HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-16 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2016 AGENDA City Hall Community Meeting Room
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 COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonabletime 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 October 25, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – ChairLauing – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2.Update on review of Aquatics Program Analysis – CSD Staff Jazmin LeBlanc –- Discussion (45 min) - Recommended changes to the Palo Alto Aquatics Program ATTACHMENT
3.Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion – (45 min)
- Review of Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ATTACHMENT 4. Recommendation to Council to explore the potential sale by AT&T and purchase by City of Palo Alto of a
portion of a parcel at 3350 Birch Street Palo Alto, adjacent to Boulware Park, for parkland use. – Chair
Lauing – Action- (20 min) 5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair Lauing - Discussion (20 min)
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT
VI.COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 14, 2016 SPECIAL 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.
REVISED
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
October 25, 2016 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jennifer Hetterly, Ed Lauing, David Moss, Keith 13
Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Jim Cowie, Abbie Knopper 15
Others Present: Eric Filseth 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 or requests or deletions? 23
24
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 25 26 Chair Lauing: If anyone from the public wants to address the Commission on any subject 27 not on the agenda, please feel out a card and hand it to Catherine. Then, you can speak 28
on that. 29
30
IV. BUSINESS: 31 32
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from September 27, 2016 Parks and Recreation 33 Commission Meeting. 34 35
Approval of the draft September 27, 2016 Minutes was moved by Commissioner Hetterly 36
and seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. Passed 5-0 37
38
Draft Minutes 1
DRAFT
2. City of Palo Alto Special Events Update 1
2
Chair Lauing: The next item is the City of Palo Alto special events update from 3
Stephanie Douglas, introduced by Kristen. 4
5
Kristen O'Kane: Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. I would like to welcome 6 Stephanie Douglas, our Recreation Superintendent in Community Services here tonight. 7
She is going to be presenting to us on our special events program, including a recap of 8
what we've done in the past year and what we plan on doing this year. This is just an 9
informational item to share some of the good work that Stephanie and her team are doing. 10
11
Stephanie Douglas: Thank you very much. Again, my name is Stephanie Douglas, 12
Superintendent of Recreation. Good to be here this evening, talking about special events 13
here in the City of Palo Alto. When talking about special events, I think the first thing is 14
really why do we do them. It's really to bring people together, build community. Special 15
events weave the fabric of our community by creating opportunities to interact, promote 16
inclusiveness, build family traditions and support economic and emotional growth. 17
You'll see on the slide—I have two pictures up there. Those are actually my kids at the 18
most recent Moonlight Run. My daughter, Madison, is climbing the rock climbing wall 19
right there. My family is doing the Walk. When I talk about special events, I really take 20
it personally because I know for me that really makes me feel like I'm part of the 21
community. Even though I may not live here in Palo Alto, when I do these events I feel 22
like I'm part of something bigger and greater. Going over what we've done. This is what 23
we've done in the fiscal year 2015-2016. The Chili Cook-Off event, as I'm sure all of you 24
are aware, is our biggest event that we do. We have a community health fair in which we 25 partner with the YMCA. We have a Moonlight Run, which I just mentioned, which is a 26 partnership with the Palo Alto Weekly. We did a Lucie Stern bridal fair, past September 27 2015. We did a Meet the Streets in conjunction with the Palo Alto Chamber and also the 28
City Manager's Office. We did a Veteran's Day event. You'll notice the items in bold; 29
these are new events that we did for 2015-2016. We did a Veteran's Day event, again in 30
partnership with the City Manager's Office. Holiday tree lighting, seniors New Year's 31
bash which is an event that we do for seniors on New Year's Eve. Mitchell Community 32
Center anniversary, we did a frozen-themed event to celebrate the one-year anniversary 33
of the building opening. Summer camp registration fair, which is an opportunity for 34
people to come out and learn about the summer camps that we'll be offering. The Great 35
Race for Saving Water is a partnership with our Utilities Department that we do, which 36
really promotes saving water and the environment. A Bryant Street Garage Fund Gala, 37
this event was—the first year doing it was really an opportunity to acknowledge all of the 38
grants that we funded through the Bryant Street Garage and honor the teen projects. The 39
May Fete Parade, again, is our second biggest event that we do in the community. We 40
did a Journey for Veterans Walk, and that was in partnership with the Community 41
Manager's Office. Veterans actually walked from southern California up to northern 42
Draft Minutes 2
DRAFT
California. One of their stops was here in Palo Alto. We had a Teen Buoyancy Festival 1
and Concert. Again this was a new event for this year. This was an event that was 2
actually planned by a teen advisory commission and youth board. They came up with the 3
name buoyancy, and it was actually a concert along with some carnival rides and some 4
carnival-type activities. World Music Day we do in partnership with the Palo Alto 5
Recreation Foundation. Again, you can see these are a lot of events that we do. This is 6 just recreation; it doesn't take into account events that are also done by other departments 7
and divisions. Looking at the future, one of the first things that I wanted to do was find 8
out what does the community really want. It's easy to kind of sit back and get 9
imaginative and come up with all these events, but you really want to find out what the 10
community is looking for. We went ahead and did a survey. We did this survey May 11
through July of 2016. The survey basically gave people an opportunity to put down what 12
they would like to see in the community. To kind of get a better idea, we actually gave 13
them examples of events so that they could choose which one they would be most likely 14
to attend. Events that we gave them were an event called Dogtober Fest Celebration, 15
which was a pet-focused celebration that embraces families and their pets. A Memorial 16
Day observance. Since our Veterans Day event was so popular, we wanted to see if 17
people wanted to have more events that would honor fallen heroes in the armed services. 18
A kite flight festival, which is an arts and sciences focused event with expert kite flying, 19
children's kite making workshop and a public kite flying demonstration. A biannual 20
bridal fair. Although we already do a bridal fair, we're kind of looking to see if that's an 21
event that the community really wants. That event showcases wedding services vendors 22
and the Lucie Stern Community Center. A tech specs festival, which is an event that 23
focuses on technology, past, present and future. We would have that at Mitchell Park. 24
Then, we gave an opportunity for respondents to put their own ideas; we had an "other" 25 category. The survey received a total of 564 responses. We distributed the survey at 26 May Fete Parade, the Chili Cook-Off, online and also at all of our community centers. 80 27 percent of the respondents were Palo Alto residents, and only 20 percent resided outside 28
of Palo Alto, primarily Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos and San Jose. From that 29
survey, we got some really great feedback. One of the things that really popped out is 30
this community likes their pets, and they would like to have a Dogtober Fest event. That 31
was 70 percent of the respondents that marked that as one of the items that they would 32
attend. 15 percent of the respondents marked "other" and provided their own ideas with 33
the most popular recurring themes suggesting arts, wine and food festival, bike or 34
transportation expos, and earth or nature-themed events. Those were the major groupings 35
that we extracted out of the survey. We also asked the respondents what events they 36
attend currently. Because we distributed it at May Fete and Chili Cook Off, that got a 37
high rate. Also, the Moonlight Run was recorded as being a very highly attended event. 38
From this survey, we really want to put words into action here. We're looking at the 39
future and looking at the survey and saying, "What can we do to really make sure that the 40
community is getting what they're requesting?" One of the feedback we got was kind of 41
a bike or mobility expo. Ironically, we're already in the process of planning an event like 42
Draft Minutes 3
DRAFT
that. That actually occurred on October 2nd of this year. We had 800 people in 1
attendance. It was basically an opportunity for people to learn about alternative 2
transportation. It was in partnership with the annual Bike Palo Alto event. I foresee this 3
event probably becoming an annual, ongoing partnership and event. The next event that 4
we're working on is an Earth Day festival. Although we have the Great Race for Water 5
5K, we're really looking to expand that event. April 22nd is a Saturday, and it also 6 happens to be Earth Day. We're going to be hosting a very large festival event promoting 7
environmental awareness. We're still going to have a 5K run and just really expanding 8
that event. Last but certainly not least, because the community really wants to have a pet-9
type event, we are going to host a Dogtober Fest in October of 2017. We're looking at 10
having that event at the dog park and having the outside area be a festival with pet 11
vendors, food trucks, dog treats, prizes, giveaways, dog rescues, anything that you can 12
think of that would really support animals and families and people. We're looking 13
forward to getting that one on the way. With that, we're also looking at all of the events 14
that we already do, really kind of polishing them up a little bit. Things that we're looking 15
at this year is for our tree lighting event. We're actually getting a little bit of a stage, 16
we're getting some lighting out there, so it's a little bit more polished. We're looking at 17
our seniors' New Year's Eve brunch. We're actually partnering with Avenidas this year 18
and having it at Avenidas. We hope to get more seniors to attend that event, because it'll 19
be at a location that they're comfortable with and are familiar with. Little things like that, 20
that we can do to take the events that we already have and really just kind of take them to 21
that next level is also a top priority for our staff. With that, I have ended the PowerPoint 22
with a little collage of all the events that we do, ranging from teen events to children's 23
events, adult events, senior events. It's really quite an honor to work in Palo Alto, 24
because it is a City that really embraces community and special events. It's nice to have 25 that support and to be able to be creative and do new things. With that, if you have any 26 questions, I'll be happy to answer them. 27 28
Chair Lauing: Terrific. That's really cool. We sort of see all these things but not all 29
together. It's quite an impact when you put them all together and make those comments. 30
It's very cool. Comments from Commissioners one way or the other. Commissioner 31
Hetterly. 32
33
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a question. In the past, I think, for several years we did a 34
service day, probably around Martin Luther King. Did we not do that this year? If so, 35
why? Is that something we've decided isn't working or wasn't successful? 36
37
Ms. Douglas: I know that's in partnership with ... 38
39
Rob de Geus: YCS. 40
41
Draft Minutes 4
DRAFT
Ms. Douglas: Yeah, YCS. I do know they're looking at doing that event again this year. 1
I may have failed to put it on that here, but that's another event. We have so many it's 2
hard to keep up. That's definitely another event that we will be doing and continuing to 3
do. 4
5
Mr. de Geus: I think we did do it this year, but it was a smaller event. We've done it for, 6 I think, 5 or 6 years. Some years, it's very successful. We actually do service projects 7
right here on the Plaza with Youth Community Services being the lead agency, but we 8
provide support. It's a great event. 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that's the best element of it, when you actually have 11
projects that people can go work on. I think in some years when you show up and there's 12
nothing to do but visit the tables, it's not quite the same as being able to actually 13
contribute. It would be great to be able—it sounds like YCS is the lead. It would be 14
great to be able to have some projects around the City that people can sign up for in 15
advance and participate in. The Cubberley Compact Day, they did that great tree planting 16
project. That kind of thing, people really love to do. It really (crosstalk). 17
18
Mr. de Geus: There's also a national movement called Make a Difference Day. I think it 19
was just recently. Last year, with the leadership of then-Mayor Holman, we did some 20
things. This year we did less, but it's another event that I think we could do something 21
with. It's a big movement, and it's another sort of volunteer service type of orientation. 22
The School District is quite involved with that. That's one we're looking at as well 23
adding. 24
25 Chair Lauing: Commissioner Reckdahl. 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: Impressive list. I knew we did a lot, but when you see it all in 28
a big list, it really is a nice variety of things. I was wondering of the existing ones that 29
were on that first page how many of them—are they all driven by CSD or do we have 30
other groups like YCS that are actually doing the organizing and the promotion of it? 31
32
Ms. Douglas: We do have partnerships with some of the agencies. The ones that I listed 33
are the ones where CSD does have a pretty substantial role in them. There are other 34
events that sometimes we do assist in a minor way, like we'll provide tables or chairs or 35
co-sponsorship, but we don't necessarily have staff on hand. The events listed here are 36
events that staff have actually participated in and been a major factor in. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: How does it work for the setup and cleanup? Does CSD have 39
to pay for that or is that some City overhead where we can get workers that are full-time 40
employees come down and do setup and cleanup? 41
42
Draft Minutes 5
DRAFT
Ms. Douglas: Typically, depending on the nature of the event, we'll have full-time staff. 1
Like we had the bike expo, our full-time staff would do the setup and the cleanup. If it's 2
at one of our facilities, we have custodial staff that we'll have do those events, and that 3
would come out of the CSD budget. 4
5
Mr. de Geus: Just to add to that, Stephanie, we sometimes contract with the Downtown 6 Streets Team—they've been terrific—for some of our big events. Really, really good. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is May Fete on here? 9
10
Mr. de Geus: Yes. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, it is. That would be a big cleanup, I would assume. Do 13
we get many requests for people coming in that want to pair with us, want to team with 14
us to do this or are we out there beating the bushes, like you talked about the survey? 15
How much of the action is on our side and how much of it is other people coming to us? 16
17
Ms. Douglas: It's funny you should ask. I just got an email today from somebody 18
emailing who wanted to kind of do a special event, something along the nature of a bike 19
expo. I think, from my experience and I've only been here since January, it's almost an 20
equal partnership. We'll go out and find out what the community wants, but they also 21
won't hesitate to let us know if there's something else that they're looking for. That's been 22
my experience. I don't know, Rob, if you have ... 23
24
Mr. de Geus: That's accurate. Chinese New Year is another one that comes to mind. I 25 don't know if it's on our list here. A local organization does a great event and have asked 26 for support for the last 2 years. We've provided free facilities and some staff support. I 27 think we'll probably partner even more in the future with that organization. 28
29
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 30
31
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Cribbs. 32
33
Commissioner Cribbs: I think it's a great list as well. Congratulations. I was interested 34
in three things. Our relationship with Stanford and the possibility of doing events with 35
Stanford, either at their campus or on our facilities. The volunteer group that you have, is 36
there a network? Are there volunteers that come with each event or are there some 37
volunteers that do everything? The third thing that follows that is the service clubs and 38
how well we work with them, because they're great. 39
40
Ms. Douglas: For Stanford, that's actually—when I first came on board, I know we had 41
talked about doing an Olympics Day. We had met with Stanford. Unfortunately, just due 42
Draft Minutes 6
DRAFT
to scheduling, it wasn't going to work out. That's a relationship that's been created now. 1
We are trying to follow up and see if there's other opportunities for partnership. I think 2
they have a lot to offer, being right here in our backyard. They can certainly provide 3
some expertise in things that we might not have the expertise in. That's a relationship 4
that's there, and it's just a matter of finding that partnership that's going to work based on 5
schedules and locations. The second question about volunteers. We typically pull from 6 our teens for volunteers, but we also do have—when we have an event, we will put the 7
call out for volunteers. That may be from community groups, like you said Rotary, 8
Kiwanis, Lions Club, those types of service groups, if we need them. Then, we'll have 9
people, if they know May Fete is coming up, will raise their hand and come to us and say 10
they want to be involved. We'll put them somewhere and definitely have them be a 11
participating part of it. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: Just to add to that, Stephanie. Our sort of main partner is the Palo Alto 14
Recreation Foundation. They support lots of recreation programs, but their focus is 15
mostly events. They love events and supporting events. In fact, interestingly, that's how 16
World Music Day really got started. It was Claude Ezran, a community member, who 17
wanted to see this event happen in Palo Alto, and needed help and support and was 18
coming to the City. We introduced him to the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, and then 19
he became a Board Member. Now, he's still on the Board. The Foundation and the City 20
together make that event happen, and he's still very close to it. There's a couple of other 21
events that are like that, where we've led them to the Recreation Foundation. They've 22
joined the Board and got their event to happen that way. 23
24
Commissioner Cribbs: Are you thinking the Black and White Ball might come back? 25 26 Mr. de Geus: It might. Stephanie probably knows more about that than me. The Black 27 and White Ball, they talk about it a lot, the Foundation, but we haven't seen much action 28
yet. 29
30
Ms. Douglas: My understanding is the Black and White Ball will be happening this year. 31
September 30th is the date they're looking at. We have a meeting tomorrow actually to 32
kind of nail down some more of the details and logistics. From my understanding, it'll be 33
at Mitchell Community Center on September 30th. 34
35
Commissioner Cribbs: That's good to hear. 36
37
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 38
39
Commissioner Moss: This is a really great list. It gets my creative juices flowing, and 40
I'm sure a lot of people as well. Of course, with our Master Plan, there is a number of 41
places where we want to encourage community events. I was wondering how this differs 42
Draft Minutes 7
DRAFT
from, say, the music events in the park on the summer evenings and some of the bike 1
events that we've had, tours of Palo Alto and other events. Are they separate or would 2
you consider them altogether in one big list? 3
4
Mr. de Geus: Most of the events Community Services is involved in—I would say 5
almost all of them—it depends on the level of involvement. These ones here, as 6 Stephanie said, we're mostly in the lead on. There are other events that come out of the 7
City Manager's Office or come from Council or the Mayor's interest or from another 8
department like Planning and Transportation, in which case we will provide some 9
supportive role. They often come to Community Services for help if another department 10
wants to put on an event. 11
12
Commissioner Moss: The reason I ask is if you put all of those events on one big 13
calendar, you would have maybe three or four times as many events. Even these things 14
where they have the pet adoption event at some of the places there, there are so many 15
events that are happening. There's also a dog show that happens at Cubberley field once 16
or twice a year. Things that the community ought to know about. I'm sure that these 17
events would love the publicity. My only suggestion would be a community calendar 18
that includes not only these but also some of the smaller ones. I'm sure there's one of 19
these a week somewhere. 20
21
Chair Lauing: Thanks. I had just one question that wasn't already mentioned, and that's 22
staffing. Every time you do something new, it's either more work to do or you decide this 23
one has to get trimmed down, because it's not unlimited. How do you manage that and 24
make those kinds of decisions? We're always sensitive to the workload of the staff. 25 26 Ms. Douglas: One of the things, I must say, being new here to Palo Alto, I'm just blown 27 away by how dedicated our staff are. When we have a big event—right now what we've 28
been doing is kind of a divide-and-conquer approach, where each staff member has 29
certain areas that they focus on. We are also looking at possibly getting some part-time 30
assistance to help with the logistics with some of our bigger events. For the most part, 31
we have staff that kind of take on certain parts of it and can still manage that with their 32
current duties. It's been working so far. That is something we have to take into 33
consideration. As more and more events come our way, how would we manage that? 34
Right now, it's doable. As time goes on and more events come up, that's something we'll 35
have to look at. 36
37
Chair Lauing: Yeah, it's not unlimited. Rob. 38
39
Mr. de Geus: First of all, I think Stephanie's doing a fantastic job in adding events and 40
being really creative and thinking out of the box. Just as a reminder, we actually 41
eliminated the position that she's in, the Superintendent of Recreation position, in 2008, 42
Draft Minutes 8
DRAFT
'09, in that period of time. The Council agreed to bring the position back partly because 1
of interest in special events and building that program. We needed more leadership at 2
this level for the recreation team to be able to do that. Stephanie's the first person to be in 3
that position since it's been back. I think that's been extremely helpful to be able to 4
manage these events as you can see. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Thanks very much for your efforts so far. We'll keep watching the list. 7
Thank you. 8
9
3. Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution and Current Initiatives. 10 11
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is Healthy City Healthy Community 12
Resolution and current initiatives. 13
14
Ms. O'Kane: Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. Rob and I were discussing possible 15
agenda items for this meeting. We thought now would be a good time to give an update 16
on the Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution that was adopted by Council last 17
December and just provide an update on the progress that the group has made so far and a 18
little bit of background on the Resolution. The Healthy City Healthy Community 19
stakeholder group was created because in 2015 Council adopted Healthy City Healthy 20
Community as one of their priorities for the year and also again in 2016. A stakeholder 21
group was formed to draft a Resolution but then also implement the Resolution. I just 22
included a handful of the stakeholders here. There's different levels of interest and 23
involvement. We do meet monthly. This is only a handful. There's been a lot of other 24
stakeholders that have been involved, especially nonprofits like YCS, Canopy, Palo Alto 25 Forward. Depending on what we're talking about, people tend to come when something 26 is of interest to them. The Resolution was adopted in December 2015, and the purpose of 27 the Resolution was to adopt healthy social, cultural and physical environments that 28
promote and support well-being and creative expression for ourselves, our families and 29
our community in support of a healthy city, healthy community. I did want to mention as 30
well that the Healthy Cities is initiated by the League of California Cities. That's how we 31
modeled our Resolution, using some focus areas that the League of California Cities 32
recommended. They included healthy environment, healthy food access and healthy 33
workplace. Those are also focus areas that the City of Palo Alto has honed in on. We 34
also added healthy culture which was in response to stakeholder feedback, that healthy 35
culture would be an appropriate addition for Palo Alto. What is healthy culture? Healthy 36
culture is really the non-physical parts of health and well-being. It's social, emotional 37
and mental well-being, encourages inclusiveness, kindness and just builds social 38
connections. In the Resolution under each of these focus areas, it also includes some 39
specific tasks that are not necessarily directives but aspirational. What should the City 40
and the community be striving for? I've included an example on the bottom of this slide, 41
support and improve the lives of people with different abilities, children and seniors. I 42
Draft Minutes 9
DRAFT
especially love this photo. There's just something about it that every time I look at it, it 1
makes me smile. This was from the May Fete Parade last year. A professional 2
photographer took it. I love it. Healthy environment was the next one. This is about 3
increasing opportunities more for physical wellness, walking, biking and other physical 4
activity, but then also increasing connections between residents and nature. One of the 5
tasks is to enhance walking and biking connectivity between neighborhoods and schools, 6 parks, recreational resources and retail. The third one was healthy food access. This is to 7
collaborate within the community to provide healthy and affordable food options for 8
everyone. One of the actions there is to promote community participation in community 9
gardens and farmers markets, to increase access to healthy foods. When I picked these 10
tasks, I tried to pick ones that were really relevant, especially to the Master Planning 11
effort. If you're looking at these, you can pick out those common words that we're all 12
really used to because they're in the Master Plan. The final one is healthy workplace. 13
This promotes work/life balance and educates employees on healthy living and just 14
supports overall health and wellness for employees. The specific task I pulled from this 15
one is establish Palo Alto as a leading example of open government dedicated to the 16
health and well-being of the public. Within the Resolution, there were seven initiatives 17
that were identified for implementation in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Three of them, 18
which are actually Numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the slide, are very City-specific. They're 19
focused on City employees, advancing the Bike Pedestrian Plan projects and also 20
including Healthy City Healthy Community in the Comp Plan. When I say City-specific, 21
I mean tasks that City staff would be doing. The others are really community-based, and 22
that's what our stakeholder group has been working on. The first one is to create a 23
welcome packet for new residents that focuses really on what are health and wellness 24
opportunities in Palo Alto. This would be for new residents but also for visitors and 25 people who come here every day to work. It'd be very nice to have a place where you 26 could go and just see all the opportunities out there. The fifth is to establish a forum for 27 local businesses in partnership with the business community. The Chamber of 28
Commerce has really been working with us on this one and also our own HR Department. 29
We do have a pretty robust wellness program within the City of Palo Alto. This is a way 30
to collaborate and share ideas so that people are equally being provided wellness 31
opportunities. The sixth initiative is to coordinate and have an annual health fair, which 32
we just completed the second one. We had one last year as well. This year it was in 33
September, and it was very successful. That was in partnership with the YMCA. We 34
plan to continue doing those in the future. The seventh one which is, I think, one of the 35
most difficult ones is establishing metrics. How do you know when Palo Alto is a 36
healthy city and a healthy community? I know Rob has been involved in that initiative 37
and working on that one. We're also tying in with some other groups to find out what 38
they're doing to measure health and wellness within their communities. The eighth one 39
has been added since the Resolution was adopted. This is to develop actions to enroll 40
Palo Alto as an age-friendly community. This is an AARP designation. They're an 41
affiliate of the World Health Organization, who has a worldwide age-friendly community 42
Draft Minutes 10
DRAFT
program. This is something that we're working on with Santa Clara County and 1
Avenidas as well. The idea is that we would be designated as an age-friendly 2
community. I read an interesting statistic today that one in three Americans is 50 years of 3
age or older. By 2030 one out of every five people in the U.S. will be 65 or older. As the 4
population ages and people are staying healthy longer, communities really need to adapt 5
to that and make their communities accessible and enjoyable for people of all ages. That 6 is all I have on this Resolution. I wanted to share this picture. I put this in here because 7
this is healthy workplace. This just happened last week. This is a Community Services 8
Department work day. We didn't spend the whole day; we spent about an hour and a half 9
out in the Baylands planting native plants and removing some invasive species. It was 10
really fun. It's mental wellness; it's good collaboration with your colleagues; also you get 11
a little bit of physical activity in there. I just wanted to share this. I thought it would be a 12
fun photo. 13
14
Mr. de Geus; Who's that cool guy in the hat there? Who is he? 15
16
Ms. O'Kane: I don't know. He just walked in the picture. Any questions on this? 17
18
Chair Lauing: First, I just want to know if you got rid of all those invasive plants in an 19
hour and a half? That's a lot with that much man and woman power there. 20
21
Ms. O'Kane: We didn't get rid of all them, but we estimated that we in an hour and a half 22
completed the work that would normally take 4 days to do. It was quite an 23
accomplishment. 24
25 Chair Lauing: When are you going back? 26 27 Ms. O'Kane: We're planning to do more activities like this throughout the City, not just 28
in the Baylands but anywhere that we could use a little extra hand to get some work done. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Private yards? 31
32
Ms. O'Kane: Maybe not. I don't think so. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Maybe next time. You had some comments. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: I do have a comment. One of the stakeholders is the Palo Alto 37
School District. As I was looking through this, I didn't see anything specifically about 38
the School District, but I know there's lots of programs going on that are back and forth 39
about wellness and health in the School District specifically. I didn't know how that was 40
being handled or if not. 41
42
Draft Minutes 11
DRAFT
Ms. O'Kane: My understanding is that when the stakeholder group was originally put 1
together, their goal was to put the Resolution together and then also develop the 2
initiatives. I think a lot of the original stakeholders, when we don't have initiatives 3
specific to them, are not as involved anymore. As we move forward and develop new 4
initiatives in the future, I'm hoping we can address some of those areas that weren't 5
addressed in these 2 years. 6 7
Cubberley: It just struck me as I was looking at the workplace and the community that I 8
didn't see specific about schools. That was one thing. The Palo Alto Medical 9
Foundation, are they considered o be a stakeholder or not? 10
11
Ms. O'Kane: They are. We did have a physician from PAMF come and give a 12
presentation related to the health forum, the workplace forum. He came and talked to us. 13
They are considered a stakeholder. I think part of it is just people's availability. 14
15
Commissioner Cribbs: I think this is a wonderful report. Thank you very much. 16
17
Mr. de Geus: We meet monthly, and there's a meeting this Thursday, if any of the 18
Commissioners are interested in attending. I know we had a Commissioner 19
representative attend last year pretty regularly. We provide a healthy lunch. 20
21
Chair Lauing: Provide what? 22
23
Mr. de Geus: We provide a healthy lunch. The meeting is here at noon in the 24
Community Room. 25 26 Commissioner Cribbs: Where is the meeting, here? 27 28
Mr. de Geus: It's right here at City Hall in the community room out front, there at the 29
lobby. Everyone's welcome. 30
31
Ms. O'Kane: I'll send the meeting invitation to everybody, and maybe someone can 32
attend. That would be very nice and helpful. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 35
36
Commissioner Moss: Going back to the presentation we just had, it seemed like almost 37
all of those events have some tie-in to Healthy City Healthy Community plus all the other 38
ones that ought to be on that community calendar, that I mentioned before. Almost all of 39
them have some tie-in to Healthy City Healthy Community. There should be an "HC" 40
next to each one those, indicating which ones tie to this and maybe even how they tie. 41
You have tremendous potential to tie almost everything we do in the community to this. 42
Draft Minutes 12
DRAFT
It's not like we have to start from scratch and come up with something new. We're 1
already doing it. We just need to toot our own horn and point to the things we do. It's 2
just fantastic. 3
4
Chair Lauing: Thank you. We do actually have a late speaker card here. I'd like to 5
recognize Shani Kleinhaus to speak on this item. 6 7
Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. My name is Shani Kleinhaus. I'm a resident, and I am on 8
the CAC, but I do not speak for the CAC. One thing that I think is relevant to this as well 9
as to the next item, so I thought I'll say it now. I think we need a shuttle system to bring 10
people to Foothill Park and potentially to the Baylands. There is a lot of discussion in the 11
Comprehensive Plan Update about how people are not going to drive anymore. There's 12
also a lot of senior people who need access and others, maybe youth. Somewhere in 13
there it would be great to add a shuttle system to bring people to parks, that are not only 14
in the City. One other thing specifically about this Healthy City is most of what was 15
mentioned is already in the Comprehensive Plan Update, I think. One thing that was 16
different is this employee health and wellness and collaborating with local employers. I 17
want our workers to be healthy, but there was a lot of comment when this previously 18
came up from people who did not think that this should be there at all. It was in various 19
times that this was expressed. I'm not sure how I stand about it, but I thought I should 20
bring it to your attention, that this was not something people felt the City has a place in at 21
all. That's all for this one. Thank you. 22
23
Chair Lauing: Thank you, and for the report. 24
25 4. Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 26 27 Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda looks familiar, the Parks, Open Space, Trails 28
and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. Staff will review what we got in our packet. We 29
do have some speaker cards for this, so we can take these first. First of all is Jonathan 30
Brown. You have 3 minutes. Thank you. 31
32
Jonathan Brown: Thank you. My name is Jonathan Brown. I'm a member of the 33
Ventura neighborhood; I live on Fernando Avenue. The Ventura Neighborhood 34
Association, I should say. I'm chair of the Ventura parks committee. Thank you for your 35
work so far on the Parks Master Plan and the opportunity to help you move it forward. I 36
would like to propose that we add a project to Group 1, acquire the parcel at 3350 Birch 37
Street for future expansion of Boulware Park. Currently, one of the Group 2 projects is 38
acquire new parkland in high-need areas. At least the Boulware Park acquisition part of 39
this item should be moved higher in the priority. I looked through all the proposed site 40
concept plans in the City's draft park and facilities new amenities concept plans review 41
document from May 23, 2016. Of all those 35 proposed site concept plans, Boulware 42
Draft Minutes 13
DRAFT
Park was the only one to identify an opportunity to expand the park to adjacent land. 1
Boulware Park was also the only one to note that the park serves a large neighborhood 2
with limited parkland. 3350 Birch is zoned public facility, a designation reserved for 3
community service or recreational facilities among a few others. Expanding the park 4
would help address the current lack of size of Boulware Park relative to the large 5
neighborhood it serves, and it would fulfill the City's stated objective to add parkland on 6 a corner lot. This land is owned by AT&T at a time when telecoms are looking to 7
downsize. In fact, AT&T has indicated that it is willing to sell this very parcel. Peter 8
Jensen in Public Works is actively working on this issue. There is no need for this 9
acquisition to be lumped into the more long-term aspirations described in Group 2; 10
although, those also are laudable. There are a lot of tie-ins to other City goals and 11
initiatives, such as the Healthy Cities one that we just heard about. The Ventura 12
Neighborhood and other organizations and citizens stand ready to act whether in the form 13
of a public/private partnership or otherwise to realize this goal. Thank you. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Becky Sanders. 16
17
Becky Sanders: Thank you, Commissioners, for your service to our fair City. Thank 18
you, Rob and the Recreation Department, for working as hard and as diligently as you do 19
on our behalf. This is a City that has a lot of demanding, competing interests. We all 20
know that. I'm just here to add my voice to that of Jonathan Brown, the chairman of the 21
parks committee for the Ventura Neighborhood Association. We actually have an 22
official parks platform that has been sent to Peter Jensen. I believe that Boulware 23
actually is at the bottom of the list. I think it gets an F as a rating for a park in the City of 24
Palo Alto. We are underserved by parks in Ventura. We would love to have a bathroom 25 and all kinds of other improvements that are in our platform and were sent in March, I 26 believe, or in the summer, I believe, to the Commission and to Mr. Jensen. I'm just here 27 to add my voice to Jonathan's and say that that corner lot would be an amazing public 28
garden, community garden. Right now it's an eyesore. There is still a homeless issue in 29
that area; although, a lot has been done to address that. People still seem to think that that 30
park, which serves toddlers and families—some people think that it's still okay for 31
homeless people to use that for all of their personal needs. That's a problem. I don't 32
know if it's possible, but if we were to get that park, might it be possible to have an 33
emergency vehicle only drive through from Fernando to Ash to Lambert? That would 34
make it an even more safe and wonderful experience for all of us in Ventura. Thank you 35
very much for your attention. I appreciate it. 36
37
Chair Lauing: Thank you. The last speaker on this item is Shani Kleinhaus. 38
39
Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus again, a resident and a member of the 40
CAC. I do not for speak the CAC. One of the things that came up at the Citizen 41
Advisory Committee was for acquisition to look into legacy programs and bequests and 42
Draft Minutes 14
DRAFT
see if people are willing to donate their home for a park dedication. I didn't see it there. 1
It may be. Just to have consistency with the CAC, it would be good to add it here as 2
well. It looks a lot better than last time. Thank you. You've put a lot of work into that, 3
staff and the Commissioners. Again, the shuttle to parks. For signage, I think there is 4
one place where there is a reference to the Rinconada signage as a model, but there's no 5
picture of what that might look like. You might want to add a picture. There's discussion 6 of signage—there are programs to add signage that adds the distance to the next park and 7
languages and so on. I think people these days use their cell phones, and they don't need 8
additional signage. It kind of litters if you have too much. I'm not sure that's needed. I 9
would actually take out those extras. Being from a different country and speaking with 10
an accent—English is not my native language—I still don't necessarily need the signage 11
in my own mother language. Upgrading of open space trails to be ADA compatible can 12
be done very minorly. You've got to be very, very careful when you put paved trails in 13
parks. Often little critters are attracted to the warmer than the general environment. 14
They'll sit there and bask, and the bicycles will run them over. You really need to be 15
careful. I'm not sure we need a lot of that. You could do maybe one, so there is a way 16
for people who cannot use dirt rails to get around. I think Byxbee already has a lot of 17
trails that are accessible. I would be really careful about doing more of those. The same 18
with art in open space areas in the preserves. You have to be careful with that. There is 19
already art that is now going to be luckily removed. Some of that was providing perches 20
for raptors in an area that they could prey on endangered species. You have to be very 21
careful. Really, the focus in open space and natural areas should be nature. The last one 22
I have here is on lighting. Lighting, especially with LED, is a big problem for wildlife 23
both in the urban and suburban and in nature. I will provide the staff with a recent article 24
about the types of light that can be used and what is not so good to use. That might help 25 design lighting in a better way that's not too invasive. Thank you. 26 27 Chair Lauing: Thank you. That's the last speaker. Kristen, do you want to give us an 28
overview of what we're going to discuss tonight? 29
30
Ms. O'Kane: Sure. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. I'm here with Peter Jensen 31
and Daren Anderson to discuss the Parks Master Plan latest updates. We're going to be 32
discussing Chapter 4 revisions. I know we all thought Chapter 4 was pretty much done, 33
but we did add a few programs in response to Council comments and feedback. We 34
wanted to share those with all of you tonight. Also, sort of the bigger topic is Chapter 5, 35
which has been developed quite a bit since the last Commission meeting. We've added 36
descriptions for all the project and programs and filled in some of the blanks where we 37
had sort of still under development included. Peter's going to be talking about the next 38
steps and schedule to get us to the finish line. The first two programs that we added are 39
under Goal 5 and specifically under Policy 5B, which is support innovation in recreation 40
programming and park features and amenities. We heard from most Council Members 41
the desire to have more intramural sports as well as opportunities for pickup games and 42
Draft Minutes 15
DRAFT
non-league games. We added these two programs under this policy to reflect that. The 1
next was under Policy 5C, which is related to expanding the overall parks and rec system 2
through creative means. We've added 5C.1, which is explore a process to utilize and 3
reserve select public and private lands for park-like functions that allows for more 4
flexibility than formal park dedication. This addresses the desire to have something less 5
limiting than a parkland dedication. For example, if you were going to dedicate parkland 6 on a rooftop, that would come with a lot of limitations for that property. This would 7
provide something that has more flexibility but would still provide the park-like 8
functions. Even if it is temporary, it would still be there. That was the intent of this 9
program. Do you want to stop here, Chair, and discuss any of these? 10
11
Chair Lauing: These are the total new ones, right? 12
13
Ms. O'Kane: Yes, there's three total. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Any comments on those? Commissioner Reckdahl, go ahead. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Just with this last one, I understand once you make a park a 18
park, it stays a park until action is taken. This would just be a park-like area. How would 19
it become not a park-like area? What would be the decommissioning process for this? 20
21
Ms. O'Kane: We still would have to work all those details out, unless you have any 22
thoughts, Rob, on how that would be handled. This is just the idea. We would have to 23
figure out how this would actually be implemented and, like you said, decommissioned. 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is there any use constraints that currently a park can't do, that 26 people want these park-like areas to do? 27 28
Mr. de Geus: Not necessarily. This came up during the Council discussion on taking a 29
look at public land that is currently being used for park and recreation functions but is not 30
dedicated parkland and moving to dedicate those parcels. The discussion came up that 31
there may be instances where we do want to use the land for park and recreation 32
purposes, but we don't want to dedicate it as parkland because it could be limiting in 33
some way for that property. As the example was given here, if it was on a rooftop or 34
something, you wouldn't want to dedicate it as parkland. Is there another type of 35
dedication that is not quite as limiting as dedicated parkland, which requires a vote of the 36
people and all of those things and is pretty restrictive in terms of what you can use? It's 37
really to explore is there another designation. 38
39
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think it makes sense. I was just poking at what was the 40
features of parkland that people are objecting to. Was it the permanency or was it some 41
use of the parkland that's limited? 42
Draft Minutes 16
DRAFT
1
Ms. O'Kane: I think it's the permanency. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 4
5
Chair Lauing: Any other comments on this? Anne. 6 7
Commissioner Cribbs: Just a question about intramural sports as opposed to intermural 8
sports. I just didn't understand the definition. 9
10
Ms. O'Kane: It could be that I misspelled it. 11
12
Commissioner Cribbs: No, I don't think so. I was thinking maybe you meant something 13
different, whether the "intra" was just within the school opportunities and "inter" was 14
between schools. I just was confused about what that was. 15
16
Ms. O'Kane: I think the "intra" means within the school. 17
18
Commissioner Cribbs: Within the school. 19
20
Ms. O'Kane: I can look into that and make sure I have the right one or maybe we include 21
both. I'm not sure. 22
23
Commissioner Cribbs: What would I prefer? I just think it's great to have kids have 24
opportunities to play in a not too serious manner. If that is better just within the school, 25 that's fine. It could be schools against each other too. I just wanted to ask the question. 26 27 Chair Lauing: David, did you have a comment? Put on the mike. 28
29
Commissioner Moss: I don't have a comment about Chapter 4. Everything's fine. In one 30
of the previous chapters, there's a typo that's pretty glaring, that I was hoping you would 31
correct. That's on page 11. It says that there are three elements. You really don't say 32
what those three elements are. It's on page 11 at the bottom of—the front page and the 33
top of page 11 talks about the three elements. I think the three elements are parks, trails, 34
natural open spaces and then recreational facilities and then recreational programs. When 35
you go over there, they're all the same size font. You really can't tell. If you could just 36
list the three elements in that first paragraph like you did later on with the other ones, on 37
the top of page 16, just make recreational facilities a little bigger and bolder. On page 19, 38
recreational programs, make it a little bigger and bolder than the rest. I think that would 39
make it flow a lot better. That's all I had. 40
41
Chair Lauing: Should we move to Chapter 5? 42
Draft Minutes 17
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Hetterly: I had a couple ... 2
3
Chair Lauing: Sorry. 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: ... for the other chapters. 6 7
Chair Lauing: For four? 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: For one through four. They're not big. Page 27, actually 10
throughout the demographics section, it would be great if we could add some more charts 11
or pictures. I know there was some work being done on that; I don't know if it's 12
completed or not. In particular, I'd like to see a chart showing the growth trend for kids. 13
Page 54 has the parkland acreage policy. It refers to the National Recreation and Park 14
Association standard and then refers you to the sidebar. The sidebar really just talks 15
about the 4 acres per 1,000. I would like to see the language of the NRPA standard in 16
there as well, because it does have some context that fits in with our new policy. Page 17
C14 is the map of the walkshed for dog parks. I think it just needs to be corrected, 18
because it looks as though the dog parks are in Mitchell Park and Rinconada, but it 19
doesn't show one in Hoover. We don't have one in Rinconada. It doesn't show one at 20
Greer. Perhaps I misunderstood what this map was representing. Please double check it 21
and make sure it has the right locations. That's all I had before Chapter 5. 22
23
Chair Lauing: Keith. 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: I have two comments here. Page 12, we talk about due to the 26 era in which they were built, many parks don't have flexible spaces. I think that term, 27 flexible spaces, needs some definition. When I think of grass, open areas, that's quite 28
flexible. You can do a lot of things there. I'm not sure what we're getting at with that 29
flexible spaces, whether it's courts that can be used for multiple sports or what. That 30
flexible spaces, more detail has to be added to that. The other thing was also on the same 31
page. The very last paragraph talks about the figure depicts all City-owned park sites. It 32
also shows the City-leased. Maybe we should say City-owned and City-leased or have 33
some general term, City-controlled or something like that, that includes both Stanford and 34
El Camino Park, which are not owned by the City. The second one was on page 28. On 35
page 28, we talk about our special needs. It says our community is also home to an 36
unusually high number of special needs students. I think more detail is needed on that. 37
Is there a reason for that or is that just a fluke? If there's a reason, then we expect it could 38
be sustaining, and we should plan more. If it's just a fluke that 10 years from now will 39
possibly go away, that would reduce our commitment to adding features in parks and also 40
programs for special need students. That's it. Thank you. Do we know why there's so 41
many special needs students? Is it a Bay Area thing or is it Palo Alto compared to 42
Draft Minutes 18
DRAFT
Redwood City? When we say unusually high, what are we comparing it to? Do we 1
know? 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: As I recall, the demographic report that MIG did highlighted 4
that. They were saying that it was due to the attraction of the school system. Since our 5
school system provides such excellent services for the special needs population, they're a 6 draw. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: (crosstalk). That would ... 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't recall that there was any hard and fast data establishing 11
that, but that was their ... 12
13
Commissioner Reckdahl: We're speculating that's (crosstalk). 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: ... presumption. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: If that's the case, then that probably would be sustaining, 18
which means we would want to make a special effort. Thank you. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Did you want to give an overview presentation on Chapter 5 or just go to 21
comments? 22
23
Ms. O'Kane: I have a few slides. Chapter 5 is implementation. Last time, we came with 24
our list of 15 priority projects and 15 priority programs that we felt we had general 25 agreement on from the community and the PRC. These were things that could be 26 addressed in the very near term, whether that be completed in the nearer term or start the 27 planning process in the nearer term. The feedback we got from the Commission was to 28
add the 7.7-acre piece of land at Foothills Park, which we did. In meeting with the ad 29
hoc group, we chose to add enhance existing playing fields as well. Now, there are those 30
two additional projects. We've also grouped them by short-term versus long-term, those 31
that need further study, will take a long time to plan or fund, and also urgency. We've 32
added descriptions of each priority project and program including the level of planning 33
effort, capital cost, operation cost, timeframe and urgency. I've included the definitions 34
here. The planning effort is really how much time does it take to plan it. That includes 35
your community outreach, your environmental review, identifying the funding and also 36
PRC and Council approval. We've given those a rating of low, medium, high. There isn't 37
any certain amount of time or dollar amount connected to low, medium, high. It's just a 38
very general label. Capital costs, we did get more specific. This is the order of 39
magnitude capital costs to implement the project. We included annual operating costs. 40
Once the project is completed, how much will it cost to keep it going? Timeframe, 41
whether it occurs in the near, mid or long-term. The final one is urgency, which indicates 42
Draft Minutes 19
DRAFT
the level of need. It's important to point out that all projects included in the Master Plan 1
have a demonstrated need. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in there. The level of urgency 2
does vary, and this is dependent on the availability of a particular program or a particular 3
amenity based on the demand that there is. We give this a rating of low, medium, and 4
high as well. One thing I wanted to touch on—Rob and I have talked about this quite a 5
bit; we've gone back and forth on it. Is urgency an appropriate category to be including, 6 given that these projects are all considered high priority? If something is rated low on the 7
urgency, what does that mean? If it is low, then maybe it shouldn't be on the list. We 8
wanted to just hear the Commission's thoughts on this and get some feedback from you. I 9
don't think we're recommending either. We just want to be able to better understand it 10
and better explain it to others. Any comments? 11
12
Chair Lauing: I think we could just have comments on that, the urgency question, before 13
we go into it. Is that okay? 14
15
Ms. O'Kane: I'm sorry. 16
17
Chair Lauing: Just to speak about this urgency question first, before we go into it. 18
19
Ms. O'Kane: Please, that would be ... 20
21
Chair Lauing: Does anyone want to start? I can. Commissioner Moss. 22
23
Commissioner Moss: I definitely think you should have the urgency on there. Even if 24
it's low, if there are some spots that we could stick it into, especially if it's not high cost, 25 we could just do it in between the higher priority ones, especially the bigger, more 26 expensive ones. If these are less expensive, even if they're low, we could squeeze them 27 in. It's good to have them on the list, I think. 28
29
Chair Lauing: The first thing that comes to my mind on urgency is if there's a safety 30
issue. Obviously, even though that would be a high priority and dog parks would be a 31
high priority maybe if there wasn't a safety issue, then you could get balance that way. I 32
think there are instances, but it may be an ad hoc decision rather than fighting over it in 33
terms of high priority versus urgency. Other comments? Commissioner Hetterly. 34
35
Commissioner Hetterly: I do think it's important to have an urgency element to it. When 36
I think about it, it's more in the sense of a time sensitivity. For example, the 37
Comprehensive Conservation Plans are important. All these things are important, but 38
those are one of the things that we want to do at the front end because they're going to 39
guide our decision-making around every other thing that we do. There is an urgency to 40
do that first. We don't want to wait until 15 years out to finish the last Conservation Plan. 41
I think there are several items that are like that. We had a speaker earlier talking about 42
Draft Minutes 20
DRAFT
the AT&T property site. Hopefully that's something that could be resolved before this 1
Master Plan is put into action. If not, that seems to me something that we might want to 2
include as in fact a Group 1 project or at least an urgent Group 2 project that would get 3
immediate attention. If we fail to act, then we lose that opportunity. It's gone forever. 4
There's a lot of time sensitive items in here that really do need to be acted on 5
immediately. I think maintenance is another one of those, where we want to have a 6 sustainable maintenance strategy that's going to guide our maintenance for the next 20 7
years and every single project that we pursue. That, I think, does merit a special standing 8
in the evaluation. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would concur. To me, it's important. There's high needs that 11
if they go unmet, there's not a big impact. There's other high needs, for example buying 12
property or there was one in here about ADA. If you have disabled kids who can't use a 13
playground right now, I'd consider that time urgency because they're going to lose their 14
childhood by the time they retrofit that park. It's what's the ramification if this high need 15
is not met. Some high needs can be prolonged. If you look at the catch-up and keep-up 16
list from the Blue Ribbon Committee, a lot of those were high, but they've just drifted 17
along, and we've gotten by without them. Other times, it's more time critical. 18
19
Chair Lauing: Let's just talk about Chapter 5. I had a couple of structural questions. 20
Were there any adds or deletions to the glossary this time around? 21
22
Ms. O'Kane: I don't believe so. 23
24
Chair Lauing: I noticed that all the appendices are up front, at least the way this has been 25 collated. Is that intentional? All these charts and maps and everything are before we get 26 to the text. 27 28
Ms. O'Kane: They should be at the end. I actually had a question for all of you on the 29
appendices. 30
31
Chair Lauing: I'm sorry? 32
33
Ms. O'Kane: They should be all at the end, the appendices. Actually that was timely 34
because my next slide is about those. I had a discussion question related to that as well. 35
36
Chair Lauing: It's collated before the Attachment B in the packet. 37
38
Ms. O'Kane: That's because one through four and those appendices were put in together 39
as this is sort of a final draft or near final draft, where Chapter 5 we still consider an 40
earlier draft. They were put in there separately. That's why. 41
42
Draft Minutes 21
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: I think we should probably just go through this Commissioner by 1
Commissioner, page by page, unless there are other approaches. Did you want to do that 2
now, the discussion question? 3
4
Ms. O'Kane: Sure, that would be fine. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Fine. Sorry. 7
8
Ms. O'Kane: The appendices that are included right now, there are five of them which 9
are on the presentation. The question is are these the right appendices. Should there be 10
additional ones? What other information—because we have a lot of information, a lot of 11
data, what's missing from this list, if anything, that we should add? 12
13
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 14
15
Commissioner Moss: Thank you very much for putting all this stuff in the appendices. It 16
makes the flow of Chapters 1-4 much easier to follow. As far as the order, I think the 17
ones that—the geographic analysis and the park and rec inventory are the easiest for 18
people to understand. Having those up front is good. Of course, the community 19
engagement process probably could be lower down, because you're really just saying how 20
you came up with this whole community response. It's sort of the process. Maybe if you 21
wanted to switch geographic analysis and community engagement, just the order of the 22
appendices, that might be better. 23
24
Chair Lauing: Other comments? 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: One comment on Appendix A. Are these going to be fold-outs 27 in the final? The same with some of the maps. I find it a little cumbersome to have the 28
data divided on two pages, especially when the pages were on opposite sides of each 29
other. 30
31
Ms. O'Kane: Yes, we can make them fold-outs so they're easier to read. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: Was this just to make it easier to print out or were we doing a 34
trade? Was there some disadvantage of fold-outs? 35
36
Ms. O'Kane: It's just easier for this review, for printing all the packets. 37
38
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with Commissioner Moss about moving the geographic 39
analysis up. I think those maps are really helpful and informative and help get to the 40
substance of the Plan. Not that community engagement is not a big part of the Plan. It's 41
not as empirical. It looks like Appendix X that's related to Chapter 5 now is going with 42
Draft Minutes 22
DRAFT
the other appendices at the end. The program evaluation tool, I didn't see that appendix. 1
Are you proposing to take that evaluating future projects section of Chapter 5 and make 2
that an appendix? It's on page 23 of Chapter 5. 3
4
Ms. O'Kane: Thank you. There's a form that MIG put together to go along with this, and 5
that would be what's in the appendix. It would be almost like a flow chart of "if this, 6 move to this; if not, stop your process." That's what the appendix would be. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: That should be referred to probably in the text, so people know 9
to go to that. As for other appendices that may be missing, I can't say off the top of my 10
head that any come to me. I think the survey results were very useful information that 11
people would find interesting. That's one I'd be inclined to include. Beyond that, I'd 12
have to go look at the binder to see what other pieces we had and what might be an 13
official supplement. 14
15
Chair Lauing: If you pulled page 23, would this chapter just end on potential 16
partnerships? The reason I ask is there seems to be a feel of closure if there's a way 17
forward in future years with projects. At least some summary there, I think, would be 18
helpful even if you're going to put more of this into the appendix. I'm saying you want a 19
way forward to prioritize things in future years and decades. I think stating that in the 20
body here, while you're talking about how you're going to implement it as something new 21
comes up, you ought to at least have a summary here even if you're going to put this 22
appendix in the back in terms of the scoring sheet and the quantitative aspects of that. 23
24
Ms. O'Kane: I think the text would stay in the chapter, and then there would be a 25 separate appendix referred to in the text. 26 27 Chair Lauing: Where are we saying we should have the geographic analysis? Would 28
that be "B," just swap "B" and "C"? That works for me. Is that what you're saying, 29
David? 30
31
Commissioner Moss: Yes. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Keith? Do you want to start, Keith or Jennifer? 34
35
Commissioner Reckdahl: We've talked about urgency. There were a couple in here 36
that—this is on Chapter 5 obviously, page 5—where we talk about establish and grow 37
partnerships. We call that urgency high. I'm not sure exactly why we would mark that 38
high. It's important to do, but I don't ... 39
40
Chair Lauing: Where are you? 41
42
Draft Minutes 23
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: Page 5, on the very top, very first section, establish and grow 1
partnerships. I think that's important to do, but I wouldn't do it urgency high. At least in 2
my mind, the ramifications of not doing that is not as dire as some other things. When 3
we have—the second one also is high. We seem to be a little inconsistent. Like on page 4
6, we have the youth aquatics program as high, but expand programs for seniors is 5
medium. I would think that would kind of be in the same boat. I think they probably all 6 should be medium. It might be worthwhile just to go through offline and just review 7
urgencies. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Yeah. I'm questioning whether we should be going through it in 10
subsections here as opposed to just go all the way through the pages. The first section is 11
implementation and prioritization. We get comfortable with that before we go through all 12
20 pages, each of us. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: That might be more orderly. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Yeah, I think so. Is that okay? 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yep. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Do you want to keep the floor and look at pages, I guess, 1-3? 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't have anything on those (inaudible). 23
24
Commissioner Hetterly: I struggled a little with the organization. I think it's because I 25 keep stumbling on these timeframes. I was going to suggest that under prioritization 26 process and action plan, you just change that heading to prioritization and have a little 27 intro saying with limited staff time and resources we can't do everything at once. We 28
developed a process to evaluate programs in the Plan based on current and anticipated 29
needs and opportunities. The same process can be used throughout the life of the Plan as 30
needs and resources change. After that little kind of general intro, then you put in this 31
prioritization process. You've introduced it, and now you're telling them how it works, 32
the criteria and evaluation. I would move up the evaluating future projects section to 33
immediately after that process, because it's kind of a follow-on to what do we do with 34
future things as they come up. They don't go exactly through the same thing, but we have 35
to consider the control, the geography, all those other elements that aren't listed in these 36
initial criteria. Then, go into the priority needs and opportunities. This is what we found 37
through this planning process. These are the top 30 priorities. Followed by the action 38
plan and then funding challenges and progress reporting together at the end. I throw that 39
out as a suggestion. For the timeline, I felt like it lacked some context of why are you 40
telling us about these near-term, mid-term, long-term things before we understand how 41
the various projects might spread across the various timelines. I'd love to add some 42
Draft Minutes 24
DRAFT
language in here. I don't think it's policy-related, but it just gives a little context. I'm 1
happy to share that with you offline, if you'd prefer that. It basically would just introduce 2
that projects don't always start and end in a single timeframe. There are a lot of different 3
kinds of projects. Some will extend across all of them; some are ongoing. Then, these 4
timeframes as described here kind of give the structure for how each project will be 5
integrated into the City planning process. I think it's useful to have this information; I 6 just feel like there's a disconnect. That's all I have before we get to the priority section. 7
8
Chair Lauing: I'll go that way and come back, and I'll go last again. Commissioner 9
Moss. 10
11
Commissioner Moss: I have a question about the process here. Are we presenting this to 12
the City Council next month or do we have one more month? What Commissioner 13
Hetterly just talked about is quite substantial. Are we ready to present it to the City 14
Council or do we come back one more time so that you've had a chance to think about 15
what she just said? 16
17
Ms. O'Kane: Our last slide is to go through the schedule. To answer your question, we 18
will not be able to go to Council in December because the agendas are already very full. 19
We do have one more meeting to come back to the PRC in December with another draft. 20
I'm sorry, November. 21
22
Mr. de Geus: We hope that in November we'll have a full draft including the comments 23
from today and a complete draft of Chapter 5. If possible, we'll still try to get to the 24
Council by the end of the calendar year. As Kristen said, it looks pretty challenging right 25 now. The meetings the Council has, there's only two meetings, December 5th and 26 December 12, and that's the last meeting for December. 27 28
Chair Lauing: As well as a draft EIR, something that has to be done. 29
30
Mr. de Geus: That's going to happen into the new year anyway. We hoped that we could 31
present a full draft to the Council this year, just because some of the Council Members 32
are not going to be continuing, and they've had an opportunity to work with us for a 33
couple of years. We're still trying to see if we can fit it in, but it looks like it might be 34
challenging. 35
36
Chair Lauing: Is that all? 37
38
Commissioner Moss: I wanted to encourage us to try if at all possible to put this before 39
the Council before the end of the year. That means that the comments we give you today 40
can't be major. 41
42
Draft Minutes 25
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: I think they can be substantive actually. As you read Chapter 5, there's still 1
some big gaps. There's going to be some substantive changes. We have the next several 2
weeks to include those and rewrite. We'll probably meet as an ad hoc committee a couple 3
more times so that November 16th, when we have our next meeting, you can read the full 4
draft of Chapter 5. Then, we'll decide whether it's really ready, if we think it's ready for 5
Council. We'll keep pushing to try and get a date for Council. 6 7
Chair Lauing: I totally agree with that. Keep using the ad hoc as rigorously as possible. 8
We can put a lot of cycles in it and come back. Anne, did you have comments? 9
10
Commissioner Cribbs: No. I'm still troubled by this list. I'm not troubled, but just 11
looking at the list and saying—if I were reading it without having the background, I 12
would say, "This is the first one. This is the second one." I think we have to—if it's not 13
prioritized, then we should say that it's not prioritized. 14
15
Chair Lauing: I think we should maybe dig into that a little bit. Since I'm going last, I'll 16
just make a few comments. Then, we can maybe look at that list. I'm still concerned 17
about the language leading the thought process. As we've been saying for—it's almost 2 18
years now. This is a strategic document. It's long-term. It's multiyear. There are some 19
really big deal things on here that we have to start on now even though they're going to 20
take 10 or 15 years to get through. We all know that, and we all believe that. We're all 21
committed to that, up here and in the City and on the Council. I don't mean this as 22
wordsmithing. I mean it as the right guidelines. In the first sentence of implementation, 23
we start talking about the annual process. In the next sentence we talk about the annual 24
cycle. Then, we talk about the annual action plan. Then, we start talking about the CIP 25 process. When we get down to the paragraph, we say that we're going to determine the 26 final order of implementation as part of the established CIP and operating budget process. 27 You reference staff and PRC and Council. I actually think that point is wrong. What we 28
really want to do is come to the Council with some things that are going to need 29
something other than CIP on an annual basis that we're going to look at. I know some of 30
it backs into the PRC, that you spend on an annual basis. I'm just concerned that if we 31
couch this in the language that's annual plan and CIP and annual budgets, we're going to 32
lose sight of the fact that, I think, separate action has to be taken on some of these items 33
by Council to get some things done. I'm happy to help work on language there. I don't 34
mean to detract from the fact that the CIP process is quite valid. I've been on that 35
committee for years and so on. I'm just concerned about how we're setting that up. 36
When we set up the groups, 0-5 years, 6-10 years, it's referencing the CIP process, which 37
is on page 2, in the near term and even in the mid-term for 6-10 years. It may be that one 38
of these things Council says, "We should do funding for that right now outside of the CIP 39
process." That's the kind of potential action that we would like to encourage, I think, on 40
some of these projects. I'm just a little concerned about how we're talking about it on a 41
day-by-day basis. When we get down to long term, we don't have any comment at all 42
Draft Minutes 26
DRAFT
until we get back to the budget thing, where we talk a few pages later about various ways 1
to fund this thing. It doesn't say capital budget or anything else. I just don't know if 2
we're leading this thing in the right direction. That's my concern. I welcome comments 3
from my colleagues on that. On the list itself, I think last time it was switched. We had 4
projects first and then programs. A couple of us at least commented that the projects—I 5
don't want to say that they're more important, but they're more elaborate, they're more 6 initiatives, they're harder to accomplish. Maybe those should still be listed first for 7
visibility. The discussion that I'd also like to have is when we look at this list of Group 1 8
projects, I don't happen to agree that those are Group 1 projects. A lot of them that are in 9
the Group 2 list should probably be up on the Group 1 list. Just because it can get done 10
quicker doesn't mean that they're lower priorities. I still think we're kind of faced with 11
that decision. Enhance existing playing fields, if we believe that that's really serious, then 12
it's just as important, my goodness, as enhancing seating areas in the parks. It feels to me 13
like we should still have a bit of a discussion here and in ad hoc in terms of the right 14
priorities and maybe even the totals. We said last time there was nothing magical about 15
30 things. We could make it 50 or whatever. To me this is such a meat of the findings 16
section for everything that we went through that (a) it should be highlighted, but it should 17
be a big part of what we're putting there. I'll pause for any comments. Are you pressing 18
your button, Commissioner Hetterly? 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: I was just going to ask. I didn't understand the Group 1 and 21
Group 2 as being Group 1 is more important, more urgent, we have to do those first, and 22
Group 2 is not. I didn't think that there was a normative judgment around placing in 23
Group 1 or Group 2. I thought it was about Group 1 projects, those are the ones that 24
could be initiated immediately and potentially completed in the short term. Group 2 25 required significant study before they could be initiated or required a specific funding 26 strategy in order to accomplish that. Those two things would be the first step that should 27 still happen in the nearer term, but it didn't make those less high priorities. I'm curious 28
what the intention is and what other people understand. 29
30
Commissioner Cribbs: If I could. I think it's maybe the way we're looking at it, the way 31
we're reading it. It appears that Group 1 seems like it's more important than Group 2, but 32
really the big things are in Group 2, at least from my perspective. The other thing about 33
these groups is there are some things that I know that we do as a matter of course, like 34
incorporate sustainable practices. If you could take some of those things and pull them 35
out and put them in a different space that says, "We as a City believe in these things, and 36
we do them on a daily basis," rather than putting them here like we're going to get—37
everybody's laughing. 38
39
Chair Lauing: We're smiling because Keith and I are going to put up signs about best 40
practices, best practices. We think they should be there period. It's the good judgment of 41
staff that we know they're going to do that. 42
Draft Minutes 27
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Cribbs: That's exactly what I was saying, that we do it on a regular basis. 2
The same thing with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If those can get pulled out of 3
these two, it would be great. 4
5
Chair Lauing: Just to answer your question and maybe ask for clarification, the point that 6 I'm trying to make is that I don't think we should be making a separation of priorities 7
based on short term or long term. I think we should be saying as a Master Plan here's 8
what's most important for the City to do. Now, let's figure out when. That is definitely 9
up to staff and financing and so on. That's what my concern about short term versus 10
further study in the sort of meat of the project. Here are our top priorities for the next 20 11
years. Just to explain what my thinking is on how it's written. David. 12
13
Commissioner Moss: Instead of saying Group 1, if you said "for example." Some of 14
these can be done in the short term. Some of the other ones—the ones that say Group 2 15
project needing further study, take away the word Group 2 and say essentially here are 16
other projects that will take a little bit more study. That way it doesn't look like a 17
prioritization; it looks like this is how we're grouping these things so that we can handle 18
them better. Not a priority thing, but how we handle them. We handle them with a 19
different process, not that one is more important than the other. 20
21
Chair Lauing: Part of that actually is covered in the subsequent copy that you have 22
written there in terms of going after parkland, the steps to be taken in what year and so 23
on. I think the copy enhances what we're really trying to do. 24
25 Commissioner Moss: One other comment I want to make about what you said about the 26 process being tied to an annual ... 27 28
Chair Lauing: CIP budget? 29
30
Commissioner Moss: What he said about the annual process, I got the feeling that you 31
already have these processes well in hand. They're ingrained in the way the City runs. 32
What we're hoping with this long-term Plan is that you will use it to guide you in what 33
we do every year. I don't think you can have a new process. You must stick with an 34
annual process, but what you put in that annual process is highly dependent on this 35
longer-term plan. Can we change the wording somehow to say that utilize the annual 36
process that we have in place and be guided by this long-term plan. I don't know how 37
you can word that better, but that's sort of what I think you're talking about. You're not 38
talking about creating a new process. 39
40
Chair Lauing: I think that is what's being said here. I think that's totally the intent of 41
staff. I'm actually not arguing about that. I'm saying that what we need to do is raise up 42
Draft Minutes 28
DRAFT
these priorities and do it in a way that maybe says if we decide we need $100 million for 1
parkland, we can't look at that on—are we going to pull that off in the next 5 years? It's 2
not a CIP by definition, because that isn't the process. That's probably a 25-year thing, so 3
that can't fit that process, but we still need to do it. There are things that don't quite fit in 4
that process. I'm sorry. Did you want to make another comment, Rob? 5
6 Mr. de Geus: I'm just thinking about this topic. That was helpful to hear that point. I 7
also felt Commissioner Moss articulated correctly what we were trying to accomplish 8
here. We know that the City Council makes budget decisions during the budget process. 9
They don't typically do it outside of the process. It's through the capital budget process 10
and the operating budget process. We would fold that into there. The Chair is correct 11
that there are other bigger aspirations in here that don't cleanly fit into the CIP annual 12
process. How do we manage that and deal with that and make sure that it's clearly 13
articulated here, that there are big next steps that we need to take beyond the CIP plan? I 14
think that's very helpful. The other thing I wanted to mention, just back on how we order 15
these. I was thinking just now—I mentioned to Kristen—is having a summary list like 16
this really necessary. It seems like we're getting caught up on it a little bit. We're not 17
able to describe in the summary what it is that we're talking about, so assumptions are 18
made about how this list is put together and why is it put together that way. When you 19
get a chance to actually read the description of the program, the sense of urgency and 20
dollar amount, you have better context as to why it's listed as near, mid or long or high 21
urgency or not. I just wonder what the value is of having the summary list. Maybe it 22
causes more problems than not having it at all. 23
24
Chair Lauing: It's an interesting angle to consider as a way around the problem. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: I personally like the list. I think we should just say that this is 27 the list and it's not prioritized. These are the topics that we'll be covering. You can look 28
at this in a half page and understand this is what I'm going to talk about. That puts you in 29
the context when you start reading the list. 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: I think it's worth considering taking those Group 2 projects, the 32
high cost, high effort projects, and putting them up front. These are the extraordinary, 33
ambitious projects that we think are really important to do. Follow that with this is the 34
stuff that should go through the regular process. 35
36
Peter Jensen: In our conversations with the consultant on that, their idea was if you do 37
put the bigger projects up front, then those projects dominate the list. If your list ends 38
with the last program, which is a low-impact one, it looks like it is prioritized where the 39
bottom of the list is not as big as the other ones. That's why they were switched around. 40
When you got to the end of the list, it didn't seem like they were the small projects. 41
Draft Minutes 29
DRAFT
Those were actually the big ones, so it didn't get smaller in scale as you went down. 1
Either way, how the list is—that was the idea of why it was done in this draft version. 2
3
Chair Lauing: I think we have very smart Council Members. I think you can figure that 4
out without too much trouble. 5
6 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think the big ones should go up front, just because they take 7
immediate action. If the other things on the list are delayed by 6 months or a year, not a 8
big deal. The other things we want to get going right away because there's such a long 9
lag. 10
11
Chair Lauing: What was that? 12
13
Council Member Filseth: (inaudible) 14
15
Chair Lauing: They're used to being asked for money. They have to make those 16
decisions. 17
18
Council Member Filseth: If there's stuff that you're going to need, ask the Council. Tell 19
us it's coming. I've been doing this for 2 years. We've had multiple study sessions. I 20
don't think you guys have asked us for anything. Ask. We'll probably say no, but at least 21
it will be in our mind when you come back next year. Ask. 22
23
Chair Lauing: Exactly. That was even better put than how I tried to say it. It's exactly 24
what I was trying to say. There is this residual issue here of some of these things might 25 be okay not to be listed because you're going to do them or there are more projects. We 26 should probably look at that one more time. What do we think about the quantity of 27 items that are here? Those are a relatively arbitrary number of things. Are we not raising 28
up the visibility on enough things or is this okay? Jennifer. 29
30
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm not sure the quantity really matters. What matters is that we 31
have the things we want to highlight included on the list. My question is really this list of 32
30 things, it's not all inclusive of everything that we want to do out of the Master Plan. I 33
think we should be clear that this is not a comprehensive list of everything we want to do 34
in the next 20 years. These are the things we've identified as critical priorities to move on 35
right away. In that context, I don't think it matters at all what the number is. We should 36
judge what goes on the list based on what we think is a critical priority that should be 37
highlighted for Council. 38
39
Chair Lauing: Do we want to look at the programs section and kind of go through there 40
with comments? 41
42
Draft Minutes 30
DRAFT
Commissioner Cribbs: At the list or at the programs themselves? 1
2
Chair Lauing: At the programs starting on page 5. Comments on 5. Go ahead, Keith. 3
4
Commissioner Reckdahl: On the top of page 5, I'm kind of nitpicking here. Operating 5
costs for grow partnerships, the very top one. We're saying that it's going to take between 6 a quarter million and a million. I'm sorry, that's capital cost. $5,000 and $25,000, that's 7
reasonable. I was thinking that this was going to be a capital cost. Forget that. Do 8
(inaudible) down the list and then ... 9
10
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's all I have on that one. I guess also urgency being high, 13
my same comment as before. 14
15
Chair Lauing: We're just going to go page-by-page. I think that's the right process. Go 16
ahead, Jennifer. 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: Page by page or item by item? Did you have a (inaudible)? 19
20
Mr. de Geus: Chair? 21
22
Chair Lauing: Yes. 23
24
Mr. de Geus: It'd be helpful if—like Commissioner Reckdahl saying that he thinks the 25 urgency shouldn't be high, if there's some sense of what the rest of the Commissioners 26 think about that. I actually think it should be high. We can do a lot more if we have 27 robust partnerships with our Friends groups, Friends of Palo Alto Parks, the Palo Alto 28
Recreation Foundation. We need to invest in those relationships and partnerships, so that 29
we're steering them to the highest priority projects that we have. I just mention it because 30
otherwise we're going to go back and be sitting in an office saying, "Keith said that, but 31
they answered this." 32
33
Chair Lauing: You want to try to get closer to consensus ... 34
35
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, a little bit if we could. 36
37
Chair Lauing: ... without having to vote on every one. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: I was going to say exactly that about that first one. I think it 40
should be high for that very reason. I don't have others on this page. 41
42
Draft Minutes 31
DRAFT
Commissioner Cribbs: On the first one, the marketing campaign, does it include money 1
for a volunteer coordinator? 2
3
Mr. de Geus: Those are the things that we talked about, the kinds of things that we would 4
want to fund if we really want to invest in this one. 5
6 Chair Lauing: I'm good with that page. David? 7
8
Commissioner Moss: The third one about recruiting, do we want to say something about 9
outsourcing? What we've been talking about with aquatics for instance. Do we want to 10
say that that's an option? Expand recruitment and training or explore outsourcing. That's 11
a perfectly legitimate solution. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: Maybe public-private partnerships or some language like that. 14
15
Commissioner Moss: Maybe. 16
17
Chair Lauing: Page 6. Let's reverse it then. David, do you have anything on that? 18
19
Commissioner Moss: Number 2, you have coordinate with Avenidas. What about Palo 20
Alto Adult Ed? Do we want to say something about that? That's a huge source of 21
programs for seniors. I think it should be highlighted. Does anybody agree or disagree? 22
23
Chair Lauing: We fund Avenidas. That's why that's there. Anything else on that page? 24
Anne? 25 26 Commissioner Cribbs: No. 27 28
Commissioner Hetterly: I would like to take youth out of the heading for expand 29
aquatics programs. I don't think we only want to expand them for youth. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: That's good, yeah. 32
33
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with Keith about the disparity between aquatics and 34
seniors programs. I'm curious why aquatics rose to a high urgency as opposed to seniors 35
and teens. Maybe teens we have made a lot of progress in that regard. I'd just love to 36
hear a little more about how you ended up on a (inaudible). 37
38
Ms. O'Kane: I'll respond to the aquatics first. I believe that got a high because we heard 39
a lot of feedback from the community that they would like to see the aquatics program 40
expanded, where we didn't hear as much, I would say, about seniors or maybe even teens. 41
Do you want to expand, Peter? 42
Draft Minutes 32
DRAFT
1
Mr. de Geus: I was just going to add on the aquatics that I think it can be changed. I 2
don't feel very strongly about it. The aquatics program is upon us right now. The 3
program we are running we know is inadequate, and we're not serving the public in the 4
way we want to. We have to do something immediately. Whereas, the senior program is 5
a little more of a slow burn, I think, over the time period. 6 7
Commissioner Hetterly: That makes sense to me. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Anything else on six? Keith? 10
11
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes. I'm sorry. 12
13
Commissioner Reckdahl: The aquatics, I was looking at the capital cost. That again is in 14
the $250,000 to $1 million for the program. What would be the cost—I would think that 15
would be a single dollar sign instead of two dollar signs. This is page 6 on the top, 16
capital cost for the youth aquatics programs. 17
18
Ms. O'Kane: That's a good question. We'll look into that a little bit deeper. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: That was just my knee jerk reaction. 21
22
Commissioner Cribbs: Why is the nonacademic program for youth just a medium 23
urgency? How did that decision get made? 24
25 Mr. de Geus: We've done a lot for youth and teens, particularly teen programs, in the last 26 several years through the work at Mitchell Park and the new center, through the 27 Children's Theatre and the Teen Arts Council. The Art Center is also expanding their 28
teen program. With the Bryant Street Garage Fund we're doing mini grants for teens. It's 29
a program that's been heavily invested in over the last years. It's not something that we'll 30
not continue to invest in. That's why it's in the list of 30. It's still a high priority in terms 31
of the demand and sense of urgency. We're meeting a lot of the demand, we think. It's 32
not like there's a huge gap necessarily. It's something that remains very important, that 33
we need to continue to invest in. 34
35
Commissioner Cribbs: It just seems like with all of the emphasis on what we're trying to 36
do for kids and youth, that should go in the high priority even though we're already 37
servicing and doing all sorts of programs and stuff like that. Maybe it's just the optics of 38
it. I don't know. 39
40
Mr. de Geus: If I could just jump back to the aquatics quickly, as I thought about that a 41
little bit, why it has capital costs that are higher. The pool is not regulation length, so 42
Draft Minutes 33
DRAFT
that's something that—to fix that would be considerable. The facilities, the locker rooms, 1
very old buildings. When the pool was renovated in the 1990s, those buildings were not. 2
That would also be a significant cost. 3
4
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is that program a recreation program as opposed to a facility? 5
Does this include both facility aspects of the aquatics and also the recreation program? 6 7
Mr. de Geus: It can include both. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: Just so I understand. You're saying that this program is 10
intended to incorporate not just programming changes but also the capital work involved 11
with the Rinconada renovation that's been developed through the Rinconada Master Plan? 12
13
Mr. de Geus: That's the way it's currently described. Correct. 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: I think it would be better to separate the two and put that 16
Rinconada capital improvements under the costly items. I think it's likely to well exceed 17
$1 million, isn't it? 18
19
Mr. de Geus: That's actually (crosstalk). 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: It would be more than two dollar signs, more likely three or 22
four. I would pull that out and add it to the big ticket items. 23
24
Mr. de Geus: That makes sense. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Page 7. 27 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: I had one. On page 7 on the very top, the timeframe being 29
mid. Why would we not do an immediate intramural sports program? Near term, I 30
guess, is the terminology. That's page 7 on the top. 31
32
Chair Lauing: There's some going on now, right? 33
34
Ms. O'Kane: There is the existing middle school athletics program. 35
36
Commissioner Reckdahl: This is intramural. Is this less formal than the current 37
program? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: This is less formal. It's less competitive. Anybody can play. 40
41
Draft Minutes 34
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: Right now we do the middle school athletics, but we don't do 1
anything in high school. The Council was saying, "If you don't make varsity, but you 2
still want to play basketball, we should have some pick-up times so people who still play 3
basketball and enjoy basketball can do it outside of the varsity program. I don't see any 4
reason to hold off on that. I would make that timeframe near or near to mid. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Is everybody okay with that? To Rob's point of trying to get some 7
consensus here. 8
9
Commissioner Cribbs: Yeah. 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Is that it, Keith? 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: (inaudible) 16
17
Chair Lauing: Jennifer, on that page? The phraseology on the second one, since we've 18
done this, has always seemed a little bit odd to me. I don't know if we can get any more 19
specific or not. It's not a big deal. Other comments on seven? Page 8? None. Nine? 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: I had a question about therapeutic program development. 22
What does that mean? Is that for developmentally disabled, to help them progress? 23
24
Mr. de Geus; Yes. 25 26 Commissioner Moss: On the bottom of page 9, you should either say enacted 27 immediately or acted upon immediately. Pick one. 28
29
Chair Lauing: That raises that same question about whether this is going to be an 30
immediate section or not. That's kind of part of the broader picture. I had that circled as 31
a question mark as well. It continues on page 10. Go ahead. 32
33
Commissioner Hetterly: In this section, which is formerly Group 1 projects, I think that 34
the Conservation Plans should be the first item. I think instead of noting the timeframe 35
for those as near to long, we should just say near. Also in the second to last line, it 36
references that this will give Council clear direction on how to manage the Baylands 37
using an ecosystem-based model. That needs to be deleted because it applies to multiple 38
open space areas. That's page 10, second to last line of the text. 39
40
Chair Lauing: Moving that up and striking the words "to long." Is everybody okay with 41
that? 42
Draft Minutes 35
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Moving to page 11 then. 4
5
Commissioner Cribbs: It'd be the same long, the near to long on the first paragraph? 6 7
Chair Lauing: I think so. Wasn't that your point earlier? 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: What are we talking about? 10
11
Chair Lauing: On maintenance timeframe near to long, we should strike "to long." 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. Thanks. In fact, on that first one on page 11, I think it 14
might be helpful to break out the timeframe and say something like strategic planning is 15
going to happen in the near term and the implementation will be ongoing on near to long, 16
something to that effect. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Do we want to talk about what staff has in mind with this comment on 19
ADA? You're going to do that. 20
21
Daren Anderson: Can you repeat that question? What our plan is to do in terms of 22
ADA? 23
24
Chair Lauing: You're always going to comply with the law and upgrade things as we go 25 along. The question is does this really need to be stated as a separate objective or is that 26 just the best practices we know as Palo Alto citizens that's what we're going to do. 27 28
Mr. Anderson: I think what we have now is the best practice. I think we could do better. 29
If we were really serious about upgrading our facilities to be accessible and exceed—30
remember, this is the minimum legally required as you restore areas. If we want to 31
exceed that and get to universally accessible, then there's a lot of room to improve. My 32
recommendation would be that we do leave it in as a priority individuated and separate 33
from our regular, standard ADA upgrades that are part of every renovation and really 34
push the envelope and see if we can be a leader in that field. 35
36
Commissioner Reckdahl: The plan there is to do upgrades outside of the normal 37
refurbishing? 38
39
Mr. Anderson: It would be either that or to recognize it during the planning process for a 40
CIP and expand that part of the scope. Frequently it's done piecemeal into what's already 41
reckoned to be replaced. The playground is scheduled for replacement. We'll do ADA 42
Draft Minutes 36
DRAFT
upgrades with the playground, but we don't look at all the other amenities within that area 1
to say let's do them all. If we were to focus on this as a priority, we would either make 2
that existing CIP more robust for a given place or as a standalone CIP just for ADA 3
upgrades. You choose areas within every park and focus on those. I think there's lots of 4
possibilities. Either way, you take it more seriously and invest more into it. 5
6 Commissioner Hetterly: I would recommend sprucing up the title to reflect that. 7
8
Commissioner Moss: You want to put the word exceed somewhere in that title. That's 9
the key word you're talking about. 10
11
Chair Lauing: A leader among cities or something like that, if that's what your goal is. 12
What do we think about the high urgency classification? 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would say high urgency to get it started. I don't think we can 15
expect that every park is going to be upgraded immediately, but I would think you'd want 16
at least some parks. Right now, we have Magical Bridge, and that's about it. It'd be nice 17
to have other options for people who have disabilities. I don't know if you would make 18
that urgency medium to high, meaning that you start at high. (inaudible) completion is 19
medium urgency. 20
21
Chair Lauing: That'd be all right. I just had a question on what we believe is included in 22
improve trail connections. That's for everything, right? Walking, biking, that's the intent 23
there. 24
25 Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 26 27 Chair Lauing: All forms of transport. I don't know that that needs to be called out. I was 28
just presuming that. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: For that trail connections, the capital cost is quite the range, 31
from one dollar sign to three dollar signs. What was the thinking on that? Is there some 32
options that we're considering that would be more expensive? 33
34
Mr. Anderson: I think so. I think there are certain trail connections that if we wanted to 35
make to adjacent agencies perhaps that could be rather expensive. I'm sorry I can't give 36
you an example at the moment. I know there are some that are really easy, that wouldn't 37
take much to improve connection, and others that are just more robust, perhaps involving 38
bridges, for example. (crosstalk) 39
40
Commissioner Moss: There's also purchasing. You may have to purchase a gap of land 41
to get to, say, Thornwood or some other park. 42
Draft Minutes 37
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: The next one's adult fitness. 2
3
Commissioner Moss: Wait. You might want to add purchase somewhere in that improve 4
trail connections, that that's a possibility. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Adult fitness. I think a couple of us last time said we didn't think that 7
scored that high from the community input. Were we wrong or have we checked that? 8
What does your binder say? The grid. 9
10
Mr. de Geus: We talked about it as staff. We did go back and look at the binder. It did 11
come up. It wasn't necessarily a strong theme. This is one that maybe comes a little 12
more from staff, just because we've seen the technology and the concepts of exercise in 13
parks really be pretty innovative. Most recently, lots of new types of programs and 14
activities, new types of equipment that's getting a lot of use in neighboring cities. We felt 15
like it was important to keep it in here. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: For what it's worth, there has been a lot of conversation on the 18
Comprehensive Plan committee there's been a lot of interest in this kind of thing. That's 19
just another anecdotal source of data. 20
21
Mr. Anderson: I might add that we actually were starting to look at a Municipal Code to 22
prohibit adult exercise in playgrounds, because it's that big of a problem that we have 23
people do hard core and other exercise-related activities in a playground where it's not 24
appropriate, which highlights the needs of course for something like an adult fitness area. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the scope of this item? Would we try it in a couple of 27 parks and see how it goes? 28
29
Mr. Anderson: One good example would be we've got an antiquated system that really 30
stems back to the 1980s at Greer. It's these isolated, really uninteresting and not very 31
healthy or interactive pieces of equipment all around. It's that par course thing. No one 32
exercises together, of course, because there's only room for one person at a time. That 33
would be perfect to update that with something new, robust and interesting. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Good example. Integrate nature in community gardens. No comments? 36
Park seating. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: One of the things I would say in the park seating is more 39
comfort. We have benches which are great if you want to sit. If you want to sit there and 40
read a book, we don't have very many places in the park where it's really comfortable to 41
sit and read a book. You can sit there for 10 minutes, and then you get uncomfortable 42
Draft Minutes 38
DRAFT
against the hard back. If there's any other options—the problem with the parks is you 1
have to make things durable, and that makes it hard. Something that's comfortable and 2
durable is a very small cross-section. If we could have something that'd be easier for just 3
sitting, that'd be much better. 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: That begs the question of what are we thinking about in terms of 6 seating. Are we going to look at any variety of seating, not just benches? We may have 7
tables and chairs. We're looking for opportunities for people to gather and hang out in a 8
park for a long time. Thanks. 9
10
Commissioner Cribbs: Is this part where we were talking about opportunities for gifting 11
for seating, like at the Baylands? Is this just meant to be seating in the park? 12
13
Mr. Anderson: We have a fairly robust memorial bench program, where people can buy 14
benches. They give us $2,500, and they get a plaque and the bench is restored or a new 15
one is installed. That's existing already, and it could be enhanced as well. We've often 16
talked about expanding it to other areas. Following some best practices, benches are 17
finite. You can only have so many in a preserve before, like a sign, it becomes overkill. 18
You look at places like Disneyland and other areas like that where they've changed the 19
model to pavers. You can have 1,500 pavers with donations associated with each one. 20
Someone gets their name. Whereas, the benches in a certain park we might be looking at 21
50 at a big park. 22
23
Commissioner Cribbs: I was just thinking about a gift catalog where people could buy 24
something for the City, put their name on it, and the benches came up. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Let's move on to the projects. This first one on fields, I think the wording 27 we have in the policy is to enhance existing sports fields, which I think is the right thing 28
to do. Do we all agree with that first sentence, and isn't that going to vary by year and 29
season and sport, not to mention policy? We've talked about this a number of times 30
before in my last 7 years here. Effectively there's insatiable demand for fields, but that 31
doesn't mean we need more fields. It means we need a policy to regulate 8-day-a-week 32
practices. I get a little bit nervous because there's certain Council interest in let's put up 33
some fields. That just takes up more space. We should be very prudent about building 34
anything without a lot of study. Are we kind of leading the witness here by determining 35
in the Master Plan for the next 20 years that we need more space? Plus, you reference the 36
future growth, and the stats we've been looking at, that are in here, say that school kid 37
ages are going to go down a little bit and then go up a little bit, as I recall. Did you want 38
to comment? 39
40
Commissioner Hetterly: I was just going to agree. I'd rather have it say something like, 41
"With current demand and projected future growth, improving and maintaining is 42
Draft Minutes 39
DRAFT
important" rather than calling out that we aren't meeting the current demand with our 1
current capacity. 2
3
Chair Lauing: I love the language about clear plan to maintain quality and longevity. 4
That's definitely what it's about. That's really good. Other comments on this item? 5
6 Commissioner Reckdahl: I was looking at the capital cost. That makes me think what 7
exactly is the scope here. It says hire a consultant. We're not re-turfing here. We're just 8
augmenting; we're effectively doing preventive maintenance on turf. Is that what the 9
scope is? 10
11
Mr. Anderson: No. That's why you see that high dollar figure. Once you reconstruct 12
and engineer a sports field, which is what some of the recommendations that will come 13
out of this study will be. We've already spoken with a consultant who does this for a 14
living and seen other plans they've done for other cities. Oftentimes, that's exactly what it 15
calls for. When it was originally constructed, a ball field was a patch of dirt or grass. 16
They lined it, and you played baseball or football or soccer on it. When, in fact, if you're 17
going to have the amount of play that a City like Palo Alto or San Jose has, it really needs 18
to be engineered, meaning you've got the right kind of soils that drain appropriately. It's 19
got the right size. You've got the right irrigation system. If you're starting over, those are 20
very expensive. You literally have to come in and take out what you've got, mix in the 21
right kind of soil and rebuild. 22
23
Female: (inaudible) 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: We're talking about digging 6 inches down or how much do 26 you have to ... 27 28
Mr. Anderson: It varies. Part of this analysis that will come out of that study is a full soil 29
analysis of what you're got. Some areas might be okay with slight amendments. I look at 30
it as a far more robust plan to say, "Let's look at your need, how you've been scheduling 31
sports, and prioritize how many fields you're going to have at this very high level." That 32
will require maybe a complete tear out and re-engineer the soil. Others you might just 33
make do with what you've got with the soil and the irrigation and the drainage. It kind of 34
depends. I think they're going to put together a plan to meet our needs, is what I foresee. 35
I think it could be on the high end. I also believe you'll have options. You'll have a 36
Cadillac package all the way down to your more reliable Honda. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 39
40
Commissioner Moss: One more comment about existing sports fields. I live behind 41
Cubberley field. On Saturday morning, there must have been 400 people on that field, 42
Draft Minutes 40
DRAFT
which is about double what I've ever seen in all of history. Double. There were maybe 1
20 or 25 or 30 teams from 4 and 5-year-olds to high middle school, maybe even high 2
school, on the same field. I don't know how we're going to handle that crowd. Even if it 3
went down by a third, the demand over 20 years goes down a third, it's still a lot of 4
people on that field. I don't know what we can do. I thought we could get rid of the 5
parking lot and just expand the grass, but the parking lot was full. I don't know what to 6 do. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: Was that a City program or was that external where someone 9
had rented the field? 10
11
Mr. de Geus: I'm not sure what the program was. Unlikely to be a City program. It was 12
probably a tournament of some type. 13
14
Commissioner Moss: It was little kids playing soccer, big kids playing baseball. Big 15
kids playing baseball, medium-sized kids playing baseball. Soccer on the big field, big 16
kids. It was a mix. It was not just baseball, and it was not just soccer. 17
18
Mr. de Geus: It's wonderful to see. If we talk to our field users, they would like to have 19
more space and more fields if they can get it. 20
21
Chair Lauing: The next one on here is the 10 1/2-acre site. My concern here is talking 22
about a project at all at this point as opposed to just stay with what we've said before, 23
which is to on a long-term basis evaluate options for recreational use at this site. I'm just 24
a little bit concerned about leading the witness by talking about a project that makes it 25 sound like there is one as opposed to it's just a wonderful resource that we've all created 26 out of the golf course. We could leave it to the birds and the bees for 20 years. 27 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: In general I agree with that. My only concern is that right now 29
that whole area is kind of dug up. Even if we just want to leave it fallow now and say 30
we're not going to put fields on it, but we're going to just let it go wild, you probably 31
would want to do some prep work anyway. That would be much less cost than making 32
fields. 33
34
Commissioner Hetterly: I think you could add that to the list of things to consider. The 35
way it's written now, it suggests that we should start a project that will either create 36
athletic fields or a native habitat area or some combination of the two. There's not an 37
option to retain it as a land bank, which sounds like what you're recommending, Ed. Is 38
that correct? 39
40
Chair Lauing: I'm not recommending anything. I just see it as a natural resource that we 41
should be very careful about using up. That's all. We could fiddle with the wording if 42
Draft Minutes 41
DRAFT
there's enough consensus from this desk and that desk that we could fiddle with it a little 1
bit. If you want us to talk about it more to flesh out some things. 2
3
Ms. O'Kane: We can provide some alternative language and then discuss it with the ad 4
hoc. 5
6 Commissioner Moss: You've got the long-term—you say will require a long-term 7
planning and funding effort. That's sort of saying that you can't just do this very quick. 8
Isn't that enough language? 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: It does say that in the nearer term we want to do planning and 11
design. If we don't know what we're planning and designing or whether we should plan 12
and design anything at this point in time, then maybe doing that in the near term is 13
premature. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Other than what Keith suggested. It's going to be an ex-construction site, 16
so something has to be done there. Let's fiddle with that. The next one down is 17
Cubberley. Go ahead. 18
19
Commissioner Hetterly: In the intro—I don't know if it's a separate paragraph. The top 20
of page 15 mentions the requirement of an assessment of current and projected future 21
needs and community. I would like that added to the second bullet, the prepare a 22
comprehensive Master Plan study including a needs assessment, including appropriate 23
needs assessment, whatever language you want to use, but I want to specify a needs 24
assessment in there. It could also reference the Master Plan as something that would be 25 incorporated in that process. I wouldn't say we should ignore all the work that's gone into 26 this, but that's just one part of the bigger picture. 27 28
Commissioner Cribbs: I would take out "particularly in south Palo Alto." When 29
Cubberley is renovated, it'll be a great resource for all of Palo Alto. 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree. 32
33
Chair Lauing: No more on that. We'll go down to the question of a gym. 34
35
Commissioner Hetterly: That one's missing the effort, cost, timeframe, urgency stuff. 36
37
Chair Lauing: The summary of what we're saying there is that we're looking at the two 38
areas, the 10 1/2 acres and Cubberley, evaluating that. Otherwise, we're going to 39
evaluate it separately. We're not saying 100 percent certain we're going to put one in. 40
We're still saying that it needs evaluation. 41
42
Draft Minutes 42
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: This one, at least the 10.5 acres, we had some conceptual drawings of a 1
gymnasium on the 10.5 acres as part of the athletic field, and it got a very negative 2
reaction, let's just say, from the Planning Commission and even Council at the time. I'm 3
not saying we shouldn't necessarily look at it again, but including it in the Master Plan I 4
would ... 5
6 Chair Lauing: I don't think the community was too charged up about that one either. The 7
community input on that ... 8
9
Mr. de Geus: Because it's in the Baylands and it's ... 10
11
Chair Lauing: ... during the Baylands and the golf course situation. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: ... a big building. 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: I think there's great support for a gymnasium, but very little 16
support for a gymnasium in the Baylands. 17
18
Mr. de Geus: That's what I recall too. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Let's take out the whole Baylands reference here. That'll be okay with all 21
of us. The 7.7 acres. Just for historical reference, this already has an ad hoc committee 22
that was working on ideas for it. We truncated it because we needed to get the 23
hydrologic study. That's back in '17, so it seems like from my perspective the ad hoc 24
could just get reconstituted and drive this, lead this. It's always fantastic to get public 25 recommendations, but I think the Commission has to be the leader on this and figure out 26 the planning for that relatively urgently once we get this hydrologic study back. There is 27 a lot of community demand and Council interest in getting this thing active. 28
29
Commissioner Hetterly: I actually disagree with that. I think the ad hoc committee has 30
worked really hard to get community input and guidance about what should happen to 31
that site. They had a really hard time despite Herculean efforts to get people out there to 32
look at it. I do think it would benefit from having a consultant help with that process and 33
provide some options for the public to consider as opposed to trying to gin it up from the 34
grassroots and figure out what people want. 35
36
Commissioner Moss: Yeah. You have notes and information about that. I don't know if 37
Keith was on that committee, but it certainly would be nice to not lose all that and to have 38
a starting point when we reconstitute it. If there's anything you have about it already. 39
40
Chair Lauing: Yeah, there is stuff already. I don't think we're in that big of a 41
disagreement on that point. I'm just saying that the public has been asked, but they could 42
Draft Minutes 43
DRAFT
be asked again. I don't think we want to hand it over to somebody else because we're 1
involved in this. If there's a consultant working with the ad hoc like we did on the Master 2
Plan, with the right consultant, then that could be great. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that's fine. I just don't think that the ad hoc alone can 5
drive a project of this magnitude and complication. 6 7
Chair Lauing: I was reading this as saying the public was going to drive the 8
recommendations. That's why I brought it up. They have to be incorporated, but I don't 9
think we should just leave it there. 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: The 7.7 acres is so hard. It's going to take a lot of thinking. 12
The ad hoc knows it was a lot of work. We never found the perfect answer, and I don't 13
think we will. We'll have to always balance the lesser of two evils. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Daren gave some good, honest estimates about what that would cost to get 16
that back to actual dirt from that impacted stuff that's there right now. It's not trivial. 17
Parkland. 18
19
Commissioner Moss: I was wondering if the capital cost would be four dollars instead of 20
three dollars. Three dollars is up to $5 million. That would buy a lot. Maybe a lot and a 21
half. I'm just thinking bigger. 22
23
Commissioner Reckdahl: Also, I would say that this is one that should be high urgency, 24
just because right now real estate prices are high. Once everything is multifamily units, 25 it's going to be really high to buy multifamily units and tear those down. 26 27 Commissioner Hetterly: That's one where I might break it out and make a process for 28
identifying sites and developing a funding strategy a high urgency. Whereas, acquisition 29
is going to be variable depending on availability and population growth. Maybe you 30
could nuance the urgency a little bit. Since I have the microphone, I also think that it's a 31
little funky having the collaboration with the School District in the acquire new parkland 32
in high-need areas. I think maybe we want to separate out the School District 33
partnerships as expanding access to facilities or something like that. We're not really 34
trying to acquire parkland in that context. However you do it, I would not leave it as 35
plan, fund and maintain the construction of park elements in school grounds. I think we 36
could participate in those things, but we don't want to be exclusively responsible for that 37
as the City on School District land. 38
39
Commissioner Moss: One comment on that. Were you thinking that we would purchase 40
something from the School District? For instance, take over Cubberley. 41
42
Draft Minutes 44
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: No. I also would like to add in maybe a program in Chapter 4, 1
maybe a bullet here about what Shani was mentioning earlier. We've talked about in the 2
CAC, a program for accepting legacies and bequests of land. That is another way to 3
expand parkland inventory. I'd like to add in the concept of long-term lease. A purchase 4
isn't necessarily the only way that we can access additional parkland. Long-term lease 5
arrangements with private landowners are certainly a possible way to go. 6 7
Chair Lauing: I like all those additions. That's going to need an ad hoc in '17. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: I would love to throw out there again this AT&T site at 10
Boulware Park. It is a huge opportunity. Somebody needs to figure out and we need 11
to—I don't know how we can best weigh in to push for that. That is hugely time 12
sensitive, and we're not going to get another opportunity that good in a really long time. I 13
don't know what role we as a Commission can play. I'm looking to staff for guidance 14
about that. I don't want to just keep saying it and have nothing happen. 15
16
Mr. de Geus: I can give you just a quick update on that. It's definitely got the attention 17
of the Mayor and the City Manager. We're in contact with the property owner, so those 18
discussions are happening. With respect to purchasing property, that's something that the 19
Council has to consider. I believe they do that typically in closed session when it comes 20
to property purchases. I can tell you that staff are actively working on that. 21
22
Commissioner Hetterly: It would not be helpful for us to pass a motion saying we would 23
support that kind of activity consistent with all the learnings of the Master Plan process, 24
something like that. Council Member Filseth, is that something that would be useful to 25 the Council or can we just say it's in good hands and we don't need to worry about it? 26 27 Council Member Filseth: I'm about to text the Mayor and ask him (inaudible). 28
29
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. 30
31
Chair Lauing: If he responds quickly, he can still get a motion tonight. You can tell him 32
that too. 33
34
Commissioner Moss: It's more a point of the process. In the future, this is going to come 35
up again. Is it helpful for us to take a vote or do you just know because of this Plan that 36
we're all in favor all the time? 37
38
Chair Lauing: At the point we recommend this, that'll be there. It's a little bit trickier 39
when you get into private ownership as opposed to AT&T ownership, where they don't 40
need the land anymore. That's why this is even more urgent. It's a very unusual 41
opportunity that you're not buying it from a private owner. 42
Draft Minutes 45
DRAFT
1
Ms. O'Kane: Chair, could I interrupt? I have to excuse myself from the meeting. You're 2
in good hands. We'll see you next time. 3
4
Chair Lauing: We have the dates on other meetings or whoever you're delegating this to 5
has this, right? The wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks. 6 7
Commissioner Moss: I was wondering why there were so many dollar signs for signage. 8
It seems like there should just be two dollar signs. Were you planning to purchase some 9
land as a way to get to a park, a safe route? 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: Surely we're not going to spend more than $5 million on 12
signage. 13
14
Mr. Anderson: No, no. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Per the public comment tonight, we don't want to get too carried away on 17
lots of signs, particularly in the natural areas. That's what we're looking for, natural. 18
That's it on the priority projects. What kind of comments do you want on the action 19
plan? Do you want to present any part of that or just keep going here? 20
21
Mr. Jensen: We'll take comments on that section if you have any. 22
23
Commissioner Hetterly: My only remaining comment was on the progress reporting. I 24
would like to see that include reporting on funding status under the various funding 25 streams and how we match up in terms of our sufficiency of maintenance funds, etc. 26 That's not true. I also had comments on the funding section. I still would like to see in 27 the IBRC paragraph ... 28
29
Chair Lauing: What page? 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm sorry, page 20. Middle of the page, it talks about in addition 32
Palo Alto's Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee blah, blah, blah. I found the wording 33
in that paragraph very confusing. I'd like you to just take another look at it to see if the 34
language can be cleaned up a little bit. I would also like it to take note, unless this is not 35
correct, that the catch-up identified in the IBRC report reflects only those needs that were 36
identified and prioritized as of 2012. It's now 2016 going into 2017. I imagine there are 37
additional items that weren't included in the IBRC, that we would still consider catch-up 38
items that have perhaps accumulated since then. I don't know if that's accurate or not. If 39
it is, I'd like to see that reflected. Alternately, if we feel like the catch-up and keep-up 40
that's covered under the infrastructure budgeting plan is all we need to be golden for our 41
maintenance. 42
Draft Minutes 46
DRAFT
1
Mr. de Geus: Peter can probably speak more to this. I understand that the IBRC report 2
and list of catch-up and keep-up projects from 2012, when it was published, is an 3
ongoing, working document that the staff in Public Works primarily are continuing to 4
revise and update with new data, new numbers, new costs. Is that correct, Peter? 5
6 Commissioner Hetterly: I also would suggest that the first paragraph under potential 7
funding options could be combined with the language under funding gap. Then, move 8
that heading down to just above expand existing funding sources. It seems a little bit 9
redundant. Thanks. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Any others? 12
13
Commissioner Moss: I have a comment on page 23. Are we there yet? 14
15
Chair Lauing: Yep. 16
17
Commissioner Moss: That combining Master Plan project with other infrastructure 18
projects, do we want an example of that? Like the East Bay Shore/San Francisquito 19
Creek change. There's a huge facility that went in where Ciardella used to be, a flood 20
control. It's just a big concrete block. If there was some way that we could have put 21
something on top of it, that kind of thing in the future, that would be great. Put a mound 22
of dirt on top of it and a bench on top of the mound of dirt. 23
24
Chair Lauing: No other comments? 25 26 Council Member Filseth: (inaudible) 27 28
Chair Lauing: I was going to say we would entertain a motion in support of the City 29
making best efforts to acquire this available land for extension of Boulware Park. 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: Do we want to include in that consideration of the roadway? 32
We do have a program in the Master Plan that talks about looking at streets for possible 33
conversion into parkland. The way it's set up you have Boulware Park here, then you 34
have a road that comes here and here, and here's the AT&T property. It's an "L" that 35
doesn't get a lot of use. I think our commenter tonight suggested it could be limited to 36
emergency vehicles. I think it might even be worth considering whether there's a need 37
for it to remain open for emergency vehicles or if we'd want to turn it into parkland. I 38
don't want to solve that tonight. It might be useful to acknowledge that that's something 39
on the table that we would support considering. 40
41
Draft Minutes 47
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: One's purchasing, and one is using a road to be rededicated, but it's going 1
to the same Council. It seems to me like it could be in the same motion. That's what 2
we're trying to support, get a bigger park there. 3
4
Mr. de Geus: First of all, this is a discussion item, so we really can't take motions. The 5
agenda isn't noticed specific to this piece of property. It wouldn't be something you could 6 make a motion on this evening. The message is clear; we understand where the 7
Commission stands on this. It just further illustrates the need for staff to keep working on 8
this, and the City Manager with the Council on the possibility of this property. 9
10
Chair Lauing: We can put it on as an action item and notice it for November. 11
12
Mr. de Geus: We can do that. 13
14
Chair Lauing: Thank you, Council. What's that? 15
16
Commissioner Moss: Do we have until November? 17
18
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 19
20
Mr. de Geus: We're not going to wait until November. I'll talk to ... 21
22
Chair Lauing: Thank you for taking that action, Council Member Filseth. Anything else 23
that you need on the Master Plan or should we go on to the next item? 24
25 Commissioner Moss: Do you want another indicator on page 25? Number of teams and 26 sports, something like that. That seems to be a big indicator of how much use we get. 27 Under number of time slots used on sports fields, I'd say number of teams and sports on 28
sports fields. 29
30
Chair Lauing: As opposed to the bullet that's there, is that what you're saying? 31
32
Commissioner Moss: Yeah. I was even thinking in addition to time slots. Number of 33
time slots, teams and sports on a particular sports field or used on sports fields. 34
35
Chair Lauing: That could work. Keith. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: On page 25, this call to action, what is that? It's a section that's 38
going to be written, but what's the content going to be? 39
40
Mr. de Geus: The idea is to have some concluding, aspirational remarks about the Plan. 41
We've actually been talking about maybe it could even come from the Commission or a 42
Draft Minutes 48
DRAFT
letter from the Commission that could even go at the front of the Plan. We thought that 1
might be a nice addition to the Master Plan, so it really has two bookends. Not long, a 2
page. One of those could come from the Parks and Rec Commission. We drafted some 3
things. It's not really ready yet, but we thought we'd send that along next time. 4
5
Mr. Jensen: If we're done with the review of Chapter 5, we will talk about next steps. 6 Next Tuesday night, we're having a community meeting for the Parks Master Plan to 7
review the draft, taking the comments that we've received tonight and incorporating them 8
into the draft that the community will see and get a chance to respond to. That meeting is 9
next Tuesday night at Mitchell Community Center, the Adobe Room, from 6:30 to 8:00. 10
There will be starting—a few days after on November 3rd the draft Plan will be posted 11
online very similar to how the site concept plans were with the ability for the community 12
to review the draft there and also to respond to or provide input about the draft Plan itself. 13
Those things are coming up. There's also been discussion about the next PRC meeting in 14
November and having that on the 16th. At that date, we'll be bringing the full draft back 15
to you again for review. As was alluded to before, depending upon the City Council 16
study date, there could be an opportunity to bring it back again in December to you for a 17
last review and recommendation to the Council. Within that timeframe, which we have 18
talked about before and is not on here, the environmental review, the initial study of the 19
document will start sometime in the next couple of weeks. That has a time to prepare it. 20
It also has a period that it has to be reviewed by the community. That basically pushes 21
the adoption of the actual Plan into the new year. We're still showing that happening—22
we're hoping that Council can get a study session in January, and then sometime in 23
February or March, right after that, once the environmental work is done, we can take it 24
back to them for adoption of the Plan. That's the timeline of the process right now. 25 26 Chair Lauing: This timeline we had in our packet showed a Master Plan review on 27 December 12th by Council. That's off, correct? 28
29
Mr. Jensen: It's not off, but I think they're still trying to negotiate that date, and it doesn't 30
sound like that's going to be possible with the current agenda items there. I think Rob is 31
still trying to push for that and work on that. We'll cross our fingers, but it seems more 32
likely that it'll get pushed to the new year. 33
34
Commissioner Moss: Maybe we could have a preliminary review, a short one, on the 35
12th, while we still have all the members on the Commission. 36
37
Mr. de Geus: The Commission certainly will see it. They'll see a full draft in November 38
and again in December if it's necessary. It's the Council that's the question. Whether we 39
can get ... 40
41
Commissioner Moss: I meant in front of the Council. 42
Draft Minutes 49
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: The date for the December meeting is the Wednesday, but that's the 13th. 2
Right? 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: (inaudible) 5
6 Chair Lauing: They must have used a paper calendar that was wrong, because it says 7
Wednesday the 13th here. 8
9
Commissioner Moss: Both the November and the December meetings are on a 10
Wednesday? 11
12
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. 13
14
Chair Lauing: That's it for the Master Plan. Thank you, Peter. 15
16
5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Ad hoc committee and liaison updates. Are we going to hear about the 19
dogs? 20
21
Mr. Anderson: Yes, I can give you a brief update on dog parks. I've been working with 22
the ad hoc committee on this topic and what we do as next steps. We had a productive 23
meeting identifying the way forward. We would target the top two spots, that is Peers 24
Park. You might remember that Bowden had been another option in the nearer term. As 25 we really got into looking at what it would take to maneuver around the public art in the 26 spot, it became problematic. Peers, at least for the nearer-term project, has less hurdles 27 and also benefits us and it's much larger. It's one of the largest options we had at 0.73 28
acres. Between Peers and—you also might recall the other nearer-term option we looked 29
at was Eleanor Pardee Park. The problem there that we received some feedback from the 30
environmental groups was that the area we had identified was very heavily treed with 31
oaks. Their concerns was (a) there's a lot of wildlife amongst the oaks, and (b) the dog 32
run would negatively impact the trees. There was an early iteration of our examination of 33
Eleanor Pardee that identified another spot. It met all the criteria. It's mainly open lawn 34
that we'll consider actually as an alternative to that one. Right now, I'm doing outreach 35
with the stakeholders. These are the environmental groups, the dog groups too. Before 36
we do the public meeting to make sure I've got buy-in from some of the key stakeholders, 37
make sure they agree and flush out some of the problems and resolve them before we 38
host the public meetings. We'll do one for each of those neighborhoods, one for Peers 39
and one for Pardee, with the idea that we'll identify one of the two as the leading 40
candidate to move forward with as our nearer-term one. The other one, depending on our 41
Draft Minutes 50
DRAFT
feedback, could be one of the ones we do in the future. Public meetings coming soon is 1
the update on dog parks. 2
3
Commissioner Moss: Do you have an update on Baylands Conservation Plan? 4
5
Mr. Anderson: Yes. We're putting out that item to bid. We developed the scope with the 6 help of the Commissioners and some ad hoc and staff and other stakeholders, 7
environmentalists. We have got a really solid scope, I think, for that going forward. 8
We'll put it out to bid and see who we get. Right now, the last step we just did was to 9
pull together firms that we recommend bid on it. Staff had a bunch of recommendations. 10
That's going through the process with purchasing. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: I was out at Baylands at Byxbee. It looks like there's more 13
work there. Are they adding the cap on the southwest side? It looks like they're doing 14
more work on that one corner that had been done for a while. 15
16
Mr. Anderson: I believe they're importing additional dirt for settling areas that have 17
settled, that they're required to raise back up to Code for water drainage off the former 18
landfill, now Byxbee Park. The other work that's going on is the completion of the 19
Byxbee interim plan, which is one of my updates for you. I don't know if the photos 20
went out, but I sent one out to the Commission a couple of days ago, that shows plants 21
going in. This is the vegetated habitat islands. Plants are going in right now. The 22
irrigation system's going in. The next step—probably between now and the end of 23
November, we'll have the benches and the signs come into completion. That'll wrap up 24
our interim plan for Byxbee. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: At the junction point, there were mounds on each of the 27 corners. Are those mounds going to stay elevated or are they going to be filling around 28
them? 29
30
Mr. Anderson: The vegetated islands are raised. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Any other ad hoc reports? 33
34
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT 35
36
Chair Lauing: How about Department Report, if you could do that. 37
38
Mr. de Geus: Just a few things to report. The golf course project is moving along nicely. 39
I've had a chance to be out there several times. I was out there last Thursday again and 40
did a tour with Forest Richardson. Most of the stockpile has been moved into place. I 41
want to say they're maybe 60 percent or something like that. You may remember one of 42
Draft Minutes 51
DRAFT
the goals is to get golfers up, so they can actually see the Bay and see the water and the 1
coastal hills. That's a reality. We are nice and high, could definitely see the Bay. Got a 2
chance to take a few holes and see how it's going to play. It's really coming together. 3
Happy to see that progressing. You may recall that we did the replacement of the 4
restroom as part of the capital project. We're hoping we can bring that back in. We just 5
heard more feedback from the golfers. Now is the time to do it if we're going to do it. 6 We're trying to figure out how we can with a lower-cost restroom, but go in there and 7
replace it. That's something that we're looking to do. Just some quick announcements 8
about other events that are coming. The Junior Museum and Zoo is doing a Halloween 9
night this Friday, 5:30 to 8:00. They do a terrific job, the staff there. You want to attend 10
certainly if you have any kids in your life. You should get down there. Also, there's a 11
big veterans event that we're planning largely with the leadership, actually the City 12
Manager's Office and Janice, Jim Keene's assistant. We have a general that's going to 13
attend. It's on November 7th at Mitchell Park Community Center. It should be a really 14
great event. If you're interested in that, I'll just look at the time for that. It's 3:00 to 4:00 15
p.m., veterans services and resource tables. From 4:00 to 5:30 is the recognition event. 16
It's Lieutenant General Rex McMillian. I don't know who that is, but apparently he's a 17
big deal. That's all I have to report. 18
19
Mr. Anderson: I have a few park updates for you. The sailing station dock at the 20
Baylands had—you might know there's two docks, an upper dock and a lower one. The 21
connecting piece had broken, and part of the lower dock was dislodged and falling apart. 22
It had been closed for several weeks while we were working on getting the contractor in 23
to repair it. It's now repaired and back open. We're happy about that. It turned out nice. 24
Expect to get many more years of use out of it. Sarah Wallis Park is having some work 25 done in it starting today. The concrete pathways are being repaved, as an FYI. We'll also 26 be putting in replacement benches and trash cans for that site. It's a very small park. 27 This is at 202 Ash Street, if you're not familiar with it. The Foothills Park/Los Trancos 28
Trail, I think I mentioned in an update a month or two ago that we had completed the 29
repairs. This was where the contractor had come in and looked at structural fixes for the 30
wash-out areas on the back side of Los Trancos out at Foothills. Did a terrific job, came 31
out well. I hiked it right after this last rain, and the parts he had repaired held up nicely. 32
Some of the other areas needed a little work as they always do just given the nature of 33
trails in the hills like that. They need work in the rainy season. All in all, really proud of 34
the way Los Trancos Trail worked out. Encourage the Commission to go take a hike on 35
that one. I think you'll enjoy it. Lastly, on the hydrology study. We've completed the 36
survey work. I got to look over a preliminary hydrologist report of their findings, which 37
is basically unintelligible. I don't have anything great to share with you yet. We're going 38
to take that and mold it into something digestible for non-PhDs in hydrology. Really 39
soon that will lead to a couple of options to look at. We'll have the public come out, have 40
a public meeting, come to the Commission with that as well. 41
42
Draft Minutes 52
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: Thank you. 1
2
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3
4
Chair Lauing: Any announcements from up here? 5
6 Commissioner Cribbs: I just wanted to ask how is the health of our trees in all the parks 7
right now. 8
9
Mr. Anderson: I would say in the urban parks things are looking really good for the 10
trees. We've got lots of planting. In fact, when I spoke to Canopy about Pardee Park 11
where we were looking at that dog park, they said they are doing more oak restoration 12
work there. That's kind of exciting. Lots of planting going on there. In our open space 13
areas, we continually struggle with some of the challenges with sudden oak disease 14
killing some of the oaks. It's a real challenge for the entire region, not just for Palo Alto 15
of course. I think as part of the Urban Forest Master Plan, there are specific programs to 16
address that. Not that there's some cure that we can solve the problem with, but more 17
selective planting to plan for the future forest up there. 18
19
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 20
21
Chair Lauing: Go ahead. 22
23
Commissioner Moss: I want to piggyback on what Shani said about the shuttle, 24
suggestion for the shuttle. I sent out a note that they have now just created a shuttle from 25 East Palo Alto through Redwood City, through Menlo Park, to both Edgewood Park and 26 Wunderlich Park. That just started. There are big signs at those parks to announce the 27 shuttle. I was thinking how do we get that going up to, say, Arastradero Preserve or even 28
Foothills. Our problem is that Foothills isn't open to everybody. That's why I would 29
hope that perhaps we could have some of these community events. For instance, a 30
Foothills Park open house once a month or once a quarter, and you have a shuttle to that 31
as a starting point rather than the way they have it now. It's every Saturday and Sunday 32
that they have this shuttle going. I don't know how often. That seems a bit much for us. 33
Arastradero Preserve is not that big. It would probably be better if we tied it to a special 34
event, say, at Foothills. 35
36
Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a question about the Parks and Rec Commission 37
interviews. When are those going to get scheduled or have they already? Do they start in 38
December or do they start in January? 39
40
Chair Lauing: The 16th. 41
42
Draft Minutes 53
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: They start on the 16th. Thank you. 1
2
Commissioner Moss: If we don't get people and these guys roll off ... 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: That's pretty close. 5
6
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2016 MEETING 7 8
Chair Lauing: Agenda for next time. Is the Zoo going to come see us? 9
10
Mr. de Geus: Probably not. I can give you an update on the Junior Museum and Zoo. 11
The Friends are still designing. The cost for what we had hoped we could build were a 12
little higher than anticipated. They've actually gone back to the drawing board again, 13
looking at a one-story facility in a smaller footprint again. I think it's very good. 14
Actually I think it might be more palatable in the long run for perhaps the Commission 15
but the community generally. That's kind of where I think it's headed. We are scheduled 16
for a study session with the City Council on November 28th to give them an update on 17
how things have been progressing with negotiations between staff and the Friends. That's 18
the next check-in with the City Council under a study session. You might want to tune in 19
there. 20
21
Council Member Filseth: (inaudible) 22
23
Mr. de Geus: No. They've got a target of $25 million and actually doing outstanding. I 24
think they're at $24 million. They're right there. It's just the cost of construction has 25 gotten so high that it's just not—what we had designed is just many millions of dollars 26 higher than the $25 million target. 27 28
Chair Lauing: Not to get into a lot of the details, but is the parking about the same as it 29
was before? 30
31
Mr. de Geus: It is. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Agenda items that we'll have—sorry. Go ahead. 34
35
Commissioner Moss: Are we going to hear from Team Sheeper? 36
37
Mr. de Geus: We're planning on November 16th bringing the aquatics program back. 38
We haven't made a lot of progress there. Actually the feedback from the Commission 39
last month was very helpful. We're getting close to making a recommendation to work 40
with Team Sheeper. I wanted to be sure we have a chance to meet with all of the 41
different stakeholders, though, before we formally make the recommendation, which 42
Draft Minutes 54
DRAFT
we'd like to do with the Commission to get your feedback and hopefully support, and 1
then move to Council after that. Currently, it's scheduled for December 12th. That is on 2
the agenda for the Council, at least right now. 3
4
Chair Lauing: I'm only hearing Master Plan and aquatics and the Resolution on the 5
AT&T acquisition. Keith. 6 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: There was some talk about having a tour of the ITT, as 8
opposed to AT&T, facility. Is that going to happen? 9
10
Mr. Anderson: I'd be glad to set that up. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: If we get more than a quorum, then we have to notice that, 13
right? 14
15
Mr. de Geus: Yes. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Will Catherine send out some dates and then we can vote on 18
that? Is that how we're going to go about doing that? 19
20
Mr. Anderson: I defer to Director de Geus, but we had discussed the option of maybe 21
doing it with smaller groups. There's problems with that site that aren't safe for having 22
the public just wander around just yet. I think a safer option might be a smaller number 23
for private tours at this point until we can get the facility safe. 24
25 Mr. de Geus: I agree with that. 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: This could be either the same tour or a separate tour. I really 28
would like to look into the Baylands Athletic Center. They're trenching and making the 29
levee right next to it now. I'd like to see how that's going to impact the athletic fields. 30
Would that be a separate tour or would that be ... 31
32
Mr. Anderson: I'm not quite sure yet. I think it would be a conversation with Tygart, the 33
company that's doing that work. It's independent of CSD staff. We're not associated with 34
Tygart. We could connect with them and ask. It'd be nice to get in there and take a real 35
look as opposed to staying on the periphery. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: What about things like the PAG softball and the Babe Ruth? 38
Would they be invited to come along? 39
40
Mr. Anderson: To the tour, to see ... 41
42
Draft Minutes 55
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: To see how the levee is going to impact the athletic facility. 1
2
Mr. Anderson: I think I need to look into it a little bit to see ... I'll have to get back to 3
you on that. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: The last time I was out there, when you look at that it looks 6 like it's going to be coming right by the softball field. We're talking 5 feet away from the 7
softball field. It's going to be very ... 8
9
Mr. Anderson: It will be very close. 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: Very close. The plan is to have some type of high fence there 12
or what are we going to do to prevent foul balls from going into the levee? 13
14
Mr. Anderson: I don't know the answer. I'll have to go look into it. 15
16
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Are there any other agenda items that people want to have for next month? 19
Any other announcements or anything? 20
21
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 22
23
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Hetterly and second by Commissioner 24
Cribbs at 10:02 p.m. 25
Draft Minutes 56
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: JAZMIN LEBLANC, STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS MANAGER,
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2016
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE PALO ALTO AQUATICS PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting that the Parks and Recreation Commission provide feedback on the staff
analysis and evaluation of potentially contracting with Team Sheeper to provide some or all
aquatics programs and services for the City of Palo Alto. Staff has reviewed management
alternatives using the following criteria:
• City and Customer Costs
• Quality of Service and Customer Satisfaction
• Diversity of Programming and Accessibility
Staff recommends entering into a public-private partnership with Team Sheeper, Inc. to
manage the summer swim lesson program for 2017 as well as to provide a summer swim camp.
Staff further recommends that we engage in additional community outreach and analysis
before expanding Team Sheeper’s role in operating additional programs and services including
oversight of the relationships with Rinconada Masters and PASA, and lap swim and recreation
swim at Rinconada and JLS pools. Staff will continue to solicit feedback from pool users to
ensure we are hearing from as many stakeholders as possible and return to the Parks and
Recreation Commission early in the 2017 calendar year with the results of the outreach and
analysis and potentially additional recommendations.
This staff report includes analysis of the potential advantages and disadvantages of Team
Sheeper Inc. operating the full suite of aquatics programs and services. As stated above staff
are only recommending Team Sheeper manage the swim lesson program at this time, with
further community outreach and analysis needed before further recommendations can be
made.
Executive Summary
Rinconada Pool is a valued community asset, receiving over 58,000 drop-in visits to its lap and
recreation swimming programs each year and providing swimming lessons to approximately
1,000 youth annually. In the past few years, City residents have made clear that they would like
1
more pool access. Residents want open swim programs available for an extended swim season
and would like to increase daily open hours. They would also like more access to youth
swimming lessons with more lessons available and at more convenient times during the week.
This increased demand for both recreational and instructional swimming, together with CSD’s
difficulty in hiring and retaining adequate lifeguarding staff to provide swim lessons has led
staff to recommend several changes to the Aquatics Program.
In December 2015, after receiving direction from the Finance Committee and subsequently the
full Council, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit bids for Aquatics Management
services to improve the City Aquatics program. In our evaluation we identified opportunities to
not just maintain the aquatics program but to meet community requests to expand and
enhance aquatics programming for Palo Alto.
The objective of the RFP and our analysis was to consider alternatives for how we might best
achieve the following:
1) Expand the recreational swimming season to open both pools for recreation swimming
in mid-April and keep the pool open through late October.
2) Adjust and add open hours for lap swim and recreational swimming programs to better
meet customer demands for pool use outside of 9 to 5 weekday hours.
3) Expand the swim lesson season to match the expanded recreational swim season and
adjust swim lesson offerings to provide more evening and weekend lessons.
The City received two proposals, one from the Palo Alto Family YMCA and the other from Team
Sheeper Inc. Of the two proposals Team Sheeper Inc. provide the lower cost, greater diversity
of program and service proposal, and demonstrated ability to perform and deliver the highest
quality of service. Based on the Team Sheeper Inc. proposal, staff evaluated a range of
management options for the Aquatics Program, each with advantages, disadvantages and
tradeoffs. These included:
• Enter into a partnership with Team Sheeper, Inc. to manage pool operations at
Rinconada, oversee the relationships with the Rinconada Masters and PASA, and
provide swimming lessons at Rinconada and JLS pools;
• Identify and evaluate the staff and resource needs for and enhanced in house City-run
aquatics program to match the level of programming and services Team Sheeper
proposed; and
• Maintain the status quo with a summer-only recreational swim program and continuing
to contract swimming lessons as we have done for the past two summers.
2
Background
During the summer season, which runs from mid-June through mid-August, the City of Palo Alto
Aquatics Program offers a variety of activities for the community including:
• family recreation swim,
• adult lap swim,
• learn-to-swim lessons,
• facility rentals for private pool parties,
• a youth competitive swim team (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and
• an adult competitive swim team (Rinconada Masters).
The City has existing contracts to provide the Rinconada Masters and PASA programs, while City
staff historically has provided staffing for the remaining programs. The majority of the aquatics
programs are held at the City-owned Rinconada pool with some summer swim lessons also
taking place at the JLS Middle School pool.
Throughout the rest of the year (mid-September through mid-May), the only aquatics activities
that are offered at Rinconada are adult lap swim, PASA, and the Rinconada Masters.
For the past two summers (2015 and 2016), the City has struggled to hire and retain adequate
pool staff to meet community demand for the Lap Swim, Learn-to-swim and Family Recreation
Swim. In 2015, CSD entered into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to mitigate its
Learn-to-swim staffing shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write and
approve a contract with Team Sheeper Inc., a professional third party aquatics service provider
who was able to mobilize quickly and provide qualified professional swim instructors and
lifeguards to support the Palo Alto aquatics programs.
Following the 2015 summer swim season, CSD staff conducted program evaluations of the
summer lessons that Team Sheeper Inc. had provided. Parents of participants were very
pleased with the experience and felt their children’s progress and technique had improved over
the course of the lessons. Because the 2015 Team Sheeper program was well received by the
community and because of continuing staffing shortages, CSD entered into another short-term
limited contract with Team Sheeper Inc. to manage the Learn-to-swim program for the Summer
2016 season and to provide lifeguarding hours for short-staffed lap swim sessions as needed.
There are several reasons the City aquatics program is experiencing difficulty hiring and
retaining staff. The biggest challenge has been that the City currently only has the ability to hire
part-time staff to work under 1,000 hours each per year but Rinconada has a need for
employees who can work year round to staff the lap swim program. This issue leads to staffing
shortages outside of the summer season.
3
In addition, pay rates for lifeguards and swim instructors are not as competitive compared to
other employment opportunities for high school and college students. The majority of the
aquatics employees are students and after summer they have limited work availability.
Provision of aquatics services for cities in the region is delivered in a number of ways. For
example, the City of Menlo Park contracted out their entire aquatics program to Team Sheeper,
Inc. and it now operates in a public-private partnership as Menlo Swim & Sport. The City of
Morgan Hill has a unique partnership with the YMCA to run their recreation programs. As
partners, the City of Morgan Hill and YMCA partner to provide high quality health and fitness,
youth, teen, family, and senior programs including aquatics for residents and the surrounding
community to enjoy. Currently, the City of Palo Alto provides a hybrid program where the
Aquatics program is predominantly run in house with the exception of our Master’s and PASA
programs which are provided by contractors.
In December 2015, CSD issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the following services: 1)
Learn-to-swim lessons; 2) Youth Competitive Swim Team; 3) Adult Master Swim Team; and 4)
aquatics facilities operation, including recreational swim, lap swim, and pool rentals. Firms
were invited to submit a proposal for one or all of the above services and attend a pre-bid
meeting. Two proposals were received one from the Palo Alto Family YMCA and the other from
Team Sheeper Inc. and both bidders were invited to present their proposals and respond to
questions from the consultant review team. The consultant review team was represented by
five City staff, a Recreation Supervisor from the City of Mountain View, a Recreation Supervisor
from the City of Milpitas, and a pool user (lap swim). After careful review of both proposals,
discussing with the consultant review team and interviewing the two potential service
providers, the proposals were scored using the following criteria and Team Sheeper prevailed
as the preferred contractor:
• Quality and Completeness of Proposal.
• Quality, performance and effectiveness of the solution, or services to be
provided;
• Proposer’s experience, including the experience of staff;
• Revenue to the City;
• Proposer’s ability to perform work within the time specified; and
• Proposer’s ability to provide program registration that integrates seamlessly
with the City’s procedures.
Staff proceeded to evaluate short and long term alternatives for future Aquatics Program
delivery with Team Sheeper Inc. Team Sheeper has the experience, staffing levels, and
innovative programming to not only maintain the City’s aquatics program at its current level of
service, but also expand it and add additional new programs if the City so desires.
4
Discussion
Team Sheeper is the preferred contractor responding to the RFP, however; staff also wanted to
evaluate what staff and resource requirements would be needed if the City were to operate the
Aquatics program in house as a City-run aquatics program at the same level of programming
Team Sheeper proposed. Staff also considered the option of maintaining the status quo with a
summer-only recreational swim program and continuing to contract swimming lessons as we
have done for the past two summers. Staff analyzed each of the alternatives using the following
criteria:
• City and Customer Costs
• Quality of Service and Customer Satisfaction
• Diversity of Programming and Accessibility
If we assume that any management changes to pool operations should not increase cost it is
clear the City cannot match the service level enhancements that Team Sheeper is proposing
through changes to in-house management. It would be significantly more expensive to
enhance Aquatics programs and services to a year round program than the Team Sheeper
option because the alternatives would require an increase the number of full-time benefitted
City employees in order to ensure sufficient staffing and oversight of an expanded program.
Team Sheeper can provide a significant increase in programming and hours at the pool which
will allow Rinconada to be utilized by more residents and provide swimming lessons to more
Palo Alto youth. Importantly, using Team Sheeper also alleviates the City’s staffing shortage
issues which will allow pool programming to operate without emergency measures or cuts to
programs like we have seen in previous years.
Team Sheeper has proposed operating a year round lap and recreational swimming program,
dramatically increase youth swim lesson offerings, increase masters swim programs, provide
programming enhancements including swim camps and aqua fitness, and will allow City staff to
focus on other programming areas. Team Sheeper is an organization focused solely on aquatics
programming and operations and so has a level of expertise in the area that is hard to rival.
Team Sheeper’s philosophy is one of maximizing usage (while keeping a delicate balance to
avoid crowding the pool.) Under their operation, there would be more sharing of space. As an
example, during midday weekday hours when demand for lap lanes may be low, Team Sheeper
may use some lanes for lap swim and offer some lanes for lessons or aqua-aerobics. This will
be a change for some customers who have grown accustomed to having their choice of empty
lanes but it is a change that we believe will ultimately allow us to serve more Palo Alto residents
with a greater variety of programming.
5
Full details of the evaluation of in-house versus contracting with Team Sheeper can be found in
Appendix C.
Team Sheeper’s proposal provides the following benefits at roughly the same cost to the City as
the current Rinconada programs:
1. Significantly expanded youth swimming lesson program. Team Sheeper estimates that
it will provide roughly six times more swimming lessons than offered in 2016 (32,000
lessons compared with 5,500 lessons) and will offer more lessons on evenings and
weekends.
2. Expanded recreation and lap swim hours. Team Sheeper has proposed expanding all
lap and recreation swim hours year round. Appendix B provides both snapshots of our
current Summer and Non-Summer Programming at Rinconada and Team Sheeper’s
anticipated schedule for Summer and Non-Summer Programming.
3. New programming including summer swim camps and aqua fitness classes.
4. Different youth swim lesson programming. Team Sheeper’s typical swim lesson model
is to set each child up with once per week lessons that they attend for several months in
a row. The City’s lesson program is for each child to take lessons four days in a row for
several weeks at a time. Team Sheeper anticipates that it will offer its typical once per
week schedule for lessons at Rinconada and Palo Alto’s traditional four days straight
model at JLS Middle School, which will give families the option to choose their preferred
method.
6
The chart below highlights the differences in pool availability between our current program and
Team Sheeper’s proposal. Staff is committed to providing a valuable aquatics program to Palo
Alto residents and should we contract the full suite of operations staff would ensure that
flexibility in scheduling is written into any contract with Team Sheeper so that we can modify
the schedule in response to customer feedback.
Weekly Open Hours
Status Quo Team Sheeper
Su
m
m
e
r
Lap Swim
62 79
Lap Pool Recreation
27 30
Wading Pool
55 86
No
n
-Su
m
m
e
r
Lap Swim
42 52
Lap Pool Recreation
0 4
Wading Pool
0 46
Contracting pool operations to Team Sheeper does come with some trade-offs, two of the more
significant tradeoffs include:
1. Higher customer prices. Palo Alto residents paying at the entrance for lap and
recreation swim would not see a price change but other customers would.
Approximately 1,300 Palo Alto residents use a 10-pack to participate in lap and
recreation swim. Most of those customers would see an increase in their cost to use
Rinconada. However, if they continue to use the pool with the same frequency, they
could expect to pay an additional $16 per year for pool access and if they chose to take
advantage of newly added operating hours, they can buy a monthly pass- something
that Team Sheeper has proposed adding. We believe that this level of price increase is
acceptable given the many more hours of pool availability residents will have
throughout the year.
7
The following tables highlight the current and proposed lap and recreation swim pricing
changes:
Pricing Increases for Current 10-pack customers (residents)
Team Sheeper also proposes to provide approximately six times more swimming lessons
under their operations than Palo Alto has offered in the past. However, in order to
provide so many lessons, Team Sheeper would increase youth swimming lesson prices.
Staff is proposing that the City subsidize group swimming lessons by $6 per lesson.
Lessons would still be more expensive than in previous years, with prices increasing
from $11 to $16 per lesson; in our review of other public pools we found the average
price per lesson was $13. Private lessons would see a large increase from $24 per lesson
now to $67 per lesson. Private lessons have historically been heavily subsidized and
staff believes that the current pricing structure is not sustainable and should increase
regardless of the management. (Benchmark pricing is detailed in Appendix A.)
Status Quo Team Sheeper
Adult $6.00 $6.00
Senior $4.00 $4.50
Youth $5.00 $4.50
Infant $3.00 $4.50
Family N/A $15.00
Status Quo Team Sheeper
Adult $6.00 $7.00
Senior $4.00 $5.25
Youth $5.00 $5.25
Infant $3.00 $5.25
Family N/A $18.00
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
No
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Lap and Recreation Swim Pricing Changes for Daily Rate Entrants
Adult $2.00
Senior $2.50
Youth $1.00
8
The following table highlights the current and proposed lesson pricing changes:
Palo Alto Sheeper Resident Non-Resident
Group Youth Lessons $11 $12
$16 ($22 Non
Resident)
Semi Private Youth Lessons N/A N/A $37
Private Youth Lessons $24 $26 $67
Group Adult Lessons N/A N/A $30
Private Adult Lessons $64 (60 min) $75 (60 min) $37 (30 min)
Masters Swim
$75-
80/month
$75-
80/month $80
Team Sheeper’s full cost per group lesson is $22 but staff proposes that the City
subsidize group swim lessons to encourage all Palo Alto youth to learn to swim. A
subsidy of $6 per lesson could cost as much as about $250,000 per year if Team Sheeper
filled every lesson they offered with a Palo Alto resident. If this happened, it could bring
the City cost slightly above our Status Quo projection or current projected budget for
Aquatics. Staff feel that the $6 per lesson subsidy is a reasonable compromise between
keeping costs down for residents and not adding City costs to the program overall. The
table below shows the cost of group lesson subsidies based on subsidy level and
potential enrollment of Palo Alto residents.
Subsidy
level
Expected
Enrollment
(~30,000)
Maximum
Enrollment
(~42,000)
$1 $30,368 $41,776
$2 $60,736 $83,552
$3 $91,104 $125,328
$4 $121,472 $167,104
$5 $151,840 $208,880
$6 $182,208 $250,656
$7 $212,576 $292,432
$8 $242,944 $334,208
$9 $273,312 $375,984
$10 $303,680 $417,760
$11 $334,048 $459,536
2. Less control over day to day operations. If the City contracts pool operations to Team
Sheeper, Team Sheeper has more control over details of daily operations such as which
particular parts of the pool are available to various user types throughout the day. Staff
9
will however prioritize specific issues that staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission,
and Council have with regard to pool operations such as how many lanes are available
for open swim and how many hours of recreation swim include access to the diving
boards.
Other tradeoffs that will need to be managed carefully to ensure the customer experience and
quality of service is high include:
• Additional aquatics programming will result in the need for more sharing of the pool
between different interest groups;
• Team Sheeper maintains their own registration system, so customers would not register
for swim lessons through the City’s process but would register through a different site;
• Team Sheeper and City staff needs to determine how Team Sheeper’s financial aid
programs will be administered and whether residents will also be eligible for price
reductions through the City’s aid program.
While the trade-offs described above are important to understand and appreciate, Staff
believes that continuing discussions with Team Sheeper is the best option to meet City goals to
alleviate staffing shortages and to respond to resident requests for more pool access.
Impact on PASA and Rinconada Masters
If the City elects to contract the full aquatics program to Team Sheeper, Team Sheeper has
proposed absorbing or subcontracting the Rinconada Master’s program and would subcontract
with PASA to operate their program.
Impact on City Staff
If the City enters into a public-private partnership with Team Sheeper it will impact the SEIU
positions used at the pool. There is one full-time SEIU position and 12 SEIU hourly positions
used by the aquatics program. Only 5 of 12 are currently filled for a total of 2.06 FTE. The
remaining 7 unfilled positions total 1.73 FTE. The full-time SEIU employee is in a job
classification with a current vacancy. The position is a Recreation Coordinator and the vacancy
is at the Mitchell Park Community Center Teen Center. Staff has intentionally left the position
vacant for the past month so that the City can consider either eliminating a position and
transfer the employee into the vacant Teen Center position, or restructure the position to focus
on other areas such as special events programming.
Team Sheeper is committed to considering hiring the remaining pool staff for positions on their
staff. Team Sheeper uses both year-round and seasonal employees at its other pools and
estimates that at least 70 percent of seasonal staff consists of local high school and college
10
students. If they operate Rinconada Pool, they expect a similar portion of local students to work
during summers.
Timeline
• September 2016 – PSO meets with SEIU to notify them of the possible impact on 1 SEIU
permanent position and 12 SEIU hourly positions in the Aquatics Program. (Only 5 of 12
are currently filled for a total of 2.06 FTE. The remaining 7 unfilled positions total 1.73
FTE.)
• November 2016 – Parks and Recreation Commission presentation and discussion.
• December 2016 – City Council presentation and discussion of contract for swim lessons
only.
• December 2016 – Pending City Council and CMO direction, contract with Team Sheeper
finalized and Aquatics Programming changes begin.
• January 2017 – Pool operations begin for 2017.
Resource Impact
The City’s cost recovery expectations for FY 2018 are detailed in the chart below.
Year One – FY 2018
Forecasted Fiscal Impact
FY 2018 Contracted
Status
Quo
Revenue $0 $465,000
Operating Expenditures $60,000 $565,000
Contract Fees $180,000 $200,000
Maintenance and Overhead $300,000 $275,000
Swim Lessons Provided 32,000 5,500
Net General Fund Impact ($540,000) ($575,000)
The intent of the recommendations in this memorandum is to provide an enhanced level of
service at or below current cost. Contracting with Team Sheeper meets this goal.
Policy Implications
This proposal is aligned with Comprehensive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of
Community Services.
11
Environmental Review
The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments
Appendix A – Youth Swim Lesson Program Pricing Comparison
Appendix B – Sample Schedules of Pool Programming Under the Current Model and Team
Sheeper’s Proposal
Appendix C – Assumptions and Analysis Used in Evaluating Management Options
12
Appendix A
Youth Swim Lesson Program Pricing Comparison
Swim school lesson pricing (per 30 minutes)
Public Group Private
City of Mountain View 7$ 25$
City of Milpitas 9$ 38$
City of Morgan Hill 9$ 29$
City of Cupertino 10$ 42$
City of Santa Clara 10$ N/A
City of Sunnyvale Pools 11$ 50$
City of Palo Alto 11$ 24$
Los Gatos/Saratoga Recreation 12$ 38$
Menlo Park Belle Haven 15$ 67$
City of Redwood City 15$ N/A
City of Fremont 16$ 34$
City of Campbell 18$ N/A
Menlo Park Burgess 22$ 67$
Rancho Rinconada (Cupertino)N/A 33$
Average 13$ 35$
Private
Palo Alto YMCA - Ross 13$ 52$
Palo Alto JCC 16$ 55$
Flying Fish (Milpitas)18$ 54$
Star (Saratoga)20$ 78$
Sutton Swim (Campbell)22$ N/A
AVAC (Almaden Valley)23$ N/A
DACA (Cupertino)23$ 90$
Peninsula Swim School (Redwood City)23$ 46$
Kings Academy (Redwood City)23$ 64$
La Petite Baleen (Redwood City)24$ 64$
Waterworks (San Jose)27$ 80$
Average 21$ 65$
Resident/Member
13
Appendix B
Sample Schedules of Pool Programming Under the Current Model compared to the Team
Sheeper’s Proposal
Status Quo Summer Schedule
6:00am
6:30am
7:00am
7:30am
8:00am
8:30am
9:00am
9:30am
10:00am
10:30am
11:00am
11:30am
12:00pm
12:30pm
1:00pm
1:30pm
2:00pm
2:30pm
3:00pm
3:30pm
4:00pm
4:30pm
5:00pm
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm Lap Swim Lap Swim
7:30pm 7 lanes 7 lanes
8:00pm
8:30pm
Lap Swim
10 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
10 lanes
Sunday
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
10 lanes
7lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
PASA
10 lanes
Lap Swim
10 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
PASA
10 lanes
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters (14)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Masters (14)
7lanes
Lap Swim (14)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Rec Swim
(10 lanes)
Lap Swim
(4 lanes)
Rec Swim
(10 lanes)
Lap Swim
(4 lanes)
Lap Swim (14)
Staff Training
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim (14)
7lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
PASA
10 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
10 lanes
14
Status Quo Non-Summer Schedule
6:00am
6:30am
7:00am
7:30am
8:00am
8:30am
9:00am
9:30am
10:00am
10:30am
11:00am
11:30am
12:00pm
12:30pm
1:00pm
1:30pm
2:00pm
2:30pm
3:00pm
3:30pm
4:00pm
4:30pm
5:00pm
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
8:30pm
Sunday
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Masters
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)(4 lanes)(10 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes)(7 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
(4 lanes)(10 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes)(7 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)PASA
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
15
Team Sheeper Proposed Summer Schedule
16
Team Sheeper Proposed Non-Summer Schedule
17
Appendix C
Assumptions Used to Estimate Costs of Each Management Alternative
City-run Management
• Assumed an increase in swim lesson pricing to the benchmark average prices for group
and private lessons
• Increased non-resident pricing for swim lessons to reduce the subsidy for those
customers. Rates would increase to $20 per lesson for group lessons and $63 per lesson
for privates
• Increase of approximately $25,000 per year in additional gas and chlorine costs to keep
the round pool open for a longer season
• Assumes approximately 20% more pool visitors due to increased hours
• New full-time benefitted pool staff added to Rinconada’s operations:
o Assumes increase from .25% to 100% of Community Services Manager to provide
program management
o 2 FTE Pool Managers/Deck Coordinators to stabilize staffing levels year round
o 1 FTE Swim School Manager for City-run swim school and 1 FTE Customer Service
Manager for increased programming
o Increase starting lifeguard salaries from $11.50 to $15.00 in line with Team
Sheeper and others
o Assumes approximately half of lifeguards will become eligible for SEIU hourly
employment (work more than 416 hours per year)
Team Sheeper Management
• Team Sheeper manages the City’s Aquatics Programming
• Rinconada’s lap and recreation swim programs are expanded to offer more hours of
access
• The number of swim lessons available increases and are offered from spring through fall
Customer Pricing
Lessons
In order to allow Team Sheeper to offer many more lessons from spring through fall, staff
increased lesson prices in this model. In this option, Team Sheeper would provide 24,000 more
lessons than in 2016. In order to minimize costs, the City cannot subsidize lessons at the rate it
has historically done, so this model assumes the group lesson customer pricing rises from $11
to $16 per lesson and private lesson customer pricing rises from $24 to $67 per lesson.
18
Lap and Recreational Swim
Team Sheeper would use the same pricing model for lap and recreational swimming as it does
at the Burgess Pool. Their proposal includes two tiers of walk-up prices, by differentiating
between residents and non-residents. Adult residents who pay upon entry would see no
change in the price they pay and youth over three years old would see a slight decrease in their
rates. Senior rates would increase slightly as would infant rates. The table below outlines
these changes.
Team Sheeper Lap and Recreation Swim Pricing
Re
s
i
d
e
n
ts
Adult Senior Youth Infant Family
Daily Rate $6.00 $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 $15.00
Monthly Pass $48.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 N/A
No
n
-Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Adult Senior Youth Infant Family
Daily Rate $7.00 $5.25 $5.25 $5.25 $18.00
Monthly Pass $54.00 $40.50 $40.50 $40.50 N/A
Roughly 40 percent of daily entrants to the pool currently are paid through the 10-Pack
program which is a lower cost alternative to paying the daily entrance fee. For the current 10-
Pack users, prices under the Team Sheeper contract would rise. The chart below indicates the
percentage increase in pricing from the current 10-pack prices to the daily entrance fees for
Team Sheeper.
Team Sheeper Rate Increase for 10-Pack users
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Adult 50%
Senior 80%
Youth 29%
Infant 50%
No
n
-Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Adult 56%
Senior 75%
Youth 31%
Infant 75%
19
In 2015, approximately 1,330 residents used a 10-pack at some point in 2015 an average of 13
times per year and another 443 non-residents used the 10-pack in 2015 an average of 12 times
per year. Approximately 30 percent of 10-pack users are seniors, 60 percent are adults, and 10
percent are youth.
Because of the relatively low frequency that 10-pack users visit the pool, the average impact of
price increases to 10-pack users would only be about $16 per year. Staff believes that this is a
reasonable price increase given the additional pool hours available to users. Additionally, Team
Sheeper is proposing to offer a monthly pass option which will allow heavy pool users to save
money over their current costs.
City Costs
Team Sheeper offers the lowest City cost to operate the aquatics facilities. Staff expects that
Alternative Two would cost the City approximately $540,000 to operate the Aquatics Program
in its first year of operations, assuming that the Council chooses to offer a $6 per lesson subsidy
for Palo Alto residents taking group swimming lessons.
This option also impacts City staffing. Currently the City has one permanent position and 12
SEIU hourly positions in the Aquatics Program. (Only 5 of 12 hourly positions are currently filled
for a total of 2.06 FTE. The remaining 7 unfilled positions total 1.73 FTE.) Staff would need to
work with the SEIU and the employees through the Meet and Confer process defined in the
City’s Memorandum of Understanding with SEIU to determine how each employee will be
impacted.
Quality of Service and Customer Satisfaction
Team Sheeper and the City both place high value on pool safety and have similar maintenance
and cleanliness standards.
The most notable difference in programming between Team Sheeper’s model and the City’s is
in the swim lesson model. Palo Alto offers summer-only group swim lessons that are held four
days in a row for two weeks at a time. Team Sheeper generally offers year-round group lessons
that meet once weekly and can last as long as necessary for a child to advance. Both programs
offer a ratio of 4 students to 1 instructor and utilize high quality instruction methods.
Team Sheeper anticipates that it will offer its typical once per week lessons at Rinconada Pool
and the 4-day per week model at the JLS Middle School pool. This will allow families the option
of using their preferred lesson model.
Team Sheeper’s swim lesson programming is different that the City’s traditional Red Cross
program. The City’s learn-to-swim program has emphasized water safety and building comfort
20
in the water. Team Sheeper’s program emphasizes water safety and comfort in the water but in
addition focuses heavily on building fundamentally sound swim techniques in all four
competitive swim strokes. Customer satisfaction has been generally positive for both summers
using Team Sheeper to provide lessons.
Team Sheeper has provided the information below to elaborate on how their swim program
goes beyond a traditional swim safety program:
• Single Goal Approach- Swimmers focus on one skill or stroke at a time, they master the
stroke being taught, while building on previous skills with each new level.
• Each lesson is extremely focused on the individual student and their swim ability. They
teach to the student while in a group setting.
• Teachers will give students hands on and verbal instruction, they will modify the
instruction given with each interaction, giving swimmers the feedback they need and
tailoring the lesson to the student in each class.
• Each time a student comes to a swim lesson they have the opportunity to advance. After
demonstrating the skill they are working on successfully in three separate lessons,
swimmers receive a ribbon and are able to move on to the next skill while staying in the
same class.
• Instructors provide support to the progress of the swimmers in collaboration with Deck
Coordinators. Deck Coordinators are called over during a lesson to watch the student
swim; they then provide feedback to the swimmer, give direction as needed and serve
as a way to ensure the student is receiving the opportunity to advance.
• Team Sheeper’s program is year round and not session based. Swimmers can continue
progress without interruption. Session based programs can stop a swimmer’s
momentum. The year round approach allows students the opportunity to join a class at
any time, without feeling that they are behind.
• Year round classes allow Team Sheeper to hire full-time instructors with more
experience than seasonal employees typically have. Team Sheeper’s staff includes many
instructors with extensive backgrounds in aquatics, advanced degree in athletics, and
some were competitive swimmers in the past.
• They provide ongoing training and continued investment in all swim instructors, training
courses include: swim clinics, new teaching methods, innovation to curriculum, teacher
to student relationship building, and team building.
21
Diversity of Programming and Accessibility
Team Sheeper’s proposal offers more hours of lap and recreation swimming as well as other
programs that Palo Alto currently does not provide including summer and holiday swim camps,
aqua-fitness classes and swim pro services.
The biggest potential Accessibility drawback from using Team Sheeper would be that some
customers may feel they cannot afford the newly increased prices under a Team Sheeper.
Team Sheeper offers a financial aid program for swim lessons, water polo team membership
and lifeguard certification classes at its Belle Haven pool which they plan to bring to Rinconada.
22
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2016
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Parks and Recreation Commission provide feedback on the Draft 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):
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.
A Draft Master Plan has been compiled and includes an Executive Summary, Chapters 1-5 and
Appendices. The Draft Master Plan reflects comments received at the October PRC meeting, November
1st community meeting and Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc committee meeting. Staff is
requesting feedback on the Draft Master Plan document. Comments received on the Draft will be
incorporated into a Final Draft Master Plan, which will be presented at the December 2016 PRC meeting.
DISCUSSION
The Draft Master Plan included in this staff report (Attachment A) reflects the collective work of staff
and the City’s consultant MIG, Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), PRC Ad Hoc Committee,
Stakeholder Advisory Group, the community and City Council. This draft includes comments received at
the October 25th PRC meeting, November 1st community meeting and Parks and Recreation Commission
Ad Hoc committee meeting.
New content of the Master Plan includes:
• An Executive Summary, which will summarize the process and opportunities, and introduce the
principles, goals and high priority projects and programs;
• Minor edits to chapters 1-4;
• A restructured Implementation chapter (Chapter 5) that includes:
-Acknowledgement that there are some projects that will require long-term strategic thinking
and development of funding strategies;
-Two additional high priority projects (Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility and Golf Course
Facility Improvements);
-Reorganization of high priority projects so that long-term, high capital projects are listed first,
followed by short term projects, and then programs;
-Additional language defining the term “urgency”.
NEXT STEPS
Comments received from the PRC will be incorporated into the Final Draft Master Plan and presented to
City Council in January 2017. Staff will return to Council in winter/spring 2017 with a recommendation
to adopt the Plan along with a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND).
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. DRAFT Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
2
PB
PALOALTO
MASTER PLAN
NOVEMBER 2016 PUBLIC DRAFT
PARKS TRAILS NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
i
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........................................................................................................................................................v
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 .....................................................................................................................................79
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................................113
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................... 116
Photo Credits ............................................................................................................................................................. 120
APPENDICES
A. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces and Recreation Inventory ............................................................A-1
B. Geographic Analysis Maps................................................................................................................................B-1
C. Community Engagement...................................................................................................................................C-1
D. Existing Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................................D-1
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
v
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To build on and continue the legacy of its strong parks system, the
City developed the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation
Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide ongoing investment in one of
the community’s most treasured assets.
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 framework with a set of
policies, projects and programs and 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.
Planning Process
The Master Plan process consisted of three phases:
• Phase 1: Specific Site and Program Analysis and
Community Engagement. This phase included
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. It also included
identification of community and stakeholder needs,
interests and preferences for system enhancements
using a proactive community engagement process with
a broad range of activities.
• Phase 2: Developing and Prioritizing Project and
Program Opportunities. During this phase, Palo Alto
developed goals, policies, and programs; identified
capital projects, needed renovations and other
improvements; and prioritized actions into short,
medium and long term implementation timelines. The
Palo Alto community provided feedback on priorities and
programs through several activities.
• Phase 3: Drafting of the Master Plan, Review and
Adoption. In Phase 3, the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC), City Council and Palo Alto community
reviewed and refined the draft Master Plan; and Council
adopted it.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
viv
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community engagement opportunities were infused throughout
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.
Opportunities
The input from the community, combined with analysis of the
many aspects of the park system generated a wide range of
opportunities. 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 :
• 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.
In addition, three concept maps illustrate high value 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 .
MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT METHODS
INCLUDED:
• A project webpage
• Public information updates
through a variety of online
and print communication
channels
• 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
Commision (PRC) and other
appointed commissions
• City Council updates and
study sessions
vii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Park Search Areas
Expand the System
This map 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 Palo Alto focus future park additions in
neighborhoods with the greatest need, for example those with the
highest density and/or largest population. Meanwhile, this map
shows the importance of public access to school grounds that fall
within park search areas (noted in purple), which will be maintained
and expanded to better support neighborhood park uses and
enhance their natural open space value.
e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero C ree k
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
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarder
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
Sant
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
e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Cree k
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
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarder
o
R
d
Mid
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Charles
t
o
n
R
d
el Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
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 Spaceand 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 withPublic 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
e
S an Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
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
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarder
o
R
d
Mid
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Charlesto
n
R
d
el Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
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 Spaceand 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 withPublic 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
viiivii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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. This map 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 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.
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 C ree k
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
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarder
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
Sant
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 Spaceand 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
3e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
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
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
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarder
o
R
d
Mid
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Charles
t
o
n
R
d
el Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
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 Spaceand 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
Matadero Creek
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
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
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarder
o
R
d
Mid
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Charlesto
n
R
d
el Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Park Connections
ix
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Connect Natural Systems
This map illustrates how the same corridors recommended for
bike and pedestrian enhancements can also provide connectivity
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.
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 withPublic 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 cloverValley oak woodland
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland
Regional Habitat
Connection Concept
e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero C ree k
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
Page
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
Sant
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
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 withPublic 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 cloverValley oak woodland
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland
Regional Habitat Connection Concept
e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Cree k
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
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Orego
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarde
r
o
R
d
Mid
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
Charlesto
n
R
d
el Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
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 withPublic 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 AltoParks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand 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 cloverValley oak woodland
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland
Regional Habitat
Connection Concept
e
S an Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
MountainView
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo AltoAtherton
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
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Orego
n
E
x
p
y
el
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarde
r
o
R
d
Mid
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 Camino
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Natural Systems
xix
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Principles, Goals and Policies
Through the Master Plan process, the Palo Alto community defined
a future for parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation. Distilled
community input and themes from the analysis process led to the
principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s
long-term vision for the future system.
Principles
The eight principles represent the collective direction provided by hundreds
of participants from across the city as well as many local stakeholder
groups. 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.
Goals
Six goals state the community’s desired outcomes and provide an
organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that form
the recommendations of the Master Plan.
• Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible,
inclusive, and distributed equitably across Palo Alto.
• Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing
system of parks, recreation, and open space facilities and
services.
PLAYFUL
HEALTHY
SUSTAINABLE
INCLUSIVE
ACCESSIBLE
FLEXIBLE
BALANCED
NATURE
xi
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Create environments that encourage regular active and
passive activities to support health, wellness and social
connections.
• Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and
ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.
• Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for
expanding the system/
• Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively,
efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and
qualitative measures.
Policies
The principles and goals will be realized through the policies
described in Chapter 4 of the Master Plan. These policies and
programs are organized within the framework of the six goals, with
implementing policies and programs following each goal.
Implementation
Over the next twenty years, the implementation of the projects and
programs recommended in the Master Plan will occur 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.
Projects and programs were prioritized and will continue to be
evaluated by five criteria:
• 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.
• 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.
The goals reflect the community’s desired outcomes, examples of these outcomes are shown above.
xiixi
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
High Priority Projects and Programs
There are 33 projects and programs that we know today are
high priorities, based on feedback from the Parks and Recreation
Commission, City Council, stakeholders, the broader community
and City staff. These priorities are organized by projects and
programs. They are not ranked, nor are they presented in priority
order.
Major projects needing further study and strategic funding:
• Enhance existing sports fields
• 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
• Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility
• Incorporate 7.7 acre site into Foothills Park
• Acquire new parkland in high need areas
• Golf course facility improvements
Projects ready in the short-term:
• Develop conservation plans for open space preserves
• Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas
• Construct new restrooms in parks
• Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance
and management of parks, open space and recreation
facilities
• Exceed 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 underserved areas
• Enhance seating areas in parks
• Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks
Examples of the types of programs and projects that can be implemented by the dedicated community of Palo Alto.
xiii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Programs:
• Establish and grow partnerships and identify and
cultivate potenial park and recreation donors
• Collaborate with school district to increase access to
playgrounds, gyms, and other school facilities
• Expand recruitment and training of coaches and
instructors
• Expand aquatics programs
• Expand programs for seniors
• Expand non-academic programs for teens
• Provide intramural sports program for middle and high
school students
• Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and
inclusive program development
• Increase the variety of activities available 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
• Expand community-focused special events
• Offer cultural enrichment programs
Examples of projects needing further study and funding, adn projects that are ready in the short-tem based on feedback from the community.
xivxiii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Master Plan Progress Tracking:
Existing measures, from the Citizen Centric Report and the annual
citizen satisfaction survey provide a large selection of evaluation
measures for any part of the parks, trails, natural open space and
recreation system.
In addition, to track progress on Master Plan implementation,
City staff will report on specific actions or projects that have been
initiated or completed that contribute to achievement of the
programs, policies and goals. This annual progress report will also
include a report on funding status.
Examples of desired programs based on feedback from the community.
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
ELEMENTS OF THE PALO ALTO SYSTEM
• Parks, Trails and Open Space
• Recreation Facilities
• Recreation Programs
12
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
present. Due to the era when they were built, many parks are not
flexible enough to 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.
Palo Alto’s parks, trails and natural open spaces are also home to
much of the urban forest. The lands and connections that make up
this element of the system are importat to the goals of the Urban
Forest Master Plan.
The Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space map (Figure
2) depicts all City-owned (or controlled) 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 3
Community Centers 3
Community Gardens 4
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.
TABLE 2: PALO ALTO FACILITIES
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
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.
Low
Projection
(Scenario 1)
High
Projection
(ABAG)
Population 2014 66,800 66,800
Population 2030 72,285 77,100
Percent Change 10%15%
Average Annual
Change 0.6%0.9%
TABLE 3: CITY OF PALO ALTO PROJECTED POPULATION
Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR
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.
PARKLAND STANDARDS
The Palo Alto
Comprehensive plan
references (Policy C-28)
National Recreation and Park
Association standards:
• Two acres of neighborhood
park land should be
provided for each 1,000
people; and
• Two acres of district park
land should be provided
for each 1,000 people.
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.
6.E.22 Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins
and rain gardens to retain and treat storm water.
Palo Alto park maintenance
7574
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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
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 (PRC) 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. Many projects, such as large capital projects will require long-term strategic thinking and development of funding strategies. Strategic planning for these long-term, high capital projects will occur concurrently with the annual process.
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. Although the tools in this Chapter are designed to work with Palo Alto’s existing budget and capital improvement plan processes, there may be instances where a strategic action or proposal does not fit into the normal budget process. In these cases, it will be necessary for a separate PRC and City Council review and approval process.
80
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
CREATE ENVIRONMENTS THAT ENCOURAGE REGULAR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE ACTIVITIES
8180
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
The focus of discussion in this chapter includes:
• 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
This plan is intentionally ambitious, to reflect the high standards
of the Palo Alto community. Not all of these projects will move
forward immediately and the City needs to have a method of
prioritization. This process of prioritization is designed to inform the
projects that move forward first and to help guide implementation
throughout the life of the Master 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 a 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. Projects and programs will be evaluated against criteria
to identify the benefit to the overall system 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.
82
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
• Address community preferences: Target the highest
priority types of projects and programs identified through
citywide outreach.
• 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.
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
There are some programs and projects that we know today are
high priority needs and/or opportunities. The list below reflects
those priorities as identified in the Master Planning process.
The priorities were 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 initiated immediately, usually of smaller scale and lower
funding requirements and 2) large scale projects that will require
more study and a long-term planning and funding strategy. While
all the projects and programs that appear on this list are considered
a priority, completion of large scale capital projects will require
efforts over the life of the plan with several steps beginning in the
near term and continuing through planning, design and ultimately
construction.
Projects: (High to Low Urgency per group)
Major projects needing further study and strategic funding
• Enhance existing sports fields
• 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
• Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility
• Incorporate 7.7 acre site into Foothills Park
• Acquire new parkland in high need areas
• Golf course facility improvements
8382
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Projects ready in the short term
• Develop conservation plans for open space preserves
• Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas
• Construct new restrooms in parks
• Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and
management of parks, open space and recreation facilities
• Exceed 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 underserved areas
• Enhance seating areas in parks
• Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks
Programs:
• Establish and grow partnerships and identify and cultivate
potenial park and recreation donors
• Collaborate with school district to increase access to
playgrounds, gyms, and other school facilities
• Expand recruitment and training of coaches and
instructors
• Expand aquatics programs
• Expand programs for seniors
• Expand non-academic programs for teens
• Provide intramural sports program for middle and high
school students
• Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive
program development
• Increase the variety of activities available 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
84
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
• Expand community-focused special events
• Offer cultural enrichment programs
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
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)
• $$$$ (>$5,000,000)
3. ANNUAL OPERATING COST estimates the added annual
operating cost once the project is in place, also indicated by
dollar signs as follows:
• $ (<$5,000)
• $$ ($5,000 to $25,000)
• $$$ ($25,000 to $75,000)
• $$$$ (>$75,000)
4. TIMEFRAME indicates whether project activity will occur
in the near, mid, or long-term. All 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. Additionally, some projects will require
different actions throughout the life of the project.
This Master Plan looks at three time frames for
implementation. All of the high priority projects identified
will require attention in the near term. Some projects can be
initiated and completed within a single time frame, however
8584
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
many will be ongoing or will require different actions across
multiple time frames. Actions related to identified priorities
will be integrated into City planning within the structure of
each time frame described below.
• Near-Term (First Five Years): The City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) includes capital projects
planned for a five-year period. As each year’s projects are
completed, the annual budgeting process includes the
addition of another year on the rolling five-year CIP. New
projects identified in the Master Plan will be proposed
through the annual CIP process. Programs can be
implemented more immediately, as funding is available.
• Mid-Term (6-10 Years): In the mid-term, more of the
new ideas generated in this plan will be cycled into the
CIP process and preliminary work will advance the larger
capital projects. New programs will be established enough
to evaluate and new ideas can continue to be added.
• Long-Term (11-20): The long-term timeline includes
projects that require significant up-front work and
planning, represent long-term, ongoing investments or
demand extraordinary funding strategies. Several projects
may not be completed until this time frame; however all
will have been initiated and incorporated into the planning
structure in a previous time frame.
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. Urgency can also be
a consideration of time sensitivity. For example, if a project
will influence or guide future operations, such as development
of open space conservation plans, that project would have
a high level of urgency. A project could also be considered
high urgency if failure to act results in a missed opportunity,
such as purchase of an available open parcel that could be
dedicated as parkland.
PROJECT AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
The following pages provide information about proposed programs
and projects and assigns the appropriate criteria for prioritization
to each of the programs and projects. The graphic on the left
indicates the ranges of each factor that will be seen in this section.
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to High
CAPITAL COST
$ to $$$$
OPERATING COST
$ to $$$$
TIMEFRAME
Near, Mid, or Long
URGENCY
Low, Medium, or High
86
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$
OPERATING COST
$$$
TIMEFRAME
Near (Study and Planning)
Near to Long (Construction)
URGENCY
High
Enhance Existing Sport Fields
With current demands 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
Major projects that need further study and strategic funding
(Arranged from High to Low Urgency)
8786
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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. As a built out city with limited
areas to expand the park system the planning of the project should
take into account the location of the site in the baylands and 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 phasing and funding the project in the near term and
establishing 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
Near (Planning and Design)
Near to Mid (Construction)
URGENCY
High
88
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$ to $$$$
OPERATING COST
$$ to $$$$
TIMEFRAME
Near (Planning and Design)
Mid to Long (Construction)
URGENCY
High (Planning and Design)
Medium to High (Developing)
Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center
Cubberley Community Center currently sits on a 35-acre site, of
which 8 acres is owned by the City and the remaining 27 acres
owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The
City leases the PAUSD’s 27 acres and operates the community
center on the combined 35-acre site. The City and the PAUSD
have committed to jointly develop a plan for the future of the
entire Cubberley Community Center site that represents the
administrative, educational and community needs of the School
District and the City. Planning and design of the site will require
an assessment of the current and projected future needs of the
community with respect to education and recreation. Information
and data gathered as part of this Master Planning effort will help to
inform the needs assessment for Cubberley.Future renovations will
provide increased and enhanced services to the community.
The following steps are recommended to support the future
implementation of this project:
• The City and School District will formalize an agreement
for future development and renovation of the site (Near
Term)
• Prepare a comprehensive master planning study for the
site, including a needs assessment (Near Term)
• Develop a funding strategy for implementation of the
Master Plan (Near Term)
• Plan and develop a long range implementation plan (Near
to Mid Term)
• Implement the master plan (Mid to Long Term)
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
8988
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$$
OPERATING COST
$$$$
TIMEFRAME
Mid (Planning and Design)
Long (Construction)
URGENCY
Medium (Planning and Design)
Medium (Developing)
Plan, design and construct a new gymnasium
Currently the city of Palo Alto has no gymnasiums of its own. A
gymnasium at the Cubberley Community Center is the main gym
utilized by the City, but is owned by Palo Alto Unified School District
and operated by the City through a lease agreement. The middle
school gyms are used for middle school athletic programs while
the Lucie Stern Community Center and Mitchell Park Community
Center are utilized for a variety of physical and social activities.
As of means of responding to growth and to maintain, expand
and provide future programing a multi-purpose gymnasium is
recognized as a community need.
The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and
development of this site:
• As part of the planning effort for the Cubberley Community
Center a gymnasium will be considered and determined if
it is compatible with the development direction of the site
or if another separate location should be considered (Near
Term)
• Develop a funding strategy for implementation of the a
new gymnasium (Near Term)
• Plan and design (Near to Mid Term)
• Construct a gymnasium (Mid to Long Term)
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Park development fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
90
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$$
OPERATING COST
$$$$
TIMEFRAME
Mid (Planning and Design)
Long (Construction)
URGENCY
Medium (Planning and Design)
Medium (Developing)
Improve the Rinconada Park Pool Facility
The pool facility at Rinconada Park is the only city owned pool
facility in the city. During it’s operational season the pool is in high
demand from the community and local swim groups. To meet
growing demand a subsequent programming policy to open the
pool for a long season is being explored. With increased demand
the ageing pool facility needs improvements. The existing lap pool
is undersized to meet demand in both overall size and swimming
length; falling a few feet short of a regulations lap pool. The
existing looker room and restroom facilities are old and no longer
meet the needs of the users. Overall pool facility improvements
include: Expanding and reconfiguring the existing lap pool, full
remodel of the existing looker room and restroom building with the
addition a much needed community room for meetings and training
and expanding the deck area around the pool for seating.
The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and
development of this site:
• Develop a funding strategy for implementation of the a full
pool remodel (Near Term)
• Plan and design (Near to Mid Term)
• Remodel Rinconada Pool (Mid to Long Term)
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Park development fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
9190
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium to High
CAPITAL COST
$$$ to $$$$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near (Planning and Design)
Near to Mid (Construction)
URGENCY
High (Opening area to public)
Low (Developing)
92
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Acquire new parkland in high need areas
Expand parkland inventory in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area where
gaps exist geographically as illustrated in the Park Search Areas
System Concept Map (Figure 6).
While this is a long-term effort there are short term strategies
and actions needed to achieve results. Following the goal, policy
and program described in Chapter Four 1.B.1-12, some near
term actions include a review all city owned land and easements
(starting in park search areas) for potential parkland development
or connection locations, and evaluate City-owned or controlled
spaces serving or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses
and consider dedicating as parkland.
The following steps are recommended for acquiring new parkland:
• Build up funding in the short term for future parkland
acquisitions.
• City staff to review all city owned property in the high
needs areas for possible parkland.
• Collaborate with the school district to make school
ground open space available for use by the surrounding
communities during non-school hours.
• Plan, fund and maintain the construction of park elements
in school grounds in collaboration with the school district
to ensure community access.
• City staff to develop a review process of potential
properties that come up for sale as possible parkland
acquisition.
• Review options of increasing development fees to increase
funding for future acquisitions.
• City staff to Identify undeveloped properties in high
needs areas and pursue purchasing or long-term lease
agreements with the owner.
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Park development fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$$
OPERATING COST
$$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Medium
9392
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$
OPERATING COST
$$$
TIMEFRAME
Mid (Planning and Design)
Long (Construction)
URGENCY
Medium (Planning and Design)
Medium (Developing)
Golf course facility improvements
The pro shop, club house, and parking lot facilities were not
included in the scope of work of the newly renovated golf course.
Each of these facilities need improvements to maintain the viability
of the overall golf course facility. Improvements would include a full
remodel of the existing club house and pro shop building with an
expansion of a larger multi purposes room that could be used for
community and private events. Reconfiguration of the large asphalt
parking lot to create a better entry statement when arriving to the
golf course facility is also necessary.
The following steps are recommended for improvement of the golf
course facility:
• Hire a golf course consultant, to review and analyze the
existing facilities and make recommendations on how to
improve them to increase quality and overall use, along
with an operating cost study that reviewed potential
improvement options for generating revenue. (Near Term)
• Establish a phasing plan for the project for
implementation.
• Implement the recommendations of the analysis and
study.
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Capital Improvement Funds
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
94
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
$$
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
High
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
Palo Alto’s open space preserves using an ecosystem-based model
that considers both conservation and recreation goals.
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. 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.
Projects ready in the short term:
(Arranged from High to Low Urgency)
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
$$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
High
Construct new restrooms in parks
Through this planning process, the community generally came to
a consensus that restrooms make sense in parks with amenities
that draw people, especially children and seniors, and encourage
them stay at the park for a span of time. Though there have been
varying opinions regarding specific sites, additional review will
be conducted to site restrooms and security measures such as
automatic locking mechanisms and lighting will be included to
address some of the concerns related to restrooms.
9594
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$ to $$
OPERATING COST
0 to $
TIMEFRAME
Near (Strategic Plan)
Ongoing (Implementation)
URGENCY
High
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$ to $$$
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Medium to High
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.
Exceed 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.
96
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
$ to $$$
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Medium
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Medium to Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low to High (Depends on drought status)
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, up to
and including purchasing land, and will propose those through the
City’s CIP process.
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.
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.
9796
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low
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.
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
(making them more comfortable and functional) or provide
additional seating. 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.
98
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium to High
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low
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
9998
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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
N/A
OPERATING COST
$$
TIMEFRAME
Near
URGENCY
High
Collaborate with school district to increase access to playgrounds, gyms, and other school facilities
City staff will work with PAUSD to increase access to playgrounds,
gyms and other school facilities. Staff will concentrate on specific
locations in the city with limited park space with the intent of
ensuring access to school open areas and playground during non-
school hours, and establishing a gym use agreement for additional
city programs and activities in school gyms during non-school
hours.
Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors
Palo Alto staff will develop a system and strategies to broaden
the recruitment and training of coaches and instructors, including
exploring public/private partnerships, to meet the programming
demands of the City and to ensure staffing of high quality, qualified
coaches and instructors.
Programs:
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
High
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near
URGENCY
Medium
100
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Expand 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.
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.
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
Medium
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$$
TIMEFRAME
Near
URGENCY
High
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near
URGENCY
Medium to High
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near
URGENCY
Medium
101100
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students
Intramural sports provide the opportunity for children to learn a
new sport, develops social skills, teamwork and builds friendships,
and promotes an active and healthy lifestyle. Palo Alto will explore
creating an intramural sports program for middle and high school
students. Implementation of intramurals will require coordination
with PAUSD and would require additional field and gym space.
Increase the variety of activities available in parks
When renovating parks, Palo Alto staff will explore adding
both active and passive spaces and elements to increase the
variety of activities that can be experienced in a particular park.
Recommended additions to a park should consider the user groups
of the parks as well as different age groups. Further engagement
of the community should be considered. Examples of potential
elements include: outdoor gathering areas, small scale active
spaces (bocce, pickle ball courts), and quiet retreat spaces.
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
Medium
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to High
CAPITAL COST
$ to $$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
Medium
Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development
The Palo Alto community highly values accessibility and inclusion.
Community Services will expand therapeutic and inclusive
programming, including increasing funding for staff training in this
area.
102
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers
Providing spaces and programs, both indoors and outdoors
where children can play in a less structured format, away from
electronic devices encourages creativity and problem solving, and
fosters social connections with other youth. Palo Alto will support
unstructured play, such as providing space for “pick-up” games,
providing sports equipment in parks and gyms, and offering
programs with minimal direction and oversight.
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
N/A to $
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIMEFRAME
Near
URGENCY
Low
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.
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.
103102
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Long
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.
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
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIMEFRAME
Near to Mid
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.
104
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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 earlier in this chapter.Shown below are examples of action plans ( top: program) (below: projects)
105104
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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
• Development Impact Fees
• Public Private Partnerships
• Grants
• Donations
These funding sources are defined and described in Appendix D:
Existing Funding Sources
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.
EXISTING FUNDING
SOURCE
CAPITAL OPERATIONAL/
PROGRAMMING
GENERAL FUND
PARKLAND DEDICATION
FEES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES
PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS
GRANTS
DONATIONS
KEY
ELIGIBLE
LIMITED
NOT ELIGIBLE
106
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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.
The Committee also identified maintenance needs that had not
been planned and the cost and schedule to “Catch Up”. City Staff
has utilized the IBRC process over the past five years to schedule
needed maintenance and have greatly reduced the “Catch Up”
items.
Potential Funding Options
Although there are multiple funding sources for capital and
operating projects and programs, there remains a gap in funding.
While the total capital funding needed for new projects 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 maintenance, operations and
programming should be carefully considered as the City explores
options to fill the funding gap.
EXPAND EXISTING FUNDING OPTIONS
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:
107106
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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 Pre-
serve:
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.
Save the Bay Partnership:
The City partnered with Save the Bay in 2001 in order to
108
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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
109108
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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 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
110
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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.
1. Step 1: Staff, individual or community group proposes a
project or program.
2. 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.
3. Step 3: Staff analyzes need using the same
categories as in the Data and Needs Summary
111110
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
(see Master Plan Chapter 3):
• Current service/inventory
• Level of control
• Geographic analysis
• Capacity/bookings
• Perception of quality
• Expressed need
• Demographic trends
• Barriers to participation
• 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.
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.
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
112
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
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 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.
To track progress on Master Plan implementation, City staff will
report on specific actions or projects that have been initiated or
completed that contribute to achievement of the programs, policies
and goals. This annual progress report will also include a report on
funding status.
113
114113
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.
115115
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
116115
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
115
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.
117
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
118117
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
119
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
120119
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/
121
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
122121
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
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 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
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
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
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-2B-2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-3
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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-4B-4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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
B-5
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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-6B-6
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-7
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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-8B-8
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-9
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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-10B-10
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-11
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-12
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-13
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-14
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-15
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-16
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-17
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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-18B-18
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
B-19
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX B: 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)
APPENDIX C
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.
C-2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: 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.
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
C-3
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP
The Stakeholder Advisory Group provided an informed sounding
board for ideas and provided updated information about related
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.
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: 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)
C-4
C-5
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: 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
C-4
C-6
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: 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.
C-7
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community Prioritization Challenge
C-8
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: 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.
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
C-9
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
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.
APPENDIX D
EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES
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.
D-2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX D: 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 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, to the right.
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
D-3D-2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND
OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES
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: Commercial Hotel/Motel Institutional Industrial
NON-RESIDENTIAL
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
$5.32 $2.41 $5.32 $5.32
• *The City also collects development impact fees for Public Safety Facilities, General Government
Facilities, Housing, Traffic and Public Art.
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 $3,946,291 and for community center impact
fee fundbalance is $5,727,035, although this balance is mostly
committed to improvements that are already in the CIP.
D-4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND
OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES
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
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
D-5D-4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND
OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES
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.
Funding Gap
Palo Alto currently 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.