Martin Fontana Parks Association Parks Restoration and ......˜ Fontana West Spring 2011: CA Native...

Martin Fontana Parks Association Parks Restoration and Improvement Master Plan

V1.3 9-8-2011 Patrick Pizzo Larry Sasser Dave Poeschel Sunny Wagstaff

Contents Background: ........................................................ 3

Introductory Definitions: .......................................... 4

Restoration and Improvement Guiding Principles: .................... 5

Restoration Projects Overview: ..................................... 6

Parks Overview: .................................................. 7

Before Restoration Park Images: ................................... 15

Tree Removal, PG&E plus Trees Downed by Storm/Disease ............. 18

Martin-Fontana Park Restoration and Improvement Image-Set ......... 21

Appendix (Part I)................................................... 31 Restoration and Improvement Committee MFPA ........................ 31

MFPA Restoration and Improvement Committee Members .............. 31

General Concepts and Limitations ................................ 32

A Perspective of the Restoration of TJM and JF Parks ............ 33

The Trees of J. Fontana and T.J. Martin Parks ................... 35

Some Trees and Shrubs used in the R&I plantings ................. 37

Initial Plan for Fontana West and Lessons Learned ............... 45

Fall ’11 Survey of Weak and/or Dead Trees ....................... 53

Appendix (Part II).................................................. 61 Specific Planting Plans and Park Improvement Ideas ................ 61

Audubon Member Contributions to our Parks ....................... 62

South Hills Community Church: Planting Project, November 2010 .. 64

1

Conceptual Park Improvements: McAbee Entrance to J. Fontana Central and East ................................................ 65

Replacement Plan for Random Tree Loss ........................... 67

Spring Planting of Trees: TJMartin-2, the Area by ‘The Strand’ . 74

Jeffrey Fontana Native Plant Restoration ........................ 75

Larry Sasscer’s Plan for Spring ’11: TJ Martin 1 and 2 .......... 84

Associated Images for Spring ’11 Planting-Larry Sasscer/Tom Morse 89

Fall ’11 Planting: Fontana West ................................ 91

Fontana West/Middle/East, Phase II ............................. 100

Spring ’12 Planting, Fontana West .............................. 116

Glowing Court Plantings, Martin 1-2: A Proposal ............... 121

Rest Area, Tree #13: A Concept ................................. 124

2

Background: This restoration and improvement master plan has been created to provide the Martin-Fontana Parks Association (MFPA) board members, MFPA general members, City of San Jose authorities, PG&E authorities, SCVWD authorities, and interested members of the public an overview of the restoration concepts being developed by the MFPA Restoration and Improvement Committee. Detailed site specific plans within the park are presented in separate documents but brief overviews of specific plans are shown here to demonstrate how the general concepts are being applied. The restoration committee was established to develop and initiate plans to plant trees and vegetation as mitigation for the removal of trees in the parks. In an effort to ensure the safety and reliability of the power transmission system, PG&E enacted a program of selective tree removal throughout the T.J. Martin and Jeffrey Fontana parks. The committee proposals are reviewed by the MFPA Board, the City of San Jose, PG&E, and SCVWD when applicable. The restoration committee is lead by MFPA member Patrick Pizzo and includes many members from the local community. Representatives for PG&E, the City of San Jose, and Our City Forest, have been invited and often attend meetings in order to facilitate the creation of viable plans which must meet PG&E safety requirements, City maintenance constraints, safety considerations, and SCVWD environmental guidelines.

The restoration committee needs also to create vegetation plans which enhance the existing characteristics and include input from the larger community while capitalizing on opportunities provided by PG&E financial support, City services, and Our City Forest capabilities.

3

Introductory Definitions: T.J. Martin Park and Jeffrey Fontana Park cover several different neighborhoods and environments. A prominent feature is the PG&E power transmission towers and cables that run the length of the two parks. The committee has developed the following convention to refer to the different areas between the seven sets of towers. For example, TJ1 refers to the east-end of TJ Martin Park near Meridian Ave. Fontana East designates the east-end of the Jeffery Fontana Park.

Three sets of towers traverse the two parks. They are the South, Central and North towers. The Central tower carries 250KV power; the North and South cables are 150KV lines. The most severe limitation on vegetation allowed under the power transmission lines

4

is associated with the Central towers and where the cables have the greatest sag: mid-span. The mid-span is defined as the 40% and 50% zones as shown in the following illustration:

Restoration and Improvement Guiding Principles: As with the MFPA, the restoration committee prefers to maintain existing trees and landscaping through pruning and regular maintenance wherever possible. Where new opportunities arise, the committee has developed a few guiding principles. Per the MFPA Board operating guidelines,the restoration committee has concluded that restoration plans should focus primarily on providing vegetation to restore and improve the parks to mitigate losses due to removal of trees by PG&E, old age or storm damage. MFPA Board welcomes all park improvement suggestions from the neighborhood including hardscape or structures. While or perhaps because the parks already have wonderful facilities including two tot-lot play structures, benches, concrete and gravel paths, an off-leash dog facility, par course exercise equipment, two soccer fields, and access to restrooms in the adjacent Guadalupe Oak Grove, concern has been expressed that even more benches or bar-be-cues might encourage undesired behavior and alter the neighborly, passive activities the local community wishes to foster. Restoration plans should embrace transformation of the park. PG&E applies restrictions as to where and which tree species are permitted in order to minimize the maintenance cost of protecting their power

5

infrastructure. The changes will result in more shrubs, particularly in the low hanging sag zones of the power lines (40 and 50% zones), and more trees in areas clear of the power lines and within tower zones (10 and 20% zones). Drought tolerant natives, requiring little or no additional water infrastructure are preferred in “skin” areas that currently have little or no other landscaping and in areas near the natural areas of the Guadalupe Oak Grove and Golf Creek. The only watering infrastructure in these areas is “quick coupler” valves for manual watering with yard hoses. The native plants will be balanced with attractive ornamentals where opportunities lie and choices should be made with consideration of the current species existing at the local site. In areas of turf where trees are appropriate, summer water receptive trees will be selected (often non-natives) since turf sprinklers will be active in the summer. Since the parks currently have limited shade, shade tree species with large canopies are preferred in areas that are clear of the power lines.

Restoration Projects Overview: All restoration projects have a project lead who is responsible for presenting formal plans for input and approval to MFPA Board, City of San Jose, SCVWD (when applicable). Project leads are responsible for reviewing MFPA Board approval of estimated project expenditures. Final expense reports and receipts are submitted to the board for approval and reimbursement. The following projects have been implemented or are planned. All projects are detailed in individual appendices to this report. 2011

� Fontana East/Middle/West Fall 2010: 47 CA Native Trees, North periphery in skin area

� TJ Martin Spring (TJ2 and TJ3) 2011: 18 Trees (10 shade trees, 8 shorter hybrids), 20 shrubs and flowering plants

� Fontana West Fall 2011: CA Native Plant Island A � Fontana East/Middle/West Fall 2011: CA Native Shrubs, North

periphery in skin area 2012

� Fontana West Spring 2011: CA Native Plant Island B

6

Parks Overview: In this Section, images of the park will be used to demonstrate the guidelines the MFPA Parks Restoration and Improvement Committee is employing. Some sites like that shown in Fig. 1 of plum trees in TJ3 are known to be likely targets for PG&E tree removal (note PG&E marking paint above) facilitating future restoration. See site specific plan documentation for Site 1 planting plan in TJ2 and TJ3 in the report-appendices.

Fig. 1- Flowering Plum trees along the path in TJ3.

This TJ2 site, Fig.2, illustrates opportunities to plant large shade trees, including California sycamores, compatible with the existing trees and with new large canopy summer water tolerant red oak. The choice of this site also encourages passive activities and discourages heavy impact organized sport activities. See site specific plan for Site 2, appendix.

7

Fig. 2- Red Oak planted in the area of The Strand near the tot-lot playground.

Fig. 3- Dedicated individuals have already begun planting small native trees in “skin” areas in the tower zones (TJ2). These trees are of small stature and are suitable for these areas.

8

The following sequence of photos demonstrate other areas of the park where the MFPA is actively involved in maintaining existing park landscape. For example, in Figure 4, the children’s play are in TJ2 is shown. Users of the two play areas in the parks depend on shade during the summer months. New shade trees and protection of existing shade trees is a high priority of MFPA. Registering our mature oaks through the Heritage Tree Program of the City of San Jose is a tool to preserve these important trees. Strategic planting of trees at the periphery of the existing sports fields limits future possibility of field extension.

Fig. 4- Children’s play structure (TJ2).

Fig.- 5 Soccer fields (TJ1).

9

Fig. 6- Coast live oak heritage grove (Fontana West).

Fig. 7- Tree loss (see ground stump) in Fontana West.

10

Figure 7 illustrates the high degree of tree-loss in the 40-50% zones under the Central lines in Fontana West. Options are limited by the PG&E vegetation control practices in these zones. Only shrubs are allowed below the Central 250KV transmission cables in these zones, and thus an alternative approach park-landscape must be applied. It is in Fontana West that CA Native plant and shrub islands (or berms) will be created to compensate for tree loss. Native Island B will be located directly in the area shown in Figure 7, above; and Native Island A will be placed on the north periphery of Fontana West in the dirt scarf area along the par course. Details of Native Plant Islands A and B are included in the appendix to this report.

Fig. 8- Coast live oak, designated Tree 13, in Fontana Central. Coast live oak, Tree 13 (see Fig. 8) provides a great deal shade and is venerated by long-time users of the park. MFPA is considering use of open-back benches for this area as well as modifying the conditions in the drip-line of this tree to stabilize growth (assuring long-term protection of this tree). See the report appendix for one concept drawing for establishing a rest-area under Tree #13. In general, most of the trees in J. Fontana and TJ Martin Parks provide little shade. Consider, as example, the small but attractive crape myrtles (Fig. 9) which provide very little shade but much Summer beauty.

11

Fig. 9- Off-leash dog facility (Fontana West)and recently planted Crepe Myrtle and provides a shady respite for park users.

Fig.10- Guadalupe Oak Grove features native oaks (Fontana West).

12

Fig. 11- Tot-lot play structure (Fontana West).

Fig. 12- Memorial to Officer Fontana and grove of native blue oaks.

13

Fig. 13- Dead Willow Tree, recently removed from this open area on the north periphery of Fontana East near Golf Creek. Figure 13 shows the open, dirt area of the north periphery of Fontana East, just on the east side of the Golf Creek foot-bridge. This is a main area for improvement. California native trees and shrubs are being planted in this and similar (open-dirt) areas of Fontana East, Middle and West. Figure 14 shows the volunteers involved in the planting program, Site 4 in the Fall of 2010. Details of the planting and implementation plan are presented in the appendix.

Fig. 14- Site 4 native trees being planted, 12/11/2010, near Golf Creek in Fontana East.

14

In addition to specific project sites, there have been losses of trees throughout the park and individual replacements may also be desired. Trees are routinely lost to storm and many of the trees are susceptible to root fungus and other conditions that weaken them. These parks were originally planted several years ago and some of the trees are at end-of-life. In the appendix, there is a list of the types of trees in Fontana and TJ Martin parks. There is also a report indicating were ‘random’ tree-loss has been suffered and this report also indicates possible replacement plans considering these loses.

The MFPA Restoration and Improvement Committee has come-up a learning curve, working with the City (PRNS) personnel and the folks at PG&, regarding what trees to consider for restoration and improvement projects. Thus, also in the appendix, is a list of possible replacement trees where the proximity to power transmission lines is a limiting consideration. These trees are, at maturity, limited in stature and achieve a maximum height from approximately 15 to 17 foot. Additionally, the appendix contains a photo album showing trees and plants included in the native and drought-resistant plant, planting schemes. The interested reader is directed to review the appendix items for further clarification and for general interest.

Before Restoration Park Images: Park Conditions in 2009, Before Tree-Removal Proposal

The need for Park Restoration and Improvement was driven by the actions of PG&E when they began to implement their new Vegetation Control Plan in 2009. The first priority of MFPA, once formed, was to preserve the park and all of its trees. However, we soon realized that many of the trees planted 25 to 30 years ago to create the park landscape were near end-of-life. Many trees are being lost, for example, during the winter due to storm and the weakened condition of some tree species. MFPA, through negotiation with PG&E, has significantly reduced the number of trees removed from what PG&E initially proposed. Still, where tree-loss is highest, landscape has to be adjusted so that park users still enjoy the experience. What is presented here is the condition and general landscape of the park(s) prior to tree removal. This is the ‘before’ condition of the Martin and Fontana Parks. Google images are shown for park conditions prior to PG&E’s new policy. The images start in TJ3, Martin Park near Coleman, and extend East to Almaden Expressway and Fontana East.

15

TJ-3

TJ-2

16

TJ-1

Fontana West

Fontana Middle

17

Fontana East (Almaden Expressway to the right)

Tree Removal, PG&E plus Trees Downed by Storm/Disease (As of August 31, 2011)

The following set of images depicts the impact of tree removal on the T.J. Martin and J. Fontana parks. One can see the huge impact in Fontana West, near Meridian, where many trees have been removed. Note that the 250 KV, center span runs directly through this area.

18

TJ Martin Park, TJ-3

TJ Martin Park, TJ-2

TJ Martin Park, TJ-1 (Soccer Fields near Meridian)

19

J. Fontana Park, Fontana-West (1), above and below.

J. Fontana Park, Fontana-West (2)

20

J. Fontana Park, Middle

J. Fontana Park, East

Martin-Fontana Park Restoration and Improvement Image-Set Revised September 06, 2011

The purpose of this section is to describe the Master Plan for the Martin-Fontana Park System. When compared to the image-set describing the ‘before PG&E’ park conditions [the prior section], these images convey projects undertaken by residents, the MFPA (once formed) and extraneous service groups, to restore and/or improve our parks. Post 2008 events are included if they express the desire by residents and park users to make a difference in these troubling economic times. We present 1) projects put forward by homeowner and service groups prior to the formation of the MFPA, 2) projects directly supported by MFPA

21

and 3) projects envisioned for implementation in the next 3 to 5 years. We are confident that when the City gets back on its feet, the PRNS Department will have sufficient resources, staff and funding to provide all residents the level of support to further improve and properly maintain the City Park System. The MFPA looks forward to a sustained interrelationship with PG&E and the City of San Jose. Legend for the Restoration and Improvement Image-Set Icon/Color General Description

Tree Icon

There are some tree groupings, recently planted; and this icon locates the approximate tree location(s)

Homeowner Projects, pre MFPA

These areas are in T.J. Martin and various homeowner groups did the planting. (before MFPA formed)

MFPA Fontana Improve Current

These areas are in J. Fontana Park and represent the efforts of Dave Poeschel to incorporate site-specific native plants. SCVWD’s Golf Creek and Guadalupe Oak Grove Park necessitate this requirement.

MFPA Fontana Improve Concept, not implemented

Areas where a concept is presented in the master report, but there is no plan for immediate implementation.

Recognized Need

Areas that require future improvement, but there is no concept plan at the moment.

22

Fig. 1- T.J. Martin (3): The trees shown were planted in April, 2011 and Larry Sasscer coordinated the plantings. Done in cooperation with Our City Forest (OCF). See Appendix, Part II, Item 7

23

Fig. 2- T.J. Martin (2): The trees shown were planted in Dec, 2010 and April, 2011 and Larry Sasscer coordinated the plantings. Done in cooperation with Our City Forest (OCF). See Appendix, Part II, Items 5 & 7. The red color-zone shows an earlier planting of 40+ California Buckeye, a project coordinated by Larry Sasscer and neighbors.

24

Fig-3- T.J. Martin (1): The red color-zone is tree and shrub plantings done prior to the formation of MFPA, Tom Morse the lead planner. The three trees were planted in Spring ’11, see Appendix, Part II, Item 7. The swirl-patterns represent current and future development near Glowing Court and details are offered in Appendix, Part II, Item 11.

Fig. 4- Fontana West (1). The sole development is Heritage Tree designation by he City and an example plague is depicted to mark the approximate location (of the Oak Grove and a Plaque).

25

Fig. 5- Fontana West (2) showing the location of CA Native Plant Islands A and B (lower left). See Appendix, Part II, Items 8 & 10 for detail. Note Tree #13, lower right. See Appendix, Part II, Item 12 for a proposed rest-area under this ‘heart of the park’ tree.

26

Fig. 6- J. Fontana (3) showing a proposed (photo manipulated) example memorial plaque for Ina Vaughn, who recently passed. She spearheaded the development of the Dog Park in Fontana West.

27

Fig. 7- J. Fontana (4) The red-brown color-zone is the CA Native Plant (Tree, Shrub and Grasses) project headed by Dave Poeschel and planted in cooperation with OCF. Phase I has been completed and Phase II will be implemented in Fall ’11 ( see Appendix, Part II, Items 6 & 9). The swirl-area is for future development, but with no current plan.

28

Fig. 8- J. Fontana Park Middle. The yellow color zones in this figure represent development at the McAbee Entry to Fontana Park and around the South Tower, as noted. See Appendix, Part II, Item 3 for detail. The brown color-zone is the continuation of Dave Poeschel’s project (see Appendix, Part II, Items 6 & 9 for detail). The swirled color-zones depict areas in need of improvement, but with no plans currently on the table.

29

Fig. 9- J. Fontana Park East. The brown color-zone depicts Dave Poeschel’s project (see Appendix, Part II, Items 6 & 9 for detail). The swirled color-zones depict areas in need of improvement, but with no plans currently on the table. The turf area, marked by the swirl pattern, is an area of turf the Parks Department would like to remove and replace with low water-use, drought-resistant plants.

30

Appendix (Part I)

Restoration and Improvement Committee MFPA

MFPA Restoration and Improvement Committee Members April, 2011

Name Affiliation

1 Edesa Bitbadal MFPA Member

2 Christian Bonner Our City Forest

3 Rosy Bowrings MFPA Member

4 Laura Cowan City of San Jose, Dist 9

5 Chris Hughes PG&E- Arborist

6 Patrick Pizzo Chair and MFPA Member

7 Dave Poeschel MFPA Member

8 Irene Rutledge MFPA Member

9 Larry Sasscer MFPA Member

10 Greg Holsen MFPA Member

11 Mike Thompson MFPA Member

12 Liz Neves PRNS, City of San Jose

13 Mary Cannon MFPA Member

14 Vince Piazzisi MFPA Member

15 Ann Tysanner MFPA Member

16 Tom Morse MFPA Member

31

General Concepts and Limitations Item Description Page 1 Restoration Perspective

2 The Trees of TJ Martin and Fontana

3 Typical Restoration Trees and Shrubs

4 Sag Zone Tree List

5 Fontana West Concept & Constraints

6 Park Landscape Worksheet

7 Tree Survey Fall ‘11

8 Location of Quick Connect Sites

32

A Perspective of the Restoration of TJM and JF Parks

April 23, 2010

Patrick P. Pizzo

Restoration and Improvement Committee Chair

As you know, I have been involved in the Friends of the Trees of TJM and JF pretty much from the beginning. I have participated in walks in the park, public meetings, the meeting at the San Jose City Council and have been part of the ‘Friends of’ Committee. With each bit of ‘new’ information and after listening to the perspective of many of the community members, my view of the impact of the new PG&E vegetation control program on the existing park and development of an appropriate restoration strategy has evolved. It is not set-in-concrete because our partners, the various agencies involved, have much to do with what actually happens. But, I would like to share my thoughts with the community.

One pre-condition… I have always viewed Park Restoration as a process independent of the negotiations to ‘save the trees’. Irrespective of the restoration effort, the Task Force has primary responsibility to save as many of our mature trees as possible. My own wish is that the City and PG&E would allow a more reasonable and less conservative tree-removal criteria. Nevertheless, it is apparent that some trees will be removed from the park; and the removal(s) will greatly affect park esthetics. Most trees will be lost in the sag-zone between towers. A Restoration Master Plan, consistent with the limitations imposed by the PG&E vegetation management program, will necessarily yield a different look to the park. All involved must have a ‘new’ vision for the park before they will buy-in to help in to the restoration effort. We must continue to develop a restoration plan.

The implementation of the Restoration Master Plan will be done in phases. Since we will be following the PG&E vegetation control limitations (with respect to tree/shrub height), there will not be a tree-for-tree replacement. Trees and shrubs required to re-attain park esthetics such that property values are not negatively impacted may be planted in some of the existing groupings; but not necessarily.

33

Special tree and shrub species will be required, those that meet height limitations. These trees cannot be drawn from the City Tree List/Pool; they may cost more and their availability may be an issue. This implies that a tree-for-tree formula, as proposed by PG&E will not be adequate to balance the negative impact on the park. The Task Force is attempting to deal with this in the most recent negotiations.

The City and PG&E must come to see the uniqueness of the situation and must recognize the high-visibility of the restoration effort. This is one of the first of many ‘negotiated’ settlements PG&E will have to deal with as they progress up the peninsula, armed with their vegetation control program. What is done here will have huge impact on their marketing as an environmentally concerned and green utility. And then there is the City of San Jose, and the high-visibility mission statement to plant 100,000 new trees: people will be looking to see that the math works. I think it is in their best interest to commit resources and do the restoration right. They then can point to this successful effort for other neighborhoods and other projects and say “Visit TJM and JF Parks in San Jose and see how well this tree removal and restoration program will work for you”!

There is another aspect to this ‘show and tell’; especially if native plants are incorporated in the plan, an objective I am advocating. My reasons are many: 1) native chaparral plants are drought resistant and many meet the height requirements set by the PG&E), 2) they provide additional habitat for bird, bees and the other wildlife common to the parks, 3) they are compatible with the surrounding oak-chaparral community surrounding the parks. Additionally, other funding sources kick-in for projects involving the application of California native plants. The 20% Funding Program by the SC-County Open Space Authority is just one example. So, if the City and PG&E do a good job with this restoration and use drought-resistant native plants, it expands their publicity possibilities!

We will continue with this restoration effort; and I hope many of the residents volunteer to help. However, I can see that the degree of effort put forth by the residents must be matched or exceeded by the City of San Jose and PG&E; all of us are stakeholders and we must work together to restore these two important recreational resources or it just won’t happen.

34

I go into our second Restoration Master Plan meeting this coming Tuesday with enthusiasm for the process. I hope to leave that meeting with the same or increased level of enthusiasm.

Thanks for considering this perspective. Please feel free to comment on this issue and use this same discussion board to provide your input.

July 16, 2011

The Trees of J. Fontana and T.J. Martin Parks

Type of Tree Approximate Mature Height Acer campestre, Vine Maple To 27 foot Aesculus californica, California Buckeye

15 foot

Albizia julibrissin, Silk Tree 25 -30 foot Arbutus unedo, Strawberry Tree 20-25 foot Crataegus douglasii, Black or Western Hawthorn

15 to 20 foot

Koelreuteria paniculat , Golden Raintree

20 to 30 foot

Lagerstroemia 'Dynamite', Crepe Myrtle

17 foot

Lagerstroemia Indica, Crepe Myrtles

15 to 20 foot

Liquidambar styraciflua, Liquid Amber

20 to 35 foot

Malus floribunda, Flowering Crabapple

20-25 foot

Malus sp. ‘Prairie Fire’, Crabapple

17 foot

Pistacia chinensis, Chinese Pistache

25 to 30 foot

Platanus racemosa, California Sycamore

100 foot

Platanus occidentalis × P. orientalis, Plane Sycamore

60-85 foot

35

Type of Tree Approximate Mature Height Prunus blireana, Blireana Flowering Plum

20 foot typical

Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak

32 foot to 60 foot

Quercus douglasii, Blue Oak 30-45 foot Quercus ilex, Holly Oak (non-native)

45 – 75 foot

Quercus lobata, Valley Oak 40 to 65 foot Quercus rubra, Red Oak (non-native)

70 foot

Ulmus parvifolia, Chinese Elm or Lacebark Elm

40 to 50 foot

Zelkova serrata 'Village Green', Japanese Zelkova

To 60 foot

36

Some Trees and Shrubs used in the R&I plantings Here are the trees and shrubs for the Restoration and Improvement projects:

Crepe Myrtle ‘Dynamite’

Crepe Myrtle ‘Zuni’

Trichostema lanatum, Wooly Blue Curls

37

Crepe Myrtle ‘Catawba’

Prairie Fire Crabapple

Prunus serrulata 'Mount Fuji'

38

Western Redbud

Toyon, Heteromeles arbutifolia

Ceanothus ‘yankee point’

39

Ceanothus ‘Dark Star’

Ceanothus ‘Ray Hartman’

Ceanothus ‘Concha’

40

Arctostaphylos ‘Emerald Carpet’

Arctostaphylos bakeri

Arctostaphylos ‘Austin Griffiths’

41

Salvia ‘Bee’s Bliss

Eriogonum umbellatum, Sulfur Buckwheat

Cistus purpureus (drought-resistant Mediterranean Zone Rock Rose)

42

Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass

Nassella cernua, Nodding Needlegrass

Juncus patens. California gray rush (or alternate juncas or rush)

Verbena lilacina 'De la Mina’

43

Diplacus puniceus, Red Monkey flower

Berberis fremonti

44

Initial Plan for Fontana West and Lessons Learned

One of the primary areas for Restoration of the Fontana Park is near Golden Oaks and Meridian Avenue. This area has the greatest concentration of trees removed by PG&E. The following plan was an attempt to blend the existing tree-landscape pattern with a shrub component to beautify this area and to demonstrate to residents how shrubs can effectively be used to improve/restore the park. As the plan was reviewed, limitations due to City practices became evident and much of the plan had to be aborted. The purpose of this section is to document considerations that limit the scope of implementation of this plan.

First consider a Google image of the area of interest:

Fontana West near Golden Oaks Drive

Note that the Central PG&E power transmission lines run through the center of this area. This is also the 40% and 50% zone of maximum sag. Compare this image with the schematic of the proposed restoration plan, next page.

45

Existing trees and replacement trees (the numbered ones) are shown. The following table indicates the tree requirement:

Tree Requirement for this area

Item Tree Type

Container Number

1 Western

Redbud #15 1

2,3 &4 Crepe Myrtle

#15 3

5,6 &7 flowering cherry or crabapple

#15 3

8 & 9 Ray Hartmann Ceanothus

#5 5

46

California Native Island A

Here are the proposed locations of the California Native Islands A (Red) & B (Yellow).

47

California Native Island B

Conflict I- Placing Trees 1 through 7 in the Turf Area Since this is the maximum sag position for the 250KV lines, direct replacement trees are not acceptable in this area. Only low growing shrubs would be allowed (by PG&E). Additionally any trees directly in the turf area (for example, in zones 10, 20 and 30%) are pruned such that the ground-to-lowest-branch distance is 8 foot (PRNS). This allows clearance of mowing equipment. Small stature trees pruned to an 8-foot minimum clearance and with a mature height of 15 foot are not proper choices.

For small stature trees and/or shrubs to be planted within the turf region (so as, for example, to reduce turf and thus water requirements), a concrete mowing strip is required (PRNS). The mowing strip separates the turf and non-turf areas. Installation of a

49

concrete mowing-strip in City Parks must be approved by the facilities people and not by PRNS; a lengthy review process is required. Nevertheless, this is the means by which small-stature trees and shrubs may be introduced into the park landscaping.

In lieu of these requirements, Trees 1-7 were removed from the restoration plan.

California Native Island A will be planted in the Fall of 2011. This project will not require a mowing strip as it is located in the dirt-scarf area on the Northern periphery of Fontana West.

California Native Island B is scheduled for Spring 2012 implementation. The required mowing strip installation is under review by the City after a site visit. Water will be re-directed away from the Island to the remaining turf areas and a quick-connect water source will be available for hand-watering.

50

Park Landscape Planning Worksheet Date:

Project Name:

Project Lead:

General Description of the project:

Material List (provide general breakouts based on cost) Materials Quantity Cost Total

trees

small shrubs

large shrubs

51

grasses

cages

soil amendments

bark or mulch

Watering cart or hoses

Rocks

Labor List

Labor Description Cost Auger 0

# of Volunteer planters

0

OCF support 0

Watering and Maintenance: Contact list for 2 years of

watering

0

PRNS Infrastructure Support (irrigation modifications, quick connect couplers, etc.

Stakeholders

Signoff Entity Contact Approval of funding MFPA Linda

Approval of plant varieties and location PRNS

Don Zonic

52

PG&E (if under wires) Chris?

SCV Water District

Note: Some communication to immediate neighbors may be needed when planting large tree varieties in areas where trees previously didn’t exist.

Fall ’11 Survey of Weak and/or Dead Trees A walking survey of trees in the two parks was completed in late August, 2011. At this time of the year, the trees are as healthy as they can be in the growing season and my purpose was to assess existing dead and/or weak trees. It is estimated that the weak trees will be dead in approximately two years and there is little one can do to avoid this fate. The weak trees are either near end-of-life, they suffered bark damage at their base early in life and/or they have ground and moisture conditions that are promoting root-rot and/or base-rot conditions. The most impacted trees are the flowering plum trees.

The trees are indicated by latitude and longitude. One can find these trees in Google Maps by inputting the respective geographic information:

Example: 37 25 19.07’ N, 122 05 06.24’ W

The purpose of this assessment is to have specific data to anticipate a tree-replacement process before trees are actually lost so as to reduce the impact to our parks. A biennial survey is recommended for consideration in future restoration and improvement projects.

A list trees recommended for replacement in the mid-span, high-sag areas between towers is included as an appendix item. Outside the 40 and 50% zones, tree selection is more open and selection is left to the discretion of the planting-review people.

53

Trees Dead or Weak in Martin/Fontana Parks

T.J. Martin N W Comments 1 37 13 941

N 121 53 259 W Damaged

severally at the base, Crepe Myrtle., not dead yet, but on the way

2 37 13 944 N

121 53 173 W Dead Crepe Myrtle

3 37 13 958 N 121 53 140 W Dead Crepe Myrtle

4 37 13 963 N 121 53 140 W

Dead Crepe Myrtle

5 37 13 964 N

121 53 139 W Very sick Crepe Myrtle, barely alive

J. Fontana N W Comments 1 37 13 936 N 121 52 972 W End-of-life

Plum (some branch loss and fungus at base)

2 37 13 949 N 121 52 926 W Crepe Myrtle barely hanging on!

3 37 13 952 N 121 52 891 W Holm Oak, very weak

4 37 13 950 N 121 52 830 W Golden Rain tree, seriously ill

5 37 13 943 N 121 52 827 W Holm Oak, ill 6 37 13 938 N 121 52 815 W Plum,

seriously injured

7 37 13 938 N 121 52 799 W Plum, seriously injured

8 37 13 942 N 121 52 766 W Plum, seriously weak

9 37 13 933 N 121 52 728 W Another Plum, 2 yr survival

10 37 13 941 N 121 52 723 W Plum, same as above


54


13 37 13 962 N 121 52 635 W Holm Oak, 2 yr survival

14 37 13 960 N 121 52 635 W Holm Oak, same as above

15 37 13 958 N 121 52 607 W Plum, 2 yr survival


17 37 13 933 N 121 52 537 W Holm Oak, 2 yr survival

18 37 13 935 N 121 52 531 W Dead unknown

55

Google image Indicated Dead or near-Dead

Tree locations (red icons)

August 2011 Tree Survey

Area TJ Martin-1, between Buschell and Meridian

Fontana-West, east of Meridan

56

Fontana Central near entrance to

Guadalupe Oak Grove Park

J Fontana Central, East of McAbee

57

Quick Connect Information T.J. Martin and J. Fontana Parks

To be successful with tree and shrub plantings, water must be provided to each new planting to help establish the plant. The typical period is 3-years before these trees and/or drought-resistant shrubs can go it alone. The watering schedule varies from plant to plant with CA Native Plants usually requiring water on a longer interval. A good deep watering (about 3-4gallons of water) once per week is average for traditional landscape trees.

Due to limited budget and manpower, tree watering may be done by residents or by Our City Forest, a valuable planting partner, for many of MFPA projects. Nevertheless, a convenient source of water is required. This section provides information as to quick-connect coupler locations on site in the two parks. These QC sources usually have a yellow, sheet-metal cover. If one has a suitable hose-bib and QC-fitting, water is available. Don Zonic of PRNS will provide suitable hardware to use these QC’s to volunteer coordinators.

Here are Google images and other information for locating QC sources.

58

QC Sites in TJ Martin 2,3

QC Sites in T.J. Martin 1

Tom Morse reports that there is a QC located between QC3 and QC5 near the fence.

59

There are also two QCs in the Garden area nearest Glowing Court. One is on the east side and one is on the West side and they are located near the mow strip.

QC Sites in J. Fontana West

Four Quick Couplers are indicated in J. Fontana West (above). The orange-pin coupler location is being requested. The tree yellow-pin coupler locations exist.

QC Sites for J. Fontana Central and East.

60

Appendix (Part II)

Specific Planting Plans and Park Improvement Ideas Item Description 1 Audubon Contributions

2 Beautiful Day Project

3 Improvements: McAbee Entrance to J. Fontana Park

4 Random Tree Needs

5 Fall ’10 Tree Planting, Larry Sasscer & Tom Morse

6 Phase I Planting, Dave Poeschel

7 Spring ’11 Planting, Larry Sasscer

8 Fall ’11 Planting, Patrick Pizzo

9 Fall ’11 Planting (Phase II) , Dave Poeschel

10 Spring ’12 Planting, Patrick Pizzo

11 Glowing Court Planting Proposal/Concept

12 Rest Area, Tree #13 Concept

61

Audubon Member Contributions to our Parks

A down-to-earth conservation effort - the larger the better - can make a difference! Over the years, bluebirds have lived and reproduced in California. However, development in rural areas has destroyed much of their preferred habitat. Now their numbers are declining and we must take action to reverse the trend and prevent their total disappearance.

California is a state with wide variations in terrain, altitude and vegetation. There are many niches where bluebirds can be reestablished if cavities — nest-boxes — are provided. Many people have not seen a bluebird in years in areas in which they used to be residents or frequent visitors. A dedicated crew of Audubon members and fellow residents has provided suitable nesting boxes in our parks for many years; and, as a result, sightings of the Western Bluebird have become common place in the Martin and Fontana Parks, and, of course, in the Guadalupe Oak Grove Park. This contribution to the restoration and improvement of our parks is gratefully acknowledged. With an increase in the use of California native trees and shrubs throughout our parks, we anticipate expansion of the birding programs in the park and thank all of those that contribute: Thank you Lee Pauser, Steve Wright, Janna Pauser and our other Audubon neighbors and friends.

Fig. 1- Bluebird Nestlings

62

The Bluebird nestling's (day 12-15) eyes are fully opened. Its primary feathers are beginning to un-sheath, exposing the brightly colored feathers of the males, and the more subdued feathers of the female.

There are many ways to help cavity nesting species. While we particularly emphasize bluebird recovery, we welcome any cavity nester. All native species are a part of the natural scene and their preservation is of utmost importance to our own survival. We invite your inquiry and earnest participation. If you are interested, please visit the following webpage:

http://www.scvas.org/index.php?page=text&id=cbrp

All can share the fun and excitement when bluebird fledglings leave the nest to take their place among the trees and the grasslands of the Martin and Fontana Parks!

63

South Hills Community Church: Planting Project, November 2010

The West Side of the McAbee Entry to Fontana Park This year South Hills Community Church has a particularly exciting project - landscaping the whole street corner of Jeffrey Fontana Park, which was named in honor of the policeman who lost his life in this area a few years ago. We will also put on a huge “Heroes’ BBQ” for everyone. We have invited the San Jose Police Officer’s Association to come and have a great lunch on us. There are three things we wish to accomplish:

1. Honor Jeffrey Fontana’s memory 2. Show compassion and appreciation in a tangible way

to Jeffrey’s family and the officers who courageously do their jobs each day

3. Bring the community together to accomplish this project.

Here is where you come in: we need

many workers for planting, helping with lunch and whatever else it takes to put on a successful event. Please consider joining us for lunch even if you aren’t able to help with the project. If you have questions or want to help, Contact Larry Brundage 414.3071 or [email protected]

64

mailto:[email protected]

Conceptual Park Improvements: McAbee Entrance to J. Fontana Central and East

Another project concept for the Master Plan is a project to mirror the improvements recently made to the McAbee entrances to J. Fontana Park. As you know, the South Hills Community Church did a beautification project for the West Entry to the Fontana Park off of McAbee in the Fall of 2010. The other side of the street, the East Entry to McAbee, is dry and lifeless compared to the SHCC project. MFPA envisions a future development of a mirror-image garden, one with summer-color to complement the west-entry. This would include painting and restoring the semi-circular fence on the east-entry and adding mulch and plants. A Google image of the area is provided below:

65

Incidentally, the South Tower at McAbee-East is also shown in the image. This tower is loaded with communication cables and equipment. MFPA would like to see a group come forward with a proposal to plant shrubs and bushes to soften the look of this tower, similar to what has been done with vegetation at the South Tower at Meridian and Golden Oaks Way. Both of these concepts are just that at the present. An active resident or group of residents would have to 1) scope the situation, 2) submit a planning worksheet describing the project, 3) gain MFBA Board approval and 4) implement the plan. Alternatively, once the City is back on its feet, PRNS could promote and execute these suggested improvements.

Also noted in the above image is the barren area behind the semi-circular arcs at McAbee, East and West. One can see the access boxes for the water pipeline in these rectangular areas. Must they remain bare dirt? Low, drought resistant shrubs such as Ceanothus ‘Joyce Coulter’, Manzanita ‘John Dourley’ and/or Prostrate Coyote Bush ‘Twin Creeks II’ would be a decided improvement.

In this Section, possible planting schemes for the barren area on the east-side of the McAbee entrance to J. Fontana Park have been considered.

66

Replacement Plan for Random Tree Loss

MFPA is in the process of coming up with a Martin/Fontana tree replacement and park restoration plan. There is a restoration committee meeting scheduled for April 5, 2011. From previous communications, you know that there are a number of planned actions and proposed work-areas:

1- Restoring the park where the bulk of the trees have been removed in Fontana-West, across the street from Vince P’s home….Pizzo coordinator (Span 4)

2- Restoring Martin-West (the flowering plum trees) across from Larry S’s home. Sasscer coordinator (PG&E Span 1)

3- Adding canopy trees to the area by The Strand… Larry Sasscer and Tom Morse, coordinators (north of Span 2)

4- Creating new habitat and landscape in Fontana Central/East… coordinated by David Poeschel (Spans 5 and 6)

Each of the above projects has planning underway and these plans will be revealed and discussed at the upcoming Restoration Committee Meeting.

However, PG&E has recently completed their 2nd round of tree removal and the City has removed dead trees (and storm damaged trees) and ground their stumps. So the question becomes ‘how to deal with random tree loses impacting the park and lying outside the four work-areas identified above? Sunny Wagstaff and I took a tour of the parks today and attached is our list of tree-needs in these outlier regions.

a- Vince Piazzis: the removal of the one tree along the street, across from your home, may require replacement for balance: maybe not! Please recommend an action there. One more tree?

b- Larry Sasscer; The dead tree was removed across from your home. In the past, we discussed the possibility of planting a specimen, canopy tree in that area (as the PG&E cables are not an issue in that Martin-entry). Please consider and recommend an action there. One tree? A cluster of three, smaller trees?

c- David Poeschel; Sunny and I both feel that some plantings are required to fill-in for the loss of the two Willows in Span 6, Dave, east of Golf Creek. We anticipate your plan(s) for phase II and III plantings in Fontana will cover those needs.

67

d- Larry Sasscer and Tom Morse; we don’t think a replacement of the Sycamore cut-down last month along Burchell Ave, across from Tom’s place, is required. But we fully support a cluster of three, specimen, canopy-trees just north of that point. We will await your ‘the Strand’ plan to list needs.

e- For the sake of balance, a cluster of three crepe myrtle trees (Dynamite, Zuni or Catawaba) is required in Fontana Central on the S-W corner, near McAbee and Golden Oaks.

f- For the sake of balance and improvement at this major entry to Fontana, a cluster of three manzanita are recommended. The entry is the N-W corner near McAbee and Thorntree Drive ‘on the dirt mound’. There should be one, Arctostaphylos manzanita Dr. Hurd Manzanita Tree; and two Arctostaphylos manzanita_x_densiflora Austin Griffiths Manzanita (a triangle arrangement).

g- On Golden Oaks way at Knoll Park Court, two crab apple of the same variety, currently in the park, are required to create a triangle-balance with the existing crab apple.

h- Direct replacement of the tree removed at Golden Oaks Drive and Cecala Drive for balance.

i- We recommend placement of three Prairie Fire Crab Apple trees near Golden Oaks and Ostenberg Drive where other trees were removed.

j- Another tree lost in the storm of 3/20/11, West of Meridian and GO. Recommend this fallen Flowering Plum to be replaced by same.

When should these trees be purchased and planted? When the required team of stakeholder, Adopt-a-Park volunteers is on board and committed to care for establishing any in this group of trees. With the appropriate Planting Plan, review by the MFPA can commence. But without funding and manpower resources pre-identified, these needs cannot be met.

Sunny and I have one more recommendation regarding vegetation. We would like to see someone step forward to provide vegetation around the utility box at the start of Span 6, near McAbee and Golden Oaks Drive. This is a public eyesore and very little would be required to correct this. Perhaps consider the use of Dodonaea viscose ‘Purpurea’ around this structure for screening.

See the attached Google Earth images for replacement tree positions.

68

Random Tree Location and Requirements

Item Number

Location Tree Type Container

Number

Cost

Item a Across from

Vince P’s street #15 1 OCF

Item b1 Across from Larry S’s

canopy #15 1 OCF

Item b2 Across from Larry S’s

specimen cluster

#15 3 OCF

Item c Dave P’s Area ---- OCFItem d Across from Tom

M’s Canopy/Cluster

#15 3 OCF

Item e McAbee/GO crepe myrtle #15 3 $450

Item f McAbee/Thorntree

manzanita #5 3 $150

Item g Knoll/GO crabapple #15 2 $120

Item h Cecela/GO street #15 1 OCFItem i Ostenberg/GO crabapple #15 3 $180Item j Meridian/GO West Flowering Plum #15 1 $80 Screening Span 6

Tower/McAbee Purpurea #5 8

$300 28

max

Google images of the respective Spans …. See Green Tree Icons:

69

[Please see the next image…. At the end of March, Tom Morse requested that the MFPA consider a copse of trees to be planted in the turf between Burchell Ave and the West-PG&E transmission towers, Span 2, and action to preclude extension of the adjacent soccer fields. An array of about 3 to 7 trees would be required. This need is not expressed in tabular form in this document. A green icon representing these trees is not present in the respective image. Additionally, in a joint project with OCF in Spring ’11, these trees have been planted!]

70

Spring Planting of Trees: TJMartin-2, the Area by ‘The Strand’

In the Spring of 2010, six trees were planted in TJ Martin-2, by the Children’s play yard, in the area of ‘The Strand’. Trees in this turf area do not have proximity to the PG&E Power Transmission Towers and Cables and thus large canopy trees were planted. The two types of trees were:

Platanus racemosa or California Sycamore, three each

and

Quercus rubra, commonly called Northern Red Oak, three each

Larry Sasscer was the lead project person, assisted by Tom Morse. OCF coordinated planting-day activities. The location of these trees is indicated in the following image:

74

Jeffrey Fontana Native Plant Restoration David Poeschel, Project Coordinator

Background: Local residents originally conceived of the Jeffrey Fontana Park native plant restoration project as one way to mitigate for the removal of some trees in the park by PG&E. To ensure the safety and reliability of its power transmission, PG&E is ensuring that no trees encroach on their high voltage transmission lines throughout the park.

The project area, that portion of Jeffrey Fontana Park primarily between McAbee Rd. and Almaden Expressway, has also been unsightly. The prominent features are currently transmission towers, transmission lines, chain link fences, and bare dirt (from herbicide spraying). Winter rains on the exposed earth results in muddy run-off into the adjacent Golf Creek. With some existing trail paths and nearby creek, the area presents an excellent opportunity for environmental restoration.

The project area is primarily on San Jose City parkland with a small portion on Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) land and nearby Golf Creek. Further, portions of the project lie on easements for PG&E high voltage transmission lines and the SCVWD Almaden Water Pipeline. Hence, the project has been designed to accommodate the watershed by using local native plants and the species and locations of plantings have been selected to avoid interference with the transmission lines and water pipeline. The City, SCVWD, and PG&E will need to provide permission and oversight.

This document presents images of the current environment followed by maps of the proposed species and locations of native plant restoration. Some details are yet to be worked out, particularly in later phases of the project. Funding is likely to include City mitigation funds from the nearby Mazzone development and a SCVWD environmental enhancement grant if necessary. Consisting solely of native, drought tolerant plants, maintenance is expected to be minimal after establishment. The project can be implemented in multiple phases with labor supplied by local residents, Our City Forest, Rotary and other service groups. Water for irrigation is available from a City irrigation pipe with quick coupler outlets. Our City Forest will also be available to contribute its expertise and capabilities.

75

Current Images: Muddy run-off problems:

Other revegetation opportunities:

76

Restoration Ideas: The project would involve planting native trees in areas away from the PG&E transmission lines. Due to the local conditions, Valley Oak, Quercus lobata, Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia, Blue Oak, Quercus douglasii, and California Buckeye, Aesculus californica, have been selected.

Elderberry, Sambucus mexicanus, is planned to hide tower members without interfering with transmission lines in PG&E towers zones.

In areas between transmission lines, our drought tolerant native shrub species, Toyon, Heteromeles arbutifolia, Coffeeberry, Rhamnus californica, and Bigberry Manzanita, Arctostaphylos gluaca, have been chosen.

The sketches indicate “native small shrub” which might consist of low growing Ceanothus cultivars, Sagebush, Artemisia californica, Black Sage, Salvia millifera, and Monkey Flower, Mimulus aurantiacus.

“Native Grasses” indicates appropriate native bunch grasses such as Blue Fescue, Festuca Idahoensis, Purple Needle Grass, Nessella pulchra , Blue Eyed Grass, Sisyrinchium bellum, and Deer Grass, Muhlenburgia rigens. Perhaps native annual wild flowers and milkweed, Asclepias fascicularis, could be included with the perrenial grasses for addition spring color and native bee and butterfly habitat.

Additional degenerated granite pathes could be added for additional appreciation of the new habitat and could be maintained with clearance to ensure service vehicle access.

Phase One: Trees Native tree species have been selected and located with the larger species to be located far away from the transmission lines such that even at maturity the height and breadth of the trees pose no threat. Smaller species will be closer to the lines but again only such that even at maturity the height and breadth of the trees pose not threat to the lines. Only Buckeye and Elderberry have been selected to be under transmission lines and only in the highest tower zones (lines 70 – 80 ft. high).

Our City Forest will provide trees from the Guadalupe Watershed for sites near SCVWD lands or seed stock will be used that has been collected near the confluence of Golf Creek and Los Alamitos Creek.

77

Seed or trees will be planted in the local soil, loosened with an auger and dug with hand tools. Early growth will be protected with gopher baskets. Volunteers will periodically water using hoses attached to quick coupler outlets in an existing park water line.

Tree Species:

7 specimens of Valley Oak, Quercus Lobata

5 specimens of Coast Live Oak, Quercus Agrifolia

17 specimens of Blue Oak, Quercus Douglasii

7 specimens of Buckeye, Aesculus Californica

Schedule:

Seed collection in fall, 2010

Planting in late fall, 2010

Watering from late spring, 2011 to late fall, 2011

Watering to continue if needed until fall, 2013

Maintenance, including implementation of gopher baskets, staking, pruning, replacement of failed specimens, and cleanup and removal of all foreign materials will continue through fall 2013. Beginning in fall, 2013 the City of San Jose will assume maintenance responsibility as part of its responsibility for the maintaining of Jeffrey Fontana Park.

Phase Two: Shrubs Exact species selection and source material depends on advice from SCVWD and other experts. Planting dates and other details are also yet to be confirmed based on funding and public participation.

Large Shrubs:

Elderberry, Sambucus Mexicanus

Toyon, Heteromeles arbutifolia

Coffeeberry, Rhamnus californica

Bigberry Manzanita, Arctostaphylos gluaca,

Monkey Flower, Mimulus aurantiacus

78

California Rose, Rosa californica

Gooseberry, Ribes californicum

Ceanothus cultivars

Schedule:

Seed Collection in May, 2011

Planting in late fall, 2011

Watering from late spring, 2012 to late fall, 2011

Phase Three: Grasses? Exact species selection and source material depends on advice from SCVWD and other experts. Planting dates and other details are also yet to be confirmed based on funding and public participation.

Native Grasses :

Purple Needle Grass, Nessella pulchra

Blue Eyed Grass, Sisyrinchium bellum

Native Wildflowers:

Milkweed, Asclepias fascicularis

California Poppies, Eschscholzia californica

Miniature Lupine, Lupinus bicolor

Sky Lupine, Lupinus nanus

Arroyo Lupine, Lupinus succulentus

Goldfields, Lasthenia glabrata

Tidy Tips, Layia platyglossa

Schedule:

Seed Collected in 2011?

Planting in late fall, 2012?

Watering from late spring, 2013 to late fall, 2013?

79

Project Maps:

80

Larry Sasscer’s Plan for Spring ’11: TJ Martin 1 and 2

Park Landscape Planning Worksheet

Date: 9 May 2011

Project Name: TJ1/TJ2/TJ3 Spring 2011

Project Lead: Larry Sasscer

Estimated Planting Date: May 28, 2011

Background This area of the park was established in the late 1980’s. The areas under the transmission lines are subject to PG&E vegetation restrictions that mandate removals of trees taller than their stated height restrictions. Park maintenance was cut back in the park in the last decade resulting in further vegetation loss.

Current Situation This plan covers three areas of TJ Martin Park as designated by TJ1, TJ2 and TJ3.

TJ1 and TJ2 plan is for trees in unrestricted areas to be planted in the turf to provide shade and landscaping to open areas that receive little use. These areas are not zoned for sports. TJ3 plan is to fill in skin areas (bare dirt with concrete mow strips) to replace trees that have died, knocked down in storms or cut by PG&E.

May 1 Update: PRNS has ground down the stump in the turf. This area is ready for auger/planting.

PG&E has cut 3 plum trees in TJ3 and one blew over last winter. Also in TJ3, PRNS had to cut down two oaks and two pine trees in the last two years that were growing too close property owners creating hazards or root issues.

The plums in TJ3 are nearing the end of their life span, so now is a good opportunity to fill in the gaps before more die.

May 1 Update: PRNS has cut down the dying plum tree and ground the stump. This location is ready for auger and planting.

84

Restoration Plan and Resource Description The general plan is to work with OCF to obtain the trees and organize planting day for 17 trees. There are 9 shrubs and low growing plants that are being planted by me (Larry Sasscer). We are also talking to nurseries to determine the best purchase price.

Digging the holes will need to contracted and runs a minimum of $350, but we can combine with the other projects by Pat and Dave so this cost is split between the three.

Watering quick connect is available and working. I will lead the watering effort and reuse members of the watering volunteers that has been managing the 40 oaks and buckeyes planted three years ago. Their watering needs are diminishing.

Project Maps/Drawings*

Attached as separate file: TJ1_TJ2_TJ3_Spring 2011 Landscape Design.doc Cost Estimate: See Detail Tables Below*

Item Amount Plants 1366.55

Materials 86

Labor 350

Total 1802.55

85

Funding Sources: MFPA: miscellaneous materials, shrubs, auger labor OCF: All trees, funded from $1,500 from PG&E given to OCF, cost

$1,275 PG&E:

*Having all holes dug for all three park projects at once will reduce overall cost.

Quarterly Funding Schedule

FY 2011 Amount Date Needed Q1 0

Q2 527.55 Date of auger and tree

purchase TBD

Q3 0

Q4 0

Other

Stakeholder Approvals

Entity Approvals MFPA(Linda Wilson: Plan approval and

funding)

PRNS (Don Zonic) TJ1 and TJ3 approved, TJ2 pending review

PG&E (Chris Hughes) Project reviewed, verbal

SCV Water District (if applicable)

Not applicable to this project

OCF (Christian Bonner) Reviewed and approved

86

Detail Plant List

Plant Name Type (tree,shrub,

other)

Quantity Supplier Cost Total

(TJ1) TBD, OCF to make suggestions Tree

3 OCF 75 225

(TJ2) Zelkova Serrata‘Village Green’ Tree

6 OCF

75 450

(TJ3) Crabapple Prairie Fire Tree

4 OCF 75 300

(TJ3) Crepe Myrtle Tree 3 OCF 75 225

(TJ3) TBD, pistache or other med size variety for turf Tree

1 OCF

75 75

Berbens Aquifolium: Oregon Grape

Small narrow shrub

1 MPFA 5.95 5.95

Ribes Sanguineum: Small narrow shrub

2 MPFA 24.95 49.90

Mimulus Cardinalis: Red Monkey Flower

Low shrub 2 MPFA 5.95 11.90

Artemisia Californica: CA

Sagebrush

Med shrub 1 MPFA 5.95 5.95

Ceanothus Yankee Point

Low shrub 1 MPFA 5.95 5.95

Salvia Bees Bliss Low bush 1 MPFA 5.95 5.95

Galvesia speciosa: Bush Snapdragon

Low bush 1 MPFA 5.95 5.95

Subtotal 1366.55

87

Detail Material List (hardware cloth, cages, stakes, soil amendments, bark/mulch, rocks, etc.)

Materials Quantity Supplier Cost Total Hardware cloth

for cages 1 roll MPFA

50 50

Stakes for plant cages 18

MFPA 2 36

Tree Stakes 34 OCF 0 0

Tree Mulch OCF 0 0

Subtotal 86 Note: Verify OCF will provide tree stakes for trees they do not provide.

Labor List

Labor Description Supplier Cost

Auger

Dig 17 holes (also trying to include holes for other

planting projects in Fontana-Pat/Dave)

MFPA 350

# of Volunteer planters

20 MFPA/OCF 0

OCF support needed? Yes 0

Watering and Maintenance: Contact list for 2 years of watering

TJ1: Tom Morse

TJ2/TJ3: Larry Sasscer with existing TJM watering

volunteers

0

PRNS Infrastructure Support

N/A 0

Subtotal 350

88

Associated Images for Spring ’11 Planting-Larry Sasscer/Tom Morse 2011 Planting Proposals for TJ Martin Park v1.0

1 April 2011

TJ Martin 1: Burchell and Oakglen

3 trees under power lines, but near towers, 20% zone which is acceptable to PG&E

TJ Martin 2: Burchell and The Strand

6 trees in turf, not under power lines

89

TJ Martin 3: Between Fleet and Weimar. Tree and shrub planting in graded areas, one replacement tree in turf for dead tree.

Support from PRNS is needed to remove existing stump in turf and remove dying tree/stump in skin area.

90

Fall ’11 Planting: Fontana West Patrick Pizzo

California Native Plant Island A

Date: 20 May 2011

Project Name: JFontana-West at Oak Grove and Golden Oaks

Project Lead: Patrick P. Pizzo

Estimated Planting Schedule: Mid-May ’11 through Dec ‘12

Background This area of Fontana Park has the highest density of tree loss by PG&E’s new, vegetation management program. Several concept drawings were considered and reviewed by the City of San Jose and PG&E. Due to restrictions, restoration in this area will be confined to planting a California Native plant island (and a few, other Mediterranean Zone plants) on the scarf area, the northern periphery of this area.

Current Situation The drawing below was the 3rd Revision Plan for Fontana West, Span 4, north of Oak Glen Way. Discussion with PG&E and the City of San Jose led to cancellation of the planting of specialty trees, Items 1-7: 1) these small trees would be pruned to 8-foot clearance for lawn- mowing equipment clearance and (2) even small trees cannot be planted under the 250KV transmission cables at mid-span. Low shrubs (to 3-foot max) were okay be PG&E; but mowing strips would be required by the City and these would be too costly to create in terms of both time and funding. Because there is not a suitable mow-strip, implementation of Island B has also been denied. Island A, an island of California Native Plants, and the planting of Ceanothus shrubs, as shown as items 8 and 9 below, have been approved in concept.

91

Here is the planning guide for Island A:

92

Restoration Plan and Resource Description The general plan is to obtain the CA native plants from reputable nurseries specializing in Native Plants. Native plants to be used will be in either one-gallon or five-gallon containers.

Digging the holes will need to contracted-out and runs a minimum of $350. However we can combine with the other projects by Larry Sasscer and Dave Poeschel so this cost is split between the three.

PRNS (Liz Neves) has the plans for the Phase-I installation of this plan but has not provided a written approval for Spring ’11. All that is intended for Spring ’11 is to dig seven of the 27 holes required to implement this proposal, all in the Island A area. Chris Hughes from PG&E has given his verbal approval, but we would like a signature.

A watering quick connect is available and working for Island A. We have not yet investigated availability of a QC for the five ceanothus on the south periphery near Oak Grove Way. I will lead the watering effort and try to solicit other residents to involve themselves in the project.

Cost Estimate: See Detail Tables*

Item Amount ($) Plants 555

Materials 200

Labor 350*

Total $1105 (for 2011) Funding Sources:

MFPA: $1105 as OCF would not be involved in the plantings Since the charge to auger holes will be split between

this, and other restoration projects, $350 is a best

estimate.

OCF: Not involved PG&E. Involved only in the way of Restoration/Improvement funding and approval cycle

93

Quarterly Funding Schedule FY 2011 Amount Date Needed Q1 0

Q2 $118 Date of auger, 7-holes

Q3 0

Q4 $459 $220 plants, 1/3 of Auger plus $121 for materials

Stakeholder Approvals Entity Signature MFPA(Linda Wilson: Plan approval and funding)

PRNS (Don Zonic)

PG&E (Chris Hughes)



OCF (Christian Bonner)

Detail Plant List Requirements for the southern periphery Ceanothus, 5 ea Item Tree

Type Container Number Cost


One Gallon 5 $60

Total = $60

94

Island A Plant Needs Item Plant Type Container Number Cost

1,2,3 & 12 Bee’s Bliss Salvia

1- gallon 4 $45

4,5 & 6 Ceanothus Yankee Point

1-gallon 3 $33

7 & 8 Ceanothus Dark Star

#5 2 $75

9 Ceanothus Snow Flurry

#5 1 $40

10 Manzanita ‘Sunset’

#5 1 $40

11 Cistus purpureus

1-gallon 3 $32

13 Ceanothus Concha

#5 1 $40

14 Berberis nevinii

#5 1 $50

15,16 & 17 CA Fuchsia 1-gallon 3 $32

18 & 19 Baccharis pillularis

1-gallon 2 $23

20 Soap plant seeds seeds $0

21 Jean Mirov Ceanothus

#5 1 $40

22: Manzanita Austin Griffiths

#5 1 $45

Total = $495

95


Materials Quantity Cost Total Hardware cloth for cages 1 roll 50 50

Stakes for plant cages 18 2 36

Tree Stakes 0 OCF 0

Mulch/Bark 12 cu foot 35 35

Subtotal $121 for 2011 Detail Material List (hardware cloth, cages, stakes, soil amendments, bark/mulch, rocks, etc.)

Materials Quantity Cost Total Hardware cloth for cages 1 roll 50 50

Stakes for plant cages 18 2 36

Tree Stakes 0 OCF 0

Mulch/Bark 12 cu foot 35 35

Subtotal $121 for 2012 Labor List Labor Description Cost

Auger

Dig 21 holes (also trying to include holes for other planting projects in Fontana-Pat/Dave)

350

# of Volunteer 08 0

96

planters

OCF support No 0


Pat Pizzo and watering volunteers

from other resident stakeholders

0


N/A 0

Other

Subtotal 350

All costs shown are retail costs. It is hoped that the MFPA will qualify for Wholesale Customer status with a CA Native Plant Nursery and this will substantially reduce costs.

Please note, this project will be completed in phases and not implemented fully until December 2012. The first phase will be done in Q2, 2011, with seven holes dug by auger (sharing costs). The second phase will be in Q4, 2011, with seven new auger-holes dug for Q1, 2012 planting; the planting of the first seven foundation shrubs in the CA Native Plant Island A; and the planting of the five trees on the southern periphery, items 8 and 9 in the concept drawing. In Q1 of 2012, seven more shrubs will be added to the CA Native Plant Island A. In Q4 of 2012, the CA Native Plant Island will be fully implemented. Total costs in 2011 equal $577 for this project. The project will be completed in 2012 for an additional cost of $570. The total cost of implementation is $1147 and implementation will be completed by December of 2012.

In August, the plan was modified per two factors: further information was forthcoming from review by PRNS and the City of San Jose; and wholesale customer status for MFPA was being pursued. This significantly lowers the price estimate for plants. The revised material and plant list for the implementation of Native Island A is as follows:

97

Wholesale Plant Prices: 5 gal. Arctostaphylos 'Austin Griffith' $15.50

5-gal. Baccharis pilularis, ‘Twin Peaks’ $12.50

1 gal. Arctostaphylos 'John Dourley' $4.45

1 gal. Ceanothus griseus horizontalis ‘Yankee Point’ $4.00

1 gal. Ceanothus griseus horizontalis ‘Yankee Point’ $4.00

5 gal. Cistus purpureus $12.50

5 gal. Ceanothus 'Joan Mirov' $12.50

1- gal. Eriogonum fasciculatum 'Theodore Payne' [will substitute

5 gal. Ceanothus 'Joan Mirov' $12.50

1 gal. Eriogonum umb. Polyanthum 'Shasta Sulfur', Yellow Buckwheat

1 gal. Eriogonum umb. Polyanthum 'Shasta Sulfur', Yellow Buckwheat

1 gal. Eriogonum crocatum, Saffron Buckwheat 3X = $12.00

1.gal Epilobium californica, California Fuchsia $4.00

1 gal. Salvia 'Bee's Bliss' $4.00

1 gal. Salvia 'Bee's Bliss' $4.00

5 gal. Baccharis pilularis, ‘Twin Peaks’ $12.50

5 gal. Chilopsis linearis, Desert Willow $15.50

10-sacks of Garden Soil, $50

36 inches by 50-foot and 16 guage wire fencing, 3 ea = $150

4-foot heavy steel stakes, 42 stakes at $3.74 = $157

Subtotal: Stakes plus fencing approximately $325

Garden Soil = $50

Tie-Wire = $10

Plants = $130

98

Total for Spring Planting of Island A = $515.00 Best Estimate and including Tax = $560

Three bags of 60 liter mulch: 3 *$15 = $45.

Topsoil required for mounding (10 yards) at a cost of $190

Total Native Island A = $790.

99

Fontana West/Middle/East, Phase II Date: June 29, 2011

Project Lead: Dave Poeschel

Estimated Planting Date: November, 2011

Background The areas covered by this project are the “skin” areas with little or no vegetation of “Fontana East”, including Fontana Middle and the eastern portion of Fontana West. Most of the area is under the transmission lines and are subject to PG&E vegetation restrictions. Other areas are also subject to SCVWD restrictions due to the Almaden Valley Pipeline. Being near Golf Creek, some areas are subject to SCVWD creek maintenance requirements and all the areas are subject to the Watershed Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.

Current Situation Fontana East, Phase I commenced in the fall 2010 with the planting of 47 native tree seeds, seedlings, and small trees in the areas where PG&E did not restrict tree planting. Still, there are large areas with little vegetation. Additionally, PG&E removed three trees and the City removed two dead or dying willow trees.

Restoration Plan and Resource Description The Fontana East, Phase II calls for adding native shrubs which will require no irrigation and little maintenance once established. Shrubs grown from the local watershed (as required) have been grown from local stock or were obtained from West Coast Wilds, a nursery able to provide local plants. More plants may need to be obtained. Ceanothus cultivar specimens will also need to be obtained.

Our City Forest may be able to obtain many of the plants required.

Digging the planting holes may require the aid of an auger. A contractor will probably cost about $450 to provide the service.

PRNS (Don Zonic) does not have the specific plan yet but has been supportive based on prior discussions. Chris Hughes from PG&E has given his verbal approval.

Watering quick connect is available and working. I will lead the watering effort and other members have volunteered to help if necessary.

100

Project Photos, Maps, and Drawings Photos of Native Shrubs Species Chosen for the Project:

Elderberry

Toyon

101

Coffeeberry

Foreground: Sagebrush Background (center): Black Sage

102

Monkey Flower

Gooseberry Sagebrush

103

CA Rose

Bigberry Manzanita

Ceanothus ‘Joyce Coulter’

104

Planting Maps:

Fontana West Fontana Middle Fontana East

105

Fontana West (1)

106

Fontana West (2)

107

Fontana Middle (1)

108

Fontana Middle (2)

109

Fontana East (1)

110

Fontana East (2)

111

Fontana East (3)

112

Cost Estimate: Item Amount

Plants $561.10

Materials $50

Labor $450

Total $1061.35

Detail Plant List Plant Name Type

(tree,shrub, other)

Quantity

(#) to be purchased

Cost (and Dave’s Donation)

Total

Blue Elderberry Shrub 6 (1)

$6.95 $6.95

Toyon “ 21(9)

$5.95 $53.55

Coffeeberry “ 19 (14) $5.95 $125.30

Monkey Flower 16 (9) $5.95 $53.55

Ceanothus, ‘Joyce Coulter’ “

(46) $7 $322

California Sagebrush “ 13 $0 $0

Black Sage “ 14 $0 $0

Big Berry Manzanita “ 2 $0 $0

Gooseberry “ 7 $0 $0

California Rose “ 14 $0 $0

Subtotal 158 $561.10

113


Materials Quantity Cost Total

½” Caging Wire 50’ $50 $50

Subtotal $50

Labor List Labor Description Cost

Auger Hire Contractor $450

# of Volunteer planters 20+

$0

OCF support probable $0


Primary: Dave Poeschel

Backups: Mike Thompson,

Larry Sasser, Pat Pizzo

$0


Existing 150’ garden hoses

Existing PRNS 3/4” quick connect couplers, Existing SCVWD ½” quick connect couplers

$0

Subtotal $450

114

Quarterly Funding Schedule FY 2011 Amount Date Needed

Q1 0

Q2 0

Q3 $611.35 Purchase of shrubs &

caging

Q4 $450 (auger) Date of auger service

Other

Stakeholder Approvals Entity Signature

MFPA(Linda Wilson: Plan approval and funding)

PRNS (Don Zonic)

OKed by Don Zonic but still waiting for official City approval.

PG&E (if plants under power lines) ?

OKed by Chris Hughes


General plan OKed. No approval required for phase II.

OCF (Christian Bonner) Involvement has not yet been decided.

115

Spring ’12 Planting, Fontana West California Native Plant Island B Plan Date: 16 July 2011

Project Name: JFontana-West at Oak Grove and Golden Oaks: JFWest Project Lead: Patrick P. Pizzo

Estimated Planting Schedule: Spring ‘12

Background This area of Fontana Park has the highest density of tree loss by PG&E’s new, vegetation management program. Several concept drawings were considered and reviewed by the City of San Jose and PG&E. Since there is motivation for the City to replace turf with drought resistant plants, Native Island B is being considered for implementation. This Planning Worksheet outlines the plan for installing Native Island B in JFontana West.

Current Situation The drawing below was the 3rd Revision Plan for Fontana West, Span 4, north of Oak Glen Way. Discussion with PG&E and the City of San Jose led to cancellation of the planting of specialty trees, Items 1-7: 1) these small trees would require pruning to 8-foot clearance for lawn- mowing equipment clearance and (2) even small trees cannot be planted under the 250KV transmission cables at mid-span per PG&E requirements. Low shrubs (to 3-foot max) are okay by PG&E but the City requires concrete mowing strips to separate shrub from turf areas. With construction of a suitable mow-strip, implementation of Island B is now on schedule. Island A, an island of California Native Plants, and the planting of Ceanothus shrubs, as shown as items 8 and 9 below, is covered in an independent Planning Worksheet.

116

Plan for Native Island B:

117

Plant Requirements for Island B Item Plant Type Container Number Cost 1 Ceanothus

Concha #5 1 $45

2 &* 3 Ceanothus Yankee Point

1-gallon 2 $24

4,5 & 6 Cistus Purpureus

1-gallon 3 $30

7,8 and 9 Deer Grass 1-gallon 3 $30 10 Juncus

Starts 1-gallon 3 $30

11 Needle Grass

Starts 12 $20

12, 13 & 14 Epilobium 1-gallon 3 $30 15, 16 & 17 Bees Bliss

Sage 1-gallon 3 $32

Total = $241

Restoration Plan and Resource Description The general plan is to obtain the CA native plants from reputable nurseries specializing in Native Plants. Native plants to be used will be in either one-gallon or five-gallon containers.

Digging the holes will need to contracted-out and runs a minimum of $175. However we can combine with the other projects by Larry Sasscer and Dave Poeschel so this cost is split between the three [$350 auger minimum cost ]

PRNS (Liz Neves) has the plans for the installation of this plan but has not provided a written approval for Spring ’12, to date. Chris Hughes from PG&E has given his verbal approval, but we would like a signature.

A watering quick-connect is being made available and working for Island B, as is the required concrete mowing strip. We have not yet investigated availability of a QC for the five ceanothus plants on the south periphery, near Oak Grove Way. I will lead the watering effort and try to solicit other residents to involve themselves in the project.

118

Cost Estimate for Island B: See Detail Tables* Item Amount ($) Plants 241

Materials 200

Labor 175*

Total $616 (for 2012) Funding Sources:

MFPA: $616 as OCF would not be involved in the plantings

Since the charge to auger holes will be split between

this, and other restoration projects, $175 is a best

estimate.

Detail Plant List for peripheral trees [if not planted with Island A, Fall ‘11]

Requirements for the southern periphery Ceanothus, 5 ea

Item Tree Type

Container Number Cost


One Gallon 5 $60

Total = $60 OCF: Not involved PG&E. Involved only in the way of Restoration/Improvement funding and approval cycle

119

Quarterly Funding Schedule FY 2011 Amount Date Needed

Q1 616 + 60 = $676 Date of auger, 10-

holes

Q2

Q3

Q4

Stakeholder Approvals Entity Signature MFPA(Linda Wilson: Plan approval and funding)

PRNS (Don Zonic)

PG&E (Chris Hughes)



OCF (Christian Bonner) Not applicable to this project

.

All costs are retail cost. It is hoped that MFPA will qualify for wholesale purchase of Native Plants because of the organization’s tax-exempt, non-profit status and thus, costs will be substantially reduced.

120

Glowing Court Plantings, Martin 1-2: A Proposal

Above is shown T.J. Martin Park near Glowing Court. Here, three PG&E power transmission towers are located. It is near these towers that reasonable size trees may be introduced into the park.

A resident group has for many years maintained the shrub and small plant area located at the south tower nearest Glowing Court. As the ground is ‘open’, weeding has been a continued maintenance issue. Additionally, this group wishes to further develop this area into a showier and more maintenance-friendly project. This proposal suggests plants and a planting scheme to achieve this goal. The MFPA Restoration and Improvement Committee is willing to help the resident-group achieve their objectives.

This proposal suggests a list of plants that would meet the resident objectives for the South Tower area using drought-resistant and CA Native shrubs to cover the ground and reduce the weeding problem. Additionally, a more extensive planting is suggested, one which combines this effort with a grouping of tress near the other two

towers to give summer color and to provide shade, thus meeting a partial restoration for PG&E tree-loss in the Park.

121

Here is the tree of choice: Jacaranda mimosifolia or Jacaranda cuspidifolia, Brazillian Rosewood. This tree is typically 25 to 30 foot at maturity and in cultivation.

http://www.plantasonya.com.br/arvores-e-palmeiras/jacaranda-de-minas-jacaranda-cuspidifolia.html

I can see three of these trees grouped at each tower i

Martin Fontana Parks Association Parks Restoration and ......˜ Fontana West Spring 2011: CA Native...

Documents

Transcript of Martin Fontana Parks Association Parks Restoration and ......˜ Fontana West Spring 2011: CA Native...