HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-25 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 25, 2016 AGENDA City Hall Chambers
250 Hamilton 7pm *In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Open Space and Parks Office at 3201 East Bayshore Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-496-6962.
Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda,
please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at
the appropriate time.
I. ROLL CALL II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to
limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV. BUSINESS 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from September 27, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – Chair Lauing – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. City of Palo Alto Special Events Update – Stephanie Douglas – Discussion – (20 min)
ATTACHMENT
3. Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution and Current initiatives – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion – (30 min) 4. Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion
– (45 min) ATTACHMENT
- Final Drafts Chapters 1-4
- Revised Draft Chapter 5 5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair Lauing - Discussion (20 min)
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2016 MEETING
VII. ADJOURNMENT
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
September 27, 2016 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Jim Cowie, Anne Cribbs, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed 13
Lauing, David Moss, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: 15
Others Present: 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen, Kristen 17
O'Kane 18
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19
20
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21
22
Chair Lauing: Are there any agenda changes, requests or deletions? If not, it's time for 23
oral communications. 24
25
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 26 27 Chair Lauing: Seeing no cards or people, I think we'll pass that for now. 28
29
IV. BUSINESS: 30 31
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from August 23, 2016 Parks and Recreation 32 Commission Meeting. 33 34
Approval of the draft August 23, 2016 Minutes as amended was moved by Commissioner 35
Hetterly and seconded by Vice Chair Knopper. Passed 6-0 Cowie abstaining 36
37
Draft Minutes 1
DRAFT
2. Review of Aquatics Program Analysis 1
2
Chair Lauing: Next up is a review of the aquatics program analysis by staff. Who would 3
like to introduce that? Rob. 4
5
Rob de Geus: Good evening, Commissioners. Rob de Geus, Director of Community 6 Services. You all know Kristen O'Kane, but we also have another new staff member 7
here, Jazmin LeBlanc. She's our new Senior Analyst, who has a working title which I 8
still need to remember. She's like 2 or 3 months on the job now, Jazmin. She's been 9
helping us with this review of the aquatics program. I'll just make some introductory 10
remarks. Kristen and Jazmin will go through the presentation. I wanted to just frame this 11
because over the last couple of years we've found that the delivery of the aquatics 12
program, the way we're doing it now is really not meeting the needs of the residents of 13
Palo Alto. We felt it was important to take a good hard look at how we're delivering that 14
service and consider alternatives for how we might do a better job for the residents of 15
Palo Alto. We're really aiming for a high quality, consistent and diverse aquatics 16
program. We have a couple of alternatives that we're reviewing, and we're doing the 17
evaluation this past summer mostly. We really would like to hear the Commission's 18
thoughts on the sort of policy implications of a different delivery model and what you 19
think that might be and what do you think is in the best interest of Palo Alto residents and 20
what they might hope is the outcome of a study like this. Ultimately, we'll be going to 21
Council, hopefully in the fall with a recommendation. Your input will be extremely 22
helpful. With that, I'll pass it on to Kristen. 23
24
Kristen O'Kane: Good evening. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. Jazmin and I are 25 going to share this presentation tonight. I'm going to start out by just probably telling you 26 things you already know about our aquatics program. Currently, the City of Palo Alto's 27 aquatics program offers adult lap swim, which is year round; family recreation swim; 28
learn to swim; swim lessons; and facility rentals for private pool parties. Those last three 29
are only offered in the summer. Family rec swim and learn to swim is offered at the 30
City-owned Rinconada pool but then also at JLS Middle School pool, which we lease 31
from the School District. We also have two partner firms that operate the youth 32
competitive swim team as well as the adult masters swim team. Those are partnerships 33
that are run by a third party. Rob touched on this a bit. We were faced with some severe 34
staffing issues. Back in 2015 we were faced with a difficulty of hiring and retaining 35
aquatics staff to operate and run our summer swim program, so we had to take some 36
immediate measures to handle that. We also learned from residents, and we've been 37
hearing this for quite some time, that residents want more access to the pool. They want 38
a longer season. They want longer hours. We're also responding to that as well. The 39
staffing shortages. Like I mentioned, summer of 2015 we were really struggling to hire 40
and retain lifeguards and fill the shifts that we needed for lifeguarding but also for swim 41
instructors. It was to the point where we were at risk of canceling many of our summer 42
Draft Minutes 2
DRAFT
swim lessons just due to staffing shortages. We did an emergency request for proposals 1
to obtain a third party who could satisfy our need just for that summer. We did that and 2
had a successful summer. Following that, we continued to have shortages, and actually 3
some of our full-time staff, our aquatics recreation coordinator, had to fill in for some 4
lifeguarding, which resulted in overtime as well as it's not the best use for him to be at the 5
pool lifeguarding. Another thing that we've learned over the past couple of years is that 6 there's really an increased demand for our aquatics programs, for our swim lessons, for 7
our family recreation swim. Both in 2015 and 2016, we've had a lot of classes that have 8
been full or wait-listed. Half of our youth swim lessons in 2015 were either full or there 9
was a waiting list for them. This past summer 30 percent of our classes were wait-listed 10
or full. We've done some surveys, one very recently, where we asked recent participants 11
of the swim lessons program, which is really the parents of the participants of swim 12
lesson, if they would like to have an extended season for swim lessons, have additional 13
lessons in the fall and the spring. 70 percent of the respondents said yes, they would like 14
to see that offered. Half of our respondents also said that they'd like to see more 15
recreational swimming opportunities offered by the City. In response to this feedback, 16
what staff has identified as our objectives are to expand the recreational swimming 17
season; adjust and add hours for the lap swim and recreational swimming outside of the 18
9:00 to 5:00 hours; and then also expand the swim lesson season and provide evening and 19
weekend lessons as well. In fall of 2015, staff went to the Finance Committee with a 20
recommendation that we go out for an RFP to explore the option of a long-term contract. 21
We addressed in the one summer of 2015, and what we decided to do was will there be 22
interest and what would it look like if we did a long-term contract with someone. It was 23
more of an exploratory phase at the time. This then went to Council in winter of 2015 24
and was subsequently approved. We went out for an RFP, and we got two firms that 25 responded. When we did the RFP, we made it very broad. Respondents could bid on one 26 or more options. If someone just wanted to do lifeguarding, they could bid on that. If 27 someone wanted to do lifeguarding and learn to swim classes, they could do that as well. 28
We also included the youth competitive swim team and the masters team in that proposal. 29
I'm going to turn it over to Jazmin now to discuss the results of the RFP. 30
31
Jazmin LeBlanc: Thanks. I'm Jazmin, a new employee with CSD. We reviewed that 32
RFP. We received two responses, evaluated both and chose to proceed with Team 33
Sheeper's bid, which was an extensive bid to cover all of the program areas at the pool. 34
Team Sheeper's bid not only met the City's need to provide swim lessons without running 35
into staffing shortages, but it also provides an enhanced level of service with increased 36
pool hours and new programs. We also looked at several other options for pool 37
management: Team Sheeper's bid; continuing the status quo; expanding our in-house lap 38
and rec swim hours while contracting out the swimming lesson portion of the program, 39
which has been the hardest part to fill staffing-wise; and looking at what it would take for 40
us to provide in-house programming that has a more expanded recreational and lap 41
swimming program and also has the swim lessons that residents are demanding. We 42
Draft Minutes 3
DRAFT
looked at these four options using the three criteria that you can see here: City and 1
customer costs; quality of service and customer satisfaction; and diversity of 2
programming and accessibility. On the first note, you can see City costs projected in 3
Year 1 for these four options. The alternative that is fully contracted out, that's Number 4
2, is the option that has the lowest General Fund impact. Team Sheeper proposed a 90/10 5
revenue split, where they would give the City 10 percent of their revenues throughout the 6 year. Sheeper expects that the revenue share would—the split would stay the same, but 7
we would likely see increased revenues after the first year as more and more customers 8
begin using the pool. Contracting just swimming lessons has the second lowest impact 9
on the General Fund, but it does not provide the same level of programming as 10
Alternative 2. It does expand the lap and recreational swim season by several additional 11
weeks, but it doesn't add more swimming lessons where Sheeper does offer more lessons 12
plus several other programs. The full in-house alternative is more expensive than these 13
first two options. A large factor for that is that we recommend adding another staff 14
person, a Community Services manager, who can really help to provide sufficient 15
oversight if we want to enhance what we're offering in-house. We also would 16
recommend, if we're going to go with an in-house option, that we increase lifeguarding 17
salaries, because that's one of the things that we've identified as causing our staffing 18
shortages. We think that would help. As you can see, the status quo is actually what we 19
project to be the most expensive option. This is looking at budgeted figures. It estimates 20
a lot less revenue than you'll see in the other options, because it doesn't have that 21
expanded season, it doesn't have expanded lessons, and it's not using the staffing 22
strategies that Team Sheeper's model proposes. We tried to replicate in the in-house 23
changed versions for 1 and 3. In customer costs, you'll also see some big differences. On 24
the in-house versions we did not propose any changes to the lap or rec swim prices, and 25 we didn't modify prices for masters or youth swimming programs. Team Sheeper 26 proposed prices that would match the price structure that they have in place at Burgess 27 pool, which is essentially not different for drop-in lap and recreational swim users. It's 28
also not different for masters swimmers. In this model, Team Sheeper would manage 29
PASA as a subcontractor. They may possibly want to have lane fee increases at some 30
point in the future, but that's not part of what we were looking at, and it's not part of their 31
plan at this point. The other thing that we'd want to note about lap and recreational 32
swimming is that right now at Rinconada pool you can purchase ten packs of tickets, 33
which reduce the gate prices in some cases relatively dramatically. About 40 percent of 34
rec and lap swim users utilize the ten-pack program, so they would see a price increase 35
under the Team Sheeper; however, Team Sheeper also offers a monthly pass program. 36
For heavy users of the pool, people who are going 12 or more times a month, they would 37
actually see their prices drop compared to what they're paying now at the pool. On to 38
lessons. We also looked pretty extensively at swimming lessons, youth swim lessons, 39
across these four options. In Alternatives 1 and 3, we propose increasing—those are the 40
in-house versions where we sort of ramp things up a bit. In-house, we would propose 41
increasing swim lesson prices to be a little bit more in line with what we identified as 42
Draft Minutes 4
DRAFT
benchmark comparisons for other public pool facilities in the area. Right now, our swim 1
lessons come out to be about $11 per lesson. This would raise it to about $13 for group 2
lessons. Team Sheeper has a significantly higher rate than that, where they're offering 3
lessons at about $22 per lesson. This is the middle of the range for private operators of 4
swim lessons in the area. It's a bit different. Where we've historically compared 5
ourselves with public facilities, they're comparing themselves with other private 6 offerings. They offer a fee reduction program, and they're willing to offer a similar fee 7
reduction program in Palo Alto. In the fee reduction program for people with low 8
income, the prices drop about 66 percent, so it's pretty dramatic. They've also offered, if 9
we want to subsidize a little, if we do want to go with Team Sheeper, they've offered to 10
raise their prices to $18 in the first year rather than $22, so that it's a little bit less of a 11
heavy impact on residents. If we were to do that, they would want the $4 price difference 12
to be subsidized by the City in that case. We have a policy question here. Do we feel 13
like the increasing lesson prices will lead to fewer residents enrolling their children in the 14
learn to swim program? If so, are there options that we can explore to alleviate that? 15
When we looked at quality of service and customer satisfaction, we found that both Team 16
Sheeper and the City have received generally high customer satisfaction ratings from 17
users; although, they have really different lesson strategies. The City has modeled its 18
lesson program on the Red Cross water safety program, which emphasizes safety and 19
comfort in the water. Team Sheeper also emphasizes safety and comfort in the water, but 20
really goes beyond that and has innovating programming where they are trying to make 21
sure that every students in their lessons has the opportunity to perfect the swim strokes. 22
Should they want to, they can move into competitive swimming in the future. Because 23
they're offering year-round swim lessons, they're able to get professionals who really 24
know their stuff with regard to swim lessons, and they also offer this deck manager 25 program where, in addition to a person in the pool with the children, they have another 26 person who's sort of roaming and providing additional oversight. Sheeper's program is 27 flexible with make-up lessons available, a simple process for changing schedules for 28
lessons. Like I said, with the year-round programming, kids can start at any time and 29
continue their progress until their family decides they no longer need it. Team Sheeper's 30
programming is much more expensive than the City's current offerings, but we have 31
another question. Do we feel like this innovative lesson philosophy will lead to better 32
outcomes? The final criteria that we looked at was the diversity of programming and 33
accessibility. Alternative 2, Team Sheeper's proposal, offers the biggest increase in 34
programming. As I mentioned, they offered not just increasing the number of swimming 35
lessons at different times of the year and day as well as the increased lap and recreational 36
swim access, they also proposed swim camps, aqua fitness programs, triathlon team, 37
water polo and therapeutic aquatics, to name a few. Their expanded hours, we think, will 38
increase pool access to users who would like to use the pool on evenings and weekends 39
and recreational users who are looking for access outside of summer months. In 40
Alternatives 1 and 3—those are the sort of enhanced City options—we also looked to 41
expand recreational and lap swim hours but are not proposing to offer those additional 42
Draft Minutes 5
DRAFT
programs such as the swim camps that I mentioned. The other thing we wanted to 1
mention here is that Team Sheeper really maximizes, especially if you look at Burgess 2
pool, the use of the pool, which leads to more customers at the pool, which is great but 3
also a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there are more people using the pool, and 4
we're getting greater community access. On the other hand, current pool users will have 5
more people to share their swim lanes with. This kind of leads to our final question 6 around the criteria. Do we feel like a higher level of programming at the pool will lead to 7
higher or lower customer satisfaction? Thank you so much for listening to this 8
presentation. We'd really appreciate to hear your thoughts around these key policy 9
implications and which alternative will result in the greatest value and highest and best 10
use of Rinconada pool for Palo Alto residents. Your input will inform our analysis and 11
recommendation to Council. Thanks. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Do you want feedback on these two specific bullet points? Is that a good 14
way to organize the discussion? 15
16
Mr. de Geus: Yes, I think that would be great to do it that way. I like that picture up 17
there, because the impact's also going to be on the customer base. There's a young 18
swimmer watching and wondering what we're going to do in the aquatics program. 19
20
Chair Lauing: How many takes did you have to have to get that shot right? Who would 21
like to start? 22
23
Commissioner Cribbs: I would be happy to start. 24
25 Vice Chair Knopper: I was going to say let the swim expert go (crosstalk). 26 27 Commissioner Cribbs: The swimmer will start. 28
29
Chair Lauing: I think that's a pretty good place to start. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: First of all, I'm very happy to see this report and to see some of 32
the things that you're suggesting, just because the old swimmer in me thinks about going 33
by Rinconada, which I do very often, and seeing during the winter time empty, not used 34
pools. That really is not a good thing, because every other pool, I mean broad statement, 35
is over-packed, jammed and should be used 24 hours a day almost, at least from 6:00 in 36
the morning to 9:00 at night. It's good that we're looking at this. That's the first thing. 37
The four different alternatives are very interesting. We obviously can't afford to do the 38
status quo. That's probably not acceptable, I would think, to the staff and to the Council. 39
That leaves three left. Of the three, I can see that Team Sheeper is very attractive and 40
very interesting, because there are professionals really managing and focusing on the 41
program with the latest swim techniques and the latest ways of doing things. That's a 42
Draft Minutes 6
DRAFT
good thing. However, I'm very concerned specifically about the cost of the swimming 1
lessons, because I feel like one of the things that we all need to do is to make sure that we 2
give our kids the opportunity to learn to swim, because drowning is such a high cause of 3
death among teenagers, even in Palo Alto. It's really scary and serious. Even though 4
Palo Alto's supposed to have a lot of money, there are families here who will find this 5
very difficult to afford $22 for one single lesson. As a detail, I would be in favor of 6 raising the private lessons but not the group lessons. The other comment that I have is 7
that I'm concerned about the longstanding relationships that we have all had in Palo Alto 8
with both Palo Alto Swim Club, which I believe was found in the 1950s, if I'm not 9
mistaken, and has been at Rinconada ever since, and also Rinconada Masters that was 10
found sometime in the '70s. I just want to make sure that if those programs aren't 11
working, then we obviously should look at them. If they're working and we're just going 12
in a different direction, I'd like to hear more conversation about that. I have some little 13
detail questions as I went through here, but I think those are my big comments for now. 14
15
Mr. de Geus: Just on that last point, Commissioner Cribbs, we were sort of expecting 16
that we would have the masters and PASA bid on their part of the pool operation for the 17
competitive swim or the masters. What in fact happened is Team Sheeper and PASA and 18
the masters got together and talked amongst one another about how they might work 19
together. They sort of proposed altogether. I think they're all sort of excited about being 20
able to do that and improve all of the programs, both masters and PASA, with Team 21
Sheeper. 22
23
Commissioner Cribbs: That's a good thing, but how would that work actually? How 24
would they manage that? What would be the reporting relationship? Who collects the 25 money? How does that all happen? Maybe it's details that you don't know yet. 26 27 Mr. de Geus: In an alternative where we have one contract with Team Sheeper, then 28
those two organizations would subcontract to Team Sheeper. Our relationship would be 29
with one organization. One of the alternatives is where Team Sheeper just does the swim 30
lesson program, which is what we did this last summer and the summer prior. We have a 31
contract with them for that, and we have a separate contract with Carol McPherson for 32
the masters program and another contract with the competitive swim program, PASA, 33
and then we retain the lifeguard program. That's how it's currently working. 34
35
Commissioner Cribbs: I appreciate that. I just wanted to mention this kind of 36
longstanding relationship especially with Palo Alto. 37
38
Mr. de Geus: It's a good point. Team Sheeper, I think, wants to maximize the pool and 39
get lots of activity and diversity of swimming in there. What will that mean for the 40
masters program and PASA? Will they be able to retain the same amount of pool time as 41
Draft Minutes 7
DRAFT
they have today? Probably not. That's true for everyone that goes to the pool under a 1
Team Sheeper model. There's going to be a lot more sharing needed. 2
3
Commissioner Cribbs: You know if you ask anybody who's a swimmer that they always 4
need more water, more water, more lanes, more this. 5
6 Mr. de Geus: Right, and that's a tradeoff. 7
8
Commissioner Cribbs: Is there an opportunity, if you decided to do the Team Sheeper or 9
even the other alternatives, that you could look at keeping the pool open year round and 10
not closing it in the end of October and opening it in the first of April? I would love to 11
see winter swimming. I think the people in this area would come and go swimming in 12
the winter time. 13
14
Mr. de Geus: We can look at doing that. Heating the pool during the winter is costly. 15
There's a certain number of months where we'd—we'd have to look at that. We would be 16
open to that. We want to see greater access to the pool that makes sense for the public. 17
18
Commissioner Cribbs: I could go on, because you could drop the temperature a little bit 19
and people would be okay with that. You could have a bubble over the pool. We could 20
build another 25-yard pool, but that's in the Master Plan so that's for later. I'll stop now. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Knopper. 23
24
Vice Chair Knopper: Thank you. I just had a couple of questions. I did like Alternative 25 2. It just made sense to me to provide more opportunities for people to swim is really 26 great. I concur with everything Commissioner Cribbs just said. She's obviously at a 27 much higher expert level in this area than I am. My first question is we get 28
approximately, if I remember when I read this, 1,300 resident users and like 440 29
nonresident users. Correct? 30
31
Ms. LeBlanc: For swimming lessons? 32
33
Vice Chair Knopper: It was in the report. Was it just users of the pool or was it—here. 34
Approximately 1,330 residents use a ten pack at some point per year and 443 35
nonresidents use. Is capacity at the pool—this is really a capacity question before I ask 36
the money question. Is it too much capacity for the pool if we changed it to just residents 37
only, if we're over capacity? If we're adding all these other programs and you don't want 38
to edge out the Rinconada masters and PASA is obviously very rich, and they have all 39
their competitive stuff. It's a question. Is that something that we should entertain? I 40
don't know. The pricing just like a dollar or two based on all of the other cities, I don't 41
think that would be an impact. The private pricing is a concern. I think private lessons, 42
Draft Minutes 8
DRAFT
especially when you have a new swimmer, there's tremendous value to having a one-on-1
one lesson. Even though I do like the fact that they offer 66 percent off for finance 2
reduction. You've had a lot of positive feedback from Team Sheeper, so it makes sense 3
to me that they would be a really great vendor to use, which would support what you're 4
looking for with regard to an alternative. I guess that's all I wanted to say. It's really this 5
resident/nonresident. I think this is sort of what we go through with some of the Foothills 6 Park or whatever. Do we want to kind of go down that path especially if we have one 7
pool? I do like the idea of winter swimming. I think it's fantastic exercise, especially 8
with the Master Plan where we're trying to do more senior. A lot of people who are older 9
swim in the winter because things hurt. After you swim, it feels a little better. We're 10
trying to enrich that. I'll shut up, I swear. Also in the Master Plan we're talking about in 11
our later report that private/public opportunities. Would this be an opportunity for us, 12
because I think it would, to try to find some sort of private sponsorship, somebody to help 13
us offset? I don't know. Like going to the swimming vendors, like Speedo or TYR, I 14
don't know. Right? Is that how they say it? 15
16
Commissioner Cribbs: Those are vendors. 17
18
Vice Chair Knopper: Say would you offset—sometimes they like to do that, because 19
they want people to wear their gear and they do pop-up shops or whatever. Like, do we 20
have an opportunity to offset our costs if the City has to make a differential payment or 21
something? I don't know. I'm done. 22
23
Ms. LeBlanc: Thank you. I'll start with capacity. The capacity is really mostly a 24
problem on warm summer weekends, when we have the pool open roughly from 11:30 25 until 4:00 and 500 people want to use the pool all in a very short time period. I think if 26 we were to expand the hours, we'd actually ease up capacity quite a bit. If you go over 27 to—I'm a resident of Palo Alto and a mother. I go to Burgess pool and I go to Rinconada 28
pool quite a bit. Burgess pool is open, I think, from 10:00 a.m. until at least 7:00 p.m. 29
On the same day when I get turned away at Rinconada, I can go to Burgess, and they 30
have the capacity just because people are spreading themselves out over the day. I think 31
we would help a lot in that case. The other thing I'll say is if we are going to go with the 32
contracted model, Team Sheeper put a lot of thought into how many lanes they dedicate 33
to swimming lessons versus lap swim versus their masters program versus the youth 34
swimming. They really have tried to make sure that they're getting as many people in as 35
they can without overburdening any particular group. They do that by offering just such 36
a long day. They also are proposing to do a year-round swim program. They wanted to 37
do it in both the round pool and the lap pool. We already heat the lap pool all year round, 38
so there isn't an added cost for heating the pool if we go with a year-round program there. 39
We don't heat the round pool all year round now, and we don't have a cover. I 40
investigated the price. Public Works manages the gas and water and chlorine bills there. 41
It would be a pretty dramatic increase; I think it was about $60,000 more to heat the 42
Draft Minutes 9
DRAFT
round pool in the winter rather than just heating it through the end of October and starting 1
it up again in the middle of April. That's a question if we would want to spend the money 2
on that or not. In terms of the prices, the other issues that we ran into with Team Sheeper 3
is they really see the user base at Burgess pool and the user base at Rinconada as almost 4
the same. The pools are not very far apart. As I mentioned, I'm one of those people who 5
goes to both pools. They don't want to have a dramatically different pricing structure at 6 Rinconada than Burgess, because they would just see people shift their use from one of 7
their pools to another. That's where we do have some trouble negotiating the prices a lot. 8
There may be some willingness to at least for a year or 2 years, 3 years kind of ease into 9
increasing prices should we want to go with them. I meant to mention this during the 10
presentation. Despite the fact that they're so much more expensive per lesson, they 11
actually are able to do about 15 times more lessons in Burgess pool than we're doing in 12
Rinconada pool right now. It is a big price hit. Because they're able to cover their costs, 13
they're not subsidizing each and every lesson, they're able to get a lot more students into 14
their programs. That's another consideration. 15
16
Mr. de Geus: Just to add one thing to that, Jazmin. We would still expect to have 17
resident registration be a lower cost than nonresidents and also to have advance 18
registration for residents particularly for the spring and summer swim lesson programs. 19
If there's enough residents that need swim lessons, they could fill up all the capacity. To 20
your question about if we were just to support residents alone, residents do get that initial 21
advantage. 22
23
Commissioner Cribbs: I was just thinking that if you could mitigate the cost by just 24
having a lower fee—I understand what Team Sheeper is saying. You can't have two 25 different prices in two same places. If you could do it by just controlling and having it be 26 for Palo Alto residents, I just think it's our obligation. That's really too expensive. To 27 provide cheaper, less expensive lessons. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Were you done with your responses to Commissioner Knopper? Other 30
Commissioners? Commissioner Moss. 31
32
Commissioner Moss: I have several comments. One more thing about the pricing. If 33
there was some way to add to your Alternative 2 a scholarship or something like that, 34
maybe $20,000, $30,000 worth of scholarships, it might address what she's talking about. 35
I also like the idea of significantly reducing it for residents. I think it's way more 36
expensive. It's so expensive that I wonder if you charged $18 an hour instead of $13 an 37
hour how much more competitive would Hybrid 1 or 3 be if you charged more. When I 38
saw that the ten pack for instance was going to go up 50 percent for adults, 50 percent for 39
infants—this is residents—and 80 percent for seniors, that's a real shock. I think you 40
really need to look at the pricing and maybe beef up your Alternative 1 and 3 a little bit 41
and also offer some scholarships or, like Commissioner Knopper said, get some 42
Draft Minutes 10
DRAFT
sponsorship or some pop-ups or something like that to reduce the costs. I think that's 1
really important. The other thing is the swimming strategies, the teaching strategy of 2
Team Sheeper. Somewhere I read that it's "not as fun," and second of all I heard that they 3
would do away with the ability to have four or five lessons in a row in a week. In other 4
words, if the family's on vacation and they would like to spend the whole week learning 5
to swim, they can't do it because the model is every week on Tuesday at 4:00 for as many 6 weeks as you want ad infinitum. That's a different model. I know that I as a parent 7
would not—it has some appeal, but I like the other model as well. When they say not as 8
fun, when you talked about the pre-competitive, 90 percent of the kids are not going to—9
a large percentage are not going to want to be pre-competitive, but they're going to want 10
the safety, they're going to want to learn to swim, and they're going to want to have fun 11
because they want to be able to do it for the rest of their life. I know we burned out one 12
of our kids. At least two survived, but the third one didn't. Anyway, it's important for 13
some kids to have fun. That's the customer satisfaction question that you had between 14
the two. The other thing was about sharing the space. I think if you spread out the hours, 15
you're going to be able to share the space a little bit more. The last thing I wanted to 16
mention was hiring students. I think it's really, really important that we have some clause 17
in the Team Sheeper that even though most of their hiring going to be full-time, 18
permanent employees, that you have a certain percentage, especially in the summer, be 19
students. If you don't have enough students, fine. I think if you have a base number of 20
students, I think it's really important for the students and for the kids and also for the City 21
to have that as an option. That is all for now. 22
23
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Reckdahl. 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: I too was taken aback by the large increase in the group rate 26 especially. If you're going to raise anything, the group rate is the entry point. I would be 27 very sensitive to that. Can you go back to Slide 9? I had some apples and oranges 28
questions. Obviously the status quo we have limited hours. When we're comparing these 29
alternatives, we don't get the same benefit from Alternative 4, which ironically is the 30
most expensive. I agree that that's a nonstarter. The other three, you mentioned that 31
Alternative 1 had less lessons. It has the amount of swimming? Can you clarify the 32
differences between these as the amount of product that the residents sees? 33
34
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. In the in-house versions for contracting the swim lessons but nothing 35
else, Option 1, and the Alternative 3, which we do it in-house, we tried to match the level 36
of swim lesson offerings that we have had in the last several years. It doesn't increase the 37
number of lessons the way that Team Sheeper's contracted version is proposed to do. 38
39
Commissioner Reckdahl: I thought Alternative 3 had the same—we're trying to mimic 40
Alternative 2. Is that not the purpose of Alternative 3? 41
42
Draft Minutes 11
DRAFT
Ms. LeBlanc: We're trying to mimic it at least with regard to the lap and rec swim hours. 1
What we've come to understand is that it's been really a struggle to get the instructors we 2
need for the swim lessons. At least initially we would probably try to just maintain or 3
maybe increase lesson offerings a bit. The other issue is that the lessons are very heavily 4
subsidized. For each lesson, it actually kind of is a hit to the General Fund. There's a 5
cost-benefit analysis to adding ... 6 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can you give an estimate of how many hours of lap swim each 8
of these alternatives have and how many hours of swim lessons each one has? 9
10
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. Let me pull up my file. I have it in my head that the rec swim hours 11
are 56 hours a week in the summer. For anything where we expand our offerings and 12
that's the same as Sheeper's. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's rec. Is that just rec or is that rec and lap? 15
16
Ms. LeBlanc: Rec and lap. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: For all three of those options, we have 56 hours a week for lap 19
and rec. How many hours a week do we have for lessons on these three? 20
21
Ms. LeBlanc: Sorry. I printed out a lot of information, and I didn't print this one. 22
Actually I know where I can get it. 23
24
Mr. de Geus: I can add something while Jazmin's looking at this. In discussions with 25 Team Sheeper for Alternatives 2 and 3, if we were to expand the program in-house, we 26 wouldn't lock into a schedule for multiple years. As we expand the program, we would—27 we would write this into a contract with Team Sheeper as well, because ultimately we 28
must satisfy the customer base. We would adapt and adjust as we go. If we have not 29
enough lap swim hours, we might expand the lanes and hours. Their proposal is sort of 30
an initial schedule, but we'll be working with the community and the swimmers to see if 31
it's working. If it's not, make adjustments as we go. They're very open to that. 32
33
Ms. LeBlanc: For the weekly open hours in the summer, the enhanced program 34
recommends 79 hours of lap swim versus 39 right now; 30 hours of lap pool recreation 35
time versus 27 now; 86 hours with the round pool open versus 55 now. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: You're comparing which option to now (crosstalk)? 38
39
Ms. LeBlanc: Any of the first three. We're really attempting to increase hours no matter 40
which option we go with. This is just compared to the status quo. 41
42
Draft Minutes 12
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can you start over? I missed that. 1
2
Ms. LeBlanc: It's 79 hours for lap swim versus 39; 30 hours of lap pool recreation time 3
versus 27 now; 86 hours with the round pool open versus 55 now. Those are summer 4
hours. In the non-summer seasons, the proposal is 52 hours of lap swimming versus 42 5
now; 4 hours a week of lap pool recreation time versus 0 now; and 46 hours of the 6 wading pool time versus 0 now, the round pool. Like I said, the round pool we might not 7
want to go with in January, in the dead of winter, just for the gas pricing. 8
9
Commissioner Reckdahl: The first numbers that you gave us, the 79 to 39 and 30 to 20 10
and 86 to 55, that's for all three of these? 11
12
Ms. LeBlanc: Yeah. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: I thought that in your presentation you said that we didn't have 15
the same ... That's just recreation. That's not lessons though. That was the difference 16
between ... 17
18
Ms. LeBlanc: Lessons, we're proposing to try to just make the lesson timing better 19
initially. Like Rob said, if we can add more lessons in future years, we would try that. 20
This is where we've been struggling to get people. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can you estimate—this doesn't have to be highly accurate, just 23
an estimate—the number of swim lessons that we have in 1 and 3 versus 2? 24
25 Ms. LeBlanc: Yeah. I would say in 1 and 3, the number of hours for swim lessons would 26 be about 500 probably. The number in 2 would be, I think, about—I'm not sure how this 27 works out. Right now Team Sheeper offers 1,200 lessons a week, 1,200 30-minute 28
lessons. Some of those are group; others are individual at Burgess pool. Let's say that 29
it's—I don't know—200 hours of private lessons and another 200 of group per week. Am 30
I doing this right? I'm trying to do the math on the fly here. Much greater, much greater, 31
because they're offering so many more lessons than we are. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: We have 500 hours per week ... 34
35
Ms. LeBlanc: No. I think per season. We're proposing to have roughly ... 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's lane hours we're talking about. 38
39
Ms. LeBlanc: Yeah, I think so. 40
41
Draft Minutes 13
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: Big picture. What I'm trying to get at here for Slide 9 is 1 and 1
3 have the same amount of recreation and the same amount of open lap swim but much 2
more lower lessons. 3
4
Ms. LeBlanc: Than 2, yeah. 5
6 Commissioner Reckdahl: Than 2. The lessons are being offered by Sheeper. 7
8
Ms. LeBlanc: In alternative 1, Team Sheeper has no problem offering as many lessons as 9
we would like. The problem is our cost. Each lesson right now—for group lessons, I 10
think, we have about $8 that we pay to Team Sheeper per individual per lesson. As we 11
add more lessons that Team Sheeper is willing to offer, we have to pay that unless we're 12
going to raise our prices. They're contract states that they get $20 per child per lesson, 13
and we're charging $11. Nine, not $8. 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Go to Slide 11 please. If we look at these numbers, if we 16
added more lessons to Alternative 1 to try and match the number of lessons in Alternative 17
3, how much more is that? Is that another $20,000 or another $200,000? 18
19
Ms. LeBlanc: It's a lot, yeah. If you look at Alternative 1, the line that says contract fees 20
is all lesson prices. That's paying for Team Sheeper to provide those lessons. It doesn't 21
account for the revenue that we get from the lessons. The cost isn't actually $265,000. 22
It's net, but it is going to be about $9 per lesson for each person doing the lesson. I want 23
to say that'd be about $90,000 for how many people we have enrolled. 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: This is hard to compare because we're comparing options and 26 costs, but we get different—you're comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo. It's hard to judge 27 what's the best value. I'll move on to my other questions. I still am not happy with the 28
data. 29
30
Ms. LeBlanc: I'm just looking at the modeling that I did. I estimated that we would have 31
about 1,100 swim lesson enrollments under the in-house options, and Team Sheeper had 32
proposed that they would have about 4,600. It is a big difference between the options and 33
possibly something where we would want to look at what that cost would be, were we to 34
try to add as many lessons as Team Sheeper is proposing. 35
36
Mr. de Geus: Commissioner Reckdahl, we're not asking the Commission to help make 37
the decision this evening. We'll be coming back next month. If there's additional 38
information that you just—I have some of the same questions. If we can tease those out, 39
then we can work on those and bring them back next month. 40
41
Draft Minutes 14
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: That would be useful. The two options I see is to have Hybrid 1
Number 1, where we still do the lap swim, but we just boost up the number of lessons 2
that we hire Sheeper for. It'd be really nice to compare 1 and 2 with an equal number of 3
lessons. A 2B would be how much—if we wanted to say all Palo Alto residents get $16 4
lessons instead of $22, how much would that balloon Option 2 up to? Thank you. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Did you have other questions. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: I have a couple more questions here. When we talked about 9
Sheeper's concentration on strokes, what are they giving up if they're spending more time 10
on strokes? I don't know how swim lessons work. What is a typical swim lesson, and 11
what are they omitting so they can do more stroke work? 12
13
MS. LeBlanc: I think a big factor is just the kind of caliber of the instructors. As we 14
mentioned, there's a lot of full-time instructors. I'll let you weigh in. 15
16
Chair Lauing: We have a resident expert here. 17
18
Commissioner Cribbs: I would just say that the Red Cross lessons do teach you how to 19
be safe in the water. I assume that Sheeper's lessons will concentrate on the four basic 20
swimming strokes, the competitive strokes, freestyle, backstroke, butterfly and breast 21
stroke, not necessarily in that order, and prepare kids for not only swimming on a swim 22
team but being able to go into water polo, being able to go into synchronized swimming 23
and all of that kind of thing. It's not that much different from Red Cross, because there 24
are wonderful levels in Red Cross. They do do a great job. I think the changes that the 25 instructions most likely who are getting kids ready for competitive swimming have a lot 26 more knowledge that lifeguards who are coming in for the summer. Having said that, my 27 first swimming lesson was from a lifeguard at Sequoyah High School. Does that help? 28
29
Commissioner Reckdahl: That does help. I'm just wondering if there's a difference in 30
teaching style or teaching material, can we prescribe and say, "Can we have some of this 31
style and some of this style," and add variety and let the residents choose what they think 32
is the best. Commissioner Moss' point about hearing the comment it's less fun, we are 33
doing something maybe some kids don't want to be competitive swimmers. They just 34
want to have more fun. That would be an option. 35
36
Mr. de Geus: I have to mention this one thing, this interesting fact. The last visit we had 37
with Team Sheeper at the Burgess pool, they have an underwater hockey court that they 38
installed. Some regular swimmer there loved the sport and donated the court. 39
Apparently they do this every couple of weeks; they have this big underwater hockey—40
I've never heard of it, but it was kind of (crosstalk). 41
42
Draft Minutes 15
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: With or without scuba tanks? 1
2
Mr. de Geus: (crosstalk). Snorkel, yeah. 3
4
Commissioner Reckdahl: We mentioned about how if you used the pool more than 12 5
times a month, it ends up being cheaper. Do we have any estimate of what percentage of 6 our swimmers use it more than 12 times a month? 7
8
Ms. LeBlanc: It's very small at this point. I think it's 18 people in the City. But with 9
more hours, I would expect a lot more people would use the pool more frequently. 10
Burgess pool, I think, has 250 residents that have lap swim memberships and come 11
frequently. 12
13
Commissioner Reckdahl: I also have a question about group lessons. How many 14
students are in a group lesson? 15
16
Commissioner Cribbs: Three. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: Three, standard? 19
20
Commissioner Cribbs: Three to four. 21
22
Ms. LeBlanc: Four, four is the maximum. 23
24
Commissioner Reckdahl: When we looked at that attachment at the back, when it 25 compared all the different group lessons for the different cities, those were all roughly the 26 same size? 27 28
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's all my questions. Thank you. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Questions down at this end? Yes, Commissioner Cowie. 33
34
Commissioner Cowie: It sounds like we've done some things to address demand that 35
exceeds our capacity in terms of what Rob mentioned earlier about opening up 36
registration earlier for residents for certain programs. Some of the programs, though, like 37
lap swim, free swim aren't really susceptible to preregistration. I'd just like to get a sense 38
for how we think about the considerations of whether it's in the best interest of the City to 39
open up those things to nonresidents essentially on an equal footing. Maybe we price 40
them a little differently. If we're over-packing the pool and we're selling some people 41
that you can't come today, does that make sense if the reason they can't come is because 42
Draft Minutes 16
DRAFT
we've opened it up to both residents and nonresidents? I'd just like to get some feedback 1
on that question. 2
3
Mr. de Geus: It's open to residents and nonresidents now for recreation swim and for lap 4
swim. I think we would have to see what would happen as we start expanding the hours. 5
There's going to be more hours during the week to be able to lap swim. I think we'd have 6 to just see what would happen there. I don't know that we would want to do anything sort 7
of dramatic with respect to making it a residents only lap swim for a period of time or 8
something like that. I don't think that would be necessary. I'm not sure if I'm getting at 9
your question. 10
11
Commissioner Cowie: I guess what I ask, Rob, is that you don't pre-judge it, that you 12
keep an open mind on the question. If you find that Jazmin's theory doesn't really play 13
out that way, you still have multiple hours on the weekends when it's free swim, that 14
we're sending people home, then maybe we ought to think about maybe it doesn't make 15
sense or maybe we ought to change the pricing and make the pricing for nonresidents 16
higher to reduce demand a little bit. I just worry, given that we only have really only 17
pool and we're opening it to nonresidents and we're hearing that it's oversubscribed, does 18
that really make sense? That's all. 19
20
Mr. de Geus: I think that's a really fair point. If we do go into a contract that is more 21
significant that what we've done here, we can write those things into the contract, the 22
expectations and reopening the discussion about schedule and that type of thing. That's a 23
good suggestion. 24
25 Chair Lauing: Was that it, Jim? 26 27 Commissioner Cowie: Yes. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly. 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: I just had a question about—I agree with most of what's been 32
said tonight. I have a question about JLS and how that fits in the picture under the 33
various scenarios. We now in the summer operate both at Rinconada and at JLS. Under 34
Alternative 2, would Team Sheeper run both of those pools in the summer? I just had a 35
comment about the programming. I have a competitive swimmer and a non-competitive 36
swimmer. There has always been great conflict around pool space between the two of 37
them and who's more entitled and who's less entitled. Obviously both want more, always. 38
I absolutely understand that PASA and masters want to be able to have enough lanes to 39
run their practices at pace. At the same time, there are a lot of kids who just want to get 40
wet. We were Greenmeadow members for a lot of years, and that was always a conflict 41
there. During the swim team season, you had a single lane for rec. I don't want to see 42
Draft Minutes 17
DRAFT
that happen. I worry a little bit about the increased programming. I love the idea of aqua 1
fit classes, because I've seen that there's tremendous take-up for that kind of activity, 2
especially among seniors. It seems like it fills a great need. My kid's a water polo player, 3
so they'd love more options for water polo. I'm worried that if we add too many new 4
kinds of programming in the pools, then we're just adding another constrictor on the 5
unprogrammed time. I think that's something we are concerned about. Certainly coming 6 out of the Master Plan, we heard it from Council as well that we want to make sure 7
having opportunities for kids and adults to have unprogrammed time. That would be my 8
biggest concern about the Sheeper proposal, figuring out what that right balance is. 9
Thanks. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Any other? Did you get your questions addressed to be able to come 12
back? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: I think so. We want to get to a conclusion here with a solid staff 15
recommendation for Council to consider. We want to do that over the next month or two. 16
We expect to come back here again next month, and we'll follow up on the things we 17
heard this evening. If you have other things, that would be great. We may even bring 18
Tim Sheeper here, so you can meet him and actually ask some questions of his program 19
and some of the differences between what he does there at Burgess and elsewhere. They 20
also have two pools now they're running in San Jose, that they won bids for. I think that 21
might be helpful if you're interested in that. I would also add just on that point one of the 22
advantages of having someone like Tim Sheeper that manages multiple pools is they can 23
draw on staff from multiple locations, which is a challenge for a single operator like us, 24
where we just have one recreation coordinator running the pool. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Commissioner Cribbs. 27 28
Commissioner Cribbs: For next time you come back, could you do like a graph of when 29
the pool is open now, Rinconada, and when it's closed and what uses are during the times, 30
so that we could just see it on one piece of paper, and then the projections for when 31
you're open. If you're going to extend the opening through November, what that would 32
look like. Perhaps the kinds of uses that you could have through the real winter time. 33
That would be really helpful, I think, to see. Thank you. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Thanks very much. Very thorough. 36
37
3. Parks, Open Space, Rails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 38
39
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda looks familiar, the Master Plan. It's still with 40
us. Kristen, are you going to introduce that one? 41
42
Draft Minutes 18
DRAFT
Kristen O'Kane: I'll be presenting on the latest status of our Master Planning efforts. I 1
have Peter Jensen and Daren Anderson here to provide support. What I'm going to talk 2
about today is I'd like to just do a brief recap of our Council Study Session. Many of you 3
were there, and we appreciate that very much. I just want to talk about some common 4
themes we heard at the Council Study Session. I will also be sharing with you our 5
revised Master Plan outline. We did reduce the number of chapters in the Master Plan. 6 The focus really will be on the revisions to Chapter 3 and the draft of Chapter 5, and then 7
the schedule to hopefully get us to completion. Our Council Study Session on 8
September 6 went pretty well. We heard a lot of comments from the Council. Some of 9
the themes we heard—this isn't everything we heard. Some of the themes were related to 10
demographics, specifically coordinating with the School District and just ensuring that 11
we have the right projections for population growth in the future. Also we heard a lot of 12
City/School District collaboration for space. Being able to not only get access to the 13
space but also a question as to what the legal rights are for the community to use School 14
District property. That's something we'll be working with our legal team on, to get an 15
answer to that. As Commissioner Hetterly mentioned, one thing we heard quite a bit was 16
this need and desire for more unstructured play, intramural sports, pick-up games, free 17
time, just time for kids to get out there, and even adults too to not be in the competitive 18
setting. We heard a lot of about dog parks and restrooms. Dog parks, I think it was 19
pretty much support for dog parks. Restrooms, I think there was support as well but also 20
just some concerns. Some Council Members sharing what they've heard from the 21
community and also just questions as to what the issues are with restrooms as far as 22
security and things like that. We did hear some comments related to the 10 1/2 acres at 23
the Baylands and the 7.7 acres at Foothills Park. Parkland dedication was also a common 24
theme and where we can dedicate parkland but also being cautious as to not restricting 25 ourselves too much on land if we do dedicate it. Incorporating elements of the Bike 26 Master Plan, making sure we're just coordinating with that Master Plan. The last one—of 27 course I had to throw it in here—the Pokémon Go stops we heard from a couple of 28
Council Members, incorporating that into our parks. I'm just going to share that Rob and 29
I were at Happy Hollow Park in San Jose recently. They had a whole big Pokémon Go 30
Day and just drew a lot of different customers that normally they don't have at Happy 31
Hollow, which is usually for smaller kids. They had a lot of teens come. They made this 32
whole day about Pokémon, and it drew a lot of people to the park. We started thinking 33
about how we could do that. I don't know if you wanted, Chair Lauing, to stop and have 34
any discussion on the Council Study Sessions? 35
36
Chair Lauing: Just if any Commissioners who weren't there want to make or who were 37
there—if there are any comments on that. David, did you want to say something? 38
39
Commissioner Moss: I thought it went really well, and they were very supportive. I 40
liked the interplay between Council Members about restrooms, positive and negative. I 41
Draft Minutes 19
DRAFT
know where I stand, and I'm glad that there's a couple of Council Members who agree 1
with me. Anyway, I liked the interplay of that. I thought that it was very well received. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Others? I think basically that was the first time in months that staff or we 4
got direct feedback. The direct feedback was pretty much green lights. It was 5
comforting. 6 7
Ms. O'Kane: It was. Just switching gears a little bit to the Master Plan document itself. 8
We revised the outline a little bit. Just in reviewing the previous draft we had from our 9
consultant, we just scaled down, combined some of the chapters. Also, Chapter 3 has 10
been re-titled from "Needs and Opportunities" to "Analysis and Assessment." It just 11
better reflects the contents of that chapter. We took Chapter 4, which was a very small 12
chapter called "Our Desired Future," and combined it with the goals, policies and 13
programs. The site concept plans that were the books of all the before and potential after 14
plans of the parks, we've removed those completely from the Master Plan. We just felt 15
like they were too detailed to include at this time, especially since they're conceptual and 16
they're not final plans that are in place. We'll keep them in our back pocket for future 17
use. When we do renovate a park, we'll have that as a starting point, but they'll not be in 18
the Plan. Chapter 7, "Implementation," is now Chapter 5. Chapter 3, this one had quite a 19
bit of revision since the last time you saw it. Staff, Rob and I, met with the ad hoc group. 20
They also spent quite a bit of time reviewing, talking about it and revising this chapter. 21
For that, we really appreciate your help with that. It was very helpful to get your 22
perspective and also your assistance with that. Some of the changes are—I feel like we 23
have a clearer introduction now that sort of describes what needs and opportunities are, 24
what gaps are, sort of what's the difference between a need and a want. That just sort of 25 sets the framework for that chapter right at the beginning. We also added quite a bit of 26 information on demographics, which was missing before. I think it still needs a little bit 27 of work. We're just making sure we have the latest data. You can see in the chapter sort 28
of the direction we're heading and what we think are important demographics to point 29
out. In general, the chapter was reorganized to flow better and sort of follow the steps 30
that we went through, through the Master Planning process. Do you want to pause here, 31
Chair? 32
33
Chair Lauing: No, I think that's exactly right. Any other ad hoc people want to chime 34
in? 35
36
Commissioner Moss: I just felt that this Chapter 3 was fantastic compared to what we 37
had before. Much more concise, much easier to follow. I know a tremendous amount of 38
work went into that on both sides. I really, really appreciate it. 39
40
Ms. O'Kane: Moving on. 41
42
Draft Minutes 20
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: Sorry. 1
2
Commissioner Hetterly: I didn't have a comment on the process, but I had one comment 3
on the content. On page 2 under transportation, that first paragraph, the last sentence I 4
haven't seen before. In addition to providing safe bike routes, encouraging users to use 5
alternate modes of transportation can be accomplished through limiting parking at parks 6 and recreation facilities. That's not something that we've talked about as part of this 7
Master Plan process. I'm reluctant to include it in this report. I don't know where it came 8
from. I'm happy to discuss it, but I think it's a policy issues that has significant 9
ramifications. 10
11
Ms. O'Kane: That did come from staff. In this section we talk about transportation but 12
only as far as bikes, sort of alternative modes for transportation. There are still a lot of 13
people who drive to parks. One way to sort of reduce the number of cars going to parks 14
and to use alternative modes of transportation would be to limit the parking adjacent to a 15
park. That's the thought behind it. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't like it, and I'm happy to talk about it. If you want to hear 18
now why I don't like it, (crosstalk) maybe discuss it. 19
20
Chair Lauing: I thought we were going to talk about any comments that the 21
Commissioners had on Chapter 3, because this is the first time we've all been able to talk 22
about it since the ad hoc put its marks on there. Any level of comments from anybody. 23
We have that item on the table. Other comments, agreements or ... You don't agree or 24
you don't have any comment? 25 26 Commissioner Cribbs: Can I ask just a question about a comment that was here? 27 28
Chair Lauing: What about this one right here that we're talking about on page 2? Let's 29
see if we can come to agreement on that. 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: Did you want me to talk about that? 32
33
Chair Lauing: If you want, yeah, or others can. 34
35
Commissioner Hetterly: I'll tell you the reason I don't like it in a nutshell. I think that is 36
a common strategy now to encourage mode shift in people's behavior. It's often 37
considered in terms of housing and office space development, whether or not we should 38
reduce the amount of parking that's provided in that kind of setting. Parks, I think, 39
though are very different. Rather than having a captive population like you do in an 40
office building or you do in a housing development, parks, we're really trying to get more 41
and more and more people to come all the time. The last thing that we want to do is turn 42
Draft Minutes 21
DRAFT
people away because it's too hard for them to walk or it's too hard for them to bike or it 1
doesn't work out or they for some reason can't do it. I would say in a world where we're 2
looking from an environmental perspective at trying to reduce cars and reduce parking, 3
parks and recreation resources are the last rung on the ladder that we ought to attack. 4
5
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, Mitchell Park has the problem now. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Other comments on that? 8
9
Commissioner Reckdahl: The comment I would make is that, especially at larger parks, 10
people right next door, it's very hard for them to park already. For example, Mitchell 11
Park, if we reduce the parking at Mitchell Park, the neighbors would be walking 3 or 4 12
blocks just to go to their house. I think we have to be very careful about limiting parking. 13
14
Chair Lauing: I'll make a comment since everyone else is done. I think most of the 15
discussion that we've had over the years is the reverse, which is we've been trying to 16
figure out ways at certain areas to get little bit more parking a la Arastradero, where you 17
can't park some days, unless you park on the street or blocks away and then walk in. Of 18
course, stating the obvious, it would be compromising folks with limited access or senior 19
citizens as well. I think it was at the last meeting we were talking about one of those 20
access areas out by the antenna space. Were you making that comment, Keith, that 21
there's not enough parking to get to the Renzel wilderness space? 22
23
Commissioner Moss: (inaudible) 24
25 Chair Lauing: I thought it was something that was adjacent to the antenna place that we 26 were talking about rededicating. There's no parking there now to even get into it. I also 27 think this is antithetical to at least what we've been talking about. We want to encourage 28
alternate modes of transportation, but I don't think we want to just say, "By the way, you 29
can't use a car to get here." I agree to strike it. Are there minority reports that feel like 30
that should stay in? 31
32
Commissioner Cribbs: You want to strike the whole paragraph or just this last sentence? 33
34
Chair Lauing: No, no. The last sentence, I think. 35
36
Commissioner Hetterly: If you're looking to have other alternatives—if you're looking to 37
build the paragraph, you could maybe talk about shuttles or consider shuttles to the open 38
space areas, that kind of thing. 39
40
Chair Lauing: That'd be great. 41
42
Draft Minutes 22
DRAFT
Ms. O'Kane: We will cut that sentence and talk about other options for transportation to 1
parks. 2
3
Chair Lauing: You had another comment, Anne, on something else? 4
5
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes, I did. On the second paragraph, I just wanted to know if the 6 60,000 commuters coming to Palo Alto to work included Stanford or Stanford is in 7
addition to that. 8
9
Chair Lauing: That's a good question. 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that includes Stanford Research Park but not the 12
University, is my guess. 13
14
Commissioner Cribbs: The number I've had in my head for a long time is 100,000 people 15
come into Palo Alto and Stanford every day. It's been that number for quite a long time. 16
I just wondered. Can we check on that? 17
18
Ms. O'Kane: Yes, definitely. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Other comments from anybody on content of Chapter 3 as revised? 21
22
Commissioner Moss: The question is how much does the Parks Master Plan have to 23
satisfy commuters as well as residents. If we have 100,000 commuters, how much 24
parkland do we need to dedicate to them as opposed to just residents. I think that's a 25 question that people will have. We've sort of been gearing towards residents only. When 26 you have 100,000 coming to our City, how many of them get to use our parks? 27 Somewhere in the demographics we should talk about that. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Sorry. 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: Go ahead. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly, go ahead. 34
35
Commissioner Hetterly: I was just going to ask for clarification. I don't think I quite 36
understand your question. We don't keep anybody out of our parks. Is that what you're 37
getting at or are you asking if we should be planning differently because of that extra 38
population? 39
40
Commissioner Moss: Right. Do we need to have even more parkland dedicated? This 41
100,000 people is a shock to me. Even 60,000 people was a shock to me. If we need to 42
Draft Minutes 23
DRAFT
include additional parkland to satisfy commuters as well as residents, then I think it 1
should be mentioned somewhere in the Master Plan. 2
3
Chair Lauing: It's mentioned right here. Would you put it somewhere else or would you 4
want to elaborate on it? 5
6 Commissioner Cribbs: That's good here. 7
8
Commissioner Moss: I think this is great, to have it in there. Now I have to think about 9
where all the other places are that are impacted by that statement. Leave it in there. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Other comments on any of this? There are a lot of changes. 12
13
Commissioner Cribbs: I have one more. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Sure. 16
17
Commissioner Cribbs: On page 4 under the ethnicity and culture, I just was confused 18
about in the past decade the City's Asian population alone grew by 10 percent, but we 19
don't know what it grew from. I didn't know if that's important. Maybe not. 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: In the previous version or in some version, there was a chart that 22
tracked. I think if we just put that chart back in—there are a couple of other charts that I 23
would recommend restoring—that clarifies that a little bit. I don't know if the chart 24
shows the absolute numbers, but you can see the growth. It's a bar chart from the census 25 decades. 26 27 Commissioner Cribbs: It would be good to have that chart. Otherwise, that sentence just 28
kind of stands alone. It's like why. 29
30
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Another thing on the same vein that the ad hoc was talking about is that all 33
this is great, but we need to know where it's going. Even if it grew 10 percent, that 34
doesn't mean it's going to grow 10 percent again or 20 or 50. To the extent possible 35
without commissioning original research, we'd like to find out what the growth factors 36
are going to be in those demographic segments. That one's back to staff for research or 37
whatever you can find. Jim. 38
39
Commissioner Cowie: I'd just like to play devil's advocate for a minute on this point. I 40
don't know what a snapshot taken—this is maybe building a little bit on what you said, 41
Ed—in 2016 is going to do for a long-term plan as opposed to a general 42
Draft Minutes 24
DRAFT
acknowledgement that the cultural mix in the City is always changing and has changed 1
for decades and likely will continue. We need to take that into account in our planning. 2
I'm just not sure that getting precise information about what it was in 1975 and what it 3
was in 2005, I'm not sure that's meaningful. 4
5
Chair Lauing: I agree. I'd rather know what it's going to be in 2025 if we have some 6 projection there, which still is a projection. To the extent that we can and that there's 7
more Asians or more seniors, then if they need special programming or special facilities, 8
then that's something we can act on. Without that data, you're kind of looking 9
backwards. 10
11
Commissioner Cowie: I guess what I'm saying is I think that's going to continue to 12
change and whatever we predict is going to be wrong. I think a more philosophical 13
statement of taking into the account the population of the City, the ethnic diversity, the 14
socioeconomic diversity is all part of our mission, I think. I think something along those 15
lines is a forever, permanent thing as opposed to trying to get a precise either snapshot of 16
the past or guess on the future. The past really isn't that relevant and the future is going 17
to be wrong. Whereas, the philosophy should apply always anyway. 18
19
Chair Lauing: Right, but I think there are some demographic segments that you can more 20
easily get forecast data for. For example, if there are seniors in the City and the trend has 21
been that they stay rather than leave, they're going to get older. There are actuarial tables. 22
That kind of stuff can be calculated more so than probably some of the demographic 23
groups. The School District forecasts the age groups and when they're going to go up and 24
when they're going to come back down. That's because they already have people that 25 they're counting. 26 27 Commissioner Cowie: They do, but they don't put that in a plan that's supposed to last 28
for 20 years. They adjust that every year. What I'm suggesting is that we acknowledge 29
the fact that it's ever changing in the permanent Plan, and on an annual basis we expect 30
the staff to deal with advice from this group and ultimately the City Council to determine 31
what's the appropriate mix. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly. 34
35
Commissioner Hetterly: I guess I'd just push back on that a little bit, to take the other 36
devil's advocate side of I don't think the past is irrelevant. If we have seen a steady 37
pattern of growth in a certain segment of the population over the last 10, 20, 30 years, it's 38
not unreasonable to expect that that trend is not going to suddenly plummet. It's not 39
going to suddenly take a change without a major change in what's going on in the City. It 40
seems something catastrophic would have to happen for the number of Asians, for 41
example, coming into the City to suddenly disappear, and then we're down to whatever 42
Draft Minutes 25
DRAFT
we were 10 years ago. I think the past is relevant. I don't think it's fully predictive 1
certainly. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Reckdahl. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: Where it really becomes important is if it affects your 6 construction. For example, if the senior population is aging and we're going to have more 7
seniors and we have to construct senior developments, that is a much bigger issue than 8
whether we have Polish or Asian or any other demographics. I think we have to say what 9
would we do with this. If the Asian population is growing, what would we do? If the 10
senior population is growing, what would we do? I think we have to look more at the 11
endpoint than the intermediate, what demographic is growing. 12
13
Commissioner Moss: Can I make one point? 14
15
Chair Lauing: Sure, go ahead. 16
17
Commissioner Moss: The reason the Asian population is important is because when we 18
went to the Midtown meeting on Sunday, there were at least two or three people who said 19
that their primary use of the parks was dancing and tai chi and that other thing that they 20
do. They need flat cement and a canopy over the top and could we do more. That's all I 21
wanted to mention. 22
23
Commissioner Cowie: I just want to make sure that the record is clear on this point. I'm 24
not saying it's irrelevant. I'm just saying it doesn't belong in the Plan. That's all. I think 25 it's very relevant. That's why I'm suggesting a philosophical construct makes a lot more 26 sense. It's permanent and you don't have to worry about getting it just right and having 27 the staff do a whole bunch of work about something that will be wrong tomorrow or a 28
year from now. I'm just not sure what the value of that work is. That's all I'm saying. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Anything else on Chapter 3? 31
32
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Sorry. Commissioner Cribbs. 35
36
Commissioner Moss: (inaudible) on page 5. 37
38
Chair Lauing: I'm sorry. Go ahead. 39
40
Commissioner Cribbs: Go ahead. 41
42
Draft Minutes 26
DRAFT
Commissioner Moss: One quick thing on page 5 under play for children. Can you 1
change that from play area to unstructured play? You mention it several other places, and 2
I think it's really important to put the word unstructured. It's where it says play for 3
children, somewhere in there. That's it. 4
5
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Cribbs. 6 7
Commissioner Cribbs: On the first paragraph after the geographic needs and 8
opportunities, I just didn't understand where south of El Camino Real is in Palo Alto. 9
The second sentence. Halfway down the page, page 5. 10
11
Ms. O'Kane: We will look at that and correct it. 12
13
Commissioner Cribbs: (crosstalk) my geography. I've never been south of El Camino in 14
Palo Alto. 15
16
Chair Lauing: You should get out more. 17
18
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes, I should. 19
20
Ms. O'Kane: Thank you. We'll look into that. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Anything else on 3? 23
24
Commissioner Cribbs: Maybe. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Take it away, 5. I'm sorry. Were you not done? 27 28
Commissioner Cribbs: Go ahead. It's okay. 29
30
Ms. O'Kane: Chapter 5 is the implementation chapter. This is, I'd like to point out, draft, 31
very draft. There are some placeholders that you'll see in there, that say under 32
development. Staff's still working on getting more research. I just wanted to point that 33
out. We would like to hear your feedback today. The implementation chapter goes 34
through the prioritization process, which is the five criteria that we've discussed before. 35
It includes the implementation timelines of near term, midterm and long term, and then 36
we've added a list of 15 priority projects and 15 priority programs that we feel, based on 37
community feedback as well as what staff knows today and what we've heard from the 38
Commission and Council on what we think need attention in the nearer term. I'll get into 39
that a little bit in more detail in a minute. Following that is an example action plan, 40
funding strategy today and tomorrow as well as how we're going to report on progress in 41
the future. We'd like to hear your comments and feedback on Chapter 5. One area where 42
Draft Minutes 27
DRAFT
we'd specifically like to hear are the priority projects and programs, specifically if there's 1
anything that you feel is omitted from this list or you feel is on the list but should not be 2
included. I know there's a lot there, but this is one thing we heard repeatedly from the 3
Commission and the ad hoc specifically, having the list of what we know today that's 4
obvious, that requires some priority action. Some of these things, especially the projects, 5
could be completed in the short term. They're smaller efforts. They don't cost a lot. 6 There isn't as much planning involved. Some of the other ones, for example Cubberley 7
Community Center, that we'll pay attention to now, but the end result is not going to be 8
for a while and the cost is much higher. Just because it's on this doesn't mean it's going to 9
get completed in the next year to 5 years. It just means attention needs to be focused on 10
those. We'd really like to hear your feedback on those, but the whole chapter overall. 11
12
Chair Lauing: Let me just make one sort of comment on one of the shifts that we made, 13
just so you're aware of it. On the bottom of page 1, we've now swapped the batting order 14
for two and three. It used to be fill existing gaps, address community preferences and 15
respond to growth. We didn't think that was the right priority, because ... 16
17
Female: One? 18
19
Chair Lauing: The bottom of page 1 now says fill existing gaps, respond to growth and 20
address community preferences. That's kind of in order of priority of how you would 21
make your prioritization. Absolutely no disrespect to community preferences. Just 22
they're slightly less quantitative. If we have a quantitative growth—let's keep picking on 23
the seniors—demographic we think works and seniors are going to explode, that's 24
something that's real and quantifiable and maybe more actionable than some of the 25 preferences which were more like unlimited needs, as we've talked about before on a 26 number of issues in front of this body. I just want to point that out. Just to ask a question 27 of the game plan for how you're going to go ahead with the 5 and 6 to 10 and 11 to 20 28
and if there's going to be more than the 15 that you intend to prioritize in those groups 29
within the Master Plan. 30
31
Ms. O'Kane: I'm sorry. I didn't understand the question. 32
33
Chair Lauing: You've put out now 15 projects and programs that we're going to talk 34
about. In the actual Master Plan, do you intend to put those 30 on a timeline and stop or 35
are you doing to try to take it to 50? What's your plan there? 36
37
Ms. O'Kane: That section is going to be expanded a bit. We'll include a description of 38
each of those as well as tie that back to the near term, midterm, long term, and then also 39
give each of those sort of an order of magnitude cost for completing those. We're not 40
going to expand past those 15 projects, 15 programs as far as a timeline for completion. 41
We will be doing an action plan, but we're not going to include the action plan 42
Draft Minutes 28
DRAFT
specifically in the Master Plan document partly because if Council approves the Master 1
Plan, we don't want them to feel like they have to adopt that action plan as well, which 2
could be a bit daunting. It'll have a lot in it, and it will have all the costs associated with 3
it. That will change from year to year. 4
5
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 6 7
Commissioner Moss: Are you going to add to Number 5 about the 10 1/2 acres, are you 8
going to add the 7.7 acres or is that lower priority? The 7.7 acres in Foothills, is that in 9
the City ... 10
11
Chair Lauing: That's what we're just going to start talking about now. This is the first 12
time any of us have seen the 30 projects. We want to talk about if we like that. I'm not 13
sure we want to talk about 5 versus 6, but we definitely would want to talk about things 14
that aren't on here or things that are on here that shouldn't be on here from our relative 15
perspective. 16
17
Ms. O'Kane: Can I add? They're numbered 1 through 15, but that doesn't mean they're in 18
that priority order just to be clear. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Maybe the best thing to do is just go person by person with questions and 21
then make comments on those back and forth. Try to keep this organized and productive. 22
Did you want to start, Keith? 23
24
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. I mean, overall they look like reasonable projects. 25 What struck me is, I think, all of them, though, I would include on the list if there's a 5-26 year Master Plan as opposed to a 20-year Master Plan. What would this list look like if 27 we weren't going out to 20 years? Ed just went through on page 1, the respond to growth. 28
I don't think any of these really stand out as responding to growth. That'd be my 29
comment. 30
31
Chair Lauing: Is that all? 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Do you have any other comments, David, on other priorities? 36
37
Commissioner Moss: Other than the 7.7 acres, somewhere in there, I think, that should 38
be in there. I don't really understand Keith's question about the 20 years versus 5 years. 39
I'm assuming because these are the higher priorities, they're all going to be done within 40
the first 5 years. 41
42
Draft Minutes 29
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: If you were trying to make a list even for 2 years, these are all 1
current needs, and none of these are projecting for future needs. The maybe the answer is 2
that we wait for the demographics to get more firmed up. Are we going to get better 3
demographics than what we have right now? 4
5
Ms. O'Kane: We're continuing to research the demographics and connect with our 6 Planning Department. There's the sort of dual effort of doing the Comp Plan, and they 7
are looking at demographics as well. We're going to verify the numbers. We're also 8
trying to get more current data on senior population from Avenidas. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: The whole purpose of the Master Plan was to kind of pave the 11
way forward and looking at the future needs to be prepared for those future needs. We're 12
reacting now to gaps and immediate needs. It's hard, very hard, to look out 20 years and 13
make any prediction. It's very difficult, but I would like to see more flavor of that. That 14
was the purpose of the Master Plan, to have a long-term projection of what we're going to 15
need in 20 years. This is all things that we need in the near future. 16
17
Ms. O'Kane: I would like to respond to that. Many of the projects that are on this list, I 18
think, do respond to growth. Acquire new parkland in high need areas, develop adult 19
fitness areas, new restrooms, a new public gymnasium. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: Right now we're behind our 4 acres per 1,000 residents, so you 22
could say the same thing. Immediate need would be to acquire parkland. With growth, it 23
becomes even more of an issue. The gyms over at Cubberley are in bad condition, so you 24
could say build new gyms as an immediate need. Granted all these immediate needs 25 become more crucial if you look out in the future. (crosstalk) 26 27 Commissioner Moss: I think this is a great list, because it does address both the short and 28
the long term. I think it's a perfect list. It's not going to get all done in 5 years, but I'd 29
like something to be done on each one of these within the first 5 years. You won't finish, 30
but something needs to be done in all of these areas. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Just as a process question. When somebody like you comes up with 7.7 33
acres, let's just jot that down as a possible add here. We can also look at possible 34
subtractions, and then sort of true up at the end. Can I just probe you on your comment, 35
though, just interactively here? Why do you want this list to be in the next 5 years? Did 36
I understand that correctly? No, I'm talking to David. 37
38
Commissioner Moss: I think all of these are high priority. You said they're in priority 39
order. 40
41
Chair Lauing: No, no. They're not in priority order. 42
Draft Minutes 30
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Moss: I get it. 2
3
Chair Lauing: I thought I heard you say that all of these needed to be done in the next 5 4
years. I just was ... 5
6 Commissioner Moss: No. I wanted a little bit done towards each of these within the 5 7
years. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Thanks for clarifying that. Anne, did you have comments? 10
11
Commissioner Cribbs: I do. First of all, I'm just kind of reacting to this because we've 12
just seen it. I wish that were something about aquatic programs and pools—I know, I 13
know, it's predictable—in this list. I'm glad that this isn't a priority order, because I 14
wouldn't like to go out to the public and have the dog parks be, even though they're really 15
important, the number one priority ahead of Cubberley and ahead of youth programs. I 16
think those are probably as important or more important. I'd just like to put more 17
emphasis on some planning for big projects that, at the end of a 20-year time, we can say 18
this is where we're going and we did that. Maybe that's not appropriate in a Master Plan, 19
but I would love it if that's something we're able to say. 20
21
Chair Lauing: That totally is. I think that's Keith's point. We need to get out ahead of 22
these big things. As we've been saying all along, if we thought for some reason needed 23
five more pools and we had to roll those in over the next 20 years, then those should be 24
on here. It's up to staff to figure out where's the money and also the ideal timeline. Go 25 down here and move back up. Jennifer. 26 27 Commissioner Hetterly: I'm going to go up a level. For me, it felt like there was 28
something missing in the analysis. I was looking at the criteria, which we'd talked about 29
so many times. Once I saw the list in the packet, I thought, "Look at those things. Yeah, 30
that 7.7 is missing." It made me look back at the previous outline. I think it had 31
suggested that there was going to be a separate analysis of the long-range, high-capital 32
investment projects. Has that been abandoned? If there's still going to be a separate 33
analysis of those kind of big ticket items—I don't know if those three new land items are 34
the only ones or not. I think it would be helpful to have a separate analysis of those. I 35
think that's where we really need to identify the steps that have to happen if we want to 36
end up in 20 years with a Cubberley that's been redeveloped, for example. That's the big 37
ticket items. Also, I was a little confused by the near term, midterm, long term 38
descriptions. Like Keith, as I looked as these it became very clear that it's not cut and 39
dried what's near, what's middle, what's long. In fact most of these are going to be near 40
and middle and possibly long. What I was looking for was some measure of the urgency 41
that would be tied together with the prioritization that comes out of the criteria. For 42
Draft Minutes 31
DRAFT
example, on page 2 when you're introducing the timeframes, that short two-line 1
paragraph just before the near-term timeframe, the second sentence says these represent 2
different stages of implementation based on the application of the prioritization criteria. I 3
didn't really know what that meant. The criteria don't really inform the timeline or the 4
urgency at all. They just talk about how important it is. I would love to see it put in a 5
different context of the priorities for each timeframe are going to be identified based on 6 the criteria but also on the urgency or the opportunity costs of each particular project. 7
Some of these, for example, have pretty huge opportunity costs if we don't do—like 8
acquiring parkland in high-use areas. Typically we might think of that as a long-term 9
category project because we have to come up with the money to do it. At the same time, 10
if we don't do something now in order to end up with the money, we're never going to get 11
there. Furthermore, the longer we wait, the harder it will be to acquire parkland because 12
we're having less and less and less and less land. There are big opportunity costs to not 13
doing something fast, as fast as we can, on acquisition for example. I could give other 14
examples if you don't get what I'm getting at. That was kind of the gist of it. I think we 15
have to have some sense of the urgency and the opportunity costs and figure out a way to 16
present the projects and the programs so that maybe these top—I don't know how to do it. 17
We indicate what we have to start on right away in the near term and the near-term steps 18
that are involved and then indicate also that those things are continuing. Like dog parks 19
and restrooms, we're not going to build all the dog parks and restrooms we want in the 20
first 5 years no matter how many we want. Maybe in the near term, we want to get one 21
done, and by the end of the medium term we want to have two or three done. Figuring 22
out how to describe the way those projects extend across the timeframes, I think, would 23
be helpful. 24
25 Chair Lauing: Jim, did you have any comments? 26 27 Commissioner Cowie: Thanks, Ed. I'll pass. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Abbie. 30
31
Vice Chair Knopper: The way I read it, based on what Jennifer was just saying, the title 32
is "High Priority Needs and Opportunities." It made sense to me, this list, because you 33
titled it "High Priority Needs." Actually one of the sentences said it was developed with 34
feedback from stakeholders, City staff and includes a summary of each of those high 35
priorities and then order of magnitude capital and operating costs for each. I just made 36
the assumption that this is the stuff that is near term and maybe a couple of them 37
obviously pushing to the midterm. It made sense to me. I was fine with this. The only 38
other comment is just numbering it makes it look like it's priority. I know this is a draft. 39
When I read develop new dog parks, I'm like, "Number 1," because I'm on the ad hoc and 40
I would like that, but I know that's not what it is. Some other person wouldn't ... 41
42
Draft Minutes 32
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: Just use bullet points. 1
2
Vice Chair Knopper: What's that? 3
4
Chair Lauing: Just use bullet points. 5
6 Vice Chair Knopper: Yeah, bullet points. That's what I was going to say. 7
8
Chair Lauing: I know that might demote dog parks for you, but you'll have to live with 9
that. 10
11
Vice Chair Knopper: That's okay. Anyway, I have no more comments. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Lauing: I had a few here. A couple of these—again I don't want to open old 14
wounds—things seem like sort of best practices. You guys are going to make good 15
judgments and do that. They also seem a little bit—this one about integrate nature into 16
urban parks, that should be a design element for Peter and others. We can do that. I'm 17
not sure how you make a priority and put a budget number on there. It sort of needs to 18
happen as we redo parks. I'm not sure you're going to go out and cut up ten parks 19
because they don't have enough integrated nature into them. The latter would seem to me 20
to be putting it on this list. If you're just going to kind of do it as sort of a policy issue, 21
that's cool. Similarly, disability requirements, unless we're going to really go gung ho on 22
that and do 50 of them, I'm not sure why that's not sort of a roll out like other things. 23
Similarly, improve trail connections. If it's a big problem or a gap that we've got people 24
falling off trails, then we ought to run out and do it. If it's sort of "let's get to this," then it 25 just doesn't feel like a specific priority. The other thing is on maintenance, which we've 26 talked about a lot. The comments here talk about sustainability practices. I just want to 27 make sure it includes maintenance. If our collective understanding is that is the bullet 28
point about maintenance, which on ad hoc we've been talking about a lot and that needs 29
to be funded and attended to and so on, then that's great. The sustainable practices seem 30
to be the emphasis on that point. I wouldn't disagree with David's comment that the 7.7 31
should be on here. One other comment. We said this in the ad hoc, and I don't know if 32
you got a chance to do it yet. We didn't recall in the ad hoc that adult fitness areas in 33
parks rated that highly in the surveys. I'd like to make sure that's high. In fact, I recall it 34
was pretty low, and I haven't checked it since our ad hoc meeting either. Somebody else 35
was going to comment. Jennifer. 36
37
Commissioner Hetterly: Since you mentioned sustainable practices and maintenance and 38
management, I actually did not see that as just a keep-up with maintenance option. I saw 39
that as let's really examine how we manage our maintenance of our parks and build in 40
systems to manage them more sustainably in the future. That to me was one of those big 41
opportunity cost items, where that's something we want to do now because over time it 42
Draft Minutes 33
DRAFT
has a greater impact. Whereas, if we put that off for later, then we've got the next 5 or 10 1
years when we're not following best practices so to speak. 2
3
Chair Lauing: That was part of my question basically. Is this bullet point a big enough 4
tent to cover maintenance in general, because it's going to be sustainable. I think you're 5
saying it's not. It's a separate point. 6 7
Commissioner Hetterly: I read it as a separate point. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Pardon? 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: I read it as a separate point. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Are there any comments on any of this? Are there any ones that aren't on 14
here besides 7.7 acres that should be? 15
16
Commissioner Cribbs: A pool. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Do we know that or is that one of those—we also had this classification 19
that we reserved that some things need more research before it became something that 20
was definitely a priority. That one, and maybe gyms is another one that needs more 21
research before it's prioritize-able. I don't know that. I'm just pointing out that there is 22
that other category, which I think is also going to be called out in the Plan somewhere. I 23
don't know if it's in this chapter. 24
25 Vice Chair Knopper: Gymnasiums, Number 7. 26 27 Chair Lauing: That's right. You're right. Now that one's on here; that wasn't before. 28
Recapping, it seems to me like there are three or four that I mentioned, that maybe are not 29
top 15, but the 7.7 is, is what I'm hearing from others. I don't know if we want to manage 30
this here or move that one back to the ad hoc. Whatever you guys think. Did you have 31
another comment? Go ahead. 32
33
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a question. I'm still confused about this list. I'm hearing 34
folks say that this isn't priority order, we should just bullet it. Are we going to include in 35
the implementation plan a priority order of things that we definitely want to try to get 36
done in the first 5 years and what we want to try to get done in the second 5 years or not? 37
38
Rob de Geus: I think we're still trying to figure out exactly how that's going to look. Our 39
thought first was to put this list out there and see if we're in the right ballpark, the right 40
list. For each of these, actually describe what they are in some detail, probably half a 41
page or a page that talks about what are the very next steps that need to take place, even 42
Draft Minutes 34
DRAFT
for the long-term items that may take 15 years before we get there in 20 years. There's 1
things that we need to do in the near term and midterm in order to achieve the long-term 2
goal. For each of these, we would try and lay that out and also lay out the relative costs 3
related to those. As staff, we were not thinking of prioritizing the 30, but that's open for 4
discussion. We were thinking all of these are high priorities, and over 20 years, we want 5
to accomplish them. Some will be accomplished sooner than others. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Just to feed back what I think I heard. These 30 will be all listed at 8
whatever that is, the high level, but they will also be put on a timeline. 9
10
Mr. de Geus: Yes. 11
12
Chair Lauing: I guess the third point is that you're not going to go beyond the 30 for this 13
sort of phase or vintage of the Master Plan. 14
15
Mr. de Geus: Right. 16
17
Chair Lauing: What happens to the Number 16 project? In other words, how does 18
Number 16 get on the list anywhere, whether that's put on by a Council Member or 19
primary research or whatever? 20
21
Mr. de Geus: Things will be added as we know. This isn't all that we do. There are lots 22
more, and there will be opportunities to do a specific project that'll just happen because 23
either there's someone or a group that's come forward to help us fund it or it's an 24
identified new need that we didn't identify in this plan, and we'll have to work that in. I 25 think what's helpful is, before we work in Number 16, we think about resources that we 26 have and staff that we have and we sort of weigh it up against this. Should we be doing 27 that Number 16 or should we really be doing this here first? I can see in some cases we 28
would want to do that Number 16 project because the opportunity has arisen that allows 29
us to do it, and it'll go away if we don't take advantage of it at that time. Or it's identified 30
as a big need that we just didn't know today, so we will do it. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Comments? Commissioner Hetterly. 33
34
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm sorry to keep dwelling on this. In the narrative then, when 35
you're describing the near term, midterm and long term, you're not going to have 36
priorities identified for each of those. You're just going to have the overall list, and the 37
only indication of a judgment about urgency or importance among those 30 things is 38
where they fall out on this action plan spreadsheet? Did that make sense? 39
40
Mr. de Geus: I'm not sure I followed that entirely. 41
42
Draft Minutes 35
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: I think what she's saying is that we had originally talked about having—I 1
guess you actually proposed that we would have high priority, medium priority and low 2
priority. Whatever numbers of those were, they would be on a timely. Maybe you would 3
have 15 on high and 10 on medium and 5 on low or whatever. It sounds like that's gone 4
away except for the action plan that you just referenced. Was that your question? 5
6 Commissioner Hetterly: Kind of. To give an example. If I'm somebody in the public or 7
on Council who looks at the list and sees that there are these 15 projects that high priority 8
projects for the Master Plan and I'm looking at the list and every indication is that these 9
all stand one equal ground, are equally high priority because we haven't told them that 10
they're not, I'm wondering why isn't enhancing seating areas in parks more important than 11
sustainable maintenance or more important than bathrooms or more important than 12
Cubberley or as important, I guess. As I read it, there's definitely a ranking of—in my 13
view, some of these are more urgent than others. I imagine my list isn't the same as 14
everybody's list, but everybody reading it is going to say, "Why is that as important as 15
this?" I'm wondering if we want to fill that gap and say these are the more important and 16
this is why or if we really want to just say these are all important and we're going to get 17
to them as we can get to them. That's really a question. I'm not arguing for or against a 18
different way. 19
20
Mr. de Geus: I think it's a good question. We're still discussing it and grappling with it. 21
Thirty is a lot. If they don't have any kind of order, as I hear what you're saying, that 22
could be problematic, I think, in terms of allocating resources and time. We can certainly 23
look at that. Maybe they're not all ranked in order, but the top five—the really urgent 24
ones that we know are going to have the biggest impact on the community, if we get 25 these done, they're identified as red hot or something. 26 27 Peter Jensen: I would too like to say that just putting it into the context of the process of 28
the capital improvement projects and how they're done now will stay the same. Now we 29
have a list of keep-up items that we look at. We look at those and decide which projects 30
we want to do from the keep-up. This is a different list now of brand new things that 31
don't exist at all. When the ad hoc group can meet to discuss which projects are going to 32
be put forward as the capital improvements for that year—I know it's a 5-year budget, so 33
you're looking at 5 years—you would consider our keep-up as well as these 30 projects. 34
Which one now is more important and how do we get it in the process of being a project 35
for the fifth year coming up? Just kind of understand that process remains the same, but 36
now you have a list of these 30 or 15 projects or 15 programs that are going to be 37
associated and considered with the keep-up items. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: You want to have not just huge ticket items on the top five hot 40
stuff list, because you might only have enough money to do a little item that year. You 41
have to have more to draw from. 42
Draft Minutes 36
DRAFT
1
Mr. Jensen: I think the ad hoc committee and staff and flexibility as recommending for 2
that particular year depending upon the budget and people's needs and wants at that time 3
to then have those things where we know we want to do these 30 things and we know we 4
have to do this keep-up work. We are looking at those things and trying to get them in 5
specific years based on, again, budget and people's needs of that specific year. Every 6 year, it gets looked at. Every year, the list gets referenced. We try to take them off as 7
best we can, depending on our current funding that we have. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: There's very little expectation that we're going to be able to do a 10
lot of things every year. Out of that 30 list, we're going to have to fight for every dollar 11
in that CIP budget every single year. 12
13
Mr. Jensen: Right. The interesting part about having the list of projects is that the 14
community itself knows that these are the things that we want to do. That, I think, helps 15
leverage trying to make up the gap of the funding by having more private-based money 16
or the community money to come in to fill those gaps that we need. Now, we've set those 17
projects up and we recognize that these are the things that we want to do. We understand 18
that we have a gap of funding, but at least we know that this list and that list can then go 19
to the community or however we can close the gap of funding and get those things. Yes, 20
there are some items that are definitely less funding that we can incorporate more. The 21
bigger projects, we're going to have to try to figure out how to get into the sequence 22
based on the funding. 23
24
Commissioner Hetterly: I guess that gets to sort of the heart of my concern. I don't want 25 to be in a position where we do all the easy stuff just because it's easy and don't do the 26 hard stuff just because we didn't call it out as super duper important. 27 28
Chair Lauing: It is a little bit jarring to see on the same list acquire new parkland and 29
enhanced seating areas. We're going to tell the entire community that those are the top 30
15. Put in some benches and buy a gazillion dollars worth of parkland. At the least, it 31
has to be shown that the funding sources for that is going to be different. It is not just 32
going to be the annual CIP program. That ain't going to work. There has to be a 33
commitment to it to make it happen. Secondly, I think I'm echoing what Commissioner 34
Hetterly said. If that's going to cost $50 million, we don't make it long term just because 35
of that. We've got to start it now so it becomes something that starts now and is midterm 36
and is long term and we're executing while we're continuing to fund for the next phase of 37
it. 38
39
Mr. Jensen: I definitely would say that in the description of each of the 30 projects there 40
would be a breakdown of exactly what the steps in the short, in the mid and in the long 41
term would be to get to that goal. You just wouldn't say that we need more parkland, and 42
Draft Minutes 37
DRAFT
that would basically be it. It would talk about we need to draw more funds and start 1
banking funds. We need to have staff look at different property opportunities around the 2
City and all those things short term that we can start doing. Long term, when we get 3
enough revenue together, what is the step to actually go out and start to gain land and add 4
surplus to our parks. I do agree with you that it needs to have the steps per the short, long 5
or mid as it goes to accomplish it. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 8
9
Commissioner Moss: I think there is a big danger in going into more specifics than what 10
you have here with 30. I think it's going to be every year, as you said, we're going to be 11
revisiting. You're going to have new Commissioners every year. This is a really great 12
guideline for the next 20 years. The first thing we're going to do in January and every 13
January is look at this list and pick off pieces that should be the highest priority within 14
each of these. Using the acquired parkland, it would be really nice to start working on 15
that one January 1st and just do a little bit. Dog parks, it would be nice to do one dog 16
park a year, something like that. To put all that in writing in the Master Plan for the next 17
20 years, I don't think it's worth it. This is a really great start. I don't know if you need to 18
do much more and prioritize 1 versus 7 versus 8. I think there's piece of 1 and pieces of 8 19
and pieces of 7 that should be done next year and some more the next year and some 20
more the next year. To go into that level of detail before we have anything approved, I 21
don't think it's worth it. 22
23
Chair Lauing: Could I just ask a clarification point on your comment? One of the things 24
you said is it's going—I don't want to put words in your mouth. That's why I'm asking 25 for clarification. I think what you said is it's going to change every year, what we're 26 going to want to do. 27 28
Commissioner Moss: At the program level and the CIP level. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Some of these aren't even CIP and some of them are. I guess my concern 31
is that, if we're saying these are the top 15 projects, then they shouldn't change every 32
year. 33
34
Commissioner Moss: What I meant is the pieces of them. You're going to go to a next 35
level down. Every year you're going to pick off ... 36
37
Chair Lauing: The execution or the implementation, you mean? 38
39
Commissioner Moss: Yes, yes. 40
41
Chair Lauing: Thanks. 42
Draft Minutes 38
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Moss: What parts of each of these 30 you're going to do next year versus 2
the year after versus the year after. You don't want to wait until Year 20 to start doing 3
acquire parkland. You're going to have to trust every PRC, that they're going to be able 4
to prioritize the pieces of each of these that can be done this year versus next year versus 5
next year. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Do we want to have a discussion on the 12 or 15 programs? To me these 8
are a little bit lower risk because they're not structural changes, as Keith mentioned 9
before. When you're building something, there's more money and time. If you expanded 10
some programs for seniors and they didn't work, you're going to shift them or you're 11
going to scale them back. You've got them included here. Do you want our comments 12
on that? 13
14
Ms. O'Kane: Yes, we'd like your comments on that. You're right that we're not going to 15
build something with these programs, but it could be a shift in staff priority, it could be 16
do we need a new staff person, a new part-time staff person to address some of these. We 17
do adjust our programming as we see the need for it. If we would expand our program 18
for seniors and didn't get a response to that, then we would adjust and try something else. 19
They are very different than the projects, but I still they're important to include, 20
especially when we may need additional resources as far as staff or the facilities that may 21
go along with these programs. 22
23
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Knopper. 24
25 Vice Chair Knopper: Number 5, establish and grow partnerships and identify potential 26 park donors. It was suggested that maybe you have a point person, a staff person. I've 27 talked about it many, many times. I think that's a fantastic idea. I think there's a lot of 28
opportunities. I always like to talk about New York, because I spent more time there than 29
here. They sell benches in Central Park for $10,000 a bench, and you get a plaque. I 30
think that there's so many ways to help offset the maintenance costs, because I know 31
that's also in the report, how that's difficult to maintain, to keep up with everything that 32
we own instead of just the glittery, shiny stuff like a new pool or a new dog park, but just 33
the every day. That's really the only thing. I did want to ask just a question. This might 34
not be the right time. I've thought it, and I wasn't sure this would be the right place for it. 35
There's so much commercial development in Palo Alto. It just kind of doesn't feel like 36
the City requires new developers to develop public space. There isn't that laundry list of 37
you're building a new building, we want a little pocket park, a couple of benches and 38
some open, green area required in that development so the public can use that space. 39
There just doesn't seem to be any uniform—it's just project per project. I'm not sure that 40
would fall under that. Maybe that's a totally different conversation. It probably is, but I 41
made a note, and I just wanted to say it. I think if you guys had a menu of—because 42
Draft Minutes 39
DRAFT
you're always looking for additional space for people just to chill and have that Zen 1
moment on a park bench or sit under a tree or sit in the cute little chair and check your 2
email with some plants around you. Why can't commercial development provide a lot of 3
what we're looking for in this City? I don't know if this is the right place for it. I've got 2 4
more months, so I just wanted to say it. 5
6 Mr. de Geus: Some of that is a requirement for certain size buildings and types of 7
buildings. It is in Chapter 4 where we have the goals, policies and programs. Actually 8
there is a section in there that talks about development and when they are required to 9
have a public space, that it be designed in such a way that's consistent with the Master 10
Plan and the needs of the community. What I found helpful actually as we sort of 11
prepared this list of 30 is to go back to that Chapter 4 and look at those goals, policies and 12
programs. Obviously not all of that is here in this list of 30. This was our first pass at 13
putting that together. That would be good feedback from you all, if you go back and read 14
that chapter again and then look at this again and say does that sound right, is this the 15
right top 30 or there is still some more changes that need to be made. Maybe that's 16
something the ad hoc committee can help with. 17
18
Commissioner Cribbs: To that point, what I'd like to see in both the lists are the things 19
that are like each other kind of grouped together. As I've been going down here, there are 20
things that are sort of the same, big ticket items, and there are things that are not so 21
expensive maybe. Maybe it's a way to do it by cost, maybe not. I don't know. When it's 22
a list like it is, it's hard to read because it's not the same. I don't know whether that makes 23
sense at all. 24
25 Mr. de Geus: I think that's good feedback. How do we order this list is something that 26 we still need to work through. I've said the same thing. We could order it in what are the 27 near, midterm or long term. We could order it in the order of magnitude of cost or scope, 28
how long it's going to take to do it or type of project, program area. We'll think about 29
some different ways of doing that. 30
31
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, all three. I don't know. I think certainly big, medium and 32
little go sort of hand in hand with near term, midterm and long term. I think a hybrid of 33
those two would be great. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Do you want to move on to another section here? Did you get your 36
comments on the top 30? Did you intend to do that tonight? Like funding section and 37
how people ... 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: If there's comments on those sections, sure. 40
41
Draft Minutes 40
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: I just didn't know if that was part of your request tonight for feedback on 1
that tonight, because this is just a draft. 2
3
Ms. O'Kane: Any feedback on Chapter 5 is welcome tonight. Our next step is to get a 4
better, more complete draft of Chapter 5. We'd like to meet with the ad hoc again, if 5
possible, to discuss that. As much input as we can get tonight to help us refine the draft 6 would be great. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Are there any comments on the next section, which is basically the 9
funding today and tomorrow section, the narrative there and the chart. 10
11
Commissioner Cribbs: I have just one ... 12
13
Chair Lauing: Sure, go ahead. 14
15
Commissioner Cribbs: ... about knowing a little bit more about grants and funding and 16
partnerships that have worked in the past with various Friends groups and other ways 17
we've gotten money in the past to support things, and what's worked and what hasn't 18
worked. I know it's history, but I think it's really important to include some place or at 19
least people have the knowledge of something that's worked in the past. If it didn't work, 20
why didn't it? There's several examples of those as well. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Nothing else on funding? Go ahead, Commissioner Hetterly. 23
24
Commissioner Hetterly: I like that idea, Anne. I would support that addition. I think 25 that's a really great idea. I'd only have two issues on the funding section. On page 5, first 26 is immediately below the table, it talks about the IBRC report and how we're on a path 27 with a funding plan to do most of the backlog on the catch-up and keep-up. Of course, 28
the IBRC plan, I think, was 2012. I imagine there's been an additional gap accumulated 29
in the interim. I know we haven't funded everything in that. I really would like to see a 30
little change in tone that doesn't suggest we're all taken care of, we checked that off the 31
list so we don't have to worry about that catch-up and keep-up stuff, and that 32
acknowledges as we grow it grows. That does it for me. Thank you. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Anything else? Commissioner Reckdahl. 35
36
Commissioner Reckdahl: What do anticipate? We talk here about the bonds and creating 37
special districts and other ways of raising money. This is on page 6, expanding existing 38
funding sources. Are we going to be coming up with a recommendation of this is how 39
we think it should be funded or are we just going to give the Council a bunch of options 40
and let them sort through it? 41
42
Draft Minutes 41
DRAFT
Ms. O'Kane: As part of the adoption of the Master Plan, we will not be making a 1
recommendation as to whether we should create a special district or issue a bond. This is 2
just to provide a summary of all the potential options out there for funding in the future. 3
As projects move up the list, for example Cubberley or something else, a new pool, then 4
we could go to Council with a recommendation at that time. 5
6 Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm struggling with what is the Council, when they approve 7
this, signing up for and how can we keep their feet to the fire or is this just some thoughts 8
of a bunch of Commissioners and the Council doesn't have any obligation to follow it and 9
doesn't have any commitment to follow through. I'm just nervous about we have this 10
grand plan and here we go, Council. The Council says, "This is great. We love it." We 11
pass it all, and then they put it down and never look at it again. That's my big concern. 12
13
Ms. O'Kane: I think part of that responsibility is also on staff to report on the Master 14
Plan, which we intend to do annually, but also as we propose projects, as we propose our 15
budget to tie those things back to the Master Plan. I think a lot of that responsibility will 16
fall on staff but also the Commission as well to make sure that it's moving along and 17
moving forward. 18
19
Mr. de Geus: I'd just add something to that. I think we can probably make this more 20
meaningful as we think about these different funding strategies and how they can be 21
expanded and also think about the top priorities and which one of these funding strategies 22
maybe is best suited for which project. I think that could be in here to some extent. To 23
Commissioner Cribbs' point about looking at those funding strategies that we've used in 24
the past, that have been very successful and how we can tie them back to some of the 25 priorities. I'm thinking about our Friends groups in particular. Our department has five 26 nonprofit Friends groups; all they do is raise money for specific programs whether it's 27 parks or recreation. It's been very successful. We can strengthen that language in here 28
and tie it maybe to specific projects even. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Did you have others? Go ahead. 31
32
Commissioner Cribbs: Yeah. On page 5, it seems like the word, under funding gap in 33
the third sentence, should be maintain instead of sustain. The City should sustain a 34
sufficient investment. It seemed like the wrong word. 35
36
Chair Lauing: Or maintain investment to sustain existing facilities. 37
38
Commissioner Cribbs: You could say that too. Maybe that's even better. 39
40
Chair Lauing: David. 41
42
Draft Minutes 42
DRAFT
Commissioner Moss: I have one last comment about Chapter 5. I like it so much that I 1
think you should make it Chapter 4. The Chapter 4 that you have, make it Appendix A. 2
We've covered so much of the Plan in Chapter 3 and 5 that Chapter 4, going back to my 3
comment earlier, is a level below what we've been talking about in Chapters 1-5 and that 4
gives us all the things we need to do next year and the year after and the year after. What 5
do you think? 6 7
Ms. O'Kane: Chapter 4 is the goals and the policies and programs. The order is this is 8
what we did to get our data, our community engagement, our data analysis. These are the 9
things that we identified as being the goals of our Master Plan, of our system, and then 10
this is how we're going to get there. It's like a step, a phase through the Master Plan. 11
12
Commissioner Moss: Does Chapter 1-3 summarize that? No? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: I think Chapter 4 is really fundamental to the Plan. 15
16
Chair Lauing: The next section here is evaluating future projects. One of the things that 17
we talked about very briefly in the ad hoc was the issue who can put a project or program 18
into the top of the funnel. I think you are opening a massive can of worms if you're going 19
to let any individual or any community member put something in there that you get to 20
evaluate and give them feedback on. It seems to me there's plenty of opportunity for 21
folks to send in letters to us as they do or to you folks as they do. If it's a good idea, that's 22
fine. I don't think you should have your hands tied by having to go through an evaluation 23
process for every even good idea that comes in, because you just have so much more data 24
to look at and prioritize. I personally wouldn't have that in here. Others can comment on 25 that. 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: I agree. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Jim. 30
31
Commissioner Cowie: I wonder whether you might be more comfortable with it if there 32
was some acknowledgement of an appropriate level of review. If it's obviously a 33
ludicrous idea, the appropriate level of review is quick. If it's something that really 34
should be considered, then perhaps a deeper review. If we're going to have a concept of 35
modifications and where the ideas come from, it seems to me that the citizens have to be 36
one of the sources. Right? 37
38
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 39
40
Commissioner Cowie: Then it's just a question, I think, of perhaps how you write the 41
concept of review. You probably write it in such a way where you're dealing with this 42
Draft Minutes 43
DRAFT
appropriate level of review that addresses your concern that we're not engaging in a deep 1
review of a trivial idea. 2
3
Chair Lauing: I'm the last one that's going to try to rule out public comment at our 4
meetings or incoming emails or anything like that, no constraints. It’s just this seems like 5
it's setting up a formal process and almost encouraging a lot of things. It seems like 6 you're putting an excess burden on yourself and staff. 7
8
Ms. O'Kane: We did talk about that after you commented on that during our ad hoc 9
meeting. We do feel like there is a need to have a process. We're listing what we think 10
our top 15 projects and top 15 programs are. If somebody presents a new idea, what do 11
we do with that? We felt there is a need to have a process to determine does this project 12
meet the goals of our Master Plan. That's sort of the first step. If we can say it doesn't, 13
then we're done. If we feel it does, then we continue our analysis. We've also added in 14
here that in some cases things won't need to come to the Commission. If we add a certain 15
type of program, we're not going to come to you every time we create a new program in 16
our Recreation Division. Maybe this isn't the right process, but I think it needs to be 17
acknowledged in here that we will consider new proposals and new ideas as they come 18
up and address them in some way. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 21
22
Commissioner Moss: I think it could stay the way it is if in Step 2 it says evaluate 23
against the Master Plan. You'll probably find that that program or proposal is already in 24
the Plan somewhere, in some program. We're just maybe expanding the wording or 25 something like that. That's what I'm hoping will happen, that we have talked about it in 26 general terms and you will find a cubbyhole in a program or process that we've already 27 put into the Master Plan. This is just a detail of that. I'm hoping that if you do get Step 1, 28
somebody comes to you with an idea, that Step 2 could be a 10-minute process, where 29
you say, "Let's look at the Master Plan. Let's see where this fits. Here it is, under 30
Program 6A. We'll get to it when we do 6A." I don't know. 31
32
Commissioner Cribbs: Can I just add? I like having the process so that people can 33
propose something. I'm also concerned about the amount of staff time that some of these 34
things are going to take and in addition the annual review. All of a sudden we have a lot 35
of staff doing a lot of reviewing of a lot of things, and we want to push the Master Plan 36
forward. If you can figure out a way to balance that and be mindful of your time, that 37
would be great. 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: We appreciate that. It could be even—I was looking at Step 1, which talks 40
about a group proposes a project or program. Maybe it's just the wording there. It does 41
sound like it's a formal process to propose something. Maybe it's just how we word it. 42
Draft Minutes 44
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: Any other comments on that? 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: Part of it is also just volume. If you get one suggestion a 4
month, you're going to do one thing. If you get 100 suggestions a month, you're going to 5
do a different thing. This may be just something you'll iron out as you get more 6 suggestions and you understand the volume. 7
8
Chair Lauing: The only other section there is the appendix. I'm not sure we need to 9
comment on that. You're going to give us timelines now? Is that your next part here? 10
11
Ms. O'Kane: Correct. If we're done with Chapter 5, I'll go into next steps and schedule. 12
We are trying to still get this wrapped up by the end of the year. Part of that is to 13
recognize the Commissioners that will not be continuing into the next year, but also some 14
of the Council Members who are also not going to be continuing into the next year. We 15
would like to sort of complete this Plan. That said, we want it to be finished with the 16
quality that we all expect. Our plan to accomplish that is to bring you a draft Master Plan 17
next month at our October 24th meeting. Prior to that and concurrent with that, we also 18
need to do some community outreach, meet with our stakeholder group again. Whether 19
we do that combined or separate, we're still working that out. We should have an 20
opportunity for the community to look at the draft Master Plan. Following the PRC 21
meeting, we plan to go to Council at the November 14th meeting. Because of that date 22
and the November PRC meeting, which is right after that, we would be asking the 23
Commission to make a recommendation at the October meeting when the Commission is 24
seeing the draft. This is a recommendation to Council. We originally had on our 25 schedule that the Commission could make the recommendation at the November meeting. 26 Due to the crunch of time and the amount of time we need to prepare in advance and have 27 our staff reports prepared, the timing didn't work. That's what we're proposing. Council 28
would adopt the Master Plan and our CEQA document. We've been in discussions with 29
legal as well as our Planning Department that we do need to adopt a CEQA document, 30
which would be an Initial Study/Mitigated Neg Dec at the same time. We're hoping to do 31
that in December. 32
33
Chair Lauing: We need to change the November meeting, which is listed on the 22nd, 2 34
days before Thanksgiving. One possibility would be to move it way up, so we could do a 35
second meeting early November before it went to the Master Plan. Then we'd get sort of 36
two shots at it and solve both of those problems at the same time. That would mean it 37
would be the week of the 7th, which would be about 2 weeks after the 10/24 meeting. 38
We could do later that week. 39
40
Commissioner Reckdahl: Could we bump the 10/24 to 10/17? 41
42
Draft Minutes 45
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: In terms of getting a draft to Council on November 14th, do 1
they need to have in their packet the version that has been acted on by the Commission? 2
If we add a special Commission meeting the first week of November, that's too late to 3
make any changes, right? 4
5
Chair Lauing: Right. 6 7
Commissioner Hetterly: Or can it be done through an addendum? 8
9
Chair Lauing: We would at least not have to make the decision by 10/24. 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: We'd have one look at it on 10/24 and resolve everything 12
following that meeting before it goes in final, if there's any final tinkering. 13
14
Commissioner Moss: 10/24 would be speak now or forever hold your peace. 15
16
Chair Lauing: No, no. 17
18
Commissioner Moss: They'd have several weeks to wrap it up, bring it back to us, we see 19
that all the changes we discussed on 10/24 were made, and we approve it on 11/7. Is that 20
what we're talking about? 21
22
Chair Lauing: Yeah. That's a suggestion. Abbie. 23
24
Vice Chair Knopper: This calendar that was given to us shows the Park and Rec meeting 25 on October 18th. 26 27 Chair Lauing: Which is so far incorrect, but we could move it to there. 28
29
Vice Chair Knopper: 10/24 is a Monday. Is it really 10/25, which is Tuesday, which is 30
our normal ... 31
32
Chair Lauing: Yep. 10/24 is a Tuesday. 33
34
Vice Chair Knopper: No, 10/25 is a Tuesday. That's Monday's date. Is that the day 35
we're talking about? 36
37
Ms. O'Kane: We're talking about the normal Commission date. 38
39
Chair Lauing: The normal fourth Tuesday which is 10/25. 40
41
Vice Chair Knopper: The 25th. 42
Draft Minutes 46
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: How do people feel about moving up our meeting for November by about 2
2 weeks? 3
4
Commissioner Cribbs: Two weeks is election day. 5
6 Vice Chair Knopper: Election day, no offense, I am glued to the TV with oxygen, and 7
maybe drugs and alcohol. I don't know. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: Why don't we move it to the 1st? 10
11
Vice Chair Knopper: That's the following week? 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: November 1st. We have our October meeting, and then we 14
have 1 week to make final changes before the 1st. Approve it on the 1st and it's done. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Feels tight. 17
18
Ms. O'Kane: That's to see a final a week later? 19
20
Vice Chair Knopper: Can it be a special meeting? 21
22
Ms. O'Kane: It would be the draft. You'd see the draft on the 25th, and a week later we 23
would turn around a final? 24
25 Mr. de Geus: It's difficult, but I think it's ... 26 27 Commissioner Moss: (inaudible) would you rather have (inaudible) 28
29
Chair Lauing: It doesn't have to be a Tuesday. You can do it later that week, so it's more 30
like a week and a half. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: I think that's a better scenario. It'll be difficult to do, but I think we should 33
try and do that. It allows us to really update the report we send to Council. I think that's 34
important. If the Commission ... 35
36
Chair Lauing: We should do—which date are you suggesting then? 37
38
Mr. de Geus: The suggestion by Commissioner Hetterly. If we meet on the 25th of 39
October and then as soon after that as possible, that following week. 40
41
Draft Minutes 47
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: We could either do the 1st, which happens to be a Tuesday, but there's 1
nothing sacred about that. We could bump it to the 3rd to give you 2 more days. 2
3
Mr. de Geus: The 3rd is the date that the Council packet goes out for the 14th. 4
5
Chair Lauing: Then it probably has to be the 1st. 6 7
Vice Chair Knopper: Would that be like a special meeting? 8
9
Chair Lauing: By definition, yeah. Once you change the date, it's a special meeting. 10
That's how it works. 11
12
Mr. de Geus: We've done a lot of the review already. We're pretty comfortable with 13
Chapters 1-4 actually. We've reviewed those a lot. We've gone through Chapter 5 today, 14
and it still needs some work for sure. That's why I think it can be done, particularly if we 15
have a really good, really quality draft on the 25th. 16
17
Chair Lauing: Exactly. How is attendance going to look on the 1st for Commissioners? 18
Jim says no. 19
20
Vice Chair Knopper: I can do it. I'm good. 21
22
Chair Lauing: We're only going to be missing one? 23
24
Commissioner Cribbs: You might be missing me. I'm checking. 25 26 Chair Lauing: The day before is Halloween. That probably doesn't work either. Your 27 last point there, Kristen, is that they approve on the 12th because of two readings? They 28
get it on the 14th, and then you've got a final on 12/12. 29
30
Ms. O'Kane: Right. We would share the draft with them and then get any of their 31
feedback and then bring the final for adoption. 32
33
Vice Chair Knopper: What is the date for our December meeting, because this calendar 34
shows (crosstalk)? 35
36
Chair Lauing: We have to change that as well. We might as well look at that right now. 37
38
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm okay the 1st. 39
40
Draft Minutes 48
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: Is the 19th of December too late? Yes, it's too late? The 13th? That's the 1
day after the Council meeting. Does the 13th work of December? I'm not sure we're 2
going to be Commissioners then. I think it's November actually. 3
4
Vice Chair Knopper: Is it? 5
6 Chair Lauing: I don't know the right date. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: I thought it was (inaudible). 9
10
Chair Lauing: I'm not sure. Can we pencil in the 13th? You'll make that change, 11
whoever is the keeper of the calendar. Is that Catherine now? 12
13
Commissioner Cribbs: The 27th is gone, and the 13th is (inaudible)? 14
15
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 16
17
Vice Chair Knopper: Are we (inaudible)? 18
19
Commissioner Hetterly: (inaudible) 20
21
Chair Lauing: On the 15th of December? We're going with the 13th of December and 22
we're going for the 1st of November, changing the December and November meetings 23
respectively. 24
25 Commissioner Moss: The Council is supposed to approve on December 12th. 26 27 Chair Lauing: that's what Kristen has here. 28
29
Commissioner Moss: Does that mean we need to meet on the 6th or not? 30
31
Chair Lauing: I suppose they could kick it back on the 14th, but that's a bigger problem. 32
If they're going to kick it back, I don't think it's going to be fixed in a week. 33
34
Commissioner Moss: Maybe the 13th is better. 35
36
Ms. O'Kane: Chair, can we review those dates, just so we're all on the same page? 37
38
Chair Lauing: Yeah. We're moving the November meeting ... 39
40
Commissioner Moss: Start with October. 41
42
Draft Minutes 49
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: October goes back to its regularly scheduled time and station, which is the 1
25th. November moves from the 22nd, which is the normal spot, to the 1st. December 2
moves from the 26th to the 13th. Is that a wrap on that issue? Thanks for your time and 3
efforts. Let's keep it moving towards that goal line. 4
5
4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 6 7
Chair Lauing: The next item of business is other ad hoc committees and liaison updates. 8
Which ad hocs do we have? Do we have dogs? 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: The dog ad hoc met yesterday to talk about what we can do to 11
move forward with an near-term dog park. We've hit a few bumps, but we think we're 12
still going to barrel ahead with something. We're hoping to get that sorted out soon and 13
schedule some public outreach. Sounds familiar, right? 14
15
Chair Lauing: That is the next step. We're moving on it. Other ad hocs? David. 16
17
Commissioner Moss: The Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the staff did 18
present their outline of what the Plan will look like. It looks very comprehensive and a 19
lot of work. It seems like the right thing to do. I don't know exactly when we'll start the 20
first chapter or the first step. 21
22
Kristen O'Kane: Daren and I put together a scope of work that will be used to obtain a 23
consultant who will be actually preparing the Conservation Plan. We had some 24
stakeholder groups review the scope as well as the ad hoc of one, Commissioner Moss. 25 There's some other stakeholders that Daren has sent the scope to including Enid Pearson 26 and Emily Renzel. They're reviewing it as well. As soon as we get their feedback on it 27 and incorporate those comments, we're going to start the Request for Proposal process 28
and obtain bids from consultants. Just a little bit until we start writing the first chapter, 29
but we have the scope in place. Pretty close to being done with the scope. 30
31
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT 32 33 Chair Lauing: The next item is departmental reports. You still have the floor if you'd 34
like to speak to that. 35
36
Kristen O'Kane: I will start out. I just have one announcement of an event coming up 37
this weekend. Sunday, October 2nd, is what used to be called the Bike Palo Alto event. 38
It's now Bike and Roll Expo. They've added an expo to the Bike Palo Alto event, which 39
will be right outside at King Plaza. They'll have Bryant and Hamilton closed off in front 40
of City Hall. There will be different vendors, demonstrations of alternative modes of 41
Draft Minutes 50
DRAFT
transportation. Just a lot of fun things to do. That event is from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. on 1
Sunday, October 2nd. I think Daren had some project updates for you. 2
3
Daren Anderson: Yeah, I've got four projects to give you a quick briefing on. The first is 4
the golf course. It's moving along. We're still in the beginning stages of the earth work, 5
which is kind of the bulk of the project frankly. It's 400,000 cubic yards that we had 6 imported. That's to shape and contour the course. Right now we are moving about 7
15,000 to 20,000 yards a day. We've got massive pieces of equipment, maybe 15-20 of 8
them, moving all day long reshaping and moving earth. Concurrent with that, they're 9
harvesting the good top soil and sand that had been part of the course in earlier iterations, 10
when we did upgrades. We've harvested about 50,000 yards of that and stockpiled that in 11
a separate area. About 30,000 more yards of that quality top soil to harvest. Ultimately, 12
that will be used to form that top 8 inches of really good soil to propagate our new grass 13
on and have a nice healthy condition. The next stage will be kind of concurrent with the 14
earth work, installing the drainage and irrigation. Around April 2017, we'll start building 15
the new cart paths, constructing greens and growing in grass. Again, the project should 16
be complete around November 2017. I would also note that we've started conversations 17
with the artist that had been selected to do the public art component of this project. Her 18
name is Joyce Soo [phonetic]. Just engaged her regarding where the new piece would be 19
set. It hasn't been built yet, so some things are up in the air. Most likely it'll be near the 20
putting green area of the course. Another briefing is on the 36.5 acres, the former ITT 21
antenna field. The last time we talked, there was a strong feeling that we should move 22
forward with dedicating it as parkland as soon as possible. I've drafted the staff report 23
and gathered all the background information and maps, deeds, etc., and drafted the Park 24
Dedication Ordinance. It's being reviewed by the City Attorney's Office right now. As 25 soon as they've completed that step, it'll be sent to go on the Council's Consent Calendar. 26 Another project I was asked about at the last meeting was the two Baylands projects. 27 Commissioner Reckdahl had asked for a briefing on where we stand. This is the two 28
existing CPIs associated but distinct. One is for the Baylands Nature Center itself, the 29
structural improvements to the facility. The contract was awarded. This is a construction 30
contract with Buhler [phonetic] Commercial. It'll start on October 24th, next month, and 31
be completed around the spring of 2017. I know in the past we had discussed some of the 32
concerns of—it's a little sensitive because we've got clapper rail issues. If you miss your 33
timing, your window could throw you off. I think we've oriented to the schedule around 34
completing all the impactful work, that is the noise pieces, in advance of the deadline, 35
where you can no longer do that, in time. If there were residual work that had to be done, 36
it would be inside the building and acceptable even during the clapper rail season. 37
Community Services, by the way, will continue the educational programs that they 38
typically run out of that facility, but they'll be doing it at East Palo Alto's Cooley Landing 39
Nature Center during the project construction. The other associated project is the 40
Baylands Boardwalk project. We awarded Biggs Cardosa the contract for design and the 41
environmental permitting for that project. They'll begin the work in October. Part of it 42
Draft Minutes 51
DRAFT
will be, as I mentioned, the environmental. That's an initial study and the environmental 1
assessment. This will come back to the Commission for a 15 percent design in December 2
of this year. There will be a little bit of a break while they work on the bulk of the 3
environmental assessment. As you know, that takes time, but they'll come back in the 4
summer of 2017 to the Commission with a 35 percent design and some details on the 5
environmental study that's associated with that one. The last issue I wanted to share with 6 you is we had submitted a request to address a problem with Los Trancos Trail. A bit of 7
a structural problem that you might recall I talked about. We had asked for extra money. 8
Council gave it to us. We worked with our existing trail contractor to do far more than 9
we had traditionally done, really restoring it to the way it used to be. This is what we 10
refer to as a wash-out area on the back side of this trail, where a good portion of the 11
hillside just regularly crumbles down onto this trail and makes it very unsafe. In fact, we 12
had a couple of accidents right before we made these improvements. The timing is good 13
that we're getting up and approved. Actually the substantive repairs have been 14
completed; they look great. I should note, though, that it's not the entire trail that had 15
been groomed perfectly. There are still elements of that trail—again it's almost 8 miles 16
long, so you can imagine how much time it takes to come in and make these repairs. The 17
bulk of the major issues have been corrected. Now, there are little things that staff will 18
come by periodically as regular maintenance and upgrade. I encourage you to get out 19
there and hike it. I just did it last weekend. It's beautiful, a great hike. It is open. 20
21
Chair Lauing: Any update on the hydrologic study? 22
23
Mr. Anderson: Hydrologic study is running right now. We're just at the stage of 24
completing the survey work. In fact, this last weekend the surveyor was up taking points 25 and doing measurements and completing that section of the project. The next phase will 26 be connecting with stakeholders and probably a public meeting. I would guess we'd be 27 looking at that in about a month or two. I'll bring it back to the Commission and make 28
sure you guys know about it. 29
30
Commissioner Moss: Any update on filling up Cubberley to replace Foothill? 31
32
Rob de Geus: That's a very timely question, because I was just at the City Council last 33
night discussing this. We did put out an RFP over the summer. We know that Foothill 34
College is leaving by the end of this month actually. They're the anchor lease at 35
Cubberley. They have 39,000 square feet of space that they had exclusively. We were a 36
bit nervous about it because we only have a 3-year lease with the School District. 37
Getting in a new, big anchor lease was going to be difficult. We don't have one new 38
lease; we have 17 new leases of a variety of nonprofit organizations providing a 39
community benefit of one or another. We have health and fitness groups, some music 40
groups and dance groups, education tutoring, different organizations. We're drafting 41
those leases now. We're going to be able to get close to the revenue target that Foothill 42
Draft Minutes 52
DRAFT
was paying, which is $1 million a year, with the 17 new lease agreements. Be happy to 1
report on that. They'll moving in within the next couple of months, most of them in 2
November. 3
4
Commissioner Moss: How will that impact us as far as the overall Cubberley plan? 5
6 Mr. de Geus: The Master Plan work is going slowly, let's just say. We're 2 years into the 7
5-year lease, and we have not made a lot of progress. We talked about that last night with 8
the Council as well. They really want to see that thing get started and moving. Our 9
current timeline that we're thinking is to write a scope of services to get some support 10
probably beginning with some type of community needs assessment in the fall, and really 11
start in earnest in January. The thing that's holding us up a little bit is the School 12
District's still having a lot of discussion about their enrollment and the future needs for 13
schools. In fact, this evening it's on the agenda at the School District. There's an item 14
that talks about an additional school and what that might mean and some different 15
options. They're also considering that their administrative offices may be suitable for 16
relocating to Cubberley and not have a school at Cubberley. That's a big difference than 17
having a school at Cubberley. We think that answering that fundamental question, is it 18
going to be a education school-type of use for what the School District needs or 19
administration, we need to know that in advance of bringing on a consultant to help us 20
figure out what we might do there. I know the School District's very interested in moving 21
this forward as well. Dr. Max McGee, the Superintendant, has committed to moving this 22
forward with Jim. Be very interested to see how the discussion went this evening, so we 23
can move this thing along. 24
25 Chair Lauing: Any other announcements? Peter. 26 27 Peter Jensen: I think I touched on it last month. The Wilkie Way bike path has opened, 28
providing an access point to the Sommerset or Sommer Hills—I'm not sure exactly which 29
one it is. They do have a park there that's very close to Monroe Park. Those two parks 30
can now act in conjunction as one, because the newer part in the Sommerset homes has a 31
little bit more advanced playground than what we see at Monroe. We're also wrapping 32
up the renovation of Bowden Park. The playground is open, and there's a few last details 33
to take care of there. That project is close to being completed as well. 34
35
Commissioner Reckdahl: The new Sommer Hill park, is that owned by the City or is that 36
private property? 37
38
Mr. Jensen: That's private. I think the agreement of builder was that it would be a 39
public-used space. It is private; it's not maintained or renovated by the City in any way. 40
41
Draft Minutes 53
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: As things age, do we have any authority to force them to repair 1
or we just have to hope that they repair it in a timely manner? 2
3
Mr. Jensen: That's not a question I can answer now. We can find out more about that, 4
though. 5
6 Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 7
8
Chair Lauing: The next—I'm sorry. 9
10
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 11 12
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't know if comments and announcements is where it goes. 13
I have a question about the AT&T site next to Boulware Park. We've had public 14
comment about that. We've received a number of emails about it. It sounds as though 15
nobody knows how one would move forward on investigating whether that's a viable 16
option. This is an AT&T property that's adjacent to Boulware Park, right in the heart of 17
one of our search areas. I wonder what we can do to sort that out so that we can maybe 18
move this along. This is a perfect example of a major opportunity cost. If this is 19
something we want to pursue, we ought to figure out how to do it. 20
21
Rob de Geus: We're looking into that. I saw that lengthy email from the gentleman that's 22
asking that question. We're going to work with the real estate office to see what the next 23
steps are. I don't know all the information. Is it really up for sale or will it be up for 24
sale? Is there an interest in selling the property? There's just a lot of questions at this 25 point, but we can report back next month. 26 27 Commissioner Hetterly: That'd be great. I know we haven't done it, so we don't have a 28
track record of how one would do that. Figuring out the how seems to me the first step 29
and being able to communicate that back to these folks who are really interested in it and 30
pushing it. Thank you. 31
32
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 25, 2016 MEETING 33 34
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is to look at the agenda for October 25th. 35
Are we getting to see the Zoo? 36
37
Kristen O'Kane: I think the Zoo is more likely to come in November. 38
39
Chair Lauing: We hoped that they were going to come today. They pushed out. 40
41
Draft Minutes 54
DRAFT
Ms. O'Kane: They did. Right now, all I know of for the October agenda is the Master 1
Plan. That may change between now and then. I'll communicate that with you as things 2
come up. 3
4
Chair Lauing: Any other items that we'd like to see for that agenda? 5
6 Commissioner Cribbs: Weren't we going to have some information about the aquatics? 7
8
Chair Lauing: Are you going to come back on aquatics? 9
10
Ms. O'Kane: Yes. Thank you. 11
12
Chair Lauing: Any other items at all? Otherwise, we'll entertain a motion for 13
adjournment. See if we can get a vote on that. 14
15
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 16
17
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Commissioner 18
Cowie at 10:00 p.m. 19
Draft Minutes 55
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: STEPHANIE DOUGLAS, SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2016
SUBJECT: CITY OF PALO ALTO SPECIAL EVENTS UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
No action to be taken.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto (City) recognizes the importance of creating community through special events and activities.
Events such as our Annual Chili Cook-Off Event, Teen Buoyancy Festival, Community Health Fair and others, bring people
together from different backgrounds and different neighborhoods throughout the city. Special events weave the fabric
of our community by creating opportunities to interact, celebrate, enrich people's lives, promote inclusiveness, and
stretch imaginations. Special events also build family traditions, opportunities to participate, and unique experiences.
It is essential that the City of Palo Alto encourage and support the safe interaction of neighbors, friends, families and
strangers through the shared experience of special events. Special events create wonderful memories and provide the
bonding that every community needs for economic and emotional growth.
DISCUSSION
The City of Palo Alto Community Services Department hosts several special events that have been long-standing
traditions in Palo Alto, such as the May Fete Parade and Fourth of July Chili Cook-Off. New events are added annually
and many more involve partnerships with other organizations. The following is a list of events the Community Services
Department hosted or partnered with for FY 2015-2016.
Chili Cook-Off – July 2015
Community Health Fair (in partnership with YMCA) - September 2015
Meet the Streets (in partnership with City Manager’s Office) – September 2015
Lucie Stern Community Center Bridal Fair – September 2015
Moonlight Run (partnership with Palo Alto Weekly)-September 2015
Veterans Day (in partnership with City Manager’s Office) – November 2015
Holiday Tree Lighting – December 2015
Senior New Year’s Eve Brunch – December 2015
Mitchell Community Center Anniversary Event (Frozen Theme) - January 2016
Summer Camp Registration Extravaganza – February 2016
The Great Race for Saving Water (in partnership with City of Palo Alto Utilities) – April 2016
Bryant Street Garage Fund Grantee Gala – May 2016
May Fete Parade – May 2016
Journey for Veterans Walk (partnership) – May 2016
Teen Buoyancy Festival – June 2016
World Music Day (in partnership with Palo Alto Recreation Foundation) – June 2016
As part of planning for the current fiscal year 2016-2017, the Community Services Department solicited feedback from
community members on specific special events they may be interested in attending. Feedback was solicited at the May
Fete Parade, Chili Cook-Off Event, online and at our customer service desks at Lucie Stern, Cubberley and Mitchell Park
Community Centers from May 2016 through July 2016. Options for future special events included a “Dogtoberfest”
Celebration, Memorial Day Observance Event, Kite Flight Festival, Bi-Annual Bridal Fair, Tech Specs Festival and the
option for individuals to provide their own ideas for event themes. The survey inquired about respondent’s residency
and previous events that they had attended in Palo Alto.
The survey received a total of 564 respondents; with 80% of respondents Palo Alto residents and 20% resided primarily
in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos and San Jose. Over 70% of respondents indicated that they would like to see a
“Dogtoberfest” in the City of Palo Alto. 15% of respondents provided their own event ideas, with the most popular
recurring themes suggesting Art, Wine & Food Festivals, Bike or Transportation Expo and Earth Day/Nature themed
events. The May Fete Parade, Chili Cook-Off and Moonlight Run were the most highly attended events by the
respondents.
Several new events are planned for the current year, including a Bike & Mobility Expo, “Bike and Roll”, which was held
on October 2nd, 2016 in partnership with the Annual Bike Palo Alto event. The Expo was held at King Plaza and featured
electric bikes that attendees could test ride as well as a variety of alternative transportation vendors and family friendly
activities. The event was well received with hundreds in attendance and is expected to continue to be a strong
partnership event with Bike Palo Alto.
The City will be hosting a citywide Earth Day Festival on Earth Day (Saturday, April 22nd, 2017). The event will include a
5K Fun Run (formerly known as the “Race To Save Water”), followed by an Earth Day themed festival complete with
environmental agency vendors, food trucks, family friendly activities, DJ and entertainment, giveaways and earth
themed demos, which may include nature and gardening components.
Lastly, staff is planning a “Dogtoberfest” / Pet Friendly Festival on Saturday, October 21th 2017 which will include dog
/pet services vendors, food trucks & dog treats, prizes/giveaways, adoptable dogs/rescues, pet photos, dog demos &
training, pet licensing, and other family friendly activities. This event is expected to take place at Mitchell Park Dog Park
and surrounding area.
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PETER JENSEN, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2016
SUBJECT: PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff request that the Parks and Recreation Commission provide feedback on the revised Chapter Five of the
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto has 36 parks and open space preserves covering approximately 4,165 acres of land,
which includes Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Park, and the Baylands Nature
Preserve. A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
(Master Plan) was adopted by Council for the 2013 fiscal year. The purpose of this effort is to provide the
necessary analysis and review of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system for the preparation of a long-range
(20-year) Master Plan. The Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future capital
improvement projects and program enhancements aimed at meeting current and future demands on the
city’s parks and recreation facilities, recreation programming, the natural environment and facility
maintenance. The Master Plan will also include an implementation guide including funding and maintenance
needs for the near, mid, and long-term.
The Master Plan process consists of three phases:
1.Phase 1: Specific Site and Program Analysis and Community Engagement (complete): Development
of a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, developed natural open
space areas (picnic areas, parking lots) and recreational facilities and programs; analysis of current
and forecasted demographic and recreation trends, and analysis of community recreation needs.
Identify community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements
using a proactive community engagement process.
2.Phase 2: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities (complete/ongoing):
Preparation of goals, policies, and programs; identification of capital projects, needed renovations
and other improvements; and identification of the highest priority projects and programs.
3.Phase 3: Drafting of the Master Plan, Review and Adoption (ongoing): Community, Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC), and Council review; and Council approval to adopt the Master Plan.
At the September 27, 2017 PRC meeting staff presented a revised Chapter 3 and draft Chapter 5. Since that
time, Chapters 1 – 4 have been further reviewed and refined by staff. The final draft of Chapters 1-4 is
included for reference. Staff is requesting feedback from the Commission on the current revised version of
Chapter 5 – Implementation that is included in this staff report. Feedback received will be incorporated into
the Final Draft Master Plan, which will be presented at the November 2016 PRC meeting.
DISCUSSION
Chapters 1 – 4:
The first four chapters of the Master Plan have been reviewed by staff, the PRC and City Council and the
final drafts of these chapters, included as Attachment A, reflect the comments and feedback received.
Any further refinements made to these chapters will be minor.
An important update to Chapter 4: Goals, Policies and Programs is the addition of three new programs.
These programs are listed below under the policy they support and are in response to comments
received from councilmembers during the September 6, 2016 Council Study Session. These programs
are:
Policy 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and park features and amenities.
5.B.9
Explore addition of intramural sports for middle and high school students through a partnership
with Palo Alto Unified School District.
5.B.10 Provide opportunities for “pickup” or non-league sports activities at City parks and
recreation facilities.
Policy 5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system through repurposing public land, partnering
with other organizations for shared land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and
rooftops, where appropriate and other creative means to help address shortages of available land.
5.C.1 Explore a process to utilize and reserve select public and private lands for “parklike”
functions that allows for more flexibility than formal park dedication.
Chapter 5:
A draft of Chapter 5 was presented at the September PRC meeting with focus on the list of projects and
programs that should be prioritized in the Master Plan. The priority projects and programs has been further
developed to include a description, level of planning effort, capital cost, annual operating cost, time frame
and urgency for each. Two additional projects have been added: 7.7 acre land at Foothill Park; and athletic
field enhancements.
Staff is requesting PRC feedback on Chapter 5, which will be incorporated into the final Draft and presented
at the November 2016 PRC meeting as part of the Draft Master Plan.
NEXT STEPS
Comments received from the PRC will be incorporated into the Draft Master Plan and presented to the
Commission in November 2016. A joint community and stakeholder advisory group meeting is currently
scheduled for November 1, 2016 to provide both community members and the Master Plan stakeholder
advisory group the opportunity to provide input on the draft plan.
Staff expects to present the Master Plan to City Council on December 12, 2016, however; adoption of the
Plan will not occur until early 2017 to allow for completion of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).
2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed CIP recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of
the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets;
and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to
the changing needs of the community.
ATTACHMENTS
A. FINAL DRAFT Chapters 1 - 4 of the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
B. DRAFT Chapter 5 – Implementation of Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
3
PB
PALOALTO
MASTER PLAN
OCTOBER 2016 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
PARKS TRAILS NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Attachment A
2
i2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public
Works Departments of the City of Palo Alto.
The core team included the following staff members:
Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services
Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services
Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works
Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager
Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
The Parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout
the planning process:
Jim Cowie
Anne Warner Cribbs
Jennifer Hetterly
Abbie Knopper
Ed Lauing
David Moss
Keith Reckdahl
Past Members:
Stacy Ashlund
Dierdre Crommie
Pat Markevitch
CONSULTANT TEAM
MIG, INC.
PALO ALTO COMMUNITY
Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community
members who contributed their time, energy and ideas to this
effort, particularly the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group.
ii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
iiiii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
CONTENTS
MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................vii
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2. Elements of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces & Recreation System ......11
Chapter 3. Analysis and Assessment ....... ......................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 4. Our Future: Principles, Goals, Policies, Programs & Projects ................................................49
Chapter 5. Implementation ..................................................................................................Under Development
Glossary ..........................................................................................................................................................................##
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................. ##
Photo Credits ............................................................................................................................................................... ##
APPENDICES
A. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces and Recreation Inventory ............................................................A-1
B. Community Engagement Summary .............................................................................................................B-1
C. Geographic Analysis Maps ...............................................................................................Under Development
D. Rinconada Park Master Plan ..........................................................................................Under Development
FIGURES
Figure 1: Planning Process .........................................................................................................................................4
Figure 2: Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Spaces Map .................................................................14
Figure 3: Program Areas by Number of Participants .....................................................................................20
Figure 4: Projected Growth in Palo Alto’s Senior Population ......................................................................28
Figure 5: Palo Alto Race and Ethnicity..................................................................................................................29
Figure 6: Park Walksheds Map ...............................................................................................................................32
Figure 7: Prioritization Challenge Results ..........................................................................................................39
Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map ..........................................................................................................................42
Figure 9: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map .............................................................................................44
Figure 10: Natural Systems Map ...........................................................................................................................46
TABLES
Table 1: Parks and Natural Open Spaces Inventory .......................................................................................13
Table 2: Palo Alto Facilities ......................................................................................................................................16
Table 3: City of Palo Alto Projected Population.................................................................................................26
Table 4: City of Palo Alto Key Age Groups...........................................................................................................27
iv
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
viv
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary
This is under development for the full draft.
vi
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary
This is under development for the full draft.
viivi
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
CHAPTER1
PURPOSE AND INTENT
It has been fifty years since Palo Alto has taken a comprehensive look at the community’s needs for park lands, natural open spaces, trails and recreation. Past planning shaped our community’s present day parks and recreation offerings, and led to the creation of the Baylands Athletic Center, expansion of athletic fields throughout the city, and an expansion of Greer Park. Our predecessors established standards for parks within one-half mile of every residential development, and for the amount of neighborhood and district park acreage to be added as the community grew.
Today Palo Alto residents, employees and visitors value and enjoy the City’s high-quality system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open
INTRODUCTION
2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
EVOLVE THE SYSTEM TO SERVE A LARGER AND MORE DIVERSE SET OF COMMUNITY NEEDS
32
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
spaces. To build on and continue the legacy of a strong parks
system, the City developed this Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space
and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide ongoing
investment in one of the community’s most treasured assets.
Over the last five decades, the City has completed a series of
planning efforts that affect parks and recreation; implemented
capital improvement projects to maintain and renovate City
facilities; and applied development impact fees for parks,
community centers and libraries. In recent years, several major
projects have been completed, including the all-new Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center and the Magical Bridge Playground,
both of which opened in 2015 to community acclaim. Today, Palo
Alto has the opportunity to evolve the system to serve a larger
and more diverse set of community needs and tackle challenges
to maintain the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. A
particular focus will be finding and creating additional spaces for
parks and recreation to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan and bring parks and recreation activities within walking
distance of all residents.
The park system of the 21st century calls for holistic guidance for
managing, improving and expanding park and recreation facilities
to keep programs, services and facilities relevant to present and
future populations; appropriately balance recreation and natural
open space conservation; and identify funding to meet these
challenges. For this reason, Palo Alto prioritized the development of
this Master Plan.
The Master Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s
parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, based
on guiding principles, goals and concepts developed through a
rigorous analysis of the existing system and a robust community
engagement process. It builds on this foundation with a set
of policies, projects, programs, and site specific plans with
recommendations for future renovations and capital improvements.
It also includes guidance on how to prioritize future recreation,
programming, environmental and maintenance investment to meet
our community’s changing needs and evolving demands for the
next 20 years.
4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
Planning Process Overview
The planning process to develop the Master Plan consisted of three
phases, as shown in Figure 1.
• Phase I: Specific Site Analysis, Program Analysis and
Community Engagement: This phase included two
parallel tracks that informed one another: the Community
Engagement and Stakeholder Engagement track and
the Technical Assessment and Analysis track. While
community engagement continued through all three
phases, the bulk of the proactive engagement process
occurred in this phase, drawing input from the public and a
broad range of stakeholders to identify community needs,
interests and preferences for system enhancements.
The Technical Assessment and Analysis track included
a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto
parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreational facilities
and programs; an analysis of current and forecasted
demographic and recreation trends; and an analysis of
community recreation needs.
• Phase II: Developing and Prioritizing Projects. The two
tracks of Phase 1 merged in Phase 2 with the preparation
of principles, goals and areas of focus, and the evaluation
of project and program opportunities with prioritization of
into implementation timelines of short (5-year), medium
(10-year) and long-term (20-year) ranges.
FIGURE 1: PLANNING PROCESS
54
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
• Phase III: Plan Review and Adoption: The Master Plan
document was designed and prepared for review by the
public, the Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) and City
Council. A concurrent environmental review led to adoption
of the plan.
The process was led by the project team, consisting of city and
consultant staff. The PRC was involved throughout the process,
serving as strategic advisors and participating in-depth in reviewing
the assessment and analysis tasks.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
The Master Plan was designed to be community and data driven,
to ensure that Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system reflects
the vision and supports the needs of our residents and visitors
over the next twenty years. A robust, layered outreach strategy
was implemented through each step of the planning process.
Engagement methods included a wide variety of tools and
activities, offered within a range of formats, time frames and
levels of interaction, to engage with Palo Alto’s diverse community
members in ways that were comfortable and convenient for them.
Master Plan community engagement methods, described in
Chapter 3 and Appendix B, included:
• A project webpage
• Public information updates through a variety of online and
print communication channels
• A community stakeholder advisory group
• A series of face-to-face “intercept surveys” at popular
locations and community events
• A variety of interactive community workshops
• A series of online surveys
• Interviews with City staff and community experts to better
inform topics that emerged from community engagement
• Consultations with the Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRC) and other appointed commissions
• City Council updates and study sessions
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
GOALS
• Increase community
awareness of the project;
• Inform the community
about the challenges and
opportunities of the project;
• Provide easy access
to project information
and opportunities for
participation;
• Offer a range of
communication and
engagement tools to match
interests and preferences;
• Ensure the final Master
Plan reflects community
priorities, preferences and
values; and
• Get community buy-in to
support plan adoption and
its short-, mid- and long-
term implementation.
6
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
The process and findings for each of the community engagement
activities are detailed in summary reports on the City website. The
summary of the key findings from the community engagement are
included in Chapter 3 and Appendix B of this plan.
Specific Site and Program Analysis
The project team completed a detailed analysis of all aspects of the
system to inform the Master Plan. The multi-layered approach to
analysis, the interconnection between the community engagement
and the analysis tasks (each feeding into the other) and the
coordination with related concurrent planning efforts ensured
that this Master Plan is based on sound information and the best
available data.
LAYERS OF ANALYSIS
The layers of assessment and analysis included:
• Physical inventory of parks, preserves and facilities;
• Recreation program inventory and analysis;
• Geographic analysis;
• Demographics and recreation trends analysis;
• Planning environment summary; and
• Sustainability review.
TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT
To assist in referencing and using the large amount of data
developed during the process, tabbed binders were created
for each member of the PRC and project team with all of the
completed documents, numbered for quick reference. An outline
of the deliverables for the Master Plan process became the table
of contents for the binder. To facilitate broader distribution of the
data binders (and reduce paper use), the project team developed
a “digital binder,” available on the City website, which consists of
a table of contents with hotlinks to each section. This working
reference is the Technical Supplement, carrying forward the detail
of these working documents.
76
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities
As major elements of the Technical Assessment and Analysis and
the Community and Stakeholder Engagement processes were
completed, the PRC and the project team began a detailed review
of the accumulated data as it related to each element of the Master
Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together
in preparation for the critical step of developing and prioritizing
projects. The process for review, designed by the project team with
the input of the PRC, resulted in a detailed reference matrix (with
supporting documentation) identifying needs and opportunities.
This matrix served as the basis for developing, evaluating and
refining the projects and programs contained in this Master Plan.
The matrix process allowed the PRC to review the large number of
possibilities against the extensive data available in a streamlined,
more accessible way. The matrix served as a key reference point
to assess and validate elements of the Master Plan as they were
developed. The complete matrix can be downloaded from the City
website.
Through this process, the principles and goals were derived.
Master Plan Drafting, Review and Adoption
The final phase in the Master Plan process involved the drafting
of this plan document and formal review by the staff, PRC,
stakeholders, the public and City Council. The project team worked
to draft the policy and program and project recommendations.
These were refined with the input of the staff who manage
construction, operations and maintenance in the system, as well
as the input of the PRC and Council. This work formed the basis
for the final chapters of this plan and set a recommended path
forward. The draft plan was presented for review at the PRC as
well as a community workshop with an online comment tool to
collect specific feedback. To pave the way for implementation,
the project team initiated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) process to advance the necessary California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation. Following the
public comment period the plan was presented for adoption by Palo
Alto’s City Council.
CHAPTER2
ELEMENTS OF PALO ALTO’S PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION SYSTEM
FROM ITS EARLIEST YEARS, THE COMMUNITY OF PALO ALTO
HAS INVESTED IN THE SYSTEM OF PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL
OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION, LEAVING A LEGACY OF UNIQUE
AND HIGHLY VALUED LANDS AND FACILITIES. Philanthropic donations, unique partnerships and forward-thinking acquisitions have positioned the system at the forefront of community identity. The level of investment has created a complex system that provides many different recreation opportunities, as well as important natural functions and habitat for wildlife.
To facilitate the analysis and understanding of Palo Alto’s resources, the project team defined three elements that comprise the citywide system of parks, natural open spaces, trails and recreation facilities and programs. These three elements were
10
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
THE LANDSCAPE OF PARKS, OPEN SPACES AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS PROVIDE THE SPACE WHERE RECREATION FACILITIES, NATURAL HABITAT AND PROGRAMS TAKE PLACE.
1110
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
broken down further into constituent “components” to provide a
reference framework for system analysis, community engagement,
and development of Master Plan recommendations. Each of the
elements is described below, providing a view of the system today
and highlighting key features.
Parks, Trails and Natural Open Spaces
The landscape of parks, open spaces and trail connections provide
the space where recreation facilities, natural habitat and programs
take place. Most of Palo Alto’s park sites are set in an urban
context, within neighborhoods connected by city streets. However,
the largest portion of the land in the system is held in natural open
space preserves. An expanding network of trails and bikeways
supplements the sidewalks and streets that connect these
assets together. The analysis related to this element includes the
proximity of park lands and recreation activities; opportunities to
experience and protect natural habitats; trail connections and the
comfort and accessibility of the sites.
The System Today
Palo Alto maintains 174 acres of urban park land distributed
throughout the city as well as over 4,000 acres in natural open
space preserves. The majority of the parks in Palo Alto are
neighborhood parks, primarily designed to support the everyday
activities of local residents. Several parks also feature unique
facilities such as community gardens and dog parks. There
are several parks that draw visitors from across the city and
from neighboring communities. These typically have a higher
concentration of facilities, including high quality sports fields. Some
of these parks are designed for a specific use and do not serve
immediate neighbors (e.g., Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino
Park and Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields), while others, like Greer,
Mitchell, and Rinconada Parks, also function as neighborhood
parks. City parks are diverse in size and amenities, but many
are older and/or have aging facilities. Palo Alto parks are highly
developed with maintained landscapes across their entire acreage.
Native species and less manicured landscapes are generally not
12
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
present. Due to the era when they were built, many parks don’t
have flexible spaces that allow different uses to be layered in.
Rather, they provide a collection of spaces designed for a single
activity. With design interventions, many existing parks have the
potential to support more use and activity.
There are four natural open space preserves: Baylands Preserve
(which includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park
and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. These sites are large, rich in
native species of plants and animal habitat and have extensive
internal trail systems. With the exception of Esther Clark Preserve,
the preserves also have recreational and interpretive facilities.
Palo Alto Open Space has approximately 43.2 miles of trail. The
Baylands Preserve trail system is approximately 15 miles long, and
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve trail system is approximately 10.3
miles long. The existing trail system is largely within park lands
but several segments of designated or off-street trails connect
parks and other community destinations. Most significant among
these are the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay regional trails.
The public trail system is further enhanced by privately owned
trails with public access such as the recently completed Stanford
Perimeter Trail.
The Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space map (Figure 2)
depicts all City-owned park sites and natural open spaces. Palo Alto
Unified School District sites are also acknowledged on this map due
to the long-standing partnership and their importance as park-like
places. A detailed inventory of these sites can be found in Appendix
A, and a complete set of site maps can be found in the Technical
Supplement.
PALO ALTO PARK ACREAGE
Urban Parks: 174
Natural Open Space Preserves: 4,030
NATURAL OPEN SPACE PRESERVES
Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee Park)
Esther Clark Preserve
Foothills Park
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve
1312
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Park or Natural Open Space Ownership Acres
Baylands Athletic Center City of Palo Alto 6
Bol Park City of Palo Alto 13.8
Boulware Park City of Palo Alto 1.5
Bowden Park City of Palo Alto 2
Bowling Green Park City of Palo Alto 1.9
(Juana) Briones Park City of Palo Alto 4.1
Cameron Park City of Palo Alto 1.1
Cogswell Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.5
El Camino Park Stanford 12.2
Eleanor Pardee Park City of Palo Alto 9.6
El Palo Alto Park City of Palo Alto 0.5
Greer Park City of Palo Alto 22
Heritage Park City of Palo Alto 2.0
Hoover Park City of Palo Alto 4.2
Hopkins Creekside City of Palo Alto 12.4
Johnson Park City of Palo Alto 2.5
Kellogg Park City of Palo Alto 0.2
Lytton Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.2
Mayfield Park City of Palo Alto 1.1
Mitchell Park City of Palo Alto 21.4
Monroe Park City of Palo Alto 0.6
Peers Park City of Palo Alto 4.7
Ramos Park City of Palo Alto 4.4
Rinconada Park City of Palo Alto 19
Robles Park City of Palo Alto 4.7
Scott Park City of Palo Alto 0.4
Seale Park City of Palo Alto 4.3
Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields Stanford 5.9
Terman Park City of Palo Alto/ PAUSD 7.7
Wallis Park City of Palo Alto 0.3
Weisshaar Park City of Palo Alto 1.1
Werry Park City of Palo Alto 1.1
SUBTOTAL CITY PARKS 174
Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee)City of Palo Alto 1,986
Esther Clark Preserve City of Palo Alto 22
Foothills Park City of Palo Alto 1,400
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto 622
SUBTOTAL NATURAL OPEN SPACES 4,030
TABLE 1: PALO ALTO PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACES INVENTORY
14
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
San F r a ncisquito Creek
Mat a d e ro C r e ek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los Altos
Hills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcar
d
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
FIGURE 2: EXISTING PUBLIC PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACES MAP
1514
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los Altos
Hills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcar
d
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
16
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Recreation Facilities
From community centers to sports fields to community gardens,
Palo Alto’s recreation facilities add variety to the experiences pos-
sible at each of Palo Alto’s parks and natural open spaces. Twelve
types of recreation facilities are found throughout the system, in
addition, other specialized recreation facilities such as the skate
park at Greer Park, the lawn bowling green at Bowling Green Park,
and El Camino Park serve specific recreation needs.
The number and type of facilities at each park and preserve are
summarized as part of the detailed inventory of the system found
in Appendix A.
Play Areas
The most common, and expected, feature in a Palo Alto park is a
play area. Typically play areas include a manufactured playground
structure and may or may not include swings or other features.
Mitchell Park has particularly unique play experiences that include
both a historic Royston-designed “gopher holes” play area and the
Magical Bridge Playground, a destination play area designed to be
universally accessible for children of all abilities.
Basketball and Tennis Courts
Courts, primarily for basketball and tennis, are incorporated into
many of Palo Alto’s parks. Most of the courts are provided singly
or in pairs of facilities with the exception of Mitchell and Rinconada
Parks. with 7 and 9 tennis courts respectively. These concentra-
tions of tennis courts provide a higher capacity for play and the
potential to host tournaments.
Rectangular and Diamond Sports Fields
The city owns, manages and maintains dozens of rectangular and
diamond sports fields located throughout the city. Rectangular
fields accommodate a variety of sports including soccer and foot-
ball. Diamond fields are designed for particular levels of baseball or
softball play. Most of the higher level sports fields are concentrated
adjacent to Cubberley Community Center or in field complexes such
as the Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields and the El Camino Park
sports fields. The City also maintains sports fields on several School
PALO ALTO RECREATION
FACILITIES
• Play areas
• Basketball Courts
• Tennis Courts
• Rectangular Sports Fields
• Diamond Sports Fields
• Picnic Areas
• Off-Leash Dog Areas
• Community Gardens
• Swimming Pools
• Community Centers
• Special Purpose Buildings in
Parks
• Other Indoor Facilities
• Golf Course
Number of Facilities in Palo Alto
Play Areas 29
Basketball Courts 14
Tennis Courts 24
Rectangular Sports Fields 22
Diamond Sports Fields 10
Picnic Areas 39
Pools*2
Dog Parks 2
Community Centers 3
Community Gardens 2
Interpretive Centers 3
*Two pools at the Rinconada Aquatic Center
TABLE 2: PALO ALTO FACILITIES
1716
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
District sites. Some of the sports fields have lighting that allows for
extended play in the evening, a feature that increases the playable
time on a field but is not appropriate for all locations. In addition to
the formally developed sports fields, many parks feature a large
multi-purpose turf area that functions as a sports field for league
and casual sports activities. Reserved use of fields and tennis
courts is governed by the City’s Field Use Policy, which specifies the
preference for local youth play and limits private use.
Picnic Areas
Most of Palo Alto’s parks also include at least one picnic area. Most
of these are small clusters of tables intended for first-come-first-
served use. Foothills Park, Rinconada Park, and Mitchell Park have
designated picnic areas that are available for reservation to accom-
modate larger gatherings.
Off-Leash Dog Areas
Three off-leash areas are provided for park users to exercise and
socialize dogs. All three sites, Mitchell Park, Hoover Park and Greer
Park are separated and fenced (per City policy) to keep off-leash
dogs away from other users and areas of the parks.
Community Gardens
The City also provides four community gardens, two in parks
(at Johnson Park and Eleanor Pardee Park), one adjacent to the
Rinconada Library, and one adjacent to the Ventura Community
Center. These facilities are separated into plots and assigned
(based on an application and permitting process) to individuals for
gardening edible and decorative plants.
Swimming Pool
The Rinconada Pool, located in the park of the same name is the
City’s only public pool facility. This outdoor facility includes a wading
pool with spray and waterfall features, a small slide and a zero
depth “beach” area. A second pool features 14 lanes and two diving
boards. These facilities offer recreational swimming, lessons and
private pool parties through the spring, summer and late summer
and lap swimming year-round.
18
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Community Centers, Special Purpose Buildings and Other Indoor Facilities
Palo Alto maintains both general and specialized indoor recreation
facilities. The two largest facilities are the Cubberley Community
Center and the Lucie Stern Center which offer a wide variety of
programs. However, neither was designed nor built primarily as a
recreation facility or to provide the mix of programs they currently
offer. The majority of the Cubberley site is owned by the Palo Alto
Unified School District, with the balance owned by the City. This site
is home to a wide range of programs, largely run by partner organi-
zations. This facility is also home to the only gymnasiums sched-
uled by the City. The future of this site, and a future redevelopment
of the facilities there for school and community use, is the subject
of ongoing collaboration between the City and the School District.
The Lucie Stern Center is a historic building, which opened in
1934 and shares a campus with the Junior Museum and Zoo as
well as the Children’s Theatre, and is adjacent to Rinconada Park.
The formal ballroom and community rooms are ideal for events
and meetings of varying sizes and are used for a wide range of
indoor recreation activities, such as regularly scheduled fitness and
wellness classes. This building is also home to the administration of
Community Services and the Recreation Services division.
The brand new Mitchell Park Community Center, adjacent to the
new Mitchell Park Library, is designed for flexibility with some
specialized spaces. The building includes a teen center that faces
the park (and the middle school beyond it) as well as several large
spaces that can be configured into multiple class or meeting rooms.
An outdoor courtyard and the large El Palo Alto room host numer-
ous personal, business, and community events.
Other buildings and major facilities are more specialized focusing
on a narrower range of functions and representing a significant
community investment in one area. This includes the Palo Alto Arts
Center, which hosts the visual arts programming provided by the
City, as well as visitor centers and other interpretive facilities at
Palo Alto’s natural open space preserves.
1918
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Recreation Programs
The programming of recreation activities, ranging from sports and
fitness to specialized classes, is the most flexible and dynamic
element of the system. Many programs can be held in the most
basic of meeting rooms or outdoor spaces, making programming
the best way to utilize and activate existing facilities and spaces.
Palo Alto benefits from a mix of public, non-profit, and private
recreation program providers, each working in specific segments
of the recreation marketplace. In many cases, programming is
provided by private providers (often small businesses) within a
City of Palo Alto facility or a City program may be held in a partner
facility such as a school district gym. These partnerships create
new opportunities to reach new participants and promote Palo Alto
as a place to learn, exercise and have fun.
PALO ALTO RECREATION
PROGRAM AREAS
• Adult Aquatics
• Adult Fitness
• Adult Special Interest Classes
• Adult Sports
• Day Camps
• Middle School Athletics
• Open Space/Outdoor
Recreation
• Youth and Teen Aquatics
• Youth and Teen Sports
• Youth and Teen Special
Interest Classes
• Youth and Teen Sports Camps
• Special Events
• Therapeutic Recreation
• Senior Programs
20
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Recreation Services
The Recreation Division of the Community Services Department of-
fers more than 1,300 classes, teams or camps across the fourteen
program areas. These programs served over 13,000 participants
in 2014-15. Over half of this number were youth and teen focused
swimming programs and day camps. The Recreation Division cate-
gorizes its recreation programs into 14 areas, by age and topic.
Sports programs, particularly middle school athletics and adult
sports, are operating over capacity with full teams and waitlists for
most offerings. These programs are not easily expanded, as they
rely on limited gym and field space. Middle school athletics are
further constrained by a lack of coaches.
Other Providers
The City of Palo Alto also offers programming through other divi-
sions of Community Services, including the Art Center, Children’s
Theatre and Junior Museum and Zoo and separate entities including
the Palo Alto Library. Programs offered by these other divisions
serve thousands of additional adults, youth and teens. Many of
these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in
the specialized buildings associated with these divisions.
Day
Camps
Youth
& Teen
Sports
Camps
Adult Fitness
Open Space/Outdoor
Recreation
Adult Special
Interest Classes
Middle
School
Athletics
Youth
& Teen
Sports
Youth & Teen Sports
Aquatics
Adult
Sports
Youth & Teen
Special Interest Classes
Community Gardens
FIGURE 3: PROGRAM AREAS BY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
2120
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
In addition to the City, the other major providers of recreation pro-
gramming in Palo Alto include the Palo Alto Unified School District
as well as many private businesses and non-profit organizations
who operate in partnerships with the City.
• Avenidas
• Abilities United
• Ballet and Dance Studios
• Brad Lozares Golf Shop at Palo Alto Golf Course
• Community Sports Organizations (Little League, Soccer
Club, Lacrosse, Swim Club, etc.)
• Master Gardeners and Garden Shops
• Martial Arts Studios
• Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (JCC)
• Palo Alto Family YMCA
• Private Childcare Providers
• Private Gyms and Fitness Centers
• Stanford University
• University Club of Palo Alto
• Women’s Club of Palo Alto
CHAPTER3
ANALYSIS & ASSESSMENT
THE MASTER PLAN WAS DEVELOPED THROUGH A
COMPREHENSIVE, DATA-DRIVEN AND COMMUNITY FOCUSED
PROCESS AND INCLUDES AN ARRAY OF ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS
AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES. The results of the process provide a detailed understanding of Palo Alto’s current system of parks, trails, natural open spaces, recreation facilities and recreation programs and services. In addition, the process identifies current and future needs of the community it serves and opportunities for system enhancement.
The identified needs and possible opportunities to enhance the parks and recreation system is based on three types of data and analyses:
24
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
RESIDENTS WANT A HIGH QUALITY, RESILIENT PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM THAT EMBRACES AND PROTECTS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, ADAPTS TO CHANGING NEEDS, AND SERVES A GROWING VARIETY OF INTERESTS.
2524
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
1) Demographic and Recreation Trends - Quantitative
forecasts of previously published data on growth trends
in areas such as overall population, and growth of key
demographic segments.
2) System Analysis - Park, facility and program inventory
data including the quantity and location of parks; field, pool
and other facility usage program registration and other
similar inventory data.
3) Community Engagement Results - Qualitative data
compiled from the input of citizens and stakeholders
through a multitude of outreach tools.
Ultimately these data sources resulted in the “findings”
summarized in this chapter. The findings address the most notable
population-based shifts supported by population and demographic
growth forecasts that the City will need to accommodate and
respond to in the next ten to twenty years. Conclusions drawn from
the system analysis identified needs currently not being met or
that will not be met in future years and are considered gaps in the
system, or “needs” for the City. Community preferences identified
in the community engagement and outreach phase identified
areas that the City can evaluate and implement to address citizens’
“votes” in various forums provided during this study. These are
community “wants” versus demonstrated gaps or needs.
The following sections describe the analysis completed and key
findings from the process. More detailed versions of the reports
and work products summarized here can be found in the Technical
Supplement on the City website.
Demographic and Recreation Trends
The project team evaluated the existing demographic profile of
Palo Alto including population, household characteristics and
transportation behavior, to identify patterns and trends that
influence recreation needs and preferences. In addition, this
analysis evaluated regional and national trends in health, sports,
socializing, recreation, family and urban form for their potential to
affect the direction of the Master Plan.
26
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
KEY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND TRENDS:
Population
Over the past five years, Palo Alto has grown faster than projected
with an average annual growth rate of 1.3%. The population of
Palo Alto in 2015, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau, was
66,853. Additionally, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update (Draft
Environmental Impact Report, 2016) contemplates housing
scenarios that would exceed current total population projections,
indicating potential for an even greater rate of growth over the
life of this Master Plan. Meeting the demands of Palo Alto’s
growing population without compromising the level of service
will require significant investment in park and recreation facilities,
maintenance and programming.
Roughly 60,000 commuters come to Palo Alto to work, along
with thousands of Stanford students, resulting in a daytime
population well in excess of the City’s resident population. Efforts
to better understand the park and recreation use patterns of this
sizable group should inform strategic planning around facilities,
maintenance and programming.
Housing and Income
Over half (57.5%) of Palo Alto residents live in single-family
detached homes, while over one third (37.9%) live in multifamily
units. As Palo Alto expands its housing stock, the City anticipates
that the vast majority of new housing will be multi-family units
(Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR, 2016). This shift to a
housing type that lacks the private open space typical of a single
family home will create an increasing need for publicly accessible
outdoor space and recreation opportunities.
Median household income in Palo Alto grew by 73% between 1990
and 2012, to $118,936 per household. However, housing costs
have also increased dramatically. The median home sales price in
Palo Alto in 2013 was more than two and a half times that of the
county median price and rental prices in 2014 were more than
double county-wide fair market rental prices (Comprehensive Plan
Update Draft EIR, 2016). Palo Alto’s high median income conceals
the economic challenges faced by many residents spending an
increasing amount on housing. Recreation is a crucial quality of life
asset and people with less disposable income rely more heavily on
public recreation facilities. Planning for parks and recreation should
reflect the unique local economic conditions in Palo Alto and not
rely heavily on statewide or regional data to determine income-
based trends or demand.
Population
Population 2013 66,368
Population projection 2035 84,000
Percent Change 27%
Average Annual Change 1.1%
TABLE 3: CITY OF PALO ALTO PROJECTED
POPULATION
Source: California Department of Finance and Association of Bay Area Governments
2726
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Transportation
The city has a significant share of commuters who travel by bike
(11%) and has seen a sizable increase in student ridership, with
approximately 40% of high school students bicycling to school. Palo
Alto can support and expand this popular mode choice by providing
safe routes to parks and recreation facilities. In addition to providing
safe bike routes, users should be encouraged to use alternative
modes of transportation, such as the Palo Alto free shuttle, to
parks and recreation faclities.
Demographic Groups
National and regional recreation trends emphasize an outdoor
lifestyle, physical and mental health, and diverse options for older
adults at multiple stages of life, universal design and access for
people of all abilities, and a movement to connect children with
nature. These trends point to several specific segments within the
population that require special consideration in this plan.
While the average age of residents is increasing, the city has a
sizable population of children under 18 years of age. Seniors and
children represent the largest growth segments in Palo Alto since
1980 and stand at 17% and 23%, respectively, of the City’s total
population. These age groups are, anecdotally, high users of parks
and recreation facilities and services in Palo Alto and are the most
likely to access facilities by walking or biking.
Youth and Teens
Palo Alto’s under 18 population has grown steadily over the past 25
years, representing the City’s fastest growing age segment (totaling
15,019 in 2010). However, PAUSD projects a downward trend
in school enrollment beginning in year 2020. Currently, PAUSD
assumptions about future new housing types and volume differ
from those used in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update analysis,
leading to inconsistent projections regarding the future size of
Palo Alto’s student population. Once the updated Comprehensive
Plan is completed it will be important to coordinate assumptions
about housing growth and student generation rates in order to plan
appropriately to serve this large segment of the population.
Efforts have grown in recent years to build stronger community
connections for area teens. Innovative programs such as Maker
Space and Bryant Street Garage teen grants are gaining popularity.
Additional programs such as The Drop teen center and LEAP
(Learning Enrichment After School Program) are also well attended.
TABLE 4: CITY OF PALO ALTO KEY AGE
GROUPS
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey
Age Percent
Total Population 64,234
Persons under 5 years 5.1%
Persons under 18 years 23.3%
Persons 65 years and over 16.9%
28
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Additional teen programs are needed to better tailor offerings
to attract broader teen participation consistent with the goals of
Project Safety Net.
Seniors
The senior population is large and rapidly increasing. One-half of
all Palo Alto residents are expected to be age 55 or above by 2030.
In 2000, it was projected that the senior population for Palo Alto
and surrounding cities will double between 2000 and 2020 and will
continue to grow until 2040 (Avenidas), as illustrated in Figure 4. As
more seniors choose to “age in place,” programming and services
must evolve to address new demands.
Special Needs
Though the majority of Palo Alto residents with disabilities are
65 or older (2,842 people), our community is also home to an
unusually high number of special needs students (1,100 students
in PAUSD as of September 2014). These two growing population
segments call for expanded inclusion efforts related to facilities,
services and programming.
Ethnicity and Culture
Figure 5 illustrates US Census data showing Palo Alto’s cultural
and ethnic diversity is steadily expanding. In the past decade, the
City’s Asian population alone grew by 10%. Of all Palo Altans, 31%
are foreign-born and 38% speak a language other than English at
FIGURE 4: PROJECTED GROWTH IN PALO ALTO’S SENIOR POPULATION
Source: Avenidas
2928
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
home. PAUSD data reveals that the City’s minority population is
young, with a higher rate of Hispanic/Latinos and Asians in the
school system (11% Hispanic/Latino and 39% Asian) than in the
general population of Palo Alto. Sensitivity and attention to the
needs of this growing and significant segment of the population will
require expanded outreach, partnership with PAUSD, and targeted
efforts at inclusion.
System Analysis
The analysis of the system began with a site visit to each
park, facility, and preserve to document and evaluate existing
conditions to develop an accurate and in-depth foundation of
baseline information. The observations recorded during these
visits are compiled within a set of existing conditions maps.
These maps include the history, a summary of features and a
description of opportunities and constraints for each site. Each
map also incorporates site-specific public input gathered through
the community engagement process. For the full set of existing
conditions maps, see the Technical Supplement on the City website.
Geographic Analysis
A geographic analysis of the parks, trails and natural open spaces
system evaluated walkability and accessibility. A Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) model of the surrounding streets,
FIGURE 5: PALO ALTO RACE AND ETHNICITY
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
White Black or African
American
American Indian
and AlaskaNative
Asian Native Hawaiian/
Other PacificIslander
Two or More
Races
Hispanic or
Latino
2000 2010 2014
30
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
sidewalks, trails, and pathways was constructed using ESRI
Network Analyst software to identify “walksheds” or catchment
areas for each park, reflecting the way people move through the
city. The analysis used ¼ and ½ mile travel distances, reflecting
research on the distance a typical person can walk in five and ten
minutes, respectively. This analysis refined the understanding of
the ½ mile distance often cited as walking distance and aligned
with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The project team also
factored in physical barriers that impede access, incorporating
feedback from the public engagement process about specific
streets and intersections people report as being difficult to cross.
Figure 6, on page 32, shows the ¼ and ½ mile walksheds for all
parks in Palo Alto.
Many communities also analyze park systems using a function-
based parks classification scheme (neighborhood parks, community
parks, regional parks). However, the parks in Palo Alto serve
multiple and often overlapping functions. Community feedback
indicated that people in Palo Alto are looking for the park system
to deliver five categories of activities on a widely accessible basis,
regardless of how the park is classified functionally. The analysis
assessed the community’s access to each of these activities by
defining criteria for each category and applying the criteria to the
geographic analysis model.
The five categories of activity and their analysis criteria are
summarized below.
• Relax and Enjoy Outdoors. Palo Altans place a high value
on parks that provide a quiet and calm place to relax and
enjoy the outdoors. While most Palo Alto parks support
this activity, some parks experience noise from highway/
road traffic or from heavy sports use. Comments made by
the public on the online interactive map (and confirmed by
site visits) also identified parks without quiet areas.
• Play for Children. Children and youth were regularly cited
as one of the most important audiences for the park
system. Parks containing a playground, play area or unique
play feature (sculpture, nature play, etc.) best support this
audience.
• Throw a Ball. This activity encompasses kicking, hitting,
and throwing balls and other objects such as Frisbees,
including both self-directed and league-based play. Parks
3130
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
containing open turf areas, sports fields, or courts best
support this activity.
• Exercise and Fitness. Health and wellness has been
shown to be important to Palo Alto residents in this and
other planning processes. Parks with perimeter or looped
paths support both walking and running, which are the top
recreation activities both in Palo Alto and in the country.
Palo Alto’s Rinconada Pool also provides an exercise option
for swimmers.
• Gathering. The Palo Alto park system is an important
provider of space for family, friends, and the larger
community to gather for picnics, social events, and group
activities. Formal picnic areas, shelters, and features such
as amphitheaters facilitate this activity.
GEOGRAPHIC NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES:
The spatial analysis revealed the following:
• Most Palo Alto residents have access to a city park within
a ¼ and ½ mile. Gaps exist north of the Oregon Expressway
near Highway 101 and along Sand Hill Road near
commercial and institutional land uses. Adding additional
parks or park-like lands can improve park accessibility
for residents in these areas. Fewer neighborhoods have
activity access to all five identified activities within a ½ mile.
• Parks that offer exercise and fitness opportunities are
more common south of the Oregon Expressway. The
addition of exercise opportunities to north Palo Alto parks
should be considered.
• Dog parks are all located south of the Oregon Expressway.
Since dog owners prefer to use dog parks near their
residence, adding dog parks to north Palo Alto parks will
improve residents’ dog exercise opportunities.
• Community gardens are currently located entirely north of
Oregon Expressway The addition of community gardens
in south Palo Alto can improve garden access to those
residents.
• Palo Alto’s only public pool is located north of Oregon
Expressway. The addition of a public gymnasium or
improving access to other public or private pools should be
explored to provide more access during peak times.
32
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
S a n F r a ncisquito Creek
Mat a d e ro C r e ek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Walksheds
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
FIGURE 6: PARK WALKSHEDS MAP
3332
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Walksheds
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
34
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Additional geographic analysis evaluated access to experiences,
natural open space and recreation facilities that were identified
as highly desired by the community during the intercept surveys.
These include:
• The experience and preservation of nature;
• Improved ease of access to natural open space preserves
(e.g., bike routes and shuttles);
• Community gardening;
• Recreation with dogs; and
• Gymnasiums and swimming pools.
Recreation Program Analysis
To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to
meet demand, the data on reservations, minimum participation,
program registrations and waitlists was analyzed along with
observations collected from staff and consultants. A crucial
performance indicator in recreation programming is enrollment at
or above minimum participation, which is the minimum number
of participants needed to achieve the cost recovery goals of each
class. These goals are set according to the City’s cost recovery
policy and the individual class budget. This, along with classes
indicated as full or with waitlists, provided insight into the capacity
and demand for categories and specific types of programs.
RECREATION PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES:
• The highest participation in City programs is in sports
(adult and youth), aquatics (youth and teen) and day
camps. Continued demand for these program areas is
anticipated and program offerings should respond to this
demand.
• The current policy of “everyone plays” is widely supported
for middle school athletics. Since limited gym and field
space makes it difficult to expand these programs, the
City and PAUSD should consider additional facilities or
improved scheduling to maximize student involvement
in these popular programs. Furthermore, a shortage of
instructors and coaches exacerbates the difficulty to
expand. Recruitment, training, and increased pay should be
considered to improve the supply of qualified instructors
and coaches.
3534
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
• Demand for some classes and programs varies greatly by
time of day. The program scheduling should attempt to
provide additional classes during the most popular times.
• A limited number of gymnasiums available to the public
and a lack of a City-owned gym complicates the expansion
of most sports programs. Increasing sports facilities,
sharing of facilities, and adjusting facility scheduling should
be investigated.
• Academic support programs offered to youth and teens
are typically operating under capacity. Improved marketing
and updated offerings should be considered to increase
the popularity of these programs or resources should be
shifted to other types of teen programming.
• Programs offered by the Art Center, the Junior Museum
and Zoo and the Children’s Theatre serve thousands
of additional adults, youth and teens. Many of these
programs have waitlists, partly because of limited
space in the specialized buildings associated with these
divisions. Adjusting the scheduling of current facilities and
developing access to other facilities (such as PAUSD) may
increase the number of people that can be served by these
popular programs.
Community Engagement Results
A variety of community engagement efforts, conducted at
several stages in the process, collected input from hundreds of
residents and stakeholders. The input of community members
and stakeholders guided decisions of where to focus assessment
efforts. Resident and stakeholder input highlighted the need to
look at walkability and park access, as well as access to those
highly desired experiences, such as play for children. In addition,
the analysis examined equitable distribution and need of specific
facilities, such as restrooms, dog parks and community gardens, as
a result of the community interest in these features.
Community feedback largely confirms conclusions drawn from
the demographic trends analysis. The following section describes
the key topics and themes that emerged from the Master Plan
community engagement process.
36
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
KEY COMMUNITY TOPICS AND THEMES:
The following topics and themes were referenced multiple times by
the community, City staff, partners and decision makers. The key
themes were critical in shaping the overall analysis of the system,
and provided direction for the development of the Master Plan
principles, goals, policies and recommended actions.
• Respondents value, support and appreciate their parks
system. They recognize that it is a high-quality system.
• Respondents believe that strategic enhancements and
improvements are needed to better meet evolving needs
and trends, adapt to growth and changing demographics,
and to continue to provide world-class experiences to
residents.
• Limited land availability and high cost is seen as the major
limiting factor to pursuing new park opportunities.
• Providing accessible and safe active transportation
(walking, biking, etc.) routes to natural open spaces,
community centers and parks is a high priority.
• Enhancing physical and mental well-being is a critical
function of parks for Palo Altans. Loop trails, bicycle and
pedestrian paths to parks, and places to relax are top
priorities, along with exercise equipment or additional
classes.
• Protection of nature is very important to residents. There
is widespread support for the continued protection,
enhancement and restoration of open spaces and wildlife
habitat.
• Residents want to feel connected to nature in their urban
parks. There is interest in adding nature play elements and
wildlife habitats to more traditional park settings.
• There is widespread interest in bringing community
gardens, dog parks and aquatic facilities to new areas
of the city to improve access to these amenities for all
neighborhoods.
• Residents strongly support improved and additional
restrooms in parks. In addition, there is a clear preference
for features and amenities that support comfort,
convenience and longer stays at parks, including water
fountains and places to sit.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THEMES
• Walkability and Equity of
Park and Preserve Access
• Activity Access: Play for
Children
• Activity Access: Exercise
and Fitness
• Activity Access: Throw/
Catch/Shoot/Kick/Hit
• Activity Access: Gather
Together
• Activity Access: Relax and
Enjoy the Outdoors
• Experience Nature
• Preservation of Nature
• Trail Connections
• Availability of Restrooms
• Site Amenities and
Experience
• Universal Accessibility
3736
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
• The Palo Alto community strongly supports universal
design and access and there is interest in adding inclusive
play elements to more parks.
• Current policies that prioritize the availability of facilities
for Palo Alto residents are widely supported, and
stakeholders generally agree that providing services to
local residents is a higher priority than providing regional
attractions.
• Residents would like to see enhancements to parks
throughout the city including more types of play
experiences and environments. There is also support
for smaller, more locally focused events and programs
(e.g., movies in the park) that are held in different parks
throughout the city.
• The community strongly supports the kinds of local and
regional partnerships (particularly with the school district)
that expand recreation opportunities and services for
youth, teens and residents of all ages and abilities.
Needs and Opportunities Summary
Review of the data from the Technical Assessment and Analysis
and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement tied these two
tracks of the Master Plan process together in preparation for
Developing and Prioritizing Projects. As described in Chapter 1,
this process produced a detailed reference matrix (with supporting
documentation) identifying needs and opportunities across the
system.
The Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix included in the
technical supplement synthesizes findings from both the Technical
Assessment and Analysis and the Community and Stakeholder
Engagement tracks across nine topics:
• Current Service/Inventory
• Level of Control
• Geographic Analysis
• Capacity/Bookings
• Perception of Quality
• Expressed Need
38
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
• Demographic Trends
• Barriers to Access/Participation
• Projected Demand
The final step of the process was to summarize opportunities
to enhance Palo Alto’s system through the addition, distribution
or modification of a particular element and component. These
actions were prioritized to develop the Master Plan’s final
recommendations, based on the constraints posed by limited land,
staff, funding and other resources in the community.
Key Findings
The review of the matrix identified groupings of opportunities
that had emerged from the many analysis and community input
activities. The opportunities were crafted into a set of twelve Areas
of Focus, which represent a major development step toward goals
for the master plan. The Areas of Focus are:
• Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences
across the city
• Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and
recreation opportunities
• Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and
activities for all ages and abilities
• Improving and enhancing community center and recreation
spaces across the community
• Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields
• Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks
• Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming
• Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and
programs
• Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks
• Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs
• Expanding the system
• Offering more of the existing programs, classes and events
3938
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
The community prioritization challenge, a combination of online
survey and in-person workshop, reviewed the community’s
opinions of these areas. Participants were asked to allocate a
$10 budget across each of the areas of focus, with the amounts
allocated indicating the priority they place on a particular area.
The analysis of the results reflects the strong interest heard
throughout the process for community center space improvements,
integrating nature more thoroughly in the park system and making
parks more welcoming.
A relatively smaller number of participants placed a very high
priority (and resulting larger budget allocation) on improving options
for off-leash dogs.
These results of the community prioritization challenge provided
additional insight into the community’s opinions about the future
of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation. The full summary is available in
the technical supplement.
Figure 7 shows a sample survey question result. Full results are
available in the technical supplement.
FIGURE 7: PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE RESULTS
40
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Opportunities for the System
Three concept maps (Figures 8-10) illustrate opportunities
to further create a multi-layered system of park lands and
connections that serves both people and natural systems. The
maps can also serve as tools for supporting decisions on individual
policies, programs and projects.
EXPAND THE SYSTEM
Figure 8 identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack access to
parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their homes. These
“park search areas,” labeled A through E for planning purposes, will
help the City focus future park additions in neighborhoods with
the greatest need, for example those with the highest density
and/or largest population. Meanwhile, public access to school
grounds that fall within park search areas (noted in purple) should
be maintained and expanded to better support neighborhood park
uses and enhance their natural open space value. Other City-
owned properties (noted in brown) may represent future park
opportunities, but nearly all of these lands fall outside of the park
search areas.
CONNECT THE SYSTEM
A selection of Palo Alto’s existing and planned bikeways and
pedestrian routes can be leveraged to improve park and recreation
access. Figure 9 illustrates this potential network of trails and
enhanced roadways that connect neighborhoods to local and
regional parks, recreation facilities and natural open spaces.
These routes are part of the City’s adopted Bicycle Pedestrian
Transportation Plan. Recommended enhanced routes, labeled
1 through 3 for planning purposes, provide main north to south
travel corridors between Palo Alto’s parks and into neighboring
communities. Regional trails like the Bay to Ridge and San
Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors from Foothills
Park and Pearson Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to the
Baylands Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural open
spaces to the northeast. Recommended park connectors complete
the network by linking the remaining park sites.
CONNECT NATURAL SYSTEMS
Figure 10 illustrates how the same corridors recommended for
bike and pedestrian enhancements can also provide connectivity
4140
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
for natural systems. Landscape design features such as increased
urban forest canopy, native species plantings, and stormwater
bioswales can create safe paths of travel and provide habitat value
for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements, supported
by these “pollinator pathways,” would improve water quality and
habitat connections between regionally significant habitats in the
hills and in the bay. New street and park trees would benefit areas
that currently have low tree canopy coverage, highlighted in tan.
UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY SITES
In the overall context of limited land, three properties in Palo Alto
represent unique opportunities, as they are already owned by the
City and are not yet designated for a specific use. These three sites
each have unique opportunities for park development, but also
constraints. The status of each is summarized below:
• Cubberley Community Center: The City owns 8 of the 35
acres of this former high school campus and has managed
leases within the buildings with a number of community
organizations and businesses while also scheduling the
gym and field space. The City and the Palo Alto Unified
School District have agreed to jointly master plan the
redevelopment of the site by 2020.
• Foothills Park Expansion: The City acquired 7.7 acres of
land adjacent to Foothills Park and has dedicated it as an
expansion of the park. The expansion is cut off from the
developed portion of the park by the existing maintenance
facility. Discussion of the future of this site is pending the
results of the Buckeye Creek hydrology study, which will be
completed in summer 2017.
• Baylands Athletic Center Expansion: As a result of the
redesign of the Palo Alto Golf Course, 10.5 acres of land
was added to the adjacent Baylands Athletic Center site
for future recreation opportunities. Considerations for
developing this site include its relative isolation from
residences (and access through a complicated and heavily
impacted roadway exchange), its proximity to adjacent
park sites, site limitations due to wetland and its location
below the mean projected high water line after 3 feet of
sea level rise, which could influence the type of recreation
opportunities at the site.
42
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
e
S a n Francisquito Creek
Matad e r o C r e e k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los Altos
Hills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarde
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
Park Search Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Search Areas
Priority School Sites
A
A
B
C
D
E
AddisonElementary School
AddisonElementary School
DuveneckElementary School
DuveneckElementary School
El Carmelo Elementary School
El Carmelo Elementary School
Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary
Jordan Middle School
Jordan Middle School
Palo Verde Elementary School
Palo Verde Elementary School
FIGURE 8: PARK SEARCH AREAS MAP
4342
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los Altos
Hills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarde
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
Park Search Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Search Areas
Priority School Sites
A
A
B
C
D
E
AddisonElementary School
AddisonElementary School
DuveneckElementary School
DuveneckElementary School
El Carmelo Elementary School
El Carmelo Elementary School
Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary
Jordan Middle School
Jordan Middle School
Palo Verde Elementary School
Palo Verde Elementary School
44
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Enhanced Bikeway Features
Recommended Enhanced Bicycle
and Pedestrian Routes
Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails,
San Francisco Bay Trail)
Recommended Park Connectors
1
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
2
2
1
1
3
3 e
S a n F rancisquito Creek
Matader o C r e e k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los Altos
Hills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarde
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
FIGURE 9: BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN ROUTES MAP
4544
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Enhanced Bikeway Features
Recommended Enhanced Bicycle
and Pedestrian Routes
Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails,
San Francisco Bay Trail)
Recommended Park Connectors
1
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
2
2
1
1
3
3 e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los Altos
Hills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarde
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
46
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Pollinator Pathways
Community Gardens
Wetland Habitat
Riparian Connected Parks
Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Mean Projected High Water -
3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA)
Creeks and Channels
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
Natural System Features
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Water Bodies
Urban Canopy Target Areas
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Williams ParkWilliams Park
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in the Bayland Preserve:
Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in San Francisquito Creek:
SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria clover
Valley oak woodland
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtle
Serpentine bunchgrass
Indian Valley bush-mallow
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in Foothills Park:
Western Leatherwood
Valley oak woodland
Regional Habitat
Connection Concept
e
S a n F rancisquito Creek
Matader o C r e e k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charles
t
o
n
R
d
el C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
FIGURE 10: NATURAL SYSTEMS MAP
4746
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Pollinator Pathways
Community Gardens
Wetland Habitat
Riparian Connected Parks
Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Mean Projected High Water -
3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA)
Creeks and Channels
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
Natural System Features
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Water Bodies
Urban Canopy Target Areas
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Williams ParkWilliams Park
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in the Bayland Preserve:
Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in San Francisquito Creek:
SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria clover
Valley oak woodland
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtle
Serpentine bunchgrass
Indian Valley bush-mallow
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in Foothills Park:
Western Leatherwood
Valley oak woodland
Regional Habitat
Connection Concept
e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charles
t
o
n
R
d
el C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
CHAPTER 4
THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS, THE PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY HAS DEFINED A FUTURE FOR PARKS, TRAILS,
NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION. Distilled community input and themes from the analysis process result in principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s long-term vision for the future system.
The principles and goals will be realized through the recommended programs described in this chapter. The recommendations were developed through an assessment of community input and an analysis of needs and opportunities. These recommendations reflect both changing needs and evolving demands for parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation. They are organized within the framework of the eight principles and six goals, with policies and programs following each goal.
OUR FUTURE: PRINCIPLES, GOALSPOLICIES, PROGRAMS & PROJECTS
50
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
A MULTI-LAYERED SYSTEM OF PARK LANDS AND CONNECTIONS THAT SERVE BOTH PEOPLE AND NATURAL SYSTEMS.
5150
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Principles
Building on our assets, our vision for the continuing evolution of the
park system is encapsulated in the following eight principles:
• Playful: Inspires imagination and joy.
• Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and
well-being of individuals as well as the connectedness
and cohesion of the community.
• Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social
resources for a system that endures for the long-term.
• Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community,
all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of
income.
• Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-
round and to get to by all modes of travel.
• Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with
adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional,
emerging and future uses.
• Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of
experience or place, and includes both historic elements
and cutting-edge features, highly manicured and more
organic spaces, and self-directed and programmed
activities.
• Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat
corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and
interact with nature.
Together, these principles provide the foundation for the Master
Plan.
Master Plan Goals
The input from the community, including all twelve Areas of Focus,
form the long term direction for the City’s park and recreation
system. The following six goals state the outcomes and provide an
organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that
form the recommendations of this plan:
1. Provide high-quality facilities and services that are
accessible, inclusive, and distributed equitably across
Palo Alto.
52
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
2. Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the
existing system of parks, recreation, and open space
facilities and services.
3. Create environments that encourage regular active and
passive activities to support health, wellness and social
connections.
4. Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and
ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.
5. Develop innovative programs, services and strategies
for expanding the system
6. Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively,
efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and
qualitative measures.
Recommended Programs
The goals, policies and programs are intended to be a guide for
decision making. Choices will need to be made annually through
the City budget process, recognizing the City has limited resources,
multiple priorities and competing resource needs. The goals, polices
and programs that follow represent a path to a preferred future,
it is aspirational, while also tangible, providing a specific menu of
potential investment and resource allocation opportunities for the
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation system. Chapter
5 provides tools and recommendations on how the community and
City can effectively evaluate options and make sound and reliable
choices to improve the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and
Recreation system.
Each goal is numbered, and under each goal a list of related
policies is provided. The policies are numbered according to goal
and ordered by letter for easy reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 2.A, 2.B,
etc.). Most policies are followed by a list of programs, which have
complementary numbering (1.A.1, 1.A.2, 2.A.1, etc.). The numbering
is for reference only. Prioritization is covered in Chapter 5.
5352
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto.
Policy
1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision
of programs and services and the facilitation of
partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that:
• Advance skills, build community and improve the quality
of life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth,
teens and seniors; and
• Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased
number of locations that are well distributed throughout
the city.
PROGRAMS
1.A.1 Periodically evaluate the use and effectiveness of the Fee
Reduction Program for low income and disabled residents.
1.A.2 Develop free or low cost teen programs that develop
life skills and developmental assets, such as leadership,
community service and health.
1.A.3 Develop a teen advisory committee to provide feedback on
newly proposed parks, recreation and open space projects
and programs.
1.A.4 Partner with local recreation providers to relocate existing
programs or offer new programs in Palo Alto parks.
1.A.5 Recruit or develop programs for additional and alternative
sports that can take place in existing parks and make use
of existing outdoor recreation facilities. Examples include
cross country running, track and field, rugby and pickleball
1.A.6 Expand offerings of preserves’ interpretive facilities to area
schools through curriculum packages (backpacks, crates,
etc.) that can be brought into the field or the classroom.
1.A.7 Evaluate the geographic distribution of program offerings
and make adjustments to equally offer programs
throughout the City.
Williams Park
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
VenturaCommunityCenter
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
SAN MATEO COUNTY
STANFORD
0 10.5
Miles
²
Draft Park Search Areas,
Priority School Sites andOther City-Owned Property
12.8.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, .ATURAL Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainViewLosAltos
Los AltosHills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
EastPalo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City-owned Property
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Privatetrail with public access
Private Recreation Route
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City; Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo CountySan
A Park Search Areas
Park Search Areas
kk BowBowParkarkPark
e P rkeen Park
SarahSarah
ParkPark
S
w edwdwddenenennene
Johnson Johnson
BoBoGre
swell Plazaswell Plaza
LyttonLyttonPlazaPlaza
KelloggKellogg
Hopkins opknsHopkins eekside Parkeekside Park
Scott ParkScott Park
tageHeritageerHeritage
anoeanoardearderPararPar
wlinwlingeeParkeen Park
EEEEeaaanEElElEElleeaeaeaeaeanPParPPPPaaPaPrdPPa
PaaarkrkkPPaaaPrkrkkkk
kark
eePPP rrarkkPkkePPPPParararkkkk
BaylandsBaylands Athletic Athletic rntCtCenter
reerGreerarkPark
conada Parkknconadnconada Park
ororekkkk
RinRin
gling
a kkakkkPaPPrkkrk
BoBoBolParkPark
obles PaRobles Pa
Briones Parki PkBriones Park
lto g Fieldsssldg Fields
yCommunity
RRoRoRoRoRR
BBB
yyyyyCotyyyyCoCoCCCCoCoCoCoommmmmmnnununnuutitittiyyyyyrrrtCetCentntnterererrree
MitcheMMitchellPrkarkkPark
SealSealerrPParkPark
RaRamoRamoParkPark
CubbCubb
¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££
BoulwBoulw
oover Parkoover ParkHoover Park
SS
VenturaVenturatityVVVettVeVeVeVeVentntnoooooommmmmmmmmmununnuunuititittiyyy
rrrrrrrrwarreePPPakkkkkwaaarreeePPPParararararrrkkkkkkkkk
BBaBarBarronronCC
BarBarronC
BBaBrrronCCCCrCreekeekCreekCekkkkk
BarBarronronCrCreekeekkk
A
B
C
D
E
AddisonElementary School
AddisonElementary School
DuveneckElementary SchoolDuveneckElementary School
Palo Verde Elementary School
El Carmelo Elementary SchoolEl Carmelo Elementary School
Ohlone Elementary SchoolOhlone Elementary School
Jordan Middle SchoolJordan Middle School
Palo Verde Elementary School
04.01.2016
Figure 12: Park Search Areas Map
Williams ParkWilliams Park
Evaluation - geographic distribution of program offerings
54
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.B Expand parkland inventory using the National
Recreation and Park Association standard as a
guide (see sidebar) for park development in Palo
Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should
be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4
acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand
with population, be well distributed across the
community and of sufficient size to meet the varied
needs of neighborhoods and the broader community.
Maximum service area should be one-half mile.
PROGRAMS
1.B.1 Develop design standards for privately-owned public open
spaces (POPOS) that clearly set the expectation for public
access, recreation activities and natural elements. .
1.B.2 Establish a system in the City’s real estate office that
identifies land being sold and reviews it for park potential,
prioritizing review of land within park search areas. (See
Figure8: Park Search Areas).
1.B.3 Review all city owned land and easements (starting in
park search areas) for potential parkland development or
connection locations. (See Figure 8: Park Search Areas and
Figure 9: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes to Parks and
Recreation Facilities).
1.B.4 Examine City-owned right-of-way (streets, which make
up the biggest portion of publicly owned land) to identify
temporary or permanent areas for improvements that
connect or add recreation activity space. (Examples:
California Ave., Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Parklets).
1.B.5 Identify and approach community organizations and
institutions that own land in park search areas to create
long-term agreements and improvements for public park
space. (Examples: Friendship Sportsplex, New Riverside
Park).
1.B.6 Create usable park space, or other recreational
opportunities, on top of utilities, parking or other
infrastructure uses. (Examples: Anaheim Utility Park, UC
Berkeley Underhill Parking Structure, Portland’s Director
Park, Stanford University Wilbur Field Garage).
Privately-Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) are built and managed by private entities and are required to allow public access.
POPULATION STANDARDS
Formula for calculating level
of service:
Acreage/Population x 1,000
Example:
City park acreage: 174
Population (2013): 66,368
174 acres/66,368 people
x1,000 = 2.62 acres/1,000
5554
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
1.B.7 Monitor properties adjacent to parks that are smaller than
the minimum recommended size for potential acquisition
to expand existing parks.
1.B.8 Increase collections through revised or alternative park
impact fee structures that are sufficient to expand
inventory. Develop a system to reserve funds for parkland
acquisition and proactively pursue strategic opportunities
for expansion.
1.B.9 Acquire and develop a new neighborhood park in each park
search area, starting with the most underserved areas
and targeting a central and well-connected location to
maximize access.
1.B.10 Develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links
parks and creates open space and habitat corridor.
1.B.11 Incorporate other underutilized City-owned outdoor
spaces for park and recreational programming.
1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City-controlled spaces
serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational
uses, where appropriate (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble
Gardens, Rinconada Community Gardens, GreenWaste
Facility at the former PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage
Treatment Plan, Kingsley Island).
Policy
1.C Ensure the maximum distance between residents’
homes and the nearest public park or preserve is
1/2-mile, 1/4-mile preferred, that is evaluated using
a walkshed methodology based on how people travel.
PROGRAMS
1.C.1 Maintain the City’s digital map developed during this
Master Plan process, updating for new activities and
access points.
1.C.2 Establish a review step in the Planning and Community
Environment Department for any major redevelopment or
the purchase/sale of any City land in the park search areas.
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Enhanced Bikeway Features
Recommended Enhanced Bicycle
and Pedestrian Routes
Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail)
Recommended Park Connectors
1
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
2
2
1
1
3
3 e
San Francisquito Creek
Matade ro Cr eek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
MountainView
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarde
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charlest
o
n
R
d
el C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Inventory of well-distributed parkland
56
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.D Adopt the wayfinding signage used at Rinconada
Park as the standard for Palo Alto parks and provide
standardized directory signs for all large parks,
preserves and athletic field complexes.
PROGRAMS
1.D.1 Create and implement a signage and wayfinding program
that conveys the park system identity, incorporates art,
connects bike paths to parks and enhances the experience
of park visitors.
1.D.2 Install directional signs at parks that include the walking
time to the next nearest park or parks.
Policy
1.E Apply universal design principles as the preferred
guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to
exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
PROGRAMS
1.E.1 Create a process to address adaptive program requests for
individuals with cognitive, sensory, and physical disabilities
(to be coordinated with upcoming ADA Transition Plan).
1.E.2 Adopt a standard of universal park design for accessibility
and/or upgrade play areas and picnic facilities to meet or
exceed the standard. (Note: a source and reference will be
added.)
1.E.3 Upgrade Open Space trails to be more universally
accessible where environmentally appropriate.
Policy
1.F Maintain a Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use
Policy as well as the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well
as any subsequent updates) to guide the allocation of
these recreation facilities with a preference for youth
and Palo Alto residents.
PROGRAMS
1.F.1 Periodically review the existing Field and Tennis Court
Brokering and Use Policy and Gymnasium Policy and
update as needed.
Universally accessible children’s park facilities
5756
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
1.F.2 Develop an annual field usage statistics report, including
number of prime timeslots that were unused due to field
condition/resting and the number of requests for field
space that were unfilled due to capacity.
Policy
1.G Encourage walking and biking as a way of getting to
and from parks, supporting implementation of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
PROGRAMS
1.G.1 Select parks as destinations along routes for “Ciclovia” or
“Sunday Streets” type events where streets are closed
to traffic and opened up for citizens of all ages to interact
with each other through exercise, entertainment and fun.
1.G.2 Provide bike parking for cyclists as a standard feature at
parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers.
1.G.3 Provide, identify and mark “Safe Routes to Parks” from
locations such as schools, shopping centers, libraries,
after-school programs, community centers, and residential
neighborhoods;
1.G.4 Educate residents about the city’s Bike Boulevards –
streets prioritized for bicycles – to promote greater use,
and plan new Bike Boulevard projects that connect parks,
open spaces and recreation facilities.
1.G.5 Identify gaps in the walking and cycling network to
improve access to parks, open spaces, preserves and
community centers, including sidewalk repairs, easements,
trail improvements/repair and improved pedestrian
visibility.
1.G.6 Collaborate with school communities to enhance routes to
schools, especially where they pass through parks.
1.G.7 Develop a regular bicycle and walking tour of Palo Alto
parks and preserves as a new recreation program. Develop
online materials for self-guided tours.
1.G.8 Improve trail connections to neighboring communities
(Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Stanford
University, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View,
East Palo Alto, etc.)
58
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.H Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and
programs to encourage and enhance citizen
participation.
PROGRAMS
1.H.1 Conduct a survey at least every two years of cultural
groups to identify gaps barriers to access, preferred
design, and awareness in recreation programming.
1.H.2 Provide multi-cultural and multi-lingual recreation
programs, signage, and educational information.
1.H.3 Encourage and provide opportunities for civic engagement
by directly connecting with cultural groups.
Policy
1.I Increase stewardship and volunteerism by creating
and promoting opportunities for youth and adults to
participate in parks, recreation, open space events,
projects and programs.
PROGRAMS
1.I.1 Create a robust volunteer recruitment and management
program.
1.I.2 Continue to offer volunteer habitat and landscape
improvement projects, and support partnership
organizations that offer volunteer programs in Parks and
Open Space areas.
Hispanic/Latino focus group
5958
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services.
Policy
2.A Sustain the community’s investment in parks and
recreation facilities.
PROGRAMS
2.A.1 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to
develop and implement a vision and master plan for the
future of the Cubberley Community Center.
2.A.2 Continue to program and prioritize projects for existing
facilities as identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission report, and plan the keep up of new facilities
as they come on line, recognizing their expected lifespan
and revised based on real-world experience.
2.A.3 Research best practices to design park and recreational
facilities that can be maintained with existing or lower
budgets.
2.A.4 Encourage residents to organize and participate in park
maintenance and cleanup events to foster a sense of
ownership, establish social connections, and reduce
maintenance costs.
2.A.5 Develop a proactive Asset Management Program to
maintain existing park and recreation infrastructure.
2.A.6 Provide additional lighting to enhance park safety and
expand park use to dusk while minimizing impacts to
wildlife.
2.A.7 Find ways to mitigate conflicts between different trail user
groups, particularly in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve
where bicyclists, equestrians, and hikers share trails.
Volunteers assisting with maintenance of a natural area
Recreation facilities
60
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
2.B Provide opportunities for creative expression in park
and recreation facilities and programs.
PROGRAMS
2.B.1 Incorporate artists and art into youth recreation
programming, particularly day camps, utilizing the
expertise of the Arts and Sciences Division.
2.B.2 Create outdoor studios and program spaces for creating
art in parks (coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan).
2.B.3 Encourage the community to participate in more
expressive projects led by the department, such as
community mural projects in facilities, pop-up open mics
or chalk art programs in parks.
2.B.4 Continue to provide “maker” space to Palo Alto teens to
encourage creative thinking and expression.
Policy
2.C Design and maintain high quality natural and
synthetic turf fields to support maximum use in parks
by multiple local organized sports and casual users
with areas large enough for practice or play.
PROGRAMS
2.C.1 Conduct an athletic field condition and maintenance
assessment of the City’s natural turf fields, and
upgrade fields at select parks to high quality natural turf
standards including irrigation system upgrades, drainage
improvements, etc. The field assessment report should
include analysis and recommendations regarding the soil
profile, agronomy, irrigation systems, field slope, drainage,
field-use demand, and maintenance.
2.C.2 Actively monitor and track industry developments and
the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic
turf to understand the environmental and human safety
impacts of our existing synthetic turf fields.
2.C.3 Assess the type of turf (new synthetic turf product or
natural turf) that should be used when replacing an
existing synthetic turf field that is due for replacement.
Natural turf sports fields
6160
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
2.C.4 Synthetic turf fields should be striped for multiple sports
to maximize use. Whenever possible, synthetic turf playing
fields should have lights in order to maximize use of the
field.
Policy
2.D Actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks
in multiple neighborhoods, equitably distributed
between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the
dog parks will vary, but should strive to be at least .25
acres. Dog parks should not be placed in Open Space
Preserves.
PROGRAMS
2.D.1 The City will evaluate and select at least six dedicated,
fenced dog parks, equitably distributed across north
and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential
locations:
• Eleanor Pardee Park (North, .41 Acres)-Near Term
• Bowden Park (North, .37 Acres)-Near Term
• Greer Park (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres)
• Peers Park (North, .73 Acres)
• Hoover Park (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre)
• Robles Park (South, .47 Acres)
• Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres)
• Kingsley Island Park (North, .27 Acres)
• Werry Park (North, .31 Acres)
• Juana Briones Park (South, .47 Acres)
• Heritage Park (North, .27 Acres)
*We acknowledge that Hoover and Greer’s current dog parks are
inadequate in terms of size, and they should not be counted in
their current configuration towards the minimum of six dog parks
recommended in this program.
2.D.2 Develop rules and regulations specific to dog parks
focusing on safety and limits of use.
High quality, high use dog parks
62
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
2.E The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms in
parks that are approximately two acres or larger, have
amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the park,
have high level of use, and where there are no nearby
public restrooms available.
PROGRAMS
2.E.1 Develop a restroom standard, in collaboration with the
Architectural Review Board, for neighborhood parks.
2.E.2 The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the
following potential locations:
• Bol Park
• Bowden Park
• Eleanor Pardee Park
• Johnson Park
• Ramos Park
• Robles Park
• Terman Park
Policy
2.F Develop additional community gardens focusing
on underrepresented areas of the City, and provide
community engagement opportunities around
gardens.
Policy
2.G At least every five years, quantitatively evaluate
demand and capacity of major recreation facilities
including pools, gyms, tennis courts, and teen
centers with appropriate attention to geographical
distribution in the city. Adjust plans as appropriate
to accommodate significant demographic or demand
changes.
Community gardens
6362
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections.
Policy
3.A Implement the Healthy City Healthy Community
resolution with the community’s involvement.
PROGRAMS
3.A.1 Convene and lead a Healthy City Healthy Community
stakeholder work group consisting of other agencies,
nonprofit organizations and citizens that supports building
a healthy community.
3.A.2 Develop an annual plan that supports implementation of
the resolution.
3.A.3 Achieve designation as an Age-Friendly Community.
3.A.4 Add drop-in programs (free or BOOST!) focused on physical
and mental health in settings that are near home/work
and maximize the health benefits of being outside and
surrounded by nature.
3.A.5 Connect walking paths within and between parks to create
loop options of varying length that encourage walking and
jogging.
3.A.6 Enhance seating areas to take advantage of quiet spaces
or to create opportunities for social interaction.
3.A.7 Promote and enforce the ban on smoking in Palo Alto’s
parks through a marketing campaign and signage program.
3.A.8 Upgrade or add drinking fountains with water bottle filling
and water for dogs.
3.A.9 Develop adult fitness areas in parks including exercise
areas for the exclusive use of older adults (seniors).
Policy
3.B Incorporate art into park design and recreation
programming (consistent with the Public Art Master
Plan).
HEALTHY CITY /
HEALTHY COMMUNITY
In 2015, the City Council
adopted a resolution
recognizing its role and
responsibility to promote
and support a Healthy City/
Healthy Community. Four
areas of action are identified
in this resolution:
• Healthy Culture
• Healthy Environment
• Healthy Food Access
• Healthy Workplace
Bicycling and walking path promoting outdoor fitness
64
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
3.B.1 Promote temporary public art installations in local parks.
3.B.2 Promote interactive public art features that also serve as
play features (i.e. climbable sculptural elements integrated
into the natural environment that invite touch and
exploration).
3.B.3 Update park design policies to incorporate artistic
elements consistent with the Public Art Master Plan.
3.B.4 Commission artwork that interprets local history, events
and significant individuals; represents City core values of
sustainability, youth well-being, health, innovation.
3.B.5 Bring in performance-based work, social practice,
temporary art and community art.
3.B.6 Explore suitable art for preserves and natural areas.
3.B.7 Incorporate public art in the earliest stages of the design of
parks and facilities that may utilize wind direction, sunlight
and ambient sound (Coordinated with the Public Art
Master Plan).
3.B.8 Install permanent and temporary installations and exhibits
in well-trafficked parks and plazas, following the guidance
of the Public Art Master Plan.
3.B.9 Integrate functional public art into play areas, seatwalls
and other built features in parks across the system.
3.B.10 Integrate art and nature into bike lanes, routes and paths
as appropriate.
Policy
3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces
that are provided through the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance meet Palo Alto design guidelines and
standards for publicly owned parks, allow public
access, and are designed to support recreation,
incorporate natural ecosystem elements and comply
with the policies of the Urban Forest Master Plan.
PROGRAMS
3.C.1 Develop and apply clear expectations and definitions of
public access (hours, rules) for privately owned public
spaces.
Public art in Palo Alto
6564
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and integrate nature, natural ecosystems and ecological principles throughout
Palo Alto.
Policy
4.A In Natural Open Space, ensure activities, projects
and programs are compatible with the protection of
nature.
PROGRAMS
4.A.1 Develop comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands
Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park, and Pearson-
Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance
ecosystem preservation, passive recreation, and
environmental education.
4.A.2 Continue to work with partnership organizations to
remove invasive weeds and plant native plants and trees
in riparian and natural open space areas.
4.A.3 Update the Arastradero Preserve Trail Master Plan (March
2001) and the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan (
January 2002), and incorporate into in the Foothills Park,
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Project.
Policy
4.B Connect people to nature and the outdoors through
education and recreation programming.
PROGRAMS
4.B.1 Expand access to nature through elements and
interpretive features that explore ecological processes,
historical context, adjacent waterways, specific plant/
animal species that can be encountered onsite and
elements tailored to be of interest to youth as well as
multiple ages, cultures and abilities.
4.B.2 Update or rebuild interpretive centers with modern
interactive exhibits.
4.B.3 Improve and increase access to creeks for learning and
stewardship experiences by designing access points that
minimize impact on the waterway.
Natural Open Spaces
66
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
4.B.4 Expand programs such as Foothills camps to connect
youth with parks year-round.
4.B.5 Partner with boys/girls scouting organizations for outdoor
education programs and/or the Junior Rangers program.
4.B.6 Expand and increase events that educate and promote
native plants, species and wildlife.
4.B.7 Provide shade for play areas using shade trees as the
preferred solution.
4.B.8 Update and improve the Toyon Trail Interpretive Guide to
make it more engaging and educational.
4.B.9 Develop a Trail Interpretive Guide for Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve and the Baylands Nature Preserve.
Policy
4.C Connect natural areas, open spaces, creeks and
vegetated areas in parks and on public land to create
wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by
planting with native oaks and other species that
support pollinators or provide high habitat values.
PROGRAMS
4.C.1 Develop a map that identifies locations for habitat
corridors including the appropriate plant palette for each
corridor.
4.C.2 Work with local environmental groups to grow native plant
species and utilize their network of volunteers to install
and maintain planted areas.
4.C.3 Establish low-impact buffer zones with native plant
species along creeks to enhance habitat value.
Policy
4.D Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural
areas in parks and open space.
PROGRAMS
4.D.1 Identify and pursue strategies and opportunities to expand
native trees and planting areas in urban parks.
4.D.2 Integrate and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan
Policies and Programs as applicable to parkland in Palo
Alto.
Nature education programming
6766
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
4.D.3 Update the preferred planting palette and approved tree
species list.
4.D.4 Collaborate with habitat restoration organizations such as
Save the Bay, Canopy and Acterra.
4.D.5 Replace low-use turf areas with native shrubs and
grasses, incorporating educational elements about native
habitats.
4.D.6 Support regional efforts that focus on enhancing and
protecting significant natural resources.
4.D.7 Utilizing volunteers, expand programs to remove invasive
species, and to plant native vegetation in open space,
parks, and creek corridors.
4.D.8 Collaborate with regional partners to control the spread of
invasive species and plant pathogens.
Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and
strategies for expanding the park and recreation system.
Policy
5.A Identify and pursue strategies to activate underused
parks and recreation facilities
PROGRAMS
5.A.1 Implement short-term placemaking improvements
(flexible, small scale interventions such as seating, art,
programming or planters that have minimal capital cost) to
attract users and experiment with potential longer-term
options.
5.A.2 Emphasize flexibility and layering uses (allowing for
different uses at different times of day, week, etc.) in
parks over installing fixed-use equipment and single-use
facilities.
5.A.3 Expand Day Camp program opportunities, utilizing all
preserves and more local park sites and additional topic
areas, to meet excess demand.
5.A.4 Leverage social media and develop marketing materials
to encourage “pop-up” recreational activities in rotating
parks.
Underhill Parking Garage at UC Berkeley includes a full size soccer field built over a 1,000 space, four-level parking facility.
68
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
5.A.5 Create small (10-12 people) and medium-sized (20-25
people) group picnic areas that can be used for both picnics
and programming.
5.A.6 Assess high-demand park features and identify those that
can be added or relocated to low use parks.
Policy
5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and
park features and amenities.
PROGRAMS
5.B.1 Review program data based on clearly communicated
objectives for reach, impact, attendance and financial
performance.
5.B.2 Retire, end or refresh programs that require staff, facility
and financial resources but do not achieve program
objectives, thereby freeing up resources for new programs.
5.B.3 Actively develop a small number of pilot programs each
year to test new ideas, locations and target audiences.
5.B.4 Build on partnership with Avenidas to expand
intergenerational programming as well as additional older
adult programming.
5.B.5 Expand BOOST!, the pay-per-use exercise class system to
cover fees for any drop-in classes or facility use (lap swim,
drop-in gym time, new programs in parks).
5.B.6 Set goal of 10% new program offerings each season; new
programs should be offered based on needs assessment,
industry trends, and/or class evaluation data.
5.B.7 Create a robust marketing and outreach program to
highlight new and innovative programs to community.
5.B.8 Develop short-term recreation access strategies (such as
temporary use agreements for vacant or park like property)
and seek long-term or permanent park and recreation
space in each park search area. Actively recruit property
and facility owners to participate in the development of
the short- and long-term strategies.
5.B.9 Explore addition of intramural sports for middle and high
school students through a partnership with Palo Alto
Unified School District.
Examples of placemaking improvements
6968
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
5.B.10 Provide opportunities for “pickup” or non-league sports
activities at City parks and recreation facilities.
Policy
5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system
through repurposing public land, partnering with
other organizations for shared land, incorporating
public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops, if
appropriate, and other creative means to help address
shortages of available land.
PROGRAMS
5.C.1 Explore a process to utilize and reserve select public and
private lands for “parklike” functions that allows for more
flexibility than formal park dedication.
Policy
5.D Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland
to optimize for long-term community benefit.
PROGRAMS
5.D.1 Determine optimal usage for Foothill Park’s 7.7 acres of
parkland.
5.D.2 Evaluate optimal usage, including open space, for 10.5-
acre land bank created by golf course reconstruction.
5.D.3 Evaluate feasible uses for the south end of El Camino Park.
Policy
5.E Explore and experiment with parklets and other
temporary park spaces for both long and short-term
uses.
Policy
5.F Enhance partnerships and collaborations with Palo
Alto Unified School District and Stanford University
to support access and joint use of facilities, where
appropriate for effective delivery of services and
programs.
PARKLET:
An inexpensive infrastructure
investment that creates a
public gathering space or
small park from on-street
parking spaces.
Parklet on Noriega Street in San Francisco
70
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
5.F.1 Partner with PAUSD to open middle and high school
recreation facilities for community use (basketball,
badminton, indoor soccer, swimming pools, tennis courts)
during the evening, weekend, and summer hours.
5.F.2 Develop a steering committee that consists of key
officials from the City, PAUSD and Stanford to develop
partnership agreements and connect facility managers and
programmers.
5.F.3 Increase access to PAUSD public schools (outside of school
hours) to increase the availability of recreation activity
spaces. Target school sites that are within or adjacent to
“park search areas.”
5.F.4 Partner with Stanford to create or increase access to
athletic facilities and other recreational facilities for Palo
Alto residents.
5.F.5 Develop a common reservation system for community
access to shared facilities.
Policy
5.G Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation
programming, capital improvement projects and
facility maintenance.
PROGRAMS
5.G.1 Encourage foundations to assist with soliciting
sponsorships and grants.
5.G.2 Create a more formalized annual or one-time sponsorship
program that provides the donor with marketing and
promotional opportunities.
5.G.3 Contract or add job responsibilities for managing
fundraising and developing donors for the park system to
pursue funding opportunities and sponsorships.
5.G.4 Engage nonprofit friends groups to seek donor funding,
including foundation grants, corporate giving and small and
major philanthropic gifts by individuals, for priority projects
and programs.
Fitness program
7170
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
5.H Partner with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District and other land conservation groups to expand
access to open space through new acquisitions and
improved connections.
Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures.
Policy
6.A At least every five years actively review demographic
trends and interests of city population by segment
for critical drivers of facility usage including
schoolchildren, teens, seniors and ethnic groups, and
adjust programs and plans accordingly.
PROGRAMS
6.A.1 Create pilot recreation programs to test the public’s
interest in new types of classes, events and activities
utilizing an evaluation process.
6.A.2 Initiate a community-wide focus group on an annual basis
to provide feedback on programs, facilities and long-term
roadmaps.
6.A.3 Create a streamlined and effective quarterly survey system
that solicits feedback from customers, including program
participants, facility renters, and the general community.
Policy
6.B Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for
recreation programs, refining the cost and fees using
the most current information available.
PROGRAMS
6.B.1 Periodically benchmark the City’s Cost Recovery Policy
against other cities’ cost recovery models.
6.B.2 Invest in and market city facilities to increase revenue for
cost recovery.
72
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
6.C Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an
entire park site) for events by outside organizations
that are closed to the general public.
PROGRAMS
6.C.1 No exclusive use of parks by private parties is permitted
on peak days (e.g., weekend, holidays) or peak times (e.g.,
evening hours on weekdays, 10 am – 6 pm on weekends)
as defined by Community Services staff unless approved in
advance by the Director of Community Services. Exclusive
use of certain sites and facilities within parks, such as
reservable spaces like picnic areas, is generally permitted
during peak days and times.
6.C.2 Exclusive use of parks for locally focused events that allow
registration by the general public (e.g., races, obstacle
course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff
if consistent with this Master Plan.
6.C.3 Private events that are closed to the general public (e.g.,
corporate events, private weddings) and are intended
to use an entire park (rather than a reservable space in
excess of capacities as defined in the Special Event Permit
procedures) may only be considered outside of peak
days and times as defined by Community Services staff.
These events should recover 100% of all associated costs,
including wear and tear on public parks and facilities.
6.C.4 Events that allow public access are permitted, in
accordance with Special Event Permit procedures.
Policy
6.D Periodically review and update existing guidance
for development, operations, and maintenance of
Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces, and
Recreation system based on the best practices in the
industry and this Master Plan, including:
• Park Rules and Regulations;
• Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook;
7372
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
• City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards;
• City of Palo Alto design guidelines and standards; and
• Tree Technical Manual.
Policy
6.E Incorporate sustainable best practices in the
maintenance, management, and development of
open spaces, parks, and recreation facilities where
consistent with ecological best practices.
PROGRAMS
6.E.1 Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including
allocating funding to retrofit facilities for energy efficiency
with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and
low-emissive window glass where applicable.
6.E.2 Conduct energy audits for all facilities, establish an energy
baseline for operations, benchmark energy performance
against comparable facilities, and implement energy
tracking and management systems for all park facilities
and operations.
6.E.3 Select Energy Star and equivalent energy-efficient
products for Park equipment purchases.
6.E.4 Expand the collection and use of solar power (parking lots,
roofs) and other renewable energy sources at parks and
facilities (e.g. pools).
6.E.5 Provide convenient and well-marked compost and
recycling receptacles throughout the park system, in
recreation facilities and at special events.
6.E.6 Ensure that trash, recycling, and compost receptacles have
covers to prevent wildlife access to human food sources.
6.E.7 Review purchasing policies and improve employee
education to reduce overall consumption of materials
throughout the system.
6.E.8 Procure environmentally preferable products (as required
by the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy)
as the “default” purchasing option.
Solar installation
74
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
6.E.9 Initiate composting of green waste within the park system.
6.E.10 Work with Public Works to replace the vehicle fleet with
electric vehicles whenever practical.
6.E.11 Install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at park
facilities with parking lots.
6.E.12 Enforce a “No Idle” program with vehicles and other gas-
powered equipment.
6.E.13 Conduct water audits for all parks and recreation facilities
and park operations.
6.E.14 Install high-efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks and showers in
all facilities.
6.E.15 Extend recycled water use to more park sites.
6.E.16 Explore water capture opportunities in parks for irrigation
and recycling.
6.E.17 Ensure any irrigation systems on public landscapes are
run by a smart controller and/or sensors and that staff are
trained in programming them.
6.E.18 Link all park facilities to a centralized irrigation
management system to maximize water use efficiency.
6.E.19 Promote urban greening by integrating storm water
design into planting beds, reducing irrigation and providing
interpretive information about park contributions to city
water quality.
6.E.20 Train City maintenance staff and include specific standards
and expectations in maintenance contracts for the
care of low-water, naturalized landscapes, natural play
environments and other new types of features in the
system.
6.E.21 Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits
will be consistent with sustainable design principles
and practices. This includes evaluating all projects
for opportunities to implement Green Stormwater
Infrastructure such as bioswales, stormwater planters,
rain gardens, permeable pavers and porous concrete and
asphalt.
Palo Alto park maintenance
7574
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
6.E.22 Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins
and rain gardens to retain and treat storm water.
Policy
6.F Strengthen the Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”)
policy as written. While some parks may be managed
as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM
should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded
in the best available science on pest prevention and
management.
PROGRAMS
6.F.1 Periodically review and update the IPM policy based on
best available data and technology.
Policy
6.G Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at
parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community
centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality
standards.
PROGRAMS
6.G.1 Locate garbage and recycling receptacles in a single
location that is easily accessible by maintenance staff and
vehicles.
6.G.2 Explore high capacity, compacting and smart garbage and
recycling receptacles that can reduce the frequency of
regular collection.
6.G.3 Select standardized furnishing palettes for durability,
vandal-resistance and ease of repair.
Example of urban greening/green infrastructure
76
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
6.H Coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans
to ensure consistency, including:
• Baylands Master Plan;
• Urban Forest Master Plan;
• Urban Water Master Plan;
• Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP);
• Water Reclamation Master Plan;
• Recycled Water Project;
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan;
• Comprehensive Plan;
• Others adopted in the future; and
• Public Art Master Plan.
Policy
6.I Continue to engage other relevant City departments
and divisions in planning, design and programming,
drawing on the unique and specialized skills and
perspectives of:
• City Managers Office;
• The Palo Alto Art Center;
• Library, including Children’s Library;
• Junior Museum and Zoo;
• Children’s Theatre;
• Public Art;
• Transportation;
• Urban Forestry;
• Planning;
• Public Works; and
• Palo Alto Youth and Teen Leadership.
Accessible garbage and recycling receptacles
7776
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
6.J Participate in and support implementation of regional
plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space
and trails, such as:
• 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision;
• Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and
• Land Use near Streams in Santa Clara County.
CHAPTER5
IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER FIVE (CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT) WILL BE
INSERTED HERE
48
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
CREATE ENVIRONMENTS THAT ENCOURAGE REGULAR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE ACTIVITIES
8786
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Glossary
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Capital Project: Any physical improvement with a minimal cost of
$50,000, a useful life of at least 5-7 years or that extend the life
of an existing asset by at least 5 years. Planning and design are
considered a part of a capital project.
Creek/Riparian Enhancement: Conceptual enhancement
opportunity for all of the creeks passing through Palo Alto.
Element: One of three divisions of the plan for analysis purposes:
parks, trails and natural open space; recreation facilities; and
recreation programs.
Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route: A concept to improve
routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to
create a network of high quality on and off street connections
that link parks. These routes are envisioned to have enhanced
crossings, street treatments and other improvements beyond the
bicycle infrastructure outlined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Streetscape and plantings are also linked to the idea of Pollinator
Pathways.
Facility: A built feature in a park or preserve that adds, supports or
enhances a recreation activity.
Goals: A broad statement of direction describing the desired end
state. Goals are qualitative in nature, and collectively should achieve
the system envisioned by the principles.
Mean Projected High Water 3ft Sea Level Rise: The line at
which water meets the land surface at the mean high water point
projected in NOAA models for 3 feet of sea level rise.
Natural Open Space Preserve: A category of park land that is
designated to protect and provide access to nature. The four
natural open space preserves are: Baylands Preserve (which
includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park and
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve.
Park Connector: A conceptual second tier of enhanced bicycle and
pedestrian route that links the major routes to a few isolated sites.
Park Search Area: The inverse of the park service areas,
highlighting the areas outside of a ½ mile walk from any park
land. These areas are the targets for strategies to add to the park
system.
8888
Policy: A values-based framework that provides clear direction and
guides an action toward achieving the goal. Policies state what will
be done, but not how.
Pollinator Pathway: A concept for pathyways, utilizing the
Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route network, that feature
plantings and tree canopy along the streetscape to enhance habitat
connections for birds and insects with multiple benefits including
enhancing pollination.
Principles: A fundamental basis that describes a desired state or
preferred direction. Collectively, the principles articulate the Palo
Alto community’s vision for the future parks, trails, natural open
space and recreation system.
Recreation Program: A class, league, camp, tour or event that
facilitates participating in an activity
Riparian Connected Parks: Sites with a creek (natural or
channelized) passing through or adjacent.
Universal Design: “The concept of designing all products and the
built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent
possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in
life.” - Ronald L. Mace of North Carolina State University, College of
Design
Urban Canopy Target Area: The lowest canopy coverage
neighborhoods in the Urban Forestry Master Plan (0-30%
coverage).
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Glossary
8988
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
88
Bibliography
Documents
1. Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections and Priorities: 2009. Building Momentum.”
2. Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections 2013.”
3. City of Palo Alto, Administrative Services Department. “2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report.” June 30, 2015.
4. City of Palo Alto City Manager. “Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Foothills
Fire Management Plan.” May 18, 2009. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/
documents/15866
5. City of Palo Alto. “Blue Ribbon Infrastructure Advisory Committee Report: Palo Alto’s Infrastructure:
Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead.” December 21, 2012. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/
civicax/filebank/documents/29729
6. City of Palo Alto. “Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.” July 2012.
7. City of Palo Alto. Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects.” March 17, 2014. https://www.cityofpaloalto.
org/civicax/filebank/documents/39437.
8. City of Palo Alto. “Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan.” February 2012. http://www.cityofpaloalto.
org/civicax/filebank/documents/28774
9. City of Palo Alto. Climate Protection Plan. December 3, 2007. www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/
filebank/documents/9986
10. City of Palo Alto. “Citizen Centric Report for Fiscal Year 2013.” March 17, 2014.
11. City of Palo Alto. “City of Palo Alto Field and Tennis Court Use Policy.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/
civicax/filebank/documents/38719
12. City of Palo Alto. City Council Informational Report. “Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011.”
March 5, 2012
13. City of Palo Alto, City Manager’s Office. “Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Foothills Fire Management Plan.” May 18, 2009.
14. City of Palo Alto, Community Service Department. “Adoption of Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities
Resolution.” October 26, 2015.
15. City of Palo Alto, Community Services and Public Works Department. “Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Staff Report.” October 23, 2012.
16. City of Palo Alto. Community Services Class Cost Recovery Policy. Adopted by Council November 26,
2007.
17. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR: Biological Resources.” February 5, 2016.
90
18. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update: Population, Housing, and Employment.” August 29,
2014.
19. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update: Public Services.” August 29, 2014.
20. City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment. “Tree Technical Manual:
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030.” June 2001. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/
filebank/documents/6937.
21. City of Palo Alto Department of Utilities, Utility Marketing Services in cooperation with the
Department of Water Resources. January 2009. “Landscape Standards.” http://www.cityofpaloalto.
org/civicax/filebank/documents/18226.
22. City of Palo Alto. “Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers, and Libraries.” October
2001.
23. City of Palo Alto. “Development Impact Fees.” August 17, 2015.
24. City of Palo Alto. “Field and Tennis Court Use Policy.” June 2013.
25. City of Palo Alto, Finance Committee. “Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees.” May 6,
2014.
26. City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2013 Adopted Capital Budget.” April 30, 2012.
27. City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Operating Budget.” August 5, 2013.
28. City of Palo Alto. “The National Citizen Survey.” January 23, 2015.
29. City of Palo Alto. “Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan.” 4th Edition. 2008.
30. City of Palo Alto. “Palo Alto Municipal Code.” www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/
paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca
31. City of Palo Alto. “Performance Report for FY 2013.” March 17, 2014.
32. City of Palo Alto. “Public Art Master Plan.” Revised Draft. April 18, 2016.
33. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department. “Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl,
Byxbee Park Hills.” May 2015.
34. City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Auditor. “Study Session: Service Efforts & Accomplishments
Report FY 2011.” March 19, 2012.
35. City of Palo Alto Recreation Division: Community Services Division. “Summary of Programs and
Services.” Hard copy only.
36. City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School. “Bicycle Counts.” 2010.
37. City of Palo Alto. “Urban Forest Master Plan, February 2015.
38. City of Palo Alto Utilities. Urban Wastewater Management Plan. June 2011. www.cityofpaloalto.org/
civicax/filebank/documents/27107
39. Cubberley Community Center. “Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report.” May 2013.
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
9190
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
40. Fehr and Peers.”Maybell Plan Drawings.” January 28, 2014. http://www.bpapaloalto.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/Maybell-drawings-01.30.14.pdf
41. Gallagher, Tim. “Developing Sustainable Park Systems in Oregon.” June 2012
42. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. “Imagine the Future of Open Space.” www.openspace.
org/imagine/downloads/Top25_Future_Projects_sm.pdf
43. National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association
(ICMA). “National Citizens Survey: City of Palo Alto 2013.” 2013.
44. Palo Alto Unified School District, prepared by Decision Insight. “Analysis of enrollment projections:
Fall 2014.” December 2013.
45. Project Safety Net. “Strategic Plan 2013-2014.” www.psnpaloalto.com/home/psn-strategic-plan/.
46. Stanford University / City of Palo Alto. “The Stanford and Palo Alto Trails Program: Connecting the
Bay to the Ridge.” Stanford University / City of Palo Alto Joint Grant Application, September 6, 2012,
Santa Clara County Recreation Fund Established by the County / Stanford Trails Agreement. http://
www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Documents/Recreational%20Projects%20Applications/Stanford%20
and%20Palo%20Alto%20Application_Pt%203%20-%20Stanford%20Perimeter%20Trail.pdf
Databases
47. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population
Projections by Major Age Groups (2010-2060). December 15, 2014.
48. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population
Projections by Race/Ethnicity (2010-2060). December 15, 2014.
49. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population
Projections by Total Population every 5 Years (2010-2060). December 15, 2014.
50. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population
Projections Median Age by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (2010-2060). December 15, 2014.
51. City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home
52. City of Palo Alto Recreation Registration System (2014 onward)
Websites
53. U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey. http://
factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml
54. U.S. Census Bureau; 2010 Census Summary. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
community_facts.xhtml
55. City of Palo Alto, CA. “City Sustainability Policy” http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/news/
details.asp?NewsID=751&TargetID=59
92
56. City of Palo Alto. Budget Viewer. https://paloalto.opengov.com/transparency#/329/accountType=ex
penses&breakdown=3ae92313-04df-42e6-aaf9-6428e2d2c5b5¤tYearAmount=cumulativ
e¤tYearPeriod=years&graph=stacked&legendSort=desc&month=6&proration=true&saved_
view=null&selection=F27FD044A63ADC842F2C21EB66DA828B&fiscal_start=earliest&fiscal_
end=latest
57. City of Palo Alto. Golf Course Reconfiguration Project. www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/golf/
new/default.asp
58. Safe Routes to School: Palo Alto. http://www.saferoutes.paloaltopta.org/
59. City of Palo Alto. “News Details: Rinconada Long Range Plan.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/
displaynews.asp?NewsID=1917&targetid=109
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
9392
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Photo Credits
Photo Credits
The photos in this document were provided by the City of Palo Alto unless credited below.
Page 11
2011.05.28-027-Snowy-Egret-cedMed.jpg, Citizen Science League. http://csl.dynamicpatterns.
com/2011/05/28/nesting-season-at-the-palo-alto-baylands/
Page 54
P1030296.jpg, Advocates for Privately Owned Public Space, The Municipal Art Society of New York,
http://apops.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/P1030296.jpg
Page 58
IMG_6446, MIG, Inc.
Page 59
TOP: 1-2-JCWCEVENT_NaturalAreas, David F. Ashton, http://eastpdxnews.com/general-news-features/
hundreds-of-volunteers-clean-up-johnson-creek/
Page 60
BOTTOM: AA DroughtQ&A2, Andy Alfaro, http://www.modbee.com/news/article22403646.html
Page 61
TOP: McAllisterdogpark, San Antonio Parks & Rec, http://www.sanantonio.gov/ParksAndRec/
ParksFacilities/AllParksFacilities/ParksFacilitiesDetails/TabId/3354/ArtMID/14820/ArticleID/2578/
McAllister-Park.aspx?Park=141&Facility=
BOTTOM: dog_parkrk, Username: Fidelity http://www.doggoes.com/parks/california/san-mateo-
county/foster-city-dog-park-boat-park
Page 62
TOP: Community-Garden, MIG, Inc.
BOTTOM: 6-East-Palo-Alto-United-States1, 350.org, http://lifeasahuman.com/2010/current-affairs/
social-issues/10-ways-to-celebrate-10-10-10/
94
Page 63
606wide, Jeff Banowetz, https://rootsrated.com/stories/new-proposed-bike-lanes-could-change-the-
way-you-ride-in-chicago
Page 64
PA7.jpg, Upper Playground. http://www.upperplayground.com/blogs/news-upperplay-
ground/15493048-brilliance-new-interactive-illuminated-sculpture-garden-in-palo-alto
Page 66
TOP: Earth Day 045, Dr. Laura Russomano, http://character.org/schools-of-character/promising-
practices-overview/promising-practices-award-winners/winners-list/promising-practices-2012/
theunis-dey/
BOTTOM: Julio great horned owl2, MIG, Inc.
Page 67
150dpiUCBUnderhill-1024wx500h.jpg, Watry Design, http://watrydesign.com/projects/uc-berkeley-un-
derhill-parking-structure
Page 68
TOP: INSTALLATIONS_c984b34b42fe0469a8f60619532cfdf0, JUSTIN SAGLIO, https://www.
bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2014/09/11/interactive-art-piece-swing-time-lights-
lawn/4UQQCGiRZ0lPDysO4IYxNK/story.html
BOTTOM: The porch, MIG, Inc.
Page 70
3876 Noriega Street SF Devils-teeth-baking-company, MIG, Inc.
Page 74
BOTTOM: Parachute solar flowers, Garfield Clean Energy, http://www.postindependent.com/news/in-
solar-energy-rifle-shines-most-brightly/
Page 75
stormwaterplanter_residential, sitephocus.com, https://hpigreen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/
highresdownload_highpoint-005.jpg
Title Page, Appendix C
Youth Soccer_RAM, Ryan Mottau, MIG, Inc.
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Photo Credits
9594
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation
APPENDIX A
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY
THE FOLLOWING PAGES CONTAIN A COMPLETE INVENTORY OF
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN PALO ALTO.
A-1
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY
PALO ALTO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY
Ownership Address/Location La
n
d
(
a
c
r
e
s
)
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
So
f
t
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
s
So
c
c
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
s
City Park
Baylands Athletic Center City of Palo Alto Geng Road, off Embarcadero 6 1 1
Bol Park City of Palo Alto Laguna between Barron and Matadero 13.8
Boulware Park City of Palo Alto 39 Fernando Avenue 1.5
Bowden Park City of Palo Alto Alma Street at California Avenue 2
Bowling Green Park City of Palo Alto 474 Embarcadero Road 1.9
(Juana) Briones Park City of Palo Alto Arastradero at Clemo Street 4.1
Cameron Park City of Palo Alto 211 Wellesley Street 1.1
Cogswell Plaza City of Palo Alto Lytton Avenue at Bryant Street 0.5
El Camino Park City of Palo Alto 1 El Camino Real 12.19 1 1
Eleanor Pardee Park City of Palo Alto 851 Center Drive 9.6
El Palo Alto Park City of Palo Alto El Camino Real at Alma Street 0.5
Greer Park City of Palo Alto 1 98 Amarillo Street 22 1 3 5
Heritage Park City of Palo Alto Homer at Waverley 2.01
Hoover Park City of Palo Alto 291 Cowper Street 4.2 1
Hopkins Creekside City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Avenue from Emerson to Marlowe 12.4
Johnson Park City of Palo Alto Everett and Waverley 2.5
Kellogg Park City of Palo Alto Waverly at Embarcadero Road 0.245
Lytton Plaza City of Palo Alto 202 University Avenue 0.2
Mayfield Park City of Palo Alto 23 Wellesley Street 1.1
Mitchell Park City of Palo Alto 6 East Meadow Avenue 21.4
Monroe Park City of Palo Alto Monroe and Miller Avenue 0.55
Peers Park City of Palo Alto 1899 Park Boulevard 4.7
Ramos Park City of Palo Alto 8 East Meadow Avenue 4.4
Rinconada Park City of Palo Alto 777 Embarcadero Road 19
Robles Park City of Palo Alto 4116 Park Boulevard 4.7 1 1
Scott Park City of Palo Alto Scott Street at Channing Avenue 0.4
Seale Park City of Palo Alto 31 Stockton 4.3
Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields Stanford University El Camino at Page Mill Road 5.9 2
Terman Park "City of Palo Alto 655 Arastradero Road 7.7 1 2
Wallis Park City of Palo Alto Grant Avenue at Ash Street 0.3
Weisshaar Park City of Palo Alto 2298 Dartmouth Street 1.1
"Williams Park (Museum of American Heritage)"City of Palo Alto 351 Homer Ave 0.7
Werry Park City of Palo Alto 23 Dartmouth Street 1.1
Subtotal 174.08 4 6 11
A-2A-1
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY
Yo
u
t
h
S
o
c
c
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
s
Fo
o
t
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
Li
g
h
t
s
(
f
i
e
l
d
s
)
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
R
a
t
i
n
g
(
f
i
e
l
d
s
)
Te
n
n
i
s
C
o
u
r
t
s
Ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
C
o
u
r
t
s
Gy
m
S
p
a
c
e
Po
o
l
Pl
a
y
A
r
e
a
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
/
m
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Tr
a
i
l
Pi
c
n
i
c
A
r
e
a
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
Ot
h
e
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Other Facility Description
Yes A 2 1 2 Concessions stand/maintenance equipment storage; restrooms equipment storage
1 E 1 perimeter trail 2 1 un-channeled creek
1 2 perimeter trail 2
NA 1 yes perimeter trail
1 1 Bowling green
1 E 1 2 footpath 1 1
E 1 1
NA 1 1 Wireless internet access
yes NA perimeter trail 1 1
1 C 2 yes 1 3 Community Gardens, multipurpose concrete bowl
connections
B 2 1 yes 3 1 2 Skateboard Park (outdated); dog "exercise area"
NA 1 1
1 B 2 1 2 yes perimeter trail 1 1 3 fenced dog run, handball court, multipurpose bowl
NA
1 E 1 1 perimeter trail 5 3 community garden, sand volley ball court, open turf
NA
yes 1 fountain
NA 1 1 Library
1 NA 7 4 yes 2 0.25 miles 6 3 1
Magical Bridge accessible play area, fenced dog run, water feature, handball courts, horseshoe pits, shuffleboard, petanque, multipurpose bowl, fieldhouse. Concession stand/kitchen area
NA 1 walking path 1
1 D 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 Field house with restroom
1 E 1 1 T-ball field
1 D 9 1 2 2 1
E 1 2 footpath 2 2 multipurpose bowl
NA 1 1 1
1 C 1 1 pathway 3 1
yes A yes 1 1 1 1 snack shack
C 2 4 perimeter trail
NA yes
E 2
Museum of American Heritage
1 E 1 1
11 0 3 24 14 0 1 29 8 8 39 13 22
A-3
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY
Ownership Address/Location La
n
d
(
a
c
r
e
s
)
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
So
f
t
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
s
So
c
c
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
s
City Open Space/Conservation Lands
Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee)City of Palo Alto 2775 Embarcadero Road 1,986
Esther Clark Preserve City of Palo Alto Old Trace Road 22
Foothills Park City of Palo Alto 33 Page Mill Road 1,400
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto Arastradero Road at Page Mill Road 622
Subtotal 4,030 0 0 0
Other Recreation Facilities in Palo Alto
Cubberly Community Center and Fields City of Palo Alto/PAUSD 4 Middlefield Road, T-2 4 3
King Plaza at City Hall City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue
Lucie Stern Community Center City of Palo Alto 13 5 Middlefield Road
Middlefield Ballpark Palo Alto Little League 3672 Middlefield Road
Mitchell Park Community Center City of Palo Alto 3800 Middlefield Rd
Junior Museum and Zoo City of Palo Alto 1451 Middlefield Road
Municipal Golf Course City of Palo Alto 1875 Embarcadero Road 181
Ventura Community Center City of Palo Alto 3990 Ventura Court
Subtotal 181 0 4 3
Palo Alto Unified School District Facilities
Barron Park Elementary School PAUSD 8 Barron Ave
Duveneck Elementary School PAUSD 75 Alester Ave
El Carmelo Elementary School PAUSD Loma Verde Ave
Escondido Elementary School PAUSD 89 Escondido Road
Fairmeadow Elementary School PAUSD 5 East Meadow Drive
Greendell Early Childhood Education Center PAUSD 412 Middlefield Rd
Gunn High School PAUSD 78 Arastradero Rd 1*1*2*
Hoover PAUSD 445 E. Charleston Road
JLS Middle School PAUSD 48 E. Meadow Dr, Palo Alto 3
Jordan Middle School PAUSD 75 N. California Ave 1 3
Juana Briones Elementary School PAUSD 41 Orme St
Lucille Nixon Elementary School PAUSD Stanford Ave
Ohlone Elementary School PAUSD 95 Amarillo Ave
Palo Verde Elementary School PAUSD 345 Louis Rd
Palo Alto High School (Paly)PAUSD 5 Embarcadero Rd 1*1*2*
Terman Middle School "PAUSD (joint shared use with City)"655 Arastradero Rd 2
Ventura Community Center (building only)PAUSD 3990 Ventura Court
Walter Hays Elementary School PAUSD 1525 Middlefield Road
Subtotal 0 0 1 8
Palo Alto Total 4384.7 4 11 22
“D” Facility
“E” Facility
Quality Rating Key
“A” Facility
“B” Facility
“C” facility
High quality turf, possibily with lights and few time restrictions
High quality turf, no nights and few time restrictions
Good quality turf, no lights
Fair turf quality, no lights, restriction on use time and close proximity to neighbors
Low turf quality, no lights, no bathroom access and time restrictions
*HS Fields not available for City or community use
A-4A-3
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY
Yo
u
t
h
S
o
c
c
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
s
Fo
o
t
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
Li
g
h
t
s
(
f
i
e
l
d
s
)
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
R
a
t
i
n
g
(
f
i
e
l
d
s
)
Te
n
n
i
s
C
o
u
r
t
s
Ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
C
o
u
r
t
s
Gy
m
S
p
a
c
e
Po
o
l
Pl
a
y
A
r
e
a
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
/
m
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Tr
a
i
l
Pi
c
n
i
c
A
r
e
a
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
Ot
h
e
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Other Facility Description
yes 1 15 miles 1 1 2 nature interpretive center
NA yes 1 15 miles 1 1 3 campground; large turf area; Boranda Lake dock; nature interpretive center
yes 1 10.3 miles 1 nature interpretive center
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 3 5
1
B 6 yes 1 2 theater
1 2 Community Theater and Children's Theater
2 snack shack and scoreboard
1 reopening soon after major rennovation
1
1
1 E 1 1
1 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 6
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1*Yes C 7 1
1 C
1 C 6
C 6
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1*Yes NA 7
C
1
1 E
13 0 2 26 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
25 0 5 56 15 1 2 30 11 13 0 41 20 33
Fair turf quality, no lights, restriction on use time and close proximity to neighbors
Low turf quality, no lights, no bathroom access and time restrictions
APPENDIX B
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS COMMITTED TO CREATING A PLAN THAT ALIGNS WITH LOCAL NEEDS, PREFERENCES AND PRIORITIES. Community input was integral to each phase of the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan development. The engagement plan was designed to: increase community awareness of the project; inform the community about the challenges and opportunities of the project; provide easy access to project information and opportunities for participation; offer a range of communication and engagement tools to match interests and preferences; ensure the final Master Plan reflects community priorities, preferences and values; and get community buy-in to support plan adoption and its short-, mid- and long-term implementation.
B-2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community Engagement Activities
To achieve these goals, the Public Engagement Plan laid out
a robust, layered outreach strategy that included a variety of
engagement tools and activities so Palo Alto residents and other
interested community members could participate in a manner
convenient and comfortable for them. There were numerous
opportunities for participation, with a variety of formats, times and
levels of interaction offered as well as both online and face-to-face
methods.
PROJECT WEBPAGE
A Master Plan project webpage, hosted on the City’s website with a
project-specific web address (paloaltoparksplan.org), served as the
information portal and document library for the planning effort.
PUBLIC INFORMATION UPDATES
The project team disseminated public information updates through
the City’s established mailing lists, newsletters and social media
accounts. These updates informed the community about upcoming
meetings, online participation opportunities and project status.
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP
The Stakeholder Advisory Group provided an informed sounding
board for ideas and provided updated information about related
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
AT‑A‑GLANCE
200+ Intercept Survey
Participants
487 Online Map-Based
Survey Participants
65 Community Input
Workshop Participants
1,100+ Online Community Survey Participants
16 Follow-up Stakeholder
Interviews
736 Community Prioritization Challenge
and Workshop Participants
200+ Site Concept Review
Comments
Project webpage
B-3B-2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
efforts and organizations. This group was also asked to help boost
participation in other engagement activities by passing along
information to existing networks and constituent groups about the
Master Plan process. This group consisted of representatives from
local advocacy groups, recreation organizations, local employers
and landowners, community service providers and others. To
respect the time of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory
Group, the project team designed the process to solicit this group’s
input at strategic times during the project.
INTERCEPT EVENTS
During the summer of 2014, the project team and Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC) members conducted six “intercept
surveys” to collect input from visitors outdoors at parks, farmers
markets and community events. This approach is effective at
engaging all age groups, especially families with children, and
allows for informal and educational discussions with the public. It
also facilitates interaction with people who do not typically attend
public meetings, due to schedule conflicts or a lack of awareness.
The project team selected intercept times and locations to reach
a cross-section of Palo Altans. More than 200 people learned
about the park system and the Master Plan effort and informed
the planning team about their values and motivations as related to
parks, natural open space and recreation.
ONLINE MAP‑BASED SURVEY
During the summer of 2014, the project team hosted an online,
interactive, map-based survey using the Mapita application.
This tool allows community members to respond to a series
of questions and provide geographically tagged comments on
specific parks, facilities and transportation routes throughout
the City. A total of 487 respondents provided comments on park
quality, barriers to access, needs and opportunities. This effort
generated a rich data set about how people use the park system,
how they travel to the places they go, and what their experience is
like, including site-specific data. The images on the next page are
example graphics from the map-based survey.
B-4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Site-specific comments on Bol Park from the online map-based survey
Routes to respondents’ closest park (darker lines indicate more intensely-used routes)
B-5B-4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
COMMUNITY INPUT WORKSHOPS
In fall and winter 2014, the project team conducted three
interactive public workshops in different areas of Palo Alto,
attended by about 65 community members. Participants took
part in a visual preference survey about the character and design
of parks using real-time keypad polling. This activity, facilitated
in small groups, provided opportunities for in-depth discussion
of what features participants would like to protect, preserve,
improve or add to Palo Alto. The project team collected polling
data, recorded group discussion and collected additional input on
comment cards. For example, the image below shows the level
of participant support (combined from all three workshops) for a
landscape with integrated natural plantings.
ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY
Over 1,100 people completed an online survey developed by the
project team in close consultation with the PRC. This tool collected
data on community priorities and preferences to inform the
development of recommendations and actions. The survey was
available online and in hard copy, in both English and Spanish, from
mid-November to mid-December 2015.
Visual Preference Survey Result from a Community Input Workshop
B-6
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
FOLLOW‑UP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
As the planning process unfolded, the project team identified
issues for which additional knowledge from staff and community
experts would be beneficial to understanding needs and
identifying potential recommendations. Between October 2014
and March 2015, 16 follow-up stakeholder interviews were
conducted to gather additional data and explore issues in depth.
The interviewees included City and partner staff, volunteers, and
community members across a variety of topics:
• Community Gardening
• Aquatics
• Cubberley Community Center tenants
• Junior Museum and Zoo
• Palo Alto Art Center
• Children’s Library
• Palo Alto Children’s Theatre
• Middle School Athletics
• Palo Alto Dog Owners
• Avenidas
• Palo Alto Youth Council
• Boost drop-in programming
COMMUNITY PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE AND WORKSHOP
To obtain community input on how to prioritize enhancements
within areas of focus, the project team implemented an online
interactive exercise called the “Community Prioritization Challenge”
from August 28, 2015 to February 15, 2016. A total of 731
respondents provided feedback through this activity.
The online exercise was supplemented by an in-person workshop
held on February 11th, 2016, which was lightly attended (5
participants representing different recreation interest groups) but
included a rich conversation about priorities. The online exercise
was mirrored by a printed display board that listed the twelve areas
of focus, on which each participant was asked to place five sticky
dots to indicate preferred investments.
B-7B-6
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
SITE CONCEPTS REVIEW
The project team reached out to the community at the May Fête
on May 7, 2016 to review preliminary site concepts, illustrations of
how the recommendations of this plan could play out across each
park and preserve. The site concepts were presented as bubble
diagrams, indicating areas within the site and the general type of
improvements recommended. Shortly after this initial event, on
May 25th, a workshop was held to provide another opportunity to
comment on the concepts. Approximately 30 people reviewed the
concepts at the workshop. Further comments were received from
other City of Palo Alto department staff (including Public Safety
and Planning) as well as the Park and Recreation Commission. To
expand the opportunity to comment, the project team created and
advertised an online comment form that provided the opportunity
to provide site-specific feedback on the concepts. Over 200
comments were received through this form. These concepts have
been refined and are presented in Chapter 5 of this plan.
Community Prioritization Challenge
B-8
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT ON PLAN
The project team created an online feedback form to collect
comments from the public on the draft Master Plan. As comments
were made, they were logged to track the source of the comment,
specific feedback or recommended changes for consideration,
and aggregated feedback to identify patterns. Comments were
discussed with staff and the PRC to determine appropriate action.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC)
The planning team engaged the PRC throughout the Master Plan
effort, from the initial scope development and consultant selection
through every step of the process. This commission’s involvement
was critical to understanding the full range of issues in the
community and in shaping further community engagement.
CITY COUNCIL
An important part of the Master Plan process was City Council
involvement. Council members represent Palo Alto residents and
are the policy and decision-making body of the City. As an initial
step, the project team made a presentation to the City Council and
the Park and Recreation Commission in a joint study session. This
presentation introduced the goals and objectives of the planning
process as well as preliminary plans for community engagement
and system analysis. As the planning process progressed, City
Council was provided updates through periodic reports and two
study sessions.
Community Engagement Results and Plan Development
The planning team identified patterns and trends that cut across
all the engagement activities and results, and crafted the Master
Plan Principles described in Chapter 4 to articulate a vision for the
future. These principles served as the foundation for the Master
Plan. The planning team then developed six Master Plan Goals
stating desired outcomes and accompanying policies and programs
to serve as a guide for City decision making to improve the Parks,
Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation system.
For more detailed descriptions of each outreach activity and key
findings, please see the Technical Supplement on the City website.
B-9B-8
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
APPENDIX C
GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
THE MAPPING AND ANALYSIS OF PALO ALTO’S SYSTEM USED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) DATA ON the parks, streets, trails and recreation facilities to evaluate the system from the perspective of a pedestrian or cyclist. The core of the analysis is described and illustrated in Chapter 3. This appendix includes additional mapping that was completed to illustrate the distribution of components and activities that emerged as important in the planning process. These include: exercise and fitness; gathering; play for children; relax and enjoy the outdoors; throw/catch/shoot/kick a ball; recreation with dogs; indoor recreation, and sports courts. Additionally, community input through the Mapita interactive map reported a park quality rating that is visualized in a final map.
C-2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
S an F r a ncisquitoCreek
Matad e ro C re e k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with
Exercise and Fitness
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-3C-2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with
Exercise and Fitness
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Sa n F r a ncisquitoCreek
Mat a d e ro C r e ek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcar
d
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with
Gathering
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
StanfordUniversity
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
C-5C-4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcar
d
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with
Gathering
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
StanfordUniversity
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
C-6
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Sa n F ra ncisquitoCreek
Mat a de ro C r ee k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with
Play for Children
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with
Public Access)
C-7C-6
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with
Play for Children
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with
Public Access)
C-8
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
San F ra ncisquitoCreek
Matad e ro C re e k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
MountainView
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Relax and Enjoy the
Outdoors
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-9C-8
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
MountainView
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Relax and Enjoy the
Outdoors
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-10
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
S an F r a ncisquito Creek
Mat a d e ro C r e ek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Throw, Catch, Shoot
or Kick a Ball
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-11C-10
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Throw, Catch, Shoot
or Kick a Ball
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-12
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
S a n F r a ncisquitoCreek
Mat a d e ro C r e ek
B arron Creek
Adobe Creek
Stanfo r d
M ount ai n
View
M e n l o Pa r k
L o s A lto s
Los Al t o sHills
E a s tPalo A l t o
A t h e rto n
San M a t eo C o u n ty
Po r t o laValley
S an F ra n ci s co B a y
S t a n f ord
Santa C l a r a C o u n ty
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Page Mill Rd
Oregon Expy
el C
a
min
o R
eal
Emb a r c a r de r o R d Middlefield Rd
Alm
a St
Arastradero Rd
Alm
a St
C h a rle s t o n R d
el Camino Real
Sa n d Hill R d
Santa Cruz Ave
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with Recreation
Areas for Dogs
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Dog Recreation Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with
Public Access)
C-13C-12
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
Stanford
Moun t a i n
Vi e w
Menlo Park
L o s A lto s
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
S an F ra nc i s co B a y
Stanford
San t a C l a r a C o unt y
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Page Mill Rd
Oregon Expy
el C
a
min
o R
eal
Embarcardero RdMiddlefield Rd
Alm
a St
Arastradero Rd
Alm
a St
C h arle s t o n R d
el Camino Real
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with Recreation
Areas for Dogs
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Dog Recreation Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with
Public Access)
C-14
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
S a n F r a ncisquito Creek
Mat ad e ro C re e k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charles
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Indoor Recreation
Facilities
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Community Recreation Centers Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
Other Community Services Buildings Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-15C-14
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcard
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charles
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Indoor Recreation
Facilities
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Community Recreation Centers Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
Other Community Services Buildings Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-16
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
San F ra ncisquitoCreek
Mat a d e ro C r e ek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcar
d
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with Sports
Courts
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-17C-16
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
Mountain
View
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcar
d
e
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Parks with Sports
Courts
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-18
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
S a n F r a ncisquito Creek
Mat ad e ro C re e k
Barron C reek
Adobe Creek
S t a n f o r d
M o u n t a i n
V i e w
Men l o P a r k
Los Al t o s
L o s A lto sHills
Eas t
Pal o Alt o
A t h e r t o n
San M a t e o C o u n t y
Po r t o l a
Va l ley
Sa n F r a n c i sc o Ba y
S t a n f o r d
S a n t a C la ra Cou n t y
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Page Mill Rd
Oregon Expy
el C
a
min
o Re
al
E m b a r c a r dero R d Middlefield Rd
Alma St
Arastradero Rd
Alma St
C h a rle s t o n R d
el Camino Real
San d Hill R d
Santa Cruz Ave
78
4956
71 72
42
80
71
36
62
67
75
61
78
39
73
74
69
76
23
69
74
61
85
73
7468
31
64
65
61
48
76
75
67
82
Palo Alto Airport
5955
Overall
Park Quality
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000
Feet
Park Quality
10
25
50
75
100
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-19C-18
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
Stanford
M ountai n
View
Menlo Park
L o s A l tos
Los Altos
Hills
East
Palo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
Portola
Valley
S an F ra n ci s co B ay
Stanford
Santa Cl a r a C o u n t y
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryParkBoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayfieldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
PearsonArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Page Mill Rd
Oregon Expy
el C
a
min
o Re
al
Embarcardero RdMiddlefield Rd
Alma St
Arastradero Rd
Alma St
C h arle s t o n R d
el Camino Real
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
78
4956
7172
42
80
71
36
62
67
75
61
78
39
73
74
69
76
23
69
74
61
85
73
7468
31
64
65
61
48
76
75
67
82
Palo Alto Airport
5955
Overall
Park Quality
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000
Feet
Park Quality
10
25
50
75
100
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
MANUSCRIPT DRAFT 5
10/19/16
Attachment B
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Chapter 5. Implementation
Over the next twenty years, the implementation of this Master Plan will include an annual
process initiated by City staff with guidance and leadership from the Parks and Recreation
Commission and City Council. Palo Alto’s dedicated community advocates and partner
organizations will also play an important role in ensuring the proposed programs and projects
align with the needs of the community.
The annual process described in this chapter involves implementing projects and programs
described in Chapter 4 through an annual cycle of reviewing, planning, implementing and
reporting. These programs have undergone review by the public, staff, Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC) and City Council during the development of this Master Plan. The tools in
this Chapter are designed to work with Palo Alto’s existing budget and capital improvement plan
processes and include:
• A prioritization process to create and update the annual action plan;
• An evaluation process to consider new projects or programs proposed in the future; and
• A methodology for measuring the effective and efficient implementation of the Master
Plan.
Prioritization Process and Action Plan
Prioritization Process
The prioritization process applies a set of criteria drawn from the extensive community input
during the master planning process. These criteria are applicable to the entire range of projects
and programs and reflect both the Master Plan principles and goals.
When considering the priority of projects and programs and the order in which they are
implemented, the following set of criteria will be used as an initial guide to identify the benefit to
the community and parks system in relation to other projects and programs. Proposed projects
and programs will be ranked using a range of low, medium, and high; on how well the programs
meet the criteria. These criteria will not provide a numerical score, but will inform staff, the PRC,
and Council how a particular program could serve community needs. Each of the projects and
programs recommended will be evaluated against criteria as a guide to identify the benefit to the
overall system and in relation to other programs. Staff, PRC and ultimately the City Council will
determine the final order of implementation as part of the established CIP and Operating budget
process. The criteria are defined below:
• Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (parkland, facilities, programs) to areas
of the city and to users where gaps were identified.
• Respond to growth: Add features or programs and/or modify or expand components of
the system to prepare for and address increasing demand.
• Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and
programs identified through citywide outreach.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 1
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
• Maximize public resources: Create the most benefit for each dollar of capital and
operating expenditure possible.
• Realize multiple benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the
goals, projects and directions of other adopted City efforts.
Implementation Timelines
Not all projects and programs are ready to be implemented immediately because they require
additional planning, coordination, study or an initial event that is beyond the City’s control.
However, within the twenty-year timeframe of this plan, many projects and programs that today
seem far from possible can and will be completed if thoughtful, measured steps are taken
annually to realize the project or program.
This Master Plan looks at three time frames for implementation. These represent different
stages of implementation based on the application of the prioritization criteria.
• Near-Term (First Five Years):
Capital - For capital projects, planning for the first five years of implementation will be
through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). As each year’s projects are
completed, the annual budgeting process includes the addition of another year on the
rolling five-year CIP. This established budgeting process will be the primary action plan
for capital projects in the near term, along with preliminary planning for major efforts in
the mid and long term. New capital projects that result from this Master Plan that are not
currently in the five-year CIP will be proposed and prioritized during the annual CIP
process.
Operating -Non-capital projects and programs are more flexible and can be explored in
the near term, based on staff availability and existing resources, additional funding if
needed will be considered through the annual budget process.
• Mid-Term (6-10 Years):
Capital - During the mid-term timeframe, new capital projects prioritized in this Master
Plan will be phased into the CIP through the CIP process, with cost assumptions
adjusted to account for cost escalation.
Operating - New non-capital projects and programs will be balanced with the ongoing
implementation of new programs initiated in the first five years. The mid-term projects
and programs may be refined based on data collected during the first five years of
implementation, including progress reporting.
• Long-Term (11-20 Years): The long-term timeline includes projects that require either
significant up-front work and planning, or rare opportunities, such as new land
acquisition.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 2
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
High Priority Needs and Opportunities
There are some programs and projects that we know today are high priority needs and/or
opportunities. The list below was developed with feedback from the Parks and Recreation
Commission, community, stakeholders, and City staff and includes a summary of planning
effort, capital cost (funding), annual operating cost, time frame and urgency for each. The
programs and projects have been arranged from high to low urgency with the projects divided
into two groups: 1) those projects that can be enacted upon and implemented immediately,
usually of smaller scale and lower funding requirements and 2) large scale projects that will
require more study including a planning and funding strategy. While all of the projects and
programs that appear on this list are considered a priority, achievement of large scale capital
projects will occur in the long term, although several steps must begin in the near term and will
continue through planning, design and ultimately construction.
Programs:
• Establish and grow partnerships and identify potential park donors
• Collaborate with school district to increase access to playgrounds, gyms, and other school facilities
• Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors
• Expand youth aquatics programs
• Expand programs for seniors
• Expand non-academic programs for teens
• Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students
• Increase the variety of things to do in parks
• Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers
• Connect youth, teens and families with nature
• Expand programs related to health and wellness
• Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks
• Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development
• Expand community-focused special events
• Offer cultural enrichment programs
Projects: (High to Low Urgency per group)
Group 1: Projects able to be enacted in the short term
• Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas
• Construct new restrooms in parks
• Develop conservation plans for open space preserves
• Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open
space and recreation facilities
• Update Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks
• Improve trail connections and access
• Develop adult fitness areas in parks
• Integrate nature into urban parks
• Develop new community gardens in underrepresented areas
• Enhance seating areas in parks
Group 2: Projects needing further study and funding
• Enhance existing playfields
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 3
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
• Plan, design and construct 10.5 acre site in Baylands for park uses
• Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center
• Plan, design and construct a new public gymnasium
• Acquire new parkland in high need areas
• Incorporate 7.7 acre site into Foothills Park
• Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks
Priority Programs and Projects
Each priority program or project is described and evaluated based on the following five factors:
1. PLANNING EFFORT represents the amount of time, effort and cost associated with
planning the project and could include community outreach, budget and resource
allocation, environmental review, and PRC and Council approval.
2. CAPITAL COST provides an indication of the magnitude of capital cost to implement the project, shown by dollar signs as follows:
$ (<$250,000),
$$ ($250,000 to $1,000,000),
$$$ ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000),
and $$$$ (>$5,000,000).
3. ANNUAL OPERATING COST estimates the added annual operating cost once the
project is in place, also indicated by dollar signs as follows:
$ (<$5,000), $$ ($5,000 to $25,000),
$$$ ($25,000 to $75,000) and
$$$$ (>$75,000).
4. TIMEFRAME indicates whether project planning will be completed in the near, mid, or
long-term. All of the following projects identified as priorities will require attention in the
near term, although some are major projects and will not be completed for years. Some projects can be both planned and constructed in the same year, while others will take
years longer to complete.
5. URGENCY indicates the level of need. All projects within this Master Plan have a demonstrated need, but the level of urgency varies based on the availability of a
particular amenity or program as compared to the demand.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 4
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Programs:
Establish and grow partnerships and identify and cultivate potential park and recreation
donors
In collaboration with the Friends of Palo Alto Parks and the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation among other partners, Palo Alto will develop a marketing campaign to engage members of
the public to volunteer and contribute financially to the improvement and expansion of Palo Alto’s parks, open space and recreation programs and facilities.
PLANNING EFFORT= Medium
CAPITAL COST= NA
OPERATING COST= $$
TIMEFRAME= NEAR
URGENCY= HIGH
Collaborate with school district to increase access to playgrounds, gyms, and other
school facilities
City staff will work with PAUSD to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities. Staff will concentrate on specific locations in the city with limited park space with
the intent of ensuring access to school open areas and playground during non-school hours, and establishing a gym use agreement for additional city programs and activities in
school gyms during non-school hours.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= LOW
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR
URGENCY= HIGH
Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors
Palo Alto staff will develop a system and strategies to broaden the recruitment and training of coaches and instructors to meet the programming demands of the City and to ensure
staffing of high quality, qualified coaches and instructors.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW to MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO MID
URGENCY= HIGH
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 5
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Expand youth aquatics programs
Community feedback has consistently shown that residents want more pool access during
the day and into the spring and fall seasons. Both recreational swimming and swim lessons are in high demand and added pool hours would allow more aquatics programs to occur. City staff will provide expanded programs and explore new aquatic programs, such as water
polo and water fitness classes that would add to the diversity of programming.
PLANNING EFFORT= Medium
CAPITAL COST= $$
OPERATING COST= $$
TIMEFRAME= NEAR
URGENCY= HIGH
Expand programs for seniors
With the population of older adults and seniors in Palo Alto projected to be on the rise, Palo
Alto will need to adjust program offerings to meet demand, especially programs tailored to the needs of active seniors. This may include both indoor and outdoor activities. Staff will also coordinate with Avenidas as an important part of the planning effort to ensure that
redundancy is minimized and enhancements are based on needs and gaps in the current level of service.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= NA
OPERATING COST=$
TIMEFRAME= NEAR
URGENCY= MEDIUM
Expand non-academic programs for teens
Palo Alto will implement recreation programs and services to provide additional opportunities for teens to explore a wide variety of non-academic interests in an accessible, relaxed and fun environment. Examples of current programs include the MakeX maker
space, Bryant Street Garage Fund Grant program and the counselor-in-training program. Enhancing and expanding these types of programs is important to provide balance in the busy and demanding lives of teens.
PLANNING EFFORT= Low
CAPITAL COST= NA
OPERATING COST = $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR
URGENCY= MEDIUM
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 6
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students
Intramural sports provide students with an after school activity that is both social and
physical with less competition than formal school athletic programs. Intramural sports also provide the opportunity for children to learn a new sport, develops social skills, teamwork and builds friendships, and promotes an active and healthy lifestyle. Palo Alto will explore
creating an intramural sports program for middle and high school students. Implementation of intramurals will require coordination with PAUSD and would require securing additional
field and gym space.
PLANNING EFFORT= MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= NA
OPERATING COST= $$
TIMEFRAME= MID
URGENCY= MEDIUM
Increase the variety of things to do in parks
When renovating parks, Palo Alto staff will explore adding both active and passive spaces
and elements to increase the variety of activities that can be experienced in a particular park. Recommended additions to a park should consider the user groups of the parks as
well as different age groups. Further engagement of the community should be considered.
Examples of potential elements include: outdoor gathering areas, small scale active spaces (bocce, pickle ball courts), and quiet retreat spaces.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW TO HIGH
CAPITAL COST= $ TO $$
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= LOW
Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers
Providing spaces and programs, both indoors and outdoors where children can play in a less structured format, away from electronic devices encourages creativity and problem solving, and fosters social connections with other youth. Palo Alto will support unstructured
play, such as providing space for “pick-up” games, providing sports equipment in parks and gyms, and offering programs with minimal direction and oversight.
PLANNING EFFORT= Low to medium
CAPITAL COST= NA to $
OPERATING COST= $ to $$
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO MID
URGENCY= LOW
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 7
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Connect youth, teens and families with nature
Parks and open space preserves provide a direct connection to nature. Connecting people
to nature provides benefits to physical, emotional and mental health and encourages preservation and environmental education. Palo Alto will provide more programs that focus on nature or take place in natural settings, and that are geared toward specific age groups
and families, enhances the community’s connection to nature.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= NA
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR
URGENCY= LOW
Expand programs related to health and wellness
In recent years, Council has identified healthy city and healthy community as a Council
priority. Efforts underway include the Healthy City Healthy Community Initiative, an annual health fair, fitness classes and programs specific to teens. Palo Alto will develop additional programming to encourage a healthy city and community on an annual basis based on
community need.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW TO MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= NA
OPERATING COST=$ TO $$
TIMEFRAME= NEAR
URGENCY= LOW
Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks
Palo Alto staff will develop a program series that would bring activities to parks. Further
review to identify locations for potential pop-up programming sites will be carried out by Community Service staff, who will also schedule and promote pop up programs. Example of pop up programs include: play activities; fitness activities such as yoga or tai chi; nature-
oriented programs such as bird watching and park tree walks, or arts-related activities such as painting or music.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW TO MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO MID
URGENCY= LOW
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 8
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development
The Palo Alto community highly values accessibility and inclusion. Community Services will
expand therapeutic and inclusive programming, including increasing funding for staff training in this area.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO MID
URGENCY= LOW
Expand community-focused special events
Palo Alto will develop a yearly community survey to determine the popularity of current special events and explore possible new events. Staff will use survey results to pilot new events and determine the feasibility of continuing these in the future.
PLANNING EFFORT= Medium
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= LOW
Offer cultural enrichment programs
Community Services will develop cultural enrichment programs that celebrate the diversity of Palo Alto's community. This will create opportunities for the community to come together
and share their distinct cultural backgrounds.
PLANNING EFFORT= MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= LOW
Projects:
Projects that can be enacted upon immediately:
Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas
There are currently three dog parks in Palo Alto, all of which are located south of Oregon
Expressway. The lack of dog parks on the north side of the City, together with the
prevalence of people allowing dogs to run off-leash outside of designated dog parks in parks
and on school property, underscores the need for more off-leash dog parks in the near term.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 9
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Locations for dog parks have been strategically selected at certain parks and planning
efforts are underway. Existing park features such as native trees, public art and playground
equipment as well as community feedback all will be considered when planning for the
construction of a dog park. The addition of dog parks will be phased and is proposed to
occur in the near- and mid-term.
PLANNING EFFORT= MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO MID
URGENCY= HIGH
Construct new restrooms in parks
Through this planning process, the community generally came to a consensus that
restrooms make sense in parks with amenities that draw people, especially children and
seniors, and encourage them stay at the park for a span of time. Though there have been
varying opinions regarding specific sites, additional review will be conducted to site
restrooms and security measures such as automatic locking mechanisms and lighting will be
included to address some of the concerns related to restrooms.
PLANNING EFFORT= MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= $$
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO MID
URGENCY= HIGH
Develop conservation plans for open space preserves
Comprehensive conservation plans are necessary to develop guiding principles and best
management practices for holistic management of Palo Alto’s open space preserves and to balance ecosystem protection, environmental education and passive recreational uses. Conservation plans will be completed for the Baylands, Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero,
and Esther Clark Preserves and will provide City staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council with clear direction on how to manage the Baylands using an
ecosystem-based model that considers both conservation and recreation goals.
PLANNING EFFORT= MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= $$
OPERATING COST= $ - $$ (per findings)
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= HIGH
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 10
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open
space and recreation facilities
Staff responsible for the care of Palo Alto's parks and open spaces will commit to staying current with sustainable practices. As part of this effort, staff will develop a strategic plan for
incorporating sustainable practices for maintenance and management of parks, open
spaces and facilities, including updating current practices. As part of this effort, maintenance staff will consult with the City's Sustainability Department to discuss how they can help
meet the sustainable goals of the Sustainability Master Plan (under development at the adoption of this Master Plan), and to develop measures for tracking the adoption of sustainable maintenance practices.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= $ TO $$
OPERATING COST= 0 to $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= HIGH
Update Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks
The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides regulations that inform and guide the
amenities and design of parks, and requires an ADA Transition Plan to remove barriers that
may prevent people with disabilities from fully enjoying the City's parks and recreation
services. The ADA requirements represent the legal minimum that is required. Feedback
from the community during the Master Plan process was supportive that Palo Alto seek,
when possible, to exceed ADA minimums and strive for universal accessibility, where people
of all abilities can utilize and enjoy parks. During all parks related capital improvement
projects, staff will not only update amenities and design to current ADA standards, but will
also seek opportunities to achieve universal access. This will occur in the near-term and will
be on-going.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= $ TO $$$
OPERATING COST= $ to $$
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= HIGH
Improve trail connections and access
Improving trail connections and access to parks and open space areas was identified as an
important priority by the community. Linkages to parks also promote the "Green Necklace" vision for the City and allows regional connections to adjacent cities and opens natural areas.
Staff will utilize existing capital improvement projects as a platform on which to improve trail connections into parks, access and connections between parks and between multi-modal trails and to provide linkages to regional trails and neighboring agency sites. In addition, staff will
identify trail connections and improvements that will require new individual capital projects, and will propose those through the City’s CIP process.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 11
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
PLANNING EFFORT= MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= $ TO $$$
OPERATING COST= $ to $$
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= MEDIUM
Develop adult fitness areas in parks
Health and fitness is a priority for the Palo Alto community, and an important reason for park
use. Palo Alto can help support health and wellness for adults and older adults, a population
segment that is growing, by providing outdoor fitness options, especially in close proximity to playgrounds. These adult fitness areas can take on a variety of forms: from outdoor workout
equipment areas (free weight and cardio machines) to simple open rubber surface areas for
open activity (e.g., yoga, meditation, weight and cardiovascular training). These spaces will be designed for both individual use and group gathering and as a means of activating a
park, and will be a high value, simple addition during park renovation projects.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= MID TO LOW
Integrate nature into urban parks
This project includes converting areas in parks , usually turfgrass that is not used for
recreation, into native plantings (e.g. riparian, grassland, or oak woodland) or a specific
habitat planting (e.g., Pollinator, hummingbird or butterfly). This type of project may also include bioswales designed to maintain on-site drainage and create habitat, and may even
include aspects of a natural play area.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW TO MEDIUM
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $ (Reduction of overall maintenance)
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= MID TO LOW (with continuous drought this may be considered a high urgency)
Develop new community gardens in underserved areas
Community gardens provide a place for healthy outdoor activity, social gathering, and community connections. Ultimately, community gardens should be evenly distributed
throughout the park system. Staff will look for opportunities to add community gardens when parks are renovated, looking for underutilized turfgrass or planting areas as potential
locations for community gardens. In addition, staff will seek to expand the variety of
community gardening opportunities, by considering children’s or inclusive garden plots or even entire community gardens.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 12
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= LOW
Enhance seating areas in parks
Seating is an important part of creating a welcoming park environment, and was identified
as a priority by community members during the outreach process. When park renovations
occur, staff will identify opportunities to enhance seating areas or provide additional seating.
These enhancements may include providing more seating, providing additional seating
options (e.g., movable seating, artist-designed or embellished benches), and creating
enclosure to define the seating area as a low activity area used for urban retreat.
PLANNING EFFORT= LOW
CAPITAL COST= $
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= LOW
Projects that need further study and funding
(Arranged from High to Low Urgency)
Enhance Existing Sport Fields
With current demands for play fields greater than the cities current capacity and
projected future growth, improving and maintaining the cities large open play fields is an
important aspect of the parks and recreation system. Current heavy use of the play
fields, along with limited resources (water & maintenance budget) requires a clear plan
to maintain quality and longevity.
The following steps are recommended for Enhancing Existing Sport Fields:
• Hire a sport field turf consultant, review and analyze the existing city sport fields and
make recommendations on how to improve and maintain them to increase quality and use. (Near Term)
• Develop an on-going capital fund project that focuses on enhancing the fields identified by the field analysis study. (Near to Long Term)
Funding Options
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Outreach to sport field users and interested parties for private donations
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 13
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
PLANNING EFFORT= HIGH
CAPITAL COST= $$$
OPERATING COST= $$$
TIMEFRAME= Study and Planning-NEAR; Construction- NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= HIGH
Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses
The development of the 10.5-acre Baylands site will require a long term planning and
funding effort. The planning of the project should start in the near term to establish the site design and cost to complete this large project. The planning effort will focus on the design
of the site with direct community input. Staff will strategize options of funding the project in
the near term and establish a schedule for implementation. Some of the possible concepts for the use of this site that came from the public outreach include athletic fields and native
habitat.
The following steps are recommended for the Development of the 10.5-acre site
• Hire a consultant to study the location and provide a recommendation how to use the site for both athletic use and native habitat use. (Near Term)
• Establish a phasing plan for the project for implementation.
• Implement the recommendations of the study.
Funding Options
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Outreach to sport field users and interested parties for private donations
• Native habitat and restoration Grants
PLANNING EFFORT= HIGH
CAPITAL COST= $$$$
OPERATING COST= $$
TIMEFRAME= Planning/Design-NEAR; Construction- NEAR TO MID
URGENCY= HIGH
Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center
Cubberley Community Center currently sits on a 35-acre site, of which 8 acres is owned by
the City and the remaining 27 acres owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The City leases the PAUSD’s 27 acres and operates the community center on the
combined 35-acre site. The City and the PAUSD have committed to jointly develop a plan
for the future of the entire Cubberley Community Center site that represents the administrative, educational and community needs of the School District and the City.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 14
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Planning and design of the site will require an assessment of the current and projected future needs of the community with respect to education and recreation. Future renovations
will provide increased and enhanced services to the community, particularly in south Palo Alto.
The following steps are recommended for the future renovation and development of this site:
• The City and School District will formalize an agreement for future development and
renovation of the site (Near Term)
• Prepare a comprehensive master planning study for the site (Near Term)
• Develop a funding strategy for implementation of the Master Plan (Near Term)
• Plan and develop a long range implementation plan (Near to Mid Term)
• Implement the master plan (Mid to Long Term)
Funding Options
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
PLANNING EFFORT= $$
CAPITAL COST= $$ -$$$$
OPERATING COST= $$ - $$$$
TIMEFRAME= Planning/Design-NEAR; Construction- MID TO LONG
URGENCY= Planning/Design HIGH; Developing HIGH TO MEDIUM
Construct a new gymnasium
Currently the city of Palo Alto has no gymnasiums of its own. A gymnasium at the Cubberley
Community Center is the main gym utilized by the City, but is owned by Palo Alto Unified School
District and operated by the City through a lease agreement. The middle school gyms are used
for middle school athletic programs while the Lucie Stern Community Center and Mitchell Park
Community Center are utilized for a variety of physical and social activities. As of means of
responding to growth and to maintain, expand and provide future programing a multi-purpose
gymnasium is recognized as a community need.
The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and development of this site:
• As part of the planning effort for both the 10.5 acre project and the Cubberley
Community Center a gymnasium will be considered for each site and determined if it is
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 15
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
compatible with the development direction of each project or if another separate location should be considered (Near Term)
• Develop a funding strategy for implementation of the a new gymnasium (Near Term)
• Plan and design (Near to Mid Term)
• Construct a gymnasium (Mid to Long Term)
Funding Options
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Park development fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
Incorporate the 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park
The development of the 7.7-acre site at Foothills Park will require a long range planning and funding effort. The planning of the project should start in the near term to develop the site
design and identify funding to complete this large project. The planning effort will focus on the design of the site with direct community input. As a precursor to the project, a
hydrologic study of Buckeye Creek will be completed (September 2017) to understand how
the solutions to the Creek's erosion problem frame the possible uses for the 7.7 acres. Staff will research options of funding the project in the near term and establish a schedule for
implementation. Public recommendations for possible uses of the site ranged from restoring
the site to developing it for some form of recreation.
The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and development of this site:
• Hire a consultant to recommend options and pricing for restoring the 7.7 acre site (Near Term)
• Establish a phasing plan for the project for implementation. (Near Term)
• Develop a funding strategy (Near Term)
• Implement the recommendations of the study (Near to Long Term)
Funding Options
• Capital improvement funds
• Park development fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Grants
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 16
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
PLANNING EFFORT= MEDIUM TO HIGH
CAPITAL COST= $$$ TO $$$$
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= Planning/Design-NEAR; Construction- NEAR TO MID
URGENCY= Opening area to public- HIGH; Developing land- LOW
Acquire new parkland in high need areas
Expand parkland inventory in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area where gaps exist geographically
as illustrated in the Park Search Areas System Concept Map (Figure 6).
While this is a long-term effort there are short term strategies and actions needed to achieve results. Following the goal, policy and program described in Chapter Four 1.B.1-12, some near
term actions include a review all city owned land and easements (starting in park search areas) for potential parkland development or connection locations, and evaluate City-owned or
controlled spaces serving or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses and consider
dedicating as parkland.
The following steps are recommended for acquiring new parkland:
• Build up funding in the short term for future parkland acquisitions.
• City staff to review all city owned property in the high needs areas for possible parkland.
• Collaborate with the school district to make school ground open space available for use by the surrounding communities during non-school hours.
• Plan, fund and maintain the construction of park elements in school grounds in collaboration with the school district to ensure community access, and provided need park amenities to high need areas.
• City staff to develop a review process of potential properties that come up for sale as possible parkland acquisition.
• Review options of increasing development fees to increase funding for future acquisitions.
• City staff to Identify undeveloped properties in high needs areas and pursue purchasing agreements with the owner.
Funding Options
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Park development fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 17
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
PLANNING EFFORT= High
CAPITAL COST= $$$
OPERATING COST= $$
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= MEDIUM
Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks
Wayfinding signage is a means of connecting and expanding the park system. Wayfinding
signage designed to direct the community to designated safe routes between parks will help provide linkages between all of Palo Alto’s open spaces, which will in turn expand the
system. Community Services, Public Works and Transportation departments will work
together to establish these safe routes and engage the community for wayfinding and route options. Future infrastructure development of these safe routes may also include the
addition of park- like features along the length of the route to further expand the park
system.
The following steps are recommended for wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks:
• Hire a consultant to put together a proposed signage design, layout and phasing for
the project (Near Term)
• Work with city, the community and stakeholders to develop the overall safe routes to
parks plan (Near Term)
• Develop a funding strategy for implementation (Near Term)
• Implement the design (Near to Long Term)
Funding Options
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Park Impact Fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Grants
PLANNING EFFORT= MEDIUM TO HIGH
CAPITAL COST= $ TO $$$$
OPERATING COST= $
TIMEFRAME= NEAR TO LONG
URGENCY= LOW
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 18
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Action Plan
The complete set of projects and programs identified during the Master Plan process are summarized in a working document called the Action Plan. The Action Plan is maintained
separately from this Master Plan document and is designed to adapt and change with the
completion of projects, passage of time and shifting funding opportunities. Each project and program is described in terms of location, the relevant element of the system and the plan
framework reference (which policy the project or program originates from). The action plan also
indicates the anticipated year(s) of implementation and the total estimated costs (capital and operational). Capital costs are broken down between planning/design and the implementation of
the project. Operation costs are further clarified by the staff time required per year of project
implementation.
The action plan allows a comprehensive look at the projects and programs resulting from this Master Plan. Each year, as the next year is added to the CIP, the Action Plan will feed a new set of projects based on the timelines as they have evolved. Further, new projects will continue
to be added to the Action Plan, using the prioritization process described above. Example Action Plan – Program
Example Action Plan – Capital Project
Funding Today and Tomorrow
The City of Palo Alto uses a minimum of six funding sources for the majority of its capital,
operational and recreation program funding:
• General Fund;
• Consumer and Participant Fees;
• Parkland Dedication Fees;
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 19
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
• Development Impact Fees;
• Public Private Partnerships;
• Grants; and
• Donations.
These funding sources are defined and described in Appendix X: Existing Funding Sources
Existing Funding Source Capital Operational/Programming
General Fund
Parkland Dedication Fees
Development Impact Fees
Public Private Partnerships
Grants
Donations
Key
Eligible
Limited
Not Eligible
There are limitations (both statutory and in practice) on the use of many of the existing funding
sources. Table X summarizes the existing funding sources by their applicability to capital and
operational projects and programs.
In addition, Palo Alto’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC) process established a
schedule to “Keep-Up” with the current maintenance needs of city owned parks, facilities and
open space as well as identifying those maintenance needs that were not scheduled to be
addressed “Catch Up” and an cost and schedule to do so. City Staff has utilized the IBRC
process over the past five years to schedule needed maintenance and to schedule and have
greatly reduced the Catch Up items.
Funding Gap
As Table X shows, Palo Alto has more options for funding capital projects than it does for
funding that can fund the operation, maintenance and programming of the system. The City
should sustain a sufficient investment to maintain its existing facilities, amenities and programs.
Future funding options should address this gap.
IN PROCESS BY PROJECT TEAM. This section will quantify the gap between current funding
and needed funding to catch up and keep up with the maintenance of the existing parks, trails,
natural open space and recreation facilities and programs. Moreover, this section will provide
costs for a variety of new amenities that will be evaluated annually as the department and City
develop and approve the capital and operating budget.
Potential Funding Options
While the total gap in capital funding is a substantial number, the limited options currently
available for maintenance, operations and programming funding is a bigger constraint on
achieving the Master Plan goals. The potential for a funding method to expand funding for
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 20
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
maintenance, operations and programming should be carefully considered as the City explores
options to fill the funding gap.
Expand Existing Funding Sources
One important option is increasing the amount of funding from existing sources. The General
Fund could be expanded by increasing revenue generation.
• Parkland dedication fees could be reevaluated to ensure the rates are keeping up with
land costs.
• Development impact fees could be increased through action by the City Council.
• Donations and grants could also be expanded with effort by the City
• Public-private partnerships, which could include allocating staff time, creating a new
position focused on expanding these sources, or hiring a consultant experienced with
grant writing.
• Participation and membership fees should be evaluated to increase cost recovery and to
help pay for new and enhanced programs and services.
Examples of Past Successful Partnerships:
Heritage Park:
In 2007, the Friends of Heritage Park gave the City a donation of $197,572 to contribute
towards a capital project to build the Heritage Park Playground. The City contributed $75,000
towards the project. Council approved a limited-term agreement with the Friends of Heritage
Park to design, construct, and install the playground facilities and other improvements at
Heritage Park.
Magical Bridge Playground:
The City partnered with the Friends of the Magical Bridge to design and build Palo Alto’s first
“inclusive” playground at Mitchell Park. The City contributed the land and $300,000 to the
project for planning and design purposes, while the Friends contributed approximately $3.5
million for construction. A grant was also secured for $80,000 for improvements to the pathways
that lead to the playground. The playground opened to the public in April 2015 and is a regional
draw winning several design awards and high praise from the community.
Lytton Plaza Renovation:
The City formed a public-private partnership with the Friends of Lytton Plaza to renovate Lytton
Plaza. The Friends donated $750,000 for the renovation of the plaza. The project was completed in December 2009.
Acquisition of new park land at the Pearson Arastradero Preserve:
The City contributed $1,110,305 along with $2,592,210 in grant money for the acquisition of 13-acre open space Bressler Property from the Peninsula Open Space Trust. In October 2002, the
Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) purchased a 13-acre property from the Estate of
Jacqueline Bressler with the intent of holding the parcel for open space purposes until the City of Palo Alto could purchase the property. The City acquired the Property and added it to the
Pearson Arastradero Preserve in 2005.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 21
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Save the Bay Partnership:
The City partnered with Save the Bay in 2001 in order to accomplish the shared goal of
restoring sensitive wetland habitat at the Baylands Nature Preserve. Annually, Save the Bay
contributes hundreds of hours of staff time to organize and lead volunteer restoration programs
(35 per year on average) in the preserve. Save the Bay has also fully funded the cost to
construct a native plant nursery at the Baylands to propagate native plants that volunteers use
to restore Baylands habitat. The partnership continues to provide benefit to the sensitive habitat
at the Baylands Nature Preserve, and to the Palo Alto community members that participates on
the volunteer programs.
Issue Bonds
There are two types of bonds relevant to the Master Plan. While City Council would need to
initiate either type of bond, only one method would require a public vote.
General obligation bonds are voter-approved bonds with the assessment placed on real
property. The money can only be used for capital improvements, not for maintenance or
operations. This property tax is levied for a specified period of time (usually 15-20 years).
Passage requires a two-thirds majority approval by the voters.
Revenue bonds are sold to finance revenue-generating facilities, such as community centers,
performing arts centers and in some cases sports complexes. The interest and capital are paid
from the revenue produced from the operation of such a facility. The City has to guarantee
repayment, meaning that if revenue from the facility does not cover the necessary bond
payments, the City will be required to pay from another source.
Create a Special District
There are several types of special districts allowable by California law for recreation purposes.
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any county, city, special district, school
district or joint powers authority to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a
“CFD”) to finance public improvements and services. The services and improvements that
Mello-Roos CFDs can finance include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure,
police protection, fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and
other cultural facilities.
Formation of a CFD requires a two-thirds vote of residents living within the proposed
boundaries. If there are fewer than 12 residents, then the vote is instead conducted of current
landowners. The assessment cannot be based on property value; instead it is based on the size
of the property or square footage of structures. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover
expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt.
The special assessment continues until bonds are paid off and then is typically reduced to a
level to maintain the investments.
The Landscaping and Lighting Act permits a public agency to assess housing units or land
parcels for a variety of city services, including parks. The assessment revenues can be used for
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 22
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
parkland acquisition, development and/or maintenance. The agency can choose to use the
revenue generated on a pay-as-you-go basis or can sell bonds in order to receive a lump sum
amount which is then paid back from the annual revenue generated from the assessment. The
pay-as-you-go method provides steady ongoing revenue to fund services. Bonding against
revenue provides a larger sum to undertake a bigger project. Establishment of a new
assessment district or revision to an existing one requires a simple majority vote of property
owners.
Exchange or Sell Property
If the City has an excess piece of property, the City could sell or trade the property to obtain a
site more suitable for park use.
Combining Master Plan Project with other Infrastructure Projects
As the primary part of Palo Alto’s green infrastructure, the parks, natural open space and trails
system connects to many other city services. Some projects can be vital parts of other
infrastructure projects or be applicable for funding from sources for transportation, stormwater,
flood protection and other engineered infrastructure projects. Combining or coupling Master
Plan projects with other infrastructure projects can reduce the costs all around, open up new
funding streams, provide mitigation and achieve multiple objectives.
Evaluating Future Projects
As time passes new ideas will emerge about how to optimize an individual site, add to the
system or change the mix of recreation opportunities. The combination of the goals (detailed in
Chapter 4) and the prioritization criteria create a framework that can be used to evaluate future
proposals for changes to the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system.
Review Process
Following a similar process to developing the Master Plan projects and programs, the review
process for new ideas includes both staff and PRC review. The review process will follow the
steps below.
• Step 1: Staff, individual or community group proposes a project or program.
• Step 2: Staff reviews the proposal to determine if the project aligns with the community’s
vision as expressed in the Master Plan principles and goals. If a compelling case cannot
be made, the process stops here.
• Step 3: Staff analyzes need using the same categories as in the Data and Needs
Summary (see Master Plan Chapter 3):
o Current service/inventory
o Level of control
o Geographic analysis
o Capacity/bookings
o Perception of quality
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 23
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
o Expressed need
o Demographic trends
o Barriers to participation
o Projected demand
In some cases, information may not be readily available for staff to make an adequate
evaluation. In these cases, staff may obtain additional data by meeting with the
proposer or with local experts, conducting regional or national research or seeking
community input. Staff may also recommend conducting a specific technical study.
Once adequate information is gathered, staff will complete the analysis of need and
document it in a brief report. If PRC review is needed, staff will proceed to Step 4.
• Step 4: Staff makes a recommendation to the PRC. Using the results of the analysis of
need (Step 3), staff evaluates the proposal using the prioritization criteria and prepares
a staff report to the PRC with a recommendation. Staff may recommend that the PRC
add the proposed project or program for further development and eventual addition to
the Action Plan. Staff may also recommend against the proposal if the prioritization
scoring is low. Low scoring is an indicator that the proposal is not a priority, compared to
all opportunities.
• Step 5: The PRC considers the staff’s recommendation at a meeting. The proposer is
encouraged to attend and to present the proposal. After consideration at the meeting,
the PRC makes a determination and directs staff how to proceed.
For proposals recommended for further action, staff can explore the financial and practical
considerations and incorporate the proposal into Action Plan and/or the CIP process as
applicable.
Progress Reporting
The City has a standing practice of reporting on the annual citizen satisfaction survey as well as
a performance-based “Citizen Centric Report”, both of which provide data on parks and
recreation programs and services. In addition, there is internal reporting that that informs
program and service delivery decisions, budget proposals and policy and procedure changes.
These existing measures already provide a large selection of data points to draw from when
looking at any part of the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Below are the
existing measures and indicators currently used along with recommended additional measures
and indicators to effectively monitor and report on Master Plan progress.
[Insert a table be created separated by elements of the plan and the goals of the plan,
populated with existing relevant measures and indicators and identifiable new measures and
indicators.]
To track progress on Master Plan implementation, specific measurable indicators relate directly
to the goals, policies and programs, as described below. Annually, these will be applied and
reported to the PRC, City Council and the community.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 24
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
Indicators
IN PROCESS BY PROJECT TEAM. A small set of indicators is anticipated, potentially
organized by goal. No more than one or two indicators per goal are recommended. Preliminary
ideas include:
• Number of users in parks (Goals 1, 2, 3)
• Acres of new native landscape and new habitat (Goal 4)
• Number of new recreation programs, events and locations piloted (Goal 5)
• Amount of water used for irrigation (Goal 6)
Other indicators relate to topics of concern, as identified in the areas of focus.
• Teen participation numbers in recreation programs and services
• Senior participation numbers in recreation programs and services
• Number of dog park users by site
• Number of timeslots used on sports fields
Call to Action
MIG will craft a call to action in parallel with development of the executive summary.
Appendices Related to Chapter 5
Appendix X: Existing Capital and Operations Funding Sources
General Fund
The General Fund is the pool of unrestricted tax dollars and other revenues that a City uses to
pay for most of the services it provides. General Funds are allocated out in the budgeting
process and dollars for park operations must compete with other city needs for limited
resources. Palo Alto uses the General Fund as the primary source for operations and
programming and also makes a substantial transfer to the Capital Improvement Program each
year. Recreation programs generate revenue from user fees, which flow directly into the
General Fund, not into the budget for recreation services.
Parkland Dedication Fees
A separate fee is charged at the time land is subdivided for additional development. The
parkland dedication fee is authorized under the Quimby Act (California Government Code
§66477) allowing cities to require developers set aside land, donate conservation easements or
pay fees for park improvements. This fee is calculated based on the maximum land requirement
allowed under the act, 5 acres per 1,000 persons, the number of dwelling units and the current
value of land. This funding source will be relatively insignificant in the future due to the limited
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 25
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
opportunity to subdivide land within Palo Alto. In 2016, the parkland dedication fee fund balance
is $3,214,370.
Development Impact Fees
The City of Palo Alto collects impact fees authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act for both new park
system expansion and community centers. These fees are collected at the time building permits
are issued for new construction and are based on a measurable impact of additional people to
the system. The fees are adjusted annually to account for inflation. The current impact fee
amounts are listed in Table X, below.
Table X: Development Impact Fees as of August 15, 2016
Fees: Residential Single Family Single Family
over 3000 square
feet
Multi-Family Multi-Family
under 900
square feet
Parks $11,864 $17,716 $7,766 $3,926
Community
Centers
$3,075 $4,605 $2,024 $1,021
Total Relevant*
Impact Fees Per
Home
$14,939 $22,321 $9,790 $4,947
Fees:
Non-Residential
Commercial Hotel/Motel Institutional Industrial
Parks 5.038 2.278 5.038 5.038
Community
Centers
0.284 0.128 0.284 0.284
Total Relevant*
Impact Fees Per
Square Foot of
Non-Residential
Construction
$ 5.322 $ 2.406 $ 5.322 $ 5.322
*The City also collects development impact fees for Public Safety Facilities, General Government
Facilities, Housing, Traffic and Public Art.
The amount of the impact fee is based on two variables, the projected growth of the user
population resulting from the development and the cost of planned improvements in response to
that growth. In 2014, the City revisited the nexus study and projects that form the basis of all of
the development impact fees charged. This study determined that the fees were adequate for
current needs but should be revisited following the completion of this master plan. In addition to
the ongoing collection of impact fees as development continues, Palo Alto currently has a
balance in the impact fee funds. In 2016, the park development impact fee fund balance is is
$3,946,291 and for community centers the balance is $#####. This balance is partially
committed to improvements that are already in the CIP.
Grants
Both private and public agencies offer a variety of grant programs. Most park and recreation
grant funds originate with either the Federal or State government and are limited to funding the
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 26
DRAFT Chapter 5 9/21/16
acquisition, design and construction of parks, facilities and trails. The active list of grant
programs regularly changes, as Federal and State budgets expand and contract and the
application schedule and process must be learned and monitored. Further, most grants require
that the local agency match a percentage of the funding with local dollars.
In addition, private and corporate foundations are granting funding for the construction of
facilities and the acquisition of lands that further their missions. Some private grant agencies in
the health sector are currently funding pilot programs in some areas of the country to improve
health outcomes, but for the most part grants are not a sustainable ongoing source of funding
for recreation programming. Palo Alto has had some success with utilizing grant funding to
expand successful programs, including those at the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Palo Alto
Art Center beyond the borders of the City. This allows these unique programs to reach a larger
scale without costing the taxpayers of Palo Alto additional funds.
Public-Private Partnerships
The idea of working in close collaboration with a private entity to enhance park and recreation
opportunities is gaining in popularity across the country. The basic approach is for a public
agency to enter into a working agreement with a private corporation or non-profit entity to help
fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. Generally, the three primary incentives that a public
agency can offer is free land to place a facility (usually a park or other piece of public land),
certain tax advantages and access to public facilities. While the public agency may have to give
up certain responsibilities or control, it is one way of developing public facilities at a lower cost.
Palo Alto has had several high-profile successes, most recently with the Magical Bridge
Playground, with a fairly unique model of public-private partnership. In this model, the City
allows a partner organization to take on the design and construction process, carving out the
project site and leasing the property to the partner for the duration of the project. The City
remains involved in oversight and technical assistance and takes possession of the project at
completion. Putting the partner organization at the front of the effort has resulted in very
successful fundraising and a high quality and relatively lower cost process.
Donations
The donations of labor, land, or cash by service agencies, private groups or individuals are a
popular way to raise money for specific projects. The most effective agencies actively solicit
donations from both the general public and through developed relationships with local
companies and philanthropists. Friends of the Palo Alto Parks is an established channel for tax-
deductible donations that can be directed to specific projects or to park improvements in
general. The current level of donations has averaged approximately $15,000 per year. Labor
hours contributed by volunteers is another type of donation that benefits the City’s parks and
open space preserves. In Palo Alto’s history, there have been significant donations, such as
Lucie Stern Center.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 27