HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-14 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2016 AGENDA Downtown Library El Camino Real Program Room
270 Forest Avenue 7pm *In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Open Space and Parks Office at 3201 East Bayshore Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-496-6962.
Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda,
please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at
the appropriate time.
I. ROLL CALL II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to
limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV. BUSINESS 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from November 16, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – Chair Lauing – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan – Kristen O’Kane – Action-
(45 min) ATTACHMENT
- Staff requests the Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Accept the Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan as the embodiment of the programs and policies that are tentatively recommended by the Parks
and Recreation Commission, and
2. Direct staff to perform CEQA review based on the programs and policies described in the
Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan and return to the Parks and Recreation Commission for final recommendation.
3. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair Lauing - Discussion (20 min)
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 24, 2017 MEETING
VII. ADJOURNMENT
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
November 16, 2016 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed Lauing, David 13
Moss, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Jim Cowie 15
Others Present: 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen, Amy Johnson, Kristen O'Kane 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Kristen O'Kane 18
19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20
21
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is any agenda changes or requests or 22
deletions. Do we have any of those? That stands pat. 23
24
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 25 26 Chair Lauing: Next would be oral communications. Members of the public can address 27 the Commission on any subject that's not on the agenda. If we have a lot of speakers, 28
which happily we do tonight, we're going to allow about 2 minutes per speaker, not for 29
everybody. I have a number of speaker cards that apply to Action Item Number 2. Are 30
there any speakers on something that's not on the agenda? No, okay. 31
32
Draft Minutes 1
DRAFT
IV. BUSINESS: 1
2
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from October 25, 2016 Parks and Recreation 3
Commission Meeting. 4
5
Approval of the draft October 25, 2016 Minutes as corrected was moved by 6 Commissioner Hetterly and seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. Passed 4-0 Knopper 7
abstaining 8
9
2. Update on review of Aquatics Program Analysis 10 11
Chair Lauing: The second item on the agenda is an update on the review of the Aquatics 12
Program analysis. I think we should do speakers before you make a presentation. Will 13
that be all right? 14
15
Jazmin LeBlanc: (inaudible) 16
17
Chair Lauing: You want it after, okay. 18
19
Rob de Geus: Good evening, Commissioners. Rob de Geus, Director of Community 20
Services. Good to see you this evening. Jazmin's going to lead us through the 21
presentation. You all know Jazmin, who's our Strategy and Operations Manager. We 22
have a new working title that I'm trying to remember. We also have some guests. We 23
have Tony Batis, who runs the PASA program over here. We have Carol Macpherson in 24
the audience, that has run the Rinconada Masters program for 43 years. They started the 25 program. Two very important partners in our aquatics program. We have Tim Sheeper, 26 who runs the aquatics program—he's at the table here—and was responsive to the RFP 27 that we put out, that we'll talk about again here. We also have a lot of guests. Thank you 28
for coming. That's probably my fault; I invited them here. We've been getting some 29
emails about concerns about potential changes to the schedule and how that might impact 30
some of the programs that exist out there. We want to hear their voices, so I invited them 31
here. I'm glad we've got a good turnout. 32
33
Chair Lauing: That's great. 34
35
Mr. de Geus: With that, I'll pass it onto Jazmin, and we'll get along with the presentation. 36
37
Ms. LeBlanc: Thanks. Jazmin LeBlanc. I'm going to quickly go through where we are 38
and what our program offers right now. Our current aquatics program … 39
40
Male: Could you use a microphone please? 41
42
Draft Minutes 2
DRAFT
Ms. LeBlanc: Yeah. Can you guys hear me better? I'm going to speak up. We offer a 1
year-round, adult lap-swim program. In the summers only, we also offer family 2
recreation swim, learn to swim lessons for youth, facility rentals for private pool parties. 3
We have a year-round, competitive youth swim team, PASA Palo Alto Stanford 4
Aquatics, and a year-round, competitive adult swim team, Rinconada Masters. The 5
reason we're all sitting here tonight is because over the last 3 years, we've had trouble 6 staffing the pool, which has gotten to emergency levels in some cases. In addition, we 7
know that customers have been asking for additional hours of pool time and also 8
additional swim lessons. In the summers of 2015 and '16, we ended up having to contract 9
for summer swim lessons with Team Sheeper. They were able to come and do a quick 10
response to our RFP to get summer swim lessons to occur. We could not get enough staff 11
to provide the lessons that we had put in our catalogs. We continue to see staffing 12
shortages while we frequently have to call on the Recreation Coordinator to come sit and 13
actually work as a lifeguard into the fall. We even need to use Team Sheeper's staff just 14
on an hourly basis to keep the lap swim program running as it is right now. In terms of 15
the increased demand, when we looked at some recent years for youth swimming lessons, 16
we could see that 50 percent of our lessons were full or wait-listed and that 70 percent of 17
the swim lesson participants indicated to us that they would enroll in swim lessons if they 18
were offered in the spring or fall. In addition to that, we've done some pretty in-depth 19
surveys where we've gotten responses back indicating that half of the residents here 20
would like to have more opportunities for recreational swimming. That's important or 21
very important to these residents. We would like to be responsive to the needs of City 22
residents. We are hoping to achieve the following with our Aquatics Program. We're 23
hoping to be able to expand the swim lesson season and also provide more evening and 24
weekend lessons, which are the most impacted times. We don't offer weekend lessons 25 now, but evenings are the most impacted times. We'd also really like to respond to 26 customer demands to increase recreational swimming, and we'd like to add open hours 27 for lap swim and recreational swimming outside of the 9:00 to 5:00 weekday hours. We 28
issued a Request for Proposal in December '15 that allowed for respondents to propose 29
operations of any and all pieces of the swim program that we have. We received two 30
proposals, and we went forward with Team Sheeper's bid. We felt that it was the best bid 31
that we got. The criteria that we used. We're looking at City and resident costs; the 32
quality of the service and customer satisfaction; and the diversity of programming and 33
accessibility that we saw in those proposals. To continue on that, we really are aiming to 34
try to make this program better. That's our goal. We want to be able to support the 35
existing programs that we already have, which is Rinconada Masters, PASA, lap swim, 36
recreation swim, learn to swim lessons, and aquatic exercise programs. Actually we don't 37
have that yet, but it would be great if we did. We'd like to develop and grow existing 38
programs where we have capacity, and be sure that we are really efficiently scheduling 39
the use of the pool to balance increasing demand and making our programs more 40
successful and making sure that all residents feel like they have good access to the pool. 41
I'm going to let Rob chime in here. 42
Draft Minutes 3
DRAFT
1
Mr. de Geus: Thank you, Jazmin. I think the last slide is an important one, and 2
important for the members of the public that are here to understand. While we're trying 3
to solve a problem at the pool, particularly related to swim lessons, where we just aren't 4
able to staff up sufficiently to meet the demand, we also think that there is opportunity to 5
improve the Aquatics Program overall. I know that our Rinconada Masters head coach, 6 Carol, believes that too, and so does Tony. We think Tim has a pretty innovative way of 7
thinking and can be a great help to us in the Aquatics Program. Having said that, I don't 8
think we're there yet in terms of what we would like to recommend. We have these seven 9
sort of program areas. With the learn to swim program, we're at a point where we have 10
enough information that we would like to go to the City Council and lock in a contract 11
for Team Sheeper, Tim and his group, to continue the swim lesson program as he's done 12
for the last 2 years. In addition to that, expand the lesson program into the spring and 13
into the fall. We have many families that would like their kids to learn to swim in 14
advance of summer. We're not providing that opportunity and that need. It's a real safety 15
need. We have the pool sitting idle frequently in the spring. I'm talking mostly about the 16
children's pool, the cloverleaf pool. The expanded lesson program will largely be in that 17
pool. We're ready to make that commitment. We think that Team Sheeper can also help 18
support and grow some of the other program areas, but we need more time. We need 19
more time to hear from the public, from the Masters swimmers, the lap swimmers, the 20
families that swim with PASA and also from those that don't swim at all yet. They just 21
don't have access. The times just don't work for them. To understand that voice, which 22
is a very important one. As far as we are this evening, our recommendation is really 23
about expanding the learn to swim program with more outreach to occur for the other 24
programs. We think that'll take a couple of months really to give that enough time to 25 understand how we might improve the overall Aquatics Program. 26 27 Ms. LeBlanc: This is our proposed learn to swim program with Team Sheeper. What 28
you can see is there is an increase in pricing, but we have done what we think is a—we 29
have focused in on group youth swim lessons to try to keep the prices as low as possible 30
and to still be accessible to our residents. You can see that we're proposing actually a $6 31
subsidy that the City would cover for residents doing group youth swim lessons. You can 32
see there is an increase in the other lesson prices. We would point out that we've been 33
paying for this subsidy. We've been paying the nexus of roughly $40 per lesson per 34
student who's coming in for private youth lessons for the last 2 years. It limits how many 35
lessons we're able to offer. In some way, that's nice that we can give people a really low-36
cost way to get private youth lessons. On the other hand, it means that we can only 37
provide so many. What Team Sheeper is proposing is to be able to provide quite a bit 38
more in the learn to swim program for a longer period of time and more lessons in 39
general. 40
41
Draft Minutes 4
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is only the group youth lessons—is that the only one that has 1
the subsidy? 2
3
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: All those prices are at cost then? 6 7
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. 8
9
Mr. de Geus: That's a good question, Commissioner Reckdahl. The last time we spoke 10
about this which was September—was that right? Our understanding is that one of the 11
chief concerns that the Commission had was the group lessons and to make sure that 12
they're affordable, that they wouldn't be a barrier for a family to have their kids learn to 13
swim because of cost. We have a very, very low fee right now. Even if we were to 14
continue the program in-house, we would increase the fees to be closer to what other 15
public pools are charging. As we looked at this, we thought if we balanced the cost of 16
additional swim lessons with residents where the City's subsidizing half of the increase 17
and then the resident the other half, that's a reasonable compromise. We can add many 18
more offerings of swim lessons throughout the spring, summer and fall. 19
20
Commissioner Cribbs: I had a question about the adult lessons, the private adult lessons. 21
How are the charges for those? 22
23
Mr. de Geus: I understand we currently have an outside vendor already providing 24
support for the outdoor swim lessons. We have a special contractor that helps us with 25 that. 26 27 Commissioner Cribbs: They're now at 64 for residents, and then you're recommending 28
37? 29
30
Mr. de Geus: That's Tim Sheeper's proposal. 31
32
Ms. LeBlanc: It's a different model that they're proposing. 33
34
Mr. de Geus: Our lessons are an hour, and his are 30 minutes. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: I get it. Thank you. 37
38
Mr. de Geus: Carrying on with the learn to swim program, which is really the change 39
that staff is recommending at this time. It's not such a great change, because we had Tim 40
and his group provide the lessons for the last 2 years and have done a good job. But 41
expand the program. I mentioned that we would invite Tim this time around so that you 42
Draft Minutes 5
DRAFT
could hear a little more about his program and how it's different and some of the unique 1
things that he provides. I've had a chance to get to know Tim and his team somewhat and 2
have been over to the pool they manage in Menlo Park. I think they do a very good job. 3
That's not to say we want exactly what they have in Menlo Park. We don't, I think, for a 4
whole lot of reasons. Tim is here to provide a service for Palo Alto residents and what 5
fits with our group. This shows you an example of how many increased lessons and 6 times of the year that we'll have lessons. Tim, if you wouldn't mind sharing a little bit 7
about your program and how you see the differences that a family and kids will 8
experience swim lessons with your program versus the one we've been operating. 9
10
Tim Sheeper: Yes, absolutely. Thanks for allowing me to come to talk to you tonight. 11
This table helps us out. It shows that currently there's 9 weeks of swim lessons offered 12
for the community. Our proposal is to do 30 weeks. What that is, is 10 weeks before 13
summer, pretty much the 10 weeks of summer, and then the 10 weeks following summer 14
to give you 30. Instead of running the model where it's 4 days a week of swim lessons, 15
where a family could sign up for 2 weeks in a row and get eight lessons, there's a couple 16
of options. First, we'll offer lessons 7 days a week. In the summer, they could still go 17
with that model of the session base which the community is used to, or they can go on a 18
perpetual model, which is getting a lesson every week at a day and time that they pick. 19
We could run a hybrid model with what the City currently has and something that will 20
allow people to do a perpetual basis for the 30 weeks, much like booking a piano lesson 21
or a karate lesson or something per week. The different levels of instruction. Palo Alto 22
currently has seven different levels, and ours would be a little broader. We'd offer 13 23
different levels. We'd add a water babies, water tots, swimming essentials, and then a 24
bunch of different levels on top at the higher end. We call them swim lessons elite and so 25 on. There's just a little broader range of offerings. In the table, it talks about the number 26 of aquatics camps. We're also talking about giving swim lessons in a week-long aquatic 27 camp, which is really popular. They can get a 45-minute swim lesson as part of their day 28
camp where they're at the aquatics center for 5 hours, and they get their swim lesson. 29
Maybe I could talk a little bit about the difference in our swim lesson or what we try to 30
do with our swim lessons. Ours is very skill based. We teach one skill, and we focus on 31
one skill at a time in our swim lessons. We get the individuals, the students to get a 32
mastery of that skill. We have them perform that three times before they move onto the 33
next skill. It's a layered system; they can't move on until they perfect one skill. It helps 34
to build a really strong foundationally sound swimmer rather than just somebody who can 35
be safe in the water. Of course, they're safe in the water, but it builds lifelong swimmers. 36
37
Mr. de Geus: We're almost finished with our presentation. Thank you, Tim, for that. 38
You'll have a chance, of course, to ask questions of us and Tim. Now, we need to think 39
about the other programs that exist at the pool and how might we evaluate what we can 40
do there. The main thing I might iterate here is that we're not looking to change the 41
existing programs in a negative way. Some of the emails that have been coming in 42
Draft Minutes 6
DRAFT
suggested that's an interest. It's not. We want to manage and operate the pool in a 1
responsible way and be good stewards of this great asset, and see if we can have more 2
Palo Alto residents take advantage of it. How do we do that? That's really the question. 3
I think with the swim lesson program, Tim provides a great solution. I think there may 4
be other improvements we can make to the overall program. I look forward to talking 5
with the swimmers more about what that might be. We could improve opportunities for 6 lap swimmers. I'm confident we can. I've talked with Carol at length many times about 7
the Masters program and her interest in growing that program. We don't want to grow it 8
without her; we want to grow it with her, with Carol and Tim working together to build 9
the Masters program in a way that doesn't take away from what exists today but builds on 10
it. I think it would be a wonderful thing, and we'd get more Palo Alto residents 11
participating in that great program with Carol as the head coach, of course. The same is 12
true for the PASA program, which certainly seems like it's at capacity. I was at a meet 13
the other week, and it was a zoo out there. There's also limits to what the pool can 14
handle. If I'm hearing some of the concerns correctly, the pool is at capacity at certain 15
times. In the mornings in particular, I think that's the case. It really isn't going to be an 16
opportunity to do a whole lot. We think there is an opportunity to do a little more sharing 17
in different ways, and we would like to test some of that. Where it is at capacity, adding 18
just more program is going to diminish the experience for everyone. We're not interested 19
in doing that. In any case, we're going to work with the different groups and the 20
swimmers to see how we might operate the pool more effectively and not only support 21
the existing programs but grow those programs. Over the next couple of months, we 22
hope to be able to come back to the Commission in the new year with some additional 23
recommendations. That's where we are. Next slide, I think. This is just an example of 24
the current schedule that we have. We have a very sort of block-type schedule, where 25 one group uses the entire pool. They stop, and another group comes, and they use the 26 entire pool. We're still looking at the data closely. Is it really using the pool in the best 27 way? Is it at capacity at all these times? Is there an opportunity to do a little more 28
without compromising existing activity and programs? We think there is. We've drafted 29
a few different schedules to sort of play around with some ideas, but we don't have 30
anything really yet to propose. We think there's opportunity. This is another time—Tim, 31
maybe you can help a little bit, talk about a more integrated Aquatics Program overall. I 32
have to say I have some interest in that. When we run a program—I think about the golf 33
course which we operate also. We have a maintenance company that's a standalone 34
maintenance company. We have a restaurateur that's a standalone restaurateur. We have 35
a golf professional, Brad Lozares, who's a separate group. We have the City that's also—36
we're trying to make sure that everybody's on the same page and we're running a 37
seamless golf course where the customer doesn't see the differences in customer service. 38
It's challenging. It's not very efficient. If we can have a more integrated program, where 39
there is an operator that's overseeing more of the programs so that they can be sensible, 40
efficiency sharing of the pool. We think there's an opportunity there that will result in 41
more residents having access to the pool and participating in the program, able to lap 42
Draft Minutes 7
DRAFT
swim, able to join the Masters program, things like that. Tim will share what's happening 1
at the Burgess pool. They have a very integrated program there. My experience in 2
observing that is it's very interesting to see, but it does seem overwhelming to me and, I 3
think, probably not what Palo Alto wants to see at Rinconada. We're not bringing Tim in 4
to replicate what's at Burgess. He's coming in to provide a service for Palo Alto 5
residents, and it has to be in Palo Alto residents' interests. He understands that, as do I. 6 We have to understand what is in their interests, and that's the process we're going 7
through now. Tim, if you wouldn't mind talking a little bit about that integration. 8
9
Mr. Sheeper: Looking at the current summer schedule that you have up, it's a 10
combination of the block schedule that you talked about and the integrated schedule. 11
You have a little bit of both. For example, the morning is the block schedule. The 12
afternoon and the evening is integrative. Just to use and see more of that integrative 13
throughout the entire day is the direction that I would like to see with Rinconada pool. 14
It's something that's already in place; I'd just like to see a little more of it so that the pool 15
is serving more of the community more of the time. 16
17
Mr. de Geus: This is the non-summer schedule. Again, we think there's opportunity here 18
to do some more integration, even more of a block schedule here. By the way, this is just 19
the main pool, not the children's pool. The children's pool schedule is closed essentially 20
much of the time outside of summer. We'd like to open that up for more recreation 21
swimming, more swim lessons. Even some periods of time during the non-summer 22
schedule, even the main pool doesn't have activity. That's the yellow maintenance time. 23
There's an opportunity for maybe more lap swim, additional aquatic programs that the 24
community might be interested in. I think we're at the last slide. Is that right, Jazmin? 25 We're at a point that we would aim to recommend a contract with Team Sheeper for the 26 learn to swim program. We have a catalog that we need to put out for the summer. 27 There's some urgency there. We've put it together already, and it gets printed in late 28
December and out in January. We have our summer camp fair and all those things. We 29
do need to know what we're planning to do with the swim lesson program. Very much 30
would love to be able to offer an expanded swim lesson program for residents this spring, 31
if we can do it, and I think we can. As far as any changes to the other programs at this 32
time, not recommending any at this time. Interested in hearing from the variety of user 33
groups. We've done a couple of surveys. There's a survey out currently, which we've 34
received a couple hundred responses on. It's really interesting. We certainly are hearing 35
that people want to see more access and more opportunity for their different swimming 36
interests and needs. We'll be doing additional intercept surveys. Just going to the pool 37
and talking to people, particularly important with lap swimmers that aren't an organized 38
group. They just come, and some come very regularly, some obviously not as regularly. 39
Just trying to get a sense of where they're at. Perhaps a community meeting we're 40
thinking also. We're continuing to study the data and looking at each of the months of 41
the year and what have we been experiencing in terms of lap swim or Masters, when they 42
Draft Minutes 8
DRAFT
have 14 lanes and at that particular time of the day, is it at capacity and we have all 1
swimmers or are several lanes empty frequently. If that's the case, is there an opportunity 2
there that we could more efficiently use the pool? That's where we are. That's the next 3
steps, and then back to the Commission in January/February timeframe. 4
5
Chair Lauing: What's that going to be? More recommendations? 6 7
Mr. de Geus: It could be. I think so. We'd see if we think it does make sense to expand 8
Tim's contract to support some of these other areas. I have to say we're working closely 9
with Tony from PASA and Carol with Rinconada Masters and meeting together as a 10
group and with Tim to understand what their interests are, how they want to grow the 11
program, where they think it's going to be a real problem. We had a couple of schedules 12
that we put out as an example, and it was clearly going to be a problem for at least one of 13
the programs. That's exactly what we need to know, so then we adapt and see what is 14
just the right fit. They've been great, by the way, Carol and Tony, extremely supportive 15
and have been doing a phenomenal job for many years for Palo Alto. I don't want to 16
speak for them, but I think there's real hope here for improving and enhancing their 17
programs as well as the overall program for Palo Alto. With that, happy to answer any 18
questions or listen to the public. 19
20
Chair Lauing: We really welcome all of you. Love to hear voices directly from the 21
public. I'm pretty sure this group here is more than all we've seen in 2017, which is great. 22
It shows interest around this. We also have quite a few speaker cards. I'd like you to be 23
sort of prompt. I'll announce who going to go up, and then who's going to be next so you 24
can get ready. Assuming that there's going to be some overlap in some of the comments, 25 which is fine, we'd like to keep it to 2 minutes because we have about 20 speaker cards 26 here. That's going to take a while to get through. Twenty-one. To give everybody a 27 chance, we're going to run a timer here and be somewhat strict about that just in the spirit 28
of cooperation. The first person—you need to use the mike because this is all being 29
recorded as well as being broadcast. You need to be at the mike so that we can record. 30
Yes, Commissioner Cribbs. 31
32
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you very much. I just wanted to say in the interest of full 33
disclosure, as I'm sitting here as a Commissioner, I have known Carol Macpherson since 34
we were kids together and swam at Santa Clara Swim Club. I also sat in the room where 35
she and Tom Osborne and Cindy Baxter and I started the Masters program at Rinconada, 36
when we were looking for a place so that the swimming could go on year-round. I have a 37
real attachment to Rinconada Masters. I have been a member, but I'm not currently. I 38
coached at Palo Alto Swim Club in the 1980s and know Tony and Tisha incredibly well. 39
I'm so proud of what they've done for Palo Alto, carrying the name forward in the 40
swimming world. I'm also on the Board of Directors of the Rich May Foundation. We 41
recently, within the last year, hired Team Sheeper to monitor and take care of our field in 42
Draft Minutes 9
DRAFT
East Palo Alto. He is absolutely doing a great job. Those are my connections as I'm 1
asking questions. I thought everybody should know that. I'm also so happy to see all the 2
swimmers in the audience. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Lauing: The first speaker is going to be David Levison, to be followed by Carol 5
Macpherson. These are pretty much in the order that we got them submitted. 6 7
David Levison: I've been a member of the Rinconada Masters swimming program for 40 8
years. Carol Macpherson has been my coach the whole time along with Cindy Baxter, 9
who retired several years ago. One of the reasons I moved to Palo Alto was to be close to 10
Rinconada pool so I could ride my bike to the workouts. In college, I was on the 11
swimming team, but I was a relatively mediocre swimmer. I always believed I had more 12
potential than I had demonstrated. In the Rinconada Masters program, coaches Carol and 13
Cindy worked with me and developed my stroke mechanics and conditioning to such an 14
extent that I won eight national titles over the years including several in the grueling 400 15
meter individual medley and 200 meter butterfly. Now that I am 66 years old and retired 16
as a competitor, I depend on the Rinconada Masters program, which has been such a 17
major part of my life, to keep me healthy and fit. You might imagine that it came as a 18
great shock to me when I found out that seemingly out of the blue and without consulting 19
any of us swimmers, the City is proposing to degrade both the Rinconada Masters 20
program and the lap swimming program by going from the present system, which nearly 21
every swimmer in both groups is happy with, to a poorly thought out hybrid system, 22
which we don't need or want. Right now the lap swimmers have exclusive use of all 14 23
lanes early mornings on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, and the Rinconada Masters 24
have exclusive use of all 14 lanes early mornings on Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays. 25 Giving us each seven lanes six days a week during the same time period is unworkable. 26 Lap swimmers want to do their own thing, but Masters swimming involves organized 27 workouts and timed swims. Trying to combine the two during the same time period 28
would lead to chaos. Please leave our mornings status quo. It would be a personal 29
disaster for me if the Rinconada Masters swimming program I have been perfectly happy 30
with for 40 years were to be destroyed. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Thank you. After Carol will be Anne Harrington. After Carol. 33
34
Carol Macpherson: Am I next? 35
36
Chair Lauing: Yeah, you're next, definitely. 37
38
Ms. Macpherson: I'm going to read mine so it'll be faster, so I can stay within the 2 39
minutes. 40
41
Chair Lauing: Thank you. 42
Draft Minutes 10
DRAFT
1
Ms. Macpherson: My name is Carol Macpherson, coach and founder of Rinconada 2
Masters along with Cindy Baxter, who's retired. In 1973, we started Rinconada Masters, 3
and we were the second Masters team on the Peninsula, San Mateo being the first. 4
Within 1 year, we had over 100 swimmers. Rinconada ran two national meets at Santa 5
Clara within the first year and won the first one with 90 competitors; competed in the 6 World Games at Stanford in 2006 with 27 relays, being four person per relay. We had a 7
lot of swimmers at that time. Anne Cribbs ran that. Every year we put on a meet at the 8
Rinconada Pool, which is for the community of swimming in the Pacific Association. 9
We do that to help out with meets like the Pacific does the same thing. Let me get my 10
place. Since then we have evolved to more of a conditioning team but have still 11
swimmers competing in meets, open waters and triathlons. We have trained three 12
swimmers for the English Channel, which all three of them made it. That was good. 13
That's like 26 miles or something. It's grueling. We also trained a swimmer who just 14
recently—Jeff, who's here tonight—swam the straits of Gibraltar. We have a new, 15
revised website now and are attracting more swimmers each month. We are now slowly 16
building our numbers back up. We need the Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday 17
and Sunday workout times to stay the same. That is where most of my swimmers train. 18
We are willing to share the Tuesday, Thursday and Tuesday, Thursday night. Tuesday, 19
Thursday night we're already sharing with Palo Alto Swim Club. We've been doing that 20
for 3 years. The noontime is just hard for people. During the summer, my swimmers 21
don't want to come because there's so many kids in that dressing room, it's not worth even 22
looking at. It's bad. Swim for fitness was a program that I founded 3 years ago, and that 23
was to feed into the Masters program. I take adults, some that can't swim, some that just 24
want stroke technique, and I train them so they can move into the Masters team with no 25 problem. The Masters do not need the other hours at this point. It was suggested by 26 Team Sheeper that we take Tuesday and Thursday for Masters. Right now, we really 27 want to build our Monday, Wednesday, Friday program. When we overflow with that, 28
then going into Tuesday, Thursday would be an option, but right now we don't need that. 29
Just as a matter of fact, when I was 7 years old I learned to swim at Rinconada. I've been 30
there forever. We've been there 43 years with the Masters team. Also years ago, Cindy 31
Baxter and I taught swimming lessons at the Rinconada pool for about 10 or 12 years, I 32
think. We did that there too. What I would like is a 3-year subcontract with Sheeper or 33
the City and to see what happens after the 3 years. Thank you. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Thank you. Anne Harrington, and next up will be Gwen Fisher. Please 36
try to stay to the 2 minutes. 37
38
Anne Harrington: Good evening. I'm Anne Harrington, a longtime resident and a 39
longtime lap swimmer, one of the … There are a number of things I thought about 40
speaking about, but I'm just going to talk about two things. I'm really glad to hear that 41
there's going to be increased outreach to the lap swimmers and recreational swimmers. 42
Draft Minutes 11
DRAFT
This has come as somewhat of a shock. I certainly second keeping Tuesday, Thursday 1
morning for the lap swimmers, because that's when people who work come and swim. I 2
have reservations about the way the financial arrangements are being set up, as described. 3
There's been a lot of discussion about this pool as an asset, and it really is. A setup where 4
90 percent of profits are going to another organization while the City is bearing the 5
operational cost, the ongoing expenditures and maintenance and depreciation doesn't 6 seem like a very good return on investment to me. My main concern is this pool is a 7
community asset. It's been built with the dollars and good will of the community over 8
many, many years. To turn it over to an outside organization, essentially giving up 9
control while bearing the cost, would truly be a privatization of a public asset. I don't 10
think we want to see that. City staff would be relinquishing control, having no say over 11
the schedule or daily operations essentially. I know the Master Plan recognizes that there 12
might be benefits from public-private joint ventures, but this isn't like the Magic Bridge 13
joint development. This is turning a public asset over to a private entity to run and profit 14
from. At a time when there is increasing pressure nationwide to privatize our parks, 15
please don't do that here. 16
17
Chair Lauing: Thank you. 18
19
Ms. Harrington: Palo Alto can and should do better than that. Find a way to manage the 20
pool in-house or a minimum arrangement that doesn't cede total control. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Linda Fletcher, you're up. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Did I skip Gwen? 23
24
Gwen Fisher: I'm Gwen. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Good, good, good. 27 28
Ms. Fisher: As I said, I'm Gwen Fisher. I've been a Palo Alto resident for about 15 29
years. I've been a user of the pool for 15 years. All my children learned to swim there. I 30
was a lifelong runner; my knees have told me no. I have been a lap swimmer for 9 years, 31
4 days a week for 9 years, committed lap swimmer on Tuesday, Thursdays. As a non-lap 32
swimmer, I can understand. When you look at Team Sheeper's proposal, that looks like a 33
great idea. We all share; we all get a little. Let me give you a visual. Think about 34
somebody who says to a football team, a baseball team and a soccer team, "You're all 35
going to use the same turf for your practice. You're all athletes. You'll all get a little. No 36
problem. Your workouts will be great." It doesn't work. The same with the sharing of 37
our pool. We are different types of athletes, different types of swimmers. We have 38
different needs, different wants. In our group, the lap swimmer group, we have 39
everything from octogenarians to pregnant moms to women and men rehabbing injuries, 40
post-surgery rehab, me being one of those. I couldn't have rehabbed my shoulder in the 41
pool if I had to share these lanes with everybody. To think that would work is very 42
Draft Minutes 12
DRAFT
misleading. I want to give you some numbers from just yesterday morning, a chilly, dark 1
November morning prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. Pool opens at 6:00. 6:04, 17 2
swimmers in the pool. That's already more than—that's one swimmer per lane with 3
several having more than that. At 6:40, I got out, and I counted the numbers. Twenty-4
seven swimmers were swimming; three were getting ready to get in. Thirty swimmers at 5
about 6:45. Team Sheeper's plan is proposing that all 30 are swimming in six lanes. My 6 arm span is just a little bit short of what the width of the lane is. His proposal is to have 7
five of us swimming and sharing that space and figuring out a way to make that work. 8
We don't have a coach that organizes us by speed or technique. We would have to fight 9
and muddle and figure out a way to do it. It won't work. It won't work. Masters is happy 10
with their schedule. We're happy with our schedule. We don't want more. They don't 11
want more. We're happy. Please leave it as it is. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Thank you. 14
15
Linda Fletcher: I can keep this really short, because I can say ditto. I'm Linda Fletcher. 16
I'm a lifelong Palo Alto resident. I'm going to plot my age; I'm 53. I was born swimming 17
at Rinconada pool. I was swimming pregnant. Both my kids swam at Rinconada pool. 18
We're lap swimmers. We're a family. We don't have a person that's heading our 19
program. We don't have somebody that's standing up for us, but look at how much we 20
came out. We support each other. We go to the pool in the morning. We are 21
recuperating; we're pregnant; we are supporting each other through stressful times, no 22
more stressful times than what we're going through right now. Also being a teacher, we 23
are telling our kids we're really striving for wellness in our community. There's nothing 24
better than getting in the water, relaxing. If we have to change that by crowding into 25 lanes and sharing and trying to join Masters and do a workout that's scheduled, that's 26 timed, it doesn't work for all of us. Our family sat with Masters swimmers outside. 27 We're all in agreement we like sharing the pool. We can work this out. For our 28
wellbeing, please listen to our families. Thanks. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Cathy Mak is next up, followed by Cindy Ainsworth. 31
32
Cathy Mak: Hi, I'm Cathy Mak, and I'm also a Palo Alto resident. I've been swimming 33
for almost 10 years at the pool now as a recreational lap swimmer. I go early in the 34
morning before I go to work, before my kids get up and get them out the door to school. 35
I love the loose knit community of people that I swim with in the mornings, but we all 36
have our own styles of swimming and we all have our own speeds. We're just there to do 37
what we want and what we love. I think that speaks strongly that the block schedule 38
that's currently in place, as people have mentioned before, works best, where lap 39
swimmers can swim at their pace and in their space, and Masters swimmers have their 40
own dedicated time in the pool to help them achieve the goals that they want to as 41
Masters swimmers. I understand that the status quo of the pool might not work now, and 42
Draft Minutes 13
DRAFT
there's many issues with swim lessons, which I don't really fully appreciate. I think that's 1
something that can be worked out on a part-time basis. I think the wholesale handing 2
over the pool to private management is not in the interest of the community, and it's not 3
in the interest of the swimmers. It would be best if the City takes their timeline that was 4
proposed in their September meeting, which was handing over the pool to management 5
by January of 2017, to reconsider that and say, "Is this something we should bring to the 6 broader community? Is this something that we should think about not wanting to give up 7
this valuable resource and not give it to a private investor?" Thank you. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Cindy Ainsworth next, followed by Timothy Groves. 10
11
Cindy Ainsworth. I'm Cindy. I've lived in Palo Alto—I don't know—35 years probably. 12
I've been a lap swimmer at Rinconada most of that time. I think people have already 13
made clear that the block schedule—we really like the block scheduling, the way it 14
works. I just want to acknowledge the City for having listened to us. If you want people 15
to work with you on tweaking the schedule, clearly you have lots of people who would 16
really love to help you find a schedule that's going to work. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Timothy and then Terri Baxter-Smith. 19
20
Timothy Groves; Hi. I'm Tim Groves. I'm a Palo Alto resident. I first joined the 21
Rinconada Masters in 1978. I'll just say two things briefly. One is it's a great program. 22
As long as I can remember, we've relied on Monday, Wednesday, Friday in the early 23
mornings. I'd sure love to see that continue. If there needed to be a safety valve, it might 24
be in midday or evenings as Carol suggests. I'd also like to say that—I might be stepping 25 outside my expertise here—it's normal for the City to have contractors to do things on the 26 assumption that contractors know what they're doing. I think Tim Sheeper knows what 27 he's doing. At that point, it becomes a matter of (inaudible) the services. Thank you. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Thanks very much. Terri, Terri Baxter-Smith. Next up is Richard—30
excuse me—Hermance. 31
32
Terri Baxter-Smith: I will talk really fast here. I am Terri Baxter-Smith, assistant coach 33
of Rinconada Masters. I am the daughter of Rinconada Masters cofounder Cindy Baxter. 34
Graduated from Paly High School in 1982. My mother and father graduated from Paly in 35
1949 and 1950. All my aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters graduated from Paly. I 36
say this because of my connection to our community and also to Rinconada Masters. I'm 37
a 1980 Olympian. I made the 1987 Pan American Games. My background in aquatics is 38
quite extensive. I was a YMCA aquatics directors in western Pennsylvania and assistant 39
pool director at Franklin & Marshall College in central Pennsylvania, and I coached age 40
group swimmers for 13 years. Rinconada Masters has always had a contract since our 41
inception in 1973 with the City of Palo Alto. We are a self-governing entity with an 42
Draft Minutes 14
DRAFT
advisory board. We have put together just recently a recruiting committee. We purchase 1
our own equipment, and our coaches are certified by United States Masters Swimming; 2
therefore, we need no lifeguards on the pool when we're swimming. Our main concern is 3
the reduction in lane availability beginning the summer of 2017. Our most popular 4
workout times are Monday, Wednesday, Friday mornings and Saturday and Sunday 5
mornings. Our team finds it necessary to keep the 14 lanes available to use and not 6 reduce it down to eight lanes on the weekdays and ten lanes on Saturdays and Sundays. 7
Our Masters swimmers are not opposed to having multiple people in a lane to share lanes. 8
When having multiple people in one lane, the swimmers need to be of the same ability 9
level; that is extremely important. We have a very diverse group of swimmers on our 10
team. They consist of competitive and noncompetitive swimmers of all ability levels, 11
people who swim for rehab, people who swim due to health issues. We have 80 and 90 12
year olds on our swim team, and we also have swim for fitness on the weekends. Carol 13
and I can accommodate and coach all of these wide range of abilities and needs. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Thank you. 16
17
Ms. Baxter-Smith: To condense these groups down to eight lanes or nine lanes, I assure 18
you we will lose swimmers. They will not have fun. Their fitness routine will be 19
compromised, and they will go elsewhere. Our goal is to increase our membership but at 20
the same time make swimming for the Rinconada Masters enjoyable, meaningful 21
experiences for all ability and physical levels. Thank you and … 22
23
Chair Lauing: Thanks. 24
25 Ms. Baxter-Smith: … happy Thanksgiving. 26 27 Chair Lauing: Richard, and next up is Barbara Reeder, if I have that right. Go ahead, 28
Richard. 29
30
Richard Hermance: My name is Richard Hermance. My wife and I have lived in Palo 31
Alto for 35 years, and we've been lap swimmers at Rinconada pool for 35 years. We 32
were surprised when 2 weeks ago we first heard about a proposal to change the 33
management and program at the pool. As longtime lap swimmers, we were disappointed 34
that our inputs were not solicited prior to issuing the RFP. I realize that you are only 35
being asked tonight to approve employing Team Sheeper to manage the swimming 36
lessons program for summer 2017. However, I want to provide you some inputs 37
regarding the proposed changes to the lap swimming schedule that Team Sheeper 38
included in his response to your RFP. We swim three times a week at either the early 39
morning lap swim or the noon lap swim. Usually there are two swimmers in each lane, 40
and this has been a consistent number over the years during these peak demand times. 41
Mr. Sheeper's proposed plan adds lap swim hours throughout the day but cuts down the 42
Draft Minutes 15
DRAFT
lanes during high-use periods. Reducing the number of lanes during high-use times 1
forces three or four people into each lane, which is not satisfactory as you've already 2
heard. Lap swimming during the current early morning hours and midday peak demand 3
times needs to be a dedicated activity using all of the lanes to best meet the needs of 4
working people. In addition, I question the need to outsource the management to a third 5
party. The pool has always been a unique benefit for Palo Alto residents, and the City 6 should be able to provide the programming and services that will best satisfy the needs of 7
our residents. For example, Team Sheeper is going to raise the rates to use the pool. The 8
City should be able to do this. Team Sheeper is going to increase the salary for 9
lifeguards. The City should be able to do this. Finally, the City already has employees, 10
namely Tyler Stetson, who do a terrific job and understand better than anyone the needs 11
of lap swimmers. His knowledge, work ethic and people skills cannot be outsourced. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Barbara Reeder and then Jeff Everett. 14
15
Barbara Reeder: Hello. My name is Barbara Reeder, and I have lived in the same house 16
in Palo Alto about 4 1/2 blocks since November of 1962. I'm a lap swimmer. I've taken 17
my children to that pool along with their neighborhood friends, my grandchildren. My 18
husband and I are noontime lap swimmers. I call it our exercise, play and stress 19
reduction. It has definitely contributed to my health and wellness. I think it is really sad 20
to see the changes—hear about the changes that are being proposed. There is some 21
sharing that goes on during noontime. There's someone that gives a lesson in one lane. 22
I've only noticed that there's one student. I don't think that there's a huge demand for the 23
lessons. I think Tyler Stetson, particularly this last summer, did a remarkable job as far 24
as accommodating noontime lap swimmers with the children's swim program. It worked 25 really smoothly as far as I was concerned. The other observation that I made during this 26 past year is that there was a delightful young woman who offered free Zumba lessons, 27 taking one or two lanes. She discontinued those free lessons because they weren't being 28
used. In terms of what's (inaudible), I think that between the Masters program and the 29
lap swimmers, we've been delighted with this community service. I will be unhappy 30
personally to see it substantially change. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Mr. Everett. Thank you. After Mr. Everett is going to be Al Kenrick. 33
34
Jeff Everett: Hi. My name's Jeff Everett. I'm here to speak on behalf of Carol's proposal 35
for the Rinconada Masters. In brief, the access to the night and morning workouts and 36
the quality of the workouts and the attentiveness of the coaching has been a key factor in 37
realizing my dream of swimming the English Channel and most recently the strait of 38
Gibraltar. Thank you, Carol. I hope that we can continue with the great program. Thank 39
you. 40
41
Draft Minutes 16
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: That's absolutely terrific. Mr. Kenrick, and then Joanne Chace, I believe it 1
is. 2
3
Al Kenrick: My name's Al Kenrick, and I'm a lifelong resident of Palo Alto. I also 4
learned to swim at Rinconada pool. I'm here to throw my support to not changing the 5
open swim hours. I think the Masters program and the open swim hours both meet 6 different needs. Consistency is really important for any kind of exercise. Having a 7
system that works is working for a lot of people. I've swam at Burgess before, and there 8
was four or five people in a lane. It's just not the same, and it's not very enjoyable. I urge 9
you to not change the current schedule. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Joanne, and then Sharon Sass, I believe. 12
13
Joanne Chace: Hello. My name is Joanne Chace. I've lived in Palo Alto since 1970. I 14
too—thank you, Dave. I'd like to add my support to the notion that the Masters program 15
is working very well as it is, that we need structured workouts, that we can have more 16
people to a lane. I would be very happy, we would all be happy to have more people 17
move into the Masters program. I'm here to say it's not so hard to do. When I joined the 18
program in 1975, I went to talk—I dropped in at the pool; I talked to Carol. I said, "I 19
love to swim, but I don't swim very well. I can swim pretty well, maybe some 100 20
yards." She said, "Can you swim 600 yards?" I said, "I can swim 600 yards I think." I 21
started out in 1976 swimming my 600 yards. I've been swimming for a long time with 22
that program. Now, my morning swim is 3,000 yards. That is the advantage of having 23
good coaching and having structured workouts. I would like to thank Carol and Terri and 24
all the others who put that program together and held it together over the years, and to 25 invite anyone who would like to share my lane with me and work to that length any 26 morning. Come on. When I started the program in 1975, I was in my 40s. Now that I'm 27 doing the 3,000 yards, I'm 83. 28
29
Chair Lauing: That's a longevity program. That's wonderful. Is this Sharon? 30
31
Shawn Sass: Shawn. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Sorry, Shawn. I didn't quite … 34
35
Shawn Sass: My name is Shawn Sass [phonetic]. I'm … 36
37
Chair Lauing: Jay Rosser is next. Excuse me. 38
39
Ms. Sass: I'm both a lap swimmer and a Masters swimmer at Rinconada pool. I've been 40
swimming there for 15 years and love it. I think it's really great to see everybody here 41
tonight considering that 2 weeks ago nobody really knew about this happening. It's really 42
Draft Minutes 17
DRAFT
nice to see everybody here and coming out and expressing their opinion. I think a lot of 1
us have a similar viewpoint. One of the biggest issues here is sharing the pool, having 2
shared users at the same time. Right now it really works to have lap swimmers on their 3
day, Masters swimmers on their day. It's a mess when you try and combine them 4
together, because the lap swimmers have their own ages, speeds, strokes, time of arrival. 5
It's very difficult to know if you're going to get a lane or not or if you're going to be 6 sharing with three people, four people. Right now, the way it exists, you know you're 7
probably going to have a lane, maybe two people at the most, occasionally three, rarely. 8
That works for lap swimmers. It's nice to have our Masters team. It's a great team. 9
We've had it for a long time. We have people of all ages who swim on it. We have 10
people who are 90 years old, who are on our team. They kind of need their own lane. It's 11
the one team in this area where these swimmers can come and actually do their workouts 12
and be a part of a group and even compete at that age. Our 90-year-old swimmer 13
competes. I would hate to see that go. I hope in considering the proposed schedule you'll 14
keep all of this in mind and what everybody said here tonight. Everybody is very 15
passionate about this. They came here in short notice to speak what they really feel about 16
this pool. It's a community; it's a core community. It's a culture. It's not just looking at 17
facts and numbers at a desk. It's knowing everybody who swims here and working with 18
them to get a solution that can keep what we have and that culture that we have. Thank 19
you. 20
21
Chair Lauing: Thank you. Jay Rossiter and then Lisa Krieger. 22
23
Jay Rossiter: Hi everybody. It was great to—this is my first time ever being at a City 24
Council meeting. I've lived here for 22 years. This brought me out, and it's great to 25 actually see everybody involved. I'll just be brief because you've already heard a lot from 26 everybody. Since I'm here, I just wanted to—I don't know whether you record each 27 person or what you do. I'm a lap swimmer. One of the key points that I agree with, that 28
I've heard tonight is people who swim, lap or Masters, have different goals and they have 29
different abilities. Especially for many of us, your abilities go up and down and your 30
goals go up and down over time, depending on how you feel and how you're doing 31
physically also. I think what happens is as the pools get denser and usage gets denser, the 32
quality goes down. I know from myself—I swim everywhere. I swim in all countries 33
and cities and pools. When it gets dense, then the quality goes down because you end up 34
with a herd kind of thing going on where you have to keep up with the person in front of 35
you and behind you and that kind of thing. It's really important to not lose your quality of 36
life like we see what's happened in the Bay Area with the traffic by overcrowding the 37
lanes. I learned something tonight. I'm going to actually join Masters now. I didn't 38
realize you had people with different levels of ability. You certainly have that with lap 39
swimmers. If you get too dense, you will actually lose that and the whole quality of life 40
will go down. One of the big reasons of living in Palo Alto are the parks, the pools, the 41
schools. Thank you. 42
Draft Minutes 18
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: Thanks. Lisa Krieger and then Scott van der Lippe. 2
3
Lisa Krieger: Hi. Lisa Krieger;; I'm a lap swimmer also. Just want to reiterate what 4
everyone else has already said. As this valley gets more crowded—I commute every day 5
on 101, long distances. The streets are more crowded. The stores are more crowded. 6 Everything's crowded. The pools are Walden Pond. It really is. Just very briefly, for an 7
hour we decompress, and we're with our tribe. We come out stronger. That's what makes 8
this town so great. I brag about it all the time. Please don't take that away from us. 9
Thank you. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Thank you. Scott. 12
13
Scott van der Lippe: Thank you. I'm actually from Los Altos. I know I'm kind of an 14
outsider here. This is my favorite pool. I go to Mountain View; I go to Palo Alto, and I 15
also sometimes go to Menlo Park. I can tell you if I had a choice, I always come to this 16
pool because it's very relaxed. Menlo Park is—what is it—$8. I can swim in Palo Alto 17
for 4. Literally, Sheeper has a nice thing over there, but it's—I kind of look at the cost. 18
I've got to come to Palo Alto because it's a whole lot cheaper. Of course, I like the pool 19
environment; it's so much more relaxed. It's a little high stressed over in Menlo Park, and 20
I hate to see that management style applied to our very nice pool that I've enjoyed for 21
probably 20 years over there. The cost is a big thing. You're going to lose a lot of—a lot 22
of swimmers are going to go, "Eight bucks to swim." You're here for 30 minutes. I'm 23
not going to pay the equivalent of $16 an hour just to swim. That's pretty expensive. 24
Thank you. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Thanks. Again, just overall love to have this kind of turnout on any issue 27 and have direct feedback from our residents. Would you like specific comments now 28
from us on this whole document or are we going to just focus on the item that you want 29
us to talk about tonight? 30
31
Mr. de Geus: I think you can ask questions about any of it, anything that you heard, 32
anything that you heard in the presentation, the concerns that you might have, questions 33
that you have for us for clarification. I would just reiterate that we're not trying to 34
degrade the program. I like hearing the voices about how great the pool is and how great 35
it is for your health and wellness and stress reduction and it's this special place. I think it 36
is. Our interest is how do we make that accessible to more Palo Alto residents without 37
making it a bad experience. I think there's a way we can do that working together. Tim's 38
a great professional. He's here to provide a service for the City of Palo Alto. It's a 39
contract; it's not passing the pool over and then turning away. It's writing a contract that 40
represents the interests of the Palo Alto residents. That can be very specific about 41
schedules and what we would like to see with the Masters program with Carol's 42
Draft Minutes 19
DRAFT
leadership. Those are things we define in a contract and monitor it closely. I'll leave it 1
there. Happy to answer questions. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Just on that point, which I think is a very helpful clarification, it's an 4
outsourcing process or a subcontracting process. The City doesn't lose control. You're 5
completely in charge of the contract and the asset of the pool. 6 7
Mr. de Geus: That's correct. It's about how do we best operate the pool in the interest of 8
Palo Alto residents. That's what we're trying to accomplish here. It is supporting the 9
current swimmers. That is one element. There's another piece too, people that don't 10
currently swim because the pool's not available to them when they're available. We need 11
to think about how we can create opportunity for others to have access to this pool. I get 12
the sensitivity. Overcrowding doesn't work. We're not suggesting that, but we do think 13
that some sensible, fair sharing at certain times when there is low demand is possible. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Comments? I'm looking at our resident water sport expert here. If you 16
would like to go first, I think that'd be appropriate. 17
18
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you very much. First of all, I'd love to say that I think it's 19
great that we have so many people interested here, coming out tonight to share their 20
comments. I think we're going to learn a lot from all of that. I think the staff is excited 21
about that too. Thank you all very, very much. You all know that in September I was 22
concerned about the cost of lessons. I really want to be very careful whatever we do that 23
we make sure that we can offer swimming lessons to all children, because it's so 24
important for kids to learn to swim and for their parents to learn to swim as well. We 25 have a lot of parents who don't swim yet. That's why I was asking the questions about the 26 swimming lessons and if we can subsidize those and keep the cost down and also offer 27 the lessons at a longer time, so that we can utilize the water, so it's not just in the 28
summertime. We start in early April, and what you've suggested is also go through to the 29
fall, because a lot of people want to take swimming lessons. There's a lot of people that 30
go year round. I'd even love to see us do the (inaudible) that we talked about, but I know 31
that's a little bit far in the future. The cost of lessons was a concern for me with this new 32
particular program. I'm okay with that now. I think this will work. I do want to mention, 33
even though we're not talking about doing the lap swimming right now, the cost of the lap 34
swimming for seniors seemed to me to be disturbing. I believe we're increasing the cost 35
for many senior swimmers. We heard some here tonight who are swimming because 36
their knees have gone away. It's important for seniors to have a great outlet to swim as 37
well. Whatever we do with lap swimmers, I hope we don't increase the cost for seniors. 38
Finally, from my perspective I'm very concerned in the future about the background and 39
our relationships with Rinconada Masters and also with PASA. I'd really like to 40
understand in the future, Rob, what the swim teams are going to get from the relationship 41
with Team Sheeper, how that's going to help them in the future. If it does move forward, 42
Draft Minutes 20
DRAFT
what the City is going to get from that as well, whether it's just a matter of cost or 1
whether there's are some other benefits that will accrue. I'll stop there and let other 2
people … 3
4
Chair Lauing: It might be best if staff responds as we go. 5
6 Mr. de Geus: Those are good questions, Commissioner Cribbs, and comments. We do 7
have Tyler Stetson on staff. He's a Recreation Coordinator helping oversee the aquatics 8
program. He's one full-time entry-level sort of professional position that we have 9
focused on aquatics. He's doing his best but struggling to staff up the pool. What 10
someone like Tim can bring is a whole team of people and a pool of professional coaches 11
that teach year round and are there to support and develop the existing programs. I would 12
hope that's what we would have. We've talked about Rinconada Masters and we want to 13
grow that program. Carol Macpherson wants to grow the program. You heard some of 14
the Masters swimmers. There's a relatively small group of swimmers in the Masters 15
program. I get they love that they're family. It is relatively small; I want to say it's 56 16
residents or something like that. Carol, something like that, is that correct? 17
18
Ms. Macpherson: We have a lot of drop-in swimmers too that don't show on our 19
numbers. 20
21
Mr. de Geus: We think that if Tim and the knowledge and experience and expertise he 22
brings in aquatics is closely partnered with Carol and the advisors to say, "How might we 23
grow the program into the future that doesn't lose what's really good about it, but allows 24
more Masters swimmers to come join the family," I think that would be more than what 25 we offer with one staff person in Tyler Stetson. 26 27 Commissioner Cribbs: Is there a goal for the Masters swimmers at this point, what you 28
see in the future, how many you'd like to see on the team? 29
30
Mr. de Geus: We haven't defined a goal. We want it to grow. It has been dropping over 31
the years. I would like to see a goal and a plan be developed with Carol and her group 32
and Tim working together. It's still her program. She's going to manage the program and 33
lead the program as the head coach. Tim would want to see them be successful. That's 34
what he wants to do. We're trying to work on what that looks like. If the City does go 35
forward with an expanded contract for Team Sheeper to oversee more operations of the 36
pool, we'll write that into the contract and be pretty specific about expectations of lanes 37
for the different groups that use the pool. If there are going to be changes to the lanes, we 38
can also define how those changes will be made. They won't be made just independently 39
by Tim. We would likely write something in there that there is a process where the City's 40
involved and the key user groups are involved in making those decisions. Does that 41
help? 42
Draft Minutes 21
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Cribbs: Mm hmm. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Reckdahl. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: To me, there are kind of two separate issues. One is what are 6 the hours, what's the schedule and who does the management. I suspect that if we had the 7
status quo hours and nothing was going to change with hours, a lot of these people 8
wouldn't be here. Still, besides that, it's important to understand the management. What 9
would be the scope of Team Sheeper's management of the pool? In particular, in page 10 10
it talks about that Team Sheeper would handle the registration. I don't see the benefit to 11
that. Can you talk more about the scope of what would be done by the City if Team 12
Sheeper came in for management and what would be done by Team Sheeper? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: It depends. We haven't defined the scope yet. Team Sheeper bid on all of 15
the programs, so that's part of their proposal. The City can choose to say, "We want you 16
to do one piece of that, two pieces or all the pieces." At this point, we're comfortable 17
with the learn to swim program, that we want to bring him on to do that and lock that in. 18
The other elements of the pool, I think, we're sort of in the process right now of figuring 19
out does that make sense, will there be value added to the program overall. Not only the 20
existing swimmers, but the program overall and potential new swimmers that might enjoy 21
the pool. We don't have that yet, and we don't have a schedule yet either. By the way, 22
when we do have a schedule at some point, if we get to that point, that's also going to be 23
somewhat tentative and flexible to see how the community's responding. Is it working, is 24
it not working? Ultimately it's the residents' pool, and we need to adapt and adjust the 25 schedules that it works for the residents. That's what we'll be aiming to do. That's the 26 contract we'll have with Tim. That's what he's responsible for doing, making sure that 27 happens. Specifically, you asked a question about registration. There is a change there 28
for families that are registering kids for swim lessons. They would no longer do that 29
through the City and the City system. They would do it through Team Sheeper's system. 30
We don't have to do it that way. We could continue to register through the City's system 31
and share the information with them about enrollment. It's not very efficient. We've 32
done that the last 2 years. With swim lessons in particular, there's lots of transferring 33
between classes and lessons. You get the parents whose son is in Level 1 and jumps in 34
the pool, and he's not. He's in Level 3 or something. That happens all the time. These 35
changes happen on the deck. Really it's much more efficient for the operator and the 36
family to have that close connection to be able to make those transfers. That's the added 37
advantage. It's less efficient if we were to continue the registration process. 38
39
Commissioner Reckdahl: Commissioner Cribbs also talked about the importance of 40
having everyone to be able to afford the swim lessons. Currently, we have a financial aid 41
program. Can you describe that? 42
Draft Minutes 22
DRAFT
1
Mr. de Geus: We have a fee reduction program for all of the Community Services 2
programs. That has a cap of $300 per person and a maximum of a 50-percent discount on 3
the fee itself. We would expect and write into the contract that all families would have 4
that same benefit or more when there's an additional scholarship program that Tim has, 5
that can also provide additional discounts beyond what the City is currently offering. 6 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Who funds this new scholarship program? 8
9
Mr. de Geus: I would ask Tim to explain that. 10
11
Mr. Sheeper: About 4 years ago, we set up a scholarship program through Beyond 12
Barriers Athletic Foundation to subsidize our lessons over at the Belle Haven pool in east 13
Menlo Park. They have subsidized 90 percent of the lessons that have happened over at 14
Belle Haven. Beyond Barriers is currently in discussion with Rob's team about 15
subsidizing the lessons and the programs at Rinconada and JLS. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: This is a separate charity that would be funding this. 18
19
Mr. Sheeper: Correct. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: It wouldn’t come out of the City or it wouldn't come out of 22
Team Sheeper. It'd just be an unaffiliated charity that is just funding lessons. 23
24
Mr. Sheeper: Yes. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: We'd have to have some cooperation with that and the current 27 fee reduction program. 28
29
Ms. LeBlanc: Yeah. If I could just clarify. We haven't determined if we would—we 30
would most likely keep both programs. It is possible that—we have to sort of work out 31
whether we want people to be able to double up on these programs or not. We spoke 32
with Beyond Barriers, some of the Board Members. It seems like a really wonderful 33
opportunity for us to participate. No matter what we do, they're interested in just getting 34
as many kids to learn to swim as possible. They focus in this region. It's a group we'd 35
like to work with. They have some different standards actually. It's kind of boring policy 36
work, but their definition of the poverty level is slightly different than our definition of 37
the poverty level. That's why I wouldn't want to get rid of both; some people are going to 38
qualify for ours but not theirs and so on. 39
40
Commissioner Reckdahl: In the report, you talk about the SEIU and how, for example, 41
we only have the ability to hire staff who work less than 1,000 hours per year. It talks 42
Draft Minutes 23
DRAFT
about the impacts of SEIU hourly employment. Can you give us some more details about 1
what happens? 2
3
Ms. LeBlanc: We have right now a certain amount of staff that's budgeted in the 4
program. They are, aside from Tyler, all part-time staff. We have a limit for part-time 5
staff that once they hit 1,000 hours in a year, they become eligible for CalPERS pensions, 6 which dramatically increases the price of providing the service. As soon as we hit half-7
time, we need to increase—the cost goes up for that employee. We really don't try to do 8
that. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: How much does it go up, do you know? Can you give an 11
estimate? 12
13
Ms. LeBlanc: I want to say it's roughly $50,000 per person per year. It's a very big 14
increase. 15
16
Commissioner Reckdahl: Even if they're just a part-time employee, once they hit the 17
1,000 hours you have to shell out 50,000 per. 18
19
Ms. LeBlanc: It's a rate; it's not a flat amount. It's a very expensive rate. The Budget 20
Office and HR can provide more detail on that. Occasionally we do look at that as we're 21
considering adding positions in different places around the department. It suddenly 22
becomes very expensive. 23
24
Commissioner Reckdahl: If we outsource, there's no restrictions and people can work as 25 many as we want and we have no commitment to … 26 27 Ms. LeBlanc: Right. Once it's not a public employee, it's not a person who's subject to 28
participating in CalPERS. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: When I compared the schedules … 31
32
Male: Can I ask a question? 33
34
Chair Lauing: I can't do that now. 35
36
Commissioner Reckdahl: When I compared the schedules, especially the new schedule 37
looks rather fragmented. During the summer, during the midday, we have three different 38
things going on. Do we have a copy of that to put up on the screen, of the schedule? 39
40
Mr. de Geus: We can get to it. Tim can speak to it. 41
42
Draft Minutes 24
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it useful to have open swim in three lanes or open recreation 1
in three lanes? That seems so narrow. Would that be slicing the bread too thin? 2
3
Mr. Sheeper: I think I know what you're talking about. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm looking at page 16 if you have a … 6 7
Mr. Sheeper: I don't have it in front of me. I think you're talking about the summer of 8
'17. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: (crosstalk) midday summer is when it really gets divided up. 11
12
Mr. Sheeper: That's a lot of usage of the pool. There's a diving board on one side. Open 13
swim has five lanes, and then there's lap swim and then there's swim lessons at some 14
points in time too. The pool is divided up into three unequal parts to be able to use the 15
diving board on the deep end, to be able to do lap swims in the middle, and then to be 16
able to do lessons and/or open swim on the shallow side of the pool. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: During this time in the summer, what's going on at the JLS 19
pool? 20
21
Mr. Sheeper: Lessons. 22
23
Commissioner Reckdahl: They're just purely lessons? 24
25 Mr. Sheeper: Yeah. Lessons start at noon currently at JLS. They have for the past 2 26 years. 27 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: When I see the Rinconada pool divided so finely, couldn't we 29
use the JLS pool and move stuff between it so you have larger chunks and more 30
functional chunks than having it split up so tight? 31
32
Mr. Sheeper: I think that's what has been tried. I don't think the demand—people haven't 33
used the JLS pool like they have used the Rinconada pool. 34
35
Mr. de Geus: I just want to be clear about this schedule. It ought to say draft all over it, 36
but it doesn't. That's what it is. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: It's a straw man. 39
40
Mr. de Geus: That's what I asked him. He talks about more integration, some sharing. 41
We're concerned about that, recognize that can take away from a program. I said, "Put 42
Draft Minutes 25
DRAFT
something together. What does it look like in your view?" This is the first cut of what it 1
looks like. It's not right. It doesn't work in several areas particularly in the morning for 2
lap swimmers and Masters. That's going to change. It'll change in other ways as well. 3
We're not proposing that this is the schedule. 4
5
Chair Lauing: If we could stick to sort of more policy-oriented issues like do you think 6 it's too crowded, that type of thing. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: The reason I ask this is to say instead of looking at Rinconada 9
by itself, we really should be looking at the pools as a whole in the City and coordinating 10
their schedules between the two as opposed to saying this is the schedule for Rinconada 11
and we're going to slice it up with no regard to what's going on at JLS. With that said, 12
what about JLS during the year? Do we have any possibility to do evening swims at JLS 13
or anything like that to offload Rinconada? 14
15
Mr. de Geus: We don't do that currently. I'm interested in that, in more collaboration 16
with the Unified School District. JLS isn't the only pool. By the way, it's not their best 17
pool. It's not one that I'd choose as the one we get access to. I would absolutely be open 18
to that to get more kids able to have swim lessons at different times of the year in 19
different locations around town. I think Tim has the capacity to do that. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: Before we hear this in January, are we going to have better 22
demand numbers about when is the pool being used and when isn't it being used? 23
24
Mr. de Geus: Yes. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: That's it. Thanks. 27 28
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm a little confused about what you are really looking for most 29
feedback on tonight. The staff report was mostly, it seemed to me, about the total suite of 30
services, and that's what the schedule is with the lane distribution, this one. The next step 31
is you're going to propose to Council a contract for swim lessons and summer camp for 1 32
year. We don't have the same kind of detail for that program as we do for this potential 33
longer-term program. It was very difficult looking at the staff report to understand what 34
the impact of the impending decision is. I think it would be helpful to understand how 35
the lane distributions would work. We know the number of days and weeks, that we're 36
going to have more weeks and more days of lessons, but it's hard to translate from that 37
into how many more lessons that is relative to demand. In the staff report, when you're 38
talking about the full program, it's a six times increase in swim lessons. That raised a flag 39
to me; it wasn't clear at all that we have a demand for six times more lessons than we 40
currently offer. I don't know if this 1-year summer plan is also a six times expansion of 41
swim lessons. If it is, it seems likely it would have a similar impact on the lane demand 42
Draft Minutes 26
DRAFT
at Rinconada. I'd like to know more about how the demand meets the supply in that 1
initial summer. 2
3
Ms. LeBlanc: Thanks. It is the same proposed summer swim lesson program that you 4
see in there. It is increasing it by six times. I think the thing that is nice about working 5
with Tim Sheeper on this is that they can kind of match our demand. That's part of what's 6 nice about this. If there aren't a lot of people who want to come swim at 2:00 p.m. on 7
Wednesdays, they just wouldn't have their staff over at our pool to operate that. If there 8
is, then we're able to provide that service to residents. Unfortunately, we only can tell 9
you how many programs get full or have a wait list. We can't tell you how many people 10
are not even signing up, because the program doesn't work for them or it's full before they 11
get the opportunity to get onto our Enjoy! catalog and register. I think the first year of 12
this program will be a learning opportunity for us and for Tim Sheeper and his staff in 13
terms of what residents really do want in the lesson program. We think the nice thing 14
about this lesson program is, at the rates that we've set, it strikes a balance of being 15
accessible to most all families and still has the fee reduction programs in place and 16
extends that and also keeps the price roughly the same as our contracts have been for the 17
last 2 years. We can dramatically increase—I'm running out of power and didn't bring 18
my thing. I'm going to close this for a minute. We think that this is a great opportunity 19
for us to see how much demand there is. In terms of the impact on lanes, actually we've 20
discussed that with Tim quite a bit as well. We don't think it will have a huge impact 21
because they'll be doing a lot more lessons in the round pool. Tim can elaborate if you'd 22
like. 23
24
Commissioner Hetterly: I would like some elaboration on it, but let me expand my 25 question. I also would like to better understand—it seems like even … I think we've 26 heard very clearly tonight that there's a lot of concern about impacts on other users of an 27 expansion of this size. I think it makes a lot of sense to think very hard about the 28
demand. Maybe six times as many lessons is too ambitious for a first year try-out a new 29
season. I would love to see something less ambitious so that we can actually learn 30
something from it before we risk turning people away from the pool. I don't know how 31
that plays into the financials. If you don't have as many swim lessons, then maybe it's not 32
financially feasible to use Sheeper. I don't know how that works, but it seems to me 33
something that you all ought to think hard about. With that, if you did still go forward 34
with that ambitious schedule, it seems to me that this breakdown doesn't work on a lot of 35
different levels, not just for Masters, not just for lap but also for open rec swim. I think 36
there are qualitative impacts on the experience in the pool once you shrink down lanes, 37
for example. If you have only three or five lanes dedicated to open swim, that's a much 38
narrower area. It really limits the kinds of things that you can use it for. I would love to 39
see staff and Team Sheeper work a little more with the community to understand what all 40
of those qualitative impacts are and see if you can fit them into the quantitative numbers 41
Draft Minutes 27
DRAFT
that you're collecting. That's basically my comment. I would love to hear more about 1
how the lessons are planned. 2
3
Mr. de Geus: Tim, maybe you can share a little more and also your experience about 4
demand generally, managing a pool very close by. 5
6 Mr. Sheeper: Thank you. I'll address the demand first. Since we've stopped running 7
lessons at Rinconada this summer, we've continued running lessons at Burgess. In that 8
period of time, which has been all of September, October and November almost, so far 9
we've given 12,000 more lessons. The demand is out there, and we still have wait lists. 10
That's equivalent to anywhere from 1,100 lessons—it's about 1,100-1,200 lessons per 11
week that's happening 2 1/2 miles away. To do those lessons, it's mainly from real entry 12
level, smaller kids. The best thing is in a warmer pool. Currently, the play pool that you 13
have is going unused. The discussion with Rob and the team is let's see if we can get that 14
pool online and heated up, and use that as an instructional pool because it can be used. 15
We use just three lanes to do our swim school, so that's six instructors teaching 24 kids 16
every half an hour. We're only using three lanes, but they're warm lanes. The pool is 86 17
degrees. To teach a lot of kids in the performance pool that you have at Rinconada, we'd 18
use that pool very sparingly for lessons. The other thing is we're looking at summer, this 19
schedule that you talked about. Summer at every pool is a very condensed time. That's 20
when the kids are out of school. You're looking at 8 weeks of the 52 weeks of the year. 21
Every pool is impacted. Rinconada being in a landlocked area where there's no access to 22
a lot of water, people are going to come there. To make this all happen, there has to be a 23
lot of sharing to serve all the groups. I did run some numbers, thinking into the fall of 24
2017, after the impact of summer has happened. For instance, currently the lap 25 swimmers—I measure things in lane hours—have 553 lane hours per week, 553. In the 26 fall of 2017, the proposal that we have is to increase that to 734 lane hours per week. It's 27 more than a 30 percent increase in the amount of lane hours that the lap swimmers have 28
to be in the pool. That's a large increase. I heard a lot of talk about the exclusivity, and 29
there was—we want the 14 lanes. Looking at this, this is highly impacted. In the fall, it 30
spreads out. Currently, there's 36 hours that the lap swimmers have exclusive use, 36 31
hours per week that the lap swimmers have use. Under the model that I proposed, it 32
would cut down to 33. There would just be 3 less hours. More time to swim, but there's 33
still open space in the pool. I think that addresses the impact that you talked about in the 34
summer and the demand that's out in the community. I don't know if Palo Alto even 35
realizes the strong need that's out there right now. 36
37
Mr. de Geus: Thank you, Tim. Increasing hours for lap swim is important, and that's one 38
piece of it. What I'm hearing also from the public is how those lanes are distributed and 39
what times of day can make a very big impact. You could have more hours, but it doesn't 40
work as well as it currently works, at least for the current swimmers. I think we need to 41
really work through that and understand what we're hearing and why we're hearing it so 42
Draft Minutes 28
DRAFT
that we can see if we can come up with a program that really does make sense, that does 1
improve access without degrading quality. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: That's good. Of course, in the summer in particular as you 4
move lessons into the small pool, then the users of that pool during those times can't use 5
it. There's always an overflow. Whenever you add, somebody's going to give up time for 6 it. I don't think that's necessarily an insurmountable challenge, to figure out how that 7
works, but it is a challenge that I don't think we've resolved yet. Again, I would 8
encourage a less ambitious plan. I also would love to see you talk to the School District 9
and see if there isn't a way to get a second pool. If it's a matter of pool space and we 10
could get access to another pool during the summer time is all I'm talking about here. I 11
don't know anything about the cost of that or how that works between the City and the 12
School District. It sounds like summer demand everywhere for pools is really high. I 13
know our School District pools are not fully used all summer, I think. I don't know; I 14
think. That's something that I'd love to see you all look into. I think Team Sheeper offers 15
an opportunity to be able to staff more space. In the past, we haven't been looking for 16
that because there was no way we could manage it. Maybe between Team Sheeper and 17
the City and the School District we can find a way, at least for this first summer, to meet 18
everybody's needs while we figure out a long-term plan. Thanks. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 21
22
Commissioner Moss: I've been hearing a lot about the needs of the lap swimmers and the 23
Masters swimmers versus the lessons. On the side of the lap swimmers and the Masters 24
swimmers, our population is getting older. There are more seniors. One of our goals is 25 to be a Healthy City Healthy Community, and the people here are extremely healthy. We 26 wish we had more. It's a nationally recognized program, as I hear. I don't think it's 27 either/or; I think it's just a matter of scheduling. To throw out the whole program in the 28
name of lack of privatization, I don't think is an option. I think with careful oversight by 29
the City, we should be able to come up with a schedule that serves both groups. The 30
problem is when we talk about the number of swimmers for lap and Masters and then 31
wanting to increase that number of swimmers versus the lessons. Going from 5,500 32
lessons a year to 32,000 lessons a year, it's not all going to fit. Something has to give. I 33
agree with Commissioner Hetterly that we might want to scale back the number of—34
instead of six times the number of lessons, maybe it's only three times the lessons. Also I 35
fully agree with Tom Sheeper about using the round pool and using JLS and using Paly 36
and using Gunn pools as much as possible. When you talk about six times the number of 37
lessons, I don't think it's going to be six times the number of lessons during the summer, 38
but rather spread out over more months. Maybe it's only two times the number of lessons 39
in the summer or even 1 1/2 times the number of lessons in the summer. If there's a wait 40
list, you push them out to the side. I could even make the same argument for the Masters 41
swimmers and the lap swimmers that it seemed like there's this core number of hours 42
Draft Minutes 29
DRAFT
between 6:00 and 9:00 and maybe between 4:00 and 5:00. Maybe people need to push 1
towards 10:00 in the morning instead of having everybody try to get in between 6:00 and 2
8:00. I think there's room on both sides for pushing out the edges in the schedule. If we 3
can work those things, I think we have a really good chance to work a schedule that will 4
improve in both areas, maybe not as much as we'd like, adding the number of Masters 5
swimmers, adding the number of swim lessons. Also, back to what Commissioner 6 Hetterly said, I'd like to see the demand for lessons. It sounds like we need Palo Alto 7
first, meaning if some of these lessons are not Palo Alto residents, maybe we can't 8
accommodate everybody. We should always give Palo Alto residents first. The same 9
thing with the Masters swimmers. We have a nationally recognized program, but maybe 10
we need to have Palo Alto first as well. I think if push comes to shove, we can do 11
something like that because this is a City asset, as you've said over and over again. Palo 12
Alto first. That's my comments. 13
14
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Knopper. 15
16
Vice Chair Knopper: Thank you. Hello. Clearly we have a passionate constituency, 17
which is awesome. It's a valuable resource. I think we've had enough discussion, as far 18
as I'm concerned, with regard to lap assignment, so I'm not going to discuss that. What I 19
did want some clarity, Rob, if you don't mind, is on the cost recovery expectation that 20
was in our report. There's an approximately $35,000 differential, if we outsource, to the 21
City's General Fund as a plus net advantage to us. I guess my question is because there is 22
a tremendous amount of demand on a facility that is already needing, as we discussed in 23
the Master Plan, a tremendous amount of improvement. The locker rooms, food, snack 24
areas, lounging areas, everything else out of the water needs renovation. Are we thinking 25 of, as we're contracting out, keeping that money and our control—not letting that $35,000 26 get sucked into the vortex of everything else we need in the City? Is there a way to 27 redirect it and earmark it for, if we are increasing demand on this facility that already has 28
tremendous stress on it, where we can turn that money into the pool and offset some of 29
that budgeting that we need to improve it? 30
31
Mr. de Geus: Interesting question. We're not contemplating that at this time. Is it 32
possible, if the cost to run the program with Tim, provided that it's a better program for 33
residents—if there was a savings to the City for running the program that way, could we 34
start a reserve that would support future improvements to the facility itself, that facility? 35
That's something that we can certainly recommend to the City Manager and City Council. 36
I think you're right that we have a lot of needs there. As we know, in the Master Plan we 37
have a variety of things we'd like to do there, and there isn't a funding source to do all of 38
those. We can certainly look at that. Regarding the terms of the contract with Tim, we 39
haven't developed those yet, but they're all valid points. How does the revenue flow? 40
What is the expectation of maintenance and other things? Those things still need to be 41
worked out. 42
Draft Minutes 30
DRAFT
1
Vice Chair Knopper: Thank you. 2
3
Chair Lauing: That's a good segue to the exact same page but a different question that I 4
had on that. Looking at the downside, are there any risks to the cost there with whatever 5
increase the number of users such that this 540 goes to 640? Is there any sort of expense 6 risk? 7
8
Ms. LeBlanc: This is assuming that we have—I can't remember exactly the percentage of 9
those newly offered swim lessons being filled. It's not all the swim lessons that Tim 10
Sheeper would potentially be able to provide. I think it's around 15 or 20 percent more 11
residents were to enroll in the group swim lessons that we are proposing to subsidize. 12
We would be paying $6 per child per lesson beyond that assumption that we have for 13
what we'd be subsidizing. It could go the other way. If we have fewer residents enrolling 14
and we don't see the demand that we're anticipating, then we would drop that number. I 15
think that's the biggest unknown factor in what you're seeing here. If I could add one 16
other thing about the demand in here. Just a few years ago, we offered and had enrolled 17
about twice as many kids in swim lessons as we do now. Through the trouble that we've 18
had in hiring, we haven't been offering as many lessons, and we haven't been offering 19
them at the same times of day, so we've seen a drop. In terms of the scale, six times more 20
lessons sounds very intense and scary when, in reality, it's more like three times, two or 21
three, from where it was just in 2013 or 2014. 22
23
Chair Lauing: The short answer to that is it could go either way. 24
25 Vice Chair Knopper: There might not be a cost recovery. 26 27 Chair Lauing: Just two other comments. I'll go in reverse order. I'm really pleased that, 28
on page 10—Commissioner Reckdahl touched on or two of these things. I'm really 29
pleased on page 10 that you called out these serious reservations or serious issues that we 30
need to look at. Very much appreciate that transparency. Let's not keep anything hidden 31
under rocks. Particularly the last two—all three of them actually are real problems. I 32
agree with that. They need some digging to be looked at. We've talked many times here 33
about how parents, when they're signing up, want to do it all in one place and all at one 34
time. If they're on two different systems, that's going to get some push back at the time 35
of registration. You addressed the financial aid—that was a question—which is great. 36
You heard about the conflicts of sharing the pool. The only other thing I wanted to add 37
just almost a stylistic point, which has caused some of this maybe. I notice on page 5 you 38
say that Team Sheeper's philosophy is one of maximizing usage. Now, words are 39
important. We're not hearing anybody in this room say maximize usage, like as many 40
bunkbeds as you can get in one room. It's making it efficient, increasing the amount of 41
Draft Minutes 31
DRAFT
access that folks can get that aren't using it right now. That might have kind of driven the 1
discussion or even the contract—I don't know—in a slightly different direction. 2
3
Mr. de Geus: Appreciate that point. I think that's exactly right. The point you made 4
before about some of the changes in experience in terms of registering, they are important 5
and we need to weigh the pros and cons. We hope and we think that it will be maybe 6 inconvenient at first to go to a different site to register for lessons. The fact that you have 7
many more lessons to choose from in the spring, summer and fall and somewhat ongoing 8
will be the added value that makes it okay. 9
10
Chair Lauing: Just put somebody on the phone that day, because you will get questions 11
during the transition, if that's what it is. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: For sure, yeah. 14
15
Chair Lauing: I don't know if you want sort of a sense of the Commission on the first 16
point that was mentioned, which is the first part of the contract. 17
18
Mr. de Geus: That would be great. I think we heard from everybody. If there's more 19
that the Commission wants to say or ask … 20
21
Chair Lauing: (crosstalk) not a particular motion, but relative to what you propose, I 22
think we could just get a nod or an up or a down. From my perspective, what you're 23
proposing here on that first piece of it and then investigation of the rest of it is acceptable. 24
(crosstalk) 25 26 Mr. de Geus: What we're really saying is it's an expanded swim program whether it's 27 what we presented here or less. What I'm hearing is at this time we want to be sure that it 28
has relatively no impact to other programs and their schedules, because we still have 29
some things to work through there. We think particularly with the small pool and 30
utilizing it when it's not just being used, that's something that we'd like to do now. 31
32
Chair Lauing: I don't mean to speak for all the Commissioners. Commissioner Moss. 33
34
Commissioner Moss: I have two more questions. Talking about hiring Palo Alto 35
students during the summer, is that going to be doable for you and still make your profit? 36
37
Mr. Sheeper: Yes. 38
39
Commissioner Moss: The second thing is if we didn't have six times the number of 40
lessons, we only had three times the number of lessons, would you still be interested in 41
Draft Minutes 32
DRAFT
the contract? What if it was only two times the number of lessons, would you still be 1
interested in the contract? 2
3
Mr. Sheeper: Yes, still interested. We've been doing lessons for 2 years already at the 4
level. 5
6 Commissioner Moss: If it was double, you'd be happy. Not six times, but double the 7
number of lessons you do today, you'd still be happy? 8
9
Mr. Sheeper: I'm always happy. 10
11
Commissioner Moss: One other question. You said there were two styles of lessons. 12
One is the one where you are skills based, and one is sort of what we have more today 13
which is not so much skills based. I'll call it the fun factor, more fun and less intense. Do 14
you have two different styles or just one style? 15
16
Mr. Sheeper: You're speaking of lessons? 17
18
Commissioner Moss: Yes. 19
20
Mr. Sheeper: There's a Red Cross way, which is what is adopted by Rinconada 21
previously. There's our own proprietary curriculum that we have, that we teach. 22
23
Commissioner Moss: You're going to offer both or just yours? 24
25 Mr. Sheeper: Just ours. I was speaking to how people can register. They can register for 26 a 1-week session every day or they could register 1 day a week for 20 weeks. 27 28
Commissioner Moss: In both cases, it would be your style. 29
30
Mr. Sheeper: Same curriculum, yes. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: Fun is very important. It's got to be a fun experience, particularly for kids 33
in their learn to swim program. We haven't talked about this or heard about this. We've 34
heard from a lot of parents wanting a less competitive recreation swim program outside 35
of what Tony and the PASA organization does. They do a great program; it's a 36
competitive swim program. This is another area I have a real interest in. Is there a way 37
we can figure out how to support some of these families that want their kids on a team 38
but not so competitive? Just in talking about how we might manage the pool in an 39
improved and enhanced way, some ideas are coming up from Tony and his organization. 40
Then, working closely with Tim to try and figure out how might we do that so that it 41
doesn't impact the other programs. Working with PASA we can have this recreation 42
Draft Minutes 33
DRAFT
swim program, not taking a lot of hours but another opportunity for kids that might not be 1
at that competitive level but still want to be on a team. Those are the kind of things we're 2
looking for, and we hope to really improve the program. I know we're wrapping up. I 3
just wanted to finish on one thing here that I think is important. The Community 4
Services Department does a lot of programs and services. We oversee all of the parks 5
and all of the open space and trail systems, the Palo Alto Art Center, the Junior Museum 6 and Zoo, the Children's Theatre, recreation programs, special events. A $26 million 7
budget, and it's not going up. We look to deliver those services in the best way we can 8
for Palo Alto residents. Sometimes that's in-house, and it's with staff, and it's just the best 9
way to do it. I think that's the case with our open space ranger program, for example. 10
Sometimes it's a partnership with a nonprofit group that supports a program. Palo Alto 11
Art Center Foundation is fantastic. They helped us rebuild the Art Center. Sometimes 12
it's partnering with the private sector, because they have an expertise and a quality that on 13
balance is in the best interest. Just to the point about we're just outsourcing and it's not 14
thoughtful, that's just not the case. That's not what we're doing. We realize we've got 15
some things to work through still, but we're really trying to look out for the residents 16
ultimately and hope to get it right. I do want to thank everyone for being here and that 17
we're hearing you. My office is at the Lucie Stern Community Center, and you can call 18
me any time or drop by if you want to talk to me about it or tell me why it's wrong. My 19
card is here. Let's see if we can figure this out. Thank you. 20
21
Chair Lauing: Just from the standpoint of giving feedback to the City, is there any 22
Commissioner that thinks that we at this point shouldn't give preliminary support for the 23
swim lessons? As was pointed it, it's already happened for the last 2 years. 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: I have one question. In the staff report, it says recommending 26 both the swim lessons and the summer camp. Summer camp right now on the schedule 27 doesn't appear anywhere. Where would that appear and what would it be displacing? 28
29
Ms. LeBlanc: It would be kind of displacing what you see as the swim lessons. The 30
swim camps—Tim can elaborate—are not in the pool for the whole time that they're in 31
the camp. What they do is sort of a super lesson each day. Instead of doing a 30-minute 32
lesson, the kids would be doing 45 minutes. I think they might have another half hour for 33
some of the more advanced kids. They would be taking over those times, which are most 34
of the times where we have very low demand. That's where you do not see the wait lists 35
for swim lessons. We think there would be really minimal impact to the lap swimmers 36
during the summer when we add those summer camps. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: How many hours a day are the swim camps? 39
40
Ms. LeBlanc: I will let Tim chime in. 41
42
Draft Minutes 34
DRAFT
Mr. Sheeper: I think you explained that well. It's 5 hours a day, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 1
Their 45-minute lessons happen in the morning, usually around 9:30. They'll get back in 2
the pool in the afternoon in the open swim times. They're mixing with the current open 3
swim. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: Some of it's in the round pool, and some of it's in the 6 (crosstalk)? 7
8
Mr. Sheeper: Yeah, depending on their age. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: My take is if you can fit the camp and can fit more lessons in 11
without affecting other people, then I'm for it. I'm just nervous about how packed we're 12
going to be. 13
14
Commissioner Cribbs: Could I just clarify one thing? You're also retaining the 15
lifeguards. The lifeguards will be reporting to you as well as the swimming teachers, 16
right? 17
18
Mr. de Geus: At this time, we're not recommending that. We may come back with that 19
recommendation after we work through this. What we will include in the contract is 20
under emergency circumstances, we can call on Tim to provide lifeguards. I can tell you 21
it happens even now for lap swim. We don't have the staff to be there. We will draw on 22
Tim's staff to come over and help us. 23
24
Commissioner Cribbs: It was actually David who brought that up, because he was asking 25 about hiring Palo Alto youth to be swim teachers and lifeguards. I thought, "We haven't 26 talked about the lifeguards; maybe you're doing both." It's just swimming teachers at this 27 point, right? 28
29
Mr. Sheeper: That's what we're talking about. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you very much. 32
33
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm not gung ho to go forward with the plan as it is, to respond 34
to you. This is not an action item. As I understand it, Tim, you've managed our summer 35
lessons for the last 2 years. From everything I've heard, that's been very successful and 36
positively received. It's on this scale, the status quo scale, and not this scale. I really 37
strongly encourage you to find something that's somewhere in the middle before you 38
move forward with something for this coming year. I think it offers a great opportunity 39
to try it out. It's a 1-year contract, right? See how it goes before you do something scary 40
that upsets a lot of people. I think this is an opportunity for us to take it another step 41
Draft Minutes 35
DRAFT
further, building on the relationship and experience that you all have with Tim and his 1
staff to make it better, see how it goes bigger, and see where we can go from there. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Thanks to the public. That's the conclusion of this item. Thank you, staff 4
and guests. 5
6 3. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Thank you. We're going to move onto the next agenda item. If the public 9
could please move outside to continue your discussions if you don't have a comment to 10
give on the next agenda items. That 45-minute item took 2 hours. We'll see if we can zip 11
right along here. The next item is the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation 12
Master Plan, version 73 or whatever we're on. Kristen, take it away. 13
14
Kristen O'Kane: Good evening. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. In your packet, 15
you received a draft version of the Master Plan in its entirety. What we're going to talk 16
about today is first a summary of the community meeting that we had on November 1st, 17
and then briefly go through Chapter 5 because in the copy of the draft Master Plan that 18
you have in your packet, that was the chapter where most changes occurred. We'll also 19
talk about how the public will have an opportunity to review the draft, and then next steps 20
and the schedule. Community meeting. On November 1st, we had a good turnout, very 21
positive feedback, and a lot of support. Thank you, Commissioner Moss, for attending 22
and for speaking also at the community meeting. That was very thoughtful. Some of the 23
comments we heard. I've sort of broken them down by service or program area. The first 24
was recreation facilities and recreation programs. We heard a lot about pools, both the 25 Rinconada pool, liking the pool the way it is, and also the need for an additional pool. 26 We also had some questions on the tennis courts and support for an additional public gym 27 and also pickleball courts. There were quite a few questions as well on Cubberley and 28
the Master Plan effort that we're embarking on and what that would entail and what that 29
would include, for example, would it be a gym, a pool, a senior center. Of course, at this 30
time we don't know what we have in store for Cubberley, but we are starting that process. 31
We also heard support for collaborating with the School District to access facilities and 32
also support for unstructured play and connection to nature. Related to … 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: One question about pickleball. Are we having two pickleball 35
courts on each side of the tennis net and they're using their own net or are they going with 36
the tennis net and using the tennis net? 37
38
Ms. O'Kane: Are you asking what they're doing now? 39
40
Commissioner Reckdahl: No. What's the proposal when people talk about pickleball? 41
What do they want? Do they want to use the current tennis net? 42
Draft Minutes 36
DRAFT
1
Ms. O'Kane: They want to have dedicated pickleball courts. Not shared with tennis but 2
dedicated for pickleball. For parks and open space, we heard some comments related to 3
the 10 1/2 acres. The first comment was to add active recreation use. A subsequent 4
commenter said it should be passive recreation use. The policy as it says now doesn't 5
address either of those. I think it's best to leave it as is. As we go through the process of 6 deciding what to do with the 10 1/2 acres, we can address it at that point. Just briefly, we 7
had support for benches, turf fields both natural and synthetic, support for restoration of 8
natural areas, dog parks. Some question on adult fitness areas; really the comment was 9
please don't add adult fitness areas to every park. We agreed we would do it as a pilot 10
effort to see how it was accepted in the community. Also, a request for a restroom at the 11
Magical Bridge Playground, and questions related to access to creeks, and also a 12
comment to provide free shuttles to the open space areas. Finally, some of our bigger 13
comments we received were how do we prioritize the priorities. We've talked about that. 14
What is a process for future improvements? Will the public have an opportunity to weigh 15
in at that time? Of course, we said yes. Some discussion on demographics and 16
accessibility, and then ensuring that we integrate the Master Plan with the Urban Forest 17
Master Plan, and then some conversation related to potable water use at our parks. That 18
was the community meeting. Again, it was overall very supportive. We had a great 19
turnout. I don't know if anyone else wants to chime in. Commissioner Moss, if you have 20
any comments? 21
22
Commissioner Moss: You did great. 23
24
Ms. O'Kane: Shall we move on? 25 26 Chair Lauing: Yeah. 27 28
Ms. O'Kane: Chapter 5 outline. Again, this is the chapter where we had the most 29
changes since the last version. Just briefly, the way it's organized now is we talk about 30
prioritization including the prioritization process. We've reordered the projects and 31
programs so that the—I'm sorry. I jumped ahead. The prioritization process, and then 32
we talk about high priority projects and programs implementation, considerations, and 33
then we get into the descriptions. We still have the action plan, funding strategies, and 34
how we're going to evaluate future projects, and then our progress reporting. Key 35
updates to Chapter 5. We've added two additional high priority projects. One is improve 36
the Rinconada pool facility. The last time we had that sort of combined with aquatics 37
programming, so we separated those out. Another one that came up when we met with 38
the ad hoc was to include golf course facility improvements. This is specific to the 39
clubhouse, the actual structures that are that golf course, that weren't included in the 40
current reconfiguration project. We've added that as well. We've reordered the high 41
priority projects so that the projects that need further study and strategic funding are 42
Draft Minutes 37
DRAFT
listed first, and then it goes to the short-term projects and the programs. We've also 1
expanded the definition of urgency to include the things we heard from the Commission 2
last time such as time sensitivity and if we fail to act on something, do we miss an 3
opportunity by not acting. That's all been added to that chapter. That's all I have on 4
Chapter 5. I'll continue. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Might as well give the whole review. 7
8
Ms. O'Kane: Do you want to take over here, Peter? 9
10
Peter Jensen: Sure. Currently the full document of the Master Plan report is online. It 11
can be accessed through the website for the community to review by clicking on the 12
green. You see there, it's very similar to how our last online survey was structured, 13
where it takes you to a form. This one has specific questions it asks about the document, 14
and it also allows you to provide feedback, whatever that may be, specific comments for 15
specific pages or just general feedback in itself. You see there the two links taking you to 16
the plan body which is the full document or the appendix. The public can see both of 17
those. This will run through November and into the first week of December for the 18
community to review and supply comment on. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Who wrote that? 21
22
Mr. Jensen: Say again. 23
24
Chair Lauing: Who wrote it, who created it? 25 26 Mr. Jensen: The project team staff and MIG worked together to put this together. 27 28
Ms. O'Kane: I'd like to add that there are specific questions where we're trying to get 29
specific information, but there also is an open-ended question at the end where people 30
can provide additional comments. 31
32
Mr. Jensen: The next steps. PRC review of the document. We're hoping to get your 33
comments back by December 5th. That will allow us to incorporate those into the final 34
draft, coming back on December 14th to your meeting. The community will have a few 35
days after that to supply further comment that will also be incorporated into the draft. 36
We're looking at going to Council for the study session that we were hoping to have in 37
December in January. I think it's right now tentatively January 9th. This all coincides 38
with the CEQA work that is going on and that will take place through January with the 39
public review, a portion of that, occurring at the end of January and into February. 40
Finally, hoping to take the plan for adoption to Council in March. That's our current 41
schedule. It mostly depends on the CEQA work that's taking place to meet those dates. 42
Draft Minutes 38
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: Go ahead. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: Can I just ask a quick question about the CEQA process? That 4
will include a public comment period. It would be great if you would add to the website, 5
if it's not already up there, some announcement that that's happening so that people can 6 have in mind that this is going to be the timeline, and you'll have an opportunity to 7
comment and any details you can provide about how to do that. Thanks. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Would it be appropriate to get Commissioners' comments on Chapter 5 as 10
a starting point here? 11
12
Ms. O'Kane: Chapter 5 or any of the document is fine. 13
14
Chair Lauing; It just seems like there are more changes to 5. 15
16
Ms. O'Kane: There are more changes to 5. 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: Why don't we start in 5 and then go to the rest? 19
20
Chair Lauing: I was going to ask if members of the ad hoc wanted to state anything 21
relative to the progress, other than what she put in the slides, which I thought was a pretty 22
good summary. No. I'll look to non-ad hoc members who haven't seen this before they 23
got it in their packet. If there are any comments on 5 in terms of the batting order, the 24
way things were shifted around or anything at all. 25 26 Commissioner Moss: I just want to say that it looks fantastic. I didn't think you could 27 make so many changes in just that couple of weeks, but you did incorporate all the things 28
that we talked about last time. I think it looks great. I don't have any changes. 29
30
Commissioner Cribbs: I would just add to that. I thought it looked terrific. I have 31
yellow sticky notes all over this, and they all say great, I really like this, I like this list, I 32
like the way the prioritization was going. I love it that we have the page with the big 33
projects where everybody can see them, that we've really called out Cubberley and what 34
we're going to do with property and all of that. I think it's terrific. The piece at the end 35
about the fundraising and the opportunities for fundraising, the different kinds of 36
fundraising, to explain that to people is really terrific. At some point, I'd like to see some 37
sort of a timeline. It's probably not appropriate in here, but how is that going to get done, 38
is there going to be a committee formed, will there be a consultant, and all of that. That's 39
probably pushed off later. Otherwise, I just was pretty pleased about it. I was like, "How 40
did that ad hoc committee do all that work in such a short time along with the staff? How 41
did that happen?" It's terrific. 42
Draft Minutes 39
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: Abbie, any questions? 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: I missed last month's meeting. I wasn't here for the discussion. It 4
was just a really easy chapter for me to read. I was thinking back when we started this 5
process a year and a half ago. I remember reading and thinking how confused I was 6 when we first started working with the consultant. It was like one non sequitur after 7
another. I'm like this was just so pretty (inaudible) in comparison. It's taken so many 8
hours of staff work. So many hours, but it's so reflected in it. I know this is my second 9
to last meeting, and I just wanted to make sure I said it. I'm done. 10
11
Commissioner Cribbs: I found three little short questions, if I could. Only one gym. Did 12
we want to say plural gyms or is there just one gym to be discussed? That was one 13
question I had. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Page? 16
17
Commissioner Cribbs: On page 89. Would we contemplate a set of gyms, like 18
Cubberley has right now with the big gym, the pavilion and two smaller gyms? 19
Sometimes those are useful. If we're thinking about building, maybe we should do that. 20
21
Commissioner Moss: A gym complex. 22
23
Commissioner Cribbs: A gym complex maybe, right. Did we lose the idea of perhaps 24
another pool someplace or is it just rebuilding Rinconada? Is there a point … 25 26 Chair Lauing: If not, I think that's a wording omission. We've generally said we need to 27 investigate … 28
29
Commissioner Cribbs: Another pool. 30
31
Chair Lauing: Yeah. The pool needs or something to that effect. 32
33
Commissioner Hetterly: We have in other chapters mentioned an interest in looking into 34
an additional pool, but we don't have a project that covers that. Cubberley is a possible 35
location. I think we mentioned a possible connection between gyms and Cubberley 36
somewhere, but I don't think pools were as explicitly called out for that. That's an 37
opportunity. I guess it is an outstanding question whether we should have a project to 38
find a place for a pool. 39
40
Draft Minutes 40
DRAFT
Commissioner Cribbs: I would like it. In the discussion about Cubberley, is there a 1
reason to add bringing forth the old Cubberley plan that the community worked so hard 2
on a couple of years ago, just to make sure that we know it's in there? 3
4
Ms. O'Kane: We can add that. 5
6 Commissioner Cribbs: The last question was just about in the fundraising area, if we are 7
being able to fundraise for facilities, is there is an idea to put in an endowment to take 8
care of those facilities after they're built or a fund? On page 91. Actually that's not the 9
page; it was just a note that I had. It doesn't go there at all. 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that's a great idea, to think about an endowment fund for 12
maintaining facilities. We do identify the funding gap for maintenance and operations in 13
particular, but we don't really identify any way to fill it. I think that would be a great 14
suggestion. 15
16
Commissioner Cribbs: I didn't know if that conflicted with the capital fund or anything. 17
Sometimes when major donors are interested in giving a lot of money for a big project, 18
they're also concerned with how the building is going to be taken care of. If we could 19
build that in, that might be something useful. I'm done. 20
21
Commissioner Moss: There was one more comment about the community meeting. I 22
had an opportunity to talk to not one but three members of the Friends of Palo Alto 23
Foundation or whatever. Just like Council Member Filseth said last time, just ask 24
because there's money out there. We just need to ask. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Anything else on Chapter 5 down here? 27 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I've got a couple. Go ahead. 29
30
Commissioner Hetterly: I just had a few. On page 86, enhance existing sports fields. 31
This is not necessarily 86. General comment. I like the way you did the funding options. 32
That was new since we last talked. I think it worked really well. I wonder if there are 33
any of these big ticket items in this front group that are well suited to special districts or 34
to tie in with other infrastructure projects. I don't know if that would require a lot of 35
effort to figure that out. If there are some that staff thinks are suitable, that would be 36
great. Pretty much the only extraordinary funding measure we have in here is a bond 37
cited for some of them. It may well be that some of the other funding options identified 38
in the summary could apply to some of these big items. I'd love to have you take a look 39
at that. The Rinconada pool facility improvements on page 90, we should mention 40
somewhere in there the recent Rinconada Master Plan. Somewhere in that description 41
that should be tied in, because there is a plan for those renovations in place. 42
Draft Minutes 41
DRAFT
1
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, yet to be approved. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: It has not been approved? 4
5
Mr. de Geus: It's still a draft. We're really trying to align the approval of that with the 6 Junior Museum and Zoo and their final plan. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: I see. I thought that had already been approved. 9
10
Mr. de Geus: Not yet. 11
12
Commissioner Hetterly: Maybe you don't need to include it here. Thirdly, page 92 was 13
talking about acquiring new parkland. It just reminded me that we had talked previously 14
about adding a program about legacies and bequests or long-term leases. I don't think 15
we've done that. I'd like to see that added in. Not on that page, but that's the page that 16
made me think of it. Sorry. Lastly, the progress reporting. I see you took out all the 17
indicators. Previously you had planned to add a table with some considerations for 18
tracking—this is page 112—progress. I kind of liked the indicators. I can see some 19
rationale for not including specific indicators, but I think this section without them is 20
pretty light. It needs to be beefed up in some way to offer some greater credibility and 21
accountability for the plan. I have several editorial comments, typos, words and stuff 22
throughout. I wonder if we couldn't maybe just hand you our notes at some point for that. 23
Surely the rest of you will be looking through for that too. That's the end. Thanks. 24
25 Chair Lauing: Commissioner Reckdahl. 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: Just a couple here. Page 90, the Rinconada pool facility. I 28
think the third sentence that says "to meet growing demand, a subsequent program policy 29
to open the pool for a long season is being explored." I think that's irrelevant. What the 30
other sentences say is sufficient. It's old; it's not in good condition; we need to redo it. 31
Whether or not we're going to have a long season really doesn't change the fact that it's 32
not in good condition. I would just delete that whole sentence. I don't see the value 33
added to that. I would start a new paragraph where it says two-thirds of the way down 34
"overall pool facility improvements include." I would start a new paragraph there, 35
because the first part before that is all background. Now, you're starting to get into 36
specifics. I would break that up and just make it clearer instead of one big paragraph. 37
That's stylistic, I guess. The same thing also on 93 for the golf course improvements. 38
We have a couple of sentences that talk about background, and then we start talking 39
about improvements. I would have the background be one paragraph and have the 40
improvements be another. Again, that's stylistic. That's all I had on Chapter 5. I had 41
some typos too, but I'll email you those. They're just piddly things. 42
Draft Minutes 42
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: Apart from Chapter 5 then. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: On A1, Appendix A, in that chart where we list all the parks 4
and then all their attributes, you list El Camino Park as owned by City of Palo Alto, 5
which it's not. It's owned by Stanford. I don't know if you want to say ownership leased 6 from Stanford. That may be a cleaner way of doing that. We do have a long-term lease. 7
Maybe even say when the lease expires. When does the lease expire, do you know? 8
9
Mr. de Geus: It was extended. 10
11
Chair Lauing: I think we got 15 more years, didn't we? 12
13
Mr. Jensen: It's 2045 I think. 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: 2045. Under the ownership say leased from Stanford until 16
2045. Also the same with the Palo Alto playing fields. It might be nice to say leased 17
from Stanford University, lease ending this date. If that disappears, we are in trouble for 18
playing fields. The expiration date of that lease is important. The second thing is on A3. 19
Down at the very bottom, there's an asterisk. It says "high school fields not available for 20
City or community use." They are available, but not through the City channels. If you 21
want to rent the Gunn baseball field, you call Gunn and rent that out. I'm not sure how to 22
phrase that. That sounds a little misleading, because it is available but you can't just drop 23
in. You have to arrange it ahead of time. I don't know how to phrase that to say that's not 24
available for—down at the very bottom—not open for use. I don't know how to qualify 25 this. 26 27 Mr. de Geus: We can work on something. The use is not managed by the City during 28
non-school hours as opposed to the middle and elementary schools. We can do 29
something with that. 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: That was it. Thank you. 32
33
Commissioner Hetterly: I think you have to be careful about how you word that high 34
school fields thing. It's not managed, but it's also not necessarily available to be managed 35
by the City. I think you should—that's a tricky one. 36
37
Chair Lauing: It's not controlled by the City specifically. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: I just had a couple of other comments in other sections. In the 40
executive summary, page 7, it talks about expanding the system and underserved areas 41
Draft Minutes 43
DRAFT
map, park search areas map. In the paragraph up above, you talk about areas with the 1
greatest need, for example those with the highest density and/or the largest population. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: (inaudible) 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: It's page 7 of the executive summary, vii. I know we talked 6 about that long ago, about trying to build into the walkshed map some density 7
considerations that would then lead to park search areas, so the search area didn't reflect 8
just geographic location outside of a certain radius but reflected a greater need in certain 9
areas that have denser population. Is that reflected in the park search areas or is that not? 10
I apologize for not raising this question long, long ago. 11
12
Mr. Jensen: I think we had a slide that we originally showed, that called out … I guess 13
it's "E" or "D" that had the most population and the least amount of parkland. It started to 14
reference which ones were ranked per that. I don't think that got translated into any of 15
these actual maps. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that's hugely useful information. If we have it, I would 18
like to see it included. If we can't include it, then we should not say that we've 19
considered it as it does in the text. I would love to see it. Further on in that same 20
paragraph, the last clause is talking about school grounds and says "that can be used in 21
park search areas, that will be maintained and expanded to better support neighborhood 22
park uses and enhance their open space value." Has the School District been involved in 23
any discussions about this plan? It seems a little bold to say they will be maintained and 24
expanded to enhance open space if we've not had those conversations with the School 25 District. I think you can handle that either by taking it out or by talking to them or by 26 changing the wording to say "we will seek to" or "hope to" or "there's potential for future 27 partnership to" blah, blah, blah. The next page on connecting the systems, I would love 28
to see somewhere in that paragraph some mention of the Safe Routes to School. They do 29
have connections that are built into this map, that are important. They are increasing 30
their efforts to expand their advocacy to include safe routes to parks. We ought to 31
reciprocate that by going together on that one. 32
33
Commissioner Moss: Are you saying that it should dovetail with their plan? Our job is 34
not to provide safe routes to school, but you're saying that they have a plan to do that. 35
We have a plan to do our connecting, and it would be nice to dovetail. Is that what you're 36
saying? 37
38
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes, I think we do largely dovetail. Those connections are all 39
reflected in the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. That Safe Routes to School 40
effort should be recognized in this paragraph as we took that into consideration in 41
Draft Minutes 44
DRAFT
figuring out what are the best routes to parks. That's it. All the rest of my comments are 1
editorial. 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: You have some comments? No. I just had one quick one. There's 4
a couple of typos in the executive summary or some grammatical things. I don't know if 5
you want to go through that right now. The one thing I would say is on page 12. That's 6 xii, Keith. Under high priority projects and programs, the last sentence says "they are not 7
ranked nor are they presented in priority order." I just would bold and underline or just 8
really make that sentence prominent, because you immediately go into the projects. If 9
they're just glancing, they're just going to miss that and think we have bullet points and 10
all of a sudden this is our order. It's just a style thing, but I know how people glance. 11
Did you want some of the typos or no? I can just give you my … 12
13
Mr. de Geus: Send them in. 14
15
Chair Lauing: It's a wrap. We have our dates for the next set of line-ups. 16
17
Ms. O'Kane: Can I just add? I'd like to thank again the ad hoc for their insight, wisdom 18
and work on this, especially Chapter 5. It's been very helpful. 19
20
Chair Lauing: We aren't going to say it was nothing, because it was something. Thanks 21
for hanging in there. We should be getting this zooming off to Council soon. Thank you. 22
23
4. Recommendation to Council to Explore the Potential Sale by AT&T and 24
Purchase by City of Palo Alto of a Portion of a Parcel at 3350 Birch Street, 25
Palo Alto, Adjacent to Boulware Park, for Parkland Use. 26 27 Chair Lauing: We have some speaker cards on the next item, which is recommendation 28
to Council from the Commission to explore the potential sale by AT&T and purchase by 29
City of Palo Alto of a portion of a parcel at 3350 Birch, Palo Alto, adjacent to Boulware 30
Park for parkland use. We have three speakers, and then we have a draft to circulate that 31
we can potentially vote on. The first speaker is Angela de la Parta. I hope I said that 32
correctly. Approximately 2 minutes. Thank you. 33
34
Angela de la Porta: My name's Angela de la Porta [phonetic]. I live in the Ventura 35
neighborhood. I'd just like to voice my support for the acquisition of the AT&T land that 36
is just right across the street from Boulware Park. It's been this lovely space that's been 37
very attractive for many years, but it's all overgrown and not used except by sometimes 38
vagrants as a toilet, which is not very pleasant. It would be great if we could actually 39
acquire that land and make it into a pleasant, welcoming place for people. Boulware Park 40
is, I think, maybe the smallest park in Palo Alto or one of the smallest. Just that little bit 41
of extra land would be lovely to have. That's all. 42
Draft Minutes 45
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: Thanks very much. Next is Jonathan Brown. 2
3
Jonathan Brown: Thank you to the Commission for giving me the opportunity to speak 4
tonight. Thank you to the staff who have worked hard on this. The Ventura 5
neighborhood has historically been an underserved part of the City. Boulware Park, with 6 the exception of the Ventura Community Center, is the only park in our very large 7
populous and diverse neighborhood. I wholeheartedly support the acquisition of as much 8
of the parcel at 3350 Birch Street as possible to expand this precious resource and elevate 9
our neighborhood's park space closer to those of other neighborhoods and closer to what 10
our community expects and deserves. The Ventura parks committee feels likewise—I'm 11
the chair of that committee—as do many of the community leaders and others to whom 12
I've spoken about this idea. Importantly, the time to act is now. AT&T is willing to sell, 13
and this opportunity must be seized now or it will be forever lost. I commend the 14
Commission for prioritizing this issue and putting it on tonight's agenda for action. The 15
community stands ready to help in any way necessary including with time, negotiations 16
and funding. In order to maximize our chances of successfully capitalizing on this 17
opportunity, we need to bring to bear all of our resources including not only those of our 18
City staff, who are already working on this, but also our community members and public-19
private partners who have shown the ability to step up to meet community needs when 20
government finds itself constrained in various ways as noted in several examples set forth 21
in the draft Parks Master Plan on pages 106 to 108. Please recommend pursuit of this 22
acquisition and please keep those in the community who stand willing to help involved 23
throughout the process. I live on Fernando Avenue, right across the street from Boulware 24
Park. I'd be happy to answer any questions from the Commission to the best of my 25 ability. I look forward to progress on this. Thank you. 26 27 Chair Lauing: Thanks. The third speaker is Becky Sanders. 28
29
Becky Sanders: Good evening, Commissioners. I want to just thank all of you all for 30
opening my eyes to how wonderfully smooth a Commission can run. It wasn't until I got 31
involved in this Ventura Park expansion program that I actually came to Parks and Rec. I 32
do seem to think—I'm not trying to butter you up, but you do seem to be one of the more 33
efficiently run. Everybody's firing on the—all the cylinders are working. It's been really 34
inspiring for me. I just want you to know that we had as many people here as the swim 35
club did; not really. We did have three more people; we had three more people here. 36
Here's the deal. With the acquisition of the Mike's Bikes property, that's going to be 37
expanding deep into Ventura along Pepper Avenue, and with the coming online of 441 38
Page Mill, that's a ginormous Godzilla project, that's increasing the housing stock big 39
time, as they say. How about increasing the parkland? Just a little bit would be great. Of 40
course, we'll be back for the Fry's. I don't know what's going on with Fry's. When that 41
comes online, we'll be back. It doesn't make any sense to keep piling people into the 42
Draft Minutes 46
DRAFT
Ventura neighborhood already, I think, the densest neighborhood in Palo Alto without 1
adding parkland. If it's beaucoup moolah that AT&T is looking for, let's see what we can 2
do. There is a tradition of investors buying on spec, hoping that they can get Council or 3
somebody to flip the public facility. We've seen that at VTA. There's a little nod there. 4
If they can make below market rate happen there or something, they'll flip that zoning. 5
I'm anxious that the PF zoning will be flipped to something that will be like RM-30 or 6 something. I just want to send developers a clear signal that zoning is not for sale in Palo 7
Alto, and it's not for sale in Ventura. I feel very passionately. I make jokes and 8
everything, but I feel deeply passionate about keeping the public facility. We pave it 9
over if there's no money, but let's not lose this opportunity to make a beautiful addition to 10
our open space in beautiful Palo Alto. Thank you for your service and great job on the 11
Master Plan, parks people. Really good job. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Thank you. You can come every month if you like. Lovely comments. I 14
did some, and you did some. Kristen did some. Mine are the non-green, two-page 15
varieties in case you want to write on things. Just a draft of what we should talk about. It 16
doesn't have to be this wording. 17
18
Commissioner Moss: Can you remind me what the process is? 19
20
Vice Chair Knopper: Is this the same thing? 21
22
Chair Lauing: Sorry. I didn't know you passed it out. Sorry. 23
24
Commissioner Moss: You will remind me what the process is. 25 26 Chair Lauing: This is a recommendation from us to Council specifically to do what it 27 says in the—staff and ultimately Council to do an investigation to kind of bring all the 28
issues to light and see if there's a way that we can sort of wrestle this to the ground. 29
That's an informal way of answering your question, Commissioner Moss, but that's what 30
we're asking for here. You want to add to that, Rob? 31
32
Mr. de Geus: I'm not sure I understand the question. The Parks and Recreation 33
Commission is a Commission that advises Council on matters related to parks and 34
recreation. This is the Commission contemplating making a recommendation to the City 35
Council that we look to acquire, if possible, this piece of land. That's the process we're 36
in. If the Commission agrees to do that as a Commission, then staff will facilitate making 37
sure the Council gets that advice from their Commission. 38
39
Chair Lauing: With appropriate investigation of options and costs and risks and all that 40
kind of thing. Just to clarify, it doesn't mean that if we make this, then we're done and it 41
Draft Minutes 47
DRAFT
just goes straight to Council. It still needs to have a lot of work done around the issues, 1
but it's an activation process that we're going for here and a very high visibility process. 2
3
Commissioner Cribbs: What's the timeline then? 4
5
Chair Lauing: Of next steps? 6 7
Commissioner Cribbs: Yeah, of next steps. 8
9
Mr. de Geus: If the Commission votes to send this along to Council, recognizing there is 10
some sensitivity and urgency around this, we would want to get it to the Council as soon 11
as possible. I'd have to talk to the City Manager about how exactly he would like to do 12
that. There's different ways that can be communicated. We'll look into that right away, 13
and then I can let the Commission know. 14
15
Vice Chair Knopper: What are we supposed … 16
17
Chair Lauing: We need to look at this and see if this states exactly what we want to say 18
or if we want to change the draft of this in any way. This is just a draft for the 19
Commission to evaluate. Obviously it shows how it's tied to the draft Master Plan and 20
Comprehensive Plan. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we know how many acres this parcel is? 23
24
Commissioner Hetterly: The parcel, I don't know. Do you know? 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: The park is 1 1/2. 27 28
Daren Anderson: We recently had the real estate attorney look into this. What we found 29
is it's not the entire parcel outside those buildings. It's actually 0.63 acres that they're able 30
to sell, 0.63 acres. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: That lot is part for sale and part not for sale? 33
34
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 35
36
Commissioner Reckdahl: It might be good to specify that. In the second paragraph, 37
where we say the subject property is currently zoned, maybe in that sentence somehow 38
we can mention that it is 0.63 acres. 39
40
Ms. O'Kane: I'd like to add a couple of things on that. The first is just to clarify that the 41
property isn't for sale yet. They do need to do a lot line adjustment to identify that 0.63 42
Draft Minutes 48
DRAFT
acres. I don't think that's set in stone at this point, that it's 0.63 acres, because they have 1
to go through that process and then actually put the property up for sale. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: Maybe we can just say approximately 0.6 acres. I just wanted 4
to give … 5
6 Commissioner Hetterly: I would leave it out. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: You'd leave it out? 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah, just because we don't know what it's going to be and it's 11
negotiable presumably how it will turn out. I think the Council knows the property that 12
we're talking about. I don't think we need to provide that kind of detail that we can't be 13
certain of. 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: The reason it's important to me is that it's a significant lot, it's a 16
significant size. Compared to the park itself, it's almost like half the size of the park. It'd 17
be different if this was a tiny little lot and if we miss it, we miss it. This is really 18
important because this would really make an impact to the park. Maybe we don't have to 19
give numbers, but I would want to say it would significantly improve the park or make a 20
strong statement that this is really important for the park. It's just not a small lot that just 21
happens to be on the edge. 22
23
Chair Lauing: You just want to put significant expansion in there? 24
25 Commissioner Hetterly: We could say something like "the generously sized property is 26 currently zoned public facility" or something to that effect. Is that what you—does that 27 work? 28
29
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yep, I'd be happy with that. I just wanted to make sure that 30
they understand this is significant, and it's not just a small lot. 31
32
Commissioner Moss: It's important because they could conceivably carve out a piece of 33
that for two homes and give us the rest. That would diminish the utility for us. I want to 34
make sure it's the whole thing and not half the thing. I don't know how to say that. 35
36
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly, what are you suggesting for the add there? 37
38
Commissioner Hetterly: How about we say "the sizable subject property is currently 39
zoned public facility"? 40
41
Draft Minutes 49
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: That works. Any others? Commissioner Hetterly, would you like to 1
make a motion to adopt this? 2
3
MOTION: 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. I move that we approve this memo and forward it to 6 Council. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Second, Commissioner Cribbs. Further discussion, staff? 9
10
Mr. de Geus: It's a really interesting and unique opportunity. I think exploring it makes a 11
lot of sense given what we heard from the public and just looking at it. We just went 12
over the Master Plan, and we have all of those things that we want to accomplish, the top 13
33 and more. You just take any number, take the 10 1/2 acres out at the golf course with 14
no funding for how we might improve that site. We have the 7.7 acres up at Foothills 15
Park that we're soon to learn what we might be able to do there. There's no funding for 16
that either. We talked about pools and gyms and other things. If we were to do 17
something like this, it could potentially draw on funds that could be used for some of 18
those other things. I think that's important, and maybe that could be part of the full 19
exploration. I don't know that that comes across as clearly here. It may be a unique 20
opportunity, but on balance is it the one that we should spend the limited resources and 21
funding on? Maybe it is, but I think it's important that there's some caution. At least that 22
staff will do that when we share it with Council. I'd be interested to hear from the 23
Commission if you agree. 24
25 Vice Chair Knopper: Because geographically speaking, Palo Alto has significant 26 limitations that any opportunity that you can purchase—totally hear what you're saying. 27 Obviously everybody at this table would renovate everything and make everything state 28
of the art tomorrow if we had the financial resources. The opportunity to actually 29
purchase land here is so difficult. It doesn't come up that often. Any chance that we 30
might be able, that has an adjacency to a park, it would be crazy not to explore it. It may 31
be financially not viable. AT&T might decide to do something completely different. I 32
think it's necessary based on everything that we've talked about, trying to expand our 33
parkland. I do understand your reservation. I do understand that. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Others? As one of the speakers pointed out, that we know, that's a 36
particularly unserved place for parkland. That, I think, adds to the urgency of this 37
particular plot. 38
39
Commissioner Cribbs: I would agree with that about Ventura being underserved. I also 40
think that this is a great opportunity to paint the picture of we can do this, we can create a 41
vision, and there can be money out there to support it. It can go along with the list of the 42
Draft Minutes 50
DRAFT
great things that we want to do as long as we ask and get it out there. I have a lot of faith 1
that saying we're going to do this or we recommend this is going to really help draw some 2
of the funding that we need. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with that. I think it will draw funding not just from City 5
resources but it gives something for people to rally around, as we heard from the 6 community. They're ready to step up and do what they can in terms of funding support 7
within the community and with other partners. I think putting a flag in the ground, saying 8
we really believe in taking advantage of unique opportunities like this for the long-term 9
good of our community is an important message to send. 10
11
Mr. de Geus: Do you think there is any advantage in including something about creative 12
funding opportunities to do this? The way it reads is just the City should purchase it, if 13
we can. That doesn't inspire fundraising. The City doesn't have money to purchase it. It 14
just seems like a gap in the message to me. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Do you think that should be here, though, or is that in part of the 17
investigation? Plus, we've heard here, which is obviously recorded in the minutes, that 18
there are local resources that are willing to step up and look at helping fund it. 19
20
Mr. de Geus: I would feel more comfortable if it was included in there, that there was 21
some recognition that the City does not have a fund that can just buy land, and a 22
recognition of that balance with the many needs that the City has in the park system and 23
recreation program and facilities. That's not to say we shouldn't do it. I'm not saying 24
that. I actually think it's really a unique opportunity that I would support. 25 26 Commissioner Hetterly: How about if we add a sentence at the end of that first clause 27 that says "including identification of creative funding opportunities to realize this unique 28
opportunity"? Does that work? 29
30
Mr. de Geus: I think that's better. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Creative funding, I think, is fine. We don't want to commit the 33
community to any dollar amount tonight. It's not unprecedented. This has happened 34
before in the City. Any other comments? 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes, it could be the (inaudible) our first for our program legacy 37
thing that we talked about in the Master Plan. This could be something that we can try 38
and everybody can jump aboard. 39
40
Chair Lauing: Any other comments or are we ready to vote on the revised memo? Let's 41
just review the revisions. 42
Draft Minutes 51
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Hetterly: I do have one other question following up on Anne's point. We 2
do have a policy about that, should that policy be added to the Master Plan policies that 3
are relevant. 4
5
Commissioner Cribbs: That's a good idea. 6 7
Commissioner Hetterly: The changes I have are at the end of the first sentence insert a 8
comma and add "including identification of creative funding opportunities to realize this 9
unique opportunity." 10
11
Chair Lauing: I don't think we want "opportunity" twice there? 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: What do you want to say? 14
15
Chair Lauing: "To enhance the ability to make the purchase." 16
17
Commissioner Moss: Maybe a public-private partnership. 18
19
Male: Funding strategy. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: (crosstalk) strategy. 22
23
Commissioner Hetterly: Creative funding strategies to realize this unique opportunity. 24
Does that work? 25 26 Vice Chair Knopper: Sure. 27 28
Chair Lauing: Sure. 29
30
Commissioner Hetterly: At the beginning of the second paragraph, we're going to insert 31
"sizable." It says "the sizeable subject property is currently zoned public facility," and 32
then it continues on. We're going to figure out whichever program it is that talks about 33
look for funding partnerships, etc., and add that to the programs or policy, whichever it is, 34
that's listed in the Master Plan. 35
36
Chair Lauing: All in favor of the motion as amended on the floor. It's unanimous. 37
Thank you. Thanks to the speakers as well. 38
39
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 40
41
Draft Minutes 52
DRAFT
5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 1
2
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is other ad hoc committee and liaison 3
updates. Do you have any items on that, Daren? 4
5
Mr. Anderson: Just a brief update on the IT&T property. We were able to do tours for 6 most of the Commission. If there were any Commissioners who didn't get to come and 7
would like to do it, I'd be glad to set up another tour. You can just send me an email, and 8
we'll find a time. For those that joined me, thanks so much. I enjoyed that. One of the 9
follow-up items was to look into the hydrology of that area a little bit. I'm sorry I don't 10
have the display for you. The next time I come back, I can. Commissioner Moss joined 11
me. We walked around and looked at it for about an hour. This was at a king tide. The 12
intent was to see exactly how much of it receives any tidal influence. As we suspected, 13
it's one 18-inch pipe that carries tidal water from the other side of Byxbee, closer to the 14
marsh front trail in the Baylands, across into this 150-acre wetland area. It's extremely 15
muted because there's (inaudible) coming in. This is in a 9-plus king tide. There was just 16
very little change into what we had seen the day we had come out, which I think was an 17
average tide height. We know it's muted, but there is water that comes into the area 18
inside the fence of the 35.5 acres, the antenna field. There is tidal action in there for what 19
it's worth. We could easily put together a little display that kind of shows you where 20
that's at. I think that's all I had on that item. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Were we going to, in the Baylands Master Plan, address that? 23
We had talked about that on the tour. 24
25 Mr. Anderson: It's a challenge. It was a great question. How in depth would it get? I 26 think unfortunately it is unlikely to go into great detail. What mostly likely would 27 happen is there'd be a recommendation upon further analysis and study to say you can 28
enhance the habitat by increasing the tidal flow. Exactly how you do that is very 29
complex. You don't just reshape a marsh by going in with shovels. It's a very engineered 30
solution, and it would take a lot of study, almost its own hydrology study. What I would 31
anticipate is it would be looked at a high level with the Baylands Comprehensive Plan 32
and probably be a recommendation on ways to improve the habitat in that area. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think that's a good idea. It's not that we need to solve this 35
problem, but I want it on people's radar screen. If we include it in the Conservation Plan, 36
then it will be eventually addressed hopefully. 37
38
Mr. Anderson: Thank you. 39
40
Chair Lauing: Other ad hoc committee or liaison updates from Commissioners or staff? 41
42
Draft Minutes 53
DRAFT
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT 1
2
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is Number V, now VI department report. 3
Rob, Kristen? 4
5
Mr. de Geus: I just have a couple of updates. I sent the Commission a report for a study 6 session on the Junior Museum and Zoo that's going to happen this coming Monday. I'm 7
not sure if you've had a chance to read that. The study session with Council will look at a 8
few things. We'll give them an update on where we are in the process with the Friends. 9
We'll look at the current design of the new facility, which is smaller as I've mentioned at 10
previous meetings. It's still being worked on even as we speak. We just included some 11
fairly simple floor plans in the actual staff report. The big changes are going from a two-12
story building to a one-story, more modest building. We will share that. The Zoo 13
footprint is the same as the last time you saw it. I thought it had actually come off even 14
further, but it's the same as the last time. I think the Commission was comfortable at that 15
point with that. There was also a phasing of the project. There's a second phase of the 16
construction project, because the funding is just not available to do what they had hoped 17
for. It's unfortunate but in some ways a smaller, more modest program might be in the 18
end the better thing to go forward with for the local community and some of the 19
challenges we already have with that site and how packed it is and parking and other 20
issues. We'll also talk about an interim location for the Junior Museum and Zoo when we 21
do close and rebuild. We're looking at Cubberley as a possibility for that, at least that's 22
the current thinking as a site. The auditorium at Cubberley not to have a zoo but certainly 23
the program and exhibit space so it can remain relevant. We'll give them an update on 24
the fundraising, which is going very well from the Friends. They committed to raising 25 $25 million; they've raised 24 and have $1 million to go. This additional Phase 2, which 26 staff thinks is really important to try and get done, is about $3 million more. We'll see if 27 funding will find its way to that. We'll talk about timeline, which is still all tentative. 28
They haven't submitted a project for permitting yet. It'll be an interesting study session to 29
tune into. It's taped, so you can watch it later as well. We can also add it to the 30
December agenda if the Commission wants to get a full update from the project team. 31
32
Vice Chair Knopper: May I ask one quick question? 33
34
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 35
36
Vice Chair Knopper: They're shrinking the size. Will it still be large enough for them to 37
get that accreditation they needed for the animals? 38
39
Mr. de Geus: It will. 40
41
Vice Chair Knopper: It will not? 42
Draft Minutes 54
DRAFT
1
Mr. de Geus: It will. It will still be accredited. 2
3
Commissioner Cribbs: What time is the study session? 4
5
Mr. de Geus: 6:00. Are there any other questions? 6 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can you discuss shortly about the Rinconada Master Plan? 8
You mentioned in that discussion that we were waiting for the Junior Zoo. What's the 9
timetable or what's the order of tasks that are going to happen? 10
11
Mr. de Geus: I hope that'll come forward in the spring of next year, once the final plans 12
for the Junior Museum is done and the environmental work for the Rinconada long-range 13
plan is completed. 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: (crosstalk) under way right now? 16
17
Mr. de Geus: They're related. Yeah, most of it actually is done. We're waiting on a few 18
reports to be finalized. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: That will come back to us in the spring? 21
22
Mr. de Geus: The Rinconada long-range plan will come back to the Commission right 23
before we go to Council. We'll need to be reminded of everything that's in there, because 24
it's been some time. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: (inaudible) or is it just that it's a courtesy, coming back to us? 27 28
Mr. de Geus: I think we would ask the Commission to recommend approval for that. 29
Just quickly, we had an interesting trip over to Emeryville. Emeryville decided to build a 30
community center and school together. They very much needed to do that and had big 31
funding issues and other things. With Dr. Max McGee and Bob Golton from the School 32
District, Kristen and I visited and got a tour and heard about that whole experience as 33
related to our interest in Cubberley. It was fascinating. They share everything, the whole 34
space, classrooms, the whole thing. We learned some things from that. I don't think we 35
need to have that level of sharing here in Palo Alto, but it can be done. It's clear that it is 36
being done there. They're 3 months in or something like that, less than 6 months open at 37
this point. There are some growing pains that they're going through. It was interesting to 38
be there, and it was great to have Max and Bob join us, showing their interest in moving 39
this along. That's all I have to report. 40
41
Draft Minutes 55
DRAFT
Mr. Anderson: I do have one more report. Staff has started work on the CIPs, our capital 1
budget. Just started today, first kickoff meeting. Unfortunately and as usual, the 2
turnaround time is quick. We're to return to Council by December 15th. Sorry, not 3
Council, to our OMB staff, budget staff, with our department's recommendations for 4
CIPs. As our custom has been, there's an ad hoc with the Commission that meets with 5
staff and kind of vets this through. The turnaround time is kind of quick, but that would 6 be really helpful. I don't know if it's the same ad hoc committee we've worked with or if 7
there's a new one. It'd be helpful to meet fairly quickly with them and talk through some 8
of the options. 9
10
Chair Lauing: I think the current one is just Keith, as I recall. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Unless there is other takers. 13
14
Chair Lauing: In addition to or instead of? 15
16
Commissioner Reckdahl: In addition. If one of the new people have some interest, 17
they're welcome to join me. Otherwise, I'm happy to do it myself. 18
19
Female: (inaudible) 20
21
Mr. Anderson: I'm sorry I did a bad job of kicking that off. This is the capital 22
improvement projects. 23
24
Chair Lauing: Looks like you've got it, Keith. You and Daren can coordinate on it. 25
26
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 27 28
Chair Lauing: Overall comments and announcements as distinct from the department 29
report. Always looking for the hydrological update from the 7.7. 30
31
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, the Buckeye Creek hydrology study. By the end of this month, we 32
should have some concepts, which is great. They've done some preliminary analysis on 33
their survey work. We're one step closer. We'll look over those concepts and probably 34
have a public meeting, bring it to the Commission not too far after that. 35
36
Commissioner Moss: The Baylands Conservation, is that going out to bid? 37
38
Mr. Anderson: Yes. We're still working with purchasing to get that one out to bid for the 39
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 40
41
Chair Lauing: Go ahead. 42
Draft Minutes 56
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Hetterly: I just wanted to let everybody know that the Comp Plan Update 2
Committee is wrapping things up around the Natural Environment Element for the Comp 3
Plan. I wanted to thank Daren for coming to the subcommittee meeting and putting in a 4
lot of time. We hashed through a lot of details. We met about it last night. The current 5
draft was very well received along with some additions that were nearly unanimous if not 6 unanimous. I think there will be some additive. I expect next month, December 13th, the 7
full Committee will vote to move that Element forward to the City Council. 8
9
Ms. O'Kane: I have one announcement. I wanted to recognize that Chair Lauing and 10
Commissioners Knopper and Hetterly were recognized at Monday's Council meeting. 11
There were resolutions read for each of them in appreciation for their work here on the 12
Commission for many years. Of course, that was voted unanimously to accept those 13
resolutions. Again, on behalf of all of us here, thank you for all your service and work on 14
the Commission. 15
16
Chair Lauing: On top of all her other work, Kristen came to that too. Thank you. 17
18
Vice Chair Knopper: Did you replace us? 19
20
Mr. de Geus: The interviews, I think, are the 30th of November. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Not much time. 23
24
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 14, 2016 MEETING 25 26 Chair Lauing: Tentative agenda items for December 14th special meeting. 27 28
Commissioner Cribbs: Is that still the 14th? 29
30
Chair Lauing: Yeah. Special meeting because it's been moved. That's why it's called 31
special, the 14th. Just before that on the calendar, we see still the Council meeting on the 32
Master Plan on the 12th. That's done, out. 33
34
Commissioner Moss: Peter mentioned three dates. He mentioned December 5th, 35
December 9th and December 14th. What is 5th, which is a Monday? What is 36
December 9th, which is a Friday? 37
38
Mr. Jensen: December 5th is when staff, the project team, would like further comments 39
that you have for the draft Master Plan report to come back to us, so we can incorporate 40
those into the final draft that'll be coming to you on the third date, the 14th. The meeting 41
Draft Minutes 57
DRAFT
on the 14th is the next PRC meeting. The 5th is when we'd like comments back from 1
you. The 9th is when we'd like to close the community survey. Those are the three dates. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Let's get back to the tentative agenda. Is anything on aquatics coming 4
back next month? 5
6 Mr. de Geus: We're going to be actively working on that over the next couple of months. 7
If there is substantive updates, that could certainly be. We have this survey that's out 8
right now, that we have several hundred responses to. I don't think that's enough. If we 9
have more than that or more alignment of what we might be thinking to have a further 10
conversation. At this time, though, I'm just not sure. We'll have to stay in touch. 11
12
Chair Lauing: Clearly the Master Plan is coming back again. 13
14
Commissioner Hetterly: Are we going to vote on it in December? 15
16
Chair Lauing: What? 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: The Master Plan. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Yeah, I would hope so. Action item. 21
22
Vice Chair Knopper: How exciting. I genuinely mean that. 23
24
Commissioner Cribbs: I have a conflict that night, so I most likely will not be there 25 (inaudible) out of town. 26 27 Chair Lauing: The Zoo, if they're willing to come back and meet us again. 28
29
Mr. de Geus: If the Commission wants to do that. 30
31
Chair Lauing: I would like to, but I'm just raising it for Commission input. Go ahead. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm not sure what we would say. Certainly if they want to give 34
us an update of what the status is, I could listen. I don’t have any strong feelings either 35
way. 36
37
Mr. de Geus: I don't think they have a strong interest to come back, not for any other 38
reason. Their park issues haven't changed considerably since the last time they were 39
here. They will come back for a Park Improvement Ordinance at some point when it's 40
closer to a real project and happening. 41
42
Draft Minutes 58
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: One of the questions we had last time was can they shrink it 1
back at all. Did they shrink it back at all? 2
3
Mr. de Geus: They did twice. The third time was as far as they felt like they could go. 4
They haven't gone further back. What they have done, which is interesting, is the 5
building is smaller. That's allowed for the Zoo to get a little bit more space. That wasn't 6 on parkland. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: It still went out like 90 feet into that grassy area. 9
10
Chair Lauing: That's why we should see it again. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: If they're going to come back and say it is what it is, we're 13
going to bring it to Council, then that'll be a little awkward. 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: It's going to Council before our next meeting. Isn't that right? 16
17
Mr. de Geus: It's going to Council next Monday. 18
19
Commissioner Hetterly: My inclination would be not to bring it back to us unless 20
there's—I would like an update following the Council session to hear how that went. I 21
think we can certainly watch it on the webcast and get the same presentation, unless they 22
want to come. Of course, I would welcome them to come, but I would hate to ask them 23
to put in the hours of prep time in order to present to us something that they've just 24
presented to Council and we have access to. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Any other comments? No. Doesn't seem like we need that to come back 27 then. It's just Master Plan and possibly aquatics. 28
29
Mr. de Geus: Maybe. 30
31
Chair Lauing: Maybe, why? It's an action item. Any other comments? 32
33
Mr. de Geus: I'm not saying we should do this. We have three Commissioners. The 34
Human Relations Commission for their December meeting has a short meeting, and they 35
all go out to dinner together. Isn't that nice? I'm just saying. 36
37
Chair Lauing: We would have to start our meeting at about 4:00 p.m. to have a short 38
meeting so we could still go out to dinner. 39
40
Vice Chair Knopper: We're just approving it. It's going to be perfect. 41
42
Draft Minutes 59
DRAFT
Commissioner Moss: When do we get … 1
2
Chair Lauing: There's that. Any other items? A motion to adjourn? 3
4
Commissioner Moss: Hold on. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Sorry. 7
8
Commissioner Moss: When do we get your replacements? 9
10
Chair Lauing: They just said that they were going to interview on the 30th. It's for the 11
January meeting. Motion to adjourn? 12
13
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 14
15
Meeting adjourned on motion by Vice Chair Knopper and second by Commissioner 16
Hetterly at 10:25 p.m. 17
Draft Minutes 60
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2016
SUBJECT: DRAFT PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Parks and Recreation Commission:
1. Accept the Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan as the
embodiment of the programs and policies that are tentatively recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and
2. Direct staff to perform CEQA review based on the programs and policies described in the Draft
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan and return to the Parks and
Recreation Commission for final recommendation.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto has 32 parks and four 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 for the near, mid, and long-term as well as funding strategies. The Master Plan process consisted
of three phases:
Phase One: Specific Site and Program Analysis and Community Engagement
The “project team” comprised of City staff and the consultant firm MIG, along with significant review
and input from the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), gathered and analyzed data collected from
Palo Alto’s current parks and recreation system (parks, trails, developed natural open space areas and
recreational facilities and programs) and the community. The Phase One analysis included a physical
inventory of parks and recreation assets, extensive community outreach to identify community and
stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements, and a review of projected
community demographics and recreation trends. This culminated in a list of potential needs and
opportunities for the overall parks and recreation system and is compiled in a “Data and Needs
Summary Matrix”.
To develop a vision for the City’s parks, trails, open space and recreation system, the following eight
principles were developed and provide the foundation for the Master Plan. The Principles reflect the
outcome of the analysis and feedback received during the community engagement process. The
principles, which are defined in Chapter 4 of the Draft Master Plan, are: Playful, Healthy, Sustainable,
Inclusive, Accessible, Flexible, Balanced and Nature.
Phase Two: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities
At the beginning of Phase Two, the results of the data analysis and community input were compiled into
12 areas of focus that identify the major themes and key components that will guide policy and program
recommendations. These areas of focus were developed as part of the on-line community survey as a
means of allowing the community to provide input on the types of projects and programs that should be
prioritized. The areas of focus are presented as Key Findings in the Draft Master Plan. The project team,
working with the PRC, consolidated these areas of focus into five master plan goals. One additional goal
was added to represent the standards for operating existing and future parks, recreation, and open
space systems. The goals will provide overall direction for long term improvements to the parks and
recreation system, while balancing the broad range of interests of Palo Alto’s diverse community with
the natural environment. The goals provide an organizational structure for the policies and programs of
the Master Plan. The Goals are introduced in Chapter 4 of the Draft Master Plan.
Following the goals are policies and programs. The policies, like the goals, were developed from the
analysis work done in phase one and draw on community input, park and program analysis, staff input
and PRC feedback. The programs provide specific actions toward achieving the goals and policies and
represent potential enhancements and expansions for the parks and recreation system including
recreation programming. Programs include specific capital improvements, programs and services, as
well as studies to gather needed data to give direction on capital improvements, programs and services
where there is insufficient data.
Phase two concluded with development of a prioritization process that involves applying a set of criteria
that will guide future implementation. The set of criteria are: fill existing gaps; respond to growth;
address community preferences; maximize public resources; and realize multiple benefits. A list of high
priority projects and programs was also developed and is presented in Chapter 5 of the Draft Master
Plan.
Phase Three: Drafting of the Master Plan, Review and Adoption
The final phase includes a review of the Draft Master Plan by the Community, Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC), and City Council and adoption. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
will be completed prior to City Council adoption of the Master Plan.
DISCUSSION
The first two phases of the Master Plan process are complete and a Draft Master Plan has been
developed and reviewed by the community, stakeholders and the PRC. The Draft Master Plan reflects
comments received from Council during their September 6, 2016 study session. The final steps are to
begin CEQA review and bring the Draft Master Plan and CEQA document to both the PRC and Council for
adoption.
The draft Master Plan was made available for public review on the project web site from November 10,
2016 through December 9, 2016. The website included specific questions related to which of the
Master Plan principles and goals are most important to the respondent and should guide the City’s
2
implementation of the Master Plan. Respondents were asked to select three principles and three goals.
The next set of questions asked the reader to rate what aspect of the Master Plan should the City focus
its efforts toward implementation. The choices included “programs, classes or activities” versus
“physical improvements or new facilities”, and “major upgrades and new facilities” versus “smaller
improvements throughout the system.” The intent of the specific questions was to reaffirm what we
had learned in the community engagement phase of the master planning effort and guide staff into the
implementation phase. An additional open-ended question allowed respondents to provide additional
comments or feedback on the Draft Master Plan. A total of 75 respondents answered the specific
questions with 96% of respondents being Palo Alto residents. A memo summarizing responses received
to the specific questions and comments from the open-ended question is included as Attachment B.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will present the Draft Master Plan to City Council in early 2017. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) is being prepared and will include a public review period and public hearing to
hear comments from the public on the IS/MND. The public hearing will likely occur at the February 2017
PRC meeting. Staff will return to Council in spring 2017 with a recommendation to adopt the Master
Plan along with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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
B. Summary of public review comments
3
PB
PALOALTO
MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 2016 DRAFT
PARKS TRAILS NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
2
i2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public
Works Departments of the City of Palo Alto.
The core team included the following staff members:
Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services
Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services
Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works
Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager
Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
The Parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout
the planning process:
Jim Cowie
Anne Warner Cribbs
Jennifer Hetterly
Abbie Knopper
Ed Lauing
David Moss
Keith Reckdahl
Past Members:
Stacy Ashlund
Dierdre Crommie
Pat Markevitch
CONSULTANT TEAM
MIG, INC.
PALO ALTO COMMUNITY
Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community
members who contributed their time, energy and ideas to this
effort, particularly the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group.
ii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
iiiii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
CONTENTS
MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................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 ........................................................................................................................................................................116
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................... 119
Photo Credits ............................................................................................................................................................. 123
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
iv
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
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
Table 5: Funding Applicability ................................................................................................................................105
Table 6: Existing Indicators ....................................................................................................................................113
Table 7: Recommended Indicators .....................................................................................................................115
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 investments 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 using
what was learned in Phase 1. 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 have the potential
to be maintained, and expanded.
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
Park Search Area B: Lowest population and
lowest population density
Park Search Area D:
Highest population
Park Search Area E:
Highest population density
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 and related work on Safe Routes to School.
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
access 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.
PLAYFUL
HEALTHY
SUSTAINABLE
INCLUSIVE
ACCESSIBLE
FLEXIBLE
BALANCED
NATURE
xi
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
• 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 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.
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
• 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.
High Priority Projects and Programs
There are 34 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 in order of urgency of the project or program. Urgency
was determined by the availability compared to the need, the time
sensitivity or potential for missed opportunities and is discussed in
detail in Chapter five of this plan.
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
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
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 Examples of projects needing further study and funding, and projects that are ready in the short-term based on feedback from the community.
xivxiii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 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
Master Plan Progress Tracking:
Existing measures, from the Citizen Centric Report and the annual
citizen satisfaction survey provide a large selection of indicators
for any part of the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation
system. Additional, recommended indicators include new measures
of satisfactions, performance and funding.
Further progress tracking will include reports 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 update 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. 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: Community Engagement, Specific Site Analysis
and Program Analysis: 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
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 the Community and Stakeholder
Engagement processes and the Technical Assessment and Analysis
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. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/
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. Table 1 lists the Palo Alto parks and natural open
spaces. 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 parks 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
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
and less manicured landscapes are generally not 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 Nature
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 43.2 miles of trail. The Baylands Nature
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 important 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 Nature Preserve (including Byx-
bee 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 Nature 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
* The two parks owned by Stanford are leased by the City. The El Camino lease expires in 2042 and the Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields lease expires in 2056.
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 with the exception of Mitchell and Rinconada Parks. with
7 and 9 tennis courts, respectively. These concentrations 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 spe-
cialized spaces. The building includes a teen center that faces the
park (and the middle school beyond it) and 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 numerous
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.
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
The identified needs and possible opportunities to enhance the
parks and recreation system is based on three types of data and
analyses:
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 (City
of Palo Alto
Scenario 1)
High
Projection
(Association
of Bay Area
Governments)
Population 2014 66,800 66,800
Population 2030 72,285 77,100
Percent Change 10%15%
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 and many elementary
and middle 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 school-aged 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 Think Fund teen grants (previously Bryant Street Garage
Fund) are gaining popularity. Additional programs such as The Drop
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
teen center and LEAP (Learning Enrichment After School Program)
are also well attended. 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 (Source: 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%
FIGURE 4: PROJECTED GROWTH IN PALO ALTO’S SENIOR POPULATION
Source: Avenidas
PROJECT SAFETY NET
“Project Safety Net is a
collaborative community network
held together by a common
interest of fostering youth well-
being in Palo Alto. Our mission
is to develop and implement a
community-based mental health
plan that includes education,
prevention and intervention
strategies that together provide a
“safety net” for youth in Palo Alto,
and defines our community’s teen
suicide prevention efforts.”
2928
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
are foreign-born and 38% speak a language other than English at
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
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
Information Systems (GIS) model of the surrounding streets,
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,
3130
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
including both self-directed and league-based play. Parks
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.
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
• Palo Alto does not have a public gym and the City’s only
public pool is located north of Oregon Expressway. The
addition of a public pool or improving access to other public
or private pools should be explored to provide more access
during peak times.
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
3534
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
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.
• 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
36
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
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.
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.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THEMES
• Walkability and Equity of
Park and Preserve Access
• Activity Access:
º Play for Children
ºExercise and Fitness
ºThrow/Catch/Shoot/
Kick/Hit
ºGather Together
ºRelax 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
• 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.
• 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
38
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
• Geographic Analysis
• Capacity/Bookings
• Perception of Quality
• Expressed Need
• 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
3938
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
• 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
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 Nature 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
Park Search Area B:
Lowest population and
lowest population density
Park Search Area D:
Highest population
Park Search Area E:
Highest population density
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
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
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
Figure 8: 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 rights-of-way (for example, 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 in Charlotte, NC,
New Riverside Park in Boston).
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.
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.
Magical Bridge Playground: 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.
Volunteers assisting with maintenance of a natural area
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.
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.
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.
2.C.5 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to
develop and implement a design and maintenance plan for
high quality natural and synthetic turf fields.
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)
• Bowden Park (North, .37 Acres)
• 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)
2.D.2 Develop rules and regulations specific to dog parks
focusing on safety and limits of use.
*It is acknowledged 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.
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 Management 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.
Nature education programming
6766
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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.
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 Grassroots Ecology (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.
68
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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.
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.
Examples of placemaking improvements
6968
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, 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.
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.
Underhill Parking Garage at UC Berkeley includes a full size soccer field built over a 1,000 space, four-level parking facility.
70
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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.
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.”
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
7170
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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.
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.
Fitness program
72
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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.
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.
7372
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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;
• City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards;
• City of Palo Alto design guidelines and standards; and
• Tree Technical Manual.
Solar installation
74
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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.
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.
Palo Alto park maintenance
7574
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
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.
Example of urban greening/green infrastructure
76
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.
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;
Accessible garbage and recycling receptacles
7776
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
• Recycled Water Project;
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan;
• Comprehensive Plan;
• Public Art Master Plan; and
• Others adopted in the future.
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.
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 REVIEW 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 review process.
The annual review 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) large scale projects that
will require more study and a long-term planning and funding
strategy and 2) those projects that can be initiated immediately,
usually of smaller scale and lower funding requirements. 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
potential 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. TIME FRAME 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 (0-5 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 years): 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 $$$$
OPERATING COST
$ to $$$$
TIME FRAME
Near, Mid, or Long
URGENCY
Low, Medium, or High
86
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$
OPERATING COST
$$$
TIME FRAME
Near (Study and Planning)
Near to Long (Construction)
URGENCY
High
Enhance Existing Sport Fields
With current high demands, heavy wear and potential future
growth, improving and maintaining the City’s large open play fields
with limited resources (water & maintenance budget) requires a
clear plan to maintain quality and longevity. 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 consistent with 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
$$$$
OPERATING COST
$$
TIME FRAME
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 $$$$
TIME FRAME
Near (Planning and Design)
Mid to Long (Construction)
URGENCY
High (Planning and Design)
Medium to High (Developing)
Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center
Cubberley Community Center currently sits on a 35-acre site, of
which 8 acres are owned by the City and the remaining 27 acres
are owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The
City leases the PAUSD’s 27 acres and operates the community
center on the combined 35-acre site. The City and the PAUSD
have committed to jointly develop a plan for the future of the
entire Cubberley Community Center site that represents the
administrative, educational and community needs of the School
District and the City. Planning and design of the site will require
an assessment of the current and projected future needs of the
community with respect to education and recreation. Information
and data gathered as part of this Master Planning effort and
the Citizens Advisory Committee process will help to inform the
needs assessment for Cubberley. Future renovations will provide
increased and enhanced services to the community.
The following steps are recommended to support the future
implementation of this project:
• The City and School District will formalize an agreement
for future development and renovation of the site (Near
Term)
• Prepare a comprehensive master planning study for the
site, including a needs assessment (Near Term)
• Develop a funding strategy for implementation of the
Master Plan (Near Term)
• Plan and develop a long range implementation plan (Near
to Mid Term)
• Implement the master plan (Mid to Long Term)
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Capital improvement funds
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
8988
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$$
OPERATING COST
$$$$
TIME FRAME
Mid (Planning and Design)
Long (Construction)
URGENCY
Medium (Planning and Design)
Medium (Developing)
Plan, design and construct a new gymnasium
Currently the City of Palo Alto has no gymnasiums of its own. A
gymnasium at the Cubberley Community Center is the main gym
utilized by the City, but is owned by Palo Alto Unified School District
and operated by the City through a lease agreement. The middle
school gyms are used for middle school athletic programs while
the Lucie Stern Community Center and Mitchell Park Community
Center are utilized for a variety of physical and social activities.
As of means of responding to growth and to maintain, expand
and provide future programming at least one multi-purpose
gymnasium is recognized as a community need.
The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and
development of this site:
• As part of the planning effort for the Cubberley Community
Center a gymnasium will be considered and determined if
it is compatible with the development direction of the site
or if another separate location should be considered (Near
Term)
• Develop a funding strategy for implementation of a new
gymnasium, or multiple gyms in one building if funding
allows (Near Term)
• Plan and design (Near to Mid Term)
• Construct gymnasium project (Mid to Long Term)
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Capital improvement funds
• Park impact fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
90
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$$
OPERATING COST
$$$$
TIME FRAME
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. During its operational season the pool is in high demand
from the community and local swim groups. To meet growing
demand a programming policy to open the pool for a longer
season and extended times is being explored. Along with increased
demand comes the needs for pool facility improvements. The
existing lap pool is undersized to meet demand in both overall
size and swimming length; falling a few feet short of a regulation
pool length. The existing locker room and restroom facilities are
small and lack separate areas for children, families and adults.
Appropriate pool facility improvements were identified in the
Rinconada Master Plan. They include:
• Expanding and reconfiguring the existing lap pool,
• Full remodel of the existing looker room and restroom
building
• 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 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 impact 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 hydrological 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 impact fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Grants
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium to High
CAPITAL COST
$$$ to $$$$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
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 review of all City-owned land and easements
(starting in park search areas) for potential parkland development
or connection locations, and evaluation of City-owned or controlled
spaces serving or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses
for potential dedication as parkland.
The following additional steps are recommended for acquiring new
parkland:
• Develop and implement a strategy to build up funding
sufficient for future parkland acquisitions
• City staff to review all City-owned property in the high
needs areas for parkland potential
• City staff to develop a process to review and pursue
potential properties available for acquisition or long term
lease for park purposes
• Review options to increase development fees to facilitate
future acquisitions
• City staff to identify undeveloped properties in high
needs areas and pursue purchasing or long-term lease
agreements with the owner
• Develop a process to accept private donations and
bequests of money for parkland
The following steps are recommended to gain community access to
additional parkland through partnerships:
• Collaborate with the school district to make school
ground open space available for use by the surrounding
communities during non-school hours
• Contribute to planning, funding and maintaining the
construction of park elements in school grounds in
collaboration with the school district to ensure community
access, and provide needed park amenities to high need
areas
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$$
OPERATING COST
$$
TIME FRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
High (Funding Strategy)Medium (Implementation)
9392
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
High
CAPITAL COST
$$$
OPERATING COST
$$$
TIME FRAME
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 quality and overall use, along with an operating
cost study that reviews 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
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Capital improvement funds
• Park impact fees
• Outreach to the general community for private donations
• Consider the passing of a bond
• Grants
94
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
$$
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIME FRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
High
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
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
$$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
High
Construct new restrooms in parks
Through this planning process, the community generally came to
a consensus that restrooms make sense in parks with amenities
that draw people, especially children and seniors, and encourage
them stay at the park for a span of time. Though there have been
varying opinions regarding specific sites, additional review will be
conducted to site restrooms and identify security measures such as
automatic locking mechanisms and lighting addressing some of the
concerns related to restrooms.
9594
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$ to $$
OPERATING COST
0 to $
TIME FRAME
Near (Strategic Plan)
Ongoing (Implementation)
URGENCY
High
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$ to $$$
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIME FRAME
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 $$$
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIME FRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Medium
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Medium to Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
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, creating a multi-generational playground.
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
$
TIME FRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
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
$
TIME FRAME
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
$$
TIME FRAME
Near
URGENCY
High
Collaborate with school district to increase access to playgrounds, gyms, and other school facilities
City staff will work with PAUSD to increase access to playgrounds,
gyms and other school facilities. Staff will concentrate on specific
locations in the city with limited park space with the intent of
ensuring access to school open areas and playground during non-
school hours, and establishing a gym use agreement for additional
City programs and activities in school gyms during non-school
hours.
Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors
Palo Alto staff will develop a system and strategies to broaden
the recruitment and training of coaches and instructors, including
exploring public/private partnerships, to meet the programming
demands of the City and to ensure staffing of high quality, qualified
coaches and instructors.
Programs:
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$$
TIME FRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
High
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
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, Think 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
$$
TIME FRAME
Near
URGENCY
High
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
Near
URGENCY
Medium to High
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
Near
URGENCY
Medium
101100
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students
Intramural sports provide the opportunity for children to learn a
new sport, develops social skills, teamwork and builds friendships,
and promotes an active and healthy lifestyle. Palo Alto will explore
creating an intramural sports program for middle and high school
students. Implementation of intramurals will require coordination
with PAUSD and would require additional field and gym space.
Increase the variety of activities available in parks
When renovating parks, Palo Alto staff will explore adding
both active and passive spaces and elements to increase the
variety of activities that can be experienced in a particular park.
Recommended additions to a park should consider the user groups
of the parks as well as different age groups. Further engagement
of the community should be considered. Examples of potential
elements include: outdoor gathering areas, small scale active
spaces (bocce, pickleball courts), and quiet retreat spaces.
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$$
TIME FRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
Medium
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to High
CAPITAL COST
$ to $$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
Medium
Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development
The Palo Alto community highly values accessibility and inclusion.
Community Services will expand therapeutic and inclusive
programming, including increasing funding for staff training in this
area.
102
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers
Providing spaces and programs, both indoors and outdoors
where children can play in a less structured format, away from
electronic devices encourages creativity and problem solving, and
fosters social connections with other youth. Palo Alto will support
unstructured play, such as providing space for “pick-up” games,
providing sports equipment in parks and gyms, and offering
programs with minimal direction and oversight.
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
N/A to $
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIME FRAME
Near to Mid
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
Near
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Low to Medium
CAPITAL COST
N/A
OPERATING COST
$ to $$
TIME FRAME
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, enhancing 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
$
TIME FRAME
Near to Long
URGENCY
Low
PLANNING EFFORT
Medium
CAPITAL COST
$
OPERATING COST
$
TIME FRAME
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
$
TIME FRAME
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.
Examples 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 5 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
TABLE 5: FUNDING APPLICABILITY
106
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
In addition, Palo Alto’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
(IBRC) process established a schedule to “Keep-Up” with the
current maintenance needs of City owned parks, facilities and open
space. The Commission 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.
107106
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
EXAMPLES OF PAST SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS:
Heritage Park:
In 2007, the Friends of Heritage Park gave the City a donation
of $197,572 to contribute towards a capital project to build the
Heritage Park Playground. The City contributed $75,000 towards
the project. Council approved a limited-term agreement with
the Friends of Heritage Park to design, construct, and install the
playground facilities and other improvements at Heritage Park.
Magical Bridge Playground:
The City partnered with the Friends of the Magical Bridge to
design and build Palo Alto’s first “inclusive” playground at Mitchell
Park. The City contributed the land and $300,000 to the project
for planning and design purposes, while the Friends contributed
approximately $3.5 million for construction. A grant was also
secured for $80,000 for improvements to the pathways that lead
to the playground. The playground opened to the public in April
2015 and is a regional draw winning several design awards and
high praise from the community.
Lytton Plaza Renovation:
The City formed a public-private partnership with the Friends
of Lytton Plaza to renovate Lytton Plaza. The Friends donated
$750,000 for the renovation of the plaza. The project was
completed in December 2009.
Acquisition of new park land at the Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve:
The City contributed $1,110,305 along with $2,592,210 in grant
money for the acquisition of 13-acre open space Bressler Property
from the Peninsula Open Space Trust. In October 2002, the
Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) purchased a 13-acre property
from the Estate of Jacqueline Bressler with the intent of holding
the parcel for open space purposes until the City of Palo Alto could
purchase the property. The City acquired the Property and added it
to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve in 2005.
108
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Save the Bay Partnership:
The City partnered with Save the Bay in 2001 in order to
accomplish the shared goal of restoring sensitive wetland habitat at
the Baylands Nature Preserve. Annually, Save the Bay contributes
hundreds of hours of staff time to organize and lead volunteer
restoration programs (35 per year on average) in the preserve. Save
the Bay has also fully funded the cost to construct a native plant
nursery at the Baylands to propagate native plants that volunteers
use to restore Baylands habitat. The partnership continues to
provide benefit to the sensitive habitat at the Baylands Nature
Preserve, and to the Palo Alto community members that participate
in 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.
109108
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
CREATE A SPECIAL DISTRICT
There are several types of special districts allowable by California
law for recreation purposes.
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any
county, city, special district, school district or joint powers authority
to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a “CFD”)
to finance public improvements and services. The services and
improvements that Mello-Roos CFDs can finance include streets,
sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection, fire
protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums
and other cultural facilities.
Formation of a CFD requires a two-thirds vote of residents
living within the proposed boundaries. If there are fewer than
12 residents, then the vote is instead conducted of current
landowners. The assessment cannot be based on property value;
instead it is based on the size of the property or square footage
of structures. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses
needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes
and bonded debt. The special assessment continues until bonds
are paid off and then is typically reduced to a level to maintain the
investments.
The Landscaping and Lighting Act permits a public agency to
assess housing units or land parcels for a variety of city services,
including parks. The assessment revenues can be used for 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.
110
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
COMBINING MASTER PLAN PROJECT WITH OTHER
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
As the primary part of Palo Alto’s green infrastructure, the
parks, natural open space and trails system connects to many
other city services. Some projects can be vital parts of other
infrastructure projects or be applicable for funding from sources for
transportation, stormwater, flood protection and other engineered
infrastructure projects. Combining or coupling Master Plan projects
with other infrastructure projects can reduce the costs all around,
open up new funding streams, provide mitigation and achieve
multiple objectives.
ESTABLISH AN ENDOWMENT FUND FOR MAINTENANCE
Recognizing that operations and maintenance funding is not likely
to get any easier to obtain, Palo Alto could fund, or could seek
philanthropic donations to fund, a endowment for the long-term
maintenance of parks, natural open spaces or recreation facilities.
This effort could be started with a smaller, targeted effort to endow
the maintenance of a specific type of facility and then grown
over time to eventually cover a significant portion of the system
maintenance.
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
111110
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
categories as in the Data and Needs Summary
(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.
112
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Progress Reporting
Palo Alto annually collects data, both internally and from the
community to measure and track performance, budget and
expenditures. 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, including annual
trends. Many of the existing indicators are directly related to
Master Plan goals, while others indirectly provide valuable insight
into the progress of the Master Plan.
Palo Alto has a standing practice of reporting on the annual
National Citizen Survey1, a citizen satisfaction survey as well as
a performance-based “Citizen Centric Report”2, both of which
provide data on parks and recreation programs and services. A
City-wide Performance Report that provides information to City
Council, management and the public contains information on
spending, staffing, workload and performance results. In addition,
there is internal reporting at the department level that informs
program and service delivery decisions, budget proposals and
policy and procedure changes. Below are the existing indicators
and measures that Palo Alto currently collects along with additional
recommended indicators to effectively monitor and report on
Master Plan progress.
1The National Citizen Survey™ is a collaborative effort between the Nation-
al Research Center, Inc., (NRC) and the International City/County Manage-
ment Association. The NRC uses a statistically valid survey methodology to
gather resident opinions across a range of community issues, including the
quality of the community and services provided by the local government.
2 The Citizen Centric Report is a summary document highlighting perfor-
mance, financial data, and an overview of the City’s economic outlook.
113112
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
TABLE 6: EXISTING INDICATORS
Indicator Rating Source
Goals
1 2 3 4 5 6
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole:• Availability of paths and walking trails • Public places where people want to spend time • Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) • Recreational opportunities
1=Excellent2=Good3=Fair4=Poor5=Don’t Know
National Citizen Survey X X X X
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Palo Alto? • Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services • Visited a neighborhood park or City park
1=2 times a week or more 2=2-4 times a month3= Once a month or less4=Not a at all
National Citizen Survey X X X X
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: • City parks • Recreation programs or classes • Recreation centers or facilities • Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts • Palo Alto open space • Your neighborhood park
1=Excellent2=Good3=Fair4=Poor5=Don’t Know
National Citizen Survey X X X X X X
Please rate the quality of Palo Alto’s trees and landscaping for Parks
1=Excellent2=Good3=Fair4=Poor5=Don’t Know
National Citizen Survey X X
Suggested improvements to Parks or Recreation Activities and Programs (open-ended question, which may change annually)
N/A National Citizen Survey X X X X X X
Parks/Land Maintained by Community Services # of acres City of Palo Alto Performance Report X
Participants in community garden program # of participants City of Palo Alto Performance Report X
114
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
Indicator Rating Source
Goals
1 2 3 4 5 6
Visitors at Foothills Park # of visitors City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X X X
Community Services Volunteer Hours in restorative/resource management programs and neighborhood parks
# of hours City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X
Enrollment in recreation classes and camps:• Summer camps and aquatics• Kids (excluding camps)• Adults• Preschool
# of enrolled participants
City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X X X X X
Participants in Teen Programs Number of participants
City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X
Amount of General Fund Expenditures spent on Community Services
Percent of total expenditures Citizen Centric Report X X X X X X
TABLE 6: EXISTING INDICATORS (CONTINUED)
To track progress on Master Plan implementation, additional
specific measurable indicators that relate directly to the goals,
policies and programs were identified. These will be applied and
reported annually to the PRC, City Council and the community.
Additional indicators may be added if a need is identified by staff,
the PRC or City Council. Table 7 lists the recommended additional
indicators.
115114
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION
TABLE 7: RECOMMENDED INDICATORS
Recommended Indicator
Goals
1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of park visitors X X X
Number of visits to community centers, pools and recreation sites X
Diversity of participation and visitors age/culture/ abilities X
Senior participation numbers in recreation programs and services X X
Percent of residents satisfied or very satisfied with the affordability of Recreation programs.X
Percent of residents satisfied or very satisfied with the inclusivity of recreation programs.X
Percent of residents satisfied or very satisfied with the accessibility of Recreation programs.X
Percent of residents who rate the number and variety of recreation programs as good or very good X X
Number of participants in outdoor education programs X X X
Number of new recreation programs, events and locations piloted X X
Percentage of residents who live within a ½ mile distance to a City park X
Number of acres dedicated as park land X
Number of projects that improved accessibility by meeting or exceeding American Disability Act requirements X
Number of dog park users by site X X
Number of timeslots used on sports fields X X X
Percent of athletic fields available for use X X X X
Acres of new native landscape and new habitat X X
Number of public restrooms in parks X
Percent of potable water reduced (based on 2013 base year)X
Amount of funding obtained from grants, sponsorships, and other private funding sources X
Recreation Division budget that is derived from recreation fees X
116
117116
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.
118118
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
119118
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
118
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.
120
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
121120
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
122
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
123122
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 xi
TOP: hustace_mig_santeepark_7321, MIG, Inc.
MIDDLE: 104trailhead, Ty Littell, www.bahiker.com
BOTTOM: Outdoor Fitness Machines, Barry Cawston, http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_
id=3978634
Page xii
TOP: 2012billyhustace_0812_7826_darker, MIG, Inc.
Page xiv
MIDDLE: hustace_0412_anaheimcove_0432, MIG, Inc.
BOTTOM: 8_BigBird’s Climbing Nest06, http://www.japanesesearch.com/big-birds-climbing-nest-in-
universal-studios-osaka/
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/
124
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/
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
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Photo Credits
125124
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation
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.
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 Stanford University*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
* Leased by the City of Palo Alto The El Camino lease expires in 2042 and the Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields lease expires in 2056.
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 Elementary School 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 1 reopening soon after major rennovation
1
1
1 E 1 1
1 0 0 6 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 6
1 E 3
1 E 2
1 E 2
1 E
1 E 2
1 E
1*Yes C 7 3 1
1 C 3
1 C 6 6
C 6 7
1 E 4
1 E 3
1 E 2
1 E 4
1*Yes NA 7 4
C 5
3 1
1 E 3
13 0 2 26 56 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-2C-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)
C-2 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-4C-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
C-4 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-6C-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)
C-6 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-8C-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)
C-8 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-10C-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)
C-10 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)
C-12B-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
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
S t a n f o r d
M o u n t a i n
V i e w
M e n l o P a r k
L o s A l t o s
L o s A l t o sH i l l s
E a s tP a l o A l t o
A t h e r t o n
S a n M a t e o C o u n t y
Po r t o l aV a l l e y
S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y
S t a n f o r d
S a n t a C l 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
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
ston 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 Recreation
Areas for Dogs
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Dog Recreation Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with
Public Access)
C-12 B-13
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
S t a n f o r d
M o u n t a i n
V i e w
M e n l o P a r k
L o s A l to s
L o s A l t o sH i l l s
E a s tP a l o A l t o
A t h e r t o n
S a n M a t e o C o u n t y
P o r t o l aV a l l e y
S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y
S t a n f o r d
S a n t a C l 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
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 Recreation
Areas for Dogs
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Dog Recreation Service Areas
1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance
1 Mile or Less Walking Distance
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with
Public Access)
C-14B-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)
C-14 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)
C-16B-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)
C-16 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-18C-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
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
S t a n f o r d
M o u n t a i n
V i e w
M e n l o P a r k
L o s A l t o s
L o s A l t o sH i l l s
E a s t
P a l o A l t o
A t h e r t o n
S a n M a t e o C o u n t y
Po r t o l a
V a l l e y
S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y
S t a n f o r d
S a n t a C l a r a C ou 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
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
ston 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
78
4956
71 72
42
80
71
36
62
67
75
61
78
39
73
74
69
76
23
69
74
61
85
73
7468
31
64
65
61
48
76
75
67
82
Palo Alto Airport
5955
Overall
Park Quality
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and
Santa Clara County GIS
Stanford
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek
Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City Property
0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000
Feet
Park Quality
10
25
50
75
100
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Trails
Trails
Private Recreation Route
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with
Public Access)
C-18 B-19
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
S t a n f o r d
M o u n t a i n
V i e w
M e n l o P a r k
L o s A l to s
L o s A l t o s
H i l l s
E a s t
P a l o A l t o
A t h e r t o n
S a n M a t e o C o u n t y
P o r t o l a
V a l l e y
S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y
S t a n f o r d
S a n t a C l 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
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
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-2 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.
C-4
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-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-6 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
study sessions.
C-8 C-9
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
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.
To:
From:
Re:
Peter Jensen, Kristen O’Kane, Rob de Geus, Daren Anderson, and
Elizabeth Ames
Lauren Schmitt, Ellie Fiore, Ryan Mottau, MIG
Online Comment Form Results as of 12/2/16
Date: December 5, 2016
The draft Master Plan has been available for public review since early November. To facilitate
public comments, the project team provided an online comment form that includes general
feedback questions and opportunities for detailed feedback. The general feedback questions
focus on the principles and goals, and the specific feedback allows reviewers to provide detailed
comments and feedback.
Figure 1: Screen shot of the feedback form
1
Principles and Goals
The principles and goals section asks the following questions, which are followed by the results:
Through the master plan process, the Palo Alto community has defined a future for parks, trails,
natural open spaces and recreation. This future is encapsulated in the eight principles and six
goals of this plan.
Which of the principles is most important to you and should guide the City's implementation of
this plan? (Check your top three principles)
Figure 2: Results to Date, Top Three Principles
Principle Percent
Number of
Responses
Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and well-being
of individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the
community.
52.0%39
Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for
a system that endures for the long-term.45.3%34
Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and
creates opportunities to learn about and interact with nature.42.7%32
Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community, all ages,
abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income.34.7%26
Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable
spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future
uses.
30.7%23
Playful: Inspires imagination and joy.25.3%19
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.
24.0%18
Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-round and
to get to by all modes of travel.20.0%15
Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 2
Which of the goals is most important to you and should guide the City's implementation of this
plan? (Check your top three goals)
Figure 3: Results to Date, Top Three Goals
Residency in Palo Alto
A question asks whether the commenter lives in Palo Alto. Results show that 96% of
respondents report living in Palo Alto.
Goals Percent
Number of
Responses
Create environments that encourage regular active and passive
activities to support health, wellness and social connections.59.7%43
Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and ecological
principles throughout Palo Alto.52.8%38
Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing
system of parks, recreation, and open space facilities and
services.
44.4%32
Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible,
inclusive, and distributed equitably across Palo Alto.43.1%31
Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and
sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures.36.1%26
Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for
expanding the system 19.4%14
Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 3
Implementing the Plan
Two questions ask for feedback on where to emphasize implementation.
Figure 4: Screen shot of implementation questions
The instructions for these two questions are the same: Indicate the balance between the
choices below by selecting a point on the scale. The tables below show responses to date, with
the average of responses shown below each table.
1 2 3 4 5
Programs, classes,
or activities 1 7 21 31 15
Physical
improvements or new facilities
1.3% 9.3% 28.0% 41.3% 20.0%
1 2 3 4 5
Major upgrades or new facilities 6 11 19 28 11
Smaller
improvements throughout the
system
8.0% 14.7% 25.3% 37.3% 14.7%
AVERAGE 3.69
AVERAGE 3.36
Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 4
Other Comments
The comment page also includes a window that invites people to submit other comments and
feedback.
Summary of comments:
• 37 written comments, ranging from general positive remarks to specific concerns
• The most commonly mentioned topics were related to connectivity and access to parks (in
support of more/better connected parks)
• A small number of comments specifically called out supporting more off-leash dog facilities or natural features
• Other comments were unique in their topic/focus.
The full text of comments received to date is provided below.
Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share about the draft plan?
I think there should be as many green spaces as possible throughout the city so that they are easily accessible to the entire age range within walking distance
Shouldn't we put ALL potential changes in front of the neighbors of each park BEFORE we select and plan those changes? It seems as if the cart is before the horse otherwise. You've probably put a lot of
work in already, and what if each neighborhood argues against your draft plan for their park?
Yes Every recreation does not have to be in a park. Such things as basketball track running walking table sports can be done on buildings. Pa shud consider acquiring such bldg and converting them to
inside gyms. This would save land as open space which is vital to coping with increased density of our city
Thank you for your efforts. I enjoy the green space
Would love to have more reasons to visit Bayshore
Great plan, please prioritize investment to bring it to life.
I don't see a lot of planning for the future. Are large parcels of land in the core of the city for parks, pools and playing fields being identified? Are funds being set aside and earmarked for the purchase of large
tracts of land and the facilities that will make them usable? If not , why not?
I am deeply concerned about any plans to privatize the pool activities. Menlo Park did this and it has
resulted in an aquatics program that is dominated by competitive swimming/masters programs to the almost complete exclusion of residents who want to use the facilities regularly but do not want to be
forced into a program. Maintaining the lap swim schedules or and adding more hours even if there is an added cost or membership would be much more community friendly. I am not surprised that Menlo Park
went the way if a for profit system but Palo Alto is too progressive and community oriented to follow that path. At least I hope!
I like the emphasis on access to parks by biking and walking. Thanks for your continued efforts on bikes/pedestrians and parks. I also like the emphasis on planting trees where there is not canopy.
Sometimes the whole town feels like a park when we are biking.
Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 5
Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share about the draft plan?
Multi-use or Shared Paths should be integrated into the Parks and not be part of the transportation
infrastructure. Bicycles now speeding on these paths in several parks create dangerous situations for youngsters, people with disabilities, folks walking their pets, and older folks. There MUST BE speed limits
established for bicycles, along with signs, and physical changes (rumble strips, for example) to stop bicyclists from speeding, endangering pedestrians, and ruining the outdoor experience of the many folks
who use these facilities.
I would urge the expansion of park land towards the hills, with dirt trails preserved, not paved.
In this era of greater density of housing and constant/ubiquitous traffic, it is essential to Palo Altans' wellbeing and the health of our ecosystems to have open spaces and parks for animals, people, plants to
thrive. Please retain all the wonderful parks we have and consider incorporating more parklands into Palo Alto. This will provide infinite value to the health and wellness of our citizens (kids, seniors, families,
athletes, walkers, etc.) and will serve as a sustainable model for other thriving, expanding cities.
It would be great if many more bike routes could be created to facilities, parks, and other significant places from each neighborhood and elementary/middle/high schools.
We need bathrooms in the neighborhood parks!!
I attended a meeting at Mitchell Library some time ago on the Master Plan. It seems to me we are
spending an inordinate amount of time and money planning and surveying rather than implementing . I support the need for being thorough in planning, but it seems a bit excessive. I think it is time for action.
If not now, when?
I am disappointed to read the report on Rinconada Pool, suggesting that privatizing the site would
improve it. I object to using the lap lanes for private lessons, thereby creating fewer lanes for those of us who use them; it is already very crowded at peak times. Encourage more staff by training and outreach,
by raising salaries and opportunities. Do not outsource our valuable resource. I am 73 years old and have used the pool regularly since 1971 when i moved to this neighborhood. I despair of seeing Palo Alto
change for the worse.
make sure all (large) parks have facilities for visitors.
not enough green in Palo Alto-implement green spaces with indigenous plants
Please leave Bol Park alone. It is a community park, and we welcome visitors who enjoy its quiet, friendly atmosphere.
A lot of these goals and principles are vague and amorphous. Some concrete examples would have
helped.
Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 6
Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share about the draft plan?
We have three creeks running through Palo Alto. They go as straight as possible to the bay, encased in
ugly, concrete beds. It would be beautiful if at least a segment of a creek could be diverted, and could run naturally in a park landscape.
I really like the recent improvements at Mitchell Park. It is now an inviting, multi-use park, but marked with one eyesore: the fenced-in Adobe Creek, bedded in concrete, cutting through the park, separating vital
play areas. I think it should be possible that Adobe Creek is made meandering through part of Mitchell Park, safely contained in a shallow, open flood bed with trees along its run. Of course, a good part of the
year renders Adobe Creek dry. But in summer water could be added and recirculated for that short park segment, similar to pools. Mitchell Park would then be park with a creek, not a canal, and kids for sure
would enjoy playing in a running water.
Providing additional bike friendly corridors and the riparian pathway connecting natural areas are important to me.
We need to expand the usage. Palo Alto has lots of land, and nowhere for the citizens to ride off road
vehicles or shoot our guns. There are several hundreds of us that spend thousands of dollars a year in other city's just to shoot at their outdoor ranges. We need to be more forward thinking to attract others
and to keep our dollars in Palo Alto.
I support our parks having native plant/ pollinator patches in each park, with signage to educate our PA citizens as to what they can do in their own gardens to support native wild life.
Fewer sports fields, more great playgrounds. Love Magical Bridge. Outdoor gyms?
Bring balance to park availability throughout Palo Alto. Triple El has 0 parks (bounded by Embarcadero,
Oregon Expressway and Middlefield) compared to a uniform number of parks available to residents of Palo Alto elsewhere.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzfJH1ImxqGMM0pObWgtSEl2ZFU
More Dog Parks :-)
Overwhelming! But I appreciate the opportunity to comment here and at meetings.
Incremental improvements desirable so no major changes to what is working well;ie add May and Sept to
swim lessons but don't take away 6 lanes for a wide skill variety of mid-day adult and senior lap swimmers.
Need bathrooms in every park. Ensure sports activities do not preclude others from using the parks.
Parks should be a quiet refuge, not a sports arena.
More dog play areas please!
Dog communities throughout the city supported with welcoming LOCAL spaces - especially downtown
with high pop density, walking neighborhoods but NO dog parks currently
thank you for taking the time to draft a great plan! can we have NON-CAR bike paths/trails on this side of the 101 (i.e., not Badlands only)? Like Mountain View's Stevens Creek Trail! And a dance studio in Lucie
Stern Community Center
Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 7
Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share about the draft plan?
The city's tendency is to build new stuff. But resist that tendency. It's far too easy to overbuild and lose
the nature of the place. Some places (e.g., in Foothills Park) should be more-or-less left alone (except for needed maintenance, etc).
It is a very comprehensive and well-thought-out process that has resulted in an impressive document
whose features will be able to be implemented readily, dependent, of course, on staffing and funding.
Better dog parks, especially at Greer! No one uses it so they end up using the fields
Draft Master Plan Comments 12/2/16 8