University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: repositioning to a sustainable parks & open space system

(USC Thesis Other)

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: repositioning to a sustainable parks & open space system

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
SAN FRANCISCO RECREATION & PARK DEPARTMENT CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: REPOSITIONING
TO A SUSTAINABLE PARKS & OPEN SPACE SYSTEM

by

Ana M. Alvarez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Ana M. Alvarez
ii

DEDICATION
The spirit, motivation, and vision encapsulated in this dissertation and doctoral project
is dedicated to the memory of our Nana, Kyra Bendula, whose courage and resiliency marked
the pathway for generations to come after her, including her great-grandchildren Madison
Hannah Belk and Andrew Jared Belk.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“I can do everything through Him who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:13). This
dissertation could not have been completed without the grace of God. An undertaking such as
repositioning San Francisco’s, or any other, urban park and open space system from a
recreational amenity to an ecological high-performing infrastructure to face their greatest
threat, climate change, must be an effort of many hands and many voices, if it is to succeed. I
feel blessed in contributing towards this collective action.
I am grateful and honored for the guidance of my Chair, Dr. Daniel A. Mazmanian and
contributions from Dr. Hilda Blanco. I am also thankful for the support and encouragement of
my professional Committee Members and colleagues, Mr. Dennis Kern and Ms. Meredith
Thomas. My sincere appreciation to Dr. Deborah J. Natoli, the USC Sol Price School of Public
Policy, and the USC Viterbi School of Engineering.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

vi

List of Figures

vii

Abstract

viii

Preface

ix

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION 1
1.01 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 2
1.02 Sustainable Cities 3
1.03 Scope of Project

CHAPTER 2:
METHODOLOGY 5
2.01 Methods and Design 5
2.02 Reporting Protocol 5
2.03 Data Collection and Carbon Calculations 6
2.04 Focus Group: Grey to Green Advisory Panel 8
2.05 Interviews & Benchmarking 9

CHAPTER 3:
SAN FRANCISCO 11
3.01 San Francisco Parks Profile 11
3.02 San Francisco Recreation and Park Department Agency 15

CHAPTER 4:
URBAN FOREST: SAN FRANCISCO’S NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE 23
4.01 Ecosystem Benefits 26
4.02 Trees on Parklands 27
4.03 Carbon Storage and Sequestration Baseline 29
4.04 Challenges and Opportunities 33

CHAPTER 5:
PARKS’ GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSIONS & REDUCTION
MEASURES
38
5.01 Energy Use 38
5.02 Water Use & Waste Water Discharge 48
5.03 Fleet 53
5.04 Combustion Liquid Fuel 56
5.05 Solid Waste 61

CHAPTER 6:
CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S PARKS 65
6.01 Climate Action Planning Framework 65
6.02 Carbon Storage Capacity 73
6.03 Ecohydrology & Water Quality 76
6.04 Ecological Migration Corridors 79
v
6.05 Climate Friendly: Mitigation Strategies & Implementation Actions 81
6.06 Climate Ready: Adaptation Strategies & Implementation Actions 93

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS 103
7.01 Overcoming Barriers 103
7.02 Moving Forward 105

BIBLIOGRAPHY 106

APPENDICES

A
SFRPD Working Group Members

110
B
Listing of Focus Group Participants

111

C
2011 Grey to Green Panel Recommendations

112
D
List of Interviewees

114

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: San Francisco Destination Places on Parklands

14
Table 2: Urban Forestry Guiding Documents 25

Table 3: SFRPD Urban Forest Ecosystem Benefits

30
Table 4: 2-Year Baselines from Energy Use

40
Table 5: FY 2010-11 Lighting Retrofit Projects

41
Table 6: SFRPD Facilities Excluded from ECB Energy Performance
Ordinance

43
Table 7: SFRPD Energy Efficiency Measures

45
Table 8: LEED Capital Projects

47
Table 9: 2-Year Baselines from Water Use

48
Table 10: Water Efficiency & Conservation Achievements

50
Table 11: Water Efficiency Capital Projects

52
Table 12: Healthy Air & Clean Transportation Plan Achievements

55
Table 13: Combusting Liquid Fuel 2-Year Baselines

58
Table 14: Solid Waste Achievements Summary

62
Table 15: Increase Carbon Sink Capacity Strategies 74

Table 16: Manage Ecohydrology &Water Quality 78

Table 17: Ecological Migration Corridors 80

Table 18: Climate Friendly: GHG Reduction Measures By Sectors

82
Table 19: San Francisco Climate Risk Information 93

Table 20 Parkland Properties At Risk 95

Table 21: Climate Ready: Building Resiliency By Sectors

96
vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: CO
2
Emission Factors 7

Figure 2: SFRPD Resource Allocation by Program 18

Figure 3: SFRPD Fleet Inventory

53
Figure 4: SFRPD Fuel Consumption 2-Year Baseline 56

Figure 5: SFRPD CO2 Emissions 2-year Baseline from Combusting Fuel 59

Figure 6: Climate Action Policy & Planning Framework 69

Figure 7: Vision for San Francisco’s 21
st
Century Parks 70

Figure 8: Strategic Directions: Key Principles 72
viii
ABSTRACT

The Planning, Design and Development Project (PDDP) establishes a Climate Action Plan
for the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, whereby repositioning its parks and
open space system as a strategic contributor to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The
PDDP, San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: Repositioning to a
Sustainable Parks & Open Space System, directly contributes to San Francisco’s quality of life by
repositioning its park system from a recreational amenity to an ecological high-performing
urban infrastructure. For the first time in its history, San Francisco’s park operations are
measured utilizing environmental performance indicators; hereby, establishing a two-year
baseline of consumption of energy, water, and combustible fuel; and a corresponding two-year
baseline of Green House Gases (GHG) emissions. A carbon sink is substantiated based on the
share value of San Francisco’s urban forest, located specifically on parklands. The PDDP
establishes a carbon sink and GHG emission baseline as a planning tool, and gages for future
reduction initiatives.
The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: Repositioning to
a Sustainable Parks & Open Space System identifies sustainability strategies to create a planning
and policy framework that expands the function of San Francisco parks toward mitigation and
adaptation of the effects of global climate change. Detailed strategic actions and
recommendations are provided to immediately initiate a regeneration of ecological benefits, in
an effort to reduce the park system’s vulnerabilities, today and fifty years from now. As a
foremost achievement of the PDDP is the development climate action planning and policy
framework to effect change and correctly reposition an urban park system to respond and adapt
to climate change. Its vision, strategic directions, strategies, and environmental measures are
tenets that hold true and are applicable to any medium-size and large-size urban park system.
ix
PREFACE

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice, and rising global sea level... The Greenhouse gases driving global warming have
increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-
industrial values" (International Panel on Climate Change Report, 2007).

With growing evidence of climate change in the form of increases in air temperature
and rising of sea levels, the potential for adverse impacts on human civilization has, without a
doubt, captured the attention of governmental institutions and policy makers. Rising
temperatures have led to changes in rainfall and snowfall patterns, soil moisture, and sea level,
which in turn cause physical changes in the landscape, modifications in the ranges of plants,
animals, other living organisms, and impacts on human structures and systems. Undoubtedly,
climate change is a global phenomenon; however, its impacts are felt locally. Therefore,
solutions that assist cities to begin to correct or mitigate their own effects are critical.
Mayor Edwin Lee has charged every City and County agency to make San Francisco the
leading force within California and the United States, in environmental responsibility. The San
Francisco Recreation & Parks Department is challenged more than ever to provide recreational
opportunities to an increasingly diverse population; connect parks, open spaces and
neighborhoods with greenways; and create high performance landscapes with thriving
ecological benefits to improve the environment, as a crucial component of the urban
infrastructure.
Climate action plans are becoming a primary policy mechanism for local governments to
reduce climate change causing factors, greenhouse gas emissions, and to attenuate the risks
posed in their communities by such. Climate action planning provides a multidisciplinary and
comprehensive approach to strategic action. “Climate action planning is an opportunity: an
opportunity for communities to control their destinies in the face of global change, to achieve
x
energy security, to sustainably develop their economies, and to ensure a high quality of life”
(Bowell, 2012).
The opportunity has been seized through the San Francisco Recreation & Park
Department Climate Action Plan: Repositioning to a Sustainable Parks & Open Space System, to
reposition San Francisco’s parks and open space from a recreational amenity to an ecological
contributor for climate change mitigation and adaption. The Climate Action Plan serves as a
policy platform to realign the management of natural resources, and its natural as well as man-
built infrastructure, while correctly responding to changed climate conditions. It provides a
roadmap towards environmental sustainability based on actual climatic models, and current
organizational and governance structure. It examines the parks and open space system’s
performance from an environmental perspective rather than an anthropocentric and
conventional view point. In fact, a multidisciplinary management approach to San Francisco’s
park system is laid out in great detail, inclusive of ecosystem benefits and vulnerabilities, to
provide for a holistic synthesis of existing functions and outcomes; thereby, correctly realigning
San Francisco’s park system to ensure its continued existence for future generations.
The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: Repositioning to a
Sustainable Parks & Open Space System, serves as the Policy, Planning, and Development
Project, toward a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Policy, Planning and
Development Studies Doctorate Degree in the Sol Price School of Policy at the University of
Southern California. Multiple methodologies are described in Chapter 2, which were
incorporated over a two-year period within an institutional GHG emission reporting framework,
as established by the San Francisco Department of the Environment. Chapter 3 sets forth the
planning context by a concise, yet comprehensive profile of San Francisco’s park and open space
system, and the municipal agency in charge of its stewardship: the Department of Recreation &
xi
Parks. A closer examination of its urban forest, inclusive of its ecosystem benefits is provided in
Chapter 4; also, for the first time, an estimate of a carbon sink value on public parklands is
determined. A detailed GHG emission inventory is identified in Chapter 5, based on the
quantification over a two-year period of energy use; water use and waste water discharge; fleet
(transportation) and combustion from liquid fuel; and solid waste management. Chapter 5 also
provides a compendium of corresponding emission reduction measures, implemented during
the same time period. Each is presented in the same way, with corresponding references to
ordinances, executive orders, or best practices. Chapter 6 articulates a climate action planning
and policy framework to effect change and correctly reposition an urban park system to respond
and adapt to climate change. A vision with a set of guiding principles, as strategic directions, are
provided to steer long-term and short-term decision making in competing land use decisions,
capital and budget planning, and land management operations. Chapter 7 unfolds an urgent
call for action by disclosing the agency’s barriers and ways to overcome such, as the San
Francisco Recreation and Park Department moves forward.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Urban living is a complex proposition, requiring a balance of governance, social
cooperation, laws, goods, services and amenities that make habitation in close proximity to each
other not only bearable but enjoyable. Historically, cities have attempted to respond and adapt
to the availability of resources, natural and man-built, within the context on the land in which
they exist. In fact, the earliest civilizations engaged in sustainable ways to provide food and
fresh water; and remove human and animal waste. Today, urban residents in developing
countries collectively face problems of water contamination, sanitation and waste disposal, air
and industrial pollution (Kahn, 2006). It can also be said that there is an increased public
awareness of public health issues as they relate to urban microclimates of megacities; for
example, the presence of airborne particulates and increased temperatures from heat-island
effect. With over fifty percent of the world’s population now living in cities, researchers have
finally turned to the effects of urbanization on global environmental degradation and have
begun to ask whether cities themselves can successfully initiate the mitigation of their own
Impacts (Beatley, 2000).
Section 1.01 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gases such as carbon dioxide (CO
2
), methane (CH
4
),
trixogen (O
3
), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N
2
O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), in the earth’s
atmosphere that affect the earth’s surface temperature (Pachauri, 2007). Solar radiation from
space enters the atmosphere, and is trapped by the GHG that absorb the radiation, and warm
the earth. This phenomenon is known as the Greenhouse Effect, an important natural system
that enables the earth to support life (Pachauri, 2007).
However, with the onslaught of industry and technology, GHG emissions have been in
excess of natural ambient concentrations, increasing the Greenhouse Effect. Thus, the earth’s
2
surface is unnaturally warming at an alarming rate, and is generally referred to as global
warming or global climate change (Pachauri, 2007). Direct observation of recent climate change
at continental and regional scales include: (1) changes in Arctic temperatures and ice; (2)
widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity and wind patterns; (3) aspects of
extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of
tropical cyclones (Pachauri, 2007). Examples of human activities attributing to global climate
change include industrial/manufacturing, utilities, transportation, residential, and agricultural
sectors.
Unlike criteria pollutants, climate change is a global problem making GHG global pollutants.
Therefore, an increase in the generation and emission of GHG for a given activity may not be an
adverse environmental effect. It is the increased accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere from
many activities that may result in global climate change that causes adverse environmental
effects with undesirable generational consequences, which may be irreversible.
Climate Change threatens the stability and longevity of cities’ infrastructure, buildings,
economy, and parks; it also compromises the health and safety of the cities’ population (Reid,
2009). Unless the growth of greenhouse gas emissions is curbed and reversed, experts predict
that climate change will result in significant sea level rise, increased storm intensity and
frequency, and increased temperatures (SPUR, 2011).
Section 1.02 Sustainable Cities
While many cities in developing countries suffer environmental problems due to high
population density, in the United States the fastest growth is taking place in low-density car-
friendly metropolitan areas (Kahn, 2006). According to US 2010 census data, across all
metropolitan areas, 53 percent of employed head of households lived in detached homes and
commuted to work in private vehicles. Environmentalists have argued that this urban sprawl is
3
irresponsible use of natural resources and possibly detrimental to our ecosystem. Urban sprawl,
mostly defined as the migration of homes and jobs to low-density areas, creates an increase in
land consumption and vehicle use, which in turn increases carbon dioxide production, and
requires the building of new roads. Suburban growth, as much as megacities, can cause a
number of environmental problems, including air pollution, greenhouse gas production, habitat
destruction, increased water consumption, and the destruction of open space (Kahn, 2006).
Cities and governmental officials across the United States have made strategic priorities
to build and redevelop sustainable communities, which strike a necessary balance between
economic growth and environmental protection. Efforts have primarily focused on advancing
sensible community sustainability within a framework of local land use control. Cities in
California, reaching greater levels of sustainability, have taken large strides towards the
Implementation of Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375; increasing water use efficiencies along
with water conservation; and supporting policies that promote the increased use of renewable
energy resources and public transit (League of CA Cities, 2009). In addition, with the rebirth of
cities has come the rebirth of the urban parks, as green spaces that make up the “livability
crown” with increased livability and support of a strong economy (Harnik, 2010). Most recently
and equally as Important, cities have begun to understand, measure, and reduce the carbon
footprint of City operations, which is considered an integral component of sustainable cities, as
the overarching framework for planning processes.
Section 1.03 Scope of Project
The City and County of San Francisco has a history of leading the nation on innovative
environmental policies. The City has prioritized reducing greenhouse gas emissions through its
Climate Action Plan adopted in 2004 by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors as Resolution
Number 0158-02, Green Gas Emissions Resolution. The San Francisco Recreation and Park
4
Department plays a critical role as the main provider of the City’s green infrastructure, open
spaces, parks, recreational spaces, and San Francisco’s urban forest. As the third largest
department in the City and County of San Francisco, and the largest municipal land owner, the
Department manages significantly large systems that produce waste and emit GHG. While the
Department is responsible for the adherence of multiple City’s executive orders and its
municipal code that may lead to the reduction of GHG emissions, the Department does not
currently have in place the systems required to effectively respond to such.
The Planning, Design and Development Project includes the development of a Climate
Action Plan for the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, whereby repositioning its
parks and open space system as a strategic contributor to climate change mitigation and
adaptation. The project scope includes the development of a two-year baseline of consumption
of energy, water, and combustible fuel; development of a two-year baseline of GHG emissions;
verification of a carbon sink; development of an overarching climate action planning and policy
framework to respond to mandates and opportunities, establishes strategic directions based on
five ecosystem benefits; and identifies environmental performance measurers to determine for
future action planning processes.
The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: Repositioning to a
Sustainable Parks & Open Space System, serves as an implementation tool for policy decisions
and annual work plans, specific to the management of parklands and its amenities, in support of
the CCSF General Plan; focusing on the Recreation & Open Space Elements, as well as the
Environmental Protection Element.

5
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY
Section 2.01 Methods and Design
Multiple research designs were applied to meet the desired objectives. A longitudinal
design was implemented to survey data during two fiscal years FY2009-10 and FY 2010-11, in
order to develop a 2-year baseline for GHG emission and consumption of natural resources,
such as energy and water, utilizing the CCSF institutional framework. Also, California Climate
Action Registry General Reporting Protocol framework was utilized to identify and report on
environmental performance indicators. A focus group methodology was utilized to obtain
qualitative data on the role of green infrastructure, and valuing the climate benefits of San
Francisco’s urban ecosystems.
The data for this analysis have been collected by way of extensive documentary examination
and analysis of existing planning documents, ordinances, programs and policies pertaining to
San Francisco’s GHG reduction efforts, observations, and participation at meetings and
conferences on sustainability and climate change. In particular, the San Francisco General Plan’s
Environmental Protection Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element were examined.
Section 2.02 Reporting Protocol
As part of the research methodology of this report, the California Climate Action
Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1 was integrated as a framework for identifying
and measuring performance indicators and greenhouse gas emissions. Standards for disclosure
on environmental indicators were applied following the indicators’ protocols. Also, other
reporting components were included in this report such as the Department’s mission,
organizational profile, structure and governance, and overarching policies.
The selection of the reporting protocol and inventorying of GHG emissions was
conducted following the guidelines set forth by the San Francisco Department of the
6
Environment. While the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) has been a member of ICLEI-
Local Governments for Sustainability (formerly known as the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives) since 1997, ICLEI lacked a comprehensive, clear, and consistent
protocol able to incorporate critical considerations from local governmental agencies such as
the California Air Resources Board. As such, the CCSF entire municipal and community emission
inventory has been following the protocols and guidelines set forth by the California Climate
Action Registry.
Section 2.03 Data Collection and Carbon Calculations
The San Francisco Department of the Environment provides general guidelines to
municipal agency departments in data collection and reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
inventory. To meet San Francisco’s overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals, 54
City departments track their GHG emissions, and participate in an annual climate action
program. San Francisco is one of the first cities in the United States that requires municipal
agency departments to track and report on GHG emissions and reduction measures.
The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department does not currently own
environmental performance systems. As such, the analysis was conducted by gathering and
utilizing actual utility bills, waste hauling fees, and purchasing receipts from across divisions. An
intradepartmental work group was convened to compiled raw data from various sources, which
has been entered in one comprehensive data base with shared-use between SFRPD and the San
Francisco Department of the Environment. The raw data was utilized to calculate the
Department’s carbon footprint. Appendix A lists the members of the Working Group. As part of
this report, the data base has been carefully reviewed and synthesized to confirm inventories of
properties, facilities, meters, and fleet; as well as to identify and correct any discrepancies. Also,
in an effort to accurately capture the carbon footprint associated with the Department’s
7
1
Source: SFPUC (CCAR PUP Report available for 2008).
2
Source: PG&E (utility-specific delivery metric)
3
Source: Steam, reported in lbs, was converted to therms using the conversion
factor provided by NRG (in 2006) of 1.76 cubic feet of natural gas per lb. of
steam and using the ICLEI conversion factor of 0.0102011 therms per cu ft. The
emission factor for natural gas can then be applied to derive this value.
4
1 GGE = 1.15 therms

Figure 1. CO
2
Emission Factors
operations, energy and fuel consumption has been carefully reviewed to ensure a complete and
accurate count.

Year SFPUC Electricity EF
(lbs CO
2
/MWh)
1

PG & E Electricity EF
(lbs CO
2
/MWh)
2

2009 43.90 575.37
2010 32.43 444.64

Natural Gas
(kg CO
2
/therm)
Natural Gas
(lbs CO
2
/therm)
5.31 11.70

Steam
3

(lbs CO
2
/lb steam)
0.21

Diesel
(kg CO
2
/gal)
Diesel
(lbs CO
2
/gallon)
10.15 22.38

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG):
CNG
(kg CO
2
/therm)
CNG
(kg CO
2
/GGE
4
)
CNG
(lbs CO
2
/GGE)
5.31 6.11 13.46

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG):
LPG
(kg CO
2
/gallon)
LPG
(lbs CO
2
/gallon)
5.70 12.76

Emission factors and several emission estimation tools were utilized for the calculations
on GHG rates from the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version
3.1, January 2009. The calculation of CO
2
emission factors from electricity were based on the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) established rates. Figure 1 provides a
Gasoline
(kg CO
2
/gallon)
Gasoline
(lbs CO
2
/gallon)
8.81 19.42
Figure 1. CO
2
Emission Factors
8
summary of the CO
2
emission factors utilized in this report, as provided by the Department of
the Environment. Lastly, the raw data along with calculations and conversion factors were
reviewed by multiple municipal agencies for accuracy, including the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission and the Department of Environment.
Data and Source
• Electricity and natural gas use information as provided by San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC); updated electricity emission factor by SFPUC;

• Water use and waste water quantities information as provided by SFPUC;

• SFRPD properties and buildings inventory; fleet inventory;

• Building inventories and tenant square footage as noted in the SF City and County Real
Estate Division;

• Fleet and fuel use information provided by or managed by the SF City and County City
Administrator Office Fleet Management Division (CAO);

• Fuel use information from other sources.

Section 2.04 Focus Group
In partnership with the San Francisco Department of the Environment and the Business
Council on Climate Change, a panel was convened to serve two functions: (1) in an advisory
capacity to the San Francisco Business Council on Climate Change; and (2) as a focus group for
this project. As such, SFRPD’s Parks and Open Spaces Superintendent chaired and led the
community advisory panel, named “Gray to Green”, comprising of representatives from the
public and private sectors, including San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
(SPUR), San Francisco Parks Trust and the San Francisco Neighborhood Parks Council. The focus
group met on two occasions from February 2011 through March 2011; each meeting session
lasted on average three hours. The focus group meetings took place in two locations: (1) at
9
SPUR downtown San Francisco’s offices and (2) SFRPD administrative offices at the Historic
McLaren Lodge in Golden Gate Park. Appendix B provides a listing of focus group members.
The group focused on the role of green infrastructure and the value of climate benefits
of San Francisco's urban ecosystems. The panel suggested that the City consider the ecosystem
services generated by green spaces alongside traditional "gray" or built infrastructure when
planning for climate change and long term public health. The Important role community groups
and neighborhoods play as stewards of their local green spaces was also emphasized. A series
of recommendations were presented to San Francisco’s Mayor, Edwin Lee, in May 2011 which
fell in four primary areas: (1) guiding principles for green infrastructure; (2) climate change
mitigation biomass utilization; (3) climate change adaptation strategies, City’s green
infrastructure repositioning for prevention and intervention of climate change conditions; and,
(4) City and County agency organization on watershed management. Recommendations are
included in Appendix C.
Section 2.05 Interviews & Benchmarking
Intensive unstructured interviews were conducted from January 2010 through
September of 2011. The interviews included a sample of key governmental officials who
participated in the development of San Francisco’s environmental policies, including City
officials from the Recreation and Park Department, responsible for the direct management of
the organization’s service delivery systems. In addition, representatives from key stakeholder
groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were interviewed as part of this project.
Appendix D lists the interviewees that contributed to this project.
A review and survey of comparable municipally operated park and recreation agencies was
conducted from November 2011 to February 2012, to identify best management practices in the
following areas: (1) climate action planning; (2) sustainability planning; and (3) policies and
10
programs to reduce GHGs; (4) standards for management and maintenance of landscaped
parklands and natural areas. The following cities were identified as comparable benchmarks:
Seattle, Washington; New York City, New York; and City of Vancouver, British Columbia.
Additional cities reviewed include the City of Sacramento, California; City of Denver, Colorado;
and City of Phoenix, Arizona. The Presidio of San Francisco’s Vegetation Plan and its Forest
Management Plan were examined. Also, the California’s Institute for Local Government’s Best
Practices Framework for Sustainability and Climate Change was studied. The report sets forth
best practices by local governments in land use planning, operational protocols and policies for
the mitigation of climate change.
11
CHAPTER 3. SAN FRANCISCO
Known as the “Fog City” and often-times referred as the “Naturally Air Conditioned
City”, San Francisco was founded in 1888. It is considered the financial, cultural and
transportation center of the San Francisco Bay Area, a region of 7.6 million people, which
includes large metropolitans such as San Jose and Oakland (SPUR, 2011). It is the most densely
populated city in California and the second-most densely populated city in the United States,
after New York City, with a ratio of 25.6 people per acre (Trust for Public Land, 2010). The City
and County of San Francisco was named the leading “greenest” major city in the United States
by the U.S. and Canada Green City Index, with New York, Seattle, Denver and Boston rounding
out the top five U.S. cities (Green City Index, 2011).
Boasting an iconic, world renowned park system, San Francisco ranks fifth in high-
density cities in terms of park acres per 1,000 residents with a ratio of seven acres per 1,000
residents (Harnik, 2010). On May of 2012, the Trust for Public Land ranked San Francisco’s park
system as the best comprehensive park system amongst the largest cities in the United States
(Trust for Public Land ParkScore Project, 2012). According to a recent survey done by The Trust
for Public Land, the cities were ranked in three categories: park accessibility, park size and the
city's total area dedicated to park land, and the number of playgrounds in relation to residents
and city spending. In San Francisco, 98 percent of residents live within a ten minute walk of a
park (Huffington Post, San Francisco, May 23, 2012).
Section 3.01 San Francisco Parks Profile
San Francisco’s park system was built over the course of 140 years by great visionaries for
open space and a passionate desire by San Franciscans to enjoy a respite from the city, while
pleasuring in the beauty of lush European-like gardens. Today, very few of San Francisco’s parks
exist in their ecological native state; in fact, its most iconic parks were completely built on top of
12
sand dunes or bedrock. The visitors’ park experience and the coexistence between urbanites
and nature are based on man-built systems, mimicking naturally occurring ecological functions
within an aging and in-disrepair infrastructure. In broad strokes, the evolution of San Francisco’s
public parks can be described in three phases; a development phase from the late 1800s to up
to late 1930s; a recreational amenity phase from 1940s to 1990s; and a re-investment phase
from 2000 to date. It was not until 2000 that San Franciscan’s voted to reinvest in their parks
through the passing of a bond measure. In 2008 a second general obligation parks bond was
passed, which primarily focused on buildings, with less than two percent of the $150 million
bond allocated towards natural living systems, its urban forest. Most recently, a third general
obligation bond parks measure was approved by 72% of the voters in November 2012, as a
response to the unprecedented budget reductions from the City’s General Fund subsidies, in
the midst of the Great Economic Recession.
San Francisco Parks and Open Spaces section embraces a legacy of a century of parkland
stewardship with over 220 parks, inclusive of epic destination places, sports fields,
neighborhood parks and natural areas that comprise 5,384 acres of parkland. The Department
owns and manages approximately 88 percent of parklands located in the city of San Francisco,
which also include national parks, a state park and private parks. In addition, 23.6 percent of
San Francisco urban forest is owned and managed by the San Francisco Recreation and Park
Department. The climate and geology of the Peninsula set the stage for the evolution of a rich
and diverse array of plant and animal life, uniquely adapted to this area. Fragments of these
unique habitats are managed by the Department in 32 Natural Areas, which range in size from
less than one acre to 400 acres, and comprise a total of 868 acres. San Francisco’s biodiversity is
exemplified in these rich areas that support native habitats and endangered species, such as the
San Francisco garter snake, the mission blue butterfly, the Pacific pond turtle, and the California
13
red-legged frog. These Natural Areas comprise and contribute to some of the most prominent
and unique land features of the City, such as Twin Peaks, Lake Merced, Corona Heights, Mount
Davidson, and Glen Canyon.
Regional parks such as Golden Gate Park, McLaren Park, Glen Canyon, Lake Merced and
Twin Peaks, frame 35 community gardens, neighborhood and mini parks sprinkled throughout
San Francisco’s urban fabric. Destination places managed by the Department, such as Coit
Tower, San Francisco Marina Small Craft Harbor, TPC Harding Park, Conservatory of Flowers, and
26 miles of open trails and natural areas sprinkled by wildlife, significantly contribute to San
Francisco’s makeup as a world-class destination. Table 1 provides a brief listing of San
Francisco’s destination places managed by the Department.
Management of Parklands
As the City has grown and its density increased, San Franciscans have come to rely more
on parks and open spaces to appreciate nature, recreate, and gain relief from their increasingly
urbanized environment, which require complex management land efforts, inclusive of
conservation, restoration, interpretation, and landscape maintenance and installation. San
Francisco’s parks system is managed through seven park service areas and five open space
areas, distinguished by topographical boundaries. Golden Gate Park is the largest contiguous
parkland parcel consisting of 1,017 acres, which is approximately 20 percent larger than Central
Park in New York City; as such, it is managed as one park service area with five gardening
sections. On an average, each park service area is subdivided into two gardening complexes
consisting of a range of 15 to 20 parks each, which mostly operate in an ad hoc manner. While
park operations are structurally decentralized, key functions remain in a citywide centralized
structure such as mowing, turf renovation, golf agronomical practices, urban forestry, turf
management of municipal stadiums, and management of natural areas and community gardens.
14
Table 1.
A handful of places hold management agreements with independent private and non-
profit agencies such as the Professional Golf Association Tours, National Football League San
Francisco 49ers, San Francisco Botanical Garden Society, Tides Center, and the Exploratorium.
In addition, hundreds of friends of and neighborhood associations play a critical role as users-
stakeholders, which influence decision-making in the management of parks and contribute to
the parks’ sense of place. A non-profit agency, San Francisco Parks Alliance is a fundamental
and key partner in the stewardship, policy, advocacy, and philanthropy of parklands and open
spaces.

San Francisco Destination Places on Parklands

• Alamo Square

• Mission Dolores Park
• Camp Mather in the Sierras Nevada

• Palace of Fine Arts
• Candlestick Park Stadium • San Francisco Marina Small Craft Harbor

• Coit Tower

• Sigmund Stern Recreation Grove
• Golden Gate Park • TPC Harding Park

AIDS Memorial Grove • Union Square

Conservatory of Flowers • Washington Square

Japanese Tea Garden • Zoo

Kezar Stadium • 5 municipal Golf Courses

Music Concourse • 27 off-leash Dog Play Areas

San Francisco Botanical Garden • 32 Natural Areas

• Marina Green • 35 Community Gardens

Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
15

Following the adoption of the CCSF General Plan’s Recreation and Open Space Element
in 1986, the Recreation and Park Department developed the Natural Areas Program to manage
868 acres of parkland within the City’s park system that constitute designated natural areas,
which are remnants of San Francisco’s historic landscape, and contain the City’s natural
heritage. Natural Areas support an array of native habitats and species, some found nowhere
else in the world, such as the San Francisco garter snake, and mission blue butterfly. San
Francisco’s historic landscape has decreased and became increasingly fragmented, which
endangers native plant species, remnant habitat and the City’s natural heritage that these
elements combine to provide. Recognizing the value of these Natural Areas and the need to
protect, restore, and maintain them, the City and the Department developed a community-
based habitat restoration program in 1995, known today as the Natural Areas Program. The
mission of the program is to restore and enhance remnant natural areas, in addition to
developing and supporting community-based stewardship. From 1997 to 2005, a scientific,
ecological, and biological interdisciplinary process was completed that resulted in the Significant
Natural Resource Areas Management Plan (SNRAMP) for the management of San Francisco’s
Natural Areas and is currently under environmental review. This highly detailed, peer-reviewed
document is the definitive planning document that will guide the management of San
Francisco’s Natural Areas, including access improvements and trail projects, over the next 20
years. This landmark document lays out a well-integrated road map to preserve the City’s
priceless natural heritage, and increase public access.
Section 3.02 San Francisco Recreation and Park Department Agency Profile
The mission of the Recreation and Park Department is to foster the well-being of San
Francisco’s diverse community by maintaining beautiful parks, preserving the environment, and
providing enriching recreational activities. The roots of San Francisco's Recreation and Park
16
Department (SFRPD) stretch back to the 1870s, when City officials, responding to residents'
demands for a large public park, established a Park Commission to oversee the development of
Golden Gate Park. In support of its mission, the Department currently manages the operation
and stewardship of robust parks and open space system as well as a citywide service delivery
system of recreation and community services. SFRPD is considered to be the largest land-owner
in San Francisco, constituting approximately 12 percent of the entire city (Trust for Public Land,
2010).
Through a citywide service delivery system of recreation and community services, the
Department contributes to the vibrancy and wellness of San Francisco’s neighborhood life
through 140 playgrounds, 39 recreation complexes inclusive of nine aquatic centers and five
Afterschool Enrichment Club Houses. Strong cultural arts program offerings in the form of visual
and performing arts are provided in five recreational art centers, such as the Randall Museum,
Sharon Arts Studio, and Harvey Milk Center for the Recreational Arts. Recreation, health, and
wellness program offerings make up a solid program framework that supports the entire human
development spectrum of San Franciscans with special focus on toddlers, youth and seniors.
The Department sponsors and provides sports and athletic programs for youth and adults within
seventeen gymnasia, 140 multi-use athletic fields, and over 150 sport courts. Adult-focused
extreme recreation offerings are the newest and latest recreational competency, added to the
Department’s recreation services core, which closes a gap in service delivery and responds to
San Franciscan’s diverse and dynamic recreational interests.
Departmental Budget
Unlike other General Fund Departments, SFRPD has experienced ongoing reductions to
its General Fund support in the past decade, as operating costs have increased; which has
significantly reduced the value of each departmental dollar. The Department’s primary sources
17
of income are comprised of 30 percent General Fund, 30 percent Open Space Fund and 40
percent Earned Revenue. General Fund subsidies have declined 30 percent in the last seven
years while the CCSF’s General Fund has increased by approximately 25 percent. Beginning in FY
2009-10, in response to the instability of the General Fund subsidies to public parks, and not
without controversy from park users, the Department has increased and maintained earned
revenue by more than $10 million; a 27 percent increase of earned revenue funds since fiscal
year 2005-06.
The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association convened a task force
dedicated to the Department’s funding crisis, which resulted in a Staying Afloat Report,
published in its September 2011 monthly publication, the Urbanist. The Task Force focused on
identifying solutions by examining converging factors that contribute to a structural budget
deficit, including the diminishing public funds as a result of the economic recession of historic
proportions, and policy decisions that prioritize health and public safety over parks. SPUR
describes the Department’s fiscal climate as undermining the mission of the Department and
the health of the park system, which constitutes twelve percent of San Francisco total footprint,
comprising of San Francisco’s urban forest, biomass, and open spaces that support ecological
systems and wildlife. Figure 2 below illustrates the Departmental expenses by program.

18
Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department

Fiscal Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 Highlights
The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department operated with a $127 million budget
in fiscal year (FY) 2010-11, that is funded by a wide variety of revenue sources. As the City has
struggled with its budget deficit, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department has faced
unprecedented annual service reductions and layoffs. In FY 2012-13, the Department receives
$35 million in General Fund support, and generates an additional $30.9 million in General Fund
revenue from its programs, facility rentals and concessions. In addition, the Department
Figure 2.
19
benefits from the $38 million Open Space Fund, the Golf Fund in the amount of $12 million and
the Marina Fund in the amount of $3 million. The remainder of the Department’s budget is
funded through gifts, grants, bonds, and work orders by City departments, while general
obligation bonds subsidize its capital projects.
During fiscal year 2010-11, the Department had an operating budget of $117 million.
Sixty-three percent ($73.8 million) of the Department’s FY 2011-12 operating budget funds
salaries and fringe benefits, which includes 150 youth worker positions to assist in the 2012
summer camp programs. An additional fifteen percent ($18 million) pays for services of other
municipal departments. Of the $18 million that the Department has budgeted in contractual
services, $13 million is in fixed costs such as debt service in the Open Space Fund, annual
management fee to the Zoological Society, and operation of the Harding Park Clubhouse.
Another $1.3 million of the contractual services budget covers annual garbage service for the
Department. The Department’s budget includes $4.5 million to cover materials and supplies
costs, which includes the Department’s contribution with the Housing Authority to jointly fund
over 2,200 sessions of summer camps, learn-to-swim lessons and other summer programs for
low-income youth residing with the Housing Authority. Outside of the Housing Authority
partnership, the Department provides access to low-income San Francisco residents through its
robust and growing Scholarship Program. In FY 2010-11, SFRPD provided $497,000 in
scholarship assistance to recreation program users. The Department increased that amount to
$715,000 by the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year; an increase of 44 percent. In the coming fiscal
years, SFRPD will work to increase scholarship subsidies even further with the goal of ensuring
that ability to pay is never a barrier to participation in public recreation and park programming.
20

Fiscal Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 Highlights
In Fiscal Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 the Recreation and Park Department will continue
to provide robust, high-quality recreation services through its recreation model and in
partnership with other city agencies, and sustain high levels of park maintenance through
operating efficiencies and its Gardener Apprentice Program. Most notably, the Department
successfully engaged in a strong advocacy effort in partnership with the San Francisco Port, the
Mayor’s Office, members of the Board of Supervisors, the Capital Planning Committee, San
Francisco Parks Alliance and park stakeholders, to pass a $195 million General Obligation Bond
in the November 2012 elections, to renovate and improve additional park and recreation
facilities. The 2012 parks bond measure was based on the successful framework of the 2008
Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond, and will fund the renovation of neighborhood parks,
parks infrastructure, and waterfront open spaces across the city. SFRPD owns over 200 parks
and 400 built structures with an estimated capital need in excess of $1.5 billion. The
Department anticipates to significantly decreasing its carbon footprint with the renovation of
old facilities and mechanical systems. In particular, the renovations of several aquatic centers
are proposed in the 2012 Parks Bond, which will replace water filtration and pump systems;
considered the highest consumption of electricity in the Department.
Employees
Following the footsteps of John McLaren, beloved Park Superintendent and considered
the architect of San Francisco’s park system, the heart and soul of the Department’s operations
is its people who keep San Francisco’s parks, recreation and open spaces safe, vibrant, and
inviting. The Department’s core mission is delivered through 846 full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions in five divisions with respective programs and projects that are unique to the
21
Department’s mission. Twenty-one percent of all employees are employed part-time. SFRPD
part-time labor makeup includes “as needed” pool of employees working less than 960 hours
per fiscal year, to provide as needed custodial, janitorial, dock attendance, park patrol and
recreation programming support. Also, the Department manages alternate work programs with
full-time employees consisting of over 100 public service aids, fifteen gardening apprentices and
paid internships. Currently, the Department employs ten interns from San Francisco State
University. Over ninety percent of the Department’s human resource is managed by the
Operation’s Division, which delivers the day-to-day mission of the Department in maintaining
clean, green, and safe parks while reforesting and restoring natural landscapes; as well as
providing wide range of fun and engaging recreational activities and programs for all San
Franciscans. All other Departmental divisions, as listed below, provide support and conduct
ancillary functions to the Department’s mission.
• Administration and Finance Division
• Planning and Capital Division
• Partnerships and Resource Development Division
• Policy and Public Affairs Division
Facilities
The Recreation and Park Department is the largest municipal land owner in the City and
County of San Francisco, comprising twelve percent of the city. The Department manages and
maintains more than 220 parks and playgrounds, comprising over 5,384 acres of parkland and
open spaces, which includes parklands outside the CCSF located in Pacifica and the Sierra
Mountains. The Department owns and operates a marina, 5 golf courses, 5 stadiums, 140
playgrounds, 196 buildings that include 47 park club houses, 25 recreation complexes, nine
aquatic centers, five Afterschool Enrichment Club Houses, 96 public park restrooms, 2
22
administration complexes, a nursery, and four maintenance yards. On average, full-complex
recreation centers occupy a 30,000 to 60,000 square feet building footprint; whereas club
houses’ building foot print range from 900 square feet to 5,000 square feet.
23
CHAPTER 4. URBAN FOREST: SAN FRANCISCO’S NATURAL
INFRASTRUCTURE

The San Francisco peninsula benefits from the convergence of land parcels with iconic and
majestic tree canopies, which create a sense of place, and contribute to the city’s livability
factor. San Francisco’s urban forest, composed of approximately 700,000 trees represented by
over one-hundred different species, is owned and managed by multiple governmental agencies
and the private sector (Nowak, 2007). Federal parkland includes the Golden Gate National
Recreational Area with nineteen areas and tidelands inclusive of the Presidio. In 1977 the State
approved legislation to develop the Candlestick Point to establish the State’s first urban
recreational area; while four major park attractions in San Francisco are privately owned such as
the Olympic Club Golf Course, the San Francisco Golf Club, Levi’s Plaza and Mount Sutro Open
Space Reserve.
Interesting enough, few trees in this unique urban forest arose naturally--almost all were
planted (Nowak, 2007). The framework of this forest was established during an intense burst of
tree planting that occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. City government, the U.S. Army,
citizens, and real estate developers took part in planting trees by the thousands. But since the
1920s, planting of new trees has not kept pace with losses due to old age, disease, storms, civic
improvement, and development.
Related Documents & Plans
Several plans and reports, described below in Table 2, serve as reference and provide
guidance for the proposed strategies as well as management actions articulated in Chapter 6:
Climate Action Planning for San Francisco’s Parks. Four documents and plans are considered
true milestones in understanding San Francisco’s urban forest, which include (1) a 1886 report
from Fredrick Law Olmsted to the Board of Park Commissioners on the management of Golden
24
Gate Park’s forest tree plantations, which landmarks the trees’ environmental function as
principal specimen selection criterion in park construction; (2) the USDA report on the San
Francisco’s Urban Forest Effects and Values, which quantifies the value of its ecosystem
services; (3) Significant Natural Resource Areas Master Plan (SNRAMP), which calls for
restoration of the city’s natural areas involving tree removal with a 1:1 ration of non-
native/invasive trees removed to native trees planted; and, (4) the HortScience assessment of
the Recreation and Park Department’s urban forestry operations, which identifies major issues,
establishes a new estimate of trees on parklands and describes general condition of the urban
forest found on golf courses. It should be noted that the SNRAMP is currently undergoing
environmental review; release of the Final EIR for the Natural Areas Program’s SNRAMP has
been delayed until spring of 2013.
Also, on October of 2012, the Friends of the Urban Forest, the Planning Department and
the Department of Public Works presented a report on the condition of street trees. The report
explores the costs and benefits of a municipal street tree program; and provides a series of
recommendations inclusive of a parcel tax to fund operation and maintenance of approximately
105,000 trees located in the public right-of-way.

25

GUIDING DOCUMENTS

RELEVANCE

October 16, 1886. The Development of
GGP & Particularly the Management and
Thinning of its Forest Tree Plantations by
William Hammond Hall, Fred Law Olmsted,
and John McLaren.

Provides guidance on management approach to
urban forests and describes environmental
function as a guiding principle for tree selection.
1980 Golden Gate Forest Management Plan
by CA Natural Resources Agency
Department of Forestry.
Describes afforestation history, confirms
inventory, and tree selection based on
environmental function; describes condition of
urban forest in Golden Gate Park; and,
establishes a 25-year rotation cycle reforestation
program.

1980 Vegetation Plan for Mountain Lake
Park by McBride and Froehlich and
commissioned by the Recreation and Park
Department.

Provides tree inventory, tree hazard assessments
and recommendations for removal and
replanting.
1984 Urban Ecology by McBride and
Froehlich McBride, J. and D. Froehlich
Describes the structure and condition of older
tree stands in parks and open space areas of San
Francisco.

April 2006 San Francisco Urban Forest Plan
by HortScience and commissioned by the
Department of the Environment.

Reviews the creation of San Francisco’s overall
urban forest; analyzes the structure and
functional benefits of the forests; and identifies
the challenges that threaten its future.

February 2006 Significant Natural Resource
Areas Master Plan commissioned by the
Recreation and Park Department.

Prioritizes the locations for conservation and
management activities of the city’s Natural
Areas.
2010-11 Four tree assessments at Parkside
Square, Park Presidio Blvd, Pine Lake Park,
and Stern Grove by HortScience and
commissioned by the Recreation and Park
Department.

Provides tree inventory, tree hazard assessments
and recommendations for removal and
replanting by location.
2010-11 Tree assessments at Alamo Square
Park and Washington Square Park by
HortScience commissioned by the
community.
Provides tree inventory, tree hazard assessments
and recommendations for removal and
replanting by location.
Table 2. Urban Forestry Guiding Documents
26
Table 2, Continued

GUIDING DOCUMENTS RELEVANCE

July 2010 Assessment of Urban Forestry
Operations by HortScience commissioned
by the Recreation and Park Department.

Provides an assessment of the Recreation and
Park Department’s Urban Forestry operations
and practices; establishes a new estimate of
trees on parklands; describes general condition
of the urban forest found on golf courses; and
recommends areas of improvement.

February 2007 Assessing Urban Forest
Effects and Values: San Francisco’s Urban
Forest by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service Division and
commissioned by the Department of the
Environment.

Provides the first comprehensive analysis of San
Francisco’s overall urban forest. Assesses its
structure confirms its ecosystem function and
benefits by utilizing the Urban Forest Effects
Model (UFORE).

October 2012 Financing San Francisco’s
Urban Forest: The Benefits + Costs of a
Comprehensive Municipal Street Tree
Program by AECOM and commissioned by
the Friends of the Urban Forest, the
Department of Public Works and the
Planning Department.

Determines the current costs to private property
owners; explores the costs and benefits of a
municipal street tree program; assesses potential
financing strategies; and provides a series of
recommendations inclusive of a parcel tax to
fund operation and maintenance of
approximately 105,000 trees located in the
public right-of-way.
October 2012 DRAFT outline of Urban
Forest Master Plan by AECOM and
commissioned by the Planning Department,
Recreation and Park Department and the
Department of Public Works.

Identifies an overall vision for San Francisco’s
urban forest; and provides an action plan
inclusive of funding mechanisms for its
maintenance.

Section 4.01 Ecosystem Benefits
In addition to the livability effect trees extend to cities, urban forests affect the
environment, and consequently enhance human health and environmental quality in urban
areas. Specifically, ecosystem benefits are derived from trees; amongst which include rain water
storage, erosion control, and habitat support (Nowak, 2007). Urban trees can help mitigate
climate change by sequestering atmospheric carbon from CO
2
in new tissue growth every year,
27
and by reducing energy use in building; consequently reducing CO
2
emissions from fossil-fuel
based power plants. The amount of carbon annually sequestered is increased with healthier
trees and larger diameter trees (USDA, 2004). Carbon storage by trees is another way trees can
influence global climate change. As trees grow, they store more carbon by holding it in their
accumulated tissue. As trees die and decay, they release much of the stored carbon back to the
atmosphere. Thus, carbon storage is an indication of the amount of carbon that can be lost if
trees are allowed to die and decompose (Nowak, 2007).
Specifically, the urban forest structure is a measure of various physical attributes of the
vegetation, such as tree species composition, number of trees, tree density, tree health, leaf
area, biomass, and species diversity. Forest functions, which are determined by forest structure,
include a wide range of environmental and ecosystem services such as air pollution removal and
cooler air temperatures. Whereas, forest values are an estimate of the economic worth of the
various forest functions (Nowak, 2007).
Section 4.02 Trees on Parklands
For the most part, San Francisco’s urban forest came into being in the late 1800s, when
intense afforestation programs were initiated over a 30-year period, as part of the basic
structure of vegetation in the City’s large parks such as Golden Gate Park, John McLaren Park,
Stern Grove, Twin Peaks, and Mountain Lake Park. The State of California Natural Resource
Agency Department of Forestry describes the urban forest managed by the Recreation and Park
Department is almost entirely artificial, created by planting thousands of trees using species not
native to San Francisco (CANRA, 1980). A study conducted by McBride and Froehlich in 1984 on
the structure and condition of older stands in parks and open spaces areas of San Francisco, best
documents the Department’s share of San Francisco’s urban forest. The study indicates that the
SFRPD urban forest has come to be dominated by three species, Monterey Pine (pinus radiata),
28
Monterey Cypress (cupressus macrocarpa) and Blue Gum Eucalyptus (eucalyptus globulus).
Most importantly, they noted that the pine and cypress were not regenerating while blue gum
was regenerating from root sprouts.
The precise number of trees within the Department’s responsibility is not known.
During the formation and planting of Golden Gate Park under the leadership of William
Hammond Hall, by 1879 a total of approximately 155,900 trees and shrubs had been planted. A
1993 census identified approximately 27,192 trees in Golden Gate Park, which is an 18 percent
reduction from 33,342 trees inventoried by the State of California Natural Resources Agency’s
Department of Forestry in 1980. The SFRPD Significant Nature Areas Management Plan
estimates 64,000 trees in the 868 acres of natural areas. HortScience estimates that there are
67,000 in the 2,389 parkland acres outside of the Natural Areas and Golden Gate Park. As such,
the best approximation on hand is a total of 158,192 trees on Recreation and Park Department
properties in San Francisco. This estimate does not include Sharp Park in the city of Pacifica or
Camp Mather, located in the High Sierras.
It is Important to note that the assessment above utilizes a more rigorous definition for
trees than the definition utilized by other San Francisco agencies. The Department utilizes the
definition of tree found in the Glossary of Arbocultural Terms (International Society of
Arboriculture, 2009), which defines a tree as a “woody perennial usually having one dominant
trunk and a mature height greater than 15 ft.” The definition utilized to estimate and
characterize SFRPD trees, refines the definition contained in Article 16, Section 802 of the Public
Works Code, where a tree is defined as “any large perennial having a woody trunk(s), branches
and leaves. Trees also shall include palm trees.”
The condition of the San Francisco’s urban forest on parklands can be best described as
one of a declining state, given its characteristic of a single-age class with low species diversity;
29
and currently experiencing insect and disease pressures with no programmed maintenance to
maintain their health and vigor. Furthermore, there are no structured replanting efforts,
outside Golden Gate Park, to compensate for the mortality rates. HortScience reports that In
Parks and Squares, planting is not replacing removed trees. At golf courses, planting has been
even more limited (HortScience, 2010).
Section 4.03 Carbon Storage and Sequestration Baseline
In 2004, the City and County of San Francisco commissioned the United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service’s Center for Urban Forest Research (CUFR) to conduct
an assessment of San Francisco’s urban forest, which was completed utilizing the Urban Forest
Effect (UFORE) model and completed on December of 2007. UFORE utilizes standardized field
data from randomly located plots and local air pollution and meteorological data to quantify
urban forest structure and its pollution removal and carbon storage effects (USDA, 2007).
For the first time in its history, the City has a valid and reliable calculation of its urban
forest that is composed of 669,000 trees with canopies that cover 11.9 percent of San
Francisco’s footprint. The most common tree species are blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
and Monterey cypress, which correctly correspond to trees managed by the Department. San
Francisco’s urban forest currently stores about 196,000 tons of carbon valued at $3.6 million. In
addition, these trees remove about 5,200 tons of carbon per year ($95,000 per year) and about
260 tons of air pollution per year ($1.3 million per year). CUFR estimates the structural, or
compensatory, value of San Francisco’s urban forest at $1.7 billion.
Carbon Sink Baseline on Parklands
The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department manages approximately 23.6
percent of the entire City’s urban forest, which is included in the CFUR assessment of San
Francisco’s urban forest. It is Important to note that the SFRPD parks and open spaces are
30
Table 3.
dominated by the three specimens that store and sequester the most carbon in San Francisco’s
urban forest, which is confirmed by the existing tree assessments on file. Table 3, below
illustrates an approximate estimation of environmental benefits and their corresponding value,
based on a fraction of CFUR assessment that correctly corresponds to the 23.6 percent of trees
found on parklands and managed by the Department. The Department removes 47,544 tons of
CO2 from the atmosphere per year with an estimated value of $1.1 million per year. The
structural value of the percentage of San Francisco’s urban forest owned and managed by the
Department is estimated at $401 million, based on CFUR’s application of UFORE model.

SFRPD Urban Forest Ecosystem Benefits
Feature Measure
Number of Trees

158,192
1

Tree Cover unknown

Most Common Species Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine,
Monterey Cypress
2

Percentage of Trees < 6-Inches Diameter

51.5%

Pollution Removal
3
61 tons/year ($305,000/year)

Carbon Storage
4
46,354 tons/year ($862,000/year)

Carbon Sequestration
5
1,230 tons/year ($22,000/year)

Structural Value
6
$401 million

While arguably the attribution of such values may be a gross estimation that lacks
granularity and specificity, this is the first step to initiate policy discourse in support of the
Department’s forestry programs. Most importantly, it should be noted that zero carbon credits
can be applied to the Department in order to lower its carbon footprint, since the City and
1
Source: estimate on an aggregate of Golden Gate Park 1993 census; 2002 Significant
Natural Areas Management Plan; and 2010 HortScience Assessment
2
Source: 2010 HortScience Assessment
3-6
Source: 23.6% value of total USDA 2007 values

31
County of San Francisco has already accredited the entire urban forest carbon sink to its carbon
footprint.
Urban Forestry Operations’ Performance
Carbon sequestration and storage from trees and biomass is relatively a new and rapidly
evolving concept for forestry, even more so in the field of urban forestry. The State of California
Natural Resources Department of Forestry recently developed guidelines for urban forestry
management, which take into consideration carbon sequestration and climate change. Proper
urban forestry management is a critical factor in this regard since when trees are disturbed, they
emit a portion of their stored carbon, as CO2 into the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 that is
emitted over time varies, contingent upon the circumstances of the disturbance. Thus,
depending on how forests are managed, they may be a net source or a net reservoir of CO2 (CA
Natural Resources Agency, Department of Forestry, 2012).
During FY 2010-11 the Department’s Urban Forestry operations treated approximately
2,222 trees, a 78 percent higher annual treatment rate than estimated by the 2010 HortScience
Assessment. SFRPD Urban Forestry planted 1,109 new trees and removed 431 trees from San
Francisco’s park system, achieving a net tree gain (NTG) of 678 trees, which is a 27 percent
increase from the total number of trees lost in FY 2010-11 (including stolen trees). At this time,
there is no data or quantification method to determine amount of CO2 emitted due to
treatment.
Additional activities during this time period include pruning completion rates on average of
60 trees per month, which does not include tree maintenance, removal or plantings from the
2008 Park Bond Forestry Program. The data is also not inclusive of tree removals and tree
failures due to storm systems, capital projects, or philanthropic partnership efforts, as in the
recent case of new tree plantings at Washington Square Park. Also, during FY 2010-11, 100
32
trees were stolen or significantly vandalized to a degree that compromises the trees’ viability; 39
percent of such incidents occurred during the month of July 2010. Regretfully, there are no
records for FY 2009-10.
Park Bonds Forestry Program Performance
San Franciscans have successfully passed two general obligation bonds in support of
parklands and their amenities, which approximately $10 million in total has been streamlined in
support of urban forestry programs. As part of the 2012 Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks
Bond, approximately $6 million has been allocated to assess and treat part of the parklands’
aging tree canopy and revitalize SFRPD urban forest, providing all San Franciscans healthy, safe,
and sustainable greenery; while in the 2008 Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond, $4
million were set aside in support of this endeavor.
During FY 2010-11, the Department contracted with HortScience to conduct tree
assessments, pruning, and replanting work based on assessment findings. The site assessments
were completed and 1,103 trees were surveyed at four sites: Parkside Square, Park Presidio
Boulevard, Pine Lake Park, and Stern Grove Park. Assessment findings confirmed predominant
species currently on the sites from four species: 72 percent Blue Gum, 11 percent Coast
Redwood, 7.5 percent Monterey Pine and 6 percent Monterey Cypress. The following species
were represented within the survey by few trees: Blackwood Acacia, Box Elder, California Bay,
Coast Live Oak, Douglas Fir, Elm, Myoporum, Red River Gum, Silk Oak, White Alder, Willow Leaf
Peppermint, Willow, and Silver Mountain Gum. The scope of work received environmental
clearance in August 2011. The Department initiated tree removal and pruning starting in
January 2012 through March 2012 at Parkside Square, Park Presidio Boulevard, Pine Lake Park,
and Stern Grove Park. Currently, the Department is conducting public hearings for reforestation
efforts at Golden Gate Park.
33
Section 4.04 Challenges & Opportunities
On October 25, 2012 the Government Audit and Oversight Committee of the San Francisco’s
Board of Supervisors convened a public hearing on the urban forest maintenance and funding.
Supervisor Scott Wiener and President of the Board of Supervisors David Chiu are championing
the end of decades of the structural budget deficit, in City Departments and County Agencies,
responsible for the maintenance of San Francisco’s urban forest. The policy initiative was mostly
sparked by an assessment report to identify a funding mechanism for City street trees, which
recommends a special assessment or parcel tax, to fund Bureau of Urban Forestry’s operations
and maintenance costs in the Department of Public Works. An Urban Forest Master Plan is
currently being developed by the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works,
which was presented in concept and draft form at the Hearing; with a publication release date
tentatively scheduled for the summer of 2013. However, its primary concern focuses, for now,
on maintenance rather than the needed comprehensive reforestation program; to keep pace
with tree loss, and simply maintain its current carbon sink capacity. More importantly, climate
change considerations, which present a new set of challenges and opportunities, have not been
incorporated, as of yet.
Challenges
Urban Forestry Operations on Parklands
Successive years of budget cuts and decreases to Recreation and Parks Department urban
forestry program have restricted its ability to sustain staffing and desired maintenance levels, as
well as conduct proper succession planning to guide reforestation efforts. The Department’s
urban forestry function is significantly understaffed, with a budget gap of approximately $7.3
million; creating a fragmented maintenance structure that relies on philanthropic endeavors and
interagency collaboration initiatives (SFRPD, 2012).
34
The Department contracted the consulting services of HortScience, Inc. to review current
Urban Forestry operations and practices, in order to develop recommendations for
improvement. The assessment report was completed in July 2010, at which time the Recreation
and Park Commission reviewed its findings. The most noteworthy findings include annual
maintenance levels and cycles based on constrained budget and labor resources. The
Department’s Forestry Program is primarily divided between tree maintenance with sixteen FTE
positions, and reforestation efforts with thirteen FTE positions. Together, they are able to treat
approximately 1,250 trees annually with an overall maintenance cycle of over 50 years, which
falls significantly short, in comparison to the forestry best practice recommendation of a three
to five year cycle. Other noteworthy findings include that all the tree care activity is request-
driven and reactive, rather than planned or programmed in a tiered assessment/care approach.
Additionally, reforestation efforts occur in “pulses”, mostly in Golden Gate Park rather than
continuously, given the resources at hand. The Recreation and Park Department lacks a
comprehensive afforestation program, based on climate change consideration and net tree
thresholds. Reforestation efforts are limited to Golden Gate Park and some projects of the
Parks Bond Forestry Program. As in new planting of trees in some capital projects and
philanthropic endeavors, all reforestation efforts are mostly guided by the value of community
responsiveness. There is no criterion to guide tree specimen and size selection of new tree
plantings, other than community interest on signature trees, currently or previously located on a
particular site.
The species currently found in GGP and most regional parks are the result of extensive
experimentation by the Park designers in the 1800s with a critical eye to environmental
functions of (1) mitigation of westerly winds; (2) stabilization of sand dunes and erosion control;
and (3) resiliency to additional climatic conditions. Today’s tree selection is completely based on
35
community demand that does not necessarily address ecosystem services, or most importantly
climate change adaptation and mitigation considerations.
Urban Forestry Leadership
Additional challenges in the Recreation and Park Department’s urban forestry operation
include a need for additional technical sound help in the rapidly evolving carbon sequestration
management, and ability to conduct adaptation planning to potential increase of insect and
diseases stressors on trees due to climate change. The Recreation and Park Department
currently does not have the capacity in its urban forestry to avail itself of resources from the
Urban and Community Forestry Program of the State of California Natural Resources Agency
Department of Forestry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forestry Division, to inform and
guide the decision making in the management of its trees; which amplifies the declining state of
the urban forest on parklands.
Equally as important, a clear cohesive vision in the management of trees on parklands is to
be designed as a whole; creating opportunities to correctly align the ecosystem benefits from
trees with resources. This would have completed the measures addressed in the Bond Forestry
Program of 2008 and the work planned for 2012. For now, the Forestry Bond Program’s goal
and only focus is the removal of hazardous trees, to protect life and property. While there is a
replanting component with the intent to create a healthier urban forest, it lacks criteria for tree
selection with climate change considerations, or environmental functions and net tree gain
thresholds. Tree removal to tree replacement ratios vary from site to site. In some cases the
replanting effort was separated from the bond forestry program, as in the case of Park Presidio,
with no identified resources to complete. Lastly, the Forestry Bond work moved forward, with
no policy or program in place for the disposal or utilization of dead trees or trimming wastes
from contractual work, to benefit the land and its ecosystems; instead, the contractor benefited
36
from the gains of the sale of the wood, passing but a fraction to the Recreation and Park
Department, in the form of a reduced cost for its work.
Opportunities
Climate change brings new opportunities to reposition the benefits of ecoservices
provided by San Francisco’s urban forest. While the flora and the fauna will change, as a result
of changes to climatic conditions, the land will remain as a constant factor, which can be make a
unique contribution to climate adaptation and mitigation.
Carbon Storage Capacity
Chapter 6: Climate Action Planning for San Francisco’s Parks describes a carbon storage
capacity strategy with several implementation actions. An additional opportunity that aligns
with increasing the urban forest’s carbon sequestration capacity is the leveraging of funding
resources from various sources to maintain its carbon sink. Potential opportunities can be
explored, once a programmed maintenance structure and an aggressive reforestation program
are in place, that will include the California Climate Action Registry's Urban Forest Project
Protocols; San Francisco Airport to mitigate emissions and habitat loss; and private capital
projects seeking LEED certification’s sustainable landscaping rating.
Multi-jurisdictional Partnerships
San Francisco’s urban forest is located on a mosaic of land parcels crossing multiple
jurisdictions and private lands, which together contribute to a regional biotic community with
ecoservices benefits that can be leverage in unison, to create an even greater impact to climate
change adaptation and mitigation. Chapter 6: Climate Action Planning for San Francisco’s Parks
describes multi-jurisdictional partnerships as a strategy with implementation actions.
An additional opportunity rests with a specific partnership with the Presidio Trust, which
manages 1,168 acres of the Presidio of San Francisco with almost the same characteristics in soil
37
composition and forestry structure found in Golden Gate Park, as follow: even-aged forest
composed primarily of three tree species (Blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, and Monterey
Cypress); sandy soil and same climatic conditions. In fact, The Presidio of San Francisco was a
coastal sand dune, afforested by the U.S. Army between 1886 and 1910 and mirroring the newly
created Golden Gate Park (Hackett, 2012).
Opportunities that can be most beneficial to the Recreation and Park Department are the
recent work on experimenting with tree-replacements. The Presidio Trust is currently working
with the University of California Davis’ Department of Plant Pathology to clone disease-resistant
Monterey Pines to prevent pine pitch canker. In 2004, more than 140 disease-resistant clones
were planted and are reported to be thriving (SF Gate, 2009). Also, the Presidio Trust has
successfully identified a less invasive eucalyptus that can provide the same ecoservices (wind
barrier) without the harmful consequences of the Blue gum eucalyptus. With more than 600
species of eucalyptus, the Presidio has successfully experimented with several and has identified
the slow-flowering mountain gum (Eucalyptus dalrympleana) to preserve the original design
intent of the plantation but without the harmful consequences (Hackett, 2012).
38
CHAPTER 5. PARKS’ GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSIONS & REDUCTION
MEASURES

The GRI 3
rd
generation environmental performance indicators were applied to capture
the Department total environmental footprint during a two-year period time frame. Tracking
the usage of the key indicators, listed below, allows the Department to analyze trends, reach
compliancy with existing San Francisco and other regulatory agencies’ environmental policies,
and move further toward sustainability. Specifically, the GRI environmental indicators’
protocols were applied, and listed below.
• Direct consumption of electricity, combustible fuel, and water.

• Generation of solid waste.
• Total GHG emissions by weight and Clean Air Act Criteria Air pollutant emissions by
weight.

Section 5.01 Energy Use
There are 230 significantly large number of built structures that consume energy to
support the public’s use of San Francisco’s park and recreation system, which includes
concession buildings, 96 public restrooms, two large amphitheaters, five municipal stadiums,
151 tennis courts, a nursery, three maintenance yards including golf, structure maintenance and
urban forestry operations, four parking garages and 35 community gardens. Since the San
Francisco Zoo is operated through a contractual agreement, its operation was not included in
this report. Also, there are two City-owned properties outside SFRPD parklands that are
managed or occupied by the Department as follow:
1. 30 Van Ness Building: This building is utilized to support administrative functions in
the Department’s Planning and Capital Division. The building is owned by the City’s
Department of Real Estate (DRE). SFRPD occupies three percent of the entire
building footprint. The carbon footprint attributed to its use has not been
39
incorporated, since it is under the City Real Estate Department, who owns the
building.
2. Lake Merced Complex: The property is owned by the SFPUC and managed by
SFRPD through a Memorandum of Understanding. The complex includes a
freshwater lake in the southwest corner of San Francisco, with recreational
amenities such as a boat house, boat launch areas, and public restrooms. The
energy use to support this complex has been incorporated in the SFRPD carbon
footprint by mutual agreement with the SFPUC.
GHG Baseline from Consumption of Electricity and Natural Gas
Table 4 below defines a two-year baseline for energy use by electricity and natural gas,
as well as identifies the Department’s two-year baseline for CO
2
emissions, as 6,026 tons from
the consumption of electricity and natural gas. The data includes tenant consumption and
carbon dioxide emissions attributed to such, for Department-owned properties leased or
managed by other entities; either through property use agreements and/or management
agreements, such as the Exploratorium. It is Important to note that SFRPD does not currently
utilize steam as a source of energy. The Department’s overall carbon dioxide emissions have
decreased by 7.89 percent, as compared to FY2009-10. While the use of both electricity and
natural gas has been reduced, the greatest decrease is noted in the CO
2
emissions of electricity
use by a 28 percent reduction, which can be attributed to a number of factors, including the
lighting efficiency retrofit projects conducted in FY 2009-10 at the Department’s primary
administration buildings, located in Golden Gate Park: Historical McLaren Lodge and the
McLaren Lodge Annex. Both buildings have multiple floor levels with lighted attics and
basements.

40
Table 4.

2-Year Baselines from Energy Use

Emission
Source
Consumption
1
CO
2
Emissions
(metric tons)
2

Baselines
3

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY09-10

FY10-11

Consumption CO2
Emissions
(metric tons)

Electricit
y (kWh)

22,228,909

23,211,355

474.35

342.72

22,720,132

408.54
Natural
Gas
(Therms)

1,090,156

1,021,873

5,799.19

5,435.96

1,056,014

5,617.58

Total

---

---

6,273.54

5,778.68

---

6,026.12

Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Energy efficiency is a green resource and by reducing facility energy use, SFRPD facilities
can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is the
City’s electricity and water provider, as well as the leading agency in reducing municipal
electricity and water use. A challenge encountered, is the lack of clarity by specific user;
currently, meter numbers are tied to physical addresses only with multiple meters and multiple
addresses on one property.
SFRPD has partnered with the SFPUC to benefit from the agency’s specialized energy
efficiency services, and to secure energy efficiency planning, design, and construction
assistance. In FY 2009-10 the Department’s Operation Division, in collaboration with the SFPUC’s
Energy Efficiency Services (EES), conducted several studies of potential measurers to capture the
greatest amount of energy savings, which resulted in the development of an Energy Efficiency
Plan for SFRPD, which can generate a potential annual energy savings of 1,824,488 kWh and
1
Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
2
Source: PG&E (utility-specific electricity delivery metric)
3
Baselines are an aggregate of consumption and emissions rates
41
Table 5.
potential cost savings of $363,000 in phase I alone. Future phases of this program include
additional lighting upgrades to select SFRPD gymnasia, pools, and garages; garage upgrades are
anticipated to include ventilation upgrades as well. All phases of this program are contingent
upon budget availability.
Reduction Measures
Energy Efficiency Retrofit Projects
Following the assessment reviews and preliminary studies conducted on FY 2009-10 by
SFPUC’s EES, lighting efficiency retrofit projects were conducted on FY 2010-11 at seven SFRPD
owned buildings currently operated by the Department for recreational program offerings,
which are listed on Table 5. The project scope for all facilities included general lighting systems
and fixtures upgrades to T12; replacement of 4’ and 8’ linear fluorescents; and replacement of
incandescent lamps, excluding high bay fixtures. The retrofit projects were started in late July
2011 and completed by mid-December 2011. The total estimated energy savings are projected
as 59,126 kWh per year with a peak savings of 17.9 kW. While progress was delayed, the
projects were successfully implemented with no other challenges.

FY 2010-11 Lighting Retrofit Projects
No Facility Name Address
1. Eureka Valley Recreation Center

100 Collingwood Street, San Francisco,
CA
2. Golden Gate Senior Center

6101 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA

3. Mission Recreation Center 2450 Harrison St, San Francisco, CA

4. Mission Cultural Arts Center 745 Treat Avenue, San Francisco, CA

5. Potrero Hill Recreation Center 801 Arkansas St, San Francisco, CA

6. SOMA / Eugene Recreation Center

270 6th St, San Francisco, CA
7. St. Mary’s Recreation Center Murray and Justin Dr, San Francisco, CA

Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
42
Existing Commercial Building Energy Performance Ordinance
On February 1, 2011 the San Francisco Existing Commercial Building Energy
Performance Ordinance (ECB) was approved by the Board of Supervisors, amending the
Environment Code. The ordinance pertains to all nonresidential and municipally owned
buildings greater than 10,000 sq. ft., requiring building owners to disclose energy performance
using the following methods: (1) benchmarking; (2) auditing; and (3) reporting (SF
Environmental Code Chapter 20, Ordinance 17-11). In order for the City and County of San
Francisco to lead by example, the ordinance requires each City department to provide the
information necessary to annually benchmark, and report on energy performance of its
buildings, utilizing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) nationwide Energy Star
standard for assessing energy consumption in buildings. Since a large majority of municipally
owned buildings are not eligible for an EPA Energy Star rating, the SFPUC will determine energy
use intensity per sq. ft., compared to similar municipally owned buildings such as libraries, fire
and police stations, recreation centers, etc. The SPUC is leading the municipal annual
benchmarking and reporting process to create a consolidated report.
An Energy Performance Benchmarking web tool, as provided by the SFPUC, was utilized
to collect and verify the following SFRPD information during December 20011 and January 2012
time period:
• Verification of the Department’s facilities and structures, based on electrical meters;
• Verification of existing data for each facility (such as street address, year built, gross
square footage and primary EPA building category);
• ENERGY STAR benchmarking data specific to the primary EPA building category
(such as weekly operating hours, number of workers on main shift, number of
43
Table 6.
personal computers; and if applicable, additional information on percent of area
heated/cooled, and parking areas).
Only 44 percent of the Department’s 230 facilities and structures were verified, which captured
83 percent of park clubhouses, 96 percent of recreation and aquatic complexes, and 100
percent of administration buildings. The remaining 56 percent of SFRPD facilities were excluded
based on the following criteria: (1) facilities smaller than 1,500 sq. ft.; (2) facilities and structures
outside City limits; (3) facilities operated by a third party that has already submitted an energy
performance report; (4) facilities under renovation construction; (5) facilities requiring re-
metering; (6) modular unit facilities. Table 6 provides a listing of SFRPD facilities excluded from
this process.

SFRPD Facilities Excluded From ECB Energy Performance Ordinance

• <1,500 sq. ft:
- 33 standalone park restrooms
- 9 park clubhouses
- concession kiosks
- gardening sheds

• Under Renovation:
- GGP Park Aid Station
- Harbormaster Offices
- Palace of Fine Arts
• Outside City limits:
- Camp Mather
- Sharp Park Golf Course

• Requires Re-metering:
- GGP Nursery
• Operated by 3
rd
Party w/report on File:
- Exploratorium
- Gleneagles Golf Course

• Modular Facilities:
- Park Patrol Station
- Urban Forestry Operations

Commercial Lighting Efficiency Ordinance
The Commercial Lighting Efficiency Ordinance (CLE) intends to reduce public demand for
electricity and the associated detriment to the environment of energy production and delivery
by requiring commercial buildings and municipally owned buildings to install or adopt energy
efficient lighting measures (SF Building Inspection Commission Code Chapter 13D). Specifically
44
the CLE ordinance requires all municipally owned buildings to comply with specific requirement
for mercury content and energy efficiency for four feet and eight feet linear fluorescent lamp
installed after December 2011. The mercury content of each 4-foot linear fluorescent lamp
installed in luminaries in a building cannot exceed 5 milligrams and 8-foot linear fluorescent
lamps cannot exceed 10 milligrams. Also, the lamp and ballast system in each luminaries must
meet one of the following requirements: (1) emits 81 or more lumens per wall of electricity
consumed; or (2) the luminaries is controlled by an occupancy sensor control device for an area
more than 250 sq. ft. (SF Building Inspection Commission Code Chapter 13D).
An examination of SFRPD capacity for compliance was conducted during November
2011 and March 2012 time period, which included review of lighting efficiency retrofit projects
before 2009, and projects completed on FY2009-10 and FY2010-11; as well, as verification of
energy systems in buildings renovated as part of the 2008 Parks Bond. The Department
operates 104 buildings with linear fluorescent lamp fixtures; 45 percent of the buildings were
found to be compliant with the remaining 55 percent of its buildings requiring energy efficient
retrofitting.
It should be noted that significant energy efficiencies, above and beyond the CLE
ordinance, will be achieved through a partnership with SFPUC’s General Fund Energy Efficiency
Program in the development of an Energy Efficiency Plan for SFRPD buildings, which was
developed in 2008. The Department’s Energy Efficiency Measures Plan identifies and prioritizes
energy efficiency assessments and measurers to capture the greatest amount of energy savings.
Most notably, the joint planning and funding effort significantly contributed to the Department’s
28 percent energy savings, as compared to FY 2009-10 electricity consumption rates. Table 7
below provides a summary of Energy Efficiency Plan’s lighting retrofit scope of work for SFRPD
facilities and describes accomplishments up to date.
45
Table 7.

SFRPD Energy Efficiency Measures Plan

• Historical McLaren Lodge and McLaren
Lodge Annex Project: The Department’s
administrative offices were identified as a
top priority with capacity to generate
significant energy savings. Upgrades were
completed in FY 2009-10.

• Garage Lighting Upgrades (Phase 2L):
Three large and highly used public garages
are included in this phase: St. Mary’s,
Portsmouth, and Union Square. The
facilities were audited on 2011. Currently
SPUC is confirming the scopes of work,
possibly to incorporate motion sensors.

• Recreation Centers Project: Seven
recreation centers were identified as high
users of electricity with a significant large
capacity to generate energy savings. The
recreation centers were identified as a
group in Phase 1La, General Lighting
Upgrades, and were completed on
December 2011.

• Direct Control Ventilation Projects (Phase
1M): Ventilation projects have been
identified to support St. Mary’s, Portsmouth,
and Union Square garages. The design has
been completed and is currently under
review.

• Gymnasia High Bay Lighting Systems: All
SFRPD owned gymnasia were audited by the
SFPUC on 2011. The installation of two
demonstration fixtures is tentatively
scheduled for 2012, in an effort to identify a
viable solution and capture the highest
energy savings possible while maintaining
lighting program requirements.

• Miscellaneous Mechanical Measures: Phase
2M currently consists of a small mechanical
project at the Randall Museum, which has
already been audited; but due to its small
size, it is difficult to implement economically
on its own. Preferably it will be combined
with other projects yet to be identified. 2M
phase also includes a potential pool cover
for the outdoor pool at Mission Aquatic
Center. This phase is currently on hold until
preceding phases are evaluated and funding
is secured.
• 2
nd
Phase of Recreation Centers: The
continuation of lighting retrofit projects at
recreation complexes is included in 1Lc
phase. Contingent upon budget availability,
the Department is considering the capacity
to potentially expand Phase 1Lc to include
pool lighting at Rossi and Balboa Aquatic
Centers, and general lighting at the Randall
Museum. A proposal report on the pool
lights has been completed and is currently
under review.

Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
46
Green Building Requirement for City Buildings
Green building design is an important driver for both mitigation and adaptation to
climate change. Advanced green buildings are currently reducing energy use and carbon
emissions approximately 20 to 50 percent below conventional building designs. Green buildings
also save water, protect habitat, provide healthy indoor environments, and promote public
transit (USGBC 20012). San Francisco’s municipal new construction and major renovation
projects of 5,000 square feet (sq. ft.) or larger are required by Chapter 7 of the Environment
Code to achieve Leadership in Energy Efficiency Design (LEED) Silver Certification by the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC). Additional green building requirements include Environment
Code Chapter 5 Sec 509: non-PVC Plastics, and Environment Code Chapter 8: Tropical Hardwood
and Virgin Redwood Ban. Currently, 45 capital projects are in planning and construction phases
in the entire City and County of San Francisco with LEED Silver designations, or higher.
In FY 2009-10 and 2010-11 SFRPD continued with a robust 2008 Parks Bond Capital
Program with 57 overall capital projects, out of which five are LEED projects under construction
and one new project in conceptual design phase. The overall estimated investment toward
green buildings is $78 million, which is mostly subsidized by the 2008 Clean and Safe
Neighborhood Parks Bond; the Randall Museum project is completely subsidized by the State’s
Proposition 84 Safe Drinking Water Bond Act of 2006. The specific projects are listed in Table 8
below with the LEED certification goals; it should be noted that the Sunset Recreation Project
has already secured a Silver LEED Certification.
47

Renewable Generation
In 2011, Hayes Valley Playground welcomed once-again San Francisco’s neighborhood
children and ushered them through a newly renovated recreational space with functional and
educational sustainable designed amenities. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) partnered with the
San Francisco Recreation and Park Department in a five-year journey to revitalize Hayes Valley
Playground, located between San Francisco's Hayes Valley and Western Addition
neighborhoods. Hayes Valley Playground, located at the corner of Hayes and Buchanan Streets
in the Hayes Valley neighborhood, is a quarter-acre inner city playground and clubhouse
established in 1958. Reflecting the agencies’ shared value to create livable communities through
land conservation, the new playground and clubhouse provide this dense urban area with a
safe, welcoming facility that fosters an appreciation for nature, outdoor activity, and social
gathering.

LEED Capital Projects
Capital Project LEED Goal Project Sq.
Ft.
Estimated Project
Cost
Cayuga Clubhouse

LEED-Silver 3,500 8.65 million
Chinese Recreation Center

LEED-Silver 21,990 18.5 million
Nursery Center for Sustainable
Gardening

LEED-Platinum 12,500 13 million
Palega Recreation Complex

LEED- Silver 17,000 17.4 million
Randall Museum LEED-Silver 9,000 5.5 million
Sunset Recreation Center
Renovation
LEED-Silver 18,780 13.7 million
Table 8.
Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
48
Table 9.
The facility integrates a holistic system of passive site and building strategies, including
the living roof, solar hot water heating, and passive cooling. Building orientation takes maximum
advantage of the site's sun and wind conditions, allowing for optimal day lighting and
ventilation. Other sustainable design elements include recycled denim insulation, low-flow
toilets, Forest Stewardship Council certified wood, and native, drought-tolerant plantings. The
ventilated rain screen provides additional insulation. The outdoor playground incorporates
recycled materials and pervious surfaces to further minimize environmental impact. The fully
equipped, sustainably designed clubhouse is the first Recreation and Park building in San
Francisco with a living roof and recycled denim insulation.
Section 5.02 Water Use & Waste Water Discharge
Water Consumption Baseline
SFPUC is the only water provider to SFRPD and owner of all water use records, which are
managed by meter number accounts to a physical address. It is Important to note that SFRPD is
one of the SFPUC’s largest water use clients, using 493,377,060 gallons in FY10-11, a reduction
of 5.6 million gallons of water and equal to one percent from FY 2009-10 consumption rates.
Most notably is a 17.79 percent reduction in waste water discharge during FY2010-11, as
compared to FY2009-10, as a result of lower facility usage due to a decrease in program
services. Table 9 below describes a two-year baseline for water consumption and discharge.

2-Year Baselines from Water Use
Water FY 2009-010
Rates (gallons)
FY 2010-11
Rates (gallons)
Water Baseline
Water Consumption 499,002,020 493,377,060 496,189,540
Waste Water Discharge 137,834,865 113,307,616 125,571,240
1
Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
2
Baseline is an aggregate of water consumption and discharge rates

49
There are no greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with the delivery of water attributed to SFRPD
since the source of water is from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, which delivers water
through gravity. The high elevation of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the engineering
infrastructure of the Regional Water System move water from its source, across the state, and
to its customers using little more than gravity. Also, the CO
2
emissions associated with the
management of water on parklands is already factored in the electricity use data.
Reduction Measures
Water Efficiency and Conservation
The Department, motivated by its commitment to a more sustainable San Francisco,
recognizes the value of water budgeting and water resource conservation planning to ensure
the long-term availability of quality water. Several water efficiency and conservation initiatives
were implemented in FY 2010-11, which included water conservation awareness and education
efforts within park operation. Table 10 below summarizes the Department’s most recent water
efficiency and conservation achievements.
50
Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Table 10.

Water Efficiency & Conservation Achievements

• Annual Work Plans: Water efficiencies and
irrigation uniformity work objectives were
integrated for Park Section Supervisors for
all Gardening Complexes and corresponding
field crews in the FY 2010-11 performance
planning and evaluations.

• TPC Harding Park Irrigation System
Renovation:
The TPC Harding Park irrigation system was
audited in FY 2010-11. Findings included
ineffective water coverage and poor water
distribution on the roughs, fairways, and
greens surrounds.

In an effort to remediate these problems
and conserve water, a map was developed
that showed the water distribution
problems across the turf areas and 1,400 of
the sprinkler rotors were replaced
accordingly. In addition, 150 quick couplers
were installed in the fairways, which enable
precise and controlled irrigation where
needed to prevent over saturation and
runoff from the turf areas.

The project’s final phase included changing
72 greens surround rotors from 1/2 circle to
full circle to enable even distribution of
water on the greens and surrounds at the
same time. Quick couplers are also used to
ensure precise watering for the greens.

In May 2012, 14 new irrigation control
panels will be installed, which will have the
ability to control 50 stations (individual
sprinkler heads) per panel.

• Expanding Knowledge and Refining Skills:
In FY 2010-11 fourteen managerial and
supervisory staff participated and completed
a Landscape Irrigation Auditor three-day
course provided by the Irrigation
Association, which is the leading
membership organization for irrigation
equipment and system manufacturers.
SFRPD park operations have made a strong
commitment to water conservation as
exemplified by the investment in building
staff capacity during extreme budgetary
constraints.

Parks Water Conservation Plan
In 2009 SFRPD partnered with SFPUC to develop a Parks Water Conservation Plan for
twelve parks with the highest per-acre water use. Therefore, they are projected to have the
greatest potential for water saving when water conservation measures are implemented. The
total project water savings for all selected parks is estimated to be 15,420,773 gallons per year
51
with an average savings of 18 percent over the total SFRPD current water use. The
Implementation of the Plan’s recommendations and corrections on findings require a significant
investment of capital funding in the millions, which is an unfunded cost.
The Department has engaged in a strong revenue advocacy and philanthropic effort to
conduct the necessary water conservation and irrigation efficiencies recommendations from the
2009 Parks Water Conservation Plan. During FY 2010-11 the Department submitted for funding
assistance from the SFPUC, which resulted in the award of three Large Landscape Irrigation
Grants in an amount of $2.1 million for Alta Plaza Park, Balboa Park and Jefferson Square Park.
Table 11 below describes the water efficiency capital projects along with estimated water
savings. When completed, the Department will be able to capture an estimated 7,851,909
gallons of water per year, equal to a 1.58 percent reduction from its water consumption two-
year baseline.
52
Table 11.

Water Efficiency Capital Projects

Site Renovation Project Scope Average Water
Use
(Gallons/ Year)
Estimated Water
Savings
(Gallons/ Year)
Water
Reduction
Rate

Alta Plaza
Park

The project focuses on the southern
portion of the park and involves
replacement of the irrigation system
and installation of ‘no-mow’ fescue,
a low-water using lawn alternative,
in select areas. In April 2012, the City
awarded a contract and construction
is anticipated to begin in June 2012.

5,426,520

1,935,977

36%

Balboa
Park

The project primarily involves a re-
design of the non-pressurized
components of the irrigation system.
This would include redesigned
irrigation heads for uniform
coverage, replacement of heads,
installation of flow sensor and
master valve, and installation of
three weather based ‘smart’
irrigation controllers. This project is
currently in the design phase

17,326,994

3,775,156

22%

Jefferson
Square
Park

The irrigation system will be fully
replaced with new irrigation lines;
redesigned irrigation heads for
uniform coverage; replacement of
irrigation heads and valves;
installation of flow sensor, master
valve and a weather-based "smart"
irrigation controller within the park;
and installation of ‘no-mow’ fescue,
a low-water using lawn alternative,
in select areas.

In April 2012, the City awarded a
contract and construction is
anticipated to begin in June 2012.

6,019,920

2,140,776

36%
Totals 28,773,434 7,851,909 27%

Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
53
Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Figure 3.
Section 5.03 Fleet
The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department owns and operates a large fleet
comprised of over 700 vehicles and heavy equipment within 32 types that follows
and adheres to best management practices, as listed in Chapter 4 of the
Environmental Code Healthy Air and Smog Prevention Ordinance. The vehicle fleet
dedicated use allocation to support recreation service delivery; less than one
percent to support administration services; and 96 percent exclusively dedicated to
support maintenance, restoration and preservation of parklands and its facilities.
Figure 3 below illustrates the Department’s fleet inventory by vehicle type. The
listings of vehicles and liquid fuel consumption values have been verified to calculate
the combusting fuel 2-year baseline.

54
Reduction Measures
Healthy Air and Clean Transportation Plan
The Healthy Air and Clean Transportation Ordinance (HACTO) requires the reduction of
the number of passenger vehicles and light duty trucks in municipal fleets by 5 percent per year
through 2015, as well as remove from service all vehicles that are 12 years or older beginning in
2015 (Chapter 4 of the City’s Environmental Code Section 403 ). The Department’s fleet serves
as the lifeline to City staffs, which are the stewards maintaining and preserving parkland,
wildlife, biomass and its supporting facilities. For the most part, vehicles serve as “rolling tool
boxes,” carrying the supplies and equipment needed to perform the work required at SFRPD
properties, which includes a broad range from preventative and routine maintenance activities
to emergency malfunction response, breaks, and safety issues.
In addition to a deferred maintenance unfunded liability in excess of $1.5 billion, it is
Important to note that compliance to HACTO requires an unfunded and significant capital
investment. After a careful examination of the Department’s fleet, it became evident that 30
percent of the Department’s fleet is twelve years old or older. Assuming replacement approval
at the same rate as the last two fiscal years of six vehicle replacements per year, it would take
approximately 35 years to complete adherence to HACTO. Since the fleet is crucial to providing
a service delivery system in a responsive manner, the Department’s overall goal is not to reduce
the fleet, but to expand the fleet due to the ever-increasing land management and building
maintenance requirements.
An additional HACTO requirement for municipal fleets is to reduce the light duty fleet by
five percent per year through 2015, which cannot be met by the Department. SFRPD is a
decentralized Department with more than 400 sites spread throughout the City, reducing its
fleet any further would significantly hinder operations and the Department’s ability to delivery
55
Table 12.
Source: San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
services and sustain San Francisco’s park system. The Department’s fleet includes 113 HACTO
light duty vehicles, out of which 81 percent are maintenance vehicles. The remaining 19 percent
are vehicles dedicated to recreation programming, where staff offers programs at multiple sites
throughout the city and/or are vehicles dedicated to supervisors that have responsibility for
multiple sites throughout the city. As previously noted, the Department actually needs to
expand the vehicle fleet in order to improve park operations’ efficiencies. Table 12 below
describes Departmental actions and achievements corresponding to additional HACTO
requirements.

Healthy Air and Clean Transportation Plan Achievements

• Electric Vehicles: As part of the
Department’s strategy in seeking expanded
funding support, SFRPD is participating in a
multi-agency grant process to acquire four
electric vehicles partially funded by the
federal grant funds funneled to local
agencies through Cal Trans.

• Vehicle Sharing: Due to the large territory
under its management, a 24-hour -7-day
operation, and the relatively limited number
of vehicles in the fleet, sharing ratios have
been determined, as follows:

- Five of the six administration vehicles are
shared on a 1:16 vehicle to staff ratio in
three administration buildings located in
Golden Gate Park and downtown.

- Horticultural vehicles are shared on a 2:1
passenger to vehicle ratio;

- Custodial vehicles are shared on a 3:1 ratio.

- Supervisor vehicles are typically designated
as dedicated vehicles due to job duties and
diverse, numerous locations supervised.
However, the practice for the most part and
whenever practical is to share the vehicle
with field staff, based on work priorities.

• Use of Public Transportation: Administrative
support staff often uses public
transportation for regularly scheduled
meetings. While not a requirement of
HACTO, staff often participate in conference
calls.

56
Figure 4.
Department’s Showcase Initiative: GPS Generating Green Benefits
At the end of FY 2010-11, the Department conducted and completed the installation of
Global Position Systems (GPS) in 290 vehicles with a CA license plate. Programming features
includes the use of GPS alerts, speed and idle alerts, for the purposes of safety, efficiencies in
staff time, better fuel economy and reduced idling. During the FY 2011-12, the Department
lowered the idle alert from ten to five minutes, in order to fully comply with the San Francisco
Transportation Code, Article 7, Section 7.2.86, Idling Engine While Parked.
Section 5.04 Combusting Liquid Fuel
Mobile Combustion of Fuel Baseline

The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department’s two-year baseline from mobile
combustion of fuel includes six types of liquid fuel use to support its operation. Unleaded
gasoline is the Department’s primary source of combustible liquid fuel, which makes up 63
percent of its 2-year combusting fuel consumption baseline with a corresponding 65 percent of
Source: Conversion rates from combusting fuel consumption rates, as noted on Table 13
57
its CO
2
emissions baseline. Figure 4. above illustrates the 2-year baseline consumption rates by
fuel type.
Approximately one third of the Department’s fuel composition is from alternate clean
sources such as biodiesel, and compressed natural gas, which comprise 29 percent of the
Department’s CO
2
emissions from combusting fuel. Table 13 indicates the fuel consumption and
associated CO
2
emissions by fuel type to create a 2-year baseline. Overall, the Department
emits 1,838 metric tons of CO
2
from a combination of combusting fuels ranging from two forms
of biodiesel, compressed natural gas (CNG) and unleaded gasoline.
It is Important to note that SFRPD’s Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions counts do not
include methane (CH4) or nitrous oxide (N20), which have a much higher and increasingly
tremendous global warming potential, as compared to CO
2
. Also, FY 10-11 the Recreation &
Park Department made a conscientious choice of converting to a biodiesel B20 fuel; as such the
data is only for one year. Figure 5 below illustrates CO
2
emission rates by fuel type.
58
Table 13.

Combusting Liquid Fuel 2-Year Baselines
Liquid Fuel
Type
Consumption
1

(gallons/year)
CO
2
Emissions
2

(metric tons)

Baselines
3

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY09-10

FY10-11

Consumption
CO
2
Emissions
(metric
tons)

Unleaded
Gasoline

145,453.11 127,108 1,281.14 1,119.57 136,281 1,200
Diesel

9,462 11,234 96.04 114.03 10,348 105
Compresse
d Natural
Gas (GGE)

17,726.60 13,619.74 108.22 83.15 15,673 96
Liquefied
Petroleum
Gas (LPG)

8,659.30 10,618 50.14 61.48 9,639 56
Biodiesel
(B5)

39,657.77 563.50 382.30 5.43 20,111 194
Biodiesel
(B20)

0 46,086.59 0 374.12 23,043 187

Total

220,959

209,230

1,918

1,758

215,095

1,838

1
Source: San Francisco Central Shops and Recreation & Park Department
2
Source: CA Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1, Jan. 2009
3
Baselines are an aggregate of consumption and emissions by year

59
Figure 5.

Fuel Source & Management
SFRPD’s primary fuel source is the City Administrator Office (CAO) Fleet Management
Division, which supplies and manages the fuel pumps at the Department’s primary Maintenance
Yard at Golden Gate Park. Additionally, SFRPD operates and manages five fueling locations with
above-ground fuel tanks that dispense unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel. The SFRPD fueling
stations are located in and outside of San Francisco city limits, as follow:
• Camp Mather: Located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Groveland, Tuolumne
County;

• Candlestick Park Stadium: Located in the south-east corner of San Francisco;
• Lincoln Park: Located at 32
nd
Avenue and Clement Street in San Francisco;
• Sharp Park: Located in Pacifica, San Mateo County;
• TPC Harding Park: Located at Lake Merced in San Francisco.
Source: Conversion rates from combusting fuel consumption rates, as noted on Table 13
60
Reduction Measures
Executive Directive 06-02: Biodiesel for Municipal Fleets
The City’s municipal fleet currently uses approximately 8 million gallons of petroleum
diesel each year. On 2006 Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring City
departments to advance biodiesel use, a blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent
petroleum diesel, by a series of incremental goals for the conversation of the City’s fleet and
corresponding infrastructure (Executive Order 06-02, 2006). Most biodiesel is made from virgin
plant oils and can also be made from recycled sources, including waste oil and animal fats from
restaurants. Biodiesel has been found to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 78 percent
compared to petroleum diesel, on a life-cycle basis. It is anticipated that City-wide use of B20 in
the municipal fleet will reduce petroleum consumption by approximately 1.6 million gallons.
During the last quarter of FY 2010-11, the Department converted three of its five
Department-owned fueling locations to B20 bio-diesel: Lincoln Park, Sharp Park, and TPC
Harding Park. In partnership with the City’s Central Shops, all five fuel tanks were inspected and
cleaned to determine their suitability for conversion to bio-diesel prior to the actual conversion.
The Department anticipates a 100 percent B20 fuel use in FY 2011-12 at its three golf course
fueling locations.
Also, in FY2009-10 the Department received an exemption from the Mayor’s Office for
the conversion to biodiesel at Candlestick Park Stadium and Camp Mather. Candlestick Park
Stadium necessitates a diesel tank to function as the primary fuel source for the facility’s backup
generator in the event of an emergency; also, Candlestick is a primary shelter location for the
City’s Disaster Preparedness Plan as well as forms part of the Homeland National Security Plan.
At Camp Mather, the diesel is used for both vehicle fueling and back-up generator fueling. The
use of biodiesel at Camp Mather is impractical due to seasonal weather conditions, where cold
61
temperatures solidify the biodiesel for most of the year, making it impossible to use as a fuel
alternative.
Compliance with State of California Diesel Emissions Regulations
The Department continues to aggressively comply with the California State diesel
emissions regulations, either by retiring, retrofitting or preferably, replacing, both on and off
road vehicles. The challenge has been to receive adequate funding for this compliance program
through the annual City budget process. Despite this challenge, the Department has been
successful in securing the funding for all of the on-road diesel vehicles requiring retrofit and all
on-road vehicles have either been retired, replaced or retrofitted, with only one remaining on-
road vehicle requiring retrofit in 2012.
Off-road retrofit and replacement is also underway, which will bring the Department
into compliance through 2014. In fact, the City’s Fleet Management Division considers the
Recreation and Park Department a model department since the Department is one of the very
few City Agencies that has met the State’s diesel emission regulation deadlines.
Section 5.05 Solid Waste
San Francisco has a long history of implementing recycling programs, from the early
industrial recovery of metals and paper, to the birth of the environmental movement around
Earth Day 1970. In February 2003, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted nation-
leading goals of diverting 75 percent of waste from the landfill by 2010 and achieving “zero
waste” by 2020; a 72 percent diversion rate was achieved in 2007 and a 77 percent diversion
rate was achieved in 2010. Strategies to achieve these goals include development and expansion
of new programs through improvements to the recycling and market infrastructures, as well as
education, outreach and legislative policy actions to help in product lifecycle redesign for reuse,
recycling and composting (Climate Action Plan for San Francisco, 2004).
62
Table 14.
The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department manages one of the largest municipal
solid waste generation operations in the City. This is primarily due to the high intensity of park
use in the tens of millions of people every year, with an estimated 13 million annual visitors to
Golden Gate Park alone. The Department’s waste management functions are provided in a
hybrid approach with contractual services by Recology Services and a Department hauling
program in Golden Gate Park. Most importantly, the Department manages and operates its own
Green-waste Program to support park operations with the reuse of green waste. Table 14
illustrates the Department’s achievements in solid waste management.

Solid Waste Achievements Summary
Feature Measure
Public Parks and Spaces:
- Waste diversion from landfill

47% diversion rate
- Green waste diversion from
landfill
96% diversion rate

Candlestick Park Stadium:
- Waste assortment 100% sorted by hand
- Waste diversion from landfill 82% diversion rate

Reduction Measures
Parks’ Diversion Rate
SFRPD has made significant improvements in waste management throughout its park
system in FY 2010-2011. The Department has achieved a 47 percent diversion rate, which is
calculated by Recology Services based on SFRPD’s contractual annual waste services. Achieving
this level of diversion in a citywide park system comprising of over 800 public spaces has a
significant impact on diverting waste from San Francisco Bay Area landfills. In addition, the
Department’s waste disposal cost for FY 2010-2011 was reduced by $165,542, as compared to
FY 2009-2010.
Source: Recology, Waste Zero
63
Candlestick Park Stadium
Most notably, during FY 2010-2011 Candlestick Park Stadium was able to reach a
diversion rate of 82 percent in a facility that hosted over 840,000 people attending ten San
Francisco 49ers home games and two national soccer games. Also, Stadium restaurants have
achieved an astounding 100 percent green waste diversion through composting programs. It
should be noted that unlike most National Football League Stadiums, Candlestick Park Stadium
hand-sorts all waste disposal containers after each and every San Francisco 49ers game and
special events. Additional waste management efforts include close monitoring of tailgating in
the parking lots pre and post events and games, which has significantly reduced the amount of
waste left behind in the parking lots.
Green Waste
The SFRPD has done a tremendous job in managing its green waste. The Department
excels in its green waste diversion rate at an astounding and constant 96 percent rate, with
strategies such as grass recycling at golf courses and reuse of green waste for soil protection.
The Department also develops soil from mulching the finest granular material from horticultural
waste, referred to as the “fines”, with bio solid waste from the Golden Gate Park horse stables,
managed by SFPD. TNA Timber Salvage in Vallejo collects the three percent of green waste not
reused in San Francisco’s parkland for biomass fuel, which includes “tub grindings” and green
waste that is not reusable, such as flax and palm.
64
Waste Management Efficiency Efforts
FY 2010-11 Departmental efforts to increase zero waste awareness and create
efficiencies in reducing the waste stream in San Francisco’s parks and public spaces included a
two pronged approach with (1) education and awareness; and (2) monitoring. The Department
successfully provided extensive training, in two-part sessions, to thirty managerial and
supervisory park operations staff, comprising of Parks Services Managers, Park Services
Supervisors and Assistant Custodial Supervisors. The training consisted of a review of Recology
contractual services by park service area; a review of existing challenges in regional parks where
illegal dumping frequently occurs; and an overview of the SFRPD strategy, “site-by- site”, to
reduce unnecessary waste receptacles throughout parks and public spaces.
During the same time period, the Department conducted monitoring and a close
examination of the Recology services as compared to actual park users’ behavior. As a result
the Department eliminated an additional 27 percent of its toter service and removed 16
unlocked and/or open dumpsters as a deterrent for illegal dumping. The Department
conducted repeated site visits at critical locations; analyzed past collection of these sites and
conducted interviews with front-line staff pertaining to container fullness, as well as, seasonal
use factors. Consequently, the Recology Services contract was amended accordingly to reduce
pick-up frequency and reduce container size. Such aforementioned actions equated to
eliminating 7,200 cubic yards of waste, a 16 percent reduction in overall waste volume.
65
CHAPTER 6. CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S PARKS

Section 6.01 Climate Action Policy & Planning Framework
Most recently crowned with the “livability crown” by the Trust for Public Land as “the best
park system in America”, San Francisco parks and open space systems’ range of uses has
evolved from the nineteenth century of creating a better American society, to the latter half of
the twentieth century as a dispensable urban recreational amenity (Trust for Public Land, 2012).
San Francisco’s parks must also provide cleaner air, a cooler environment, better clean water
underground aquifers recharge, public health improvement, healthy habitat for wildlife
provision, and biotic connectivity to increase biodiversity. The ever-increasing demands placed
on the park system create a natural tension from competing and conflicting interests, which at
times are irreconcilable. As such, a management approach to effectively balance complex
considerations such as environmental stressors from climate change and public demands
mandates adaptability and resiliency through strategic planning.
A climate action planning and policy framework for San Francisco’s parks and open space
system, described herein, is based on an ecological ethic that takes into consideration
vulnerabilities to climate stressors, and viable opportunities to build resiliency and reduce its
environmental impact through sustainable management. It articulates a new overarching vision
for San Francisco’s 21st century parks, ensuring the Department’s accomplishment of its overall
mission.
Related Documents and Plans
While in general the Department is guided by the CCSF land use planning framework, with
robust environmental ordinances and principles, a clear and intentional investment on natural
resources and a climate planning policy framework, inclusive of ecosystem management and
66
adaptive management to create resiliency to climate risks, is lacking to guide the Department’s
administration and operations in parkland management. The Department of the Environment
published The Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco in 1996, which includes a
biodiversity component without considerations to climate change. A Climate Action Plan for San
Francisco was also published on September 2004 by the Department of the Environment, which
identified local actions to reduce GHG emissions; however it is devoid of climate adaptation
planning and does not incorporate a biodiversity or ecological considerations. Lastly, the CCSF
Recreation & Open Space Element (ROSE) of the General Plan was last updated in 1986, which
provides a 20-year vision and plan for open space planning. In November 2007, the Mayor’s
Office launched an Open Space Task Force to update the ROSE, which a draft was published in
May 2009 that calls for the preservation of open space and connectivity to support ecological
systems. Informational hearings were conducted in 2011 at the Planning Commission and the
Recreation & Parks Commission. Its adoption has been delayed until fall 2013 and does not
incorporate climate mitigation and adaptation considerations.
Several plans and reports from the Recreation and Park Department, articulated below,
serve as reference for the climate planning framework, and provide guidance for the proposed
strategies as well as management actions. Landmark planning documents include the
Department’s Efficiency Plan and the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan
(SNRAMP). In late 1990s and early 2000, San Franciscans engaged in several planning efforts to
improve on its park and recreation system. On May 1998, a Parks Plan was published, as a
collaborative effort between the Neighborhood Parks Council and SPUR through a Community
Parks Task Force, which identified practical steps to ensure safe, clean, beautiful and fun parks
(SPUR, 1998). While the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department engaged in an
extensive assessment and community-driven planning process to create the Department’s
67
Strategic Plan, which was published in early 2003 (Younger, 2004). The environment is
articulated at its forefront, by referencing it in its mission statement and vision statement.
However, the environment is an implied value through its parkland maintenance practice only.
The Department’s Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan was developed in
2006 to guide natural resource protection, habitat restoration, access, capital projects, and
maintenance for one-fourth of city parkland, which comprise the city’s Natural Areas. The
SNRAMP delineates the acreage within each Natural Area into management area categories,
based on the management priority. The SNRAMP prescribes both general management activities
that apply to all Natural Areas and management activities specific to each Natural Area
(SNRAMP 2006). On August 2011, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared with
a public comment and review component that was extended to June of 2012. The Draft EIR
analyzes the twenty- year management plan at a programmatic level, with project-level review
of routine maintenance actions and habitat restoration at Sharp Park. However, the release of
the Final EIR for the Natural Areas Program’s SNRAMP has been delayed until spring of 2013.
Most recently, the Department published its Efficiency Plan for FY 2011-12, which identifies
improving environmental stewardship as one of its seven goals to assist in the implementation
of its mission, and guide the delivery of services (SFRPD Efficiency Plan, 2011). The
Department’s priority and focus over the last five decades truly rest in two areas: (1) clean
parks, as measure by its Proposition C Park Evaluation Program; and (2) activation of use of its
spaces, as noted in the Department’s 2011-12 Annual Report. For instance, in 2012 San
Francisco’s public parks reached an unprecedented increase of activities; on average hosted
5,000 private events, 50,000 athletic games or practices, more than 100 charity walks, races and
runs, and over 50 large-scale civic events and concerts such as Fleet Week and Outside Lands
(SFRPD FY 2011-12 Annual Report, 2012). It should also be noted that key policy considerations
68
for the last three years have been driven by the CCSF structural budget deficit, which
significantly impact the Department’s strategic budget and operational planning (SFRPD
Efficiency Plan, 2011). Notwithstanding, the value of an ecological ethic is crucial to support the
new vision of 21st-century parks in San Francisco.
While its vision, mission, strategic objectives and management plans continue to guide the
Department’s planning and directions, they are devoid of climate change considerations overall
as well as devoid of ecosystems regeneration planning for the remaining three-fourths of city
parklands. Equally as important, there is a significant gap in adaptive management planning, in
order to build resiliency to anticipated changes in climatic conditions, which will significantly
impair park resources.
Figure 6, illustrates a flow chart to describe the required climate action planning and policy
framework to effect change, and correctly reposition an urban park system to respond and
adapt to climate change. Its vision, strategic directions, strategies, and environmental measures
are tenets that hold true, and are applicable to any medium-size and large-size urban park
system.

69

ENVIRONMENTAL
MANDATES
SCIENCE-BASED
OPPORTUNITIES
MISSION
The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department’s mission is to provide
enriching recreational activities, maintain beautiful parks, and preserve the
environment for the well-being of our diverse community.
VISION
The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department will
steward and preserve ecological resources
unimpaired on city parklands by building resiliency
to climate change risks and by reducing its
environmental impact through sustainable
operations, design, decisions, and management at
every level of the organization.
Increase
Biodiversity &
Interconnectivity
Support Ecological
Functions
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
STRATEGIES
Ecohydrology
and Water
Quality
Climate Friendly
through
Reduction of
GHG
Ecological Migration
Corridors
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES
GHG
Reduction by
Sectors
Climate Risk
Resiliency by
Sectors
Sustainability
Best Practices
Reduce
Environmental
Impact
Reclaim Green
Infrastructure
Climate Ready
through
Resiliency
Carbon Storage
Capacity
Figure 6. Climate Action Policy & Planning Framework
70
Figure 7.
Vision
Today, San Francisco’s parks and open space system plays an important role in meeting
urban green infrastructure needs that, when correctly executed, can be a key contributor to
mitigation and adaptation to climate change. It is essential that this re-found focus beyond
recreation is not lost, but rather used as a vehicle to a dynamic reappraisal of San Francisco’s
parks positioning in the 21st century, by means of presented herein.
As the City and County of San Francisco moves forward in its second century of stewardship
of its park and open space system, the San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate
Action Plan: Repositioning to a Sustainable Parks & Open Space System sets forth and articulates
a new overarching vision for San Francisco’s 21
st
century parks, which is described in Figure 7. It
is one that is driven by a need for healthy ecologies through ecosystem management; as critical
contributors to climate change mitigation and adaptation--beyond beautiful places that are
clean, safe and fun.
Vision for San Francisco’s 21
st
Century Parks
The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department will steward
and preserve ecological resources on city parklands unimpaired
by positioning its ecosystem benefits to adapt to climate
change and by reducing its environmental impact through
sustainable operations, design, decisions, and management at
every level of the organization.

Mission
The preservation of the environment is at the core of the Recreation and Park Department’s
mission statement, as one out of the three primary tenets for its mission, which include
recreation service delivery and park maintenance. The San Francisco Recreation and Park
71
Department’s mission is to provide enriching recreational activities, maintain beautiful parks,
and preserve the environment for the well-being of our diverse community (SFRPD Efficiency
Plan, 2011).
Environmental Policy Mandates and Science-based Opportunities
A solid foundation of an adaptive and proactive sustainability program is adherence to all
Federal, State, and local environmental mandates, including laws, Executive Orders, regulations,
and Departmental policy. Environmental mandates play an important role in the Climate
Planning Framework’s flexibility, as indicators for change. Identified mandates impact the
implementation of strategies, and indicate the need to amend the goals and objectives.
Meeting these mandates requires deliberate and planned activity, which has been incorporated
in the development of the strategic directions as key principles; ecosystem services strategies;
and environmental performance measures. They may also provide for new opportunities to
enhance and expand on the Department’s climate readiness.
San Francisco’s climate risk is not fully known at this time. For instance, Scripps Institution
of Oceanography reports no definite data for annual precipitation mean increase’s projections.
Also, the Terrestrial Biodiversity and Climate Change Collaborative is currently conducting
studies to project decrease fog distribution in the San Francisco Bay Area. As such, the
proposed Climate Planning Framework provides for the dynamic integration of new
opportunities, based on science as indicators for change; thus, creating a strong adaptive
management platform.
72
Figure 8. STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS: KEY PRINCIPLES
Strategic Directions
The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: Repositioning to a
Sustainable Parks & Open Space System, articulates four key principles as strategic directions of
its Climate Planning Framework, to guide competing and conflicting land use decisions, capital
planning, and land management operations of San Francisco’s parklands, as described on Figure
8. These strategic directions become the cornerstones for the overall strategies and
environmental performance measures; thus, steering the San Francisco Recreation and Park
Department toward the vision enunciated in this plan.

RECLAIM GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE

SUPPORT
ECOLOGICAL
FUNCTIONS

INCREASE
BIODIVERSITY &
INTERCONNECTIVITY

REDUCE
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT

Integrate science-
based management
approach to increase
ecological resiliency
to climate change by
quantifying and
maximizing
ecosystem benefits
found on city
parklands.

Preserve existing
environmental
features and restore
lost or damaged
ecosystem services.

Integrate landscape-
scale collaborative
approach to effectively
build resiliency to
climate change risks by
increasing biodiversity
and interconnectivity.

Identify GHG reduction
measures to be climate
friendly through
sustainable operations,
design, decisions and
management at every
level of the
organization.

RECLAIM GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOUND ON PARKLANDS
Integrate science-based and adaptive management approach to increase
ecological resiliency to climate change by maximizing ecosystem benefits found
on city parklands.

73
Strategies & Ecosystem Services
Stewardship and management of parklands mandates an ecological approach, and ability to
integrate ecological regeneration at every opportunity. As such, ecosystem services have been
identified and integrated as part of the development of the Climate Planning Framework
strategies to create a comprehensive approach with an emphasis on environmental functions
from existing ecological systems on city parklands: (1) carbon storage capacity; (2) eco-
hydrology and water quality; and (3) ecological migration corridors for vegetation and wildlife.
Climate change mitigation strategies and climate adaptation strategies are also identified as
achieving climate friendliness through reduction of GHS and achieving climate readiness by
building resiliency through adaptive management. Additionally, the identified climate change
mitigation and adaptation strategies also incorporate detailed water efficiencies; a biodiversity
sector; and sustainable landscape and urban forestry practices.
Section 6.02 Carbon Storage Capacity
The biomasses found on city parklands to create San Francisco’s landscapes, play a vital role
in the carbon cycle. Urban forests sequester CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis,
which is then stored in the trees’ biomass, soils and wood products. As established in Chapter 4
titled, Urban Forest: San Francisco’s Natural Infrastructure, trees found on parklands remove
47,544 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere per year with an estimated value of $1.1 million per
year. However, this critical green infrastructure is hampered by a lack of biodiversity.
Furthermore, a great portion is over-matured, over-stocked, and even-aged. As such, science-
based strategies have been developed to support and enhance the carbon storage capacity on
city parklands. Table 15 describes four critical strategies to increase carbon sink capacity, in
addition to the implementation actions, described under climate friendly and climate readiness
strategies.
74
Table 15.

INCREASE CARBON SINK CAPACITY (CSC)

Strategy: Reclaim existing carbon skin found on parklands.

Goal CSC1: Reclaim existing carbon skin found on
parklands to leverage additional resources in
support of future increase capacity efforts.
Objective CSC1.01: Evaluate and select
appropriate carbon accounting tools with local
hourly air pollution and meteorological data,
such as the USDA i-Tree software, to quantify
and confirm urban forest structure on parklands,
environmental effects, and value.

Objective CSC1.02: Utilize baseline data on
carbon sequestration and storage for making
effective resource management decisions,
develop policy and set priorities to sustain
existing biomass such as the adoption of an
environmental/ecosystem services surcharge.

Objective CSC1.03: Restore forestry maintenance
costs from the value of carbon sequestration of
trees on parkland, attributed the CCSF municipal
carbon sink, and reinvest in reforestation efforts.

Objective CSC1.04: Restore maintenance costs
of major thoroughfares traversing parklands to
offset CO2 emissions through reforestation
efforts.

Objective CSC1.05: Integrate the USDA Forest
Service i-Tree Storm to assess widespread storm
damage in a credible and efficient manner
immediately after a severe storm in order to
provide information on the time and funds
needed to mitigate storm damage.
Strategy: Restore existing urban forest health.

Goal CSC2: Develop a Forest Management Plan
that incorporates all parklands and existing tree
assessments.

Objective CSC2.01: Identifies criterion to
determine urban forestry diversity composition
thresholds to build resiliency such as –
composition of no more than 5% of any tree
species, no more than 10% of any genre, and no
more than 20% of any one family.

Objective CSC2.02: Incorporates a succession
plan component to ensure a multi-aged urban
forest with proper stocking densities.

Objective CSC2.03: Identifies threats and
stressors as well as reduction measures.
75
Table 15, Continued

Strategy: Increase canopy cover to maximize carbon storage capacity.

Goal CSC3: Increase canopy cover to maximize
carbon storage capacity.
Objective CSC3.01: Evaluate and select
appropriate carbon accounting tools to confirm
current and determine potential carbon storage
on parkland.

Objective CSC3.02: Determine tree selection
criterion for capital projects and reforestation
efforts based on carbon sequestration and
storage as the primary environmental function
and appropriateness to the site’s current and
anticipated microclimate.

Objective CSC3.03: Initiate carbon storage
projects on specific land parcels where additional
ecosystem benefits can be leveraged such as
wind protection and shade.

Objective CSC4.04: Register SF urban forest
found on city parklands with the CA Climate
Action Reserve to leverage additional funding for
reforestation projects.

Objective CSC4.05: Integrate the USDA Forest
Service tools, such as i-Tree software, for the
management of new trees on parkland, which
will meet urban forest project protocols from the
CA Climate Action Reserve.

Strategy: Build resiliency to climate change risk factors.

Goal CSC4: Integrate adaptive management to
anticipated climate change risk factors and factor
in uncertainty.
Objective CSC4.01: Conduct a vulnerability
assessment to anticipated effects from climate
change to prioritize and adjust strategies.

Objective CSC4.02: Include climate-related
vulnerability assessments in capital project
approval, operations and funding decisions to
better account for vulnerability and risk.

Objective CSC4.03: Develop, prioritize, conduct
and monitor on-the-ground tree restoration
projects to build resiliency to current and
anticipated climate risk factors.

Objective CSC4.04: Participate and support
multi-jurisdictional collaborations across
landscapes to develop strong partnerships and
enhance resources.

76

Section 6.03 Ecohydrology & Water Quality
The extensive nature of climate change effects intensifies ongoing resource impacts such as
aged natural and built infrastructure, and water scarcity. Historically, the efforts and approach
to deliver, and manage hydrology cycles and water services are based on conventional
hardscape-engineering built infrastructure. Storm drains and cement culverts found on
parklands are a typical application. It is not until the last three years, that an unconventional
approach such as “re-naturalization” versus de-naturalization has been applied by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, as a reaction to relatively new State regulations; which
include the creation of landscapes for natural water filtration systems, bio-swales.
In a natural setting, hydrology cycles temporarily detain runoff water by the leaves of trees,
absorbed by the soil, and held in streams and ponds. Besides slowing the flow of water and
preventing flooding, these natural processes also cleanse and replenish the water supply. As an
environmental strategy, green infrastructure addresses the root cause of storm water and
combined sewer overflow (CSO) pollution. The thousands of acres of paved surfaces, that
comprise urban landscape surrounding parklands, prevent rain and other sources of water from
penetrating the soil and replenishing groundwater supplies. Instead, water rushes over paved
surfaces with increasing speed and volume, picking up a “stew” of pollutants along the way.
Most recently, two engineered bio-swales exist on parking lots in city parklands, Lake Merced
Sunset Circle and the Marina Green parking lots, which enhance groundwater recharge, and
reduce the amount of polluted storm water discharged into the ocean.
Biomass found on city parkland in particular provides the most benefits, as a green
infrastructure component. For example, trees trap hold as much as fifty gallons of water in
their roots, trunks and leaves, lessening the storm-water run-off that causes flooding and
77
pollution during the raining season (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Center for
Urban Forest Research, 2001). Trees also increase the amount of water infiltrated back into the
ground, counteracting the effects of large areas of pavement. Most importantly, efforts to
restore the natural habitat can increase groundwater recharge; unlike the invasion of exotic
species that soak up water, as well as decrease biomass that encourage precipitation, therefore
reducing groundwater recharge. Table 16 describes four critical strategies to manage
Ecohydrology and water quality in addition to the implementation actions described under
climate friendly and climate readiness strategies.
78
Table 16.

MANAGE ECOHYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (EH)

Strategy: Reclaim existing water infrastructure existing on parklands.

Goal EH1: Reclaim existing hydrology found on
parklands to leverage additional resources in
support of ecological systems.
Objective EH1.01: Evaluate and select
appropriate water accounting tools with
meteorological data, to quantify ground water
recharge and storage structure existing on
parklands, environmental effects, and rates
value.

Objective EH1.02: Utilize baseline data on water
recharge and water storage for making effective
resource management decisions, develop policy
and set priorities to sustain existing biomass.

Objective EH1.03: Reclaim the water from
recharged ground aquifers on parkland to offset
water costs in support of parkland irrigation.

Strategy: Build resiliency to climate change risk factors to protect water quality.

Goal EH2: Integrate adaptive management to
anticipated climate change risk factors and factor
in uncertainty.
Objective EH2.01: Conduct a vulnerability
assessment to anticipated effects from climate
change to protect eco-hydrology existing on city
parklands.

Objective EH2.02: Include climate-related
vulnerability assessments in capital project
approval, operations and funding decisions to
better account for vulnerability and risk.

Objective EH4.03: Participate and support multi-
jurisdictional collaborations across landscapes to
develop strong partnerships and enhance
resources.
79
Section 6.04 Ecological Migration Corridors
San Francisco’s parks and open space system is a component of the overall Bay Area
biological region; it does not exist in isolation. It is a habitat contributor for vegetation and
wildlife in a recognized biodiversity hotspot. As such, to correctly adapt to and mitigate climate
change, sustainable parkland management mandates ecosystem-based approach grounded on
sound scientific knowledge, inclusive of all land parcels outside the city’s Natural Areas. City
parks may not appear to be restrictive to sustain wildlife due to their size, isolation and human
activity; yet, these limiting factors can be overcome to create a diverse and charismatic array of
wildlife (Clark, 2004). Most important, design and maintenance in support of wildlife, creates
for optimal conditions for potential migration corridors.
More than ever, city parklands must be ready to provide habitat for the anticipated
migration of vegetation and wildlife, as a result of changes in migration patterns and paths
prompted by warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns. A greater focus is
required to achieve appropriate types of landscape and seascape connectivity to “give space for
nature to self-adapt” (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2012).
A business-as-usual to biodiversity and conservation under a changing climate will
irreversibly fall short of meeting the challenge. It is anticipated that the climate change impacts
will lead to the loss of one-quarter to one-third of all species on earth, including many bird
species (National Audubon Society, 2012). Critical actions to support ecological migration
corridors are fundamentally tied to the health of city parkland’s biomass, which are described
on Table 17. Additional implementation actions in support of migration corridors have been
described under climate friendly and climate readiness strategies.
80
Table17.

ECOLOGICAL MIGRATION CORRIDORS (EMC)

Strategy: Build and support migration corridors for vegetation and wildlife.

Goal EMC1: Support existing connectivity and
build appropriate connectivity.
Objective EMC1.01: Identify projected changes
in bird migratory patterns and paths appropriate
for the west-northern coast based on scientific
reports.

Objective EMC1.02: Identify projected changes in
vegetation migration appropriate for the
western-northern coast based on scientific
reports.

Objective EMC1.04: Enhance larger-scale
ecological functioning through linkages between
individual parks and Natural Areas.

Objective EMC1.03: Where necessary,
incorporate removal of barriers, appropriate
vegetation, water sources, installment of grade
separations and signage.
Strategy: Reduce existing stresses on parklands that adversely impact wildlife migration.

Goal EMC2: Reduce and manage stresses on
parklands that adversely impact wildlife
migration.
Objective EMC2.01: Conduct risk assessments to
identify stressors and reduction measures.

Objective EMC2.02: Develop an aggressive
educational campaign to initiate enforcement of
park code on identified migration paths
(smoking, dogs on-leash, etc.).
Strategy: Participate and contribute to multi-jurisdictional climate action planning collaborations.

Goal EMC3: Develop a regional multi-habitat
conservation and preservation plan to include
projected changes in migration patterns due to
climate change conditions.
Objective EMC3.01: Reconsider agency
management objectives of existing plans to
support a regional management approach.

Objective EMC3.02: Determine the viability to
reconsider what is “native” or “invasive”, as
species increasingly have and will continue to
move around the landscape, in the interest to
support adaptation to climate change.
Goal EMC4: Develop a regional ecology literacy
program to educate and inform the public and
government officials.
Objective EMC4.01: Identify a regional agency
with capacity to create trust and build consensus
to lead a regional collaborative on ecology
literacy.

Objective EMC4.01: Integrate academic
institutions in all regional collaborations.
81

Section 6.05 Climate Friendly: Mitigation Strategies & Implementation Actions
The process of climate change mitigation planning, as set forth, identifies a number of
actions to decrease the emission rates of GHG, generated by the delivery of recreational
services and park operations in five key sectors: energy use; water use; fleet and fuel; solid
waste; and parkland management. Fifteen mitigation strategies sets forth guidelines, for
sustainable park operation practices, to enhance the management of natural resources,
including soils, vegetation, and water; and reduce consumption of fuel, energy, and materials.
Table 18 provides a listing summary of recommended strategies with specific objectives. A
series of goals and corresponding objectives have been developed under each recommended
strategy for each identified mitigation sector.
82

CLIMATE FRIENDLY: GHG REDUCTION MEASURES BY SECTORS

Mitigation Measure: 50% reduction of GHG below 2009-10 levels from electricity
consumption by 2017
• Department’s two-year baseline for CO
2

emission is 6,026 tons from the
consumption of electricity and natural gas.
• 2-year consumption baseline from electricity is
22,270,132 kWh.

• 2-year consumption baseline from natural gas
is 1,056,014 therms.

Sector: Energy Use (EU)

Strategy: Compliance of Existing Commercial Building Energy Performance Ordinance.

Goal EU1: Integrate structures and
buildings less than 1,500 in the
energy performance benchmarking
web tool.
Objective EU1.1: Inventory by building type the remaining
structures measuring less than 1,500 sq. ft.

Objective EU1.2: Confirm the square footage of buildings and
structures already identified in the energy performance
benchmarking web tool, which make up 44% of the
Department’s structures.

Goal EU2: Increase granularity of
energy performance by use thru a
data validation project in
collaboration with the SFPUC.
Objective EU2.1: Realign electric use record by matching
electric meters by park names and building names rather
than physical addresses in order to have greater control of
energy reduction measures.

Objective EU2.2: Separate electric meters where appropriate
to isolate energy performance by type of use.

Goal EU3: Implement an energy
management software program or
other methods to monitor energy
use in the Department’s buildings.
Objective EU3.1: Issue a Request for Proposal to identify and
acquire the most applicable environmental performance
program data base that can integrate the Department’s
overall operations.

Goal EU4: Conduct a third party
auditing of energy performance.
Objective EU4.1: Issue a Request for Proposal with defined
scope of work consistency of energy performance auditing of
Department’s buildings in three phases: recreation centers,
aquatic centers, and park operation buildings.

83

Strategy: Compliance of Commercial Lighting Efficiency Ordinance.

Goal EU5: Continue with the
Implementation of the
Department’s Energy Efficiency
Measures Plan.
Objective EU5.1: Incorporate in the 5-year capital planning
process phase II of Class I General Lighting Upgrades that
include metered and billed at low General Fund energy rates.

Objective EU5.2: Incorporate in the 5-year capital planning
process phase I and phase II of Class 2 Direct Control
Ventilation and Lighting Upgrades that include metered and
billed at the Enterprise Department electric rates, which are
equivalent to PG&E rates.
Goal EU6: Create energy
efficiencies through athletic field
lighting retrofit projects.
Objective EU6.1: Replace old, malfunctioning, and high
energy use athletic field lighting with high efficiency MUSCO
sports lighting systems.

Objective EU6.2: Identify specific locations with
aforementioned criteria that include, Jackson, Rolph,
Moscone, Youngblood Coleman, and West Sunset.
Goal EU7: Increase compliance
through training and awareness.
Objective EU7.1: Conduct a bi-annual training with
Purchasing staff and Structural Maintenance staff, inclusive of
electricians, on lighting efficiency requirements.

Objective EU7.2: Develop a check-list for energy efficiency
requirements to be utilized by Structural Maintenance
operations.

Strategy: Create and establish energy efficiency protocols.

Goal EU8: Develop energy
efficiency operation protocols for
custodial services.

Objective EU8.1: Amend Custodial Services standards to
incorporate energy efficiency protocols in buildings.

Goal EU9: Develop facility energy
efficiency policy.
Objective EU9.1: Establish guidelines, instructions and
requirements for efficient use of facility such as turning lights
and computers off, thermostat use, etc..

Objective EU9.2: implement off-peak scheduling of pumps,
motors and other energy intensive machinery where feasible.

Objective EU9.3: improve energy efficiencies in facilities
through Implementation of education and awareness training
for facility coordinators.
Strategy: Invest in energy retrofit capital projects with greatest potential for energy savings.

Goal EU10: Renovation of all
aquatic centers to energy efficiency
systems.

Objective EU10.1: Prioritize highest energy consuming
aquatic centers to be considered for the 2012 parks bond.

Objective EU10.2: Categorize aquatic facilities by greatest
capacity of energy savings, above and beyond the
Department’s Energy Efficiency Measurers Plan.
Table 18, Continued
84

Mitigation Measure: 30% reduction of water use below 2009-10 levels by 2017.

• There are no GHG associated with the
delivery of water attributed to SFRPD since
the source of water is from the Hetch
Hetchy Regional Water System, which
delivers water through gravity.

• The CO2 emissions associated with the
management of water on parkland is
already factored in the electricity use data.
• 2-year water consumption baseline is 496
million gallons

• 2-year waste water discharge baseline is 126
million gallons.

Sector: Water Use (WU)

Strategy: Increase water use efficiencies.

Goal WU1: Increase granularity of
water use data thru a data
validation project in collaboration
with the SFPUC.
Objective WU1.1: Realign water use records by matching
water meters by park names and building names rather than
physical addresses in order to have greater control of water
reduction measures.

Objective WU1.2: Include in the water use records the use by
time of day.

Objective WU1.3: Separate water meters where appropriate
to isolate water efficiency performance by type of use.
Goal WU2: Develop operational
policies and guidelines for water
management.
Objective WU2.1: Establish an operational protocol to avoid
watering during the high evapotranspiration times of the day
typically afternoon and early evening.

Objective WU2.2: Establish a water application protocol that
disallows any system to apply water longer than needed. No
system shall be turned on in the morning and turned off at
the end of the day based on convenience.

Objective WU2.3: Establish operational protocols for
manually operated systems to not allow operation at nights
unless staff is present or unless the system has an automatic
shut-off valve.

Objective WU2.4: Develop field maintenance operational
protocols for irrigation system protection.

Table 18, Continued
85
Table 18, Continued

Goal WU3: implement sustainable
landscaping practices for water
management.
Objective WU3.1: Establish a protocol for drought resistant
soils thru the application of compost and mulch by soil type.

Objective WU3.2: Establish landscaping standard to
implement hydro-zoning whenever possible.

Objective WU3.3: Initiate the Implementation of water audits
by park service area in phases thru annual work objectives.
Strategy: Increase water conservation by incorporating best turf management practices.

Goal WU4: Develop turf
maintenance standards to relieve
soil compaction and increase water
infiltration.
Objective WU4.1: Inventory turf areas by landscape
classification such as prominent, steep slopes, meadows, soil
– or – sand athletic fields, etc.

Objective WU4.2: Develop annual maintenance standards for
each classification.
Goal WU5: Reduce overall
percentage of turf in the park
system.
Objective WU5.1: Based on inventory of turf areas, develop
criteria for turf reduction and identify a reduction target.

Objective WU5.2: Develop a recommended listing of plant
material to be incorporated in lieu of turf such as no-mow
grass.

Goal WU6: Develop policies and
guiding principles for use of turf
areas to relieve soil compaction and
increase water infiltration.
Objective WU6.1: Develop a use and scheduling policy of
natural-turf athletic fields that establishes guidelines to
minimize damage and stress from intensity of use, inclusive of
alternating field layouts and alternating age levels of users.

Objective WU6.2: Develop a condition of athletic field
closure that establishes guidelines for closure of athletic fields
that are subject to varying degrees of playing pressure to the
turf.

Objective WU6.3: Develop an inclement weather athletic
field closure that establishes guidelines for closure of athletic
fields that are subject to saturation due to rain.
Strategy: Continue with the Implementation of the 2009 San Francisco Parks Water Conservation
Plan.

Goal WU7: Identify grant
opportunities for the
Implementation of water
conservation projects.
Objective WU7.1: Prioritize the list of the 12 highest water
consumer parks, as identified in the 2009 Water Conservation
Plan, for annual submittals to the SFPUC Large Landscape
Water Conservation Grant.

Objective WU7.2: Identify small to medium water retrofit
projects that can be subsidized by philanthropic efforts.

Objective WU7.3: Identify small water conservation activities
within the overall Water Conservation Plan that can be
performed in-house immediately, as part of the annual work
objectives for each park service area.
86
Table 18, Continued

Strategy: Create water-neutral demonstration projects in each park service area.

Goal WU8: Identify opportunities
where demonstration projects can
be Implemented.
Objective WU8.1: Develop criteria and a listing of parks by
typology that can best accommodate a water-neutral
demonstration project.

Objective WU8.2: Explore collaboration opportunities to
leverage resources and enhance public awareness.

Objective WU8.3: Identify guidelines for demonstration
projects such as incorporation of storm water management
features or alternative water sources for irrigation.

Goal WU9: Incorporate water-
neutral demonstration projects in
each park service area.
Objective WU9.1: Identify water-neutral projects that can be
Implemented as part of the annual work objectives for each
park service area.

Objective WU9.2: Develop public education and awareness
materials to showcase demonstration projects, in
collaboration with neighborhood groups.

Objective WU9.2: Develop, monitor and report on
environmental performance.

Strategy: Increase capacity for water efficiencies and water conservation through training and
education.

Goal WU10: Identify skill sets
required for increase in water use
efficiencies and water conservation.
Objective WU10.1: Require landscape irrigation auditor
certification by senior field staff, as part of the annual
performance plan, appraisal and evaluation.

Objective WU10.2: Require golf irrigation auditor by senior
Golf & Turf staff, as part of the annual performance plan,
appraisal and evaluation.

Objective WU10.3: Require irrigation system maintenance
training for all park services captains, as part of the annual
performance plan, appraisal and evaluation.

Objective WU10.4: Develop and implement annual staff
training on basic water conservation, as part of an overall
training program in environmental management.

87

Mitigation Measure: 20% reduction of GHG below 2009-10 levels from fuel consumption
by 2017.

• 2-year consumption baseline from the use
of six types of liquid fuels is 215,000
gallons.

• 2-year CO
2
emission baseline from
combusting liquid fuel is 2,000 metric tons.

• 63% of the 2-year combusting fuel
consumption baseline is from the use of
unleaded gasoline.

• 65% of the 2-year CO
2
emission 2-year base
line from combusting fuel is from the use of
unleaded gasoline.

Sector: Fleet and Fuel (FF)

Strategy: Compliance of Healthy Air and Clean Transportation Ordinance.

Goal FF1: Secure exemption from
the requirement of reducing light
duty fleet by 5 percent per year
through 2015.
Objective FF1.1: Request approval by the Recreation and
Park Commission and Commission of the Environment.

Goal FF2: Meet requirement of
removing from service all vehicles
that are 12 years or older beginning
in 2015.
Objective FF2.1: Inventory all vehicles that meet the criteria.

Objective FF2.2: Develop a replacement budget costs.

Objective FF2.3: Request a one-time budget allocation for FY
2014-15 to subsidize the replacement costs in 2 phases.

Objective FF2.4: Request an exemption from Mayor Edwin
Lee, in the event that the budget allocation is not secured.

Strategy: Reduction of CO
2
emissions thru efficiencies in operations.

Goal FF3: Develop idling
compliance reports by vehicle.
Objective FF3.1: Generate annual GPS idling reports by
vehicle to identify the most offensive vehicles by park service
area.

Objective FF3.2: Incorporate operational protocols based on
idling behavior.

Objective FF3.3: Incorporate idling reduction measures and
goals, as part of the annual performance plan, appraisal and
evaluation.

Goal FF4: Develop park
maintenance routes to minimize
vehicle travel time.
Objective FF4.1: Develop park maintenance routes by
gardening complex, based on vehicle sharing ratios and
staffing levels.

Objective FF4.2: Develop custodial services routes by park
service areas, based on vehicle sharing ratios and staffing
levels.
Table 18, Continued
88
Table 18, Continued

Goal FF5: Manage the use of small
powered landscaping equipment in
consideration of air quality.
Objective FF5.1: Inventory small powered landscaping
equipment.

Objective FF5.2: Develop an acquisition policy establishing
the purchase of small powered equipment that meets the
highest available standards for emission reductions.

Objective FF5.3: Establish an operational policy for the use of
small powered landscaping equipment, prohibiting its use
during “spare the air” days.

Objective FF5.4: Require senior park operations staff to sign
up for Air Alerts.

Mitigation Measure: 25% increase in diversion rates from landfill at public parks below
2009-10 by 2017.
• Achieved a 47% diversion rate at public
parks.

• Achieved an 82% diversion rate at
Candlestick Stadium.

• Maintained a 96% diversion rate from green
waste.

Sector: Solid Waste (SW)

Strategy: Compliance with “Zero Waste” Executive Order.

Goal SW1: Determine and
implement waste management
efficiencies at recreation centers.
Objective SW1.1: Develop a survey to determine level of
waste management strategies in place as well as
opportunities to create efficiencies.

Objective SW1.2: Assess Recology Services based on SFRPD’s
contractual annual waste services at recreation centers.

Objective SW1.3: Conduct a “site by site” assessment to
determine the most appropriate type of collection containers
based on facility use to ensure compliance with recycling and
composting requirements.

Objective SW1.4: Amend the Recology Service accordingly
based on the “site by site” assessment.

Objective SW1.5: Determine diversion rate for recreational
facilities.

89

Goal SW2: implement a “leave no
waste” public education campaign
for parks and recreational facilities.
Objective SW2.1: Develop a public education campaign in
collaboration with the Department of the Environment that
incorporates: (1) radio public service announcements; (2) u-
tube videos; (3) web page.

Objective SW2.2: Conduct campaign “kick-off” event that
captures local media attention.

Objective SW2.3: Conduct an all-staff training to increase
awareness.

Strategy: Increase waste management efficiencies.

Goal SW3: Establish a diversion rate
of 50% from public parks.
Objective SW3.1: Incorporate a 50% diversion rate in the
Department’s annual work objectives.

Objective SW3.2: Identify where the critical areas continue to
be in order to implement waste reduction strategies that
have been successful in other park sites.

Objective SW3.3: Continue with the “site by site” to reach all
park service areas.

Objective SW1.4: Amend the Recology Service accordingly
based on the “site by site” assessment.

Goal SW4: Develop an “art from
scraps” program as a re-use and
recycling effort.
Objective SW4.1: Develop program guidelines to include
inventory and gathering of material scraps and unused
materials.

Objective SW4.2: Identify a “virtual warehouse” mechanism
that is easily accessible by front line recreation staff.

Goal SW5: Establish a “zero-waste”
goal for special events.
Objective SW5.1: Integrate waste management measurers in
special event permits, which include the establishment of
eco-stations monitored by event staff as a permit condition.

Objective SW5.2: Integrate waste management measurers in
event planning and Implementation for Departmental special
events, which include the establishment of eco-stations
monitored by event staff.

Table 18, Continued
90
Table 18, Continued

Mitigation Measure: Incorporate sustainable land management practices by 2013.

• Achieved a 27% net-tree gain rate.

• Acquired Tree Assessments at six historical
parks through philanthropy.

• Secured a 2012 Safe and Clean Parks Bond to
support a Forestry Program inclusive of tree-
risk assessments, removal and replanting
efforts.

Sector: Parkland Management (PM)

Strategy: Adoption of sustainable urban forestry guidelines.

Goal LM1: Adopt net-tree-gains as a
performance measure.
Objective LM1.1: Track and report on number of trees
removed and lost in comparison to tree plantings.

Objective LM1.2: Develop and adopt a net-tree gain standard
for urban forestry operations, based on best management
practices.

Objective LM1.3: Achieve a 30% net-tree gain rate by 2013.

Goal LM2: Add new climate
consideration to criteria of new tree
plantings and reforestation efforts.

Objective LM2.1: Add climate considerations criteria for tree
specimen selection, including carbon sequestration, water
uptake, and heat island reduction through shading and
evaporative cooling.

Objective LM2.2: Additional considerations for selection of
tree specimen include low-maintenance trees and low
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitting tree species.

Objective LM2.3: Adopt a re-planting tree specimen policy
that balances the removal of invasive tree species with the
trade-offs for achieving greatest climate mitigation and
adaptation benefits, which may be on a site-by-site basis.

Goal LM3: Develop urban forestry
operational protocols to generate
ecosystem benefits.

Objective LM3.1: Develop a policy that establishes a standard
for the de-selection of fallen trees from green waste
processing to retain carbon storage.

Objective LM3.2: Establish urban forestry operational
protocols that require the selection of dead and fallen trees
that do not pose a threat of falling and causing damage to
persons or structures to be left behind in place intact to
support soil organisms and habitat.

Objective LM3.3: Develop guidelines for contractual forestry
work that retains the right to select a portion of removed
trees by tree-specimen to remain with the Department to
support parklands, such as redwoods.

91
Table 18, Continued

Goal LM4: Incorporate a new
recycling of fallen trees by milling
the wood to create a new resource
to support park operations.
Objective LM4.1: Establish tree specimen selection criteria
for drying and milling.

Objective LM4.2: Select a site to serve as a centralized
location for a small to medium milling operation with tree
storage capacity.

Objective LM4.3: Install the existing milling equipment and
supporting fixtures.

Objective LM4.4: Initiate a pilot program that incorporates
performance measures.
Strategy: Adoption of sustainable landscape guidelines.

Goal LM5: Develop operational
protocols that incorporate best
management practices for
sustainable landscaping.

Objective LM5.1: Develop maintenance standards for plant
beds.

Objective LM5.3: Incorporate principles of plant succession
leading to a multi-layered landscaping design, as landscaping
standards.

Objective LM5.4: Train gardeners, foresters and other
landscape maintenance personnel in sustainable landscape
guidelines, as part of an overall training program in
environmental management.

Goal LM6: Establish a landscaping
plan review committee.
Objective LM6.1: Develop a review design protocol to ensure
appropriate species that provide an ecological function.

Objective LM6.2: Develop criteria for the selection of
landscape plan review such as size of site, prominent
locations, etc.

Goal LM7: Develop a Pesticide-Free
Parks Program as demonstration
projects to increase public
awareness and education.
Objective LM7.1: Identify park sites to provide geographically
equitable public access to park facilities that are maintained
without the use of pesticides.

Objective LM7.2: Develop public education and awareness
materials to showcase demonstration projects.

Objective LM7.3: Develop, monitor and report on
environmental performance.

92
Table 18, Continued

Goal LM8: Develop IPM Plans for
Parks.
Objective LM8.1: Identify and assess existing IPM practices,
guidelines and protocols.

Objective LM8.2: Develop IPM plans for specific parks, based
on criteria for park selection.

Objective LM8.3: Integrate whenever possible organic pest
management practices; develop a standard by park use
typology.

Objective LM8.4: Develop an IPM Plan for TPC Harding Park,
and Lincoln Golf Course.

Goal LM9: Develop an erosion and
rock face control priority plan to
stabilize existing parkland
topography.

LM9.1: Identify critical sites that incorporate criteria such as
weather events that have created heightened liability
exposure, such as Golden Gate Heights, Ina Coolbrith, Coit
Tower, and Grandview Park.

LM9.2: Develop protocols for management decisions on
erosion attenuation to reflect the principles of plant
succession leading to a multi-layered canopy, to provide the
ultimate buffer to erosion.

Goal LM10: Secure sustainability
certification in key park operations
where the greatest capacity to
mitigate climate change can occur.
LM10.1: Develop criteria for the selection of specific parks
that can benefit from Bay-friendly Landscape Certification,
such as Coit Tower.

LM10.2: Adopt Audubon International guidelines for golf
courses management and secure Audubon Cooperative
Sanctuary Program Certification for Golf Courses for TPC
Harding Park, Golden Gate Golf Course and Lincoln Golf
Course.

LM10.3: Secure Ground Water Guardian Green Sites
Certification from the Audubon International for Golden Gate
Park polo fields, Kezar Stadium Field, and Golden Gate
Recreation Ball Field.

93
1
Source: SPUR Climate Change Hits Home: Is the Bay Area Ready? May 2011
2-3
Source: Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco Region.
July 2012
4
Source: Terrestrial Biodiversity and Climate Change Collaborative – San Francisco Bay Area
Table 19.
Section 6.06 Climate Ready: Adaptation Strategies & Implementation Actions
Climate Change threatens the stability and longevity of San Francisco’s infrastructure,
economy, and its park system; it also compromises the health and safety of its residents. Unless
the growth of greenhouse gas emissions is curbed and reversed, experts predict that climate
change will result in significant sea level rise, increased storm intensity and frequency, and
increased temperatures (SPUR, 2011). Adaptation to climate change is critical to create
resiliency to its most severe impacts, including severe extreme weather and sea level rise
(Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 2012). Table 19 summarizes climate risk information
specific for San Francisco, which has been incorporated in the development of the adaptation
strategies and implementation action plans.

SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATE RISK INFORMATION

EXTREME HEAT & HEAT WAVES
1

By 2050: three to four times as many extreme heat days as today;
By 2070: from a 20
th
-century average of 12 days per year exceeding 81 degrees
Fahrenheit, 70 to 94 days may exceed this temperature;
By 2100: six to eight times as many extreme heat days as today.

SEA LEVEL RISE
2

16 inches by 2050;
55 inches by 2100.

GREATER STORM INTENSITY AND FREQUENCY
3

A “1 in 100 year flood” will likely occur four times more often by the end of the century;
Projections for mean annual precipitation increase vary with no definite data at this time.

DECLINE IN FOG
4

Projection for decrease of spatial alterations in fog distribution in the San Francisco Bay
Area is not available at this time;
Last century fog declined by 33% along the California coast.

94
San Francisco’s Indian summer describes cooler temperatures during the summer time and
warmer temperatures in the early fall, with summer-time fog being a major contributor to the
climatic condition. “San Francisco Fog” is a component of the biological bay region. Its
ecosystem benefits include altering evapotranspiration rates and providing substantial moisture
for coastal biomass, such as Redwood trees. It significantly affects the distribution of vegetation
and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay Area, and along the entire coastal Pacific zone (TBC3,
2012). Alternation of a temporal or spatial kind in fog distribution will likely be a major drive of
landscape change, due to its inevitable impacts on water budgets and energy use, associated
with landscape irrigation (TBC3, 2012). The current lack of landscape-level fog data contributes
to the uncertainty to climate change adaptation planning; though, more data pertaining to sea
level rise in the Bay Area, is known.
Sea level is anticipated to rise in San Francisco approximately 16 inches by 2050 and about
55 inches or 1.38 meters by 2100 (Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2009). A
priority for the Department is to be aware and understand shoreline risk assessments, inclusive
of corresponding coastal inundation maps, as they become available, to develop adaptation and
mitigation strategies. Based on sea level rise maps, current projections for sea level rise directly
impact parklands in four specific parkland properties, as follow: Candlestick Park, located in the
Bayview; Indian Basin Shoreline Park; Sharp Park, located in Pacifica; and the Small Craft Harbor
Marina, inclusive of the Marina Green (geology.com, 2012). Table 20 provides a listing of
parklands most at risk based on current sea level rise projection.
95
Source: Bay Conservation and Development Commission sea level rise projection with an overlay of a
2012 San Francisco map from geology.com

Table 20.

The process of adaptation planning, as set forth, identifies a set of actions to decrease San
Francisco parks system’s vulnerability, and increases its resilience to the impacts of climate
change in four key sectors: public health; ecosystems and biodiversity; water management; and
sea level rise. Six adaptation strategies were developed with immediately realized benefits that
are valuable today and may be even more valuable under future climate change. Table 21
provides a summary listing of recommended strategies with specific goals and objectives for
each anticipated climatic change, specifically for San Francisco.
Parkland Properties At-Risk
Increase of 1.38 meters in Sea Level Rise

Specific Features At-Most Risk
• Candlestick Park
Southeastern parking lot areas
(approximately 1 to 1.5 acres)

• Indian Basin Shoreline Park
Southeastern portion

• Sharp Park
Western section inclusive of Laguna Salada
and the entire golf course

• Small Craft Harbor Marina
West Basin Mole and the entire Marina
Green
96
Table 21.

CLIMATE READY: BUILDING RESILIENCY BY SECTORS

RESILIENCY TO EXTREME HEAT AND HEAT WAVES

Climate Change in SF Bay Area: Confirmed and anticipated increases in extreme heat and heat-
waves.

• By mid-century: three to four times as
many extreme heat days as today
1
.

• By 2100: six to eight times as many
extreme heat days as today
2
.

• By 2070: From a 20
th
-century average of 12
days per year exceeding 81 degrees
Fahrenheit, San Francisco may have 70 to 94
days exceeding this temperature
3
.

• Increase in migration of plant species and wild
habitat towards the north and coastward to
find suitable temperatures and moisture
4
.

Sector: Public Health (PH)

Strategy: Increase the urban canopy cover to reduce temperature and increase beneficial
microclimatic effects.

Goal PH1: Develop reforestation
and tree-planting plans utilizing the
findings from the 2007 CFUR
assessment of San Francisco’s urban
forest.
Objective PH1.1: Develop a listing of low volatile organic
compounds (VOC) emitting tree species with criteria that
maximizes ecosystem benefits such as large canopies and
low-maintenance to be utilized for all planting efforts as part
of this goal.

Objective PH1.2: Develop a digital GIS map with overlays of
park services areas (PSA) and the index of priority planting
areas to confirm specific locations within Park Services Areas.

Objective PH1.3: Develop incremental tree-planting
performance measurements in critical areas, utilizing net-tree
gain rates.

Goal PH2: Increase urban canopy in
locations identified in Goal#PH1.
Objective PH2.1: Develop tree-planting annual work
objectives with corresponding budget allocations for
gardening complexes where the greater temperature changes
will take place such as Bayview and Palega neighborhoods.

ObjectivePH2.2: Create a tree-planting plan(s) to leverage
philanthropic and volunteerism efforts in collaboration with
the Partnerships and Volunteer Services.

Objective PH2.3: In a multi-agency approach, develop tree-
planting incremental goals to target specific polluted or
heavily polluted areas in San Francisco, utilizing low VOC
species.
1-3
Source: SPUR Climate Change Hits Home: Is the Bay Area Ready? May 2011
4
Source: Martin, G., Taking the Heat, Bay nature, Jan. – March 2099
97

Strategy: Sustain existing large, healthy trees and existing tree canopy.

Goal PH3: Develop a programmed
tiered tree-assessment and tree-
care approach for critical areas
identified in Goal PH1.
Objective PH3.1: Build into the budget planning process
and/or 2012 Bond Forestry Program, tiered tree assessments
for critical areas such as PSA 2 and PSA 3.

Objective PH3.2: Commission tree-assessments for
prioritized critical areas in Goal PH1.

Objective PH3.3: Create a tree-care plan(s) to leverage
philanthropic and volunteerism efforts in collaboration with
the Partnerships and Volunteer Services.

Objective PH3.4: Meet and confer with L261 Laborers Union
to create opportunities for tree-trimming activities through
volunteerism specifically for this effort.

Strategy: Identify strategic public spaces for heat relief in the city’s southeastern region.

Goal PH4: Prepare recreation
complexes in the Palega, Visitation
Valley and Bayview neighborhoods
to function as cooling centers.
Objective PH4.1: Identify specific recreation centers in critical
areas to function as cooling centers in the event of an
extreme heat wave.

Objective PH4.2: Incorporate in the Department’s Emergency
Response Plan, heat response plans for such facilities.

Objective PH4.3: Develop shelter management agreements
for cooling zones/ cooling centers with CCSF Department of
Emergency Response and the American Red Cross.

Objective PH4.4: Train recreation center staff American Red
Cross shelter management to operate cooling centers to
retain control of facility.

Goal PH5: Prepare aquatic centers
throughout the city to function as
cooling spaces.
Objective PH5.5: Develop a heat response plan for aquatic
centers anticipating increased public demand during heat
weaves; expanding hours of operation and creating special
programming during those days.

Goal PH6: Align capital program to
include energy efficiency or
renewable energy systems at
potential cooling zones.

Objective PH6.1: Identify potential capital projects in the
2012 Parks Bond that may be utilized as cooling centers, as
early as 2025.

Objective PH6.2: Develop a policy identifying and describing
cooling centers for capital design to incorporate energy
efficiencies in addition to renewable energy systems in such
facilities.

Table 21, Continued
98

Sector: Ecosystems and Biodiversity (ESB)

Strategy: Provide support to migrating species and existing habitat.

Goal ESB1: Sustain existing tree
canopy.

Objective ESB1.1: Prioritize potential 2012 Parks Bond
Forestry Program sites by a criterion that maximizes support
to habitat such as migrating bird populations.

Objective ESB1.2: Develop forestry operational protocols to
support ecosystem and biodiversity that incorporate
standards such as 100 % of snags to remain in natural areas.

Objective ESB1.3: Conduct close monitoring of pest and
disease on urban forest; identify “triggers”, as a result of
increased temperatures and loss of moisture availability.

Goal ESB2: Develop land
management practices and
standards to support biodiversity
and needs of migrating birds.
Objective ESB2.1: Identify by park service areas the attributes
of an “ecological district” such as topography, microclimates,
soil and species.

Objective ESB2.2: Develop forestry operational standard that
ensure that a portion of fallen trees remain on park sites to
support habitat.

Objective ESB2.3: Identify locations where a “slow-down” of
landscaping work by seasons is required to support nesting
birds and other wildlife and native plants reproduction.

Objective ESB2.4: Conduct light-spill assessments in critical
bird nesting sites in partnership with the Audubon Society.

Objective ESB2.5: Identify critical location to Implement a
minimum lighting, as a safety standard, during bird nesting
season.

Objective ESB2.6: Develop operational protocols to
discourage feeding and other type of support to feral cat
population.

Objective ESB2.7: Develop legislation to reduce the feral cat
population in parks.

Table 21, Continued
99

Goal ESB3: Develop planting
standards to maximize biodiversity
support benefits.

Objective ESB3.1: Develop a listing of plants and vegetation
with wildlife value to be utilized for the selection of new
planting on parklands.

Objective ESB3.2: Develop planting annual work objectives
with corresponding budget allocations for gardening
complexes to support increased migration of birds in coastal
range (western end of GGP, Lake Merced, Lower Coast
Highway).

Objective ESB3.3: Create planting plan(s) to leverage
philanthropic and volunteerism efforts in collaboration with
Partnerships and Volunteer Services.

Objective ESB3.4: In a multi-agency approach, develop
planting incremental goals to target specific areas in San
Francisco.

Goal ESB4: Support existing and
new wildlife corridors as climate
temperature increases.
Objective ESB4.1: Confirm existing wildlife corridors by park
service area.

Objective ESB4.2: Develop annual work objectives with
corresponding budget allocations for gardening complexes to
enhance wildlife corridors with support amenities such as
water, removal of barriers, and educational signage.

Objective ESB4.3: In a regional multi-agency planning effort,
identify new wildlife corridors as climate temperature change
to develop a Multi-habitat Conservation and Preservation
Plan.

RESILIENCY TO SEA LEVEL RISE

Climate Change in SF Bay Area: Anticipated rise in sea and bay levels.

• Sea and bay levels are projected to rise in the Bay Area by 55 inches by 2100; specific parkland
properties significantly impacted
5
.

Sector: Sea Level Rise (SLR)

Strategy: Confirm and monitor primary climate impacts as a result of sea level rise on parklands as
considerations for current and future land use planning.

Goal SLR1: Conduct vulnerability
assessments for parklands within a
1.5 mile radius from the bay and
ocean shorelines.
Objective SLR1.1: Conduct vulnerability assessment on
Candlestick Park, Indian Basin Shoreline Park, Sharp Park and
the Small Craft Harbor Marina that incorporates flood level
and frequency; level and frequency of extreme high tide; and
erosion models based on data.

Table 21, Continued
100

Goal SLR2: Develop a natural
shoreline protection policy to
protect coastal ecosystems in
coastal zones.
Objective SLR2.1: Identify and develop wetland and “climate
ready estuaries” components appropriate with the region
that can be phased-in in current use planning and future land
use determinations.

Objective SLR2.2: Identify development restrictions with
appropriate recreational and natural settings.

Objective SLR2.3: In collaboration with partnering agencies,
develop a public awareness program that incorporates
ecological literacy components.
RESILIENCY TO GREATER STORM INTENSITY & FREQUENCY

Climate Change in SF Bay Area: Anticipated increase in winter precipitation, as rain.

• By mid-century: water delivery systems
may be affected
6
.

• Increase of extreme winter storms,
flooding and runoff, in a steady increase,
as of to date
7
.

• A “1 in 100 year flood” will likely occur four
times more often by the end of the century
8
.

Sector: Water Management (WM)

Strategy: Align parks as potential green infrastructure to resolve the root cause of storm water
and combined sewer overflow (CSO) pollution in San Francisco’s waste water systems.

Goal WM1: Quantify the “green
infrastructure” contributions from
parks to the City’s water
management.
Objective WM1.1: Conduct an assessment of groundwater
recharge rates and its economic benefits, utilizing
precipitation rates from the last two years, in Golden Gate
Park, Glen Canyon Park, McLaren Park, Park Presidio Blvd,
Buena Vista Park and 5 golf courses.

Objective WM1.2: Conduct a water storage assessment in
parklands incorporating US Green Building Council biomass
density index and utilizing precipitation rates from the last
two years.

Objective WM1.3: Based on flood peak flows, identify
existing parks that function or may function as flood
attenuation.

5
Source: Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Living with a Rising Bay, 2009
Table 21, Continued
101

Goal WM2: Establish a policy
principle for a multi-agency
collaboration with SFPUC on storm
water management.
Objective WM2.1: Develop a memorandum of understanding
with the SFPUC to explore and identify opportunities and
benefits of parks, as green infrastructure in the City’s storm
water management.

Objective WM2.2: Integrate the opportunity of collaboration
thru recommendation action by the Recreation and Park
Commission, Environment Commission and the Public Utilities
Commission.

Goal WM3: Increase “green
infrastructure” as a key strategy for
water management.
Objective WM3.1: Add new climate considerations to the
criteria for selection of tree specimen selection, including
carbon sequestration, water uptake, and heat island
reduction through shading and evaporative cooling.

Objective WM3.2: Identify ecological restoration with
measurable regenerative processes in parklands and potential
green connectors, outside the significant natural areas, as
flood attenuation.

Objective WM3.3: Develop annual work objectives with
corresponding budget allocations for gardening complexes to
enhance ecological restoration as storm water management
features and landscape amenity.

Objective WM3.4: Create storm water plans for parks to
leverage philanthropic and volunteerism efforts in
collaboration with Partnerships and Volunteer Services.

RESILIENCY TO DECLINE IN FOG

Climate Change in SF Bay Area: Anticipated decrease of spatial alternations in fog distributions, to be
confirmed.

• Decrease in fog distribution

• Last century fog declined by 33% along
California coast
9
.

Strategy: Manage soils to adapt to changes in soil temperatures and moisture levels

Goal Soil1: Manage soils to adapt
to changes in soil temperatures and
moisture levels.
Objective Soils1.1: Build staff capacity for soil management
by allocating staff development resources in sustainable
landscaping practices and irrigation management.

Objective Soils1.2: Allocate funding to support acquisition of
automated soil gauge tools.

Table 21, Continued
102

Strategy: Build resiliency through adaptive management practices.

Goal EH2: Integrate adaptive management to
anticipated decrease of fog distribution and
factor in uncertainty.
Objective EH2.01: Conduct a vulnerability
assessment to anticipated decrease in spatial
moisture.

Objective EH2.02: Include climate-related
vulnerability assessments in capital project
approval, operations and funding decisions to
better account for vulnerability and risk.

Objective EH4.03: Participate and support multi-
jurisdictional collaborations across landscapes to
develop strong partnerships and enhance
resources.

6-7
Source: SPUR Climate Change Hits Home: Is the Bay Area Ready? May 2011
8
Source: Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco
Region.
July 2012
9
Source: Terrestrial Biodiversity and Climate Change Collaborative – San Francisco Bay Area
Table 21, Continued
103
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS
Section 7.01 Overcoming Barriers
Climate change presents uncertainty and very real climate risks that will hamper San
Francisco’s park and open space system. While climate action planning, based on sustainability
and adaptive management, provides for a sound platform to correctly reduce GHG emissions
and to respond to change in climatic conditions and their impacts, its efficacy greatly depends
on additional variables rooted in the agency itself. To ensure guarantee success in reaching the
strategic directions and accomplishing strategic goals and objectives set forth in the San
Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: Repositioning to a Sustainable
Parks & Open Space System, barriers identified in the organization and the agency’s leadership,
must be overcome. Equally as important, the City and County of San Francisco must
incorporate urban green infrastructure in its larger climate action planning efforts; local
ecosystem functioning must be considered.
Organization

The organization’s capacity that remains after decades of deteriorating budgets is not
able to absorb the demands from climate change action planning, and effect change
accordingly. There is a significant gap in sound knowledge of science in this area in an
overstrained staff composition. To overcome these barriers and as the organization transitions
to a sustainable management of parklands, the Department must revamp its organizational
structure. Climate action and environmental planning demands a higher priority in the
organization; thereby addressing its fundamental question of what is the proper relationship
between park users and the parkland’s ecological systems? The Recreation and Park
Department has a deeper responsibility to San Francisco’s natural world and the environment
since is the third largest municipal department in the City and County of San Francisco with the
104
largest amount of land and buildings; one of the largest water consumers; and, the agency that
stewards by far the largest portion of San Francisco’s urban forest, open spaces, the city’s
natural areas, and parklands.
A Chief Environmental Officer is required to lead and build a new Division of
Environmental Services; lead multi-jurisdictional collaborations and partnerships; lead the
Climate Ready Program and the Climate Friendly Program; steward environmental initiatives
and pilot programs such as carbon sequestration projects; provide direction to the Natural Areas
Program and rebuild the Integrated Pest Management Program; lead the reforestation program
and secure environmental accreditations of park operations, such as the Audubon Certification
at five golf courses and urban forest project protocols for carbon sequestration; and create staff
buy-in and capacity. The Division of Environmental Services will manage the environmental
performance system, where the Department’s entire performance measures by sectors would
reside. The proposed climate action planning and policy program requires an even stronger
vigor and performance expectations, as compared to the Department’s most recent endeavor in
improving customer service and public affairs.
Leadership

Without a doubt, a climate champion is needed to effect change both internally and
externally through budget, capital, and operations planning. Most importantly, a visionary
leader is required to convey the importance and urgency of positioning the parks correctly in the
face of uncertainty; and to meaningfully engage the community, based on trust and consensus-
building. The cultivation of community partners in the business and academic sectors, as well as
a broad based community building around these issues, are equally crucial to leverage critical
resources and collective action.
105
Section 7.02 Moving Forward
The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department is positioned to innovate and lead
through the implementation of the San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action
Plan: Repositioning to a Sustainable Parks & Open Space System. It articulates a sense of
urgency, vision and commitment through implementation actions. The opportunity is here for
the Recreation and Park Department to be the incubator for new climate action planning
strategies that can be tailored to meet the needs of other park systems, as they become climate
friendly and climate ready. A change in the Department’s course with a new vision toward
climate action is indeed a reaffirmation of the role and value of urban parks as critical
contributors to quality of life in a finite biosphere.
Moving forward, monitoring and reporting of GHG reduction measures, as well as evaluating
adaptation strategies, will be critical to make adjustments to ensure success. The most
appropriate concluding thought is that of a great park pioneer, Frederick Law Olmested, who
wrote to the San Francisco Park Commission to assist them in focusing their vision in adopting
unpopular forest thinning activities, as a new forestry management practice, which is perfectly
fitting today –
“The Board of Commissioners who will let things for the future drift, and keep
the surface green and bright for the time being, and add to the present
“attractions” of the place, will receive passing praise, and will only share with
all the rest the odium of having allowed the tree plantations to go to the dogs,
when in a few years the matter comes to be popularly understood….

The degree of wisdom of its management today governs the value of the
results in years to come.” Frederick Law Olmsted, October 5, 1886
106
BIBIOGRAPHY
AECOM, Inc. October 2012. Financing San Francisco’s Urban Forest. City and County of San
Francisco.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). April 2009. Living with a Rising Bay:
Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline.

Beatley, Timothy, 2000. Preserving biodiversity: Challenges for planners. APA Journal 66:5-20

Boswell, Micheal, Greve Adrianne, Seale Tammy, 2012. Local Climate Action Planning. Island
Press.

California, State of. 1980. Golden Gate Park Forest Management Plan. The Resources
Agency. Sacramento CA.

City and County of San Francisco. Municipal Code. Environment Code. Chapter 20. Section 203.
Energy Performance Ordinance.
www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca

City and County of San Francisco. 2004. Green House Emissions Reduction Resolution.
Resolution Number 0158-02. www.sfenvironment.org/climate-change/policy

City and County of San Francisco. General Plan. 1986. Recreation and Open Space Element.
San Francisco, CA.

City and County of San Francisco. General Plan. 2009. DRAFT of the Recreation and Open Space
Element Update.

City and County of San Francisco Municipal Code. San Francisco Building Inspection Commission
Code. Chapter 13D. Commercial Lighting Efficiency Ordinance.
www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca

City and County of San Francisco. Municipal Code. San Francisco Environment Code. Chapter 4.
Section 400. Healthy Air and Clean Transportation Ordinance.
www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca

City and County of San Francisco Municipal Code. San Francisco Environment Code. Section
101. San Francisco Precautionary Principle Policy Statement.
www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca

Clark, Josiah, 2004. Wildlife Enhancement in San Francisco’s Urban Parks: An Ecologist’s
Perspective for Maximizing Habitat Value. San Francisco, CA.

Energy Efficiency Measures Plan: San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. 2008. San
Francisco Recreation and Park Department. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

107
Energy Information Administration, General Guidelines and Supporting Documents. Establishing
the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, Appendix A., Conversion Factors for
Standard Unit. www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/gdlines.html

Environmental Protection Agency. 20012. Emission Factor and Emission Estimation Tools.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/esttools.html

Fimrite, Peter, May 25, 2009. Presidio Branches Out with Eucalyptus Swap. San Francisco Gate.
San Francisco, CA. http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Presidio-branches-out-with-
eucalyptus-swap-3231412.php

Geology.com. San Francisco, Bay Area and Sacramento Valley: Sea Level Rise Map.
geology.com/sea-level-rise/san-francisco.shtml

Global Reporting Initiative. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. 2000-2011. Version 3.1.

Hackett, Katia, February 02, 2012. Presidio’s Forest Resists The Sands of Time.
www. baynature.org/articles/presidos-forest-resists-the-sands-of-time

Hall, William, Olmsted Frederick, and McLaren John 1886. The Development of Golden Gate
Park and Particularly The Management and Thinning of Its Forest Tree Plantations: A Statement
from the Board of Park Commissioners. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

Harnik, Peter 2010. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Trust for Public Land.
Island Press.

Hetter, Katia. July 06, 2004. Crusade to Save A Dying Forest: Presidio Expert Brings Passion to
Towering Task. San Francisco Gate. San Francisco, CA.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Crusade-to-save-a-dying-forest-
2743887.php

HortScience. 2010. Assessment of Urban Forestry Operations. San Francisco Recreation and
Park Department. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

HortScience. 2004. Tree Assessment and Hazard Management Plan: Pine Lake Park. San
Francisco Recreation and Park Department. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

HortScience. 2004. Tree Assessment and Hazard Management Plan: Sigmund Stern Grove. San
Francisco Recreation and Park Department. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco,
CA.

HortScience. 2008. Tree Management Plan: North Slope Pioneer Park, San Francisco, CA.. San
Francisco Recreation and Park Department. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco,
CA.

HortScience. 2011. Tree Report and Risk Assessment: Alamo Square Park. San Francisco
Recreation and Park Department. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

108
Institute for Local Government, Sustainability/Climate Change Program. 2011. Best Practices
Framework. Version 6.0. http://www.ca-ilg.org/climate-action-sustainability-best-practices-
framework

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. Shaping a Sustainable Future: IUCN
Programme 2009-12.

Kahn, Matthew. 2006. “Green Cities Urban Growth and the Environment”. Brookings.

League of California Cities. 2009. Sustainable Communities: An Urban Imperative. Western City
Publication.

McBride Joe and Froehlich, Denice 1980. Vegetation Management Plan for Mountain Lake
Park. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

McBride, Joe and Froehlich, Denice 1984. Structure and Condition of Older Stands in Parks and
Open Space Areas of San Francisco CA. Urban Ecology. 8: 165 - 178.

Medina, Sarah 2012. San Francisco Public Park System Ranked First in the Nation. Huffington
Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/san-francisco-public-parks_n_1541105.html

National Audubon Society. 2012. Global Warming and Birds. www. audubon.org.

Newsom, Gavin. 2006. Executive Order 06-02: Biodiesel for Municipal Fleets. City and County
of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

Nowak,David, Hoehn, Rrobert, Crane Daniel, Stevens, Jack, and Walton, Jeffrey 2007. Assessing
Urban Forest Values: San Francisco Urban Forest. United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service. Northern Research Station, Resource Bulletin NRS-8.

Olmsted, Frederick Law. October 5
th
, 1886. Communication from Honorable Fred Law Olmsted
to the Chairman of the San Francisco Park Commission. Salt Lake,

Pachauri, R.K., Jallow B. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report. United Nations.

Reid, CE, et al. 2009, “Mapping Community Determinants of Heat Vulnerability”. Environmental
Health Perspectives. 117: 1730-1736.

San Francisco Department of the Environment. December 1996. The Sustainability Plan for the
City of San Francisco. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

San Francisco Department of the Environment. April 2006. Urban Forest Plan. City and County
of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

San Francisco Department of the Environment and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
September 2004. Climate Action Plan for San Francisco: Local Actions to Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.
109

San Francisco Neighborhood Parks Council and San Francisco Planning & Urban Research
Association. May 1998. San Francisco Community Parks Task Force Report: Parks Plan.

San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association. Climate Change Hits Home: Is the Bay
Area Ready. Urbanist Issue 503. May 2011.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. Staying Afloat: 11 Ways to Solve San
Francisco’s Parks Funding Crisis. Urbanist Issue 506. September 2011.

San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. October 2012. FY 2011-12 Annual Report. City
and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. February 2011.FY 2011-12 Efficiency Plan. City
and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. February 2006.Significant Natural Resource
Areas Management Plan. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco Region.
University of California, San Diego. July 2012.

Terrestrial Biodiversity and Climate Change Collaborative – San Francisco Bay Area. Fog
Mapping & Modeling Project. http://tbc3.org/projects/fog-mapping-and-modeling/

U.S. and Canada Green Index. 2011. Assessing the Environmental Performance of 27 Major U.S.
and Canadian Cities. Siemens, A.G. Munich, Germany.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. 2012. Green Parks Plan: Advancing Our
Mission through Sustainable Operations.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Office of the Deputy Secretary. November 18, 2009.
Statement of Kin Batten. Managing Forests in Response to Climate Change. Oversight Hearing
on Forests and Climate Change.

Wolf, Katherine L. 2001. Tree investment brings cities many happy returns. Environmental
Outlook.

World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987, p.43.

Younger, Leo and PROS, LCC. 2004. Recreation Assessment Report: San Francisco Recreation
and Park Department. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.
110
Appendix A Working Group Members

Chair: Ana M. Alvarez, Superintendent of Parks & Open Spaces

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Intradepartmental Working Group: Data Gathering

Urban Forestry

Dennis Kern, Director of Operations

Kelly Cornel, Tree Topper Supervisor

Building Energy Efficiency

Ana M. Alvarez

Erin Anderson, Administrative Analyst

Employees Transportation Options

Jeffrey Bramlett, Health & Safety Manager

Fleet & Fuel

Lydia Zaverukha, Principle Administrative Analyst

Charlene Puccini, Accounts Payable Supervisor

Green Purchasing

Sean McFadden, Purchasing Principle
Administrative Analyst

Landscape Practices

Ana M. Alvarez

Water Efficiency & Conservation

Ana M. Alvarez

Zero Waste

Kellie Cornell, Tree Topper Supervisor

Ellen McCarthy, Recreation Program Coordinator

111
Appendix B Focus Group Participants

Gray to Green Advisory Panel
to the San Francisco Climate Action Strategy

Ana M. Alvarez, Chair
Superintendent of Parks & Open
Spaces

San Francisco Recreation & Park
Department

Laura Tam,
Staff
San Francisco Planning & Urban Research
Association

Karen Kidwell,
Executive Director

San Francisco Parks Trust

Julia Brashares,
Land Stewardship Program Manager

San Francisco Parks Trust

Casey Allen,
Owner-Partner

San Francisco Landscapes

Victoria Bell,
Stewardship Manager

Neighborhood Parks Council

John Bela, ASLA
Founder & Principal

REBAR

Arden Bucklin-Sporer,
Director of Programs
San Francisco Unified School District,
Green Schoolyard Alliance

Jeffrey Betcher,
Co-Founder & Organizer

Quesada Gardens Initiative

Peter Brastow,
Founding Director

Nature in the City

Dan Flanagan,
Executive Director

Friends of the Urban Forest

Doug Wildman,
Program Director
Friends of the Urban Forest

112
APPENDIX C: 2011 GRAY TO GREEN PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Mayor Edwin M. Lee
City and County of San Francisco
San Francisco, City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

May 25, 2011

Dear Mayor Lee:

As organizations concerned with the effects climate change will have on San Francisco’s
biodiversity, natural environment, and green infrastructure, and as panelists on the “Gray to
Green” Advisory Panel to the San Francisco climate Action Plan, we appreciated the opportunity
to learn about the City’s Climate Action Strategy.

We are writing to express our support for the City and County of San Francisco’s greenhouse gas
emissions reduction targets, and to recommend that the City incorporate urban greeing and green
infrastructure into its larger climate planning efforts in regards to both greenhouse gas mitigation
and adaptation to climate change.

Our specific recommendations, listed below, fall into four categories:

a) Guiding Principles
(1) The City, when forming green space management policies, should consider local
ecosystem functioning and climate science.
(2) The City should work toward managing and investing in its green infrastructure with
the same policy vigor and performance expectations as it does in its built man-made
infrastructure, when addressing ecosystem functions for climate mitigation and
adaptation.
(3) When planning for urban green space the City should support the activities of
neighborhoods and community groups in their roles as local stewards of our green
spaces (see c1.c) below.

b) Specific Recommendations: Mitigation
(1) Align city policy related to street tree responsibility with national best practices,
especially regarding who adopts the liability for an installed tree. The City should
also explore ways to reduce the financial cost to property owners to maintain and
install new street trees and other green infrastructure in the streetscape.
(2) Add new climate considerations to the criteria for DPW street trees, including carbon
sequestration, water uptake, and heat island reduction through shading and
evaporative cooling. Street trees and other green infrastructure can reduce carbon
emissions, reduce storm water runoff, and reduce the urban heat island effect.
(3) City Departments should explore ways that green infrastructure and new public
spaces can be water-neutral or irrigated with alternative water supplies such as
harvested rainwater or recycled water. Green infrastructure projects, and the green
components of certain public spaces such as those in the Street Parks and Pavement
to Parks programs, are currently hindered by limited access to water supplies.
113

c) Specific Recommendations: Adaptation
(1) To inform its climate change adaptation efforts, the City should set a goal of
conducting a comprehensive study on the effects of climate change on San Francisco,
and of implementing green infrastructure improvements in line with the results of
that study. This should include:
(a) conducting a tree canopy “census” and identifying opportunities for better
shade-tree coverage in underserved and intensely urbanized areas. This
could be accomplished through direct plantings in the public right of way,
grants to the community tree-planting groups, or utility rebates for planting
on private property. San Francisco will be affected by climate change
through increase temperatures in addition to seal level rise. We may expect
an eightfold increase in “extreme heat” days by the end of the century; shade-
tree coverage will mitigate these effects.
(b) Improving green infrastructure to reduce flooding events, making maximum
use of public parkland and connectors.
(c) Developing a measure of social cohesion and community strength as it
relates to the care of local green infrastructure, given the important role
place-based communities must play in responding to climate disaster.
(2) Healthier ecological communities are more resilient to global change, and so the City
should prioritize ecological restoration of our native grasslands, shrublands, creeks
and dune when appropriate and feasible.

d) Specific Recommendations: Organization
(1) The Mayor’s Offices should coordinate an interdepartmental panel on green space
policies in order to increase communication between City departments and identify
synergies in land management practices, and to establish a unified process for
community greening of public parcels.
(2) When SFPUC’s efforts towards watershed based planning include recommendations
for green infrastructure improvements, all land owning City agencies should
collaborate on implementation of their finding Grants disbursed by the City’s
Department of the Environment should include requirements that the grantee spend
the granted money locally whenever possible.

We look forward to continued work with the City as we move together into a new era of
integrated and ecologically-based urban and climate planning.

Sincerely,

The Gray to Green Advisory Panel to the San Francisco Climate Action Strategy

Ana M. Alvarez, Chair – San Francisco
Department of Recreation and Park
John Bela - REBAR

Laura Tam – SPUR
Arden Bucklin – Sporer – SFUSD Green
Schoolyard Alliance
Karen Kidwell & Julia Brashares – San
Francisco Parks Trust
Jeffrey Betcher – Quesada Gardens Initiative
Peter Brastow – Nature in the City
Casey Allen – SF Landscapes
Victoria Bell – Neighborhood Parks Council
Dan Flanaga & Doug Wildman – Friends of the
Urban Forest
114

Appendix D List of Interviewees

David Assman,
Deputy Director

San Francisco Department of the Environment
Julia Brashares,
Land Stewardship Program Manager

San Francisco Parks Trust

Victoria Bell,
Stewardship Manager

Neighborhood Parks Council

Arden Bucklin-Sporer,
Director of Programs
San Francisco Unified School District, Green
Schoolyard Alliance

Steve Castile,
Golf & Turf Manager

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Kelly Cornerll,
Tree Topper Supervisor

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Brent Dennis,
Assistant Director of Operations for
Golden Gate Park

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Amanda Dougherty,
Water Conservation Administrator

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Dr. Chris Geiger,
Manager Green Purchasing & IPM
Programs

San Francisco Department of the Environment
Mei Ling Hui,
Urban Forest Coordinator

San Francisco Department of the Environment
Karen Mauney-Brodek,
Deputy Director of Planning

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Calla Rose Ostrander,
Climate Action Coordinator

San Francisco Department of the Environment
Sean A. Stasio,
Information Systems Administrator

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Laura Tam,
Staff
San Francisco Planning & Urban Research
Association
115

Sachiko Tanikawa,
Municipal Climate Action Plan
Coordinator

San Francisco Department of the Environment
Rick Thall,
Capital Project Manager

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Joan Valentini,
Gardener

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Isabel Wade,
Founder & Board Member

San Francisco Parks Alliance
Marvin Yee,
Community Gardens Coordinator

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department
Lydia Zaverukha,
Principle Administrative Analyst
San Francisco Recreation & Park Department

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The Planning, Design and Development Project (PDDP) establishes a Climate Action Plan for the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, whereby repositioning its parks and open space system as a strategic contributor to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The PDDP, San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: Repositioning to a Sustainable Parks & Open Space System, directly contributes to San Francisco’s quality of life by repositioning its park system from a recreational amenity to an ecological high-performing urban infrastructure. For the first time in its history, San Francisco’s park operations are measured utilizing environmental performance indicators

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

PDF

A time of crisis: the Australian experience and what can California learn?

PDF

The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

PDF

Household carbon footprints: how to encourage adoption of emissions‐reducing behaviors and technologies

PDF

Do sustainability plans affect urban sustainability outcomes in Santa Monica, San Francisco, and San Jose?

PDF

Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports

PDF

Evergreen economies: institutions, industries and issues in the green economy

PDF

The use of mobile technology and mobile applications as the next paradigm in development: can it be a game-changer in development for women in rural Afghanistan?

PDF

A research on water conservation and governance networks in Southern California

PDF

Water security, national security and MCIWest: a grounded theory for operationalizing risk management

PDF

Improvement of health care delivery in America: medical office compliance certification system implementation

PDF

Building spiritual capital in religious communities: how and why?

PDF

Why go green? Cities' adoption of local renewable energy policies and urban sustainability certifications

PDF

China's environmental reform: ecological modernization, regulatory compliance, and institutional change

PDF

Structure, agency, and the Kuznets Curve: observations and implications for sustainability planning in U.S. cities

PDF

Urban conservation in the Middle Eastern historic cities: globalization and lack of identity

PDF

The economic and political impacts of U.S. federal carbon emissions trading policy across households, sectors and states

PDF

Governing regional collaboratives: institutional design, management and leadership

PDF

Values-based discipline: the key to organizational transformation within law enforcement agencies

PDF

A capability-based approach to defining performance characteristics of the built environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Alvarez, Ana M. (author)

Core Title San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: repositioning to a sustainable parks & open space system

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 03/04/2013

Defense Date 01/10/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag climate action planning,ecological parks,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy and planning framework,sustainability,urban parks

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mazmanian, Daniel A. (committee chair), Blanco, Hilda (committee member)

Creator Email ana.alvarez@sfgov.org,bbelk@sbcglobal.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-222830

Unique identifier UC11294717

Identifier usctheses-c3-222830 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AlvarezAna-1455.pdf

Dmrecord 222830

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Alvarez, Ana M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA