels of discretionary income, many of whom want to improve their game. ➢ Ongoing NGF survey research indicates that interest in playing among non-golfing young adults is high, with more than 5 million saying they are “very interested” in taking up the Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 284 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 31 game. NGF modeling estimates there are nearly 79,000 “very interested” non-golfers in the 10-mile market. Gaming and entertainment-oriented technology at golf facilities has proven to be effective at “activating” latent demand, which is especially strong among female and younger golfers. POTENTIAL THREATS / CONSTRAINING FACTORS While the NGF finds considerable evidence to support strong demand and high revenue production from an expanded and improved driving range at Baylands Golf Links, as with any business, there are mitigating factors that could suppress demand and overall financial performance: ➢ Increased market competition in the primary trade area could result in lower market share for Baylands Golf Links. As discussed, owners adding technology to driving ranges is a strong emerging trend that NGF expects will continue. It is certainly possible that nearby Baylands competitors such as Shoreline Golf Links or Golf Club Moffett Field could enhance their driving ranges with technology. ➢ NGF did note that two secondary competitors to Baylands – the City of San Jose’s two 18- hole regulation golf courses, Los Lagos and San Jose Muni, added Toptracer Range under their new lessee, CourseCo. Additionally, the Topgolf Burlingame location opened in 2024. However, each of these facilities is located about 25 to 35 minutes away, depending on traffic conditions, and NGF does not believe the presence of the Topgolf or the addition of technology to the San Jose ranges would meaningfully affect demand for an enhanced range at the Palo Alto site. ➢ Regional economic recession or other economic factors (e.g., persistent high inflation and/or high unemployment rates) could reduce discretionary spending. NGF research shows that previous recessions have negatively impacted the performance of public golf courses. ➢ “Retracement” from the Covid-19-related surge in golf demand may occur at some point, especially among the younger generation. ➢ The “golf entertainment” trend may begin to wane, potentially affecting utilization for any range technology / entertainment bays that may be introduced to the range program at Baylands in the future. NGF MARKET OPPORTUNITY CONCLUSION Baylands Golf Links has an active range with annual revenues on pace for about $775,000 for FY26 despite capacity constraints (management conveyed to NGF that customers often must wait for a tee station during peak demand times). Based on our analysis and the proposed program for the enhanced double-deck driving range at Baylands Golf Links, NGF concludes that positive market factors and macro golf demand trends point to a strong opportunity for a technology-enhanced, double-deck driving range. We expect these factors to manifest in strong market impact and incremental net revenues for the expanded range, as we detail in the next section of the report. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 285 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 32 Preliminary Conceptual Program Based on the NGF team’s review of the site for the proposed driving range improvements at Baylands Golf Links, we concluded that the site is physically feasible so support the double-decking of the range, provided that the height of the netting is sufficient. Below we provide a preliminary conceptual program based on the objectives the City conveyed to NGF. We note that, as of this writing, it is uncertain what technology the City and its management partner will choose to incorporate in the driving range. (It could be more than one; for example, one technology for serious instruction, club fitting, etc., and another for personal game improvement, interactive gaming, entertainment, playing simulated golf courses, etc.) In developing a preliminary conceptual program, the NGF team has assumed a generic, modern technology component. PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM The Baylands driving range currently has 27 tee stations, with some utilized during certain times by The First Tee of Silicon Valley. Under the NGF team’s preliminary program, the number would be increased to 34 total bays by adding three stations on the northeast corner and four stations on the south end (tented area currently used for instruction) main/lower level. The upper level would also have 34 bays, creating a new total of 68 hitting bays. (There is also room at the northeast corner for an optional expansion of an additional six (6) bays in the future). The structure would be located approximately 12 yards behind the existing bays; this gain in length should help to reduce the number of golf balls exiting the enclosure to the west. The NGF team’s preliminary conceptual program for the Baylands driving range provides flexibility through a phased plan approach, should the City decide to adopt this strategy. Appendix E. The base of the structure consists of the open-air main level and upper level with cover and back screen (each is optional). Within the limits of the structure, the individual standard bays could be converted into technology or entertainment bays should demand for these types of bays increase. The modular layout of the structure allows for the modification to the hitting bays in pairs. The upper floor of the structure would be approximately 13’-0” above the ground level hitting bays. With the added roof, at the upper level, the total overall height of the structure would be approximately 26’-4” above ground level. The individual hitting bays are planned to be 10’-0” by 14’-0”, which includes a walkway of approximately 6’-0” at the back of the bay. The planned layout of the structure would have two hitting bays between the structural columns, which are spaced in 20’-0” increments. The individual hitting bays are separated by a 3’-0” tall protective metal screen. The overall length of the double deck structure is planned to be 340’. Additional exterior patio space may be incorporated on the east side of the structure, increasing the overall footprint by 12’-0”. These patios could be a phased construction option and added as demand determines. Two open-air stairs provide access to the upper levels. The NGF team conceives the structure to be constructed of steel frame with concrete floors. As noted, there is an option to provide a covered roof at the upper level, also steel frame. It would be most cost effective and less disruptive to daily operations if the roof structure were to be included in the initial construction. The wind screen wall could be a phased option with minimal impact on daily operations. Another consideration would be integrating solar panels at the roof, providing a more sustainable approach to at least partially power the new structure (Indian Wells Golf Resort has this feature). Of course, careful study of the ROI is recommended because of the significantly higher upfront capital cost. Overall, the modular layout of the structure allows for flexibility of internal program configurations as well as a phased construction plan. The different hitting bay types provide an opportunity for golfers of all levels, as well as non-golfers, to enjoy the facility. From the serious golfer trying to improve their game to the casual social outing, the double deck structure’s use expands beyond the typical use of a driving range. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 286 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 33 Finally, the initial NGF/Brian Curtis Studio Design program includes a small concession and restroom building that is presented as an option for consideration based on the expected demand for / logistics of food & beverage service for the expanded range. This detached building would provide services for the driving range and the adjacent short game area and could be constructed as part of a phased plan. The location of the building on the initial conceptual plan is intended as a placeholder. If the overall project comes to fruition, the City and its management partner will discuss the location that is optimal relative to serving all Baylands customers, not just those who may be patronizing the driving range on a given day. For example, it may be beneficial to move the building further north (closer to the clubhouse) to efficiently provide service to golfers as they make the turn from hole #9 to hole #10. Netting A new netting system will be required with the expansion and double decking of the driving range at Baylands. By straightening out the northeast corner of the existing driving range net parameter, an additional three hitting bay spaces could be gained at the main level for a total of six additional spaces. The height of the new netting would also increase by an estimated 15’-0” from the previous study done by Tanner Consulting Group. The height increase is due to the added upper level of the structure which is approximately 13’-0” above the ground level. At the peak of the netting system, the overall height would be approximately 150’-0”. The estimated height at the west end tapers down to approximately 115’-0”. The netting height at the east end, nearest the double decked structure, is reduced to approximately 55’-0”. As per previous NGF recommendation, the City retained Tanner Consulting to update its Trajectory Study in 2026, which resulted in a higher height - now approximately 170' in pole height and netting. Standard Tee Stations / Bays The standard tee stations are intended to provide the basic components of the driving range stall. These bays are open air with an artificial turf mat and overhead lighting on the main level. Lighting for the standard bays at the upper level would require the roof structure to be constructed. As an alternate to the roof structure, light poles could be installed behind the new driving range structure on the east side. The standard hitting bays could also be converted into technology or entertainment bays, at the main level, as demand increases. Technology (Instruction) Bays The plan for the instruction-oriented technology bays is to start with two (2) bays in the initial phase. These two bays are located at the south end of the structure on the main level. Included within the instruction technology bays would be the following items: • Artificial turf hitting mats • Overhead and side rail cameras • TV monitors • Overhead lighting • Launch monitor technology • Wall mounted computer Within the overall structure, additional technology bays could be added by converting the adjacent standard bay options. These bays could also be converted into semi-conditioned space. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 43 Packet Pg. 287 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 34 Entertainment Bays The City and its management partner may decide to include “entertainment” bays to target the “Topgolf” crowd that is seeking more of a social environment, with less emphasis on the serious golfer’s preparation and game improvement. These types of entertainment bays are generally priced on an hourly rental basis, with a maximum of 4 to 6 players. For illustrative purposes, NGF’s preliminary program shows two (2) of these bays on the north portion of the structure, on the main level. We note that NGF has not assumed hourly rental entertainment bays, which can be added by converting the standard bays, in the pro forma calculations later in the report. The program for the entertainment bays includes the following: • Artificial turf hitting mat • (2) TV monitors • Overhead lighting • Furnishings (e.g., sofa, table) • Topracer Range, TrackMan Range, Inrange, or similar technology As a phased option, these bays are planned to have an exterior patio space with seating and tables for other Baylands patrons. Additionally, TV monitors could be installed facing the patio area. Range Structure Program Options Summary As noted earlier, the modular layout of the structure allows for flexibility of internal program configurations as well as a phased construction plan. The following options are for consideration by the City: Option 1: Includes the two levels of hitting bays but does not include a second-level roof structure. The NGF team’s construction cost estimate range for the range structure itself is $3.8 million to $4.3 million. Option 2: The inclusion of a metal roof during the initial construction is the most efficient option and adds an estimated $300,000 to $500,000, bringing the structure cost estimate range to $4.1 to $4.8 million. If the City decides to add the roof later as part of phased construction, the cost for the roof could be considerably higher, contingent on factors such as wage and other input cost inflation, how long the City waits to add the roof, etc. Option 3: Inclusion of a screen wall at the back of the upper hitting bays, if constructed initially, is $100,000 to $200,000, bringing the estimated cost range for the two levels, roof and screen wall to $4.2 million to $5.0 million. As with the roof cover, the cost to add the screen as a later phase could be considerably higher. Note: there are a variety of options for screen walls ranging from operable to permanent solutions. These options also include materials that range from transparent to opaque. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES The NGF team’s preliminary cost estimates for the conceptual plan presented are based on several inputs, including recent regional construction projects of similar type, as well as discussions with builders. Preliminary estimates are presented within a range, with variations depending on several factors, including the details of the final facility program. The costs assume that construction will be under prevailing wage and are in 2025 dollars. As the City would likely undertake this project at least one year, and perhaps several years, in the future, an annual inflation factor should be assumed. Based on recent inflation rates with respect to materials and labor, an annual inflation rate of at least 4% should be assumed for planning purposes. Finally, the City should figure on a contingency figure equivalent to 10% to 15% of estimated construction costs. The NGF team’s preliminary conceptual plan for the double deck hitting structure at Baylands includes 34 hitting stations at each level for a total of 68 total hitting bays. The lower-level bays would be covered with the upper level remaining uncovered. Included within the 34 bays at the main level would be two (2) technology bays geared toward instruction. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 44 Packet Pg. 288 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 35 The primary construction costs of the base plan would include the following items: • Grading • Concrete footing / slabs • Metal decking • Structural steel • Two (2) prefabricated metal stairs • Primary electrical and lighting • Metal bay partition screens • Artificial turf hitting mats. Also included in the base plan cost is removal of the existing concrete slab hitting bays and installation of artificial turf from this location to the front of the new double deck structure (4,824 SF). The footprint of the new structure measures 14’-0” x 340’-0” (4,760 at each level, 9,520 SF total). The two prefab metal stairs would have an approximate footprint of 224 square feet. The total range structure building cost for the Option 1 base program is an estimated $3.8 to $4.3 million (2025 dollars). For Option 2, which includes the upper-level metal roof and overhead lights, the estimated cost range is $4.1 to $4.8 million, while Option 3 also includes the screen wall and is estimated to bring the total cost for the structure itself to $4.2 to $5 million. Other costs: ➢ Allowance for artificial turf at the forward location of the new structure is $86,000 to $118,000. ➢ The cost for structured cabling for specialty equipment and TV monitors is estimated to be in the range of $193,000 to $268,000, depending on item requirements. ➢ We have also included an allowance for miscellaneous site improvements such as specialty lighting (if needed), video/ security cameras, cart path extensions/ repair, landscaping / natural turf replacement, and removal of existing light poles, totaling $50,000 to $80,000. ➢ We estimate the cost of optional exterior patios adjacent to the entertainment bays (400 SF) to be about $8,000 to $8,500 each. Accompanying the double deck driving range is an optional detached concession/ outdoor bar and restroom building. NGF estimates this structure to be between 800 SF and 1,200 square feet, with a cost range of $280,000 to $320,000 depending on final programming, location, and site utility requirements. The other large-scale cost comprises tear-down of the existing driving range nets and poles, and construction of new nets and poles based on the preliminary specifications from the previous Tanner Consulting Trajectory Study done for the City. The NGF team requested an update quote from Judge Netting, Inc. and it came back at $4.315 million, as reflected in the Preliminary Cost Estimate Summary Table below. A representative from Judge Netting noted: “A geotechnical report would be imperative for the engineering and drilling on this job…..” Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 45 Packet Pg. 289 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 36 Baylands GL Driving Range Project – Preliminary Cost Estimates Base Items: Low Estimate High Estimate New netting and poles (source: Judge Netting) $4,315,000 $4,315,000 Structure 3,800,000 4,300,000 New artificial turf (allowance) 86,000 118,000 Specialty / custom electrical 193,000 268,000 Misc. site improvements* (allowance) 50,000 80,000 Estimated Prelim. Total Base Costs $8,444,000 $9,081,000 *Items such as specialty lighting; landscaping modifications; cart path extensions/repair, new grass turf; removal of light poles, etc. Optional Items: Metal roof (cost if incl. in initial construction) $300,000 $500,000 Screen wall (cost if incl. in initial construction) 100,000 200,000 Concession/restroom building 280,000 320,000 Exterior patios (per 400 sf) 8,000 8,550 Total Estimated Optional Items Cost $688,000 $1,028,550 Lost Revenues During Construction During construction of the double-deck driving range, we anticipate that the existing range hitting mat locations could remain open. The new structure is planned to be built approximately 12 yards east of the existing driving range concrete pad. However, if overhead equipment such as cranes or concrete pump booms is needed, the northern and southern portions of the existing hitting area could each be closed on an alternate basis for approximately 15% of the time during construction. These partial hitting bay closures would require the hitting bays to be operated at 50% capacity for approximately 30% of the construction duration. The entire 27 bays could remain open for 70% of the construction time. The NGF team has assumed an 8 to 10-month construction project. Based on actual range revenue trends, including total FY25 gross range revenue of $771,864, or about $28,588 per station (27 tees). This equates to about $2,382 per station per month. Based on the assumption that half of the stations would be closed for about 30% of a 10-month construction duration, or the equivalent of three months, we come up with an effective reduction in capacity of 14 stations (just more than half, for purpose of conservatism) for 3 months, resulting in lost gross revenue during that time of about $97,000. Assuming a gross margin of 80%, that equates to a loss in net revenue of just over $80,000: Lost Revenue during Construction: 14 stations out of use x 3 months out use x $2,382 avg. mthly rev. per station = $100,044 est. gross revenue lost x 80% margin = $80,035 Lost Net Revenue Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 46 Packet Pg. 290 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 37 PROJECTED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE With respect to marketing the technology driving range (should it come to fruition), NGF of course defers to the City’s management partner for Baylands. They possess both the expertise that comes from owning and/or operating hundreds of golf facilities, and the institutional knowledge of Baylands Golf Links and its customer base. Still, NGF offers general commentary and some relevant best practices below, as well as specific recommendations with respect to a Grand Opening of the improved driving range. ➢ Marketing Plan and Focus – An effective and comprehensive marketing plan incorporates research, objectives, planning, strategy, market identification, budget, advertising, timetable, and follow-up, such as tracking to adequately gauge effectiveness of various campaigns and vehicles. Plans should be periodically updated and refined to include a synopsis of prior year results, review of the competitive landscape, and proposed new programs and strategies. ➢ Focus on Key “Differentiators” – For example, availably of technology in every bay, premier quality of the Baylands Golf Links, availability of expert instruction, quality of the food & beverage service, quality of the range balls, regular contests (e.g., closest to pin), leagues, etc. ➢ Direct Sales – Direct selling to recruit Toptracer leagues (would be more sellable with addition of entertainment bays), as well as non-golf events such as corporate team building events and other group play can be an important part of the overall programming effort for the driving range. ➢ Digital Marketing - Keep the facility customer database up to date on progress during construction, as well as upon opening. This can take the form of press releases and periodic emails (one or two each month, or as there is news to share) regarding upcoming events, programs, league sign-ups, etc., as well as regular updates on the Baylands website. ➢ Social Media – In today’s marketing environment, maintaining a strong social media presence is important in increasing engagement, especially among younger golfers. Posting regular updates and keeping content fresh (e.g., specials/promos, events/contests, tournaments, news about facility improvements, etc.) helps to maintain or grow engagement. ➢ Loyalty / Frequent Player Program - Driving range-related benefits could be extended to the existing Links Card program (alternatively, a practice-only plan could be developed for Baylands). ➢ Signage along key arterials proximate to Baylands Golf Links, to extent permissible, will create awareness and elicit trial of the new range, including impulse patronage. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 47 Packet Pg. 291 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 38 Grand Opening: Prior to Reopening Once commitment to the driving range expansion is made, the City will work with its operator to create a plan to communicate to the golf community (emails, press releases, etc.) what the improvements will be, what the expected timeframe is, etc. Messaging should emphasize that the improvements will result in a new driving range experience that will be appealing to serious golfers looking to improve their games, golfers interested in the gaming and entertainment aspects of the new technology, and non-golfers interested in socializing (entertainment bays). The City can begin creating “buzz” early, with periodic updates on construction progress sent to the golfer database, as well as to regional golfers. Municipalities without the benefit of a large national golf management firm as its partner (does not apply to Palo Alto) may consider retaining an outside Marketing / Public Relations firm to manage all marketing, promotional, and PR activities, including a press kit for communicating grand opening events and facility improvements to media and affinity groups. Tactics would be deployed across print, digital and paid social channels and, as the grand-opening date approaches, direct email marketing efforts for VIPs, media, and other special guests would increase. Whether the City or an outside company manages the publicity, news coverage leading up to the opening event(s) should include announcements in local weekly newspapers and business magazines, television/radio programs, social media accounts, and online outlets. Soft Reopening of Driving Range Whether related to an entire golf course or a new or enhanced amenity (such as the Baylands driving range, in this case), a common strategy NGF has observed is hosting a “soft” opening / reopening anywhere from days before to a month or more before the grand opening. The soft opening is typically restricted to the media, golf writers, noted area golfers, and local golf dignitaries (e.g., City Council) and celebrities. Festivities may begin with opening remarks by City and golf course staff, food & beverage service, and a welcoming toast for attendees. The day might conclude with a golf outing (e.g., shotgun start, 9-hole scramble) or, in this case, contests that can be played out on the technology-enhanced bays of the driving range (closest to the pin, hole- in-one, etc.). The day may also include elements such as raffle prizes, music, etc. Grand Reopening of Driving Range Following the soft reopening event or other “VIP preview”, the official Grand Reopening celebration of the reimagined Baylands Golf Links driving range can be either a single-day or two-day event featuring the elements noted above. Festivities, including food and refreshments, may be preceded by a ribbon-cutting ceremony by the mayor or the whole City Council. The following days, with the enhanced driving range officially reopened to the public, may include tournaments and contests utilizing the new technology bays. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 48 Packet Pg. 292 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 39 Projected Financial Performance of Expanded Baylands Golf Links Driving Range NGF Consulting has created a pro forma cash flow model for the first full ten years of operation of a proposed enhanced and expanded driving range at Baylands Golf Links, based on the preliminary facility program developed by the NGF team and described in this report. Program elements, as well as assumptions and inputs utilized in crafting the pro forma model, are summarized below. Note: All references to “incremental” mean in addition to, over and above projected FY 2025 range revenue results. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS The following are NGF’s basic assumptions for the cash flow model: ➢ There will be no substantive changes to golf market supply-demand dynamics. ➢ The overall regional economic condition remains stable, with stabilized inflation rates by the time the reconstruction is completed, and no substantive changes in area employment, visitation, etc. ➢ The expanded and enhanced Baylands Golf Links range will offer a high-quality product with excellent maintenance and broad appeal to multiple customer segments, including beginners, avid golfers, juniors, seniors, and young adults, as well as non-golfers drawn by the golf-entertainment aspects of the facility program. ➢ A direct sales effort will be employed to build a league play component to the technology bays and to solicit other types of group play (e.g., through local corporations, hotels), The facility will be programmed with events, tournaments/outings, lessons/instruction, contests, leagues, etc. ➢ The City and the operator will aggressively market the improved range facility locally and regionally, especially in the run-up to opening and during the first 12 to 18 months of operation, to stimulate trial and awareness; activities will include a Grand Opening event. ➢ Because the Baylands driving range is an existing business with insufficient capacity, and assuming the aggressive marketing and direct selling effort noted above, NGF has assumed a quick ramp-up to stabilized demand. ➢ There will be no restrictions (e.g., Airport and/or FAA) regarding the necessary net heights and lighting for the driving range. Hours of operation, with some exceptions, will be through 9 pm. ➢ Parking will be sufficient to accommodate increased activity at Baylands resulting from the expansion of the driving range. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 49 Packet Pg. 293 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 40 UTILIZATION, REVENUE AND EXPENSE ASSUMPTIONS NGF’s assumptions and input variables related to activity levels, rounds played, revenues and expenses for an expanded and enhanced driving range at Baylands Golf Links are shown below. The model is for the first ten (10) full years of operation. Figures are in 2025 dollars. Activity Level and Revenue Inputs ➢ Even though the facility program may evolve (monitors on second deck, entertainment bays, etc.), for purposes of the model we have assumed the same program (i.e., 68 stations with technology) throughout the 10-year period. ➢ Technology will be available at all tee stations. For example, the ground floor may feature full technology with monitors, while the second deck may include only mobile app-based technology in the beginning. There will be two (2) technology/instruction bays throughout the 10-year period. ➢ Driving range revenue comprises revenue from sales of buckets. See Appendix F. ➢ NGF has not factored in any potential lost revenue due to range bay utilization by The First Tee of Silicon Valley during certain days / times. ➢ The Input Variables for the utilization / revenue models, including number of stations/bays, days open, average hours open, average bucket price, utilization percentages, etc. are shown in the following tables (through Year 5). We have assumed an average bucket revenue per visit of $17.00 for Year 1, reflecting initial pricing of $11, $17, and $24 for small, medium, and large buckets, respectively. Average bucket revenue grows 2.5% annually. Technology Range Stations – Year 1 through Year 5 Utilization Assumptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Estimated Available Days 355 355 355 355 355 355 Potential Buckets per Day 748 748 748 748 748 # Stations 68 # / Hour 1 # Hours/Day (avg.) 11 Estimated Annual Utilization % 38.00% 41.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% = Number of Buckets 100,900 108,900 111,500 111,500 111,500 Average Bucket Fee $17.00 $17.43 $17.86 $18.31 $18.76 Operating Expenses Expenses associated with the driving range in its current configuration (excluding instruction-related) amount to ±20% of gross revenues. Under the enhanced double-deck scenario, we have projected expenses to increase to 35% of gross revenues, based on interviews with operators and industry contacts. Additional expenses will include technology lease payments, labor, general maintenance, supplies (higher quality range balls, mats), increased electricity, and general maintenance. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 50 Packet Pg. 294 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 41 ESTIMATED FUTURE PERFORMANCE (YEAR 1 – YEAR 10) NGF Consulting has utilized these assumptions to create the cash flow statement shown in Appendix F Cash Flow Results The NGF Consulting preliminary cash flow projection shows that the expanded and enhanced Baylands Golf Links driving range – operating under the proposed program – will generate about $1.7 million in total gross operating revenue in the first full year of operation, growing to $2.1 million by Year 5, and nearly $2.4 million by Year 10. Based on a projected 65% gross margin, we project that the driving range will produce net income of ±$1.1 million in Year 1, increasing to $1.36 million by Year 5. Using estimated net income of $600,000 (80% of $750K) for the existing Baylands range in FY25, and assuming this figure would grow 2.0% annually, we can calculate the projected incremental net revenues that would result from expanding the driving range and adding the technology feature. This incremental net revenue figure – representing profits over and above what the Baylands range is currently generating - is $515,000 in Year 1, growing to $710,500 by Year 5. Sensitivity Scenarios NGF has also modeled several sensitivity scenarios, each of which adjusts one or more key input variables from the Base Model. The scenarios are as follows, with all other input variables except for those noted remaining unchanged. A summary table of results for Year 5 follows below. • Sensitivity Scenario 1: Average utilization rate is lowered to 33% Year 1 and 33% Year 2, stabilizing at 36% for years 3 through 10. • Sensitivity Scenario 2: Average bucket revenue Year 1 is lowered by $1.50 to $15.50 (grows 2.5% annually through Year 10. • Sensitivity Scenario 3: Both average utilization rates and average bucket revenue are adjusted as described in Scenario 1. • Sensitivity Scenario 4: All input variables are the same as the Base (expected) case, except that driving range expenses are reduced from 35% of gross revenue to 30%. As the table illustrates, all the sensitivity scenarios significant incremental net income over the existing driving range configuration at Baylands Golf Links, with incremental NI figures ranging from about $414,000 - if both lower utilization and lower average bucket revenue compared to the base scenario are realized – to $815,000 if the base assumptions are borne out, with the exception of a lower expense profile than anticipated. Sensitivity Analysis – Results Shown for Year 5 Scenario: Input Variable(s) Changed Gross Revenue Net Income Incremental Net Income Base (expected) $2,092,300 $1,359,995 $710,536 Sensitivity 1 Lower utilization rate $1,793,900 $1,166,035 $516,576 Sensitivity 2 Lower avg. bucket revenue $1,907,700 $1,240,005 $590,546 Sensitivity 3 Lower util. & lower bucket rev. $1,635,600 $1,063,140 $413,681 Sensitivity 4 Lower range exp./cost of sales $2,092,300 $1,464,610 $815,151 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 51 Packet Pg. 295 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 42 LIMITING CONDITIONS It is important to project a golf facility’s likely performance in a way that helps the owner make financial decisions based on realistic expectations. It is obviously possible that the enhanced driving range at Baylands will experience either higher or lower revenue and/or operating expenses than projected. NGF Consulting is confident that our financial projections are realistic and achievable. However, from a practical standpoint, variable market conditions and unforeseen changes between the preparation of the estimates updated in 2025 and the date the new driving range is open for business can affect facility performance. Examples of factors that could result in either stronger or weaker performance than NGF has projected include those listed below. Stronger Performance Weaker Performance Improved local demand for golf Increased competition Positive regional publicity Poor customer service Decline in quality of competitors Decline in quality of subject facility Continued surge in golf interest Decline in golf participation Excellent yearly weather conditions Poor weather / regional economic recession Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 52 Packet Pg. 296 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 43 Appendices A: Baylands Golf Links Recent Operating Results B: National Rounds Report – YTD 2026 through April C: Local Demographic, Demand and Supply Data D: Driving Range Summary – Regional Subset E: Preliminary Concept Plans 1. Site Plan & Netting Heights 2. Hitting Bay Stations 3. Technology & Entertainment Bays F: NGF Utilization Models and Projections G: Photo Appendix Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 53 Packet Pg. 297 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 44 APPENDIX A – BAYLANDS GOLF LINKS RECENT OPERATING RESULTS The table below shows summary financial information for Baylands for the period of FY 2023 through FY 2025, with projections for FY 2026. (Source: City of Palo Alto). CSD Golf Course Financials OPERATING YEAR FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 Projected Revenues Tournament Fees $406,794 $487,513 $554,284 $575,000 Green Fees $3,212,317 $3,053,991 $3,243,861 $3,350,000 Driving Range $685,801 $691,498 $771,864 $775,000 Cart/Club Rentals $395,777 $495,777 $523,369 $510,000 Proshop Lease $259,617 $247,137 $234,615 $250,000 Restaurant Lease $44,000 $48,000 $52,800 $48,000 Restaurant Utilities $16,500 $18,000 $19,800 $19,800 Other Fee $38,893 $36,921 $30,900 $33,000 Total Revenue $5,059,700 $5,078,837 $5,431,493 $5,560,800 Operating Expenses Salaries & Benefits $149,481 $183,721 $205,460 $213,074 Supplies and Materials $1,131 -$1,202 $1,200 General Expense $48 $582 $73 $1,590 Allocated Charges $344,609 $753,314 $140,041 $400,000 Subtotal $495,268 $937,617 $346,776 $615,864 Contract Services Golf Maintenance $2,559,159 $2,949,444 $3,147,693 $3,226,857 Miscellaneous $51,304 --- Management Fees $120,102 $121,554 $108,000 $108,000 Contract Contingency ---$33,349 Subtotal $2,726,565 $3,070,998 $3,255,693 $3,368,205 Total Operating Expenses $3,221,833 $4,008,615 $3,602,469 $3,984,069 Income from Operations $1,837,867 $1,070,222 $1,829,024 $1,576,731 Debt Service $371,331 $527,487 $525,792 $528,566 Net Income $1,466,536 $542,735 $1,303,232 $1,048,165 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 298 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 45 APPENDIX B – NATIONAL ROUNDS PLAYED – YTD 2026 THROUGH APRIL Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 55 Packet Pg. 299 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 46 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 56 Packet Pg. 300 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 47 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 57 Packet Pg. 301 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 48 APPENDIX C – LOCAL DEMOGRAPHIC, DEMAND AND SUPPLY DATA Baylands Golf Links 5-Mile 10-Mile 30-Min Santa Clara County California U.S. Summary Demographics Population 2000 Census 205,350 771,962 3,096,807 1,682,589 33,871,644 281,398,800 Population 2010 Census 213,362 810,134 3,234,590 1,781,643 37,253,959 308,745,900 CAGR 2000-2010 0.38% 0.48% 0.44% 0.57% 0.96% 0.93% Population 2025 244,570 902,034 3,441,633 1,937,262 39,654,566 342,023,600 CAGR 2010-2025 0.98% 0.77% 0.44% 0.60% 0.45% 0.73% Population 2030 Projected 242,734 887,118 3,350,269 1,888,992 39,122,706 344,836,300 CAGR 2025-2030 -0.15% -0.33% -0.54% -0.50% -0.27% 0.16% Median HH Income (2025) $194,904 $199,636 $171,659 $170,479 $102,142 $83,998 Median Age (2025) 37.9 38.7 39.0 37.2 37.4 38.2 Ethnicity White 40.0% 34.1% 29.9% 31.3% 42.0% 62.3% African American 4.0% 3.0% 4.1% 2.9% 6.4% 13.7% Asian 33.5% 42.9% 42.7% 43.3% 17.1% 6.7% All Other 21.5% 19.5% 22.8% 22.2% 34.2% 17.2% Hispanic Population Hispanic 22.2% 20.1% 23.9% 24.1% 39.7% 19.2% Not Hispanic 77.8% 79.9% 76.1% 75.9% 60.3% 80.8% CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate Baylands Golf Links 5-Mile 10-Mile 30-Min Santa Clara County California U.S. Golf Demand Indicators Total Households 88,835 326,035 1,189,873 668,495 13,794,270 132,940,055 Number of Golfing Households 16,706 55,591 187,163 109,652 2,013,517 20,547,815 Seasonal Golfing Households 668 1,830 5,203 3,014 175,454 2,476,583 Current Demand/Interested Non-Golfers 19,488 69,946 255,863 147,408 2,688,802 21,234,211 Golfer Participation Rate 10.70% 9.70% 9.00% 9.30% 8.30% 9.00% Number of Golfers 24,998 82,941 293,400 171,053 3,111,093 29,127,264 Number of Projected Golfers 24,741 81,549 285,665 166,561 3,063,119 29,381,200 Projected Annual Growth Rate -0.20% -0.30% -0.50% -0.50% -0.30% 0.20% Rounds Potential (resident golfers) 361,127 1,206,190 4,198,579 2,446,508 44,007,685 418,481,340 Estimated Course Rounds (in-market supply) 253,716 579,220 2,219,075 1,601,859 43,153,604 418,481,340 Demand Indices Golfer Participation Rate 120 108 100 104 92 100 Seasonal Golfing Households 40 30 23 24 68 100 Latent Demand/Interested Non-Golfers 128 125 120 123 109 100 Rounds Potential per capita (resident golfers) 121 109 100 103 91 100 Est. Course Rds. per capita (in-market supply) 85 52 53 68 89 100 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 58 Packet Pg. 302 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 49 Baylands Golf Links 5-Mile 10-Mile 30-Min Santa Clara County California U.S. Golf Supply Golf Facilities Total 4 12 43 31 818 13,975 Public 3 7 25 19 545 10,208 Public: Daily Fee 1 2 11 11 358 7,599 Public: Municipal 2 5 14 8 187 2,609 Private 1 5 18 12 273 3,767 Public Golf Facilities by Price Point Premium (>$80) 3 4 13 11 211 2,094 Standard ($50-$80) 0 0 4 3 181 3,260 Value (<$50) 0 3 8 5 153 4,856 Golf Holes Total 72 189 729 540 14658 238,090 Public 54 99 405 324 9441 168,327 Public: Daily Fee 18 27 198 207 6165 124,915 Public: Municipal 36 72 207 117 3276 43,412 Private 18 90 324 216 5217 69,763 Non-Regulation (Executive & Par-3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Change* Net Change in Holes past 5 years 0 18 18 18 -39 -536 Percentage Total Holes Past 5 Yrs 0.0% 9.5% 2.5% 3.3% -0.3% -0.2% Net Change in Holes past 10 Years 18 0 -36 -18 -1,029 -16,025 Percentage Total Holes Past 10 Yrs 25.0% 0.0% -4.9% -3.3% -7.0% -6.7% *Numbers may include courses under construction and temporarily closed at the end of the year. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 59 Packet Pg. 303 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 50 Baylands Golf Links 5-Mile 10-Mile 30-Min Santa Clara County California U.S. Supply-Demand Ratios Population per 18 Holes Total 61,143 85,908 84,979 64,575 48,695 25,857 Public 81,523 164,006 152,961 107,626 75,604 36,574 Public: Daily Fee 244,570 601,356 312,876 168,458 115,779 49,284 Public: Municipal 122,285 225,509 299,272 298,040 217,881 141,812 Private 244,570 180,407 191,202 161,439 136,818 88,247 Premium (>$80) 81,523 225,509 229,442 149,020 164,427 138,876 Standard ($50-$80) 983,324 774,905 206,892 100,235 Value (<$50) 601,356 860,408 774,905 432,593 98,322 Golfers per 18 Holes Total 6,250 7,899 7,244 5,702 3,820 2,202 Public 8,333 15,080 13,040 9,503 5,932 3,115 Public: Daily Fee 24,998 55,294 26,673 14,874 9,083 4,197 Public: Municipal 12,499 20,735 25,513 26,316 17,094 12,077 Private 24,998 16,588 16,300 14,254 10,734 7,515 Premium (>$80) 8,333 20,735 19,560 13,158 12,900 11,827 Standard ($50-$80) 83,829 68,421 16,232 8,536 Value (<$50) 55,294 73,350 68,421 33,939 8,373 Population Indices (National 100) Total 236 332 329 250 188 100 Public 223 449 418 294 207 100 Private 277 204 217 183 155 100 Premium (>$80) 59 162 165 107 118 100 Standard ($50-$80) 981 773 206 100 Value (<$50) 612 875 788 440 100 Golfers Indices (National = 100) Total 284 359 329 259 173 100 Public 268 484 419 305 190 100 Private 332 221 217 190 143 100 Premium (>$80) 70 175 165 111 109 100 Standard ($50-$80) 982 802 190 100 Value (<$50) 660 876 817 405 100 Rounds per 18 Holes Rounds Potential (resident golfers) 90,282 114,875 103,669 81,550 54,041 31,638 Estimated Course Rounds (in-market supply) 63,429 55,164 54,792 53,395 52,993 31,638 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 60 Packet Pg. 304 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 51 APPENDIX D – DRIVING RANGE SUMMARY – REGIONAL SUBSET Driving Range / Practice Center Summary – Regional Subset Golf Facility Description # of Stations Bucket Prices (S / M / L/Jumbo) Technology Baylands Golf Links Instruction bay with launch monitor technology. Lighted range but last balls sold at 6:30 pm. Large practice and chipping greens. Short game practice area. 26 $7 / $13 / $18 Trackman Golf launch monitor. Fremont Park Golf Club Practice area, grass tees, private short game area; 20 brand new Power Tee bays 35 $11 / $15 / $17 / $23 50 to 200 balls Power Tee bays Golf Club Moffett Field Grand reopening after improvements to the fence/netting/landing area (May 6, 2023) 15 $7 / $12 / $16 None Los Lagos Golf Course Two-tiered, lighted driving range with matted hitting surface + putting green 42 $9 / $14 /$17 Toptracer Range added in 2024. Mariners Point Golf Center Range offers variety of surfaces including grass; short game facility greens and bunkers to practice chipping, pitching and sand shots of varying distances. Offers golf club fitting technology through two indoor fitting bays, state-of-the-art putting studio, short game area and outdoor fittings on the driving range. Added patio area & food truck behind lower bays in 2023. 75 $10 / $16 / $20 ($1 discount for Range Pass holders) $5 to hit balls off grass tees. Toptracer Range camera equipment Cool Clubs San Francisco fitting technology Mission Hills of Hayward Double-deck driving range, with new lighting, turf, and netting. 10 lower bays feature touch screen monitors that display the complete flight of the golf shot as well as valuable data such as ball speed, carry yardage, launch angle, and more. 45 $11 / $17 / $20 / $25 Toptracer Range $10 per hr. Toptracer Range touch screen monitors on 11 bays Poplar Creek Golf Course Offers two large practice putting greens and a short game practice center, 20 $5 / $8 / $11 /$14 $6 short game practice area access. None Pruneridge Golf Club Covered, lighted double-deck driving range; two practice putting greens; putting / chipping green. Private practice area. 40 $11 / $16 /$20 $9 per day to use the putting/chipping green. No charge to use the two putting- only greens. For instruction and club fitting: FlightScope launch monitor technology and V1 Sports Digital Video Coaching System San Jose Municipal G.C. Double-deck lighted range; two short game greens; large practice green with two sand bunkers; chipping green. Two enclosed studios for video instruction / club fitting. 60 $9 / $14 /$17 Toptracer Range added in 2024 Video instruction; launch monitor Shoreline Golf Links Lighted practice range with target greens with laser- measured flagsticks; real feel mats are used during the week and grass tees are set up for weekends during spring and summer - thru mid-Oct.; short game area with practice bunker, a large 16,000 sq. foot putting green; a 6,000 sq. foot putting green; a small chipping green. 29 $11 / $14 /$18 None Spring Valley Golf Club Newly remodeled; new putting green, chipping, and bunker short game area. 29 $3.50 warm-up $8 / $11 /$14 None Fees listed are as presented on website; some may include tax, others not; rounded to nearest half -dollar. Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 61 Packet Pg. 305 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 52 APPENDIX E – PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN Exhibit 1 – Site Plan & Netting Heights Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 62 Packet Pg. 306 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 53 Exhibit 2 – Hitting Bay Section Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 63 Packet Pg. 307 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 54 Exhibit 3 – Technology & Entertainment Bays Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 64 Packet Pg. 308 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 55 APPENDIX F – NGF UTILIZATION MODEL AND PROJECTIONS Technology Stations – Estimated Utilization & Gross Revenue Utilization Assumptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Estimated Available Days 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 Potential Buckets per Day 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 # Stations 68 # / Hour 1 # Hours/Day (avg.) 11 Estimated Annual Utilization % 38.00% 41.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% = Number of Buckets 100,900 108,900 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 Bucket Revenue Average Fee $17.00 $17.43 $17.86 $18.31 $18.76 $19.23 $19.71 $20.21 $20.71 $21.23 Gross Range Revenue $1,715,300 $1,897,600 $1,991,500 $2,041,200 $2,092,300 $2,144,600 $2,198,200 $2,253,200 $2,309,500 $2,367,200 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 65 Packet Pg. 309 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 56 Baylands Golf Links Driving Range – Cash Flow Pro Forma Utilization Assumptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Estimated Available Days 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 Potential Buckets per Day 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 # Stations 68 # / Hour 1 # Hours/Day (avg.) 11 Estimated Annual Utilization % 38.00% 41.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% 42.00% = Number of Buckets 100,900 108,900 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 Bucket Revenue Average Fee $17.00 $17.43 $17.86 $18.31 $18.76 $19.23 $19.71 $20.21 $20.71 $21.23 Gross Bucket Revenue $1,715,300 $1,897,600 $1,991,500 $2,041,200 $2,092,300 $2,144,600 $2,198,200 $2,253,200 $2,309,500 $2,367,200 Per Station $25,989 $28,752 $30,174 $30,927 $31,702 $32,494 $33,306 $34,139 $34,992 $35,867 Oper. Expenses (35% of Rev.) $600,355 $664,160 $697,025 $714,420 $732,305 $750,610 $769,370 $788,620 $808,325 $828,520 Net Income $1,114,945 $1,233,440 $1,294,475 $1,326,780 $1,359,995 $1,393,990 $1,428,830 $1,464,580 $1,501,175 $1,538,680 FY 23 Est. Range Net Income $600,000 $612,000 $624,240 $636,725 $649,459 $662,448 $675,697 $689,211 $702,996 $717,056 Incremental Net Income $514,945 $621,440 $670,235 $690,055 $710,536 $731,542 $753,133 $775,369 $798,179 $821,624 Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 66 Packet Pg. 310 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 57 APPENDIX G – PHOTO APPENDIX – AREA DRIVING RANGES AND TECHNOLOGY BAY EXAMPLES Baylands Golf Links Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 67 Packet Pg. 311 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 58 Golf Club Moffett Field Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 68 Packet Pg. 312 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 59 Los Lagos Golf Course Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 69 Packet Pg. 313 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 60 Mariners Point Golf Center (Toptracer Range) Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 70 Packet Pg. 314 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 61 Mission Hills of Hayward (Toptracer Range) Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 71 Packet Pg. 315 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 62 Pruneridge Golf Club Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 72 Packet Pg. 316 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 63 Shoreline Golf Links Poplar Creek and San Jose Muni Popular Creek San Jose Muni Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 73 Packet Pg. 317 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 64 Examples of Technology / Entertainment Bays McInnis Park, Marin County, CA Sailfish Sands Golf Course, Martin County, FL Dairy Creek Golf Club – Swing Time Suites – San Luis Obispo County, CA Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 74 Packet Pg. 318 of 394  National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Baylands Golf Links Driving Range Enhancement-Update Draft Report– 65 Arrowood Golf Course – Flight Deck – Oceanside, CA Indian Wells Golf Resort – Indian Wells, CA https://www.foremagazine.com/sustainability/sun-spot-indian-wells-golf-resort-goes-solar/ Item 3 Financial Feasibility Study Update for Driving Range Expansion at Baylands Golf Links Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 75 Packet Pg. 319 of 394  + 6 ' + 7 ' + 7 ' + 7 ' + 7 ' + 6 ' + 5 ' + 4 ' + 5 ' + 4 ' + 5 ' + 4 ' + 4 ' + 3 ' + 3 ' + 4 ' + 4 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 6 ' + 4 ' NETTING PLAN LEFT SIDE OF DRIVING RANGE 2 STORY TEE WITH CALLAWAY RANGE BALL 75Y100Y125Y150Y175Y200Y225Y250Y275Y300Y325Y350Y400Y 0Y0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 330 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 330 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 330 50Y 25Y #1 - 6 0 ' #2 - 9 7 ' #3 - 1 3 4 ' #4 - 1 7 1 ' #5 - 1 7 2 ' #6 - 1 7 1 ' #7 - 1 7 0 . 5 ' #8 - 1 7 1 ' #9 - 1 7 1 ' #1 0 - 1 6 9 . 5 ' #1 1 - 1 6 8 ' #1 2 - 1 6 8 ' #1 3 - 1 6 8 . 2 5 ' #1 4 - 1 6 8 ' DR A W N CH E C K E D SC A L E JO B N o . SHEET NAME N-5 DT CO N S U L T I N G G R O U P T N N E R 60 3 S t a n f o r d C t . Ph ( 2 0 9 ) 7 7 2 - 2 2 3 3 F a x ( 2 0 9 ) 7 7 2 - 2 2 3 0 e- m a i l : t a n n e r c o n s u l t i n g @ a o l . c o m Va l l e y S p r i n g s , C A 9 5 2 5 2 we b s i t e : w w w . t a n n e r c o n s u l t i n g . c o m DA T E BA L L T R A J E C T O R Y BALL TRAJECTORY/NETTING PLAN CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINES AND ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS BEFORE BUILDING THE RECOMMENDED NETTING.DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS MUST BE VERIFIED. BA Y L A N D S G O L F L I N K S PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 3 DR I V I N G R A N G E 18 7 5 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . DISTANCE HIT BY A SPECIFIC CLUB, BALL AND SWING SPEED. THESE ARE GOLF SHOTS THAT ARE HIT STRAIGHT AND CORRECT. THERE IS NO GUARANTY THAT A GOLFER WILL HIT AT THIS SAME SPEED OR ANGLE. IF A GOLF SHOT IS MIS-HIT IT WILL USUALLY NOT TRAVEL AS FAR OR STRAIGHT. FOR THIS REASON, OUR STUDY REFLECTS WHAT WE DETERMINE TO BE "A WORSE CASE SCENARIO WITH THE DETAILED INFORMATION." THE GOLF CLUB WAS SELECTED BY POPULARITY. EX I S T I N G N E T T I N G LFS #6 (SUPER-U) UHMWPE BARRIER NETTING SYSTEM 6' TALL 1" MESH BLACK VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE r- B TW O S T O R Y T E E 9° LOFTED DRIVER 330 YARD CARRY 140 MPH 5 IRON 191 Yard Carry 110 MPH SAND WEDGE 115 Yard Carry 100 MPH PITCHING WEDGE 127 Yard Carry 105 MPH 9° LOFTED DRIVER 312 YARD CARRY 130 MPH 10.5° LOFTED DRIVER, CALLAWAY RANGE Ball, 288 YARD CARRY 120 MPH NETTING PLAN RIGHT SIDE OF DRIVING RANGE 2 STORY TEE WITH CALLAWAY RANGE BALL 75Y100Y125Y150Y175Y200Y225Y250Y275Y300Y325Y350Y400Y 0Y0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 330 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 330 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 330 50Y 25Y + 5 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 4 ' + 4 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 5 ' + 7 ' + 6 ' + 7 ' + 7 ' + 7 ' + 6 ' + 6 ' + 6 ' + 6 ' + 7 ' + 9 ' + 5 '+ 9 ' #3 0 - 6 0 ' #2 9 - 9 8 ' #2 8 - 1 3 5 ' #2 7 - 1 7 0 . 5 ' #2 6 - 1 7 0 ' #2 5 - 1 7 0 ' #2 4 - 1 7 0 ' #2 3 - 1 6 9 ' #2 2 - 1 6 8 ' #2 1 - 1 6 8 ' #2 0 - 1 6 9 ' #1 9 - 1 6 9 ' #1 8 - 1 6 6 ' #1 7 - 1 6 6 ' 6' TALL 1" MESH BLACK VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE LFS #6 (SUPER-U) UHMWPE BARRIER NETTING SYSTEM 14' TALL 1" MESH BLACK VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK GATES 9° LOFTED DRIVER 330 YARD CARRY 140 MPH 10.5° LOFTED DRIVER, SRIXON LF RANGE Ball, 272 YARD CARRY 120 MPH 5 IRON 191 Yard Carry 110 MPH SAND WEDGE 115 Yard Carry 100 MPH PITCHING WEDGE 127 Yard Carry 105 MPH 9° LOFTED DRIVER 312 YARD CARRY 130 MPH 10.5° LOFTED DRIVER, CALLAWAY RANGE Ball, 288 YARD CARRY 120 MPH Golf Club Driver: CALLAWAY EPIC FLASH 9°-10.5° LOFT Golf Ball: CALLAWAY RANGE BALLS Tee Height: MAXIMUM .75" ABOVE THE TURF DESIGN TRAJECTORY The USGA tests golf equipment to determine if it conforms to certain specifications relating to the speed with which golf ball leaves the face of a driver. Their testing equipment uses a club-head speed of 109 MPH. It is important to note it is possible for a person to swing with faster speeds (for example: Professional Golf level driver swing speed has been measured 140 +-MPH). This trajectory design uses a swing speed for the Driver of 120 MPH in an effort to model a swing by a strong male golfer to achieve a 288.0 yards carry using a CALLAWAY Range Ball. For the purpose of this study, this illustration prepared by Tanner Consulting Group depicts the path of a CALLAWAY Range Ball hit with 10.5° degree lofted driver. Additionally, it assumes the ball was struck in the middle of the club face that was square to a correct alignment at impact. There is no guarantee that a golfer will be proficient enough to mimic the exact swing conditions to generate this ideal result. If a golf ball is struck with less power and/or accuracy than modeled above, the flight will not be nearly as straight or as far as shown. It is also quite possible that a golfer can exceed the swing speed modeled in this ball trajectory. This can happen when a golfer uses a higher lofted club and/or a taller tee. These factors can increase the height and distance of the ball flight. If a golfer maliciously or purposely attempts to exceed the netting height, they may exceed the height of the netting and balls will exit the facility. Golfers must be responsible for using the facility as it is intended and in a safe and responsible manner. Site management should provide proper supervision and marshalling. The equipment mentioned is specific. New technology is constantly improving golf equipment and with that fact, players will have an increased ability to hit the ball further and higher. For this reason, Tanner Consulting Group recommends that the facility has structural engineering allowing for increasing the pole heights of the netting system if needed in the future. A minimum recommendation to consider would be the ability to increase the pole height and netting by 10%. TANNER CONSULTING GROUP LIMITATIONS OF SERVICE & DISCLAIMER: Given the unlimited number of variables in the sport of golf, Tanner Consulting Group does not offer or imply a 100% guarantee of complete ball containment. The design provided will help to reduce wayward golf shots from exiting the property and is consistent with other netting designs utilized in the golf industry. Tanner Consulting Group also assumes no responsibility or liability for the actions of facility patrons, including intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct that may result in balls traveling beyond the confines of the property. Tanner Consulting Group is not responsible or liable for ricochets of balls off unpadded poles or other objects contained within the facility. MA Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 6 NT S Item 3Ball Trajectory Netting Plan Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 76 Packet Pg. 320 of 394  STUDY SESSION: FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF DRIVING RANGE EXPANSION Parks and Recreation Commission JUNE 23, 2026 www.paloalto.gov Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 77 Packet Pg. 321 of 394  Study Session Overview •Study Session – Discussion on financial feasibility of expanding the golf course’s driving range. There is no recommendation being sought this evening. Staff will return to the Commission at a later date for a recommendation. •Background - •During Fiscal Year 2022 Finance Committee budget hearings, the Committee discussed converting the driving range to a double deck facility. Since then, there remains interest in this topic. •Driving Range Performance •National Golf Foundation Study •Financial Feasibility on Driving Range Expansion •Other Factors and Site Constraints •Commission Feedback on financial feasibility, concept, and overall desirability Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 78 Packet Pg. 322 of 394  Links style course renovation Created a golf course that provides a more interesting layout for golfers of all levels, reduced usage of potable water and pesticides, and reduced maintenance labor for turf and landscaping. Fairway turf chosen is paspalum grass, which is salt tolerant allowing for use of recycled water. Links style course allowed for integration with the location being in the Baylands. Background: Course Renovation and Re-Opening Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course closed in 2016. Renovated and re-opened in 2018 as the Baylands Golf Links. 3 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 79 Packet Pg. 323 of 394  Background: Course / Range Financial Performance 4 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 80 Packet Pg. 324 of 394  5 Financial Feasibility Study for Driving Range Enhancement at Baylands Golf Links NGF - KEEPING GOLF BUSINESSES AHEAD OF THE GAME SINCE 1936 501 NORTH HIGHWAY A1A, JUPITER, FL 33477 PHONE: 561-744-6006 ∙ FAX: 561-744-9085 ∙ www.NGF.org Prepared for: City of Palo Alto, CA Presented by Ed Getherall National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 81 Packet Pg. 325 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Founded 1936 Golf industry research Custom golf facility research and consulting Independence – does not design or manage golf courses Municipal golf consulting industry leader Principals have decades of experience Many projects in the Bay Area last 2+ decades, including City of Palo Alto National Golf Foundation 6 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 82 Packet Pg. 326 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Driving Range Baylands Golf Links – Palo Alto, CA 7 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 83 Packet Pg. 327 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida The City is considering double-decking the Baylands Golf Links driving range and adding a technology component (e.g., ball-tracking, gaming) to some or all stations. NGF Consulting services in support of due diligence for this project: Overview of national golf trends as they relate to future performance of Baylands GL. Market analysis, including local/regional demographic and golf supply-demand profile, review of competitive golf market with focus on technology enhanced driving ranges. Site feasibility and basic conceptual program (with preliminary cost estimates). Market opportunity conclusions. 10-year utilization estimates and projected incremental net cash flows. City’s key objective: Explore opportunities for generating incremental net revenues while expanding opportunities for players to practice and improve their games through technology. Introduction, Objectives, and Study Components 8 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 84 Packet Pg. 328 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Baylands GL – Recent Operating Results Former Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course has seen net revenues climb steadily after its successful course renovation to become Baylands Golf Links in 2018. Rounds were up by 5.7% in FY24, to 59,526, reaching 60,001 rounds in FY25. Since the renovation, playing fees have been at much higher average rate ($70+ in FY 2025). Baylands GL generated $5.08 million in total gross operating revenue in FY24. FY 2025 showed strong growth of just under 7%, with total revenue exceeding $5.4 million. Baylands greatly exceeds the U.S. average total revenue for an 18-hole public course of ~$1.5 M by a wide margin. Driving range revenue has been on an upward trajectory, growing by 3.4% to just under $686,000 in FY 23 and by 0.08% to $691,500 in FY24. Range revenue grew by a robust 11.6% in FY25, reaching nearly $772,000. 9 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 85 Packet Pg. 329 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida U.S. Golf Industry Overview Rounds played reached a record for the 4th time in 5 years - achieved with roughly 2,000 fewer facilities than existed during the previous participation peak two decades ago. Green-grass participation surpassed 29 million golfers in 2025, marking an eighth consecutive year of growth and a net increase of ~ 1 million golfers over 2024 (5 million+ last eight years). Total golf participation (on-course and off-course) climbed to a new high, fueled by traditional play and the continued expansion of technology-enabled ranges, simulators and entertainment venues. Golf's customer base is becoming notably more diverse. Cohorts showing the most significant growth since 2020 include Youth (+58%), Black (+141%), Hispanic (+28%), and Female (+46%). The convergence of traditional golf with new forms of engagement like the technology/ entertainment range proposed for Baylands suggests golf’s surge may have staying power. Continued strength in demand and facility utilization support healthier economics and golf course reinvestment. Despite 16+ million first timers during current era, retention was less than 25%. The key to sustaining golf's growth lies in ensuring positive experiences for newcomers while continuing to evolve the game's accessibility and appeal to broader audiences. 10 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 86 Packet Pg. 330 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida U.S. Golf Industry Overview Total supply of municipal golf facilities in the U.S. is at an all-time high of 2,609 (18.7% of total inventory). With 214 muni courses, California trails only Texas (216). 11 There are now 48 million total golf participants; juniors, young adults, beginners, women among growth segments. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 87 Packet Pg. 331 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Local / Regional Market - Key Findings Dense urban/suburban market: there are an estimated 902,000 people residing within 10 miles of Baylands, and about 3.44 million within a 30-minute drivetime, offering up a dense residential market from which to draw customers. Median household income in the 10-mile market is ~ $200,000, more than 2.4 times the national figure of $83,998. Golf participation correlates strongly with higher income. The golf participation rates in the 5-mile, 10-mile, and 30-minute drivetime submarkets are 10.9%, 9.6%, and 9%, all at or above the national participation rate of 8.8%. The Bay Area is one of the most active golf markets in the U.S. For example, the 30-minute market shows estimated (self-reported + modeled) annual rounds played per 18 holes of ~ 53,400, more than 70% higher than the national figure of 31,307. Both the 10-mile and 30-minute trade areas have nearly 5 times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf than does the overall U.S., reflecting a large population and comparatively low number of golf facilities, supporting strong performance at Baylands. 12 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 88 Packet Pg. 332 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Baylands GL Competitive Market There are 12 total golf facilities in the 10-mile trade area, including Baylands GL and 6 other public facilities. The 10-mile submarket has only five (5) public golf courses with driving ranges, totaling 101 tee stations (several others are 10-15 miles away, including Pruneridge, Mariners Point, and San Jose Muni. Among the competitive subset, the best performers are Mariners Point (estimated $3.5 million annual range revenue), along with Pruneridge GC and San Jose Muni (each with estimated $2 million+). On a per-station basis, all except for Golf Club Moffett Field and Los Lagos GC exceed $20,000 per station, and four others between $32K and $50K per tee. Comparison to Regional Comps and 9-hole Dairy Creek GC – San Luis Obispo County: 13 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 89 Packet Pg. 333 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Synergy: “Green Grass” Golf w/ Tech-Entertainment Ranges NGF research reveals a significant and growing relationship between green grass traditional golf and golf entertainment / technology. Golf facilities that combine traditional golf with golf technology / entertainment are increasingly popular due to several factors, including the ability to “share” user groups. This trend has only gained momentum with the increasing quality of both the technology and the overall experience offered. Examples next slide: McInnis Park Golf Center – Marin County, CA Sailfish Sands Golf Course – Martin County, FL Dairy Creek Golf Club – Swing Time Suites – San Luis Obispo County, CA 14 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 90 Packet Pg. 334 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Synergy: “Green Grass” Golf w/ Tech-Entertainment Ranges 15 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 91 Packet Pg. 335 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Baylands Range Enhancement – Positives Baylands’ primary trade area has a high golf participation rate and very favorable per capita supply numbers for public golf courses. Both the 10-mile and 30-minute trade areas have ± 5 times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf than does the overall U.S. These factors contribute to the Bay Area being one of the most active golf markets in the U.S. For example, the 30-minute market shows estimated (self-reported + modeled) annual rounds played per 18 holes of ~ 53,500, 70% higher than the U.S. figure of 31,307. Public golf courses in the regional market have proven records of high driving range revenues, including several that approach or surpass $2 million in annual revenue. Interviews with facility management indicate that Baylands could significantly expand its market share if the driving range had more capacity. The nearest competitors with technology-enhanced driving ranges are Mariners Point Golf Center, 12 miles north in Foster City, and Mission Hills of Hayward, 12 miles east across the Bay. A high-quality technology range at Baylands should be a strong regional draw. NGF research indicates interest in playing among non-golfing young adults is high, with more than 5 million saying they are “very interested” in taking up the game. Gaming and entertainment-oriented technology at golf facilities has proven to be effective at “activating” latent demand, which is especially strong among female and younger golfers. 16 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 92 Packet Pg. 336 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Baylands Range Enhancement – Potential Constraints Potential introduction of technology/entertainment amenities at nearby competitors like Shoreline Golf Links or Golf Club Moffett Field could result in lower market share for Baylands. Regional economic recession or other economic factors could reduce discretionary spending (e.g., abnormally high and/or inflation). NGF research shows that previous recessions have negatively impacted the performance of public golf courses. “Retracement” from the ongoing surge in golf demand may occur at some point, especially among the younger age cohorts. The “golf entertainment” trend may begin to wane, potentially affecting utilization for any range technology / entertainment bays that may be introduced to the range program at Baylands in the future. 17 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 337 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Range Enhancement – Market Opportunity Conclusion Baylands Golf Links has an active range with annual revenues that reached $772,000 in FY25, despite capacity constraints (esp. during peak demand times). Based on our analysis and the proposed program for the enhanced double-deck driving range at Baylands Golf Links, NGF concludes that positive market factors and macro golf demand trends point to a strong opportunity for a technology-enhanced, double-deck driving range. We expect these factors to manifest in strong market impact and incremental net revenues for the expanded range. The different hitting bay types provide an opportunity for golfers of all levels, as well as non-golfers, to enjoy the facility. From the serious golfer trying to improve their game to the casual social outing, the double deck structure’s use expands beyond the typical use of a driving range. 18 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 338 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Range Enhancement & Expansion – Prelim. Program In developing a preliminary conceptual program, the NGF team assumed a generic, modern technology component. (Toptracer Range, TrackMan Range, Inrange). The Baylands driving range currently has 27 tee stations, with some utilized during certain times by The First Tee of Silicon Valley. Under the NGF team’s preliminary program, the number would be increased to 34 total bays by adding three stations on the northeast corner and four stations on the south end (tented area currently used for instruction). The upper level would also have 34 bays, creating a new total of 68 hitting bays. The structure would be located approximately 12 yards behind the existing bays; this gain in length should help to reduce the number of golf balls exiting the enclosure to the west. The conceptual program provides flexibility through a phased plan approach, should the City decide to adopt this strategy. The base of the structure consists of the open-air main level and upper level with optional cover and back screen. Within the limits of the structure, the individual standard bays could be converted into technology or entertainment bays should demand for these types of bays increase. The modular layout of the structure allows for the modification to the hitting bays in pairs. 19 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 339 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Conceptual Program & Preliminary Cost Estimates Based on preliminary base driving range program comprising 34 hitting stations on each level (27 current), including two technology instruction bays at southeast corner. Open air; overhead lighting on ground level. No roof assumed at 2nd level. All bays utilize some type of ball tracking / gaming technology with monitors. Without “entertainment bays” (i.e., Topgolf) in base program. Can be converted in future. 20 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 340 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Financial Pro Forma Cash Flow Model is based on the preliminary facility program developed by the NGF team and described in this report. Program elements, as well as assumptions and inputs utilized in crafting the pro forma model, are presented in the body of the report. Unknowns include uncontrollable external variables (e.g., economy). Key Model Outputs: The expanded and enhanced BGL driving range will generate about $1.7 M in total gross operating revenue in the first full year of operation, growing to $2.1 M by Year 5 and ~ $2.4 M by Year 10. Based on a projected 65% gross margin, we project that the driving range will produce a net income of ±$1.1 million in Year 1, increasing to $1.36 million by Year 5. Using estimated net income of $600,000 (80% of $750K) for the existing Baylands range in FY25, and assuming this figure would grow 2.0% annually, incremental net revenue is projected to be $515,000 in Year 1, growing to $710,500 by Year 5. 21 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 97 Packet Pg. 341 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Financial Pro Forma: Utilization Models First five years of Range Utilization Model 22 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 98 Packet Pg. 342 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Pro Forma – Sensitivity Analysis NGF modeled several sensitivity scenarios, each of which adjusts one or more key input variables from the Base Model. The scenarios are as follows, with all other input variables except for those noted remaining unchanged: 23 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 99 Packet Pg. 343 of 394  Port St. Lucie, Florida Summary Conclusion NGF’s analysis has demonstrated a clear market opportunity for an improved and expanded driving range facility at Baylands Golf Links. The conclusions were based on factors such as: Favorable Palo Alto / Bay Area market supply-demand dynamics. Macro industry trends favorable for addition of technology/golf entertainment to golf courses. Observed revenue results of other regional golf course-based driving ranges that have high capacity and/or technology amenities. Demand is underserved at Baylands, with waits for tee stations at high-demand times. NGF is confident that the enhanced driving range at Baylands will produce substantial incremental net income each year for the City. What has a higher degree of uncertainty – especially given today’s inflationary environment and the uncertainty around when the actual project would be undertaken by the City – is estimating the ultimate construction costs. So, while the return on investment (ROI) should be strong, the main risk variable is how many years it will take the City to recover its investment. 24 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 100 Packet Pg. 344 of 394  Other Considerations Site Feasibility Parking study and cost assessment. Federal Aviation Administration approval for increased height of ball retention nets and poles. Project funding and payment plan Other Factors and Site Constraints 25 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 101 Packet Pg. 345 of 394  Commission Feedback Determine additional information Commission needs. Refine project assumptions incorporating Commission feedback. Evaluate Alternatives Phase and sequence project. Scale back concept. Assess Potential Funding Sources Return to Commission for a Recommendation Present to City Council Possible Next Steps 26 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 102 Packet Pg. 346 of 394  Financial Feasibility of Driving Range Expansion Q & A and Commission Feedback Parks and Recreation Commission Item 3 Item 3 Staff Presentation Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 103 Packet Pg. 347 of 394  PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DEPARTMENT REPORT June 23, 2026 PaloAlto.gov Item 5 Item 5 Staff Presentation Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 348 of 394  RECAP: SPECIAL EVENTS Item 5 Item 5 Staff Presentation Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 349 of 394  UPCOMING SPECIAL EVENTS Item 5 Item 5 Staff Presentation Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 350 of 394  SUMMER CAMP Item 5 Item 5 Staff Presentation Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 351 of 394  ARASTRADERO PRESERVE FIRE Item 5 Item 5 Staff Presentation Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 352 of 394  ARASTRADERO PRESERVE – Gateway Exhibits before after after after Item 5 Item 5 Staff Presentation Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 353 of 394  BOWDEN PARK – painting before after after after after before Item 5 Item 5 Staff Presentation Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 354 of 394  Item 5 Item 5 Staff Presentation Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 355 of 394  1 Vidal, Eric From:Postmaster <postmaster@paloalto.gov> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2026 7:08 AM 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 3a299fc2-06aa-44b9-8613-5df2c40eeeb8@ascend.wix.com Contract Proposal 2026-06-15 00:14 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. Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 356 of 394  2 Vidal, Eric From:Light As Air Boats <hello@lightasairboats.com> Sent:Thursday, June 11, 2026 7:00 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Create A Beach Club! ☀🌴 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • No employee in your company has ever 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. SHOP NOW Hi there Explore our exclusive lineup of inflatables curated for luxury clients! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of AquaBanas Bayside Inflatable Island Resort Package AquaBanas Bayside Inflatable Island Resort Package Package Includes ☑ 1 Runway ☑ 3 Party Banas with Tents. Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of AquaBanas The Harbor Inflatable Island Resort Package AquaBanas The Harbor Inflatable Island Resort Package Package Includes ☑1 POP 3 Pool Resort ☑1 Transition Bana 420 ☑ 4 Party Banas ☑ 2 Party Bana (Decks only) ☑ 3 King Loungers ☑ 2 Couch Banas Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of AquaBanas Party Bana 2.0 Inflatable Island AquaBanas Party Bana 2.0 Inflatable Island Inflated: 11 ft x 11 ft x 7 ft 5 in To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of AquaBanas Pool Pop 2 Ocean Pool AquaBanas Pool Pop 2 Ocean Pool Inflated: 22'4" ft x 16' x 8" ft Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 357 of 394  3 Learn More Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of AquaBanas Flamingo Towable Tube Boat for Commercial Operators AquaBanas Flamingo Towable Tube Boat for Commercial Operators Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of AquaBanas Yellow Ducky Towable Tube Boat for Commercial Operators AquaBanas Yellow Ducky Towable Tube Boat for Commercial Operators Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of AquaBanas Inflatable King Lounger AquaBanas Inflatable King Lounger 7'4" Wide! Has room to chill for you and a couple friends! ☑ Weight: 77 lbs ☑ Inflated: 87" x 82" x 37" Learn More Explore Luxury Inflatables Here For Questions & Quotes, Call Andi Tel:706.619.6670 andi@lightasairboats.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preventedownload of this picture from the Internet.Button Text To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preventedownload of this picture from the Internet.Custom We don’t want to spam you. If you're no longer interested in enjoying adventures out on the water Unsubscribe here. Light As Air Boats 13801 Walsingham Rd. Suite A-116 Largo, Florida 33774 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 358 of 394  4 Vidal, Eric From:jane hayes <jane_a_hayes@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 1:25 PM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:City Mgr Subject:Family changing rooms at Rinconada CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Be cau ous of opening a achments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners As a long me resident of PA, I have stopped using the facili es at Rinconada op ng to pay more for nicer and more discreet facili es in neighboring towns. Privacy is a concern when using a public changing room and a much needed change at Rinconada. For families with special needs it may also be a viola on of ADA not to provide these facili es, especially as individuals age in years, beyond what is considered an appropriate age for mixed genders Thank you for your a en on to this ma er Jane Hayes Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 359 of 394  5 Vidal, Eric From:Parks Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 2:13 PM To:Walt; Parks Cc:ParkRec Commission; Ribeiro, Mark; Robustelli, Sarah Subject:RE: Maintenance Request: Drainage and Ground Cover Improvements at Hoover Dog Park Good A ernoon, Thank you for taking the me to contact the City and for sharing your observa ons and sugges ons. Parks Staff will assess the concerns you iden fied and consider them as part of ongoing maintenance and future improvement evalua ons for the site. Thank you again for your feedback and appreciate your though ul recommenda ons to help improve the park experience for all users. Eric Vidal Coordinator Rec Prog | Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 496-6962 | Parks@paloalto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov -----Original Message----- From: Walt <wcommons@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:32 AM To: Parks <Parks@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Maintenance Request: Drainage and Ground Cover Improvements at Hoover Dog Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Be cau ous of opening a achments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto Parks Department, I am wri ng to report a recurring maintenance issue at the Hoover Park dog park and to offer a couple of sugges ons to help improve the facility for local residents. Currently, the water sta on inside the dog park has an issue with water accumula on. While there is a small area of drainage rock at the sta on, it is inadequate and usually sits full of stagnant water, which then overflows into the rest of the park. Because the ground cover consists mostly of bare dirt, this constant runoff creates a persistent muddy area— even during the dry summer months. As a dog owner, dealing with this is a regular hassle. Dogs frequently end up with muddy paws, and if they run through the patch or wrestle near it, they can become quite muddy, which limits the usability of the space. Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 360 of 394  6 To make the park cleaner and more func onal year-round, I would like to propose two solu ons: 1. **Upgrade Water Sta on Drainage:** Improve the exis ng setup with a more robust drainage system that can effec vely handle the runoff and prevent stagnant water from overflowing. 2. **Add Wood Chips:** Spreading a layer of wood chips across the park surface would significantly reduce the bare dirt exposure and help keep the ground manageable year-round. Thank you for your me, dedica on to our local parks, and considera on of these improvements to Hoover Dog Park. Best regards, Walter Commons 650-862-3694 Palo Alto Resident Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 361 of 394  7 Vidal, Eric From:Lythcott-Haims, Julie Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 1:33 PM To:Parks Cc:ParkRec Commission; LeDrew, Lance; Robustelli, Sarah; O'Kane, Kristen; Heistein, Ben Subject:Re: Chili Cook Off - July 4th 2026 - Judges Wanted! Alas can’t do it this year - will be out of town. Hope it goes as great as always! Julie Julie Lythcott-Haims (she/they) Council Member City of Palo Alto Schedule a meeting with me here: https://calendly.com/jlythcotthaims/zoom-office-hours On Jun 9, 2026, at 12:59 PM, Parks <Parks@PaloAlto.gov> wrote: Greetings Palo Alto Dignitaries! We are excited to invite you to help judge this year’s Chili contestants at our annual Palo Alto 4th of July Summer Festival and Chili Cook-Off! Judges will help select first, second and third place in the “Best Overall”, “Best Booth”, “Best Spirit” and “Best Vegetarian” categories and the public will vote for “People’s Choice”. We ask judges to arrive by 10:00AM and stay until the judging is complete, which should be by 2:00PM. Judges will tour each team’s tent to observe decorations and team spirit; they will then return to the judging area to taste each of the chilis. Judges will also be provided with a light lunch and refreshments. If you are interested in participating, please RSVP to lance.ledrew@paloalto.gov by Friday June 26th. Additional information below. • Event takes place on Saturday July 4th in Mitchell Park (600 E. Meadow Drive) • Judges should arrive by 10:00AM • There will be both meat and vegetarian chili to sample • The event will include live music, food trucks and fun art activities. • Parking is limited, so if you can, please bike, walk or carshare. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Best, Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 362 of 394  8 <image001.png> Lance LeDrew Recreation Coordinator – Special Events Community Services (650) 329-2478 | lance.ledrew@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> <image003.jpg> <image004.png> <image005.png Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 363 of 394  9 Vidal, Eric From:Parks Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 1:00 PM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:LeDrew, Lance; Robustelli, Sarah; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; O'Kane, Kristen; Heistein, Ben Subject:Chili Cook Off - July 4th 2026 - Judges Wanted! Greetings Palo Alto Dignitaries! We are excited to invite you to help judge this year’s Chili contestants at our annual Palo Alto 4th of July Summer Festival and Chili Cook-OƯ! Judges will help select first, second and third place in the “Best Overall”, “Best Booth”, “Best Spirit” and “Best Vegetarian” categories and the public will vote for “People’s Choice”. We ask judges to arrive by 10:00AM and stay until the judging is complete, which should be by 2:00PM. Judges will tour each team’s tent to observe decorations and team spirit; they will then return to the judging area to taste each of the chilis. Judges will also be provided with a light lunch and refreshments. If you are interested in participating, please RSVP to lance.ledrew@paloalto.gov by Friday June 26th. Additional information below. • Event takes place on Saturday July 4th in Mitchell Park (600 E. Meadow Drive) • Judges should arrive by 10:00AM • There will be both meat and vegetarian chili to sample • The event will include live music, food trucks and fun art activities. • Parking is limited, so if you can, please bike, walk or carshare. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Best, Lance LeDrew Recreation Coordinator – Special Events Community Services (650) 329-2478 | lance.ledrew@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 364 of 394  10 Vidal, Eric From:Light As Air Boats <hello@lightasairboats.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:01 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Camp Coolness On Overdrive! 🌊 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • No employee in your company has ever 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. SHOP NOW Hi there Run 50 Kids/hour through an amazing water program! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Island Hopper 10 passenger Red Shark 17' Banana Boat Tube Island Hopper 10 passenger Red Shark 17' Banana Boat Tube $2,099.00 Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Island Hopper 12 Passenger Banana Taxi Elite Class 19' Banana Boat Tube Island Hopper 12 Passenger Banana Taxi Elite Class 19' Banana Boat Tube $2,349.00 Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Spinera Professional Just Fun 4 Spinera Professional Just Fun 4 $1,399.00 Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Spinera Professional Wing 5 HD Spinera Professional Wing 5 HD $2,099.00 Learn More Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 365 of 394  11 ☑ Exceptionally high-quality towable tubes and banana boats Commercial Towables designed specifically for water park operators and camps. Explore Banana Boats Here Explore Towable Tubes Here To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Island Hopper Elite Class Patio Dock 15′ x 6' Inflatable Water Platform Island Hopper Elite Class Patio Dock 15′ x 6' Inflatable Water Platform $1,199.99 ☑ A water patio platform extension for your pontoon or sports boat; Weight: 71 lbs; 15' Length, 6' Wide, 6" Thick Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Aquaglide Lakefront C Lounge Aquaglide Lakefront C Lounge $1,979.99 ☑ Best For: socializing and lounging. ☑ Capacity: 8 Adults / 8 Children Learn More Explore Platforms & Mats Here To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of SOL Paddle Boards SOLnamastation Inflatable Yoga Dock SOL Paddle Boards SOLnamastation Inflatable Yoga Dock $999.00 ☑ Docks Up to 10 Paddle Boards ☑ Length: 9'8" ☑ Width: 9'8" ☑ Weight: 43 lbs Learn More Explore Yoga SUPS Here For Questions & Quotes, Call Andi 706.619.6670 andi@lightasairboats.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InButton Tex To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InCustom Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 366 of 394  12 We don’t want to spam you. If you're no longer interested in enjoying adventures out on the water Unsubscribe here. Light As Air Boats 13801 Walsingham Rd. Suite A-116 Largo, Florida 33774 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 367 of 394  13 Vidal, Eric From:Walt <wcommons@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 8, 2026 10:32 AM To:Parks Cc:ParkRec Commission Subject:Maintenance Request: Drainage and Ground Cover Improvements at Hoover Dog Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Be cau ous of opening a achments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto Parks Department, I am wri ng to report a recurring maintenance issue at the Hoover Park dog park and to offer a couple of sugges ons to help improve the facility for local residents. Currently, the water sta on inside the dog park has an issue with water accumula on. While there is a small area of drainage rock at the sta on, it is inadequate and usually sits full of stagnant water, which then overflows into the rest of the park. Because the ground cover consists mostly of bare dirt, this constant runoff creates a persistent muddy area— even during the dry summer months. As a dog owner, dealing with this is a regular hassle. Dogs frequently end up with muddy paws, and if they run through the patch or wrestle near it, they can become quite muddy, which limits the usability of the space. To make the park cleaner and more func onal year-round, I would like to propose two solu ons: 1. **Upgrade Water Sta on Drainage:** Improve the exis ng setup with a more robust drainage system that can effec vely handle the runoff and prevent stagnant water from overflowing. 2. **Add Wood Chips:** Spreading a layer of wood chips across the park surface would significantly reduce the bare dirt exposure and help keep the ground manageable year-round. Thank you for your me, dedica on to our local parks, and considera on of these improvements to Hoover Dog Park. Best regards, Walter Commons 650-862-3694 Palo Alto Resident Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 368 of 394  14 Vidal, Eric From:Daniel Garblik <dgarblik@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 8, 2026 10:20 AM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Robustelli, Sarah; Jill Hartnett Subject:Meeting Request: Rinconada Park Community Cafe Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • Some Recipients have never replied to this person. • This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hello Commissioners, This note is for the full commission, but addressed specifically to Commissioners Freeman and Brown: I'd like to request a meeting to walk you through a community-led proposal for a cafe at Rinconada Park, and to get your guidance on the right path forward. I'm Daniel Garblik, a Palo Alto parent living on Harker Avenue, just steps from Rinconada. I'm joined by Jill Hartnett, a Board Member of the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo. I've been communicating with Sarah Robustelli (cc'd), who suggested we reach out to the commission directly. The short version: Rinconada Park is one of the city's most active gathering places, sitting at the center of the JMZ, Lucie Stern, the Children's Library, the Art Center, the Pool, and Walter Hays. The nearest food and beverage option is over a mile away at Edgewood Plaza, too far for most families. Inspired by Ada's Cafe at Mitchell Park, we're proposing a community-run cafe in the cleared space off Hopkins Avenue. The concept: A community cafe operated in partnership with Covour Coffee (a local Midtown roaster) that also serves as a true gathering space, with programming like open mics, performances, and guest chef nights. The cafe could be structured to carry no financial risk to the city and to return value back into the surrounding Community Center institutions. Where we'd value your input: One of the main reasons we're requesting this meeting is to get your guidance on the right corporate and operating structure for a project like this. We've looked at several models (including the Ada's nonprofit precedent) and want to make sure we pursue the path the city would most welcome. Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 369 of 394  15 We've presented public comments at the last two Parks and Recreation Commission meetings and have a brief proposal we could share in advance. Could we find 30 minutes in the next two to three weeks? I'm flexible on day and time, including evenings or weekends if that's easier. A Zoom works just as well as in-person. Thank you for considering this. We're grateful for the time and the chance to get your input. Dan Garblik 310-926-1700 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 370 of 394  16 Vidal, Eric From:Delilah Smith <delilah@successmetrics.live> Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2026 6:38 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:SWAAAE 80th Annual Summer Conference CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Dear Cityofpaloalto, Would you be interested in obtaining the list of Latest Registrants/Attendees list for the Upcoming * SWAAAE 80th Annual Summer Conference 2026 * Palm Springs, USA ( 19 - 22 July 2026 ) * Attendees Count : 1,000+ It’s a valuable opportunity to connect with key decision-makers and industry professionals. Please let me know if you'd like the pricing and full details - happy to share. Hoping to receive your reply soon. Warm Regards, Delilah – Business Executive Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 371 of 394  17 Vidal, Eric From:Light As ir Boats <hello@lightasairboats.com> Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2026 7:04 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Bouncin' Good Vibes for Your Location! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • No employee in your company has ever 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. SHOP NOW Hi there A proven crowd favorite—safe, exciting, and built to handle kids of all ages. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Red, Yellow, Blue, Green or Orange or Custom Print for your brand To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Kangaroo Jumper Classic Land Bouncer Kangaroo Jumper Classic Land Bouncer $8,025.00 Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Kangaroo Jumper Elite Land Bouncer Kangaroo Jumper Elite Land Bouncer $9,300.00 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 372 of 394  18 Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Kangaroo Jumper Elite Fire Retardant Land Bouncer Kangaroo Jumper Elite Fire Retardant Land Bouncer $10,150.00 Learn More Boost your attraction’s appeal. Drive more traffic Create unforgettable fun Discover Air Pillows And Land Bouncers Here For Questions or a Quote - Call or Email Dave - 864.367.6161 dave@lightasairboats.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InButton Tex To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InCustom We don’t want to spam you. If you're no longer interested in enjoying adventures out on the water Unsubscribe here. Light As Air Boats 13801 Walsingham Rd. Suite A-116 Largo, Florida 33774 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 373 of 394  19 Vidal, Eric From:Randy Futty <rfutty@mputterman.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2026 12:33 PM To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:MItchell Park Pickleball Noise Solutions Attachments:2026 Catalog - Final -Rev 0226 - Low Res.pdf; NoiseGard MLV Cut Sheet - USAP Quiet.pdf; NoiseGard QPS Cut Sheet - USAP Quiet.pdf 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 email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Amanda, and the other council members, I was reading about the pickleball noise issues in the city and wanted to offer our products and services in an effort to help. Putterman Athletics is the manufacturer of two NoiseGard™ Sound Abatement systems (see attached cut sheets). NoiseGard is a USAP Quiet Category Approved product and has been used in countless situations like yours. I’ve attached cut sheets for the two systems I’d recommend and would love to quote the systems for your location. If interested, please give me a call or email. Warmest regards, Randy Futty Executive VP, Business Development Putterman Athletics LLC Mobile: 434-249-0124 Toll-free: 800-621-0146 | Fax: 386-738-2295 Email: rfutty@mputterman.com 880 N. Spring Garden Ave., DeLand, FL 32720 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 374 of 394  20 Manufacturing Locations in DeLand, FL and Chicago, IL www.puttermanathletics.com Click Here to Flip Through Our Product Catalog Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 375 of 394  21 Vidal, Eric From:Light As Air Boats <hello@lightasairboats.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2026 7:01 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Row, Sail, or Explore: Water Fun Awaits!⚓ CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. SHOP NOW Hi there, Let Your Guests Spend More Time on the Water This Summer! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Puffins can be sailed, rowed, or powered with a small outboard motor. Perfect for a lake excursion. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Puffin 860 Rowboat 8'6" Flag Blue Puffin 860 Rowboat 8'6" Flag Blue $3,295.00 ✓ 8'6" ✓ Max Capacity: 3 persons/357 lbs ✓ Offers a balance between size and capacity, suitable for small families or groups ✓ Suitable for rowing, sailing, or can be powered by a small outboard Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Puffin 1060 Rowboat 10.6 ft - Seafoam Fiberglass Dinghy 4 person Puffin 1060 Rowboat 10.6 ft - Seafoam Fiberglass Dinghy 4 person $3,495.00 ✓ 10'6" ✓ Max Capacity: 4 persons/536 lbs ✓ The largest model, providing ample space and higher capacity, making it suitable for longer excursions or carrying more gear. Learn More Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 376 of 394  22 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Puffin 1060 Rowboat- Sailing Puffin 1060 Rowboat- Sailing $6,495.00 The sailing option includes a sail manufactured by North Sails and an aluminum mast and boom. Puffin uses the same solid oak in the seats to hand make the rudder and dagger board, which is also included in the package. Learn More EXPLORE PUFFIN BOATS HERE For Questions or Quantity Discounts, Call Dave. Tel:864.367.6161 dave@lightasairboats.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preventedownload of this picture from the Internet.Button Text To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preventedownload of this picture from the Internet.Custom We don’t want to spam you. If you're no longer interested in enjoying adventures out on the water Unsubscribe here. Light As Air Boats 13801 Walsingham Rd. Suite A-116 Largo, Florida 33774 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 377 of 394  23 Vidal, Eric From:Light As Air Boats <hello@lightasairboats.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2026 7:02 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Create Safe Spaces with Every Step: Flooring for All Areas 👣 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • No employee in your company has ever 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. SHOP NOW Hi there, Create safe places for kids, Rooftop spaces for condos & apartments, and stellar gym floors! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. These mats play a crucial role in helping prevent slip and trip accidents, and improving safety and comfort underfoot. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Unity Surfacing Systems Tough-Land Series Rubber Tiles Unity Surfacing Systems Tough-Land Series Rubber Tiles $9.00 Ideal foundation for weight rooms, fitness facilities, military bases, gyms, and more. Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Unity Surfacing Systems Play-Land Series Safety Matting Unity Surfacing Systems Play-Land Series Safety Matting $10.50 Ideal for rooftop and med. height playground Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Unity Surfacing Systems Soft-Land Series Unity Surfacing Systems Soft-Land Series $11.50 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Unity Surfacing Systems Pave-Land Series Unity Surfacing Systems Pave-Land Series $12.00 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 378 of 394  24 Ideal for tall playgrounds and swings Learn More Ideal for Playgrounds, Rooftops, Fitness, Daycare Center, Indoors, and Outdoors Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Unity Surfacing Systems XL Series Unity Surfacing Systems XL Series $12.50 Ideal for really tall playgounds, rockwalls, etc Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Unity Surfacing Systems 100% Color Pour-In Place Unity Surfacing Systems 100% Color Pour-In Place $26.88 Ideal for playgrounds, pool decks, walkways, and fitness areas. Learn More Create safe places for kids, rooftop spaces for condos & apartments, and stellar gym floors! Shock absorbing surfaces, rubberized safety surfacing, flooring and pavers products. SEE ALL RECREATION SURFACES HERE For Questions & Quotes, Call Andi Tel:706.619.6670 andi@lightasairboats.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Button Text To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InCustom We don’t want to spam you. If you're no longer interested in enjoying adventures out on the water Unsubscribe here. Light As Air Boats 13801 Walsingham Rd. Suite A-116 Largo, Florida 33774 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 379 of 394  25 Vidal, Eric From:Daniela Betco <daniela.betco@turftank.com> Sent:Monday, June 1, 2026 5:22 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Reminder: Friend you’re Invited to the Turf Tank Field Day at River Oaks Golf Course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hi Friend, Our Turf Tank Field Day is THIS WEEK! Don't miss this exciting opportunity to witness the future of field marking! • Date: June 4th, 2025 • Time: 9am - 12pm • Location: River Oaks Golf Course - 3441 Golf Links Rd, Ceres, CA 95307 Join us for a hands-on experience with Turf Tank, where precision meets efficiency. Discover how our cutting-edge technology is transforming field painting for sports complexes, schools, and recreational facilities. Please REGISTER HERE and we look forward to seeing you! Don't miss out on the chance to elevate your field marking experience with Turf Tank! We look forward to seeing you there. DANIELA BETCO EVENTS AND MARKETING MANAGER To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. m: +1 (239) 758-0294 e: daniela.betco@turftank.com w: www.turftank.com a: Skjoldet 20, 9230 Svenstrup J, Denmar Turf Tank, 1110 Allgood Industrial Ct, Marietta, Georgia 30062, United States, 877-396-4094 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 380 of 394  26 Unsubscribe Manage preferences Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 381 of 394  27 Vidal, Eric From:Francisco Valenzuela <fvalenzuela@sarc.org> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:24 AM To:Francisco Valenzuela Subject:San Andreas Regional Center's Superhero Summer Festivals Attachments:San Andreas Regional Center Superhero Summer Festivals.pdf 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 Annual Superhero Summer Festival's San Andreas Regional Center is excited to once again host our Annual Superhero Summer Festival in Salinas (June 13th) Santa Cruz (June 27th) Hollister (July 11th) & San Jose (July 25th) Service Providers / Organizations / Legislative Offices / Non-Profit Organizations / City & County Programs who would like to “Table” at one of the summer festivals: Register_Here Agency Logo on 5K/10K Shirt…. In San Jose, Walkers, Runners, and Rollers can join us on Saturday, July 25th for the Superhero Festival that will include a 5K/10K and Super Kid Dash Run. Friday, June 19th is last day to register to be a Logo Sponsor Organizations who would like to have their Agancy Logo ($100 cost) on the 5K/10K Walk~Run~Roll Shirt: Logo_Sponsor_Here Current Logo Sponsors: AbilityPath Aim Higher Inc. Art Abilities AscentHealth Autism Pathways & Connection Inc Bttrliving CA Carelink Support Services LLC Cambrian Homecare, LLC. Cogleap Center for Achievement Inc. College of Adaptive Arts Community Bridges Compass ConXion to Community DCARA First 5 San Benito FJM Truck and Trailer Center Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 382 of 394  28 Friendly Accessibility George Mark Children's House Good Shepherd Fund Harbor Supported Living Services Hope Services Integem Inc. Integrated Psychological Assessment Services Jmm Dance Co. KIPP:Public Schools Life Applied Inc. Life Services Alternatives Maarge Mano Home Care My Friends PDHC Pacific Autism Center for Education PAGE Disability Service PPL Praise Respite & Home Care Quality Respite and Home Care Inc Reimagine Dreams Right Choice In-Home Care Rocketship Public Schools Shared Adventures Summit Therapeutic Services Synergy HomeCare of South San Jose Over the years our summer festivals have become a fun tradition for individuals with special needs and their families to attend an outdoor festival while dressin u in a su erhero costume. Ever one in the community is invited to our festivals with the goal of providing individuals with an intellectual developmental disability to be part of a family friendly, inclusive, and multi-cultural event. At each festival children, kids, adults, and seniors with intellectual & developmental disabilities, family members, community-based organizations, service provider staff, and the community at large will dress up in their favorite superhero costume. Along with the festival activities, free backpacks will be giveaway while community-based organizations will be sharing information about services provided. We look forward to having our families, community, partners, stakeholders, and friends at one of our Superhero Summer Festivals. So, get your Superhero Costume ready and join us in Salinas, Santa Cruz, Hollister, and or San Jose. Francisco Valenzuela Director of Government Affairs / Community Relations San Andreas Regional Center Mobile: 408-210-5663 Office: 408-341-3809 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 383 of 394  29 Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 384 of 394  30 Vidal, Eric From:Postmaster <postmaster@paloalto.gov> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2026 7:27 AM 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 9059fefa-cc8f-4176-82d1-e1ef3582e0f3@ascend.wix.com Urgent: Contract proposal 2026-05-27 21:14 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. Item A Public comments 05.26.26 - 06.16.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 385 of 394  1 Vidal, Eric From:Barry Hart <hartb88@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 22, 2026 9:42 AM To:ParkRec Commission; Robustelli, Sarah Subject:Baylands Driving range CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Be cau ous of opening a achments and clicking on links. I read in the Daily Post that the Park and Rec commi ee was considering adding a second level to the driving range. I fully support this second level and would like to support adding lights for nigh me driving range use. I think that properly shielding light would minimize impact on birds. Another sugges on is to raise the divider between the driving range and closed prac ce area. This would allow the second prac ce area to be used. Currently the driving range and prac ce is oversubscribed. This is a great 'problem' to have. The number of young people using the Baylands for camps, comple ons, and just to play is incredible. The Baylands staff are really great - and it is clear they work very hard at growing the game and crea ng a welcoming environment for all. Barry Hart 920 Palo Alto Ave Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 386 of 394  2 Vidal, Eric From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net> Sent:Thursday, June 18, 2026 5:47 PM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Rededication of Measure E site as parkland Attachments:61826 email. to PRC cc CC.pages CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission: Please recommend re-dedication of the entire 10-acre Measure E site. Just as general background, Highway 101, the Bayshore Freeway, was the bay shoreline in Palo Alto. Almost all the land north of Bayshore Freeway is former wetland, including the i This message needs your attention • This is a personal email address. • This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered b Mimecast CGBANNERINDICATOR Dear Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission: Please recommend re-dedication of the entire 10-acre Measure E site. Just as general background, Highway 101, the Bayshore Freeway, was the bay shoreline in Palo Alto. Almost all the land north of Bayshore Freeway is former wetland, including the Athletic center, the Golf Course, the Airport, the Sewage Plant, the Duck Pond, the Interpretive Center, the Flood Basin, the Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plant site and most of Byxbee Hills Park PLUS all the development along East Embarcadero and along East Bayshore Frontage Road. Many of those lands are California Public Trust Lands. Almost 50 years ago, as a Planning Commissioner, I proposed allowing the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to satisfy its Site and Design requirement for screen landscaping on the adjacent Byxbee Park to protect the natural park from a view of the industrial-looking sewage clarifiers. That was approved and the required 125-foot landscaped buffer was installed by the RWQCP and has been maintained by them to fulfill that requirement. It is the principal natural connection between the Bay and the Renzel Wetland. The landfill service road (and loop Trail link) is also located in that area. As the landfill went from a single lift to a “hill and valley” plan to the ultimate 64’ high Byxbee Hills Park, the Palo Alto Refuse Fund’s ratepayers paid $100,000 per acre/year for use of dedicated parkland and also collected many thousands of dollars of gate fees. This occurred from approximately 1976 until Byxbee Hills Park opened in the early 2000’s. That money was used to balance the City budget after Proposition 13 reduced City income. All of the 126-acre Byxbee Park took another 40 years to open to the public. In the meantime, the RWQCP received approval for a “beneficial use” project on the former ITT property which entailed installing a major pipeline under the landfill perimeter road adjacent to the buffer to provide salt water to Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 387 of 394  3 habitat for the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. This was a substantial use of parkland to benefit RWQCP and became the Emily Renzel wetland. The Park Dedication Charter Amendment was intended to prevent capricious use of park land whenever the City wanted new facilities and didn’t want to pay for the required land. This current attempt to hold onto 2.6 acres of Measure E parkland for RWQCP expansion is precisely a case in point. It’s ironic that Measure E removed the required landscape buffer land from park dedication and may result in an even more industrial and smellier RWQCP facility to be even closer to the park for which this buffer had been intended. I think we can all agree that the RWQCP will be around for a very long time. As I look at the attached aerial photo of the site, I note (eyeball measurement) that there are approximately five acres of private buildings on Embarcadero Way adjoining the RWQCP. It would make much more sense for this immortal public sewage infrastructure to be located there instead of on Byxbee Park. Please at least recommend to the Council that it explore that option in lieu of further disrupting Byxbee Park. I believe that the City should honor and protect its requirements and commitments such as the Site and Design commitment made lo those many years ago. Otherwise, it renders all our actions a farce. Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel Planning Commissioner 1973-79 Councilmember 1979-91 9/22/22 PRC Staff Report Key Sections from Ballot Measure E (Resolution) Shall ten acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park be undedicated for the exclusive 
purpose of building a processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste and other organic material? 
 • The Property shall be removed from dedication as parkland, for the exclusive purpose of building a facility (“Facility” herein) for converting yard trimmings, food waste, other municipal organics and/or sewage sludge from the regional wastewater treatment plant by biological and/or other environmentally equally protective technology. Ten years from the passage of this Initiative (ER NOTE: Nov 2021), the City Council may rededicate any portion of the site. Any other use, except for parkland, would require a new vote of Palo Alto residents. 
 Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 388 of 394  4 Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 389 of 394  5 Vidal, Eric From:Eamon Lee <eamon.suny@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 1:50 PM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Coordinator Recreation Programs Attachments:Resume of Eamon Lee - 2026.pdf 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 Good Afternoon and hope you are doing well. I recentl submitted m a lication for the Coordinator Recreation Pro rams osition with the Cit of Palo Alto and wanted to briefly introduce myself. With a background in sports management, recreation operations, and event coordination, I am very excited about the opportunity to contribute to the Community Services Department and support its athletics and recreation programming. I would welcome the opportunity to connect and learn more about the position and your team. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to the possibility of speaking with you. Best regards, Eamon Lee Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 390 of 394  6 Vidal, Eric From:Postmaster <postmaster@paloalto.gov> Sent:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 12:17 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 prospect@sportsplus.co The one upgrade that transforms City Of Palo Alto & city residents recreational experience 2026-06-17 09:23 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. Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 391 of 394  7 Vidal, Eric From:Light As ir Boats <hello@lightasairboats.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 7:01 AM To:ParkRec Commission Subject:Bounce Or Splash Fun For All Guests 🌊🌞 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention • No employee in your company has ever 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. SHOP NOW Hi there For All Types Of Guests! Boost your attraction’s appeal. Drive more traffic. Create unforgettable fun 욟욢욠욡 詓詔評詖詗詘 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Guests will have hours of fun jumping and splashing! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Kangaroo Jumper Classic Land Bouncer Kangaroo Jumper Classic Land Bouncer $8,025.00 Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Kangaroo Jumper Elite Land Bouncer Kangaroo Jumper Elite Land Bouncer $9,300.00 Learn More Red, Yellow, Blue, Green or Orange or Custom Print for your brand Discover Air Pillows And Land Bouncers Here Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 392 of 394  8 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Waterslide Chutes Waterslide Chutes $1,280.00 Nothing quite like the rush of a water slide on a hot summer day. These slides become the one thing everyone talks about long after the season ends. Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of WaterBlob Classic Blob 30' X 10' WaterBlob Classic Blob 30' X 10' $5,199.00 From high-flying jumps to epic splashes, see how people of all ages enjoy bouncing, flipping, and launching into the water. Learn More Discover Water Blobs Here To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Spinera Aquapark - The "Pirates Rock" Spinera Aquapark - The "Pirates Rock" $5,499.00 Compact yet bursting with adventure, Pirates Rock combines jumping, climbing, and sliding into one all-in-one module. Perfect for Kids of all ages! 謺謻 9.5 ft x 8.2 ft x 8.5 ft, Capacity: 3–6 people (up to 3 adults + 3 children) Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Spinera Aquapark The "Pirates Tower" Spinera Aquapark The "Pirates Tower" $11,999.00 Placed right behind a yacht or used as a standalone showstopper in a lake or beachfront. ☑ 16.4 ft x 12.3 ft x 12.5 ft ☑ Capacity: Up to 6 people Learn More See Pirates/Climbing Here To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Island Hopper 20' Acrobat Water Trampoline 20PVCTUBE Island Hopper 20' Acrobat Water Trampoline 20PVCTUBE $5,349.00 A favorite of camps, resorts, and lake home owners, this model is a commercial-built model to withstand years of hard use. Learn More To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image of Island Hopper 25' Giant Jump Water Trampoline 25PVCTUBE Island Hopper 25' Giant Jump Water Trampoline 25PVCTUBE $6,949.00 The 25′ giant jump comes with two ladders for each side of the trampoline. Learn More Explore All Water Bouncers/Tramps Here Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 393 of 394  9 For Questions & Quotes, Call Andi 706.619.6670 andi@lightasairboats.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InButton Tex To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InCustom We don’t want to spam you. If you're no longer interested in enjoying adventures out on the water Unsubscribe here. Light As Air Boats 13801 Walsingham Rd. Suite A-116 Largo, Florida 33774 Item A Public comments 06.16.26 - 06.22.26 Item A: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 394 of 394