HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6264
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6264)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 1/25/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Study Session on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Title: Study Session on the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation
Master Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
This is a study session on the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan
(Master Plan) and no action is required.
The Council is requested to provide feedback on the overall master planning process to date as detailed
in this staff report and the attached consultant report (Attachment A), and to provide input on the draft
process for prioritizing projects that is outlined at the end of this report.
Executive Summary
This report provides an update on the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan
(Master Plan), including a summary of the analysis and community outreach that has been completed to
date, a review of how new potential projects and programs will be recommended and prioritized for the
Master Plan, and an update of the project schedule.
The final Master Plan will include the following components:
prioritized list of community identified short-term (within 5 years), mid-term (15 years) and long-
term (20 years) projects and programs that will guide the City’s parks and recreation system.
recommendations for acquiring new park land;
overarching policy direction;
a strategic funding plan to successfully implement the Master Plan;
complementary individual concept plans for each City park and recreational facility; and
suggested enhancements and additions to the City’s recreational programs
As directed by Council at the August 31 study session, staff is returning this evening with an update that
is more comprehensive and inclusive of the in-depth community outreach and analysis staff and the
consultant have completed to date. All documents referenced in this staff report are available on the
City of Palo Alto’s project website at www.paloaltoparksplan.org in the Plan Documents Section. In
addition to this staff report, there is a companion consultant report (Attachment A) that traces the
master planning process along its development in greater detail, highlights key findings and discusses
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the proposed upcoming process for evaluation and prioritization. Staff has also prepared responses to
Council questions asked at the August 31 meeting (Attachment B).
The process to develop the Master Plan includes the following three phases:
1. Phase 1: Specific Site and Program Analysis and Community Engagement: 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.
Including a proactive engagement of the community, and a broad range of stakeholders to help
identify community needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements. (completed)
2. Phase 2: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities: Preparation of
recommendations; identification of capital projects, needed renovations and other
improvements; and prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of short (5-year),
medium (15- year) and long-term (20-year) ranges. (ongoing)
3. Phase 3: Drafting of the Master Plan, Review and Adoption: Public, Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC), and Council review; and Council approval process to adopt the master plan.
(to begin in 2016)
At this time, staff and the consultant team have completed the Technical Assessment and Analysis step
and have conducted the Community and Stakeholder Engagement activities (Phase 1) necessary to
proceed with the Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities (phase 2), although
community and stakeholder engagement will remain ongoing throughout the Master Planning process.
As a result of Phase One, Key Areas of Focus have emerged from the Community and Stakeholder
Engagement and Technical Assessment and Analysis. They include:
Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city
Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community
Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming
Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields
Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks
Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs
Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs
Integrating nature into Palo Alto Parks
Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities
Offering more of existing program, classes and events
Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities
Expanding the park system
These Areas of Focus form the framework of the current community online survey challenge, and are
being used in the refinement of the list of potential project and program ideas. The development of the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Areas of Focus is covered in greater depth in the attached consultant report. (Attachment A - Refer to
Section 5 “Data Summary and Opportunity Analysis” pages 32-35).
A draft list of potential projects and programs has been developed and is being refined by the Project
Team. This comprehensive list will go through a prioritization process currently being formulated and
drafted by staff, consultants and the PRC. The prioritization process will score the potential project and
program ideas into a ranked list of recommended projects and programs that will be reviewed by both
the PRC and Council over the next few months. Some of the projects and programs that have begun to
emerge as community priorities from the site analysis and community input include:
Addition of better dog park facilities throughout the City, but most notably in north Palo
Alto where no dog parks exist
Addition of community gardens, especially in south Palo Alto where no community
gardens exists
Addition of restrooms in parks
Renovation of current athletic fields to provide a wider range of uses. For example, a
multi-use field could be striped for football, soccer and lacrosse
Improvement of connections to parks by upgrading the walking experience between
parks and surrounding neighborhoods
Increased programs for youth and elderly populations
Maintenance of the high level of services the current park and recreation system
provides
Increase of health and wellness activities in parks and programs
Providing more access to nature in parks and programs
Addition of park and recreation opportunities in underserved areas of Palo Alto
Upgrading existing or addition of a new pool, community center and gymnasium facility
in south Palo Alto
Staff and the consultant team plan to return to the Council in the spring of 2016 to review and discuss
the list of prioritized recommendations. Staff will return to Council again in the summer of 2016 to
review the draft Master Plan, and expects to bring the final draft to Council for approval by early fall of
2016. Given the additional time that has been used to develop the prioritization process, the updated
schedule to complete the Master Plan is extended by approximately six months from the previous
schedule.
Background
A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (PE-
13003) was adopted by Council for the 2013 Fiscal Year. The purpose of this project 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 guidance regarding future
renovations and capital improvement needs for parks and recreation facilities and programs. The master
plan will also include recommendations to meet demands for future recreational, programming,
environmental, and maintenance needs and establish a prioritized schedule of future park renovations
and facility improvements.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Though the Master Plan addresses trails and natural open space, it is not intended to provide specific
guidance on how best to manage and maintain the City’s trails and open space preserves. Existing plans,
such as the Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan (2001) and the Foothills Park Trail
Maintenance Plan (2002), provide guidance on the management of trails. There are also future plans,
such as the 2017 Capital Improvement Project to complete a Baylands Comprehensive Conservation
Plan, which will provide specific guidance on vegetation and habitat management, wildlife management,
and wildlife-appropriate public access. Similar comprehensive conservation plans will be created for
Foothills Park and Pearson Arastradero Preserve. This Master Plan will only look at developed areas in
the City’s natural open space areas such as parking lots, picnic areas and facilities and make
recommendations on how they can best be enhanced.
The “project team” comprised of City staff and the consultant firm MIG, along with significant review
and input from the PRC has spent the first 18 months of the project focused on gathering and analyzing
data collected from Palo Alto’s current parks and recreation system and the community. The analysis in
Phase One included a thorough physical inventory of parks and recreation assets, extensive community
outreach, and a review of projected community demographics. This culminated in a list of potential
needs for the overall parks and recreation system and is compiled in a “Data and Needs Summary
Matrix”, which references specific data points that support the summarized needs. It should be noted
that one of the main needs expressed by the community is to continue to maintain the already high
level of quality services and amenities the current parks and recreation system provides, which the
community identifies as a tremendous asset to the City
The Master Plan process is currently in Phase Two: developing recommendations and prioritization of
potential project and program ideas. Over the past three months the project team, with assistance from
the PRC, has constructed a draft framework to guide the process of defining and prioritizing
recommendations. The third and final phase of the Master Plan process will include the drafting and
adoption of the Master Plan inclusive of PRC, community stakeholders and Council review and approval.
Discussion
At the August 31, 2015 study session, Council requested a more in-depth review of the master planning
process and summary of findings to date. This staff report, and the attached consultant report
(Attachment A), provide significantly more background and detail on the planning process and public
outreach that staff, the consultant and the PRC have been engaged in throughout the project timeline.
The consultant report (Attachment A) includes an introduction on the purpose of the Master Plan
followed by a summary of the technical assessments of existing conditions, public outreach and data
summary and opportunity analysis. For the past year-and-a-half the project team has worked to provide
ongoing meaningful opportunities for public input and engagement which will continue throughout the
process. As referenced in the consultant report the project team has collected a wide range of
community input concerning the parks and recreation system: what the community believes is working
well and what is not, community interests and possible areas for greater investment. In the consultant
report, at the end of each data collection or source section, a summary of key findings is provided. While
not all the data gathered and analyzed are in this updated report, this more detailed report illustrates
the extensive outreach and analysis completed to provide Council with a greater understanding and
confidence in the process that has been conducted to date.
Guided by community input, the Master Plan is designed to be an actionable working document that will
City of Palo Alto Page 5
guide staff, and appointed and elected officials, on how to best manage Palo Alto’s parks and recreation
system for many years to come.
The following areas of discussion represent some of the key highlights in the evolution of the master
planning process including:
PRC Involvement
Summary of the community outreach plan and activites
Master Plan Principles and Areas of Focus
Next steps in the Master Plan process
The accompanying MIG report (Attachment A) provides the consultants’ perspective on the process,
delves into greater detail of anaysis results, and highlights key findings that have emerged during the
public outreach of the planning process.
Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Involvement
The PRC has been closely involved with the master planning process from the inception of the project.
Beginning in June of 2013 a Commission Ad Hoc Committee was formed to provide feedback on the
project’s Request for Proposal (RFP) and to take part in consultant interviews. Per the feedback provided
by the PRC, the Master Plan scope was expanded to encompass all the aspects of Palo Alto’s parks and
recreation system including: trails, natural open spaces and recreational programming. The Commission
has worked closely with the project team to create a meaningful and engaging master planning process,
and has provided a strong guiding voice in steering its formulation. To date, the Commission has
discussed the Parks Master Plan at all of its monthly meetings since September 2014, has held one
special meeting to discuss and finalize the community survey, and has formed several Ad Hoc
Committees to assist staff and consultants with stakeholder outreach, survey development, community
meetings and the development of a framework for Phase Two - Recommendations and Prioritization. All
Parks and Recreation Commissioners have been closely involved with the project, and have provided
valuable insight.
PRC Involvement and meeting agenda item reviewed:
● July 2013 PRC Meeting: Review the Master Plan RFP
● July 2013 - January 2013 PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed: Review RFP, participate in consultant
interviews
● February 2014 PRC Meeting: Introduction of consultant team; discuss involvement of PRC in planning
process
● May 2014 PRC Meeting: PRC presents consultant with list of prioritization for the Master Plan
● June 2014 PRC Meeting: Review the community outreach plan
● September 2014 PRC Meeting: Review initial analysis data (Park inventory, demographics, and
geographic and planning environment summaries)
● October 2014 PRC Meeting: Review initial analysis data (Mapita survey, recreation programming
inventory) and discuss framework for community workshop
● October 2014 – Present: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to comment on the structure of and attend
community meetings
● March 24, 2014: Master Plan study session with Council and PRC
● October 2014 - November 2014: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to draft community survey
● November 2014: Special meeting called to review final draft of community survey
City of Palo Alto Page 6
● December 2014 PRC Meeting: Community Outreach Update
● January 2014 PRC Meeting: Discuss need for providing reference to data
● February 2015 PRC Meeting: Review data matrix summary draft
● March 2015 PRC Meeting: Review initial analysis data (Community survey summary, existing
conditions maps of each park and preserve)
● March - June 2015: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to draft summary needs matrix
● April 2015 PRC Meeting: Data matrix draft review, distribution of project binder, additional
community survey findings discussed.
● May 2015 PRC Meeting: Data survey matrix update and in depth review
● June 2015 PRC Meeting: Introduction and discussion of principles
● June – October 2015: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to draft principles, areas of focus, community
on-line challenge and criteria
● July 2015 PRC Meeting: Review revised principles and introduced criteria
● August 2015 PRC Meeting: Review on-line community challenge survey
● September 2015 PRC Meeting: Review on-line community challenge and discuss criteria
● October 2015: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to assist with drafting Council update
● December 8, 2015 PRC Meeting: Review of rough draft recommendations and prioritization
framework
The PRC was instrumental in drafting the online survey with staff and consultants. Initially the
Commission was concerned that the first draft of questions did not provide sufficient depth and
specificity for community feedback to guide the development of the plan. Staff and the Commission Ad
Hoc Committee met multiple times to draft the survey, and held a special meeting with the full
Commission to review and approve the survey. Key additions and revisions to the survey included:
questions regarding the appropriate uses for 10.5 acre land bank at the golf course; priorities for
protecting natural resources as well as connecting people with nature; barriers to participation in
community/recreation programming; priorities for new or enhanced recreation programs; and preferred
ways to accommodate recreation for off-leash dogs. The survey generated over 1,100 responses and
along with the other forms of community outreach provided a diverse range of community input
(Attachment A - Refer to Section 4 “Community Outreach” pages 21-30).
City staff and the PRC felt it was essential to collect, review and reference the broad range of meaningful
data in the first phase of the project. Due to the extent of quantitative and qualitative data gathered,
the PRC challenged the project team to provide direct reference back to the data set when producing
the summary list of potential needs. To meet this challenge, the project team gathered a wide range of
site and facility analysis as well as community input and created what is now known as the Data and
Opportunity Summary Matrix. To assemble the matrix a set of evaluation categories were defined and
used to evaluate the park and recreation system. These included geographic analysis, capacity/bookings,
demographic trends, projected needs, facility and programming needs and community preferences.
Those measurements superimposed a big-picture perspective on the range of potential needs identified
throughout the data collection phase. As a means of documenting the data used to support the matrix
findings, a project binder was compiled and is directly referenced in the matrix providing section
numbers and specific page numbers within the data binder where the data that supports the findings
can be located.
The information compiled in the data binder is also available in a virtual binder, and is available on the
project website for council, commission and community convenience and accessibility. The project
City of Palo Alto Page 7
website is the primary location to review all Master Plan information. As a means of simplifying the web
page the project information has been organized to reflect the order of the data binder created for each
of the Park and Recreation Commissioners. A data binder index (Attachment C) has been added to the
Master Plan web page and directly links all planning documents for the Master Plan into a consolidated
and searchable list. This list includes all the analysis data and summaries collected in Phase One as well
as the “Data and Opportunity Summary Matrix”. The Council is encouraged to visit the project web site
and to review the matrix and associated data and stay updated with the project status. (Attachment A -
Refer to Section 5 “Data Summary and Opportunity Analysis” pages 31-35, and the Data Sources Index).
Project Web Page:
http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/
Project Binder Index:
http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/CPA_Parks_MasterPlan_Data%20Sources.pdf
Summary of Public Outreach
Staff and the consultant, along with input from the PRC, crafted a robust public outreach strategy that
included a wide variety of engagement tools and activities allowing multiple opportunities for the
community to provide input and participate in the planning process. These numerous opportunities for
participation have included a variety of formats, times and levels of interaction, as well as both on-line
and in-person outreach methods. (Attachment A - Refer to Section 4, “Public Engagement Activities to
Date” in pages 21-30).
A Master Plan Stakeholder Advisory Group (Stakeholder Group) was formed to provide a community
input source for members of the community directly connected with the parks and recreation system
(see list below). The Stakeholder Group has met twice, once during the analysis and feedback portion of
the project in spring of 2014, and most recently on October 1, 2015 to receive a project update in
preparation for the recommendation and prioritization phase of the project. They will meet again in the
coming months to assist in providing input on the prioritization of project and program
recommendations, and again in spring 2016 to review the draft Master Plan. The Stakeholder Group
assists in promoting the master planning process by distributing information to their organization
members and partners (Attachment A - Refer to Section 4 “Community Outreach” Stakeholder Advisory
Group pages 24-25).
The Stakeholder Group is comprised of representatives from the following groups:
Friends of the Palo Alto Parks
Palo Alto Unified School District
Palo Alto Recreation Foundation
Canopy
Avenidas
Palo Alto Youth Council
Teen Arts Council
Stanford University
Palo Alto Dog Owners
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Girl Scouts
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Boy Scouts
Save the Bay
Audubon Society
Palo Alto Parents Club
Teen Advisory Board (Youth Representative)
Cubberley Advisory Group
Palo Alto Unified School District
Acterra
Public Arts Commission
Palo Alto Bike Advisory Committee
Art Center Foundation
Palo Alto Soccer Club
Abilities United
The project team has also met separately with several members of the stakeholder organizations such
as Avenidas, Palo Alto-based youth sports organizations, the Palo Alto Dog Owners Association and
Cubberley Community Center tenants to discuss their specific connection to the parks and recreation
system, and their hopes and interests for the future. These interviews provided in-depth feedback
regarding dog parks, athletic field use, the middle school sports program and the Cubberley Community
Center.
Along with community meetings and online survey tools, interactive community workshops provided
input at key project milestones. A series of three community meetings were held in fall 2014 that
allowed the community to provide input on maintaining and enhancing the parks and recreation system.
Furthermore, the project team and PRC members conducted six “intercept surveys” to collect input
from visitors at parks, farmers markets and community events that were less formal than the
community meetings and provided a diverse range of community feedback.
Community Outreach Methods used to Date:
(3) Community workshops
(6) Intercept groups
(2) Stakeholder meetings
Individual stakeholder group meetings
o Cubberley tenants
o Athletic field users
o Middle School Athletic Program staff
o Palo Alto dog owners
o Avenidas
o Rinconada Pool users
o Boost Fitness Program staff
o Athletic field scheduling staff
Online surveys
o Mapita (Interactive Survey)
o Community Online Survey
City of Palo Alto Page 9
o Online Community Challenge Survey (currently active)
Boards and Commission meetings
o PRC monthly review and input on Parks Plan progress (25 meetings)
o 2 Council Study Sessions
o Public Art Commission meeting
The current online survey challenge allows the public to share their relative preferences for how and
where they would like the City to invest limited resources. The survey allows participants to allocate
a finite amount of virtual funds to the areas of focus the participant feels are most important
(prioritization). This ranking task of assigning value to the areas of focus (refer below for a discussion
of the areas of focus) occurs multiple times, requiring the participant to consider a variety of options
and trade-offs.
The online survey challenge is currently active. Staff encourages the community and Council to
participate in the survey, which can be found on the project web page.
Online Survey Challenge:
www.paloaltoparksplan.org
http://lime.migwebtech.com/index.php/survey/index/sid/663595/lang/en
Master Plan Principles and Areas of Focus
As a result of the Master Plan’s extensive public outreach, a number of community Principles for the
Parks and Recreation system became apparent. These concepts dovetailed with input from the PRC and
staff as well as the data analysis included in the Data and Opportunity Summary Matrix. The principles
articulate a common vision and set of values for the parks and recreation system. The Principles were
the focus of discussion at the August 31, 2015 Council Study Session. They have been used initially by
the project consultant (MIG) as one tool in the development of the draft list of potential projects and
program ideas, and will be used in the future by staff, Council, and Commissions to evaluate and
improve new proposed projects. The principles are utilized to confirm that a proposed project or
program meets the core values of the community. They are not used to rank potential project or
programs, but to guide future projects to explore opportunities to include as many of the principles in
their scope as feasible. The project team, Commission, and a Commission Ad Hoc Committee have
worked closely to refine the principles. The revised Principles in the accompanying MIG report
(Attachment A) are the result of community collaborative effort. Council feedback at the August 31,
2015 study session was especially helpful, and led to further refinement of the Principles such that
“Nature” was added as an eighth principle (Attachment A - Section 6 “Master Plan Process to Develop
and Prioritize Projects” pages 35-36).
The following eight Principles provide the foundation for the Master Plan, articulating Palo Alto’s vision
and guiding project and program implementation.
1. Playful: Inspires imagination, creativity and enjoyment.
2. Healthy: Supports the physical, social and emotional health and well-being of individuals as well
as the connectedness and cohesion of the community.
3. Sustainable: Proactive stewardship of natural, economic and social resources for a system that
City of Palo Alto Page 10
endures over the long-term.
4. Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community, all ages, abilities, languages, cultures
and levels of income.
5. Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-round and to get to by all modes of travel.
6. Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate
traditional, emerging and future uses.
7. Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place, and includes historic
elements and modern features, highly manicured and more organic spaces, and self-directed
and programmed activities.
8. Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn
about and interact with nature.
A subsequent step of the planning process was the development of the Areas of Focus. The Areas of
Focus condense the many opportunities compiled in the “Data and Opportunity Summary Matrix”. The
twelve Areas of Focus represent the main types of opportunities and improvements identified from the
analysis and community input to enhance the parks and recreation system. They were developed to
allow the community to provide feedback on priorities, and to structure the draft list of potential
projects and program ideas. (Attachment A - Refer to Section 5 “Data Summary and Opportunity
Analysis” for the Areas of Focus pages 33-35).
The Areas of Focus are:
Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city
Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community
Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming
Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields
Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks
Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs
Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs
Integrating nature into Palo Alto Parks
Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities
Offering more of existing programs, classes and events
Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities
Expanding the park system
Next steps
Phase 2: Recommendations and Prioritization
Phase Two of the Master Plan process, which began in fall 2015, focuses on developing and prioritizing
recommendations. The recommendation and prioritization process includes feedback from the PRC and
Council. Recommendations will be derived from ranking of the list of potential project and program
ideas. The evaluation process provides the basis for determining which potential projects and programs
will be included in the final Master Plan report. The process is intended to be concise, defensible and
consistent with community interests, and to lead to clear, actionable recommended projects and
programs.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
The Recommendations and Prioritization process includes two steps:
Step 1: Draft the Initial List of project and program recommendations:
The consultant (MIG) has generated an initial list of potential recommended projects and
programs based on the data analysis and community input from Phase One, as well as
compatibility with the Principles. The list of potential recommended projects and programs
includes available data that support potential recommendations. The PRC reviewed the initial
draft list at its December 8, 2015 meeting. Staff, MIG and the PRC continue to work on the on
the list to ensure it is consistent with and addresses public, stakeholder, PRC and Council input.
Step 2: Develop and apply criteria for evaluating potential recommended projects and
programs:
Once the list of potential projects and program ideas has been finalized, each will be evaluated
by the project team using the developed criteria and ranked using a point system. The criteria
and evaluation point system is currently being refined by the project team and the PRC. Upon
completing the criteria evaluation (scoring and ranking), a prioritized list will be assembled. This
list will then be reviewed by the project team and the PRC to confirm that it contains a balanced,
complete set of recommendations that meets the goals of the project.
Draft criteria have been developed with input from the PRC and the Commission Ad Hoc committee. The
five identified criteria for prioritizing project and program recommendations are:
1. Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (park land, facilities, programs) to areas of
the city and to users where gaps were identified.
2. Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs
identified through citywide outreach.
3. Respond to growth: Add features or programs; modify or expand components of the system
to prepare for and address increasing demand.
4. Leverage public resources: Create the most benefit possible for each dollar spent on capital
and operating costs.
5. Realize multiple benefits: Advance the Principles of the Master Plan as well as the goals,
projects and directions of other adopted City efforts.
Please refer to Attachment D for a graphic representation of the draft Recommendations and
Prioritization process.
Staff and the consultant team plan to return to the Council in the spring of 2016 to review and discuss
the list of prioritized recommendations. Staff will return to Council again in the summer of 2016 to
review the draft Master Plan, and expects to bring the final draft to Council for approval by early fall of
2016. Given the additional time that has been used to develop the prioritization process, the updated
schedule to complete the Master Plan is extended by approximately six months from the previous
schedule.
Timeline
Project Schedule
Phase I (Data Gathering and Analysis Phase): Complete
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Phase II (Recommendation and Prioritization Phase): Current – Spring 2016
Phase III (Draft and Adoption of the Master Plan): Summer 2016 – Fall 2016
Anticipated adoption of the Master Plan: Winter 2016
Upcoming Council Involvement
Council Study Session January 2016: Review public outeach and draft prioritization process
Council Study Session April/May 2016: Review prioritized list of recommendations
Council Study Session August/September: Review the draft Master Plan report
Council Adoption November/December 2016: Review and approve Master Plan
Resource Impact
Funding for this study and planning process is provided in Capital Improvement Program project PE-
13003: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan.
The objective of this study is to assess the long-term needs for development and improvement of
existing parks, open space areas, regional trails and recreation facilities; the acquisition of new park land
or expansion of existing park land to meet the on-going needs of the community; meeting the strategic
maintenance needs of existing facilities in a cost-effective manner; the prioritization of recommended
improvement and acquisition projects; and to provide funding strategies (public and private) for the
improvements and acquisitions suggested by the report. The intent of this planning is to utilize limited
Capital Improvement Fund and other resources wisely and effectively, and to leverage these resources
with grants or private funding whenever possible. The Master plan will make recommendations that
could call for new investments in the future. As noted earlier, included in this the Master Plan will be
the development of a strategic funding plan to successfully implement the recommendations.
Due to the in-depth nature of the Master Plan process along with additional meetings, community
outreach, data analysis and extended project schedule, the project team is currently analyzing the
project budget and scope and anticipates proposing additional funding to complete the final report as
part of the FY 2017 capital budget process.
Policy Implications
The proposed Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan 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.
Environmental Review
This is a planning study and therefore exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA guidelines.
Eventually, as projects and recommendations of the Master Plan are implemented as capital
improvement projects, an environmental assessment will be completed in conformance with the
provisions of CEQA.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Consultant Update Report (PDF)
Attachment B - Council Question Responses (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Attachment C - Project Binder Index (PDF)
Attachment D - Prioritization Process Diagram (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A: PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN COUNCIL UPDATE
REVISION 4 12/15/15
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION: NEED, PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE MASTER PLAN ........................ 1
2. ELEMENTS OF THE PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION
SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................................... 3
3. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS RESULTS ....................................................... 3
4. COMMUNITY OUTREACH .................................................................................................... 21
5. DATA SUMMARY AND OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 31
6. MASTER PLAN PROCESS TO DEVELOP AND PRIORITIZE PROJECTS .......................... 36
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Greer Park ..................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Foothills Park ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 4: Cubberley Community Center……………………….. ..................................................... 9
Figure 5: Park Walksheds Map ................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Exercise and Fitness Analysis Map ............................................................................. 19
Figure 7: Community Engagement Across the Master Plan Process ......................................... 21
Figure 8: Current Content Feature on paloaltoparksplan.org ..................................................... 24
Figure 9: What is Most Important When You Choose Recreation Programs .............................. 25
Figure 10: Site-Specific Comments on Bol Park ......................................................................... 26
Figure 11: Routes to Respondents’ Closest Parks ..................................................................... 27
Figure 12: Visual Preference Survey Results ............................................................................. 28
Figure 13: Data Binder and Summary Matrix .............................................................................. 31
Figure 14: Screen Capture of a Portion of the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix ........... 33
Figure 15: Developing and Prioritizing Projects in the Master Plan Process .............................. 36
Figure 16: Project and Program Evaluation Process………………………………………………..40
Table 1: Plan Elements and Components .................................................................................. 32
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 1
1. INTRODUCTION: NEED, PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE MASTER PLAN
This report has been prepared by the MIG team in response to City Council direction at the
August 31 study session, as an attachment to the updated Staff Report prepared by the city
team. It provides the context for how the principles and criteria discussed at the study session
emerged, distilling and providing a summary of the findings to date, as directed by Council. The
full reports referenced in this document are available online at http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/
in the Project Updates library.
As noted in the staff report, Palo Alto residents, employees and visitors value and enjoy the
City’s high-quality system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open spaces. To
build on and continue the legacy of a strong parks system, the City is developing a Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) that will reflect Palo Alto’s
strong commitment to providing high-quality outdoor spaces and recreational activities for our
community.
The last comprehensive, citywide study of current and projected community recreation and park
facility needs was completed in 1965. The new Master Plan will provide clear 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, open
space and conservation; and provide adequate funding to meet on-going needs.
The Master Plan will provide recommendations about future renovations and capital
improvements for parks, trails, natural open space and recreation facilities. It will also include
recommendations for how to meet changing needs and evolving demands for future recreation,
programming, environmental and maintenance investments and establish a prioritized schedule
of park renovations and facility improvements for the next 20 years.
The planning process to develop the Master Plan includes the following tracks, as shown in
Figure 1.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Proactive engagement of the public and a
broad range of stakeholders to identify community needs, interests and preferences for
system enhancements.
Technical Assessment and Analysis: 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.
Developing and Prioritizing Projects: Preparation of recommendations; identification of
capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritization of
projects into an implementation timeline of short (5-year), medium (10- year) and long-
term (20-year) ranges.
Plan Review and Adoption: Public review and approval process to adopt the plan.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 2
Figure 1: Planning Process
For clarity, the following terms are used:
MIG team or consultant team refers to MIG, Inc., and its staff members, under contract
to assist Palo Alto with developing the Master Plan
Project team refers to the joint City/MIG working team, including the project
management teams from both entities.
City team refers to the cross-departmental City team leading the Master Plan effort
internally.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 3
2. ELEMENTS OF THE PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND
RECREATION SYSTEM
To facilitate the analysis and understanding of Palo Alto’s system of resources, the project team
defined three elements that comprise the citywide network of parks, natural open spaces, trails
and recreation facilities and programs:
Parks, Trails and Natural Open Spaces: The public parks, trails and natural open
spaces, ranging from small neighborhood parks to urban plazas to the city’s expansive
preserves.
Recreation Facilities: The places and buildings or other structures that are the setting for
programs, classes, sports, events and other formal or informal activities.
Recreation Programs: The programs, classes and special events coordinated by
Recreation Services and partner organizations.
By defining these elements, the project team created a common language to articulate Palo
Alto’s community assets, providing consistency, clarity and structure that will carry forward into
the Master Plan.
3. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
To ensure a comprehensive, data-driven Master Plan, the project team conducted a significant
amount of assessment and analysis. The result is a detailed understanding of the current
system of parks, trails, natural open space, recreation facilities and recreation services. The
project team also evaluated needs and opportunities, including forecasting changes and trends
that may influence future demand and preferences.
Each work product underwent a thorough review process, first by the City team, and then by the
Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC). Each analysis contributed to the next step in
understanding and evaluating the system. This section provides brief descriptions of the
analysis conducted and what we learned at each step. For more detail, the project website
contains the full documents summarized here.
Inventory and Base Map
The first step of the Master Plan process was to identify all existing parks, trails and natural
open spaces, as well as recreation facilities. This effort included a detailed inventory listing the
name, location, ownership, size (in acres) and defining features of all city-owned parks, facilities
and open space preserves. Recreation facilities were inventoried, including their physical
location where they are integrated in parks. The MIG team also prepared a GIS base map
linked to the inventory tables, depicting the City-owned sites, school district sites and other
recreation resources.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 4
What we learned:
Palo Alto owns over 173 acres of park space distributed throughout the city as well as
over 4,000 acres in natural open space preserves.
City parks are diverse in size and amenities, but many are older and/or have aging
facilities.
The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) owns several facilities that provide
important community recreation sites and facilities. One of these is the Cubberley
Community Center, owned by PAUSD and operated by the City.
How we used this information:
The inventory data was used to guide the site analysis visits, and provided the basis for
several community engagement tools (including the online map-based survey)
Site Analysis Visits and Existing Conditions Maps
The MIG team visited each park, facility and preserve to document and evaluate existing
conditions. Following this fieldwork, the MIG team prepared an existing conditions map for each
site, which includes site history, a summary of features and a description of opportunities and
constraints. Each map also incorporates site-specific public input generated through the
community engagement process described in Section 4. This set of maps presents detailed
information about each park, preserve and facility, and will become an Appendix in the Master
Plan. Three examples of these products (on the following pages) depict Greer Park (a park),
Foothills Park (a preserve and natural open space) and Cubberley Community Center (a major
recreation facility).
What we learned:
Due to the era when they were built, many parks don’t have flexible spaces that allow
different uses to be layered in. Rather, they provide a collection of spaces designed for a
single activity. With design interventions, many existing parks have the potential to
support more use and activity.
Native species and drought-tolerant plants are not present or well integrated in many
parks, though the preserves are rich with native species. Mown turf grass is a
predominant feature in most parks.
The parks are highly developed with maintained landscapes across their entire acreage.
Native species and less manicured landscapes are not incorporated.
The preserves include an extensive network of trails, a variety of wildlife habitats, large
expanses of conservation land, and some recreation facilities.
Though there are designated dog parks, these tend to be small and isolated from other
park uses.
The community centers vary greatly in their age and condition, but are being used for a
broad range of activities.
The city owns, manages and maintains dozens of rectangle and diamond sports fields
located throughout the city. Some are in parks, others are adjacent to community
centers, and others in field complexes.
Electrical towers and power lines
Service access road
Electrical utilities
Adjacent open space
EMERSON SCHOOL
BAYLANDSNATURE PRESERVE
AMA
R
I
L
L
O
A
V
E
COLO
R
A
D
O
A
V
E
W
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
1
0
1
-
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
F
W
Y
E
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
R
D
SI
M
K
I
N
S
C
T
baseball field
softball field
softball field
softball field
soccer field
soccer field
soccer field
(2) soccerfields
parking
play area
basketballcourts
low-use turf area
skate park
waterwise plantings
picnicarea
picnicarea
A
C
D
B
A | View of freeway from park
B | Skate bowl play feature
C | Picnic area garbage cans
D | Dog run area
N
GREER PARK
Location: 1098 Armarillo AvenueOwner: City of Palo AltoSize: 22 acresYear: 1967
HISTORY Greer Park has grown from a 5-acre neighborhood park to a 22-acre multi-use area. The original five acres were acquired in 1963 and dedicated as Amarillo Park in September of 1965. Originally created as a neighborhood park, it has been expanded to serve as a regional park for a growing population.
It was renamed John Lucas Greer Park in 1967, in keeping with the policy of honoring Palo Alto historical figures. Captain John Lucas Greer, an Irish seafarer, was born in 1808 and came to the San Francisco Bay in 1849. He sailed up San Francisquito Creek, decided to settle in the area, and leased some acreage for farming. Greer became a successful rancher, founded the Woodside Library, and was a trustee of the Woodside School. The family moved to Palo Alto in the 1860s.
EXISTING CONDITIONS•Located just south of Highway 101•Features several athletic fields, a smalldog park and the City’s only skate park•A blend of recycled and potable wateris used at this site•Has numerous picnic areas, includingthe newly added Scott Meadows withmany benches•Children's playground built in 2010 isaccessible to users of many differentabilities•The fields are often used for largebaseball/soccer tournaments andhave very good drainage•The bathroom building is adequatein size and efficient for cleaning andsafety•Parking is adequate both in the lotand on adjacent streets•Five athletic fields in one locationallow the park to serve as a sports,tournament, and special event facility
Figure 2: Greer Park
5
ESSENTIAL PARK ACTIVITIES Play for Children Throw a Ball Exercise and Fitness Gathering Relax and Enjoy Outdoors
ADDITIONAL PARK FEATURES•Dog play area•Skate park
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTSAccess•The gate between the day care and businessesbetween the park and the freeway is locked
Facilities•Basketball courts are in poor condition•There is a very small, dated dog exercise areathat only serves a small number of dog owners•Users sometimes run their dogs on the LittleLeague field. The field could be enclosed withfencing and used as a shared dog exercise areaduring certain hours of the day and playingfields at other hours.•Dog bites to children have occurred, both off-leash and on-leash•The skate bowl is outdated. The bowl is designedfor skaters but is often used by BMX bikersdespite the existing rules stating that it is forskateboarders only. The mix of uses may bedangerous for users.•The skate bowl is also uneven and potentiallyunsafe, and the fencing is in very poor condition•Skate area could be relocated to northwestside of the park at low-use turf area; could beexpanded to a multi-use facility•The upcoming CIP will replace fencing and repairskate bowl surfacing, but does not includeadditional skate park amenities needs•Par course stations are out-of-date and seldomused, but there is potential for an outdoorworkout facility/gym
Planting•The use of recycled water has a detrimentaleffect on some of the landscaping•A “Got Space” report suggested one syntheticfield for the north, south, east and west areas ofPalo Alto and Greek Park could serve as the eastlocation
Furnishings•Park lighting is fairly old•The picnic area near the parking lot issurrounded with an overabundance of plasticgarbage cans
Etiquette/Behavior•There are instances of offensive graffiti, whichneeds to be cleaned up•The parking lot is often used for illegal drugactivity in the evening
Expansion•There is a turf area associated with a utilitysubstation across the street from ScottsMeadow that could be acquired and possiblyused as a dog park
SITE-SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT•A gate prevents bike trailers and tandem bikesfrom passing over the Oregon Expressway/101bicycle pedestrian overcrossing, whichrespondents indicate is a barrier to accessingthe park.•The dog park has a bad odor•Picnickers leave behind a lot of garbage andthere is a lot of smoke from barbeques
6
PEDESTRIANS ONLY
ACCESS TO LOS TRANCOS OPEN SPACEPRESERVE
PEDESTRIANS ONLY
BAY-TO-RIDGE TRAIL
PEARSON-ARASTRADEROPRESERVE
BAY-TO-RIDGE TRAILACCESS TO
LAS TRAMPAS VALLEY
WI
L
D
H
O
RSE
VALL
E
YLOSTRANCOSTRAIL
LOSTR A NCO S TRAIL
LOSTRANCO
S
TRAIL
LOSTRA NCOSTR AIL
LOS
T
RANCOS TRAIL
L
O
S
T
R
ANCOSTRAIL
FERNLOOP
C OSTANOANTR AIL
SUNR I S E TRAIL
C O YO TE TRAIL
CHAMISE TRAIL
COYOTE TRAIL PAN ORAM A TRAIL
W OO D RATTRAIL
TOYONTR AIL
TOYONTRAIL
STEEPHOLLOW TRAIL
BORONDALAKE
LOSTR
A
N
C
O
S
CREEK
PAGE
MILL
R
O
A
D
P
AGEMILLROAD
7.7 ACREADDITION
GROUP PICNIC AREA(AVAILABLE BYRESERVATION ONLY)
INTERPRETIVECENTER
ORCHARDGLEN
ARBOLEJOOVERLOOK
VISTAHILL
MADERAPOINT
BOBCATPOINT
PANORAM ATRAIL
ENTRANCEGATE
TOWLECAMPGROUND
ONEWAYTRAFFIC
.
PON
YTRA
C
K
S
F
I
R
E R
O
A
D
TRAPPERS FI
R
E ROAD
SHOTGUN FIRE ROAD
PONYTRACKS FIRE ROAD
VALLE Y VIEW FIRE ROAD
MADR ONE FIR
E ROAD
TR
A
PP
E
R
S
F
I
R
E
R
O
A
D
CHARLI
E
B
R
OWN
FIRE ROAD
BUCKEYE
C
R
E
E
K
A | Trappers Fire Road
B | The Foothills Park visitor center
C | Fern Loop
D | Boronda Lake
N
FOOTHILLS PARK
Location: 3300 Page Mill RoadOwner: City of Palo Alto Size: 1,400 acres Year: 1965
HISTORY The land for Foothills Park was sold to the City of Palo Alto by Dr. Russel Lee, founder of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, and his wife Dorothy in 1958, on the condition that it be preserved as open space. The park was formally opened and dedicated in 1965. The Interpretive Center in the park is housed in a building originally built by the Lees as a horse stable. For more information, see the Palo Alto Historical Association's chapter on Foothills Park in their city history.
EXISTING CONDITIONS•Bounded by Portola Valley, Los AltosHills, Pearson-Arastradero Preserveand Los Trancos Open SpacePreserve, the 1,400-acre FoothillsPark is a nature lover's paradise.Miles of trails provide access throughrugged chaparral, woodlands, fields,streams, and a lake, and providespectacular views of the Bay Area.Wildlife abounds, and it is commonto see deer and coyotes.•Foothills Park is open to Palo Altoresidents and their accompaniedguests only. Proof of residencyis required. Guests must beaccompanied by a Palo Alto resident.Limit of 15 guests per resident in twoadditional cars.•Groups of 25 or more adults andchildren (both residents and non-residents included) must makea reservation in advance, or geta permit in advance from thesupervising ranger. There must beone Palo Alto resident for each 15non-resident guests.
Figure 3: Foothills Park
7
•Groups of 24 or fewer (residents plus non-residents, children included) do not require areservation.•Hiking Trails: There are fifteen miles ofhiking trails, which offer a variety of hikingexperiences. The longest hike is the Los TrancosTrail, which is 7.5 miles. The Toyon Self-GuidedNature Trail enables you to learn about natureat your own pace.•Lake, Fishing, and Boating: Fishing is permittedin Boronda Lake. All anglers age 16 and overmust have a California Sport Fishing License.Fish species in the lake include bass, catfish,and sunfish. While swimming is prohibited youmay enjoy the lake with your non-motorized andhand-launched boat. Canoes are also availablefor rent on the weekends and holidays fromMay 1st to October 31st, weather and staffingpermitting.•Picnic Areas: Five picnic areas are first-come,first-served, and there is one picnic area thatis by reservation only. Tables, barbecues,and water are available. Groups at the non-reservable picnic areas may not exceed 24people (adults and children, residents andnon-residents included). Groups of 25 or morepeople must have a reservation. The Oak Grovegroup picnic area is the only picnic area that isreservable, and can be used by groups of 1-150.
ESSENTIAL PARK ACTIVITIES Play for Children Throw a Ball Exercise and Fitness Gathering Relax and Enjoy Outdoors
ADDITIONAL PARK FEATURES•Parking•Towle Camp is a seasonal campground availableto residents and their accompanied guests fortent camping from May 1 to October 31. Eightcampsites, each with a charcoal barbecue,water, picnic table, tent pad and food box. Sixof the campsites can accommodate up to eightpeople, and the remaining two campsites canaccommodate up to sixteen people.•The Nature Interpretive Center has exhibits andmaps and is the starting point for many naturewalks. There is a meeting room available forrent.•Nature Programs: Ranger-led activities areavailable throughout the year in Foothills Park.See the Activities and Programs page for moreinformation.
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS•7.7 acres recently added to site•Facilities on site allow for many visitoropportunities•Limited staffing makes regular patrols difficultgiven total mileage of trails•Public is responsible for reporting trail troubles•Small, primitive campground limits the numberof visitors and its location allows for summeruse only•Limited staffing makes it difficult to enforceresidency restrictions
SITE-SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT•Trails are narrow•Access for bicycles•Allow dogs on one loop•Open park to non-residents
8
CUBBERLEYCOMMUNITYCENTERPAU
S
D
CITY
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
NE
L
S
O
N
D
R
MID
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
NELSO
N
D
R
KEA
T
S
C
T
softball field
soccer fields(2)
parking
softball field
softball field
softball field soccer field(1)
tenniscourts(6)
A
C
D
B
A | Outdoor covered walkways
B | Asphalt parking lot
C | Entrance to sports field area
D | Softball field
N
CUBBERLEY COMMUNITYCENTER
Location: 4000 Middlefield RoadOwner: Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and City of Palo AltoSize: 35 acres Year: 1989
HISTORYOriginally opened as a high school in 1956, Cubberley High School was closed due to decreasing enrollment in 1979. The vacant school has been used as a community center that has grown inuse and importance over the years. The City of Palo Alto owns 8 acres of the site, and the school district owns the remaining 27 acres (see red border). A lease agreement between the City and PAUSD expired at the end of 2014. The City and the school district have agreed on key terms of a new lease agreement.
EXISTING CONDITIONS•Structures are old and deteriorating•As of 2013, there is a need torefurbish the physical plant•Layout of current structures is a veryinefficient use of the property•Large concentration of sports fieldsand tennis courts are scheduled andmaintained by the City•Facility contains the only gymnasiumregularly available for City of Palo Altoprograms. Facility is also importantto other public institutions, includingFoothill College
SOME OF THE ASSOCIATED USER AND PARTNER GROUPS INCLUDE:•ACME : an organization teaching theChinese culture and language
•Acterra: an environmentalstewardship and restorationorganization with sites in Santa Claraand San Mateo Counties
•Audubon Society: an environmentalconservation and restoration group
9
N
•Bay Area Amphibian & Reptile Society: aneducation and conservation group
•Bay Area Arabic School: an organizationteaching Arabic language and Islamicreligion
•California Law Revision Commission: abranch office of the state commissionresponsible for reviewing Californiastatutory and decisional law
•Canopy: an environmental nonprofitorganization dedicated to planting andprotecting trees in parks, schools andalong streets of Palo Alto, East Palo Altoand neighboring communities
•Cardiac Therapy Foundation: non-profitorganization for those with cardiovasculardisease and those at risk of developing it
•Children’s Pre-School Center: a child-careorganization
•Commonwealth Club: a statewide publicaffairs forum
•Dance Connection: an organizationoffering dance classes
•Dance Visions: an organization offeringdance classes
•Dutch School: an organization thatteaches Dutch language and cultureeducation
•Earth Day Film Festival: the city of PaloAlto’s annual film festival
•Foothill College: the Palo Alto extensioncampus of a Los Altos Hills communitycollege
•Friends of the Palo Alto Library: anorganization supporting the Palo AltoPublic Library
•Friends of the Palo Alto Parks: anorganization supporting parks in Palo Alto
•Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School: aschool for Jewish students
•Good Neighbor Montessori: aneducational organization
•Grossman Academy Japanese LanguageSchool: a school for Japanese students
•Hua Kuang Chinese Reading Room:a library that offers Chinese culturalprograms
•Kumon Math and Reading: after-schooltutoring program
•Museo Italo Americano: a museumoffering language classes
•Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra: a youthorchestra for regional string musicians
•Palo Alto Menlo Park Mothers Club: aparenting organization
•PAUSD Adult School: an adult schooloffering gardening classes
•Peninsula Piano School: an organizationthat provides group lessons for pianostudents
•Save the Bay: an environmentalrestoration organization that focuseson the health of San Francisco Bay’secosystems
•SCC Registrar of Voters: the county-levelvoting and election office
•Waldorf School of the Peninsula: a privateschool
•Zohar Dance: an organization teachingdance classes
PROGRAMMING & FACILITIESClassroom/Lecture Space•A2 Classroom•A3 Classroom•A6 Classroom•A7 Classroom•D1 Classroom•FH Classroom•H1 Classroom•H6 Classroom•G4 Activity Room•M4 Activity Room
Dance•G6 Dance Studio•L6 Dance Studio
Court Sports•Gym A•Gym B
Performing Arts•M2 Music Room•M3 Dressing Room•Theatre•Auditorium•Pavilion
SITE SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT•Update play equipment•Provide water fountains•Picnic areas•Needs more family and kid friendly spaces•Restrooms for field users•Needs major reinvestment
10
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 11
There are more than 30 play areas in the city. While there are several unique play
experiences (e.g., Magical Bridge, the Mitchell Park “gopher hole” playground), most
play is focused on manufactured equipment and the play experience is not very diverse.
How we used this information:
The qualitative and quantitative information about each site was used to shape
community engagement questions such as the intercept boards described in Section 4.
In addition, the findings were used to guide the selection of images for the visual
preference exercise conducted at the three workshops that occurred in fall 2014.
The Existing Conditions maps document opportunities and constraints, and will be used
as the basis for developing the concept diagrams for each site in the system. These
illustrative diagrams will illustrate how the Master Plan recommendations apply to each
site, and will be an important reference for implementation.
Planning Environment Summary
The project team worked collaboratively to identify previous plans and studies that could relate
to the Master Plan effort, as well as on-going planning efforts such as Our Palo Alto and the
Public Art Master Plan. For the completed or adopted plans, the MIG team summarized guiding
documents, related plans and programs, and City policies and practices. The MIG team then
evaluated facility and program gaps in past planning efforts for consideration in the Master Plan
process. For those efforts underway, the project team identified points of coordination with the
Master Plan, such as coordinating engagement activities and sharing data with Our Palo Alto,
and setting up a separate meeting with the Public Art Master Plan project manager for
coordination.
What we learned:
The Master Plan has the potential to help advance the recommendations and policies of
many existing adopted plans, and is especially timely for alignment with concurrent
planning processes such as Our Palo Alto 2035, the Public Arts Master Plan and the
Urban Forest Master Plan.
The Master Plan can consider the routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, and help prioritize which ones will also increase access to parks,
natural open space and recreation facilities.
How we used this information:
Throughout the planning process, this summary document has served its intended
purpose: to provide an annotated reference to Palo Alto’s guiding policies and plan
documents; so that the planning team can ensure that the Master Plan is in alignment
with their direction.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 12
Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis
The MIG team evaluated the existing demographic profile in Palo Alto, including household
characteristics and transportation behavior, to identify patterns and trends that could influence
the community engagement process and recreation preferences. In addition, this analysis
evaluated trends in health, sports, socializing, recreation, family and the shape and form of
cities for their potential to affect the direction of the Master Plan. The document was most
recently in October 2015 to ensure consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update.
The Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis includes policy conclusions that will be
reflected in the Master Plan, as well as eight policy questions posed for further exploration.
These questions helped shape the community engagement.
What we learned:
The city has grown steadily since the 1970’s and has a large share of long-term
residents.
While the average age of residents is increasing, the city has a sizable population of
children under 18 years of age.
The city has a significant share of commuters who travel by bike (11%).
National and regional recreation trends emphasize an outdoor lifestyle, physical and
mental health, 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.
How we used this information:
The planning team used the trend analysis section to identify areas of potential
increased demand, and incorporated these trends into the Data and Opportunities
Summary Matrix described in Section 5.
The policy conclusions document direction that is being incorporated into the
recommendations currently under development.
The planning team developed community engagement questions to help answer the
eight policy questions raised in this document, including specific questions in the online
community survey.
Sustainability Review
The Sustainability Review identified opportunities to increase sustainable practices
associated with the operation and management of parks and open space. Drawing
on best practices from other cities and agencies, the MIG team’s fieldwork and
inventory findings and staff input, the Sustainability Review evaluated the City’s
current policies, programs and practices and identified opportunities across 13
indicators. These indicators are:
Air Quality
Climate Change
Education and Training
Energy Efficiency
Equity
Green Building
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 13
Integrated Pest Management
Natural Resources / Habitat
Operations / Maintenance
Public Health and Safety
Transportation
Waste Management
Water Conservation
Water Quality
The City’s Chief Sustainability Officer reviewed this document along with the City team and the
PRC. Findings from the Sustainability Review will be carried forward into the Master Plan
recommendations.
What we learned:
Despite the absence of formal sustainability goals or policies for the Community
Services Division, there are a variety of programs and practices in place that further the
City’s sustainability goals and that shape the sustainability policies included in the
Master Plan.
Staff already reduces water use in parks and golf courses through a variety of programs
and has implemented additional reductions to comply with drought-related restrictions.
How we used this information:
The planning team is incorporating the findings of the Sustainability Review into the
recommendations currently being developed for the Master Plan, including writing
guiding policy for sustainable practices already in place.
Recreation Program Analysis
The Recreation Program Analysis was completed in two parts. In Part I, the project team
inventoried programming offered by the Community Services Department, as well as the
recreation activities provided throughout Palo Alto by various agencies, organizations,
businesses and other community providers. In Part II, the MIG team worked with Community
Services staff to export data from the City’s registration system. This system collects data over
time that allows Recreation Services to evaluate individual classes as well as categories of
classes. The registration system was updated in 2014. The data analyzed was the total of the
most recent year of program registrations, from spring 2014 to winter 2015.
A crucial performance indicator in recreation programming is minimum participation. This is the
minimum number of participants needed to achieve the cost recovery goals of each class.
These goals are set according to the department’s cost recovery policy and the individual class
budget.
To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to meet demand, the project team
reviewed and analyzed data on reservations, minimum participation, program registrations and
waitlists, and considered the observations of staff and consultants. Results of this analysis were
used to review opportunities with the PRC, as described in the accompanying staff report. In
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 14
addition, key findings are called out that identify potential opportunities, inform policy choices
and provide possible Master Plan recommendations.
What we learned:
The highest participation in City programs is in sports (adult and youth), aquatic (youth
and teen) and day camps.
Middle-school athletics programs are largely over capacity. The current policy of
“everyone plays” is widely supported but makes expanding these programs difficult
without sacrificing quality due to limited gym and field space.
Demand for some classes and programs vary greatly by time of day.
Facility constraints and a shortage of instructors and coaches prevent the expansion of
most sports programs. In contrast, outdoor and open space programs can be more
easily expanded because of their setting.
Academic support programs offered to youth and teens are typically operating under
capacity.
Programs offered by the Art Center, the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Children’s
Theatre that are included in the registration system 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.
How we used this information:
The planning team used the capacity analysis to evaluate demand and need, factoring it
into the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix described in Section 5.
Geographic Analysis
The MIG team developed a geographic analysis of the parks, trails, and natural open space
system to evaluate its walkability and accessibility. To conduct the analysis, the MIG team
developed a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) model of the surrounding streets,
sidewalks, trails and pathways, using ESRI Network Analyst to identify “walksheds” or
catchment areas for each park. This approach reflects the way people move through the city.
The desired travel distances used were ¼ and ½ mile, reflecting research on the distance a
typical person can walk in five and 10 minutes. The MIG team also factored in physical barriers
that impede access, incorporating feedback reported through the public engagement process
about specific streets and intersections people report as being difficult to cross.
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 functions. Feedback from the community through the engagement process
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. For
the purposes of analysis, the project team called these “essential park activities” to denote that
they should be provided throughout the park system, providing a close-to-home opportunity for
every resident to enjoy each of these activities.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 15
The project team then defined criteria to determine whether these “essential park activities” are
available.
Relax and Enjoy Outdoors. Palo Altans want their parks to provide a place to relax and
enjoy the outdoors as a primary function. This activity is supported by most parks, which
usually include a quiet and calm place to walk or sit. However, some Palo Alto parks
were identified as not supporting this activity because of their proximity to a highway or a
loud/busy street, their dedication to and heavy use for competitive sports, or based on
comments made by the public on the online interactive map (and verified in a site visit).
Play for Children. Parks that provide a playground, play area or unique play feature
(sculpture, nature play, etc.) support this activity.
Throw a Ball. This activity encompasses throwing, catching, shooting, kicking and
hitting a ball, and includes both self-directed and competitive (league-based) play. Parks
that have a large open turf area or that incorporate formal sports fields and courts
support this activity.
Exercise and Fitness. Exercise and fitness in a park setting generally occurs by
walking or running (top recreation activities in Palo Alto, as well as nationally), or by
swimming. Those parks with perimeter or looped paths, extensive trail systems, a pool
or fitness stations support this activity.
Gathering. The Palo Alto community sees the park system as 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
support this activity.
In addition to geographic analysis using the GIS-based model, the project team evaluated
natural open space and recreation facilities that were identified as highly desired by the
community. These include:
The experience and preservation of nature;
Equitable access to natural open spaces (preserves);
Recreation with dogs; and
Distribution of indoor recreation space.
Figure 5 shows the ¼ and ½ mile walksheds for all parks in Palo Alto. Figure 6 depicts the
Exercise and Fitness analysis map as one example of the activity-based analysis process.
What we learned:
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 south of El Camino Real near
commercial and institutional land uses.
Fewer neighborhoods are within a ½ mile service area of every essential activity.
Parks that offer exercise and fitness opportunities are more common south of the
Oregon Expressway.
Service areas for dog parks are almost entirely located south of the Oregon Expressway.
How we used this information:
The planning team used the trend analysis section to identify areas with gaps in service,
factoring it into the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix described in Section 5.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 16
Utilizing Analysis Results
The series of analyses conducted are foundational to the development of Palo Alto’s data-driven
and community-responsive Master Plan. Each of the analyses was designed based on staff and
community input (described in more detail in the following section) to identify opportunities to
enhance Palo Alto’s system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open spaces. The
site-specific, geographic and programmatic gaps identified through this process were evaluated
and deliberated on by the PRC, through the process described in Section 5 of this report.
Baylands
Preserve
Baylands
Athletic
Center
El Camino
Park
Greer
Park
Bol
Park
Esther Clark
Preserve
Mitchell
Park
Terman
Park
Hoover Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Peers Park
Seale
Park
Robles Park
Ramos
Park
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
Bowden
Park
Bowling
Green Park
Boulware Park
Monroe
Park
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
Cameron
Park
Mayfield
Park
Weisshaar
Park
Lytton
Plaza
Sarah
Wallis Park
Kellogg
Park
Stanford
Palo Alto
Playing Fields
Palo Alto
Golf CourseHopkins
Creekside Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Pearson -
Arastradero
Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
S a n F r a n cisquito C reek
Mat ade ro C r ee k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
0 10.5
Miles
²
Park
Walksheds
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Open
Space and Recreation
Master Plan
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
View
Los
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
Foothills
Park
Arastadero
Preserve
Park Walksheds
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private
trail 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 County
Figure 5: Park Walksheds Map
Baylands
Preserve
Baylands
Athletic
Center
El Camino
Park
Greer
Park
Bol
Park
Esther Clark
Preserve
Mitchell
Park
Terman
Park
Hoover Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Peers Park
Seale
Park
Robles Park
Ramos
Park
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
Bowden
Park
Bowling
Green Park
Boulware Park
Monroe
Park
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
Cameron
Park
Mayfield
Park
Weisshaar
Park
Lytton
Plaza
Sarah
Wallis Park
Kellogg
Park
Stanford
Palo Alto
Playing Fields
Palo Alto
Golf CourseHopkins
Creekside Park
El Palo
Alto Park
Pearson -
Arastradero
Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
S a n F r a n cisquito C reek
Mat ade ro C r ee k
Barro
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
0 10.5
Miles
²
Exercise and Fitness
Service Areas
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Open
Space and Recreation
Master Plan
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
View
Los
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
Foothills
Park
Arastadero
Preserve
Park Experience Service Areas
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private
trail 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 County
Figure 6: Exercise and Fitness Analysis Map
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 21
4. COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Process Overview
The project team integrated community and stakeholder engagement into the entire planning
process, as seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Community Engagement Across the Master Plan Process
The Public Engagement Plan, developed early in the process, articulated the goals and
strategies for creating a Master Plan that aligns with local needs, preferences and priorities. The
project team also met with the “Our Palo Alto” team to ensure the coordination of the efforts. As
articulated in the Public Engagement Plan, the community engagement goals are 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.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 22
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 have been numerous opportunities for participation to date, with a variety of
formats, times and levels of interaction offered as well as both online and face-to-face methods.
Interactive community workshops provided input at key project milestones, with a series
of three occurring last fall and a prioritization workshop planned for this coming fall.
A series of online surveys gauged community values and priorities, including:
o an interactive map-based survey;
o a comprehensive community survey;
o a community prioritization challenge (currently available); and
o a future exercise to comment on the draft plan.
A stakeholder group convened periodically has advised the project team.
Interviews with experts on staff and in the community helped inform topics that emerged
from the outreach.
Consultations with the PRC and other appointed commissions deepened understanding.
City Council updates and study sessions kept the Council members informed.
What we learned:
A number of key findings emerged from the many outreach tools method, each of which is
described in greater detail on the subsequent pages of this section. The following topics and
findings were referenced multiple times by the community, staff, partners and decision makers
through multiple outreach methods. These have been critical in shaping the analysis described
in Section 3 above, and the principles and criteria described in Section 6. In addition, these
themes and findings provide direction for the shaping of the Master Plan policies and
recommended actions, and in some cases have application at the site level.
Respondents value, support and appreciate their parks system. They recognize that it is
a high-quality system.
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 routes to natural open spaces,
community centers and parks is a high priority.
Nature is very important to residents. There is widespread support for the continued
protection, enhancement and restoration of open spaces and wildlife habitat.
Residents also want to feel connected to nature in their urban parks. There is interest in
adding nature play elements and wildlife habitats to more traditional parks.
Enhancing physical and mental well-being is a critical function of parks for Palo Altans.
Loop trails and bicycle and pedestrian paths to parks and places to relax are preferred
over exercise equipment or additional classes.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 23
There is widespread interest in bringing community gardens, dog parks and aquatic
facilities to new areas of the city to improve access to these amenities for all
neighborhoods.
Residents strongly support improved and additional restrooms in parks. In addition, there
is 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 facility availability for Palo Alto residents are widely
supported, and stakeholders generally agree that Palo Alto is (and should be) focused
on providing services to local residents, rather 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.
Many existing recreation buildings have been repurposed and do not suit current needs
well. Newer indoor facilities have greater flexibility but do not have specialized features
to support some programs (e.g., outdoor arts programs or lifeguard training).
Local and regional partnerships (particularly with the school district) are extremely
important and should be continued and strengthened.
How we used this information:
The planning team identified patterns and trends that cut across all the engagement
activities and results, and crafted the Master Plan Principles described in Section 6 to
articulate a vision for the future.
Park and program-specific findings are currently being considered by the planning team
as in the development of the Master Plan recommendation.
Public Engagement Activities to Date
The project team, with support from the PRC, has successfully collected and analyzed input
from hundreds of residents and stakeholders through a variety of methods. These are described
on the following pages.
Project Webpage
One of the first steps was developing a Master Plan project webpage hosted on the City’s
website with a project-specific web address (paloaltoparksplan.org).
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 24
Figure 8: The current content feature on paloaltoparksplan.org is the community prioritization
challenge
Public Information Updates
The project team disseminated a series of 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. The
contact list grows with each engagement opportunity.
Stakeholder Advisory Group
The Stakeholder Advisory Group works to boost participation within its networks and constituent
groups in the Master Plan process. The group includes 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.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 25
The first meeting was held on June 25, 2014 to fine-tune the engagement process and obtain
initial input on issues and opportunities. The second meeting was held on October 1, 2015, to
discuss findings to date and brief the Stakeholder Advisory Group in preparation for two final
meetings. The next meeting will focus on prioritization, and the final meeting will focus on the
draft Master Plan.
Intercept Events
During the summer of 2014, the project team and 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. The intercept format 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 locations to reach a cross-
section of Palo Altans:
Rinconada Park, June 28, 2014
Downtown Farmers Market, July 19, 2014
Cogswell Plaza, July 24, 2014 (Summer Concert)
California Street Farmers Market, August 9, 2014
Cogswell Plaza, August 14, 2014 (Summer Concert)
Mitchell Park, August 16, 2014 (Twilight Concert)
More than 200 people provided input and learned about the park system and the Master Plan
effort. They also provided important feedback about their values and motivations as related to
parks, natural open space and recreation, such as what is most important when they choose
recreation programs, summarized in Figure 9.
Figure 9: What is most important to you when choosing recreation programs, classes and
events?
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 26
Online Map-based Survey
During the summer of 2014, the project team hosted an online, interactive, map-based survey
using MIG’s 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 MIG team brought the data into GIS, and it
was used to inform the geographic analysis described in Section 3. Figure 10 and 11 are
graphics from the summary document (available on the project webpage), illustrating the
richness of information collected at the site and system-wide level.
Figure 10: Site-Specific Comments on Bol Park
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 27
Figure 11: Routes to Respondents’ Closest Park (darker lines indicate more intensely-used
routes)
Community Input Workshops
In fall 2014, the project team conducted two interactive workshops in different areas of Palo
Alto. The project team added a third workshop when the San Francisco Giants made it to the
World Series and games conflicted with the first two workshops, which had been planned for
months. In total, about 65 community members attended this series of workshops, held on
October 28, 29 and December 2, 2014.
Participants took part in a visual preference survey about the character and design of parks
using real-time keypad polling. Facilitated small groups provided the opportunity for people to
have an in-depth discussion of what features they would like to protect, preserve, improve or
add to Palo Alto. The MIG team collected polling data, recorded group discussion and collected
additional input on comment cards. For example, Figure 12 shows the level of support (from the
three workshops) for a landscape with integrated natural plantings.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 28
Figure 12: Visual Preference Survey Results for a Landscape with Natural Plantings Integrated
(combined for 3 workshops)
Online Community Survey
Over 1,100 people completed an online survey developed by the MIG team in close consultation
with the PRC and the City team. 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. The MIG team developed an initial summary of survey findings for review with
the PRC and then completed additional data analysis to provide more detail on specific topics,
based on feedback from the PRC.
Follow-up Stakeholder Interviews
After the geographic and program analysis were completed, the project team identified issues
for which additional feedback from stakeholders would be beneficial to understanding needs
and identifying potential recommendations. Between October 2014 and March 2015, members
of the project team conducted 16 follow-up stakeholder interviews to gather additional data and
explore issues in depth. The interviewees included staff, volunteers, partner staff and users
across a variety of topics:
Community Gardening
Aquatics
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 29
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
Results were brought into the Data and Opportunities Summary matrix process as described in
Section 5, and considered by the PRC.
Parks and Recreation Commission
The PRC has been involved throughout the Master Plan effort, from the initial scope
development and consultant selection through every step of the process. This commission’s
involvement has been critical to understanding the full range of issues in the community and in
shaping further community engagement. The details of the PRC’s hands-on involvement in
defining and considering data and opportunities is described in the accompanying staff report.
City Council
Decision maker involvement is also an important part of engaging the community in the Master
Plan process. At the beginning of the Master Plan process the project team made a
presentation to the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission in a joint study
session on March 24, 2014. This presentation introduced the goals and objectives of the
planning process as well as preliminary ideas about the community engagement and how the
analysis and plan will be used. This report, as well as the August 31 and November 2 Study
Sessions, serve as Council updates on the progress of the Master Plan process.
In Process and Future Engagement Activities
Engagement activities will continue through the end of the process with opportunities to shape
prioritization, close the loop with stakeholders and facilitate review of the draft plan by the
community, the PRC and the City Council.
Community Prioritization Challenge
The Community Prioritization Challenge is a trade-off exercise, designed to be compatible with
the planned Community Prioritization Workshop. The Challenge is live now, available to access
through the Master Plan website. As of December 15, there were 382 complete responses.
Data will be analyzed once the Challenge is closed.
Community Prioritization Workshop
Following up on the Community Prioritization Challenge, the project team will convene an
interactive workshop that will also feed into the prioritization process. Building on the findings of
the online exercise, this in-person workshop will take advantage of the opportunity for
community members to explore trade-offs together.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 30
Stakeholder Advisory Group
As noted, the Stakeholder Advisory Group will meet at least twice more. This group will work
with a more detailed view of the park system, reflecting their more nuanced understanding of
activities in Palo Alto.
Park and Recreation Commission
The project team will continue to work closely with the PRC in developing content for the Master
Plan. Each regular meeting of the PRC includes an update on the current status of the plan and
a review opportunity for the latest pieces developed by the project team. Upcoming topics
include the review of a preliminary list of recommended actions, the results of the prioritization
discussions and detailed review and input into the prioritization of actions. These steps precede
the review of a full draft plan, which will be released first to the PRC and then to the public.
City Council
This report is part of the project team’s commitment to utilizing the feedback City Council has
provided to advance the project toward an adoptable and implementable final document. The
detail provided here is intended to clarify the extensive planning process and allow the project
team to move forward with clear feedback on the critical prioritization process. Following this
step, the next City Council check-in will be at the release of the public draft Master Plan, to
introduce the full document and explain how the Council’s input was utilized to shape the
direction of the document. During the formal review process, Council will have several
opportunities to provide general and detailed feedback on the plan document as it is refined and
moved toward adoption.
Public Comment on Plan
The project team will create an online feedback form to collect comments from the public on the
draft Master Plan. As comments are made, they will be logged to track the source of the
comment, specific feedback or recommended changes for consideration, and aggregated
feedback to identify any patterns. Comments will be discussed with staff and the PRC to
determine what action to take for each comment.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 31
5. DATA SUMMARY AND OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS
As the major elements of the Technical Assessment and Analysis (described in Section 3) and
the Community and Stakeholder Engagement (described in Section 4) were completed, the
PRC and the project team began a detailed review of the accumulated data as it relates to each
element of the Master Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together in
preparation for the critical track of Developing and Prioritizing Projects. The process for this
review, designed by the project team with the input of the PRC, created a detailed reference
matrix (with supporting documentation) to refer to as the process moved toward recommended
actions.
Data Binders
To assist both the project team and the PRC in referencing and using the large amount of data
developed during the process, the City team created a tabbed binder with each of the
completed documents, numbered for quick reference. These binders were produced for each of
the PRC members and for the members of the project team. An outline of the deliverables for
the Master Plan process became the table of contents for the binder. As additional materials
have been developed, they have been added to the binders. Figure 13 shows the binder and
accompanying matrix (which is poster size).
Once the binders were developed, all working documents, such as the Summary Matrix
described in this section, have used the numbered references to sources corresponding to the
reference numbers used in the table of contents contained in the binders. To facilitate broader
distribution of the data binders (and reduce paper use), the City team is developing a “digital
binder” for the project website, which consists of a table of contents with hotlinks to each
section. This can be downloaded directly from the following link:
http://paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/CPA_Parks_MasterPlan_Data%20Sources.pdf
Figure 13: Data Binder and Summary Matrix
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 32
Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix
With the full set of reference materials in the data binders, the PRC needed a process to
evaluate opportunities based on the collected data. The project team developed a matrix format
that took each of the Master Plan elements (Parks, Trails and Natural Open Space; Recreation
Facilities; Recreation Programs) and broke them down further into constituent “components”.
Table 1: Plan Elements and Components
Master Plan Elements
Parks, Trails and Natural
Open Spaces
Recreation Facilities Recreation Programs
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
Walkability and Equity of
Park and Preserve Access Off-Leash Dog Areas Adult Aquatics
Activity Access: Play for
Children Community Gardens Adult Fitness
Activity Access: Exercise
and Fitness Basketball Courts Adult Special Interest
Classes
Activity Access:
Throw/Catch/Shoot/Kick/Hit Tennis Courts Adult Sports
Activity Access: Gather
Together Rectangular Sports Fields Day Camps
Activity Access: Relax and
Enjoy the Outdoors Diamond Sports Fields Middle School Athletics
Experience Nature Gymnasiums Open Space/Outdoor
Recreation
Preservation of Nature Swimming Pools Youth and Teen Aquatics
Trail Connections Community Centers Youth and Teen Sports
Availability of Restrooms Special Purpose Buildings
in Parks
Youth and Teen Special
Interest Classes
Site Amenities and
Experience
Other Indoor Program
Facilities
Youth and Teen Sports
Camps
Universal Accessibility Picnic shelters (covered) Special Events
Event venues Therapeutic Recreation
Senior Programs
For each of these components, findings across both the Technical Assessment and Analysis
and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement tracks were summarized in a rating or short
statement across nine topics:
Current Service/Inventory
Level of Control
Geographic Analysis
Capacity/Bookings
Perception of Quality
Expressed Need
Demographic Trends
Barriers to Access/Participation
Projected Demand
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 33
Where ever possible, the data was summarized with a defined rating (typically high, medium or
low). Each of these ratings was tied to a data source (or sources) and a set of thresholds
defined in the Data and Needs Summary (which is the document in the data binder and
available on the project website). For several of the topics, a short statement is provided instead
of a rating due to the type of information collected. The general source materials for each topic
are clearly citied (as included in the Data Binders) and where a specific finding is particularly
informative the page number(s) are cited.
The full matrix was provided to each PRC and project team member in a large format print to
provide a quick reference to the relevant data for each component of the system.
Figure 14: Screen Capture of a Portion of the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix
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 continues to be a
reference point that helps justify why the Master Plan is exploring particular directions. The
working draft of the matrix can be downloaded from the project website at:
http://paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/PTOSR_Matrix_MASTER_052215.pdf
Opportunity Analysis
The final column of the matrix for each component is a summary of the opportunity to enhance
Palo Alto’s system through the addition, distribution or modification of a particular element and
component. These opportunities represent potential actions, and each of these opportunities
would be a good addition to the system. However, due to the limited land, staff, funding and
other resources in the community, these opportunities still need to be prioritized.
Areas of Focus
As the development of recommendations has progressed, informed by the opportunity analysis
and the development of the principles and criteria, the project team developed a list of areas of
focus that represent the categories of recommendations that are forming. These areas of focus
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 34
collapse the many opportunities into a set of twelve areas that cut across the elements of the
Master Plan. Each area of focus includes a title, a short description and an example.
Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city
Ensuring that parks and programs are distributed as evenly as possible across Palo Alto. For
example, adding recreation activities into geographically under-served areas, improving access
to parks for cyclists and pedestrians and finding new locations for recreation opportunities such
as community gardening and swimming.
Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the
community
Maintaining a mix of programmable space for indoor sports (including gyms) and fitness as well
as gatherings, classes, theater, arts and community programs. For example, updating key
facilities at Cubberley.
Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming
Improving visibility of parks in the community and providing the amenities that make more
frequent or longer visits to parks comfortable. Improvements may include creating a sense of
arrival using art or signs; providing drinking water, a variety of seating options, shade and
restrooms.
Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields
Increasing the playable time at existing sports fields. For example, adding lights, improving
natural turf and drainage.
Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks
Exploring new, unique and dynamic features and activities to support a diverse and fun system.
For example, adding new types of play experiences, creating flexible gathering spaces that can
be used for picnics as well as performance art, etc.
Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs
Providing programming, information or features that support physical and mental well-being. For
example, trails, drop-in activities/classes in parks, signs illustrating exercises that can be
completed using existing features (walls, benches, etc.), as well as providing quiet places for
relaxing in nature.
Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs
Supporting recreation with dogs in a variety of ways. For example, using existing fenced
features as off-leash areas at particular times or enlarging off-leash facilities to accommodate
more dogs.
Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks
Preserving, enhancing and providing access to nature in parks and open spaces. For example,
protecting eco-systems, increasing native plantings and wildlife habitat and creating access to
natural elements such as creeks.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 35
Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities
Actively reducing and removing physical, programmatic, language and financial barriers so that
all ages, abilities and cultures can enjoy parks and programs. For example, adapting existing
programming for people with disabilities or investing in targeted programs to reduce user fees.
Offering more of existing programs, classes, events
Increase the capacity in popular and emerging programs/classes by realigning resources and
replicating programs. For example, adding more summer camps or recruiting/training additional
coaches to offer more middle school sports.
Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities
Following input from the community and trends, develop and implement new recreation classes,
activities and events. For example regularly trying new programs as one-time or one year pilots.
Expanding the system
Take a proactive approach to adding more park and open space lands, trail connections and
facilities to Palo Alto’s system. For example, dedicating publicly owned spaces as park land or
investing in a fund for future park and recreation facility purchases.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 36
6. MASTER PLAN PROCESS TO DEVELOP AND PRIORITIZE PROJECTS
As described in the previous section and the accompanying staff report, the project team
worked closely with the PRC to define the full range of opportunities to enhance Palo Alto’s
parks, trails, natural open spaces, recreation facilities and recreation programs.
As illustrated in Figure 15, the development of these opportunities into actions began in the fall
of 2015 and will continue to be refined into a set of recommendations included in the Master
Plan. As this report illustrates, there is rich set of data and analysis from which to draw actions
and recommendations for the Master Plan. Actions and recommendations will include site and
facility improvements, program changes and enhancements, and systemwide policies and
practices, all focused on achieving Palo Alto’s vision, as articulated in the Master Plan
Principles.
The subsequent prioritization of recommendations (informed in part by the Community
Prioritization Challenge) will provide guidance to staff and decision-makers in how to sequence
the implementation of projects and improvements.
Figure 15: Developing and Prioritizing Projects in the Master Plan Process
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 37
Master Plan Principles
Playful
Healthy
Sustainable
Inclusive
Accessible
Flexible
Balanced
Nature
In addition, the City team, PRC and Council need a method for evaluating new ideas and
proposals that are brought forward after the Master Plan is adopted. Because Palo Alto is
largely built out and has finite staff and fiscal resources, the prioritization process needs to be
defensible and definitive. Decision-makers must have confidence that they are making the best
use of Palo Alto’s resources, and the public must have confidence that decisions are
transparent and aligned with community priorities.
Inherent in the planning process are trade-offs and opportunity costs. As noted above, the City
of Palo Alto is a constrained system. As such, the City will have to choose which of the
opportunities identified in this planning process to implement. The principles and criteria
developed during the Master Plan process are intended to facilitate prioritization and decision-
making both in the development of the Master Plan, and following its adoption. Each is
described below.
Master Plan Principles
The project team developed a set of Master Plan principles that describe the community’s vision
and will guide the way projects are implemented.
The project team distilled community input and considered the themes
emerging from the data summary and opportunities analysis process
described in Section 5 to develop draft principles that describe the
community’s vision. These were refined with the PRC, and Nature as a
principle was added based on Council direction at the August 31 study
session.
The following eight principles provide the foundation for the Master
Plan, articulating Palo Alto’s vision and guiding project and program
implementation.
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.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 38
Prioritization Criteria
The prioritization criteria are designed to help staff, PRC and Council make choices about which
projects will be the most strategic investments for the Palo Alto community, in accordance with
the Master Plan principles. These criteria are designed to be used to help determine which
actions and recommendations are included in the Master Plan, as well as the sequencing and
timing of implementation.
The project team has been working with the PRC for several months on developing and refining
these criteria. Currently, there are five identified criteria:
Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (park land, facilities, programs) to areas
of the city and to users where gaps were identified.
Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and
programs identified through citywide outreach.
Respond to growth: Add features or programs, modify or expand components of the
system to prepare for and address increasing demand.
Maximize public resources: Create the most impact 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.
Evaluating Project and Program Ideas
The project team is in the process of developing a master list of project and program ideas,
organized by area of focus. Because the Master Plan will also address Palo Alto’s
organizational direction, the category of System Management has been added to capture
operational initiatives and items. These include ideas that affect staff, operations, maintenance,
policy and planning functions. In addition, the categories of CIP Project and IBRC Project
(Catch-Up) were added to capture those projects already identified in the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan.
The preliminary list was shared with the PRC at the December meeting and the project team will
revise this to reflect their feedback and additions. This list will be evaluated and refined as
shown in the following graphic.
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 40
Figure 16: Project and Program Evaluation Process
Parks Master Plan: Council Update (12/15/15) 40
Next Steps
A clear process for evaluating potential recommendations and actions and a means of
documenting decisions will help staff and the PRC be confident that, when projects are
implemented, they will be consistent with the Master Plan and based on the best available
information.
The project team has been working on an evaluation process and tool that will include a
numeric scoring of project and program ideas to help prioritize ideas and generate
recommendations. As shown in Figure 16, these ideas will also be qualitatively evaluated to
ensure they are financially feasible, balanced and strategically distributed across the city. This
process will be used to evaluate all potential recommendations and actions for inclusion in the
Master Plan and will also serve as a tool for staff and the PRC to evaluate ideas that are
suggested in the future, after the Master Plan is adopted.
The project team drafted and tested the evaluation process using three different potential
recommendations to ensure it works as intended and is applicable to each of the three Master
Plan elements. After the test evaluation, the process and tool was refined and forwarded to the
PRC for their consideration. The PRC is reviewing and refining the proposed process. With this
input, the project team will use it to prepare the Master Plan recommendations. The evaluation
process and draft recommendations will be shared with Council in the coming months.
ATTACHMENT B
1
Council Questions from Parks Master Plan Study Session 8/31/15
Introduction
City Council members asked a number of questions to the project team at the August 31, 2015 study
session. While some questions were discussed and answered during that meeting, this document
provides further response to the questions. While staff has made every attempt to provide answers to
all of the questions raised at the study session, more detailed answers to the questions are in the staff
report and/or in Attachment A from the consultant. Questions posed by Council followed by the project
team response, or reference to where the response can be found, are presented below.
Question 1:
How are parks, open spaces and facilities differentiated when applying the principles? Are they
weighted differently when the principles are applied? How are the principles and criteria used in
a practical way to make decisions?
Response 1:
The principles are a set of core values that describe the community vision for the City’s system.
These principles are considered when determining the overall scope of a specific project or
program. They are not weighted differently among the three elements (parks, open spaces, and
facilities) of the Master Plan. As described on page 37 of Attachment A, the principles were
developed from community input and data analysis. Following discussion with the Council on
August 31, an eighth principle “Nature” was added. In addition to expressing the community
vision for the Master Plan, the principles will help refine and improve recommended programs
and projects included in the Master Plan.
The project team is currently developing the process for evaluating and prioritizing
recommendations, which will include the use of weighted criteria. The project team and the PRC
are currently working to finalize the criteria and are discussing how the evaluation and scoring
will be structured. The PRC discussed this topic at the December 8, 2015 PRC meeting, and
formed an Ad Hoc group to work with staff and MIG to complete. The draft criteria include:
Fill existing gaps
Address community preferences
Responds to growth
Leverage public resources
Realize multiple benefits
Question 2:
The principles Accessible and Inclusive seem to be one in the same. Can they be condensed into
one principle?
ATTACHMENT B
2
Response 2:
This was discussed by the PRC and staff when formulating the principles. At the conclusion of
the discussion there was a consensus by the project team as well as the commission that the
two words have distinct meanings that justify including both in the principles:
“Accessible” connotes physical and economic access. Physical access includes the ability to visit
parks and recreational facilities (e.g., by walking or biking), as well as being able to visit and
access all the amenities in a park or facility. “Accessible” also includes planning and developing
the capacity to meet demand for programs, and ensure economic access and affordability of
program costs and fees.
“Inclusive” refers to universal design and inclusion of all user groups. For example, the Magical
Bridge Playground is inclusive and designed for all abilities; it is not a playground designed only
for people with disabilities. This level of inclusiveness can be applied to other park projects and
programming as well and promotes the concept of designing and implementing projects and
programs that are able to be utilized by everyone. This principle also includes linguistic and
cultural inclusion to ensure that all Palo Alto residents can easily understand and engage with
the parks, recreation, natural open space and trails system in the city.
Due to these distinctions, the project team and the PRC were in favor or including both
principles. Staff welcomes further discussion and guidance from council.
Question 3:
Why aren’t Habitat, Ecosystem and Education part of the principles?
Response 3:
Public input indicated that people in Palo Alto highly value the presence of nature in their park
system and in the community. Based on this, as well as other guiding City policy documents, the
Master Plan will contain policy language supporting the preservation and expansion of habitat
and the stewardship of healthy ecosystems. The overall guidance in the Master Plan will be
incorporated into site-specific efforts, including the upcoming Baylands Conservation Plan (CIP
scheduled for FY17), as well as the Conservation Plans for Foothills Park, Arastadero Preserve,
and Esther Clark (CIP scheduled for FY19), which will address habitat and ecosystems in more
detail as it relates to these open spaces.
Question 4:
Why are the principles competing?
Response 4:
The principles are not used as a filtering device and are not intended to compete with each
other or be used to provide prioritization rankings. Refer to Response 1 of this attachment as
well as pages 36-37 of Attachment ‘A’ for further information regarding the principles.
ATTACHMENT B
3
Question 5:
Why is “Balanced” one of the principles?
Response 5:
“Balanced” was included as one of the principles by the project team and the PRC to address
specific concerns voiced by the community. The Balanced principle expresses the intent to
balance the system geographically, between programmed and self-directed use, between
dedicated spaces and flexible use spaces, and between developed spaces and natural spaces.
For example, geographically Palo Alto has fewer community gardens in the south of Palo Alto
than we do in the north. The opposite is true for dog parks. When it comes to determining a
future location for one of these facilities, the “Balance” principal means that geographic location
will be a factor in determining where a new facility might be located. Likewise, park space will
be balanced between providing active areas (e.g., basketball courts) with passive recreation
spaces (e.g., meadows and open lawns) to ensure residents have the opportunity for a variety of
types of outdoor activities.
Another example is illustrated by the community’s value of nature as very important to Palo Alto
residents, this Plan will identify ways to improve access to natural areas as well as incorporating
nature into urban parks. However, structured activities and developed spaces are also of value
and interest to the community and therefore, are needed to provide the full range of
experiences sought by Palo Alto residents.
Question 6:
Why isn’t Nature one the principles? How is nature integrated into the project?
Response 6:
Nature has been considered throughout the process and public engagement activities and has
been a theme of interest by public opinion. Based on feedback from Council, and further
discussion with the PRC, “Nature” has been added as one of the principles.
Question 7:
Are the principles applied toward the overall system or toward specific projects?
Response 7:
The principles are the high level values for the parks and recreation system. They are intended
to be used as the community considers improving the overall system and as we consider
individual park projects and programs to best meet community interests.
Question 8:
Provide a more in-depth snapshot of the process to date to bring the Council up to speed as part
of the staff report.
Response 8:
ATTACHMENT B
4
This question is addressed in the Discussion section of the staff report and the accompanying
consultant report Attachment A.
Question 9:
Provide a summary of the PRC involvement. Provide background on PRC input and staff input in
the planning process.
Response 9:
This is addressed in the Discussion section of the staff report - Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRC) Involvement. Staff has been involved in all phases of the planning process.
Question 10:
Consultant report references 14 indicators of sustainability but doesn’t state what they are.
Response 10:
The indicators used in the analysis are below and the full report on sustainability can be
accessed on the project web page www.PaloAltoParksPlan.org:
Air Quality
Climate Change
Education and Training
Energy Efficiency
Equity
Green Building
Integrated Pest Management
Natural Resources / Habitat
Operations / Maintenance
Public Health and Safety
Transportation
Waste Management
Water Conservation
Water Quality
Question 11:
Provide a clearer summary in the staff report of what the Master Plan is doing.
Response 11:
This is addressed in the staff report and related attachments.
Question 12:
How does Healthy City, Healthy Communities relate/referenced by the Master Plan?
ATTACHMENT B
5
Response 12:
The Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities resolution has been shared with the Master Plan
project team to ensure that the Master Plan is aligned and consistent with the resolution. The
extensive public outreach during the first phase of the Master Plan process reflect similar
community values and interests as defined in the Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities
resolution.
Question 13:
Provide more information on the community survey and a better summary of the results.
Response 13:
The staff report and Attachment A provides more background and information on the
community survey, which was administered using the City’s Vovici system. Please also visit the
links below from the project website www.PaloAltoParksPlan.org and review the summary of
the community survey, which was developed with significant input from the PRC and a special
Ad Hoc committee.
Initial Summary
http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/10.Palo_Alto_Survey_Initial_Summary_Package_3-17-
15.pdf
Supplemental Survey Findings
http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/7.PTOSR_Supplemental_Survey_Findings_3-24-15.pdf
Question 14:
What are essential park activities?
Response 14:
Many communities analyze park systems using a function-based parks classification scheme
(neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks). However, the parks in Palo Alto serve
multiple functions. Feedback from the community through the engagement process indicated
that people in Palo Alto are looking for the park system to deliver five broad categories of
activities on a widely accessible basis, regardless of how the park is classified functionally. For
the purposes of analysis, the project team called these “essential park activities” to denote that
they should be provided throughout the park system, providing a close-to-home opportunity for
every resident to enjoy each of these activities. These essential park activities include:
Play for Children
Exercise and fitness opportunities
Throw/Catch/Shoot/Hit opportunities
Group gathering spaces
Relax and enjoy the outdoor spaces
ATTACHMENT B
6
Question 15:
Provide another geographic map study showing schools and other facilities like Ventura
Community Center.
Response 15:
A series of geographic analysis maps will be include in the Master Plan, these maps will show
school facilities, including the Ventura Community Center.
Question 16:
How is additional park land being proposed to be added to the system in areas of the city where
we are lacking? How does the plan advise how land (city and privately owned) can be
repurposed for parks?
Response 16:
Recommendations for adding future parks and facilities will be addressed in the Master Plan.
This topic will be discussed with both the PRC and City Council when reviewing the Prioritized
Recommendations and the Draft Master Plan in the spring and summer of 2016.
Recommendations may include, for example:
The purchase of new park land
Provide incentives and other opportunities for donation of land or facilities by private
citizens
Conversion of land currently owned by the city to park land or recreational facilities
Exploring joint use or long term lease of land owned by other public entities
Using street right-of-ways
Incorporating other city or county agency easements as park space or connector
between parks (e.g., Matadero and Arastadero Creek easements, utility easements)
Other strategies for gaining park and open space land that the project team and PRC
may identify in the coming months.
Question 17:
Engage the community about where they perceive there are areas where the park system can
be expanded. Be proactive and opportunistic to gain more park space.
Response 17:
The community has expressed the desire to add more parkland overall and in areas lacking open
space in the city. The project team will review city-owned locations and make recommendations
if parkland can be added at these locations. These recommendations will be cited in the Master
Plan report. It is not recommended that the project team identify specific privately owned
locations as potential park sites, as acquisition would occur on an opportunity/willing seller
basis.
Question 18:
Include potential park space ideas and funding options for future developments. Identify
funding.
ATTACHMENT B
7
Response 18:
Funding options for future parkland acquisition and development is still to be developed by the
project team and will be addressed in the Master Plan report. City Council and the PRC will have
the opportunity to comment on this in the study session review of the draft Master Plan.
Question 19:
Address the difficulty of accessing the city’s natural open spaces. Provide daily shuttles to these
areas.
Response 19:
This has also been identified as a challenge by the community. Access to open spaces as well as
parks and facilities will have specific recommendations in the Master Plan report. Shuttles and
other means of transportation are being considered in the Master Plan.
Question 20:
Is the Master Plan creating a system bias for proposing and supporting future projects?
Response 20:
The Master Plan is creating a guide for the public, Council, PRC and staff to improve the Parks
and Recreation System. It will be a practical planning tool, but all projects will still require
community input and review, PRC discussion and recommendations, and Council review and
approval.
Question 21:
Is every park going to be identical by applying this system?
Response 21:
The Master Plan will not result in or recommend that all parks are identical. This would not
represent the desire and needs of the public and what they want for their parks system. The
project team understands that residents would like the parks system to be diverse in look and
feel, in programs and amenities and to reflect its contextual place in the parks and recreation
system.
Question 22:
Address the Plan’s Bay Area demographic numbers and what actual demographic figures are
being used in the Master Plan and how those demographics are used in the Master Plan
process.
Response 22:
The project team is using available demographic data and projections to inform the Master Plan
recommendations. Since the study session on August 31, additional coordination between the
project team and Planning and Community Services has occurred to ensure that population
assumptions are consistent with the most recent General Plan figures.
ATTACHMENT B
8
Question 23:
What questions does the project team want Council to answer?
Response 23:
The project team is requesting that Council provide feedback during the upcoming January 11,
2016 Council Study Session on the evaluation process and confirm the Council is satisfied with
the data collection and analysis to date. The project team will continue to consult with the PRC,
Council and public during the development and review of the Draft Master Plan.
Data Sources Index
**Click on the Title of the Data Source section you would like to review for access to that material.
REF #TITLE DESCRIPTION
1 Data Sources Index A source Index of all the data collected during Phase 1 of the Master Plan Project.
2 Data and Needs Summary Planning process data summarized using a set of criteria to explain the connection
between the data sources and the identification of needs.
3 Planning Environment
Summary
The Planning Environment Summary includes a review of guiding documents,
related plans and programs, and city policies and practices. The Summary reveals
facility and program gaps identified by past planning efforts for consideration in the
PTOSR planning process.
4 Sustainability Review
The Sustainability Review identifies opportunities to increase sustainable practices
associated the operation and management of parks and open space within the
City. Drawing on best practices from other cities and agencies, the site tour and
inventory findings and Staff Project Team input, the Sustainability Review evaluates
the City’s current policies, programs and practices and identifies opportunities to
increase sustainability across 13 indicators.
5
Recreation Program Analysis
Recreation Program Data
Analysis Part II
Program Matrix Summary
Recreation Provider Matrix
Recreation Program Data
The Program Review and Analysis makes recommendations for high-level strategic
directions and key findings about Palo Alto’s programming areas, populations
and facilities, and identifies gaps and overlaps. The Review includes recreation
programs offered by the Community Services Department as well as by private and
community providers.
6 Revenue Analysis An examination of the financial factors in the programming, planning, developing
and maintaining the PTOSR system.
7 Demographic and Recreation
Trends Analysis
Delivered to the City in September 2014, the Demographics and Trends Analysis
includes Palo Alto’s demographic profile, key findings, and trends that have and will
continue to inform the community outreach and the PTOSR planning process.
8
Physical Inventory:
Palo Alto Open Space Plan
Physical Inventory Matrix
Existing System Summary
Memo
The physical inventory includes a n inventory table, detailed site analysis and a
base map that provide a detailed analysis of existing conditions that have been
reviewed and updated throughout the analysis. The inventory table quantifies the
facilities at each of Palo Alto’s parks and provides each park’s acreage, ownership
and field quality rating, as defined by the City.
9
Existing Condition Maps:
Parks
Preserves
The MIG team visited each park site to document and evaluate existing conditions
and consider possible improvements and developed an existing conditions map for each of the City’s parks.
CITY OF PALO ALTO PARKS MASTER PLAN
REF #TITLE DESCRIPTION
10 Geographic Analysis
Building upon the base map, the MIG team analyzed the physical data gathered from
our site visits, meetings, research, and the interactive map survey to produce maps
of park service areas. These maps illustrate park walksheds based on ¼ and ½ mile
distances using the existing street and trail network. MIG also generated maps showing
access to indoor recreation facilities, off-leash dog facilities, and distance from parks that
provide all essential activities. Essential activities include: Play for children, Throw a ball,
Gathering, Exercise and fitness, and Relax and enjoy the outdoors.
11 Mapita Online Survey Results
The MIG team developed an interactive online map-based questionnaire using the
Mapita application, with which more than 487 community members were able to
answer questions and provide geo-tagged comments on specific parks throughout
the City. The Survey Summary includes site maps with participants’ comments on
park quality, barriers to access, needs and opportunities for dozens of parks. Ideas
and opportunities uncovered by the interactive map are informing recommendations
and geographic analysis.
12 Intercept Results:
Intercept Survey Summary
During Summer 2014 MIG conducted six intercept events which engaged more
that 200 community members at some of Palo Alto’s most popular parks, farmer’s
markets and summer events. Community members indicated their responses to
questions about what they value about the parks and recreation system using dot
stickers placed on large posters. These intercepts captured input from many people
who may not otherwise be involved in the process.
13
Workshop Results:
Community Workshop Summary
MIG facilitated a series of three community workshops, on October 28, 29
and December 2,2014 that engaged a total of 60 community members. These
workshops provided residents with an opportunity to provide more specific input on
aspects of the system that they would like preserved or improved. The Community
Workshop Summary provides the results of the visual preference survey and key
themes from the small group discussions and comment cards.
14
Survey Results:
Community Survey Results
Community Survey
Supplemental Findings
MIG worked with the City Staff Project Team to launch an online community survey
to better understand community priorities. The survey was based on earlier input
from the community and the analysis of the system. The PRC and Staff Project
Team reviewed the survey and it was available online from November 17 through
December 19. It was also available in hard copy in Spanish and in English.
15 Prioritization Workshop and
Online Challenge Summary
A prioritization workshop was held with the community and stakeholder group
as well as an online version for the community to provide input about prioritizing
projects. The feedback gathered from this outreach forums directly feeds into the
“Address Community Preferences” segment of the Criteria to evaluate potential
recommendations.
16
Stakeholder Meetings:
Stakeholder Meeting Summary
Stakeholder Update Memo
Youth Council Discussion Summary
The MIG team provided facilitation and graphic recording of Stakeholder Advisory
Group meetings to ensure that all voices were heard. Twenty-four community
members representing a range of interests and organizations are a part of this
group. The group is expected to meet three times to provide ideas, issues,
challenges, and feedback on the plan development.
Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Reports
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-existing-
conditions-report/
National Citizen Survey 2014
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45669
Citizen Centric Report for Fiscal Year 2013
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.
aspx?BlobID=39434
Performance Report for FY 2013
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.
aspx?BlobID=39369
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
The following are additional resources that have been identified and used by the planning team. These are not
included in the binder but titles and direct web links are provided below.
Community
Input
Master
Plan Principles
Data and
Opportunities
Summary Matrix
Potential Project and
Program Ideas
Developed by MIG. Organized by areas of focus.
To be reviewed with staff and PRC.
Apply
Prioritization
Criteria and
Scoring
Finalize
List of
Recommendations
S takeholder an
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
Review
Draft and
Refine List of
Recommendations
e.g.,
• Cost
• Geographic
Distribution
• Project Type
Final
Recommendations
in Master Plan